content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
CrN is an important material system used for hard protective coatings \cite{Navinsek1997-sg,Hultman2000-be,Mayrhofer2001-oq}. The CrN $0\uu{K}$ ground state is an orthorhombic structure with an anti-ferromagnetic (afm) ordering realised by (110) planes of alternating Cr spins up and down \cite{Corliss1960-oc,Miao2005-kx,Alling2010-to}. At a temperature $\approx 273\uu{K}$ \cite{Navinsek1997-sg}, a magneto-structural phase transition takes place, and CrN adopts cubic B1 (NaCl prototype) structure with paramagnetic (pm) state.
An extensive \textit{ab initio} work on transition metal nitrides in general, and on CrN-related materials in particular, providing insight and theoretical guidance for experiments has been performed in the past years \cite{Harrison1996-xa,Alling2007-tc,Alling2008-of,Rivadulla2009-at,Holec2010-mo, Rovere2010-fs,Alling2010-to,Alling2010-ju,Alling2010-mq,He2011-dg,Steneteg2012-us,Botana2012-te,Botana2013-uc,Alling2013-uv,Zhou2013-ze,Chawla2013-bx, Zhou2013-zx,Shulumba2014-ey,Zhou2014-wc}. The early works ignored the magnetic nature of pm-CrN \cite{Harrison1996-xa,Rivadulla2009-at,Zhang2013-oh} and simply treated it as non-magnetic material (i.e. fulfilling the condition of the macroscopic magnetic moment to be 0); however, this has been shown to lead to a significant overestimation of its bulk modulus \cite{Alling2010-ju} and an underestimation of lattice parameters \cite{Alling2010-ju,Zhou2014-wc}. Therefore, the most recent works considered explicitly the non-zero local magnetic moments. Nevertheless, the paramagnetic phase is challenging for description within the periodic crystalline model conveniently adopted by first principles calculations. Several methods have been proposed over the years \cite{Steneteg2012-us, Kormann2012-we, Shulumba2014-ey, Zhou2013-ze, Zhou2014-wc}. Here, we adopt a supercell-based approach \cite{Rovere2010-fs, Zhou2013-ze, Zhou2014-wc} with spins up and down being distributed on the Cr atoms according to a Special Quasi-random Structures (SQS) \cite{Wei1990-zt,Holec2013-yt} scheme, which provides a mathematically rigorous recipe for generating supercells with as random as possible arrangement of atoms (or spins in this particular case).
The electronic structure of perfect CrN has been addressed previously by \textit{ab initio} calculation \cite{Harrison1996-xa, Alling2008-of, He2011-dg, Botana2012-te, Botana2013-uc} as well as by experiments \cite{Zhang2010-qb,Zhang2011-bc, Zhang2013-oh}. In this paper we report on \textit{ab initio} calculations of stability changes induced by point defects in pm-CrN. The electronic structure and Electron Energy Loss Near Edge Structure (ELNES) spectra are discussed in conjunction with N vacancies, and the results are carefully compared with recent experimental reports \cite{Zhang2011-bc, Zhang2013-oh}.
\section{Calculational details}
The structural models for cubic pm-CrN including vacancies were generated according to the SQS method \cite{Wei1990-zt, Zhou2013-zx,Zhou2014-wc} by optimising the short-range order parameters up the 5\textsuperscript{th} nearest neighbour distance for supercells containing 64 sites (32 Cr and 32 N). The paramagnetic state was modelled by assuming Cr spin up and Cr spin down as two inequivalent species within the SQS scheme. The supercells were structurally relaxed using the Density Functional Theory \cite{Kohn1965-rd,Hohenberg1964-in} implemented in Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package \cite{Kresse1996-tg,Kresse1996-gt} employing projector augmented wave pseudopotentials \cite{Kresse1999-if} with the local (spin) density approximation (L(S)DA) \cite{Kohn1965-rd} for the exchange and correlation effects. Additionally, the on-site Coulomb interaction term, $+U=3\uu{eV}$, was applied to Cr $d$-states to improve the electronic structure description \cite{Alling2010-to,Alling2010-ju,Steneteg2012-us,Shulumba2014-ey}. Plane-wave cut-off energy was set to $500\uu{eV}$ and the Monkhorst-Pack mesh had $6\times6\times6$ $k$-points.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\caption{}\label{fig:Ef}
\includegraphics[height=0.7\columnwidth]{Energy_of_formation_of_defected_CrN.eps}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\caption{}\label{fig:aLat}
\includegraphics[height=0.7\columnwidth]{Lattice_ratio_for_Defected_CrN}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) Energy of formation, $E_f$, as a function of N content in CrN$_x$ with various point-defects described in the text. (b) Cubic lattice parameter, $a$, of N deficient CrN$_x$ relative to the value $a_0$ of perfect stoichiometric CrN. Experimental and non-magnetic calculated values are taken from Ref.~\cite{Zhang2013-oh}.}
\end{figure*}
The Electron Energy Loss Near Edge Structures (ELNES) were modelled using a Telnes program which is a part of the Wien2k, an all-electron full-potential implementation of DFT. The optimised supercells from VASP were taken as inputs for the structural description of paramagnetic CrN$_x$. Spherical harmonics up to $l_{\max}=10$ and plane-waves up to a cut-off defined by $R_{MT}K_{\max}=7$ together with the muffin-tin radii of $R_{MT}(\text{Cr})=2.00\uu{Bohr}$ and $R_{MT}(\text{N})=1.72\uu{Bohr}$) were used for expansion of the total wave function on an automatically generated grid with 45 $k$-points. The ELNES were calculated using a Slater's transition state in which $0.5\uu{e}$ from the initial core state was put into the conduction band (final states) \cite{Holec2011-xb}.
\section{Results and discussion}
\subsection{Stability of point defects in CrN}
Energy of formation, $E_f$, is a measure of the chemical stability of a compound. It is calculated as
\begin{equation}
E_f(\mathrm{CrN}_x)=\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{tot}}}(\mathrm{CrN}_x)-\frac{M\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{tot}}}(\mathrm{Cr}^{\mathrm{bcc}})+N/2\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{tot}}}(\mathrm{N}_2)}{M+N}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{E_{\mathrm{tot}}}(X)$ is the total energy of $X$ per atom in its stable configuration, and $M$ and $N$ are the numbers of Cr and N atoms, respectively, in the (defected) supercell representing CrN$_x$.
Our calculations show that out of all the here investigated defects, the most stable configuration is the perfect (undefected) CrN (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Ef}). Both N vacancies and Cr vacancies yield almost linear increase of the energy of formation as their concentration increases. The overall N content can be decreased by N vacancies as well as by an introduction of Cr interstitial or Cr anti-sites. However, our predictions suggest that the latter two types of defects possess significantly higher energy than structures with the same chemistry obtained using N vacancies. We therefore conclude that when CrN material is N-deficient, it happens most likely due to the formation of N vacancies, which is in agreement with experimental observations \cite{Zhang2013-oh}.
The situation is not straightforward for the N-rich side ($x>1$) of the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:Ef}. For example, for $x\approx1.04$, $E_f$ of structures with N interstitials is only $28\uu{meV/at.}$ higher than when the same composition is obtained by Cr vacancies. Interestingly enough, the overall lowest energy exhibits a configuration with N anti-sites, which is $\approx17\uu{meV/at.}$ more favourable than the Cr vacancy configuration. Nevertheless, since this differences are in the range of thermal vibrations at room temperature $k_BT\approx25\uu{meV}$, we predict that Cr vacancies in addition to N anti-sites are to be expected in experimental samples with N-rich compositions at room temperature.
Finally we note that for stoichiometric CrN our calculations clearly favour a perfect crystal to structures containing Frenkel defects (an interstitial--vacancy pair), vacancies or anti-sites.
The predicted cubic lattice parameter of the pm-CrN as a function of the N content is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:aLat} together with experimental and calculated data from Ref.~\cite{Zhang2013-oh}. Our predictions exhibit slightly slower decrease of the lattice parameter with decreasing N content as compared with the experimental data, while the previously published calculated lattice parameter shows more rapid decrease. We ascribe this difference to the fact that the calculations in Ref.~\cite{Zhang2013-oh} were performed on rather small supercells (16 atoms as compared with 64 used in the present work) and neglecting the magnetic effects. The discrepancy between the here predicted and experimental slope can be rationalised by the fact that the vacancies are randomly distributed in our structural models while experimentally they were reported to be ordered \cite{Zhang2013-oh}.
The calculated evolution of the N K-edge (N 1$s\to$2$p$ transition) ELNES with increasing amount of N vacancies is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ELNES}a. The spectra are averaged over all N sites in the supercell, and are normalised to the intensity of the first peak at about $2\uu{eV}$. The spectra of the cubic phase exhibit also a second peak at about $12\uu{eV}$, whose intensity gradually decreases with increasing amount of the nitrogen vacancies. This is qualitatively the same behaviour as observed in experiments \cite{Zhang2013-oh}.
A comparison of the calculated N K-edge with the density of states projected on N $p$- and Cr $d$-states revels two facts. Firstly, N K-edge corresponds well with the (strongly) broadened N $p$-PDOS (similarly to e.g., previous reports for Ti$_{1-x}$Al$_x$N \cite{Holec2011-xb}). This is, however, expected as the unoccupied N $p$-states are the final states of the N K-edge excitation. The small peak at around $10\uu{eV}$ above the Fermi level is responsible for the shoulder at the lower-energy side of the second N K-edge peak, hence causing its asymmetry. Secondly, the unoccupied N $p$-states are well hybridised with the Cr $d$-states, which is related to formation of bonding and anti-bonding $sp^3d^2$ orbitals (the latter in the conduction band). Hence, when N vacancies are introduced, this hybridisation becomes weaker which is reflected by broadening of the peak at around $10\uu{eV}$ above the Fermi level together with lowering the peak intensity of the second PDOS peak at $\approx13\uu{eV}$ above Fermi level. Consequently, the amount of states in the region of the second N K-edge ELNES peak becomes smaller with increasing N vacancy content, causing the corresponding intensity drop.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{DOS+ELNES}
\caption{(a) N K-edge ELNES, (b) N $p$-PDOS, and (c) Cr $d$-PDOS for pm-CrN (solid line), pm-CrN$_{0.875}$ (dotted line), and pm-CrN$_{0.75}$ (dash-dotted line).}
\label{fig:ELNES}
\end{figure}
The curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:ELNES} represent macroscopic trends since they were obtained by averaging the ELNES or PDOS curves over all N or Cr sites. However, the same trends as described above are present also in a single defected cell in which N and Cr atoms with different numbers of the second and the first nearest neighbours, respectively, exist due to the presence of vacancies. This is clearly demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:loc_env} showing that when the excitation takes place on a N atom with a bulk-like environment, the N K-edge ELNES resembles that of perfect CrN, while N site with a high amount of N vacancies in its neighbourhood results in splitting of the second peak (compare Figs.~\ref{fig:loc_env_curves} and \ref{fig:loc_env_atoms}).
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[m]{7cm}
\caption{}\label{fig:loc_env_curves}\medskip
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{N_K-edge_CrN075_local_environment}
\end{subfigure}\hspace*{1cm}
\begin{subfigure}[m]{7cm}
\caption{}\label{fig:loc_env_atoms}\medskip
\pspicture(7cm,7cm)
\rput(3.5cm,4cm){\includegraphics[width=6cm]{CrN075_local_environment}}
\rput(-8cm,0){\psline[linewidth=1.5pt,arrows=->,arrowsize=2.5mm,arrowinset=0,linestyle=dashed](4.4cm,2.2cm)(9.8cm,3.6cm)}
\rput(-8cm,0){\psline[linewidth=1.5pt,arrows=->,arrowsize=2.5mm,arrowinset=0](3.2cm,4cm)(12.4cm,2.8cm)}
\endpspicture
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a) Impact of the local environment on the calculated N K-edge ELNES. (b) N sublattice with vacancies. The coloured sites in (b) correspond with the same coloured curves in the graph in (a), representing ideally stoichiometric (red, solid line arrow) and strongly N-deficient (green, dashed arrow) environments.}
\label{fig:loc_env}
\end{figure*}
The N K-edge onset could be estimated as a difference in the total energy of an unperturbed (initial state) and excited (final state with a full core hole) system \cite{Holec2011-xb}. This analysis yields values of $395.3$, $400.9$, and $401.1\uu{eV}$ for CrN, CrN$_{0.875}$, and CrN$_{0.75}$, respectively. Although the absolute values do not agree with the data from Ref.~\cite{Zhang2013-oh}, the trend that the edge onset increases with the N vacancy concentration is well reproduced. The same procedure applied to CrN$_2$ yields a valued of $401.7\uu{eV}$ for the N K-edge onset. Again, the qualitative fact that N K-edge onset increases from CrN to CrN$_2$ agrees well with the observations reported in \cite{Zhang2011-bc}.
In Ref.~\cite{Zhang2013-oh} it is argued that the increased number of N vacancies leads to an increased metallic character of the compound. We have performed Bader's analysis \cite{Bader1990-kt} to quantify the charge transfer from Cr to N atoms. In perfect CrN, approximately $1.45\uu{e/at.}$ is transferred from Cr atoms (hence making them positively charged cations) to N atoms (thus becoming negatively charged anions). When performing the same analysis in a supercell with 25\% of N sites being vacant, the average extra charge on remaining 75\% N sites is $\approx1.43\uu{e}$, i.e. it remains almost unchanged with respect to the N sites in CrN. For the cell to be neutral this means that each Cr site looses on average a smaller fraction of its charge ($\approx1.08\uu{e}$), consequently leaving more charge ``available'' to participate in metallic boding. The strong dependence of the charge transfer on the local environment is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:bader}. Although the data are somewhat scattered, a trend that the charge transferred from a Cr site is proportional to the number of N nearest neighbours is envisioned (see the dotted linear fit in Fig.~\ref{fig:bader}). The larger scatter for the Cr sites next to vacancies suggests that also the longer range interactions are not negligible. We therefore conclude that it is directly the vacancy-altered charge transfer which yields reduced ionic and profound metallic bonding character rather than changed lattice constant reduction as speculated in Ref.~\cite{Zhang2013-oh}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{bader_analysis.eps}
\caption{Bader's analysis of the charge transferred from Cr sites in CrN$_{0.75}$ supercell. The dotted line represents a linear fit to the data ($R^2=0.44$).}
\label{fig:bader}
\end{figure}
To strengthen our conclusions, we have performed a number of additional calculations (not shown here): The N K-edges are almost identical irrespective of whether L(S)DA or generalised gradient approximation (GGA) \cite{Perdew1996-vd} is used for the exchange-correlation effects. On the other hand, to neglect the magnetic nature of CrN seems to be much more serious: each of the two main N K-edge peaks splits into two when CrN is treated non-magnetically. For the ferromagnetic arrangement of spins, the resulting edge shape is very close to the paramagnetic-state curve.
\section{Conclusions}
We have performed an \textit{ab initio} study on stability of point defects in CrN and the electronic structure changes induced by N vacancies. Our calculations of energy of formation and lattice parameters confirmed that the experimentally observed N understoichiometry is likely to be related to N vacancies rather than to any other point defect. Simulations of a N K-edge ELNES evolution with amount of N vacancies yields the same behaviour as observed previously by transmission electron microscopy: The edge shape has two peaks separated by $\approx10\uu{eV}$. With the increasing content of N vacancies the relative intensity of the second peak (with respect to the first peak) decreases, and a shoulder at its lower-energy side increases. We ascribe these changes to the decreased hybridisation of N $p$- and Cr $d$-states, and a decreased ionicity as more N vacancies are present. Our results demonstrate the strong dependence of ELNES on the local environment of a site where the excitation takes place.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The financial support by the START Program (Y371) of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), as well as by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth and the National Foundation of Research, Technology and Development is greatly acknowledged. The calculations were partly performed using the CPU time at the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC).
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The successful installation, commissioning, and operation of the Pierre Auger Observatory would not have been possible without the strong commitment and effort from the technical and administrative staff in Malarg\"{u}e.
We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for financial support:
Comisi\'{o}n Nacional de Energ\'{\i}a At\'{o}mica, Fundaci\'{o}n Antorchas, Gobierno De La Provincia de Mendoza, Municipalidad de Malarg\"{u}e, NDM Holdings and Valle Las Le\~{n}as, in gratitude for their continuing cooperation over land access, Argentina; the Australian Research Council; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'{o}gico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), Funda\c{c}\~{a}o de Amparo \`{a} Pesquisa do Estado de Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), S\~{a}o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Grants \# 2010/07359-6, \# 1999/05404-3, Minist\'{e}rio de Ci\^{e}ncia e Tecnologia (MCT), Brazil; MSMT-CR LG13007, 7AMB14AR005, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0058 and the Czech Science Foundation grant 14-17501S, Czech Republic; Centre de Calcul IN2P3/CNRS, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Conseil R\'{e}gional Ile-de-France, D\'{e}partement Physique Nucl\'{e}aire et Corpusculaire (PNC-IN2P3/CNRS), D\'{e}partement Sciences de l'Univers (SDU-INSU/CNRS), Institut Lagrange de Paris, ILP LABEX ANR-10-LABX-63, within the Investissements d'Avenir Programme ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02, France; Bundesministerium f\"{u}r Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Finanzministerium Baden-W\"{u}rttemberg, Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren (HGF), Ministerium f\"{u}r Wissenschaft und Forschung, Nordrhein Westfalen, Ministerium f\"{u}r Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst, Baden-W\"{u}rttemberg, Germany; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universit\`{a} e della Ricerca (MIUR), Gran Sasso Center for Astroparticle Physics (CFA), CETEMPS Center of Excellence, Italy; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnolog\'{\i}a (CONACYT), Mexico; Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM), Netherlands; National Centre for Research and Development, Grant Nos.ERA-NET-ASPERA/01/11 and ERA-NET-ASPERA/02/11, National Science Centre, Grant Nos. 2013/08/M/ST9/00322, 2013/08/M/ST9/00728 and HARMONIA 5 - 2013/10/M/ST9/00062, Poland; Portuguese national funds and FEDER funds within COMPETE - Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade through Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^{e}ncia e a Tecnologia, Portugal; Romanian Authority for Scientific Research ANCS, CNDI-UEFISCDI partnership projects nr.20/2012 and nr.194/2012, project nr.1/ASPERA2/2012 ERA-NET, PN-II-RU-PD-2011-3-0145-17, and PN-II-RU-PD-2011-3-0062, the Minister of National Education, Programme for research - Space Technology and Advanced Research - STAR, project number 83/2013, Romania; Slovenian Research Agency, Slovenia; Comunidad de Madrid, FEDER funds, Ministerio de Educaci\'{o}n y Ciencia, Xunta de Galicia, European Community 7th Framework Program, Grant No. FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IEF-328826, Spain; Science and Technology Facilities Council, United Kingdom; Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359, DE-FR02-04ER41300, DE-FG02-99ER41107 and DE-SC0011689, National Science Foundation, Grant No. 0450696, The Grainger Foundation, USA; NAFOSTED, Vietnam; Marie Curie-IRSES/EPLANET, European Particle Physics Latin American Network, European Union 7th Framework Program, Grant No. PIRSES-2009-GA-246806; and UNESCO.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work, we characterized the distribution of UHECRs with $E >
\SI{5}{\exa\electronvolt}$ in regions of \SI{0.25}{\radian} around events with $E >
\SI{60}{\exa\electronvolt}$ using observables sensitive to patterns characteristic for
deflections in cosmic magnetic fields. No such patterns have been found within
this analysis. We demonstrated the usage of this non-observation to constrain
propagation scenarios using a scenario based on parametrizations for the
propagation of UHECR protons as an example.
Within the simulated scenario, we estimate that the strength of the deflection
in the extragalactic magnetic field has to be larger than $C_\text{E} =
\SIrange{10}{120}{\degree\per\mega\parsec\tothe{1/2}\exa\electronvolt}$ for source densities
smaller than \SI{d-3}{\per\cubic\mega\parsec} assuming protons and deflections
expected from the Jansson-Farrar 2012 model for the galactic magnetic field. For protons
with an energy $ E = \SI{10}{\exa\electronvolt}$ from a source at \SI{16}{\mega\parsec} this
translates to a required strength of the deflection in extragalactic space of
more than \SI{4}{\degree} if the source density is smaller than
\SI{d-3}{\per\cubic\mega\parsec} and more than \SI{25}{\degree} if the source density is smaller than
\SI{d-4}{\per\cubic\mega\parsec}.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}
In this section we first continue with analysing the directions of the thrust
axes shown as a sky map in Figure~\ref{fig:Skymap}. The aim is to search for
any individual ROI with signal contributions, e.g.~cosmic rays from a point
source, by testing the reproducibility of the axis direction. We will then
compare the measured distributions of the energy-energy correlations and the
thrust values in Figure~\ref{fig:Measurement} with astrophysical simulations
obtained with the PARSEC Monte Carlo generator. Using these comparisons, limits
on the strength of the deflection of the UHECRs in extragalactic magnetic fields
and the density of point sources of UHECRs are derived.
\subsection{Reproducibility of the Axes Measurement}
We further investigate the directional information shown by the thrust-major
axes of the individual ROIs in Figure~\ref{fig:Skymap}. From the simplified
simulations in Section~\ref{sec:ToyMC} we saw that thrust-major directions are
reproducible in repeated experiments for scenarios where coherent deflections
contribute, and turbulent deflections are not too large. In additional
simulation studies it was shown that evidence for anisotropy could sometimes
be found in reproducibility of axis directions even when the thrust scalar
values were consistent with isotropy~\cite{Winchen2013}. Hence, analysis of the directions of
the thrust-major axes could potentially reveal further information.
As we have obtained a single set of measured UHECR data at this point in time, we
perform here a stability test on subsets of the data in the following sense. If
the measured thrust-major direction obtained in a single ROI is related to a
deflection pattern reasonably constant in time then the analysis of subsets of the
measured data should also reflect this pattern. As only a fraction of the ROIs
may contain such a deflection pattern we perform tests of reproducibility
on each ROI individually.
We first define the ROIs as before using all available data. We then split the
dataset into $n$ independent subsamples and compare the directions
$\vec{n}_{2,j=1} \ldots \vec{n}_{2,j = n}$ obtained in each subsample for every
individual region of interest. A low variability of directions in the subsets
of the data provides evidence for a non-triviality of the thrust-major axis and
consequently for an anisotropic distribution of UHECRs.
The optimal choice for the number of subsamples to split the data into is not
known a priori. On the one hand, a large number of $n$ maximizes the number of
repeated experiments. On the other hand, as the total number of UHECRs is fixed,
$n = 2$ maximizes the number of UHECRs in every subsample. We investigated the
choice of $n$ using simulations of the simplified model described in
Section~\ref{sec:ToyMC}. The test power to distinguish regions of interest
containing 600 anisotropically distributed UHECRs from regions with
isotropically distributed UHECRs using the circular variance $V$ reaches a
plateau for $n \gtrsim 12$.
The dependence of the results and their variance with random splits of the data
set into 12 parts was investigated. The observed axis directions shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:Skymap} were not reproducible in subsets of the data with this
analysis. No evidence for a non-triviality of the axes was thus found.
\subsection{Limits on Propagation Parameters}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/ExclusionLimits_Deflection.pdf}
\caption{95\% $CL_S$ limits on the strength of the deflection of cosmic-ray protons $C_\text{E}$ (cf.~Equation~\eqref{eq:CECTRelation} and \eqref{eq:CTurbulent}~ff.) and density of point sources $\rho$ in simulations using the
PARSEC software~\cite{Bretz2013} from the analysis of the \textbf{(a)} energy-energy correlations, \textbf{(b)} thrust, \textbf{(c)} thrust-major and \textbf{(d)} thrust-minor distributions. The gray areas
are excluded by the measurements.}
\label{fig:Limits}
\end{figure*}
A prime value of the measurements lies in their ability to constrain UHECR
propagation scenarios. We outline the
procedure to derive limits on scenario parameters using a simple model for
extragalactic propagation of protons based on parameterizations as implemented
in version 1.2 of the PARSEC software~\cite{Bretz2013}. Although this model is
likely too coarse to allow definite conclusions on the sources of UHECRs, it
includes at least qualitatively the effects influencing patterns in the UHECR
distributions. Its fast computability allows a scan of a large range of
parameter combinations in the source density and the strength of the deflection
in the extragalactic magnetic field, thus limiting these important
parameters within this model. The procedure to obtain limits from the
measurements reported in this paper as outlined here can be applied to any other
model.
The PARSEC software simulates ultra-high energy protons by calculating the
probability-density function (pdf) to observe a cosmic ray for discrete
directions and energies using parameterizations for energy losses and
energy-dependent deflections. In the calculations, energy losses of the UHECRs
from interaction with extragalactic-photon backgrounds, effects from the
expansion of the universe and deflection in extragalactic magnetic fields are
accounted for using parameterizations. To account for deflections in the
galactic magnetic field, the calculated pdf is transformed using matrices
derived from backtracked UHECRs using the CRT software~\cite{Sutherland2010}.
As model for the galactic magnetic field, we use here the model proposed by
Jansson and Farrar~\cite{Jansson2012,Jansson2013}. For the random field we
assume Kolmogorov turbulences with a coherence length $L_\text{c} =
\SI{60}{\parsec}$ and a maximum wavelength $L_\text{max} \simeq
\SI{260}{\parsec}$. We use only one realization of the random component of the
model in all simulations. The directions in the simulations are discretized
into 49,152 equal-area pixels following the HEALPix layout~\cite{Gorski2005}.
The energy is discretized into 100 log-linear spaced bins ranging from
$10^{18.5}$~eV to $10^{20.5}$~eV. Both choices result in angular and energy
bins smaller than the corresponding measurement errors.
We simulated scenarios with unstructured point sources with density $\rho$ and
strength of the deflection of the cosmic rays
\begin{equation}
C_\text{T} = C_\text{E} \sqrt{D}
\label{eq:CECTRelation}
\end{equation}
with distance $D$ of the source.
We scanned the parameter range $C_\text{E} =
\SIrange{2}{200}{\degree\per\mega\parsec\tothe{1/2}\exa\electronvolt}$ and source densities up to $\rho =
\SI{1d-3}{\per\cubic\mega\parsec}$. We considered contributions
from sources up to a distance $D_{\max} = \SI{2}{\giga\parsec}$. At every point
of the parameter space we simulated sets of 200 pseudo experiments with the same number of events as in the measurement presented in Section~\ref{sec:Results}.
Since the sources of the UHECRs are randomly distributed and have a maximum
injection energy $E_{\max} = \SI{1000}{\exa\electronvolt}$, some realizations do not include
sources within 43 Mpc, the maximum propagation distance
of the most energetic particle in this
analysis. Due to the continuous energy loss approximation the maximum distance is here a hard limit and
these simulations cannot reproduce the observed energies. To restrict the reported
limits to information from the observables such scenarios are not used here.
Note that within such a scenario, the necessity of a close source could be used
as an additional constraint. The probability of including at least one source
in a pdf set can be calculated analytically (e.g.~\cite{Chandrasekhar1943}) and
is higher than $96 \%$ for source densities
greater than $\rho=\SI{1d-5}{\per\cubic\mega\parsec}$. Using this argument
alone, source densities with $\rho < \SI{1d-7}{\per\cubic\mega\parsec}$ may be
disfavored. However, the inclusion of this argument only marginally modifies
the reported limits.
Limits on the strength of the deflection and the density of point
sources in the simulation are set using the $CL_S$
method~\cite{Read2000,Read2002}. Here,
\begin{equation}
Q = -2 \log \frac{\mathcal{L}_\text{a}}{\mathcal{L}_0}
\label{ieq:Likelihoodratio}
\end{equation}
is the ratio of the likelihood $\mathcal{L}_0$ of the data given isotropically distributed
UHECRs, and the likelihood $\mathcal{L}_\text{a}$ of the data given the alternative
hypothesis simulated with PARSEC. In the $CL_S$ method, not $Q$
directly, but the modified likelihood ratio
\begin{equation}
CL_S = \frac{P_\text{a}(Q \geq Q_\text{obs})}{1-
P_0(Q\leq Q_\text{obs})}
\label{eq:CLSMethod}
\end{equation}
is used as test statistic.
Here $P_\text{a}(Q \geq Q_\text{obs})$ is the frequency with which likelihood ratios $Q$
larger than the observed value are obtained in simulations
of the alternative hypothesis and $1- P_0(Q\leq Q_\text{obs})$ the corresponding frequency
in simulations of the null hypothesis.
Points in parameter space with $CL_S < 0.05$ are excluded at
the 95\% confidence level.
The resulting limits are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Limits} for the individual
observables.
A combination of the limits is not attempted here as it depends on
scenario-specific correlations between the observables. If the cosmic rays are
not protons but heavier nuclei the limits are reduced accordingly.
For the extreme case that all cosmic rays are iron nuclei with $Z=26$ the limits
shift down by more than one order of magnitude.
For the proton
case shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Limits} the extragalactic deflection of cosmic
rays needs to be larger than
$C_\text{E} = \SIrange{10}{120}{\degree\per\mega\parsec\tothe{1/2}\exa\electronvolt}$ for source
densities smaller than \SI{d-3}{\per\cubic\mega\parsec} and assuming deflections
in the galactic magnetic field as expected from the Jansson-Farrar 2012 model
with a coherence length set to $L_\text{c} =
\SI{60}{\parsec}$. The exact value depends on the source density. Without
galactic random field the limits are only marginally more constraining, choosing a
higher coherence length lowers the limits according to the stronger
deflections.
Previously, we derived from two-point correlations of UHECRs with an energy
$E>\SI{60}{\exa\electronvolt}$ lower bounds on the density of uniformly distributed sources
of, e.g., $2 \times 10^{-4}\,\text{Mpc}^{-3}$ if the deflection of cosmic rays
above 60 EeV is 5 degrees~\cite{Abreu2013a}. Only the total deflection due to the
EGMF and GMF was taken into account, and no explicit model for the Galactic
magnetic field was used. An approximate comparison with the current analysis
can be performed assuming the average deflections in the EGMF and GMF add up
linearly. The average deflection of 60 EeV cosmic rays in the JF2012 field
accounts to 5 degrees. The above density therefore gives a lower limit for
negligible deflections in the EGMF.
With the current analysis we obtain for the lowest EGMF considered a limit of
$9 \times 10^{-4}\,\text{Mpc}^{-3}$ from an analysis of the Thrust Minor. We
therefore extend the lower bound on the density of uniformly distributed
sources by a factor of more than four in the case of small
extragalactic deflections.
\subsection{Energy-Energy Correlations}
Energy-energy correlations (EECs) are used to obtain information on the
turbulent part of galactic and extragalactic magnetic
fields~\cite{Erdmann2009}. The concept of the EEC was originally developed for
tests of quantum chromodynamics (QCD)~\cite{Basham1978}. The
Energy-energy correlation $\Omega_{ij}$ is calculated for every pair of UHECRs
$i,j$ within a ROI using
\begin{equation}\label{eq:EEC}
\Omega _{ij}= \frac{(E_i-\langle E(\alpha_i) \rangle)\,(E_j-\langle E(\alpha_j) \rangle) }{E_i \, E_j}.
\end{equation}
Here $E_i$ is the energy of the UHECR $i$ with the angular separation
$\alpha_i$ to the center of the ROI. $\langle E_i(\alpha_i) \rangle$ is
the average energy of all UHECRs at the angular separation $\alpha_i$ from
the center of the ROI.
The cosmic rays in a ROI can be separated into a signal fraction, whose arrival
direction is correlated with the energy, and an isotropic background fraction.
The values of $\Omega_{ij}$ can be positive or negative depending on the
cosmic-ray pair having energies above or below the average energies. An angular
ordering is measured in the following sense. A pair of cosmic rays, one being
above and the other below the corresponding average energy, results in a
negative correlation $\Omega_{ij} < 0$. This is a typical case for a background
contribution. A pair with both cosmic rays having energies above or below the
average energy at their corresponding angular separation gives a positive
correlation $\Omega_{ij} > 0$. Here both signal and background pairs are
expected to contribute. As the correlations are determined as a function of the
opening angle to the center of the ROI, circular patterns can be found that are
expected from turbulent magnetic deflections which are sometimes viewed as
random-walk propagation.
We present the angular distribution of the EEC as the average
distribution of all ROIs. Each value $\Omega_{ij}$ is taken into account twice,
once at the angular separation $\alpha_i$ and once at $\alpha_j$.
\section{Introduction}
The long-standing question about the origin and nature of the ultra-high
energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) is yet unanswered.
Presumably, UHECRs are charged nuclei of extragalactic origin. They are
deflected in extragalactic magnetic fields and the magnetic field of the Milky
Way such that their arrival directions may not point back to their
sources~\cite{Kotera2011}. The structure, strength, and origin of these cosmic
magnetic fields are open questions in astrophysics as
well~\cite{Ryu2012, Widrow2012}. Consequently, UHECRs can also be considered to be
probes of the magnetic fields they traverse~\cite{Lee1995, Lemoine1997} as the
deflections lead to energy-dependent patterns in their arrival directions,
and an analysis of such patterns may allow for conclusions on the strength and
structure of the fields.
The Pierre Auger Observatory~\cite{PAO2004, PAO2010b} is currently the largest
experiment dedicated to observations of UHECRs. In
2007, we reported evidence for a correlation of events with energies above
\SI{60}{\exa\electronvolt} ($\SI{1}{\exa\electronvolt} = \SI{d18}{\electronvolt}$) with the distribution of nearby extragalactic
matter~\cite{PAO2007, PAO2008}. An update of the analysis yielded a
correlation strength which is reduced compared
to the initial result~\cite{PAO2010d}. Further searches for anisotropy using
variants of autocorrelation functions~\cite{PAO2012b} yielded no
statistically-significant deviation from isotropic scenarios. Following this
observation, constraints on the density of point sources and magnetic fields
have been reported~\cite{Abreu2013a}. Also a direct search for
magnetically-induced alignment in the arrival directions of cosmic rays
assuming they were protons has been performed without uncovering so-called
multiplet structures beyond isotropic expectations~\cite{PAO2012} .
Nevertheless, if the highest-energy cosmic rays with $E > \SI{60}{\exa\electronvolt}$ are
tracers of their sources and even if their deflection in magnetic fields is
dependent on their nuclear charges, some of the lower-energy cosmic rays in a
region around them may be of the same origin. From deflections both in
extragalactic magnetic fields and the magnetic field of the Milky Way, their
distribution of arrival directions may show energy-dependent patterns. In
particular a circular `blurring' of the sources is expected from deflection in
turbulent magnetic fields, while energy dependent linear structures are
expected from deflection in coherent magnetic fields.
In this report, we investigate the local regions around cosmic rays
with $E \geq \SI{60}{\exa\electronvolt}$ by analyzing cosmic rays with energies above $E = 5$~EeV
arriving within an angular separation of \SI{0.25}{\radian}. The lower energy cut
just above the ankle is motivated by the assumption that the selected
cosmic rays are predominantly of extragalactic origin. The angular
separation cut has been optimized from simulation studies and will be
explained below.
We use two methods to characterize the energy distributions inside the local
regions. In one method we study energy-energy correlations between pairs of
cosmic rays depending on their angular separation from the center of the region.
With this measurement we search for signal patterns
expected from particle deflection in turbulent magnetic fields.
In the second method we decompose the directional energy
distribution of the cosmic rays along its principal axes. This general decomposition method
imposes no requirement on the sign of the cosmic-ray charge, or the charge
itself. Beyond measuring the strength of collimation along principal axes, the
axis directions of the individual regions around the highest-energy cosmic rays
potentially reveal local deflection patterns due to magnetic fields.
Both methods were originally studied in particle physics,
and were referred to as energy-energy correlations and thrust observables,
respectively~\cite{Basham1978, Brandt1964}. Simulations of their application in cosmic-ray physics
have demonstrated the capability to reveal effects from coherent and turbulent
magnetic fields~\cite{Erdmann2009, Erdmann2013}.
This paper is structured as follows. The observables of the energy-energy
correlations and the principal-axis analysis are defined in
Section~\ref{sec:Methods}. Their response to structure potentially expected from
deflection in magnetic fields is illustrated using a simplified model in Section~\ref{sec:ToyMC}. The
measured distributions of the observables using data of the surface detector of
the Pierre Auger Observatory are presented in Section~\ref{sec:Results}. In
Section~\ref{sec:Discussion}, we first analyze the directional characteristics
of the measured principal axes by studying their reproducibility. We then
present a comparison of the measurements with an astrophysical model of UHECR
origin and propagation, and determine constraints on the source density, and
the strength of cosmic-ray deflection as the two dominant model parameters.
\section{Definitions}
\label{sec:Methods}
In this section we introduce the main components used for the
measurement. We first define the local regions in which we analyze the
cosmic-ray energies and arrival directions. We then explain the
energy-energy correlation observable and its angular dependence.
Finally, we present the method of calculating the principal axes of the
energy distribution which results in the three values to characterize
the strength of collimation along each axis, and the directions of the
axes themselves.
\subsection{Region of Interest}
The observables used here are calculated from the events detected in a bounded
region in the sky, here denoted as `region of interest' (ROI). To minimize the
statistical penalty from multiple tries, we do not scan the entire sky but
investigate a limited number of ROIs located around events with an energy above
\SI{60}{\exa\electronvolt}. This energy cut is motivated by the limitation of the
propagation distance by, e.g., the GZK effect~\cite{Greisen1966, Zatsepin1966}
and corresponds to the energy used in the AGN correlation
analysis~\cite{PAO2007}. The size of the ROIs, i.e. the maximum angular
separation of a UHECR belonging to the ROI to the center of the ROI, is set to
\SI{0.25}{\radian}. To choose these values we simulated the UHECR propagation
in magnetic fields with the UHECR simulation tool PARSEC~\cite{Bretz2013} for
different strengths of the deflection and source density. The simulations were
analyzed with varying choices of parameters. The chosen values maximize the
power of the observables to discriminate between scenarios with strong
deflections and isotropic scenarios~\cite{Schiffer2011, Winchen2013}. To avoid
a possible bias of the characterization of the ROI, we exclude the cosmic ray
seeding the ROI from the calculation of the observables.
\input{EEC.tex}
\input{Thrust.tex}
\section{Measurement}
\label{sec:Results}
For the measurement of the observables we selected events above \SI{5}{\exa\electronvolt}
recorded with the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory up to March
19, 2013. We require that the zenith angle of the events is smaller than
\SI{60}{\degree} and that the detector stations surrounding the station with
the highest signal are active~\cite{PAO2010b}. 30,664 events are included in
the analysis; 70 fulfill the conditions $E \ge \SI{60}{\exa\electronvolt}$ and are at least
\SI{0.25}{\radian} inside the field of view of the Pierre Auger Observatory and
therefore seed an ROI.
In order to estimate the uncertainty on the measurement, we repeatedly vary the
energy and arrival directions of all events detected with the Pierre Auger
Observatory above $E = \SI{3}{\exa\electronvolt}$ and $\theta < \SI{60}{\degree}$ within
their experimental uncertainties and repeat the calculation of the observables
with the new values. The mean and spread of the resulting distributions then
serve as measured observables and their corresponding uncertainty. The energy
resolution of the surface detector is 16\%~\cite{DiGiulio2009} and the angular
resolution of the SD is better than $1^{\circ}$ for energies above
\SI{5}{\exa\electronvolt}~\cite{Bonifazi2008}. The selected ROIs are kept fixed to the
original positions in all repetitions. Because of the decreasing spectrum, the
number of events in the analysis increases as more events propagate above the
lower energy threshold than vice versa. To keep the number of events in the
uncertainty analysis fixed, the 30,664 events with the highest energy after
variation are selected.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/Measurement.pdf}
\caption{Measurement of the \textbf{(a)} energy-energy correlation
$\Omega$ and \textbf{(b-d)} thrust observables $T_{1,2,3}$ with the
Pierre Auger Observatory (red squares and error bars). The
measurements are compared to distributions without structure in the arrival
directions of UHECRs (gray distributions).}
\label{fig:Measurement}
\end{figure*}
In Figure~\ref{fig:Measurement} the distributions of the measured EEC and
thrust observables are shown together with the distributions expected from
isotropic arrival directions of UHECRs. The goodness-of-fit of the
measurements compared to expected distributions without structure in the
arrival directions of UHECRs, using a $\chi^2$ test, yields $p$-values which are
all above $p=0.2$ except for the thrust minor distribution with $p(T_3)=0.01$.
Note that the $p$-value for $T_3$ results from a lack of signal-like regions
in the data which are expected to broaden the distribution. The measured
distributions of all four observables reveal thus no local patterns in the
arrival directions of UHECRs.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/ThrustAxesSkyMap.pdf}
\caption{Hammer projection of the map of principal axes of the
directional energy distribution in galactic coordinates. The red
shaded areas represent the regions of interest. Black lines denote
the second principal axes (thrust-major axes) $\vec{n}_2$, black
dots mark the positions of the thrust axes $\vec{n}_1$. The blue
shading indicates the exposure of the Pierre Auger Observatory; the
dashed line marks the extent of its field of view.}\label{fig:Skymap}
\end{figure*}
From the principal-axes analysis, a map of the thrust-major axes is derived
which is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Skymap}. If not trivial, these axes
correspond to the direction of preferred cosmic-ray deflections.
This question is further studied in the following
section.
\subsection{Principal Axes}
To further characterize energy-dependent patterns within each individual ROI, we
calculate the three principal axes of the energy distribution which we
denote as $\vec{n}_{k=1,2,3}$. For this we successively maximize the quantity
\begin{equation}
T_k = \max_{\vec{n}_k} \left(\frac{\sum_i |\omega_i^{-1}\; \vec{p}_{i}\cdot
\vec{n}_k|}{\sum_i |\omega_i^{-1}\; \vec{p}_i|} \right)
\label{eq:ThrustValues}
\end{equation}
with respect to the axes $\vec{n}_{k}$ starting with $k=1$.
Here $\vec{p}_i$ is the cosmic-ray momentum and $\omega_i$ the corresponding exposure of
the detector~\cite{Sommers2001} in the direction of particle $i$. The values of
$T_{k=1,2,3}$ quantify the strength of the collimation of the particle momenta
along each of the three axes $\vec{n}_{k=1,2,3}$ of the principal system. We
denote $T_{k=1,2,3}$ as thrust observables following previous studies of
perturbative QCD in particle collisions~\cite{Brandt1964, Farhi1977}.
For $k = 1$ the quantity $T_1$ is called the `thrust' and consequently the
first axis of the principal system $\vec{n}_1$ is called `thrust axis'. For the
second axis the additional condition $\vec{n}_1 \perp \vec{n}_2$ is used in
Equation~\eqref{eq:ThrustValues}. The resulting value $T_2$ is denoted as `thrust
major', the axis as `thrust-major axis'. Finally, the third quantity $T_3$ is
called `thrust minor' with corresponding `thrust-minor axis'. For the
thrust-minor axis $\vec{n}_3$ it is $\vec{n}_1 \perp \vec{n}_2 \perp \vec{n}_3$
which renders the maximization in Equation~\eqref{eq:ThrustValues} trivial. From
this definition follows $T_1 > T_2 > T_3$.
In arbitrarily defined spherical coordinates $(r, \phi, \theta)$ with
orthonormal basis $(\vec{e}_r, \vec{e}_\phi, \vec{e}_\theta )$ and the
observer at the center, the momenta of the
particles at the high energies considered here can be written as $\vec{p}_i =
\vert E_i \vert \vec{e}_{r_i}$ with the energy $E_i$ and the radial
unit vector $\vec{e}_{r_i}$ in the arrival direction of particle $i$. The
thrust axis is thus the radial unit vector $\vec{e}_r$ pointing to the local
barycenter of the energy distribution, and the thrust value is a measure for the
energy-weighted strength of clustering of the events.
For no dispersion of the particles in the
region it takes on the value $T_1 = 1$, whereas for an isotropic distribution in a circular
region the expectation value of $T_1$ depends dominantly on the size of the ROI~\cite{Winchen2013}.
The thrust-major and
thrust-minor axes can consequently be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{n}_{2} = \cos{\xi_{2}} \, \vec{e}_\phi + \sin{\xi_{2}} \, \vec{e}_\theta \\
\vec{n}_{3} = \cos{\xi_{3}} \, \vec{e}_\phi + \sin{\xi_{3}} \, \vec{e}_\theta
\end{eqnarray}
with the angles $\xi_2$ and $\xi_3 = 90^\circ + \xi_2$ between the corresponding axes
and the vector $\vec{e}_\phi$. Using this together with
Equation~\eqref{eq:ThrustValues}, the thrust-major $T_2$ becomes maximal if $\vec{n}_2$ is
aligned with a linear distribution of UHECR arrival directions. The thrust-major axis thus points
along threadlike structures in the energy distribution of UHECRs. As the thrust
minor axis is chosen perpendicular to $\vec{n}_1$ and $\vec{n}_2$ it has no
physical meaning beyond its connection to the thrust-major axis. However, the
thrust-minor $T_3$ gives meaningful information as it denotes the
collimation strength perpendicular to the thrust-major axis.
Note that in a perfect isotropic scenario, the energy distribution within the
plane defined by $\vec{n}_2$ and $\vec{n}_3$ exhibits perfect symmetry. The
values of $T_2$ and $T_3$ are approximately equal, and the axis directions are accidental.
However, even with a small signal contribution beyond an isotropic background,
the circular symmetry in the $(\vec{n}_2 , \vec{n}_3)$ plane is broken giving
rise to unequal values of $T_2$ and $T_3$. In addition, the direction of the
thrust-major axis then reveals valuable directional information.
This directional information can be compared to the direction of deflection
obtained in a multiplet analysis~\cite{PAO2012}. However, in contrast to the multiplet
analysis the principal axes analysis does not require a uniform charge of the
cosmic rays. Its sensitivity is driven by the total deflection amount.
\section{Benchmark Distributions for Coherent and Turbulent Magnetic Fields}
\label{sec:ToyMC}
For obtaining a general understanding of the energy-energy correlations and the
thrust observables, we use simple scenarios of cosmic-ray deflections in
magnetic fields to demonstrate resulting distributions. First we describe the
procedure for simulating mock data representing cosmic-ray deflection in
turbulent and coherent magnetic fields. For different quantitative mixtures of these field
types we then present the distributions of the energy-energy correlations
and finally discuss the resulting thrust distributions.
\subsection{Simulation Procedure}
To demonstrate the sensitivity of the observables to deflections expected from
magnetic fields, we simulate a ROI with UHECRs in a simplified scenario.
The deflection in cosmic magnetic fields is supposed to result in two different
kinds of patterns in the arrival direction of the UHECRs. First, if the UHECR's
trajectory resembles a directed random walk, a symmetric blurring of the source
is expected. Second, if the particles are deflected in
large-scale coherent fields, e.g. in the Milky Way, an energy ordering of the
UHECRs in threadlike multiplets is expected.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/ToyMCSketch}
\end{center}
\caption{Generation of anisotropically distributed UHECRs in a region
of interest. \textbf{(a)} First, UHECRs are
distributed symmetrically around the center of the ROI using a Fisher
distribution with energy dependent concentration parameter according
to Equation~\eqref{eq:CTurbulent}. \textbf{(b)} The UHECRs are then deflected
in one direction using Equation~\eqref{eq:CCoherent}. \textbf{(c)} UHECRs
deflected outside of the ROI are moved to a random position inside the
region.}
\label{fig:ToyMCSketch}
\end{figure*}
Here we model the distribution of UHECRs in a region around the source as
a superposition of both effects. Events in this region of interest are
generated in three steps as sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:ToyMCSketch}.
First, the UHECRs are distributed around the center of the ROI
following a Fisher
distribution~\cite{Fisher1953} with probability density
\begin{equation}
f(\alpha,\kappa) = \frac{\kappa}{4\pi\, \sinh{\kappa}} e^{(\kappa\,
\cos{\alpha)}}
\label{FisherDistribution}
\end{equation}
for angle $\alpha$ between cosmic ray and center of the ROI. The Fisher
distribution can be considered here as the normal
distribution on the sphere. The concentration
parameter $\kappa$ is chosen with an energy dependence that emulates the
deflection in turbulent magnetic fields as
\begin{equation}
\kappa = C_\text{T}^{-2} E^{2}.
\label{eq:CTurbulent}
\end{equation}
For small deflections the distribution resembles a Rayleigh distribution
where $\kappa$ is related to the root-mean-square $\delta_{\text{RMS}}$ of the
deflection angles by $\kappa = \delta_{\text{RMS}}^{-2}$ and thus
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\text{RMS}} \simeq \frac{C_\text{T}}{E}.
\label{eq:dRMS_CTRelation}
\end{equation}
A value of $C_\text{T} = \SI{1}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$
is equivalent to an RMS of the deflection angle $\delta_{\text{RMS}} =
\SI{5.7}{\degree}$ for 10~EeV particles. For example, using the usual
parametrization for deflections in turbulent magnetic
fields~\cite{Achterberg1998, Harari2002} this corresponds to the
expected deflection of \SI{10}{\exa\electronvolt} protons from a source at a distance
$D \approx \SI{16}{\mega\parsec}$ propagating through a turbulent
magnetic field with coherence length $\Lambda \approx
\SI{1}{\mega\parsec}$ and strength $ B \approx \SI{4}{\nano\gauss}$.
Second, a simple model for the deflection in coherent magnetic fields is added
on top of the model for turbulent magnetic fields used above. Here the
individual cosmic rays are deflected in one direction by an angle $\alpha$ that
depends on the energy of the particles according to
\begin{equation}
\alpha = C_\text{C}\, E^{-1} \label{eq:CCoherent}
\end{equation}
where the parameter
$C_\text{C}$ is used to model the strength of the coherent deflection.
The procedure is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:ToyMCSketch}~(b).
Third, particles deflected outside the region of interest are added as
a background to keep the number of particles in this setup constant
(cf.~Figure~\ref{fig:ToyMCSketch}~(c)). The energies of all events are chosen
following a broken power law with spectral index $\gamma_1 = -2.7$ below
\SI{40}{\exa\electronvolt} and $\gamma_2 = -4.2$ above \SI{40}{\exa\electronvolt} to be comparable with the observed cosmic-ray energy spectrum~\cite{PAO2010a}.
\subsection{Response of the Energy-Energy Correlation}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/EEC_ToyMC.pdf}
\caption{Response of the EEC to typical deflection patterns
from simulations of three different turbulent deflection strengths with
$C_\text{T}=\SI{0.3}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$ (red squares), $C_\text{T}=\SI{1}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$ (blue
upward triangles) and $C_\text{T}=\SI{3}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$ (magenta downward triangles).
The dashed line marks the isotropic expectation value according to
Equation~\eqref{eq:expvalue}; black circles denote the result from simulation of
isotropically distributed UHECRs.}
\label{fig:EECToyMC}
\end{figure*}
The EEC distributions resulting from simulated scenarios using the three values
for the turbulent deflection strength $C_\text{T} = 0.3, 1.0,\;\SI{3.0}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$
are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:EECToyMC}. As the EEC is expected to provide only
minor sensitivity to coherent deflections~\cite{Erdmann2009} $C_\text{C} = 0$ is used
here. For each scenario 50 realizations of an ROI with 300 UHECRs have been
used, which is approximately the number of UHECRs in a low-coverage region of the measurement presented in Section~\ref{sec:Discussion}.
All scenarios are compared with the result for an isotropic distribution
of UHECRs. Without structure in the arrival directions of UHECRs, the EEC
distribution is flat with an expectation value
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expvalue}
\left<\Omega_{ij}\right> =\left< \frac{\left( E_i -\left< E \right> \right)\, \left( E_j -\left< E \right> \right)} {E_i\, E_j}\right> = \left(1- \left<E\right> \left<\frac{1}{E}\right> \right)^2.
\end{equation}
For a source signal the typical signature is an increase towards small angles,
as can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:EECToyMC}. With increasing angular separation
the UHECRs average energies decrease, and so do the differences between the
UHECR energies and their corresponding average (Equation~\eqref{eq:EEC}).
Consequently, the values of $\Omega_{ij}$ can become small in contrast to a
scenario where all UHECR energies contribute at every angular scale. The shape
of the EEC distribution in response to a source signal depends on the
deflection pattern. In general it can be seen that a small deflection causes
an increase only in the innermost bins, while a larger deflection will smear
this signature over the whole ROI.
\subsection{Response of the Principal-Axes Analysis}
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/ThrustObservables_ToyMC.pdf}
\caption{Response of the thrust observables to typical deflection patterns.
\textbf{(a-c)} Mean and spread of the observables $T_{1,2,3}$ as a
function of the strength of the deflection in turbulent magnetic
fields $C_\text{T}$. Red circles correspond to no directed deflection,
green triangles to $C_\text{C} = \SI{0.5}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$ and blue squares to
$C_\text{C} = \SI{1.0}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$. The shaded area corresponds to the
$1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ expectations of the observables for an
isotropic distribution of cosmic rays. \textbf{(d)} Circular
variance of the thrust-major axes calculated in the simulations in 100
ROIs. Gray shading corresponds to the probability density of the
expectation value of the circular variance of uniformly-distributed
directions.}
\label{fig:ThrustObservables_ToyMC}
\end{figure*}
In Figure~\ref{fig:ThrustObservables_ToyMC}~(a-c)
the mean and spread of the
thrust observables $T_{1,2,3}$
of 100 realizations of the ROI at each point in the explored parameter space are shown. We used $C_\text{T}
=$\SIrange{0.1}{10}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}, without coherent deflection, and alternatively with
$C_\text{C}=\SI{0.5}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$ as well as $C_\text{C}=\SI{1.0}{\radian\exa\electronvolt}$.
All three observables are sensitive to a symmetric blurring of the
source. For increasing $C_\text{T}$ the
distribution of cosmic rays in the ROI becomes isotropic, and the observables
approach the corresponding expectation value. The value of the thrust major
and thrust minor for strong patterns is here below the expectation for no
patterns, as the particles are concentrated in the center of the ROI. The
thrust minor, Figure~\ref{fig:ThrustObservables_ToyMC}~(c), does not
depend on the strength of coherent deflection, as the width of the
blurring is determined here only by the strength of $C_\text{T}$.
When measuring a thrust-major axis of an individual ROI, we also want to
determine the stability of the axis direction. As explained in
Section~\ref{sec:Methods}, the thrust major-axis is located in the plane
tangential to a sphere around the observer, and provides a directional
characteristic on the sky.
We quantify the stability of the axis
using the circular variance $V$ derived in the specialized statistics for
directional data~(e.g.~\cite{Mardia1972, Jammalamadaka2001}). The direction of
the thrust-major axis $\vec{n}_{2,i}$ in a region of interest $i$ is defined by the
angle $\theta_i$ between the axis and the local unit vector $\vec{e_\phi}$ in
spherical coordinates with $\theta_i \in [0 \ldots \pi)$.
To calculate the circular variance $V$ from the $n$ observations
$\theta_i$, first the $\theta_i$
are transformed to
angles on the full circle by $\theta^*_i = \ell \cdot \theta_i$ with $\ell = 2$ owing to
the symmetry of the thrust-major axis.
With
\begin{equation}
C = \sum_{i=1}^n \cos\theta^*_i,\qquad S = \sum_{i=1}^n \sin\theta^*_i
\label{}
\end{equation}
the resultant length $R$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
R = \sqrt{C^2 + S^2}.
\label{ResultantLength}
\end{equation}
Based on the resultant length $R$ in Equation~\eqref{ResultantLength} the
circular variance $V$ of a sample of size $n$ is defined
as
\begin{equation}
V = 1 - \left(\frac{R}{n}\right)^{1/\ell^2}.
\label{eq:CircularVariance}
\end{equation}
In contrast to the variance in linear statistics, $V$ is limited to the
interval $[0,1]$. The circular variance is a consistent measure
for the concentration of observations on periodic intervals with $V=0$ for
data from a single direction and $V=1$ for perfectly dispersed data.
Even in the limit $ n \ll \infty$ a value $V < 1$ is also expected
for non-directed data as perfect dispersion is unlikely in a random
sample.
To demonstrate the strength of correlation of the axes with the direction of
deflection in the simulation we use the circular variance $V$ among the
simulated sample as a measure. The resulting values for the 100 simulated
scenarios at every point of the aforementioned parameter space are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:ThrustObservables_ToyMC}~(d). In case of zero coherent
deflection, and also in case of strong blurring of the sources, no stable axis
is found. For small blurring of the sources, the variance between the directions
is zero, if there is coherent deflection.
|
\section{Keywords:}
Hebbian learning \quad generating functionals \quad synaptic plasticity
\quad objective functions \quad Fisher information \quad homeostatic adaption}
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
Synaptic plasticity involves the modification of
the strength of individual synapses as a function of
pre- and postsynaptic neural activity. Hebbian
plasticity \citep{hebb2002organization} tends to
reinforce already strong synapses and may hence
lead, on a single neuron level, to runaway synaptic
growth, which needs to be contained through
homeostatic regulative processes \citep{turrigiano2000hebb},
such as synaptic scaling \citep{abbott2000synaptic}.
Modeling of these dual effects has been typically a
two-step approach, carried out by extending Hebbian-type
learning rules by regulative scaling principles
\citep{bienenstock1982theory,oja1992principal,goodhill1994role,elliott2003analysis}.
An interesting question regards the fundamental computational
task a single neuron should be able to perform. There
is a general understanding that synaptic scaling induces
synaptic competition and that this synaptic competition
generically results in a generalized principal component
analysis (PCA) \citep{oja1992principal,miller1994role},
in the sense that a neuron will tend to align its vector
of synaptic weights, within the space of input activities,
with the direction having the highest variance. A meaningful
behavior, since information possibly transmitted by input
directions with low variances is more susceptible to be
obfuscated by internal or environmental noise.
A single neuron may however have additional computational
capabilities, in addition to its basic job as a principal
component analyzer. The neuron may try to discover
`interesting directions', in the spirit of
projection pursuit \citep{huber1985projection},
whenever the covariance matrix of the afferent inputs
is close to unity. Deviations from Gaussian statistics
may encode in this case vitally important information,
a well known feature of natural image statistics
\citep{simoncelli2001natural,sinz2013temporal}.
One measure for non-Gaussianess is given by the
kurtosis \citep{decarlo1997meaning}
and a single neuron may possibly tend to
align its synaptic weight vector with
directions in the space of input activities
characterized by heavy tails \citep{triesch2007synergies},
viz having a large positive excess kurtosis.
Here we study self-limiting Hebbian plasticity
rules which allow the neuron to discover maximally bimodal
directions in the space of input activities, viz directions
having a large negative excess kurtosis.
Binary classification in terms of a linear discrimination
of objects in the input data stream is a basic task for
neural circuits and has been postulated to be a central
component of unsupervised
object recognition within the framework of
slow feature analysis \citep{wiskott2002slow,dicarlo2012does}.
It is of course straightforward to train, using supervised
learning rules, a neuron to linearly separate the data
received into two categories. Here we propose that a single
neuron may perform this task unsupervised, whenever it has
a preference for directions in the space of input activities
characterized by negative excess kurtosis. Neural signals in
the brain containing high frequency bursts have been linked to
precise information transmission \citep{lisman1997bursts}. Neurons
switching between relatively quiet and bursting states tend to
have bimodal firing rate distributions and negative excess kurtosis.
The autonomous tendency to perform a binary classification, on
a single neuron level, may hence be of importance for higher
cortical areas, as neurons would tend to focus their intra-cortical
receptive fields towards intermittent bursting neural
populations. A subclasss of bursting pyramidal neurons have been
found in layer 5 of somatosensory and visual cortical areas
\citep{chagnac1990bursts}. Neurons receiving input from these bursting
cortical neurons would therefore be natural candidates to
test this hypothesis, for which there is, to date, no direct
experimental evidence.
In order to develop synaptic plasticity rules, one may
pursue one of two routes: either to reproduce certain
aspects of experimental observations by directly formulating
suitable plasticity rules, or to formulate, alternatively,
an objective function from which adaption rules are
then deduced \citep{intrator1992objective,bell1995information}.
Objective functions, also denoted generating functionals in the
context of dynamical system theory
\citep{linkerhand2013generating,gros2014generating},
generically facilitate higher-level investigations, and have been used, e.g.,
for such as an overall stability analysis of Hebbian-type learning
in autonomously active neural networks \citep{dong1992dynamic}.
The Fisher information measures the sensitivity of a system
with respect to a given parameter. It can be related,
in the context of population coding \citep{brunel1998mutual},
to the transfer information between stimulus and neural
activity, and to order-parameter changes within the theory of
thermodynamic phase transitions \citep{prokopenko2011relating}.
Minimization of the Fisher information can be used as a generative
principle for quantum mechanics in general \citep{reginatto1998derivation}
and for the Euler equation in density functional theory
\citep{nagy2003fisher}. Here we propose an objective function
for synaptic learning rules based on the Fisher information
with respect to a differential operator we denote the synaptic
flux.
The aim of adapting synaptic weights is to encode a maximal
amount of information present in the statistics of the
afferent inputs. The statistics of the output neural activity
becomes stationary when this task is completed and the
sensitivity of the activity of the post-synaptic neuron
with regard to changes in the synaptic weights is then
minimal. Minimizing the Fisher information with respect
to the synaptic flux is hence a natural way to
generate synaptic plasticity rules. Morover, as we show in
section \ref{Results}, the synaptic plasticity rules
obtained by minimizing the Fisher information for the
synaptic flux have a set of attractive features;
incorporating standard Hebbian updating and being, at
the same time, self-limiting.
Minimizing an information theoretical objective function,
like the Fisher information, is an instance of polyhomeostatic
optimization \citep{markovic2010}, namely the optimization of
an entire function. Other examples of widely used
information theoretical measures are the transfer entropy
\citep{vicente2011transfer} and the Kullback-Leibler divergence,
which one may use for adapting, on a slow time scale,
intrinsic neural parameters like the bias, also called
offset \citep{triesch2007synergies,markovic2012intrinsic}.
Minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence then corresponds to
maximizing the information content, in terms of Shannon's information
entropy, of the neural firing rate statistics. We use
intrinsic adaption for self-regulating the bias, obtaining,
as a side effect, an effective sliding threshold for the
synaptic learning rule, in spirit of the BCM rule \citep{bienenstock1982theory}.
\section{Materials and Methods}
\label{Theory}
In the present work we consider rate encoding neurons for which
the output firing rate $y$ is obtained as a sigmoidal function of the
membrane potential $x$ via:
\begin{equation}
y = \sigma(x-b), \qquad
\sigma(z) = \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{-z}}, \qquad
x=\sum_{j=1}^{N_w} w_j (y_j-\bar y_j)~,
\label{eq_neuron_model}
\end{equation}
where $N_w$ is the number of input synapses, and $w_j$ and $y_j$
represent the synaptic weights and firing rates of the afferent
neurons respectively. The sigmoidal $\sigma(z)$ has a fixed gain
(slope) and the neuron has a single intrinsic parameter, the
bias $b$. The $\bar y_j$ represent the trailing averages of $y_j$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\bar y_j = \frac{y_j-\bar{y}_j}{T_y} ~,
\label{eq_dot_y_bar}
\end{equation}
with $T_y$ setting the time scale for the averaging.
Synaptic weights may take, for rate encoding neurons, both
positive and negative values and we assume here that
afferent neurons firing at the mean firing rate
$y_j\simeq \bar y_j$ do not influence the activity
of the postsynaptic neuron. This is a standard assumption
for synaptic plasticity which is incorporated in most
studies by appropriately shifting the mean of the
input distribution.
In what follows we will derive synaptic plasticity rules for
the $w_j$ and intrinsic plasticity rules that will optimize
the average magnitude of $x$ and set in this way, implicitly,
the gain of the transfer function. We have not included an
explicit gain acting on $x$ since any multiplicative constant
can be absorbed into the $w_j$ and, conversely, the average
value of the $w_j$ can be thought of as the gain of the
transfer function with rescaled $w_j$.
The firing rate $y$ of neurons has an upper limit,
an experimental observation which is captured by
restricting the neural output of rate encoding
neurons to the range $y\in[0,1]$. Here we consider with
\begin{equation}
F_{ob}(x,y) \ =\ E\left[\big(2+x\left(1-2y\right)\big)^2\right]
\label{eq_objectiveFunction}
\end{equation}
an objective function for synaptic plasticity rules
which treats the upper and the lower activity bounds
on an equal footing. $E[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation
value.
The functional $F_{ob}$ is positive definite and
can be expressed as in (\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}),
or purely as a function of either $x$ or $y=\sigma(x-b)$.
In Fig. \ref{F_ob}, $F_{ob}$ is plotted as a function of
$y$ for different values of the bias $b$. The functional
always presents two minima and diverges for extremal firing
rates $0/1$. In particular, for firing rates $y\to0/1$,
$F_{ob}$ is minimized by membrane potentials $x\to(-2)/2$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{F_ob.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The objective function $F_{ob}$, expression
(\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}), as a function of the
output firing rate $y$ for different values of the bias
$b$. $F_{ob}$ always has two minima and diverges for
extremal firing rates $y\to 0/1$, a feature responsible for inducing
output firing rates.
}
\label{F_ob}
\end{figure}
Minimizing (\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}) as an objective
function for deriving synaptic plasticity rules
will therefore lead to bounded membrane potentials
and hence necessarily to bounded learning rules,
devoid of runaway synaptic growth. The cost function
(\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}) generically has
two distinct minima, a feature setting it apart from
other objective functions for synaptic plasticity rules
\citep{intrator1992objective}. Moreover, the objective
function (\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}) can also be motivated
by considering the Fisher information of the postsynaptic
firing rate with respect to the synaptic flux, as shown in
section \ref{sec_Fisher}.
In section \ref{sec_flux_minimization}, via stochastic
gradient descent, the following plasticity rules for
the afferent synaptic weights $w_j$ will be derived:
\begin{equation}
\dot w_j \ =\ \epsilon_w G(x)H(x)(y_j-\bar{y}_j),
\label{eq_w_dot}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
G(x) = 2+x(1-2y),
\qquad \quad H(x) = (2y-1)+2x(1-y)y.
\label{eq_G_H}
\end{equation}
Here $\epsilon_w$ controls the rate of the synaptic
plasticity. The bias $b$ entering the sigmoidal
may be either taken to be constant or adapted via
\begin{equation}
\dot b \ =\ (-\epsilon_b) \big (1-2y + y(1-y) \lambda\big),
\label{eq_b_dot}
\end{equation}
in order to obtain a certain average postsynaptic
firing rate, where $\lambda$ is a control parameter,
as detailed out in section \ref{sec_flux_minimization}.
Eq.~(\ref{eq_b_dot}) leads to the optimization of
the statistical information content of the neural activity,
in terms of Shannon's information entropy; a process
also denoted intrinsic adaption \citep{triesch2007synergies}
or polyhomeostatic optimization \citep{markovic2010}.
Both adaption rules, (\ref{eq_w_dot}) for the
synaptic plasticity and (\ref{eq_b_dot}) for regulating
the average postsynaptic firing rate, interfere only
weakly. For instance one could take the bias $b$
as a control parameter, by setting $\epsilon_b\to0$, and
measure the resulting mean firing rate a posteriori. The
features of the synaptic adaption process remain unaffected
and therefore alternative formulations for the intrinsic adaption
of the bias could also be considered.
The synaptic plasticity rule (\ref{eq_w_dot})
involves the Hebbian factor $H(x)$, and a multiplicative
synaptic weight rescaling factor $G(x)$. Although here
$G$ and $H$ are presented as a function of $x$ and $y$,
these can also be expressed entirely in terms of $y$,
consistently with the Hebbian interpretation. It is
illustrative to consider the cases of small/large
postsynaptic neural activity. In the limit $y\to0/1$,
which is never reached, the updating rules
(\ref{eq_w_dot}) would read
\begin{equation}
\dot w_j \ \propto \
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
(2+x)\,(-1)\,(y_j-\bar y_j) && (y\to0)\\[0.5ex]
(2-x)\,(+1)\,(y_j-\bar y_j) && (y\to1)
\end{array}
\right. .
\label{eq_flux-adaption-limits}
\end{equation}
For the case that $|x|<2$ we hence have that
the synaptic strength decreases/increases for
an active presynaptic neuron with $y_j>\bar y_j$,
whenever the postsynaptic neuron is inactive/active,
an instance of Hebbian learning. The multiplicative
constraint $(2\pm x)$ in (\ref{eq_flux-adaption-limits})
results in a self-limitation of synaptic growth. Synaptic
potentiation is turned into synaptic depression whenever
the drive $x$ becomes too large in magnitude. Runaway
synaptic growth is hence not possible and the firing rate
will settle close to the minima of $F_{ob}$, compare
Fig.~\ref{F_ob}.
\subsection{Motivation in terms of Fisher Information}
\label{sec_Fisher}
The synaptic plasticity rules (\ref{eq_w_dot}) can be
derived either directly from the objective function
(\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}), as explained in
section \ref{sec_flux_minimization} or motivated
from an higher-order principle, the optimization
of the synaptic flux, as we will show in the
following. Synaptic weight competition could be
formulated, as a matter of principles, through
an ad-hoc constraint like
\begin{equation}
\sum_j \left(w_j\right)^2 \to \mathrm{const.},
\qquad
\mathbf{w}=(w_1,w_2,\dots)~,
\label{eq_w_hypersphere}
\end{equation}
which defines a hypersphere in the phase of afferent
synaptic weights $\{w_j\}$, together with some appropriate
Hebbian-type adaption rules. We will not make use
of (\ref{eq_w_hypersphere}) explicitly, but our
adaption rules implicitly lead to finite length
for the synaptic weight vector $\mathbf{w}$.
Synaptic plasticity will modify, quite generically, the
statistical properties of the distribution $p(y)$
of the firing rate $y$ of the postsynaptic neuron.
It is hence appropriate to consider the sensitivity
of the firing-rate distribution $p(y)$ with respect
to changes in the $w_j$. For this purpose one may
make use of the Fisher information
\begin{equation}
F_\theta \ =\ \int p(y)
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\ln\big(p(y)\big)\right)^2
dy~,
\label{eq_fisher_info}
\end{equation}
which encodes the sensitivity of a given probability distribution
function $p(y)$ with respect to a certain parameter $\theta$.
Here we are interested in the sensitivity with respect to
changes in the synaptic weights $\{w_j\}$ and define with
\begin{equation}
F_w \ =\ \int p(y)
\left(\sum_j w_j\frac{\partial}{\partial w_j}\ln\big(p(y)\big)\right)^2
dy~,
\label{eq_F_flux}
\end{equation}
the Fisher information with respect to the synaptic flux.
Expression (\ref{eq_F_flux}) corresponds to the
Fisher information (\ref{eq_fisher_info}) when
considering
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} \ \to \
\sum_j w_j\frac{\partial}{\partial w_j}
= \mathbf{w}\cdot\nabla_w,
\label{eq_flux_operator}
\end{equation}
as differential operator. The factors $w_j$ in front of the
$\partial/\partial w_j$ result in a dimensionless expression,
the generating functional (\ref{eq_F_flux}) is then invariant
with respect to an overall rescaling of the synaptic weights
and the operator (\ref{eq_flux_operator}) a scalar.
Alternatively we observe that
$w_j\partial/\partial w_j =\partial/\partial\log(w_j/w_0)$,
where $w_0$ is an arbitrary reference synaptic weight,
corresponding to the gradient in the space of logarithmically
discounted synaptic weights.
The operator (\ref{eq_flux_operator}), which we denote
{\em synaptic flux operator}, is, in addition, invariant
under rotations within the space of synaptic weights and
the performance of the resulting synaptic plasticity rules
will hence be also invariant with respect to the orientation
of the distributions $p(y_j)$ of the input activities $\{y_j\}$.
Physically, the operator (\ref{eq_flux_operator}) corresponds,
apart from a normalization factor, to the local flux
through the synaptic hypersphere, as defined by
Eq.~(\ref{eq_w_hypersphere}), since the synaptic vector
$\mathbf{w}$ is parallel to the normal vector through the
synaptic hypersphere, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_flux}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{flux-general.pdf}
\hspace{4ex}
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{flux-orthogonal.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
Illustration of the principle of minimal synaptic flux.
The synaptic flux, compare expression (\ref{eq_flux_operator}),
is the scalar product between the gradient
$\nabla_{\mathbf{w}}\log(p)$ and the normal vector of the
synaptic sphere, $\vec w/|\vec w|$ (left). Here we disregard the
normalization. The sensitivity $\nabla_{\mathbf{w}}\log(p)$ of
the neural firing-rate distribution $p=p(y)$, with respect
to the synaptic weights $\mathbf{w}=(w_1,w_2,w_3,\dots)$,
vanishes when the local synaptic flux is minimal (right),
viz when $\mathbf{w}\cdot\nabla_{\mathbf{w}}\log(p)\to0$.
At this point the magnitude of the synaptic weight
vector $\vec w$ will not grow anymore.
}
\label{fig_flux}
\end{figure}
The Fisher information (\ref{eq_F_flux}) can be considered as
a generating functional to be minimized with respect to the
synaptic weights $\{w_j\}$. The time-averaged properties of
the neural activities, as measured by $p(y)$, will then not
change any more at optimality; the sensitivity of the neural
firing-rate distribution, with respect to the synaptic weights,
vanishing for small $F_w$. At this point the neuron has
finished encoding the information present in the input data
stream through appropriate changes of the individual synaptic weights.
It is interesting to consider what would happen if one would
maximize the Fisher information instead of minimizing it. Then
the neural firing activity would become very sensitive to small
changes in the synaptic weights $\{w_j\}$ and information processing
unstable, being highly susceptible to noise, viz to small statistical
fluctuation of the synaptic weights. On a related note, the inverse
Fisher information constitutes, via the Cramer-Rao theory
\citep{paradiso1988theory,seung1993simple,gutnisky2008adaptive},
a lower bound for the variance when estimating an external parameter
$\theta$. In this context, the external parameter $\theta$ can be
estimated more reliably when the Fisher information is larger, viz when
the distribution considered is highly sensible to the parameter of
interest. This is a different setup. Here we are not interested in
estimating the value of the synaptic weights, but in deducing adaption
rules for the $\{w_j\}$.
\subsection{Synaptic flux minimization}
\label{sec_flux_minimization}
We are interested in synaptic plasticity rules which are
instantaneous in time, depending only on the actual pre- and
postsynaptic firing rates $y_j$ and $y$. Hence, the actual minimization
of the synaptic flux functional (\ref{eq_F_flux}) needs to be
valid for arbitrary distributions $p(y_j)$ of the presynaptic
firing activities $\{y_j\}$. The synaptic flux $F_w$, which is
in the first place a functional of the postsynaptic activity $p(y)$,
needs therefore to be reformulated in terms of the distributions
$p(y_j)$. A faithful representation of the postsynaptic firing-rate
distribution entering $F_w$ would involve a convolution over all
presynaptic $p(y_j)$ and would hence lead to intricate cross-synaptic
correlations \citep{bell1995information}. Our aim here, however, is to
develop synaptic plasticity rules for individual synapses, functionally
dependent only on the local presynaptic activity and on the overall
postsynaptic firing level. We hence consider for the minimization of
the synaptic flux all $j\in\{1,\dots,N_w\}$ synapses separately, viz we replace
(\ref{eq_F_flux}) by
\begin{eqnarray}
F_w &\to& \int \left(\sum_j w_j\frac{\partial}{\partial w_j}
\ln\left(\frac{p(y_j)}{\partial y/\partial y_j}\right)\right)^2
\prod_l p(y_l) dy_l \nonumber \\
&\equiv & \int f_w(y) \prod_l p(y_l)dy_l~,
\label{eq_F_flux_y_j}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have defined the kernel $f_w(y)$. We denote the approximation
(\ref{eq_F_flux_y_j}) the {\em local synapse approximation},
since it involves the substitution of $p(y)dy$ by $ \prod_l p(y_l)dy_l$.
Expression (\ref{eq_F_flux_y_j}) becomes exact for the case $N_w=1$.
It corresponds to the case in which the distinct afferent synapses
interact only via the overall value of the membrane potential $x$,
as typical for a mean-field approximation.
We then find, using the neural model (\ref{eq_neuron_model}),
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial y}{\partial y_j} \ =\ y(1-y)w_j
\label{eq_partial_y_partial_y_j}
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}
f_w(y) \ = \
\left(\sum_j w_j\left(\frac{1}{w_{j}}+(y_j-\bar y_j)(1-2y) \right) \right)^2
\ =\ \Big(N_w+x(1-2y) \Big)^2
\label{eq_F_w_kernel}
\end{equation}
where $N_w$ is the number of afferent synapses.
The kernel $f_w$ is a function of $y$ only, and not of
the individual $y_j$, since $x=\sum_j w_j(y_j-\bar y_j)$.
More fundamentally, this dependency is a consequence of
choosing the flux operator (\ref{eq_flux_operator})
to be a dimensionless scalar.
Taking $N_w\to2$ in (\ref{eq_F_w_kernel}) leads to the
objective function (\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}) and
results in $G(x)$ and $H(x)$ being proportional
to each other's derivatives, with the roots and maxima
respectively aligned. We however also performed simulations
using the generic expression (\ref{eq_F_w_kernel}), with
the results changing only weakly and quantitatively.
The synaptic weights are updated so that $f_w(y)$
becomes minimal, $\dot w_j \propto - \partial f_w(y)/\partial w_j$,
obtaining the plasticity rule (\ref{eq_w_dot}).
This procedure corresponds to a stochastic steepest
descent of the objective function (\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}),
a procedure employed when one is interested in obtaining
update rules independent of the actual distributions
$p(y_j)$ of the afferent neural activities.
For the derivation one
makes use of $\partial y/\partial w_j = (y_j-\bar y_j)(1-y)y$.
The synaptic plasticity rule (\ref{eq_w_dot}) depends via
$y_j-\bar y_j$ on the activity $y_j$ of the presynaptic neuron
relatively to its mean firing rate $\bar y_j$. This dependence
models experimental findings indicating that, in the context of spike
timing dependent plasticity, low-frequency stimulation generically
induces causal depression
\citep{shouval2010spike,lisman2010questions,feldman2012spike};
one needs above-average firing rates for causal potentiation.
Note that synaptic competition is present implicitly in the updating rule
through the membrane potential $x$, entering both $G(x)$ and $H(x)$,
which integrates all individual contributions; the local synapse
approximation (\ref{eq_F_flux_y_j}) only avoids explicit cross synaptic
learning.
We denote the two factors on the right-hand side of (\ref{eq_w_dot}),
$G(x)$ and $H(x)$, as self-limiting and Hebbian respectively;
with $H(x)$ being, by construction, the derivative of $G(x)$.
The derivative of $H(x)$ is also proportional to $G(x)$
since we substituted $N_w\to2$ in the objective function
on the right-hand-side of Eq.~(\ref{eq_F_w_kernel}). With this
choice, the two factors $G(x)$ and $H(x)$ are hence conjugate
to each other.
The synaptic plasticity rule (\ref{eq_w_dot}) works robustly for
a wide range of adaption rates $\epsilon_w$, including the case
of online learning with constant updating rates. For all simulations
presented here we have used $\epsilon_w=0.01$. We constrained the
activities of the presynaptic neurons $y_j$, for consistency,
to the interval $[0,1]$, which is the same interval of postsynaptic
firing rates. Generically we considered uni- and bi-modal Gaussian
inputs centered around $\bar y_j=0.5$, with individual standard
deviations $\sigma_j$. We considered in general $\sigma_j=0.25$
for the direction having the largest variance, the dominant direction,
with the other directions having smaller standard deviations,
typically by a factor of two.
\subsection{Emergent sliding threshold}
One may invert the sigmoidal $\sigma(x)$ via
$x=b-\log\big((1-y)/y\big)$ and express the adaption
factors solely in terms of the neural firing rate $y$.
For the Hebbian factor $H(x)$, see Eq.~(\ref{eq_G_H}),
one then finds
\begin{equation}
H(y) = (2y-1)\,+\, 2y(1-y)\left[b-\log\big((1-y)/y\big)\right]~.
\label{eq_H_y}
\end{equation}
The bias $b$ hence regulates the crossing point from anti-Hebbian
(for low neural activity $y<y^*_H$) to Hebbian learning
(for large firing rates $y>y^*_H$), where $y^*_H$ is the root of
$H(y)$. $y^*_H$ depends only on $b$
(as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_GH_roots}), emerging then indirectly
from the formulation of the objective function
(\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}), and plays the role of a sliding
threshold. This sliding threshold is analogous to the one
present in the BCM theory \citep{bienenstock1982theory},
which regulates the crossover from anti-Hebbian to Hebbian
learning with increasing output activity and which is
adapted in order to keep the output activity within a
given working regime.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Rooots.pdf}\hspace{1ex}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Rooots_Outputs.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
{The roots of the adaption factors.}
Left: The roots $G(x^*_{0,1})=0$ and $H(x^*)=0$ respectively,
compare Eqs.~(\ref{eq_G_H}) and (\ref{eq_G_H}), as
a function of the bias $b$. Note that the roots do
not cross, as the factors $G$ and $H$ are conjugate
to each other.
Right: The respective values $y(x^*)$ of the neural
activity. Note that $y(x_1^*)-y(x_0^*)\ge 1/2$, for
all values of the bias.
}
\label{fig_GH_roots}
\end{figure}
The bias $b$ regulates, in addition to its role determining the
effective sliding threshold for synaptic plasticity, the mean
firing rate. In principle, one may consider an ad-hoc update rule
like $\dot b\propto (\mu-\bar y)$ for the bias, where
$\mu=\int y p_\lambda(y) dy$ is some given target firing
rate and where $\bar y$ would be a sliding average of $y$.
We will however use, alternatively, an information theoretical
objective function for the intrinsic adaption of the bias.
The Kullback-Leibler divergence
\begin{equation}
D = \int dy\, p(y)\log\left(\frac{p(y)}{p_\lambda(y)}\right),
\qquad p_\lambda(y) = \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\lambda y}}{N_\lambda}
\label{eq_D_KL}
\end{equation}
measures the distance between the actual firing-rate distribution
$p(y)$ and a given target distribution $p_\lambda(y)$. It will
be minimal if $p_\lambda(y)$ is approximated as well as possible.
An exponential target distribution, as selected here, maximizes
the information content of the neural activity in terms
of information entropy, given the constraint of a fixed mean $\mu$,
both for a finite support $y\in[0,1]$, as considered here,
as well as for an unbounded support, $y>0$, with $N_\lambda$
being the appropriate normalization factor. For $\lambda\to0$
a uniform target distribution is recovered together with
$\mu\to0.5$ and the resulting $p(y)$ becomes symmetric with
respect to $y=0.5$.
Following a derivation which is analogous to the one given
above for the case of synaptic flux minimization, one
finds Eq.~(\ref{eq_b_dot}) for the adaption rules
\citep{triesch2007synergies,linkerhand2013self}.
For the adaption rate $\epsilon_b$ for the bias
we used in our simulations generically $\epsilon_b=0.1$,
its actual value having only a marginal influence on
the overall behavior of the adaption processes.
Minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence and
the Fisher information are instances of
polyhomeostatic optimization
\citep{markovic2010,markovic2012intrinsic}, as one
targets to optimize an entire probability distribution
function, here $p(y)$. An update rule like
$\dot b\propto (\mu-\bar y)$ would, on the other side,
correspond to a basic homeostatic control, aiming to
regulate a single scalar quantity, such as the mean
firing rate.
\subsection{Fixpoints of the limiting factor}
The self-limiting factor $G(x)$ has two roots $x^*_G$,
compare Fig.~\ref{fig_GH_roots}. For $b=0$ one finds
$x^*_G\approx\pm 2.4$ corresponding to firing-rates
$y^*_G=0.083$ and $y^*_G=0.917$ respectively,
compare also Fig.~\ref{fig_GH_roots}. The roots
of $G(x)$ are identical with the two minima of the
objective function $F_{ob}$, compare (\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}).
The self-limiting nature of the synaptic adaption rules
(\ref{eq_w_dot}) is a consequence of the two roots of $G(x)$,
as larger (in magnitude) membrane potentials will reverse the
Hebbian adaption to an anti-Hebbian updating. The roots of
$G(x)$ induce, in addition, the tendency of performing
a binary classification. As an illustration consider the case
of random sequences of discrete input patterns
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{y}^\eta,
\qquad\quad \eta =1,\dots,N_{patt}~,
\label{eq_y_in_gamma}
\end{equation}
with the number of input patterns $N_{patt}$ being
smaller than the number of afferent neurons,
$N_{patt}\le N_w$. The inputs $(y_1,\dots,y_{N_w})=\mathbf{y}$
are selected randomly out of the set (\ref{eq_y_in_gamma})
of $N_{patt}$ patterns and presented consecutively for
small time intervals. The synaptic updating rules will then
lead, as we have tested through extended simulations, to a
synaptic vector $\mathbf{w}$ dividing the space of input
patterns into two groups,
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rclrrcr}
\mathbf{w}\cdot\left(\mathbf{y}^\eta-\mathbf{\bar y}\right) &=& x^*_G(1) &
\qquad \mathrm{for} & \gamma N_{patt} & \mathrm{states} & \mathbf{y}^\eta\\[0.5ex]
\mathbf{w}\cdot\left(\mathbf{y}^\eta-\mathbf{\bar y}\right) &=& x^*_G(2) &
\qquad \mathrm{for} & (1-\gamma) N_{patt} &\mathrm{states} & \mathbf{y}^\eta
\end{array}~,
\label{eq_binary_classifier}
\end{equation}
which is a solvable set of $N_{patt}$ equations for $N_w$
variables $(w_1,w_2,\dots)$. Here we have denoted with
$x^*_G(1)$ and $x^*_G(2)$ the two distinct roots of $G(x)$,
and with
$\mathbf{\bar y}=\left(\sum_\eta\mathbf{y}^\eta\right)/N_{patt}$
the mean input activity.
This outcome of the long-term adaption corresponds to
a binary classification of the $N_{patt}$ vectors. The
membrane potential $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{w}\cdot\mathbf{y}$
just takes two values, for all inputs $\mathbf{y}$ drawn
from the the set of input patterns.
There is one free parameter in (\ref{eq_binary_classifier}),
namely the fraction $\gamma$ and $(1-\gamma)$ of patterns
mapped to $x^*_G(1)$ and $x^*_G(2)$ respectively. This
fraction $\gamma$ is determined self-consistently by the system,
through the polyhomeostatic adaption (\ref{eq_b_dot}) of
the bias $b$, with the system trying to approximate as close
as possible the target firing-rate distribution
$\propto\mathrm{exp}(\lambda y)$, see Eq.~(\ref{eq_D_KL}).
\section{Results}
\label{Results}
In order to test the behavior of the neuron under
rules (\ref{eq_w_dot},\ref{eq_b_dot}) when presented
with different input distributions, a series of
numerical simulations have been performed. In the
following sections, the evolution of the system when
faced with static input distributions is first studied.
In particular, principal component extraction and linear
discrimination tasks are evaluated. These results are
then extended to a scenario of varying input distributions
and a fading memory effect is then analyzed.
\subsection{Principal component extraction}
As a first experiment we consider the case of $N_w$
input neurons with Gaussian activity distributions
$p(y_j)$. In this setup a single component, namely
$y_1$, has standard deviation $\sigma$ and all other $N_w-1$
directions have a smaller standard deviation of $\sigma/2$, as
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(A). We have selected,
for convenience, $y_1$ as the direction of the principal
component. The synaptic updating rule (\ref{eq_neuron_model})
is however fully rotational invariant in the space
of input activities and the results of the simulations
are independent of the actual direction of the
principal component. We have verified this independence
by running simulations with dominant components selected
randomly in the space of input activities.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cr}
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (A)}\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{PCA.pdf}&
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (B)}\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{Input_Ellipsoid.pdf}\\
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (C)}\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Output_distribution_Ellipsoid.pdf}&
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (D)}\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{Output_Ellipsoid.pdf}\\
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (E)}\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Weight_Distribution_E.pdf}&
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (F)}\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{Weights_Ellipsoid.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
{Alignment to the principal component.}
Simulation results for a neuron with $N_w=100$
input neurons with Gaussian input distributions
with one direction (the principal component) having twice the
standard deviation than the other $N_w-1$ directions.
\textbf{(A)}
Illustration of the input distribution density $p(y_1,y_2,\dots)$, with
the angle $\alpha$ between the direction of the
principal component ($\overline{PC}$) and $\overline{w}$, the synaptic weight vector.
\textbf{(B)}
Time series of the membrane potential $x$ (blue), the bias $b$ (yellow),
the roots $x^*_G$ of the limiting factor $G(x)$ (red) and the
root $x^*_H$ of the Hebbian factor $H(x)$ (green).
\textbf{(C)}
The evolution of the angle $\alpha$ of the synaptic weight vector
$\mathbf{w}$ with respect to the principal component and
(inset)
the output distribution $p(y)$ (red) with respect to the target
exponential (blue).
\textbf{(D)}
Time series of the output $y$ (blue) and of the roots
$y^*_G$ of the limiting factor $G(y)$ (red) and the
root $y^*_H$ of the Hebbian factor $H(y)$ (green).
\textbf{(E)}
Distribution of synaptic weights $p(w)$ in the stationary
state for large times.
\textbf{(F)}
Time evolution of the first ten synaptic weights $\{w_j\}$,
separately for the principal component (upper panel) and
for nine other orthogonal directions (lower panel).
}
\label{fig_PCA}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA} we present the result for
$N_w=100$ afferent neurons and $\lambda=-2.5$
for the target distribution $p_\lambda(y)$, compare
Eq.~(\ref{eq_D_KL}) in section \ref{Theory}.
The initial synaptic weights $\{w_j\}$ have
been randomly drawn from $[-0.005:0.005]$ and
are hence quite small, such that the learning rule
is initially exclusively Hebbian,
viz the membrane potential $x$ is substantially
smaller than the roots $x^*_G$ of the limiting
factor $G(x)$ (compare Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(B) where
$x$/$x^*_G$ are given by the blue/red dots respectively).
Hebbian synaptic growth then eventually leads
to larger weights, with the weight along the
principal component (here $w_1$, red line in
Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(F)) becoming very large.
At this stage, the membrane potential $x$ starts to cross
the roots $x^*_G$ of the limiting factor $G(x)$ and a stationary
state results, with the weight along the principal component
saturating and with the weights along the non-principal components
involved in bounded random drifts. This stationary state, with
continuously ongoing online learning, remains stable for arbitrary
simulation times.
The firing rate $y(t)$ covers the whole available interval
$[0,1]$, in the stationary state, and a sliding threshold emerges
self-consistently. This sliding threshold is given by the root
$x^*_H$ of the Hebbian factor $H(x)$; learning is Hebbian/anti-Hebbian
for $y>y(x^*_H)$ and $y<y(x^*_H)$ respectively. For our simulation the
sliding threshold is about $y(x^*_H)\simeq0.4$
(green dots in Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(D)) in the stationary state.
The angle $\alpha$ between the direction of the synaptic weight
vector $\mathbf{w}$ and the principal component of input activities
is initially large, close to the random value of $\pi/2$, dropping
close to zero with forthgoing synaptic adaption, as shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(C), a consequence of the growth of $w_1$. In
Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(E) we plot the distribution of the $w_j$, with
a separate scale for the principal component, here $w_1\approx 9.1$ (as
averaged over 100 runs). The small components are Gaussian distributed
around zero with a standard deviation of $\sigma_w^{(non)} \approx 0.23$,
we have hence a large signal-to-noise ratio of
$S_w = |w_1|/\sigma_w^{(non)}\approx 9.1/0.23\approx 40$.
We also present in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(C) a
comparison between the actual firing-rate distribution
$p(y)$ in the stationary state and the exponential target
distribution $\propto\exp(\lambda y)$, entering the
Kullback-Leibler divergence, see Eq.~(\ref{eq_D_KL}).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Mean_Final_Ratio.pdf}
\hspace{1ex}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Mean_Final_Angle.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
{Scaling of the adaption rules with the number of afferent neurons.}
For constant simulating parameters the signal to noise ratio (left),
defined as the ratio $|w_1|/\sigma_w^{(non)}$, where $w_1$ is
the synaptic strength parallel to the principal component and
$\sigma_w^{(non)}$ the standard deviation of the orthogonal synaptic
directions, compare Eq.~(\ref{eq_alpha_N_w}), and the mean angle (right),
of the synaptic weight vector with respect to the principal component.
Shown are results for a range, 2:1, 4:1, 8:1, 16:1 and 32:1,
of the incoming signal-to-noise ratios, defined as the
ratio of the standard deviations between the large and the small
components of the distributions of input activities $p(y_j)$.
The outgoing signal-to-noise ratio $|w_1|/\sigma_w^{(non)}$
remains essentially flat, as a function of $N_w$; the increase
observed for the average angle $\alpha$ is predominantly a statistical
effect, caused by the presence of an increasingly large number
of orthogonal synaptic weights. The orthogonal weights are all individually
small in magnitude, but their statistical influence sums up
increasingly with raising $N_w$.
}
\label{fig_N_scaling}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Signal-to-noise scaling}
For synaptic adaption rules to be biologically significant
they should show stable performance even for large numbers $N_w$
of afferent neurons, without the need for fine-tuning of the
parameters. This is the case for our plasticity rules.
In Fig.~\ref{fig_N_scaling} we present the scaling behavior of the
synaptic weight configuration. We consider both a large range for the
number $N_w$ of afferent neurons and an extended range for the incoming
signal-to-noise ratio. The input activity distributions $p(y_j)$
are Gaussians with standard deviations $\sigma_j=\sigma_\perp$
for ($j=2,\dots,N_w$), and with the dominant direction having a width
$\sigma_1$. We define the incoming signal-to-noise ratio as
$S_i=\sigma_1/\sigma_\perp$, and investigate values for $S_i$ of
2:1, 4:1, 8:1, 16:1 and 32:1. Shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_N_scaling}
is the evolution of the outgoing signal-to-noise ratio, as a function of
inputs $N_w$, and the evolution of the angle $\alpha$. All simulation
parameters are kept otherwise constant.
We define the outgoing signal-to-noise ratio as
$S_w=|w_1|/\sigma_w^{(non)}$ where $w_1$ is the synaptic weight
along the principal component and $\sigma_w^{(non)}$ the standard
deviation of the remaining synaptic weights (compare Eq.~(\ref{eq_alpha_N_w})
of the appendix). The outgoing signal-to-noise ratio is
remarkably independent of the actual number $N_w$ of
afferent neurons. $S_w$ shows, in addition, a threshold behavior,
remaining finite even for data input streams characterized by
small $S_i$. For large value of incoming signal-to-noise ratio
a linear scaling $S_w\propto S_i$ is recovered.
Regarding the angle $\alpha$, the performance deteriorates, which
increases steadily with $N_w$. This is however a dominantly statistical
effect. In the appendix we show how the angle $\alpha$ increases
with $N_w$ for a constant outgoing signal-to-noise ratio $S_w$.
This effect is then just a property of angles in large dimensional
spaces and is independent of the learning rule employed.
It is interesting to compare the simulation results
with other updating rules, like Oja's rule \citep{oja1997nonlinear},
\begin{equation}
\dot w_j \ =\ \epsilon_{oja} \left[y(y_j-\bar y_j) -
\alpha\, y^2 w_j\right]~.
\label{eq_Oja}
\end{equation}
The original formulation used $\alpha=1$ for the relative
weighting of the decay term in (\ref{eq_Oja}). We find
however, for the case of non-linear neurons considered here,
that Oja's rule does not converge for $\alpha\gtrsim 0.1$.
For the results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_distributions}
we adapted the bias using (\ref{eq_b_dot}) both
when using Oja's rule (\ref{eq_Oja}) and for our
plasticity rule (\ref{eq_w_dot}). The parameter $\epsilon_{oja}$
was chosen such that the learning times (or the number of input
patterns) needed for convergence matched, in this case
$\epsilon_{oja}$ = 0.1. With Oja's rule, arbitrarily
large outgoing signal-to-noise ratios are achievable for
$\alpha\to0$. In this case the resulting $p(y)$ becomes
binary, as expected. There is hence a trade-off and only
intermediate values for the outgoing signal-to-noise ratio
are achievable for smooth firing-rate distributions $p(y)$.
Note that Sanger's rule \citep{sanger1989optimal} reduces to
Oja's rule for the case of a single neuron, as considered here.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Outdis_cut.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
{The output distribution function and the signal to noise ratio.}
The averaged firing-rate distributions $p(y)$ for $N_w=100$ and
and the parameter set used previously, compare Fig.~\ref{fig_N_scaling}.
In comparison the $p(y)$ resulting when using a modified Oja's rule,
see Eq.~(\ref{eq_Oja}), for the synaptic plasticity. Depending
on the parameter $\epsilon$, controlling the strength of the
weight decay in (\ref{eq_Oja}), arbitrary large signal-to-noise
ratios $S_w$ can be achieved, on the expense of obtaining binary output
distributions. Note that the form of $p(y)$ is roughly comparable,
for similar signal-to-noise ratios, for the two approaches. The
output tends to cluster, however, around the target mean for
smaller $S_w$ and Oja's rule.
}
\label{fig_distributions}
\end{figure}
We also attempted to compare with the results of the BCM theory
\citep{bienenstock1982theory,intrator1992objective,cooper2012bcm}.
The BCM update rule also finds nicely the direction of
the principal component, but runaway synaptic growth occurs
generically in the case of the type of neurons considered in
our study, being non-linear and having an maximal possible
firing rate, with $y\in[0,1]$. This is due to the fact
that the upper cut-off of the firing rate preempts, in general,
the sliding threshold to raise to values necessary to induce
a large enough amount of synaptic weight decay. For the input
distributions used throughout this study we could not
avoid runaway synaptic growth for the BCM rule.
\subsection{Linear discrimination}
An important question regards the behavior of neural learning
rules when no distinct principal component is present in the
data input stream. In Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT} we present data for
the situation where two dominant directions have the same
standard deviation $\sigma\approx 0.22$, here for $p(y_1)$
and $p(y_2)$, with the remaining $N_w-2$ directions having
a smaller standard deviation $\sigma/4$. In our experiment
the first direction, $y_1$ is a unimodal Gaussian, as
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT}(A), with the second
direction, $y_2$ being bimodal. The two superposed Gaussian
distributions along $y_2$ have individual widths $\sigma/4$
and the distance between the two maxima has been adjusted so
that the overall standard deviation along $y_2$ is also $\sigma$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rr}
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (A)}\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{LDT.pdf}&
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (B)}\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{Input_2Clusters.pdf}\\
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (C)}\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Output_distribution_2Clusters.pdf} &
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (D)}\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{Output_2Clusters.pdf}\\
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (E)}\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Input_dis.pdf}&
\raisebox{1ex}{\bf (F)}\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{Weights_2Clusters.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{
{Linear discrimination of bimodal input distributions.}
Simulation results for a neuron with $N_w=100$ with
two directions having the same variance (but one being
bimodal) and the other $N_w-2$ directions
having a standard deviation four times smaller.
\textbf{(A)}
Illustration of the input distribution density $p(y_1,y_2,\dots)$.
\textbf{(B)}
Time series of the membrane potential $x$ (blue), the bias $b$ (yellow),
the roots $x^*_G$ of the limiting factor $G(x)$ (red) and the
root $x^*_H$ of the Hebbian factor $H(x)$ (green).
\textbf{(C)}
The evolution of the angle $\beta$ of the synaptic weight vector
$\mathbf{w}$ with respect to the axis linking the two ellipsoids and
(inset) the output distribution $p(y)$ (red) in comparison to the target
exponential (blue).
\textbf{(D)}
Time series of the output $y$ (blue) and of the roots
$y^*_G$ of the limiting factor $G(y)$ (red) and the
root $y^*_H$ of the Hebbian factor $H(y)$ (green).
\textbf{(E)} Illustration of the distribution functions used,
the bimodal competing with the Normal distributed (alternatively
with a double exponential) having the same variance, all other
directions being normally distributed with a four times smaller
standard distribution.
\textbf{(F)}
Time evolution of the first ten synaptic weights $\{w_j\}$,
separately for the principal component (upper panel) and
for nine other orthogonal directions (lower panel).
}
\label{fig_LDT}
\end{figure}
The synaptic weight vector aligns, for most randomly drawn
starting ensembles $\{w_j\}$, with the bimodal direction,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT}(C). In this case the system
tries to adjust its parameters, namely the synaptic
weights and the bias $b$ so that the two peaks of the
bimodal principal component are close to the two zeros $x^*_G$
(red symbols in Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT}(B))
of the limiting factor $G(x)$ in the adaption rule
(\ref{eq_w_dot}). This effect is clearly present in the
results for the membrane potential (blue symbols in
Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT}(B)), clustering around the roots
of $G(x)$. The system performs, as a result, a linear
discrimination with a bimodal output firing rate,
presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT}(D).
One possibility to characterize the deviation of a probability
distribution from a Gaussian is the excess kurtosis $\kappa$
\citep{decarlo1997meaning},
\begin{equation}
\kappa = \frac{Q_j}{\sigma_j^4}-3,
\quad\quad
Q_j = \int (y_j-\bar y_j)^4p(y_j)dy_j,
\quad\quad
\sigma_j^2 = \int (y_j-\bar y_j)^2p(y_j)dy_j~,
\label{eq_excess_kurtosis}
\end{equation}
with the normal distribution having, by construction, a
vanishing $\kappa\to0$. The excess kurtosis tends to be small
or negative on a finite support $p_j\in[0,1]$. Distributions characterized
by a positive $\kappa$ show pronounced tails. This statement
also holds for truncated Gaussians, as used in our simulations.
We have generalized the experiment presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT} by
studying the pairwise competition between three distributions
having all the same standard deviation $\sigma$, but varying
values of $\kappa$, compare Fig.~\ref{fig_LDT}(E): A
bimodal distribution with $\kappa =-1.69$, a unimodal Gaussian
with $\kappa = -0.63$ and a unimodal double exponential
with $\kappa=-0.43$.
Running the simulation one thousand times, with randomly drawn
initial conditions, the direction with lower $\kappa$ was
selected $88.8\%$ / $65.4\%$ / $64.0\%$ of the times
when the competing directions were bimodal vs.\ double exponential
/ Gaussian vs.\ double exponential / bimodal vs.\ Gaussian.
In none of the cases would both the first and the second synaptic
weights, $w_1$ and $w_2$, acquire large absolute
values.
The underlying rationale for the updating rules favoring directions
with negative excess kurtosis can be traced back to the inherent
symmetry $F_{ob}(-x,1-y))=F_{ob}(x,y))$ of the objective function
(\ref{eq_objectiveFunction}), which in turn is a consequence of treating
both large and small firing rates on an equal footing in $F_{ob}$. There
are two equivalent minima for $F_{ob}$ to which the maxima of a binary
distribution are mapped, as discussed in section \ref{Theory}.
We have repeated this simulation using the modified Oja's rule
(\ref{eq_Oja}), using $\alpha=0.1$ and $\epsilon_{oja}=0.1$.
We find a very distinct sensitivity, with the relative probability
for a certain input direction to be selected being
$97.0\%$ / $99.8\%$ / $42.1\%$
when the competing directions were bimodal vs.\ double exponential
/ Gaussian vs.\ double exponential / bimodal vs.\ Gaussian.
Note that all our input distributions are centered around 0.5
and truncated to $[0,1]$. Oja's rule has a preference for
unimodal distributions and a strong dislike of double
exponentials. However, the excess kurtosis does not seem to
be a determining parameter, within Oja's rule, for the
directional selectivity.
\subsection{Continuous online learning - fading memory}
Another aspect of relevance concerns the behavior of synaptic plasticity
rules for continuous online learning. A basic requirement is the absence
of runaway growth effects in the presence of stationary input statistics.
But how should a neuron react when the statistics of the afferent input
stream changes at a certain point? Should it adapt immediately, at a very
short time scale or should it show a certain resilience, adapting to the
new stimuli only when these show a certain persistence?
We have examined the behavior of the adaption rules upon a sudden change
of firing-rate statistics of the afferent neurons. We find, as presented
in Fig.~\ref{fig_online_learning}, that the new statistics is recognized
autonomously, with a considerable resilience to unlearn the previously
acquired information about the statistics of the input data stream. The
synaptic plasticity rules (\ref{eq_w_dot}) do hence incorporate a fading
memory.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Weight_Shift_Chain.pdf}
\vspace{2ex}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Weight_Shift_Chain_oja.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{
{Continuous online learning and weak forgetting.}
The effect of changing the statistics of the input firing
rates $p(y_j)$. During (a), (b) and (d) the principal axis
is along $y_1$, $y_2$ and $y_3$ respectively, during (c)
there in no principal component. There are $N_w=100$
afferent neurons, shown is the time evolution of the first
ten synaptic weights. The standard deviations of the afferent
neurons is $\sigma$ for the principal direction, if there
is any, and $\sigma/2$ for all other directions,
compare Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}. During(c) all inputs have
identical standard deviations $\sigma/2$. The initial weight
distribution is randomly drawn. The top/bottom panel
show the results using respectively our synaptic updating
rule (\ref{eq_w_dot}) and Oja's rule (\ref{eq_Oja}).
Note that it takes considerably longer, for our updating rule,
to unlearn than to learn from scratch. Learning and unlearning
occurs, on the other side, at the same timescale for Oja's rule.
}
\label{fig_online_learning}
\end{figure}
In our experiment we considered $N_w=100$ afferent neurons, with Gaussian
firing distributions having standard deviation $\sigma$ for the principal
component and $\sigma/2$ for the remaining $N_w-1$ directions. The sign
of the synaptic weights are not of relevance, as the input distributions
$p(y_j)$ are symmetric with respect to their means, taken to be $0.5$.
The direction of the principal component is then changed several times,
everything else remaining otherwise unchanged.
The starting configuration
$\{w_j\}$ of synaptic weights has been drawn randomly from $[-0.005:0005]$
and the initial learning is fast, occurring on a time scale of
$T_{initial}\approx 10^4$ updatings, compare Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}, using the
same updating rates $\epsilon_w=0.01$ and $\epsilon_b=0.1$ as throughout
this paper. The time the neuron takes to adapt to the new input statistics
is however of the order of $T_{unlearn}\approx 10^6$, viz about two orders
of magnitude larger than $T_{initial}$. New information is hence acquired
at a slower rate; the system shows a substantial resilience to unlearn
previously acquired memories.
One can observe in Fig.~\ref{fig_online_learning} an overshoot of the
principal synaptic weight, just before the unlearning starts, as
the system tries to keep the membrane potential $x$ within its
working regime, compare Fig.~\ref{fig_PCA}(D). The system reacts
by increasing the largest synaptic weight when the variance
of the input drops along the corresponding afferent direction, before
it can notice that the principal component of the afferent activities
has also changed.
Also included in the simulation presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_online_learning}
is a phase without any principal component, the statistics of all incoming
$p(y_j)$ being identical, viz with the covariance matrix being proportional
to unity. One notices that the neuron shows a marked resilience to forget the
previously acquired knowledge, taking about $5\cdot 10^7$ updates in order to
return to a fully randomized drifting configuration of synaptic weights
$\{w_j\}$. The synaptic plasticity rule (\ref{eq_w_dot}) hence leads to an
extended fading memory, which we believe to be a consequence of its
multiplicative structure.
For comparison we have repeated the same experiment using the modified
Oja's rule (\ref{eq_Oja}), using $\alpha=0.1$ (which yields the same
signal-to-noise ratio, compare Fig.~\ref{fig_distributions}), and
$\epsilon_{oja}=0.1$, such that the initial learning rates
(achieving 90\% of the stationary value for the principal component)
are comparable for both updating rules. We also kept the same updating
(\ref{eq_b_dot}) for the bias. For Oja's rule learning and unlearning occurs
on very similar time scales, reacting immediately to changes in the statistics
of the input activities.
It is presently not entirely clear which form of unlearning is present in the
brain, on the level of individual neurons. While studies in prefrontal cortex have
shown full learning and unlearning of different categories in binary
classification tasks, related in this context to the concept of adaptive coding
\citep{duncan2001adaptive}, more complex behavioral responses tend
however to exhibit slow or incomplete unlearning such as extinction of paired
cue - response associations, in the context of Pavlovian conditioning
\citep{myers2002behavioral,quirk2007neural}. It is also conceivable that a
fading memory may possibly be advantageous in the context of noisy environments
with fluctuating activity statistics.
\section{Discussion}
\label{Discussion}
Objective functions based on information theoretical principles
play an important role in neuroscience
\citep{intrator1992objective,lengelle1996training,goodhill1997unifying,kay2011coherent}
and cognitive robotics \citep{sporns2006evolving,ay2008predictive}.
Many objective functions investigated hitherto use either
Shannon's information directly, or indirectly by considering
related measures, like predictive and mutual entropy
\citep{kraskov2004estimating}, or the Kullback-Leibler
divergence. Objective functions are instances,
from a somewhat larger perspective, of generating functionals, as
they are normally used to derive equations of motion for the neural
activity, or to deduce adaption rules for secondary variables
like synaptic weights or intrinsic parameters. Here we discuss
an objective function which may be either motivated by its
own virtue, as discussed in section \ref{Theory}, or
by considering the Fisher information as a generating functional.
The Fisher information encodes the sensitivity of a given
probability distribution function, in our case the distribution
of neural firing rates, with respect to a certain parameter
of interest. Cognitive information processing in the brain is
all about changing the neural firing statistics and we hence
believe that the Fisher information constitutes an interesting
starting point from where to formulate guiding principles for
plasticity in the brain or in artificial systems. In particular,
we have examined the Fisher information with respect to changes
of the synaptic weights. Minimizing this objective function,
which we denoted as the synaptic flux, we find self-limiting
adaption rules for unsupervised and autonomous learning. The
adaption rules are Hebbian, with the self limitation leading
to synaptic competition and an alignment of the synaptic weight
vector with the principal component of the input data stream.
Synaptic plasticity rules for rate encoding neurons are crucial
for artificial neural networks used for cognitive tasks and
machine learning, and important for the interpretation of the
time-averaged behavior of spiking neurons. In this context our
adaption rules make two predictions, which one may eventually test
experimentally. The first prediction concerns the adaption in the
situation where more than one dominant component is present in the
space of input activities. Our model implies for this case a robust
tendency for the synaptic weight vector to favor directions in the space
of input activities being bimodal, characterized by a negative kurtosis.
Our adaption rules have a second implication, regarding the robustness
of acquired memories with respect to persistent changes of the statistics
of the input activities, in the context of continuous and unsupervised
online learning. We predict that it is considerably easier for the
neuron to detect relevant features in the space of input activities
when starting from a virgin state of a random synaptic configuration.
New features will still be extracted from the stream of input activities,
and old ones unlearned at the same time, once the initial synaptic adaption
process has been completed, albeit at a much slower pace. This feature can
be interpreted as a sturdy fading memory.
We have extensively examined the robustness of the behavior of
the synaptic plasticity rules upon variation of the simulation setup.
All results presented here remain fully valid when changing, e.g.\
the adaption rate $\epsilon_w$, in particular we have examined
$\epsilon_w=0.1$ and $\epsilon_w=0.001$. We have also studied other
forms of input activities $p(y_j)$ and found only quantitative changes
for the response. For example, we have considered exponentially
distributed input statistics, as a consistency check with the target
output distribution function. We hence believe that the here proposed
synaptic plasticity rules are robust to a considerable degree, a
prerequisite for viable plasticity rules, both in the context of biological
and artificial systems.
The synaptic plasticity rule (\ref{eq_w_dot}) is a product of
two conjugate factors, the limiting factor $G(x)$ and the
Hebbian factor $H(x)$. Runaway synaptic growth occurs,
as we have verified numerically, when setting $G(x)$ to a constant.
Unlimited synaptic growth occurs despite the emergence of a sliding
threshold (see Eq.~(\ref{eq_H_y}) of section \ref{Theory}) as
the firing rate $y(t)\in[0,1]$ is bounded. Runaway synaptic growth
results in increasing (positive and negative) large membrane potentials
$x(t)$, with the firing becoming binary, accumulating at the boundaries,
viz $y\to0$ and $y\to1$.
Finally we comment on the conceptual foundations of this work.
The adaptive time evolution of neural networks and the continuous
reconfiguration of synaptic weights may be viewed as a self-organizing
processes guided by certain target objectives
\citep{gros2010complex,prokopenko2009guided,friston2010free,linkerhand2013generating}.
A single objective function will in general not be enough for
generating dynamics of sufficient complexity, as necessary for neural
circuitry or synaptic reconfiguration processes. It has indeed been
noted that the interplay between two or more generating functionals
may give rise to highly nontrivial dynamical states
\citep{linkerhand2013generating,gros2014generating}.
In this context, it is important to note that several generating
functionals may in general not be combined to a single overarching
objective function. Dynamical systems can hence show, under the
influence of competing objective functions, complex self-organizing
behavior \citep{linkerhand2013generating,gros2014generating}.
In the present work we propose that the interplay between two specific
objective functions, namely the Fisher information for the synaptic
flux and the Kullback-Leibler divergence for the information content
of the neural firing rate, give rise, quite naturally, to a set of
viable adaption rules for self-limiting synaptic and intrinsic plasticity
rules.
\section{Acknowledgments}
\label{Acknowledgments}
R.E.\ acknowledges stimulating discussions at the
OCCAM 2013 workshop. The support of the German Science
Foundation (DFG) is acknowledged.
\section{Appendix: Modeling adaption for large numbers of
transversal directions}
\label{Large_N}
For simulations with $N_w$ Gaussian input distributions $p(y_j)$
the synaptic weight vector adapts to
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{w} = (w_1,w_2,\dots,w_{N_w}),
\qquad\quad w_1\gg w_k\qquad (k\ge2)~,
\label{eq_PCA_w}
\end{equation}
when $p(y_1)$ is assumed to have the largest standard deviation
$\sigma_1$, with all other $p(y_k)$, for $k=2,\dots, N_w$
having a smaller standard deviation $\sigma_k$. The angle
$\alpha$ between the synaptic weight vector and the direction
$(1,0,\dots,0)$ of the principal component is hence given by
\begin{equation}
\cos(\alpha) = \frac{w_1}{\sqrt{w_1^2+\sum_{k>1} w_k^2}}
= \frac{w_1}{\sqrt{w_1^2+(N_w-1)\left(\sigma_w^{(non)}\right)^2}}
\approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_w}} \frac{w_1}{\sigma_w^{(non)}} ~,
\label{eq_alpha_N_w}
\end{equation}
where we have defined with
$\sigma_w^{(non)}=\left(\sum_{k>1} w_k^2\right)/(N_w-1)$
the averaged standard deviation of the non-principal components
(which have generically a vanishing mean). In our simulation
we find, compare Fig.~\ref{fig_N_scaling}, an outgoing signal-to-noise
ratio $S_w=|w_1|/\sigma_w^{(non)}$ which is remarkably
independent of $N_w$ and hence that $\alpha$ approaches
$\pi/2$ like $\pi/2-r/\sqrt{N_w}$ in the limit of large
numbers $N_w\to\infty$ of afferent neurons, where $r$
is a constant, independent of $N_w$. This statistical
degradation of the performance, in terms of the angle $\alpha$,
is hence a variant of the well known curse of dimensionality
\citep{jain2000statistical}.
\bibliographystyle{frontiersinSCNS&ENG}
|
\section{Introduction}
Hyperbolic geometry is a consistent geometry where the Euclidean Playfair's parallel postulate is discarded and replaced by the existence of many lines $U$ not intersecting another given line $L$ and passing through a given point $P\not\in L$ (the $U$'s are said {\em ultra-parallel}\footnote{{\em Parallel} lines intersect at infinity in hyperbolic geometry.} to $L$).
Hyperbolic geometry can be studied using various models~\cite{VHVD-2014}: Poincar\'e disk or upper plane conformal models, Klein non-conformal model disk model, hyperboloid conformal model, etc.
From the viewpoint of computational geometry, we prefer to use Klein model where lines/bisectors are Euclidean straight~\cite{HVDeasy-2010} and then convert the output to the desired model for visualization or navigation purposes~\cite{VHVD-2014}.
We report further novel results for constructing hyperbolic Voronoi diagrams (HVDs) in Klein model~\cite{HVDeasy-2010} and present yet another approach to get Klein-type affine bisectors/diagrams from the hyperboloid\footnote{\underline{Hyperbol}ic geometry stems from the \underline{hyperbol}oid model.} model.
\section{HVDs from lower envelopes}
The {\em Voronoi diagram} of a set $\mathcal{P}=\{p_1, ..., p_n\}$ of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$ w.r.t. $D(\cdot,\cdot)$ can be computed equivalently as the {\em minimization diagram} of $n$ functions by observing that
$D(x,p_i)\leq D(x,p_j) \Leftrightarrow F_i(x)\leq F_j(x)$ where $F_l(x)=D(x,p_l)$, $l\in\{1, ..., n\}$.
Thus the {\em combinatorial structures} are congruent: $\mathrm{Vor}_D(\mathcal{P}) \cong \min_{l\in\{1, ...,n\}} F_l(x)$.
Furthermore, this minimization diagram amounts to compute the {\em lower envelope} of $n$ graph functions in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$:
$\mathcal{F}_l:\{(x,y=F_l(x))\ :\ x\in \mathbb{R}^d\}$.
Let $\inner{x}{p}=x^\top p=\sum_{i=1}^d x^{(i)} p^{(i)}$ denotes the Euclidean inner product.
In the Klein model~\cite{HVDeasy-2010}, the distance between two points $x$ and $p$ in the open unit ball domain $\mathbb{B}_d=\{ x\in\mathbb{R}^d : \inner{x}{x}<1\}$ is $D^K(x,p)=\mathrm{arccosh} \frac{1-\inner{x}{p}}{\sqrt{1-\inner{x}{x}}\sqrt{1-\inner{p}{p}}}$ where
$\mathrm{arccosh}(x)=\log(x+\sqrt{x^2-1})$ for $x\geq 1$ is a monotonically increasing function.
Since the Voronoi diagram does not change by composing the distance with a monotonous function, we consider the equivalent Klein distance $d^K(x,p)=\frac{1-\inner{x}{p}}{\sqrt{1-\inner{x}{x}}\sqrt{1-\inner{p}{p}}}$.
To each point $p_i\in\mathcal{P}$ corresponds a function $F_i(x)=d^K(x,p_i)$.
Since the denominator $\sqrt{1-\inner{x}{x}}$ is common to all functions, the minimization diagram is equivalent to the minimization diagram
of $F_i'(x)=\frac{1-\inner{x}{p_i}}{\sqrt{1-\inner{p_i}{p_i}}}$.
The graph $\mathcal{F}_i'=\{ (x,y=F_i(x)) : x\in\mathbb{B}_d \}$ are {\em hyperplanes} in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ defined on $\mathbb{B}_d$, and the lower envelope can thus be computed from the intersection of $n$ halfspaces $H_i^-: y\leq \frac{1-\inner{x}{p_i}}{\sqrt{1-\inner{p_i}{p_i}}}$, yielding the Voronoi unbounded polytope in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$.
\begin{theorem}
The HVD of $n$ points can be computed in the Klein model as the intersection of $n$ half-spaces in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ and by projecting vertically ($\downarrow$ $H_0: y=0$) the polytope on $\mathbb{R}^d$, and clipping it with the unit ball domain: $\mathrm{Vor}_{d^K}(\mathcal{P})=((\cap_{i=1}^n H_i^{-})\downarrow H_0)\cap \mathbb{B}_d$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Lifting sites to a potential function}
In Euclidean (and more generally Bregman geometry), the Voronoi polytope is built by lifting points to tangent hyperplanes to a {\em potential function} $y=F(x)$ at site locations. This is the paraboloid lifting transformation: $y=F(x)=\inner{x}{x}$ ($y=F(x)$ for a convex Bregman generator $F$).
\begin{theorem}
In the Klein ball model, the {\em potential function} for lifting generators to hyperplanes is the {\em concave} function
$y=F(x)=\sqrt{1-\inner{x}{x}}$ restricted to $\mathbb{B}_d$.
\end{theorem}
Proof:
Let us identify the hyperplane equation $H(p): y=\frac{1-\inner{p}{x}}{\sqrt{1-\inner{p}{p}}}$ with
the hyperplane tangent at $p$ to a potential function $y=F(x)$:
$\inner{\nabla F(p)}{x-p}+F(p)=\inner{x}{\nabla F(p)} + F(p)-\inner{p}{\nabla F(p)}$.
We have $\nabla F(p)=-\frac{p}{\sqrt{1-\inner{p}{p}}}$ and the remaining term (independent of $x$) is $\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\inner{p}{p}}}$.
The anti-derivative of $\nabla F(x)=-\frac{x}{\sqrt{1-\inner{x}{x}}}$ is $\sqrt{1-\inner{x}{x}}+c$, and the constant $c$ solves to zero.
This is the equation $y^2+\inner{x}{x}=1$ of the northern hemisphere for $y\geq 0$.
Observe that the hyperplanes tend to become vertical as we near the boundary domain $\partial\mathbb{B}_d$, and are vertical at the boundary.
\section{$k$-order hyperbolic Voronoi diagrams}
Since the Klein bisector is affine, the $k$-order HVD is affine. We present two construction methods.
\subsection{$k$-HVDs from levels of an arrangement of hyperplanes}
This is a straightforward generalization of the Euclidean procedure using the $\sqrt{1-\inner{x}{x}}$ potential function.
The $k$-order HVD is a {\em cell complex} that can be built by projecting to $\mathbb{R}^d$ all the $(d+1)$-dimensional cells at $k$-level of the arrangement of the site hyperplanes $\mathcal{H}:\{H_1, ..., H_n\}$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ and clipping the structure to $\mathbb{B}_d$.
Figure~\ref{fig:example} displays some $k$-order diagrams and illustrates some degenerate cases.
\def0.33\columnwidth{0.33\columnwidth}
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[bb=0 0 512 512,width=0.33\columnwidth]{Figures/Klein-1-Voronoi-border_1.png} &
\includegraphics[bb=0 0 512 512,width=0.33\columnwidth]{Figures/Klein-2-Voronoi-border_1.png} \\
(a) & (b) \\
\includegraphics[bb=0 0 1024 1024,width=0.33\columnwidth]{Figures/Vor-Klein-9.png} &
\includegraphics[bb=0 0 1024 1024,width=0.33\columnwidth]{Figures/Deg2-Vor-Klein-8.png} \\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{HVD for $k=1$ (a) and $k=2$ (b).
HVD with all unbounded cells (c), and pencil of parallel bisectors intersecting at $\partial\mathbb{B}_d$ (d).
}%
\label{fig:example}%
\end{figure}
\subsection{$k$-HVDs from power diagrams}
Consider all subsets of size $k$, $\mathcal{P}_k={\mathcal{P}\choose k}=\{\mathcal{K}_1, ..., \mathcal{K}_N\}$ with $N={n\choose k}$.
Those {\em subset generators} partition the space into {\em non-empty $k$-order Voronoi cells}:
$$
\mathrm{Vor}_k(\mathcal{K}_i) = \{x: \forall q\in\mathcal{K}_i, \forall r\in \mathcal{P}\backslash\mathcal{K}_i,\ D(x,q)\leq D(x,r)\}.
$$
Observe that $x\in\mathrm{Vor}_k(\mathcal{K}_i)$ iff $\sum_{p\in\mathcal{K}_i} D(x,p) \leq \sum_{p'\in\mathcal{K}_j} D(x,p')$.
In Klein model with $D=d^K$, we define the function $\sigma_{\mathcal{K}_i}(x) = \sum_{x\in \mathcal{K}_i} \frac{1-\inner{x}{p_i}}{\sqrt{1-\inner{p_i}{p_i}}}$, and
$x\in\mathrm{Vor}_k(\mathcal{K}_i) \Leftrightarrow h_{\mathcal{K}_i}(x)\leq h_{\mathcal{K}_j}(x)\ \forall j\not=i$.
By identifying those hyperplane equations with the generic power diagram hyperplane $h(x): y=-2\inner{x}{c}-w+\inner{c}{c}$ for a ball centered at $c$ and radius $r^2=w$ ($r$ may be imaginary when $w<0$), we transform each $k$-subset $\mathcal{K}_i$ in Klein model into a weighted point (or ball) $\mathrm{ball}(c_i,w_i)$:
$c_i=\sum_{p\in\mathcal{K}_i} \frac{p}{2\sqrt{1-\inner{p}{p}}}$ and $w_i=\inner{c_i}{c_i}- \sum_{p\in\mathcal{K}_i} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\inner{p}{p}}}$.
This method is only practical if when we consider all subsets $\mathcal{K}_i$ that yields non-empty cells, otherwise we have $N={n\choose k}$ too many balls to be tractable!
\section{HVDs from the hyperboloid model}
Consider the symmetric bilinear form $L=\mathrm{diag}(-1,1, ...,1)$ in Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{1,d}$: $\inner{p}{q}_L=p^\top L q=-p^{(0)}q^{(0)}+\sum_{i=1}^d p^{(i)}q^{(i)}$. The hyperboloid model is defined on the upper sheet domain $\mathbb{L}^+=\{ \innerL{x}{x}=-1,\ x_0>0 \}$ (interpreted as a sphere $\innerL{x}{x}=R^2$ of imaginary radius $R=i$).
For $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we denote $x^L$ its point obtained by vertically rising $(\cdot,x)$ on $\mathbb{L}^+$: $x^L=(\sqrt{1+\inner{x}{x}},x)$, called Weierstrass coordinates.
The hyperbolic distance is expressed by $D^L(p^L,q^L)=\mathrm{arccosh} (-\innerL{p^L}{q^L})$ and is equivalent to $d^L(p^L,q^L)=-\innerL{p^L}{q^L}$.
For two points $p^L$ and $q^L$ on $\mathbb{L}^+$, the bisector equation is $\innerL{x^L}{p^L-q^L}=0$.
The bisector is an hyperbola of equation $\left(\sqrt{1+\inner{p}{p}}-\sqrt{1+\inner{q}{q}}\right) \sqrt{1+\inner{x}{x}} + \inner{q-p}{x} = 0, x\in\mathbb{R}^d \ (*)$.
This hyperbola bisector is contained in a hyperplane $H(p,q)$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ passing through the origin $O$:
$H(p,q) : (\sqrt{1+\inner{p}{p}}-\sqrt{1+\inner{q}{q}}) x_0 + \inner{q-p}{x} = 0$.
The Klein disk model is obtained from $\mathbb{L}^+$ by a central projection $\pi$ from the origin to the hyperplane $H_1: x_0=1$: $\pi \myvec{x_0}{x}=\myvec{1}{x'=\frac{x}{x_0}=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+\inner{x}{x}}}}$. The disk center touches the apex of $\mathbb{L}^+$.
Let $a_{p,q}=\sqrt{1+\inner{p}{p}}-\sqrt{1+\inner{q}{q}}$.
Multiplying $(*)$ by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\inner{x}{x}}}$, we have the bisector written as
$\inner{q-p}{x'}+a_{p,q}=0$, an affine bisector in $x'$.
Now consider $\pi_{c,l}$ the {\em generic} central projection of $\mathbb{L}^+$ from $C=(c,0)$ to the hyperplane $H_l:x_0=l$ so that $\pi=\pi_{0,1}$.
We have
$\pi_c \myvec{\sqrt{1+\inner{x}{x}}}{x} = \myvec{l}{x_{c,l}=\frac{l-c}{\sqrt{1+\inner{x}{x}}-c} x}, c\not = 1$.
Choosing $c=0$ and $0<l\leq 1$ yields the same construction procedure but the clipping of the equivalent power diagram~\cite{HVDeasy-2010} need to be done on a disk of size $l$ since
$\|x_{c,l}\|= \| \frac{l}{\sqrt{1+\inner{x}{x}}}x\| \leq l$, $\forall x\in\mathbb{R}^d$.
Note that clipping may destroy bounded cells of the affine diagram as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:clipping}.
Thus a remaining open question is to report an optimal output-sensitive construction of the $k$-order HVDs.
A video illustrating the hyperbolic Voronoi diagrams using the five common models of hyperbolic geometry is available online~\cite{HVDvideo}.
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/exHVD-P.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/exHVD-K.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{Figures/exHVD-PDunboundedcells.pdf}
\\
(a) & (b) & (c)
\end{tabular}
\caption{The hyperbolic Voronoi diagram in conformal Poincar\'e disk (a) is obtained by a radial scaling transformation of the HVD in non-conformal Klein disk (b) that is itself built as an equivalently clipped power diagram (c). Observed that some bounded cells of the power diagram are cut by the boundary cutting circle.
}%
\label{fig:clipping}%
\end{figure}
\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we focus on the phase structure of $Z(N)$ lattice gauge theories
(LGTs), which are interesting on their own and can provide for useful insights
into the universal properties of $SU(N)$ LGTs, being $Z(N)$ the center subgroup
of $SU(N)$. The most general action for the $Z(N)$ LGT is
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm gauge} \ = \ \sum_x \sum_{n<m} \ \sum_{k=1}^N \beta_k
\cos \left( \frac{2 \pi k}{N} \left(s_n(x) + s_m(x+e_n)
-s_n(x+e_m) - s_m(x) \right) \right) \ .
\label{action_gauge}
\end{equation}
Gauge fields take on values $s_n(x)=0,1,\cdots,N-1$ and are defined on the links
of the lattice. $Z(N)$ gauge models can generally be divided into two classes:
{\em standard Potts} models (all $\beta_k$ equal) and {\em vector} models
(otherwise). The conventional vector model corresponds to $\beta_k=0$ for all
$k>1$. For $N=2,\ 3$ the Potts and vector models are equivalent.
An extended description of the phase structure of $Z(N)$ LGTs in three
dimension can be found in~\cite{3d_zn_strcoupl,ZN_fin_T,ZN_zero_T}.
In those papers we explored the phase structure of the vector
$Z(N)$ LGTs for $N>4$. We considered first an anisotropic lattice in the
limit where the spatial coupling vanishes~\cite{3d_zn_strcoupl} and were
able to present both renormalization group (RG) and numerical evidences
for the existence of two BKT-like phase transitions: a
(i) {\em first transition}, from a symmetric, confining phase to
an intermediate phase, where the $Z(N)$ symmetry is enhanced to $U(1)$
symmetry; (ii) a {\em second transition}, from the intermediate phase to a
phase with broken $Z(N)$ symmetry. We computed also some critical indices,
which appear to agree with the corresponding indices of $2D$
$Z(N)$ spin models, thus giving further support to the Svetitsky-Yaffe
conjecture~\cite{Svetitsky}. In particular, we found that the magnetic
critical index $\eta$ at the first transition, $\eta^{(1)}$, takes the
value 1/4 as in $2D$ $XY$, while its value at the second transition,
$\eta^{(2)}$, is equal to $4/N^2$. Then, we extended our analysis to the full
isotropic $3D$ $Z(N)$ LGT at finite temperature~\cite{ZN_fin_T} and
confirmed by numerical Monte Carlo simulations~\cite{ZN_fin_T} that the full
gauge models with $N>4$ possess two phase transitions of the BKT type, with
critical indices coinciding with those of $2D$ vector spin models.
Here we extend the study of Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T} to other values of $N$ and
to $N_t=8$ and aim at checking the scaling near the continuum limit and
at establishing the scaling formula for critical points with $N$.
In particular, the theory of dimensional cross-over~\cite{caselle} explains
how critical couplings and indices of a finite temperature LGT (finite $N_t$)
approach critical couplings and indices of the corresponding zero-temperature
theory ($N_t \to \infty$). This provides us with a way to crosscheck our
zero-temperature results~\cite{ZN_zero_T} and thus predict the critical
temperature in the continuum limit.
The standard approach for studying a BKT transition consists in using Binder
cumulants and susceptibilities of the Polyakov loop to determine critical
couplings and critical indices. Here, as in Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T}, we follow a
different strategy: we move to a dual formulation and use Binder cumulants and
susceptibilities of {\em dual $Z(N)$ spins}. This implies that (i) the critical
behavior of dual spins is reversed with respect to that of Polyakov loops,
namely the spontaneously-broken ordered phase is mapped to the symmetric phase
and {\it vice versa}; (ii) the magnetic critical indices $\eta$ are
interchanged, whereas the index $\nu$ is expected to be the same (=1/2) at both
transitions (see Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T} for details). The obvious advantage of
this approach is that cluster algorithms become available, with considerable
speed up in the numerical procedure.
\section{Theoretical setup}
The $3D$ $Z(N)$ gauge theory on an anisotropic $3D$ lattice $\Lambda$ can
generally be defined as
\begin{equation}
Z(\Lambda ;\beta_t,\beta_s;N) \ = \ \prod_{l\in \Lambda}
\left ( \frac{1}{N} \sum_{s(l)=0}^{N-1} \right ) \ \prod_{p_s} Q(s(p_s)) \
\prod_{p_t} Q(s(p_t)) \; ,
\label{PTdef}
\end{equation}
where the link angles $s(l)$ are combined into the conventional plaquette angle
\begin{equation}
s(p) \ = \ s_n(x) + s_m(x+e_n) - s_n(x+e_m) - s_m(x) \ .
\label{plaqangle}
\end{equation}
Here, $e_n$ ($n=0,1,2$) denotes a unit vector in the $n$-th direction and
the notation $p_t$ ($p_s$) stands for the temporal (spatial) plaquettes.
Periodic boundary conditions (BC) on gauge fields are imposed in all
directions. The most general $Z(N)$-invariant Boltzmann weight with $N-1$
different couplings is
\begin{equation}
Q(s) \ = \
\exp \left [ \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \beta_p(k) \cos\frac{2\pi k}{N}s \right ] \ .
\label{Qpgen}
\end{equation}
The Wilson action corresponds to the choice $\beta_p(1)=\beta_p$,
$\beta_p(k)=0, k=2,...,N-1$, which is the one adopted in this work.
Furthermore, we will consider an isotropic lattice: $\beta_s=\beta_t=\beta$.
Our study is based on the mapping of the gauge model to a generalized $3D$
$Z(N)$ spin model on a dual lattice $\Lambda_d$, whose action is
\begin{equation}
\label{modaction}
S \ =\ \sum_{x}\ \sum_{n=1}^3 \sum_{k = 1}^{N-1} \ \beta_k \
\cos \left( \frac{2 \pi k}{N} \left(s(x) - s(x+e_n) \right) \right) \ .
\end{equation}
The dual mapping is realized once one specifies the relationship between the
original gauge coupling $\beta$ and the dual effective couplings $\beta_k$.
This has been done in Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T} (see also Ref.~\cite{ukawa}) and
the result is
\begin{equation}
\beta_k \ =\ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{p = 0}^{N - 1} \ln \left [ \frac{Q_d(p)}
{Q_d(0)} \right ] \ \cos \left(\frac{2 \pi p k}{N} \right) \ .
\label{couplings}
\end{equation}
For $N=5$ it can be seen explicitly~\cite{ZN_fin_T} that $|\beta_1|\gg
|\beta_2|$, thus suggesting that the $3D$ vector spin model with only $\beta_1$
non-vanishing gives already a reasonable approximation of the gauge model.
Moreover the weak and the strong coupling regimes are interchanged, {\it i.e.}
when $\beta\to\infty$ the effective couplings $\beta_k\to 0$ and, therefore,
the ordered symmetry-broken phase is mapped to a symmetric phase with vanishing
magnetization of dual spins, whereas the symmetric phase at small $\beta$
becomes an ordered phase where the dual magnetization is non-zero. The
interchange of phases under the dual mapping is not a special feature of $N=5$,
but is rather a general property valid for any $N$.
In Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T} it was also discussed that at the
critical point $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$ of the first transition of the LGT
(from the symmetric to the intermediate phase), the {\em dual}
correlation function scales with a critical index $\eta$ equal to the
index $\eta^{(2)}=4/N^2$ of the Polyakov loop correlator in the LGT, while
at the critical point $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$ of the second transition
in the LGT (from the intermediate to the broken phase), it scales with
a critical index $\eta$ equal to the index $\eta^{(1)}=1/4$ of the Polyakov
loop correlator in the LGT. This can be proved in the Villain formulation of
the $2D$ theory and only conjectured (but confirmed numerically) in the $3D$
case~\cite{ZN_fin_T}.
\section{Numerical setup and results}
The $3D$ $Z(N)$ spin model, dual of the $3D$ $Z(N)$ Wilson LGT, has been
simulated by means of a cluster algorithm on $N_t \times L \times L$ lattices
with periodic BC. The system has been studied for $N$ = 5, 6, 8, 12, 13
and 20 on lattices with the temporal extension $N_t$=2, 4, 8. With respect
to our previous work~\cite{ZN_fin_T}, we considered new values of
$N$ (6, 8, 12, 20) and included also $N_t=8$. We focused on the following
observables:
\begin{itemize}
\item complex magnetization $M_L = |M_L| e^{i \psi}$, with
$M_L \ =\ \sum_{x \in \Lambda} \exp \left( \frac{2 \pi i}{N} s(x) \right)$,
where we stress that $s(x)$ is a dual spin variable;
\item real part of the rotated magnetization, $M_R = |M_L| \cos(N \psi)$,
and normalized rotated magnetization, $m_\psi = \cos(N \psi)$;
\item susceptibilities of $M_L$ and $M_R$, $\chi_L^{(M)}$, $\chi_L^{(M_R)}$:
\ \ $\chi_L^{(\mathbf\cdot)} \ =\ L^2 N_t \left(\left< \mathbf\cdot^2 \right>
- \left< \mathbf\cdot \right>^2 \right)$;
\item Binder cumulants $U_L^{(M)}$ and $B_4^{(M_R)}$:
\ \ $U_L^{(M)}\ =\ 1 - \frac{\left\langle \left| M_L \right| ^ 4
\right\rangle}{3 \left\langle \left| M_L \right| ^ 2 \right\rangle^2}\;,
\;\;\;\;\;
B_4^{(M_R)}\ =\ \frac{\left\langle \left| M_R
- \left\langle M_R \right\rangle \right| ^ 4 \right\rangle}
{\left\langle \left| M_R - \left\langle M_R \right\rangle \right| ^ 2
\right\rangle ^ 2 }$.
\end{itemize}
To determine the critical couplings of the {\em second transition point},
$\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$, we have looked for the value of $\beta$ at which the curves
giving the Binder cumulant $U_L^{(M)}(\beta)$ on lattices with different
size $L$ ``intersect'' (see Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T2} for details).
The same method can in principle be used for the couplings of the
{\em first transition}, $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$, using either the Binder cumulant
$B_4^{(M_R)}$ or $m_\psi$; it turned out, however, that the precision required
by this method on these observables could not be met with a sensible simulation
time. For this reason, as the position of the first critical point we used our
previous determinations given in Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T}, where
$\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$ was taken as the value of $\beta$ at which
$B_4^{(M_R)}$ and $m_\psi$ plotted {\it versus} $(\beta-\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)})
{\ln L}^{1/\nu}$ show the best overlap for different values of $L$.
The results of the determinations of $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$ and
$\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$ are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl:crit_betas}.
\begin{table}[tb]
\caption[]{Values of $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$ and $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$ obtained
for various $N_t$ in $3D$ $Z(N)$ with $N = 5,\ 6,\ 8,\ 12,\ 13$ and 20.}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$ & $N_t$ & $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$ & $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$ \\
\hline
5 & 2 & 1.617(2) & 1.6972(14) \\
5 & 4 & 1.943(2) & 1.9885(15) \\
5 & 6 & 2.05(1) & 2.08(1) \\
5 & 8 & 2.085(2) & 2.1207(9) \\
5 & 12 & 2.14(1) & 2.16(1) \\
\hline
6 & 2 & - & 2.3410(15) \\
6 & 4 & - & 2.725(12) \\
6 & 8 & - & 2.899(4) \\
\hline
8 & 2 & - & 3.8640(10)\\
8 & 4 & 2.544(8) & 4.6864(15) \\
8 & 8 & 3.422(9) & 4.9808(5) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\hspace{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$ & $N_t$ & $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$ & $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$ \\
\hline
12 & 2 & - & 8.3745(5) \\
12 & 4 & - & 10.240(7) \\
12 & 8 & - & 10.898(5) \\
\hline
13 & 2 & 1.795(4) & 9.735(4) \\
13 & 4 & 2.74(5) & 11.959(6) \\
13 & 8 & 3.358(7) & 12.730(2) \\
\hline
20 & 2 & - & 22.87(4) \\
20 & 4 & 2.57(1) & 28.089(3) \\
20 & 8 & 3.42(5) & 29.758(6) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tbl:crit_betas}
\end{table}
For the critical couplings at the second transition, $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$,
where determinations for many values of $N$ are available, we tried to
find a simple scaling dependence with $N$ at fixed $N_t$.
From the solution of the renormalization group equations for $2D$
$Z(N)$ spin model, we know that in that model $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}(N)$ grows
as $N^2$ for large $N$~\cite{2d_zn}. In~\cite{3d_zn_strcoupl} we have found
that this is the case also for the $3D$ $Z(N)$ LGT at finite temperature, at
least in the strong coupling limit. Taking inspiration from Ref.~\cite{bhanot},
we started from a scaling law written in the form
$\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}(N) = A/(1-\cos{2\pi/N})$. Then, considering that
the next non-negligible correction comes at the order $1/N^2$, we added a
second term and ended up with the same scaling function we used in
the zero-temperature case~\cite{ZN_zero_T},
\[
\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}(N) = \frac{A}{(1-\cos{2\pi/N})} + B (1-\cos{2\pi/N})\;.
\]
In Table~\ref{tbl:ndep2} we report the values of the parameters $A$ and $B$
for $N_t=2,\ 4,\ 8$, while Figs.~\ref{fig:ndep2} shows the fitting functions
against numerical data.
\begin{table}[tb]
\caption{Parameters of the scaling with $N$ of the second transition point,
$\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)} = A /{(1-\cos{2\pi/N})} + B (1-\cos{2\pi/N})$ at fixed
$N_t$.}
\label{tbl:ndep2}
\small
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c||}
\hline
$N_t$ & $A$ & $B$ & $\chi^2_{\rm r}$ \\
\hline
2 & 1.1194(11) & 0.141(24) & 209 \\
4 & 1.37440(60) & -0.0046(88) & 18.2 \\
8 & 1.45745(57) & 0.0155(53) & 16.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{plot_nt2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{plot_nt4.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{plot_nt8.pdf}
\caption[]{Scaling function $A/(1-\cos{2\pi/N}) + B (1-\cos{2\pi/N})$
{\it versus} data for $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$ at $N_t=2,\ 4,\ 8$ (from left to
right).}
\label{fig:ndep2}
\end{figure}
Finding the continuum limit of the finite temperature theory in the first
or in the second transition amounts to extrapolate the corresponding critical
couplings, $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}$ or $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}$, to the limit
$N_t\to\infty$ at fixed $N$.
The theory of dimensional cross-over~\cite{caselle} suggests the fitting
function to be used:
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\rm c}^{(1,2)}(N_t) = \beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(1,2)}
- (N_t a T_{\rm c})^{-1/\nu}\;,
\label{fit_cont}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(1,2)}$ and $\nu$ are the critical couplings
and the critical index of the zero-temperature theory. Since we know that,
for any $N$, the $3D$ $Z(N)$ LGT at zero-temperature exhibits only one
phase transition, with the critical index $\nu$ depending on the side from
which the transition is approached~\cite{ZN_zero_T}, we expect that, for
a given $N$, the fit parameters $\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(1)}$ and
$\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(2)}$ take the same value and agree with the
zero-temperature critical coupling at the same $N$.
As for the fit parameter $\nu$, we expect it to agree with the value of the
critical index $\nu$ at one of the two sides of the zero-temperature transition.
We fitted with the function given in~(\ref{fit_cont}) our data for the
critical couplings $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}(N_t)$ at $N$=5 and for the critical
couplings $\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}(N_t)$ at $N$=5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 20 (see
Table~\ref{tbl:clim}). In some cases
in the fit we fixed either $\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(1,2)}$ or $\nu$, or both, at the
values known from the zero-temperature theory~\cite{ZN_zero_T}. The scenario
which emerges from the inspection of Tables~\ref{tbl:clim} is that, despite
the large reduced chi-squared obtained
in a few cases, the agreement between the fit parameters
$\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(1,2)}$ and the known zero-temperature critical
couplings~\cite{ZN_zero_T} is satisfactory. As for the value of the fit
parameter $\nu$, results are not precise enough to discriminate
between the known values of the critical index $\nu$ of the zero-temperature
theory at one or the other side of the transition~\cite{ZN_zero_T}.
This analysis allows us for the determination of the critical temperature
$a T_{\rm c}$ in the continuum limit for all the values of $N$ considered
in this work.
\begin{table}[tb]
\caption[]{Results of the fit of $\beta_{\rm c}^{(1)}(N_t)$ for $N=$ and of
$\beta_{\rm c}^{(2)}(N_t)$ for $N$=5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 20 with the
function~(\ref{fit_cont}). Parameters are given without errors when their
values were fixed at the known results of the $T=0$ corresponding
theory~\cite{ZN_zero_T} (for the $\nu$ index we considered both the values at
the left and at the right of the $T=0$ critical point). Parameters are given
with a (-) mark when their errors are unavailable and with a ${}^{*}$ mark when
obtained from fits on data with $N_t=4,\ 8$ only (in general, $N_t=2,\ 4,\ 8$
were considered).}
\label{tbl:clim}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$ & $aT_{\rm c}$ & $\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(1)}$ & $\nu$ & $\chi_{\rm r}^2$\\
\hline
& 0.790(5) & 2.198(9) & 0.84(3) & 1.21 \\
& 0.764(14) & 2.144(9) & 0.670 & 23.1 \\
& 0.758(16) & 2.135(11) & 0.640 & 33.6 \\
5 & 0.786(7) & 2.17961 & 0.788(10) & 2.66 \\
& 0.722(16) & 2.17961 & 0.670 & 105 \\
& 0.709(19) & 2.17961 & 0.640 & 171 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$ & $aT_{\rm c}$ & $\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(2)}$ & $\nu$ & $\chi_{\rm r}^2$\\
\hline
& 0.868(-) & 2.23055(-) & 0.877(-) & - \\
& 0.813(27) & 2.177(12) & 0.670 & 158 \\
& 0.803(30) & 2.170(14) & 0.640 & 223 \\
5 & 0.825(38) & 2.17961 & 0.692(45) & 131 \\
& 0.810(13) & 2.17961 & 0.670 & 81.8 \\
& 0.776(31)${}^{*}$ & 2.17961 & 0.670 & 74.2${}^{*}$ \\
& 0.789(17) & 2.17961 & 0.640 & 161 \\
& 0.731(18)${}^{*}$ & 2.17961 & 0.640 & 31.4${}^{*}$ \\
\hline
& 0.6814(-) & 3.04317(-) & 0.876(-) & - \\
& 0.6769(76) & 2.977(10) & 0.674 & 5.02 \\
& 0.6740(85) & 2.969(12) & 0.642 & 6.90 \\
6 & 0.6832(46) & 3.00683 & 0.768(15) & 1.14 \\
& 0.6573(47) & 3.00683 & 0.674 & 22.6 \\
& 0.572(13)${}^{*}$ & 3.00683 & 0.674 & 1.44${}^{*}$ \\
& 0.6487(60) & 3.00683 & 0.642 & 40.6 \\
& 0.542(21)${}^{*}$ & 3.00683 & 0.642 & 4.48${}^{*}$ \\
\hline
& 0.42330(-) & 5.14422(-) & 0.674(-) & - \\
& 0.42378(12) & 5.14299(25)& 0.672 & 0.19 \\
& 0.4316(22) & 5.1225(46) & 0.637 & 66.5 \\
8 & 0.4294(12) & 5.12829 & 0.648(6) & 33.0 \\
& 0.4287(39) & 5.12829 & 0.672 & 321 \\
& 0.4427(39)${}^{*}$& 5.12829 & 0.672 & 177${}^{*}$ \\
& 0.4298(19) & 5.12829 & 0.637 & 86.1 \\
& 0.4216(10)${}^{*}$& 5.12829 & 0.637 & 2.21${}^{*}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$ &$aT_{\rm c}$ & $\beta_{{\rm c},\ T=0}^{(2)}$ & $\nu$ & $\chi_{\rm r}^2$ \\
\hline
& 0.24728(-) & 11.2566(-) & 0.674(-) & - \\
& 0.24559(13) & 11.2640(23) & 0.670 & 0.22 \\
& 0.25615(72) & 11.218(12) & 0.640 & 6.18 \\
12 & 0.2602(32) & 11.1962 & 0.630(11) & 14.2 \\
& 0.24954(28) & 11.1962 & 0.670 & 89.8 \\
& 0.2619(87)${}^{*}$ & 11.1962 & 0.670 & 55.5${}^{*}$ \\
& 0.25742(10) & 11.1962 & 0.640 & 12.7 \\
& 0.2597(51)${}^{*}$ & 11.1962 & 0.640 & 21.3${}^{*}$ \\
\hline
& 0.22433(-) & 13.1391(-) & 0.654(-) & - \\
& 0.21872(53) & 13.1656(56) & 0.671 & 5.88 \\
& 0.22851(40) & 13.1199(42) & 0.642 & 3.40 \\
13 & 0.2310(12) & 13.1077 & 0.635(4) & 8.86 \\
& 0.2225(30) & 13.1077 & 0.671 & 314 \\
& 0.2342(62)${}^{*}$ & 13.1077 & 0.671 & 113${}^{*}$ \\
& 0.22928(67) & 13.1077 & 0.642 & 16.0 \\
& 0.2311(24)${}^{*}$ & 13.1077 & 0.642 & 19.2${}^{*}$ \\
\hline
& 0.144857(-) & 30.5427(-) & 0.608(-) & - \\
& 0.1297(37) & 30.73(10) & 0.673 & 147 \\
& 0.1356(24) & 30.658(64) & 0.647 & 58.8 \\
20 & 0.1357(26) & 30.6729 & 0.642(19) & 58.2 \\
& 0.13171(98) & 30.6729 & 0.673 & 97.3 \\
& 0.13199(13)${}^{*}$& 30.6729 & 0.673 & 1.57${}^{*}$ \\
& 0.13506(54) & 30.6729 & 0.647 & 31.0 \\
& 0.13519(49)${}^{*}$& 30.6729 & 0.647 & 23.9${}^{*}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Some critical indices at the two transitions in the $3D$ $Z(N)$ LGT at
finite temperature can be extracted by the standard FSS analysis.
In particular, the behavior on the lattice size $L$ of the standard
magnetization $M_L$ and of its susceptibility at the second transition
allows to extract the indices $\beta/\nu$ and $\gamma/\nu$ through a
fit with the functions
\begin{equation}
M_L = A_{M_L} L^{-\beta/\nu} \;, \;\;\;\;\;
\chi_{M_L} = A_{\chi_{M_L}} L^{\gamma/\nu} \;.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the behavior on $L$ of the rotated magnetization $M_R$ and of
its susceptibility at the first transition point allow the extraction
of the same critical indices at that transition.
Thereafter, the hyperscaling relation $2 \beta/\nu + \gamma/\nu = 2$ can be
checked and the magnetic index $\eta= 2 - \gamma/\nu$ can be extracted
at both transitions.
Our results are reported in Ref.~\cite{ZN_fin_T2} and show that the
hyperscaling relation is generally satisfied and the critical index $\eta$
generally takes values compatible with 1/4 at the second transition and with
$4/N^2$ at the first transition, in agreement with the expectations.
\section{Summary}
This paper completes our study of the critical behavior of $3D$ $Z(N>4)$
lattice gauge theories both at finite temperatures.
We have found that in all $Z(N)$ vector models two BKT-like phase
transitions occur at finite temperatures if $N>4$. In all cases studied, the
results for the critical indices suggest that finite-temperature $Z(N)$ lattice
models belong to the universality class of two-dimensional $Z(N)$ vector spin
models, in agreement with the Svetitsky-Yaffe conjecture. Furthermore, the
available results for many values of $N$ allowed us to propose and check some
scaling formulas for the critical point of the second phase transition.
Combining the results of the present paper with those for the index $\nu$
obtained by us at zero temperature in Ref.~\cite{ZN_zero_T} enabled us to
check the continuum scaling and to predict the approximate value for $a T_c$
in the continuum limit.
|
\section{\label{sec:level1}First-level heading:\protect\\ The line break was forced \lowercase{via} \textbackslash\textbackslash}
Thin-film growth changed dramatically more than three decades ago with the discovery of reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED) intensity oscillations.\cite{Harris1981, Harris1981a, Wood1981} During RHEED, a high-energy ($\approx$ 10-30 keV) electron beam is fired at grazing incidence onto a growth surface and the intensity of the reflected beam is recorded. With RHEED, the incident electrons only interact with the topmost layer. During 2D monolayer-by-monolayer growth, researchers discovered oscillations in the intensity of the reflected RHEED beam, and that the period of the oscillation corresponded to the addition of exactly one monolayer to the film. This discovery led to rapid implementation of RHEED systems for thin-film growth, although largely restricted to semiconductor growth via molecular beam epitaxy due to the low pressures ($<10^{-5}$ mbar) required to use RHEED.\cite{Neave1983,Snyder1991}
The landscape changed again nearly two decades ago with the development of high-pressure RHEED systems, allowing RHEED systems to operate at pressures as high as 1 mbar.\cite{Rijnders1997, Blank1998, Blank1999} Since this discovery, \textit{in situ} RHEED characterization has become nearly ubiquitous in thin-film growth systems, and it has been successfully implemented in a variety of growth techniques in addition to molecular beam epitaxy, such as sputtering\cite{shih1994} and pulsed laser deposition (PLD).\cite{Koster2011}
Researchers have worked to understand RHEED intensity oscillations via a variety of different methods. In principle, the complete picture can only be understood using dynamical diffraction theories,\cite{braun1998, Mitura1998} which often have to be modified for complicated growth conditions (e.g., including variations in the scattering potential\cite{mitura1999} or small terrace sizes\cite{mitura2002}). Before resorting to a full model, it often suffices to describe the RHEED intensity oscillations as the interference between two layers via a kinematic scattering approximation,\cite{lent1984,pukite1985} though this model can become more complex when multiple layers are included\cite{kawamura1985} or other diffraction features such as Kikuchi lines are included.\cite{shin2007a} The other often-used simplification is the step density model,\cite{Neave1983, Shitara1992} which predicts the decrease of the reflected specular RHEED intensity as the areal density of steps increases. It is also common practice to use a combination of these models.\cite{shin2007b, Koster2011}
Many of the models, especially the simpler step density model and the kinematic approximation, share similar traits. Chief among those traits is the prediction that the specular RHEED intensity decreases as the surface becomes rougher. For example, in the step density model, as the step density increases the likelihood of diffuse scattering increases, thus the specular intensity decreases. As the layer reaches completion, the number of steps decreases, and thus the specular intensity recovers -- ideally returning to its original value.\cite{Koster2011}
The prediction is the same for the kinematic approximation: we expect the RHEED intensity to oscillate exactly out of phase with the surface roughness.
In practice, RHEED oscillations are often more complex: the RHEED intensity can \textit{increase} at the start of the growth,\cite{Haeni2000} or decrease and then recover to an intensity \textit{greater} than the intensity before growth,\cite{lippmaa2000, ohtomo2007} or the RHEED intensity can (of course) oscillate exactly out of phase with the roughness.\cite{Koster1998} Even identical RHEED and growth conditions can yield RHEED oscillations that are surprisingly 180$^\circ$ out-of-phase with previous oscillations.\cite{Haeni2000}
RHEED oscillations during PLD have an added layer of complexity due to the movement of adatoms between laser pulses. During PLD, each laser pulse ablates a large amount of material from the target. This material is deposited randomly on the surface of the substrate, creating a sharp decrease in intensity after each laser pulse. Between laser pulses, the adatoms diffuse on the surface, falling into pits and attaching to step edges and islands, and thus the surface ``heals'' and becomes smoother. As the surface heals between laser pulses, the RHEED intensity increases. This behavior agrees with the simple RHEED oscillation models -- despite the fact that the overall growth oscillation is not necessarily out of phase with the roughness.\cite{lippmaa2000} This can be a major drawback when using RHEED -- it is not always obvious when a layer is complete.
In order to quantify the RHEED oscillations, researchers have defined the phase of the RHEED intensity oscillations.\footnote{In PLD, these oscillations refer to the large-scale intensity oscillations, not the change in intensity between laser pulses. Typical RHEED intensity oscillations have a period of 10-50 laser pulses.} The period $T$ of the oscillations is easy to define based on the maxima or minima of the intensity oscillations. Following previous work, we assume the growth begins at $t=0$ and look for the minimum of the RHEED intensity that occurs between $t=T$ and $t=2T$ and label this time as $t_{3/2}$.\cite{Zhang1987} Then the phase of the RHEED oscillations is defined as\cite{Mitura1998}
\begin{equation}
\phi = 2 \pi(t_{3/2}/T - 1.5).\label{eq:t3-2}
\end{equation}
Using the simple models we expect $t_{3/2} = 1.5 T$ (RHEED intensity is a minimum when the surface is roughest), so $\phi = 0$, indicating that the RHEED intensity is in phase with the smoothness of the substrate and exactly out of phase with the roughness.
Despite the proliferation of RHEED systems, it is not the only \textit{in situ} growth diagnostic tool. With a suitably chosen scattering geometry (typically at incident angles smaller than that of the first Bragg peak), x-ray scattering is highly surface sensitive and can also yield information about growth dynamics.\cite{Fleet2005, Dale2006} X-ray reflectivity (XRR) probes much deeper than RHEED and contains additional information about layers below the topmost layer. As a result, XRR intensity at angles below the first Bragg peak will oscillate not only with roughness but also due to thin-film interference. However, in the case of homoepitaxy, there is no thin-film interference, and therefore the XRR intensity oscillates due to roughness only. Because x-rays are weakly interacting, the kinematic scattering approximation describes XRR intensity oscillations very accurately.\cite{Woll2011} As a result, we can use Eq.\ \ref{eq:t3-2} to find $\phi = 0$ always for homoepitaxial XRR intensity oscillations.
In addition, the intensity lost from the XRR specular reflections can be seen directly in the XRR diffuse scattering\cite{Fleet2006, Ferguson2009, Brock2010} (something that is very difficult to capture with RHEED). In fact, the diffuse scattering can be used to determine the distance between islands on the surface of the substrate.\cite{Ferguson2009, Brock2010} However, at these angles far from a Bragg peak, nearly complete destructive interference means that very bright synchrotron x-ray sources are required to be able to see XRR intensity oscillations, which is why XRR continues to be less common than RHEED.
In this article we discuss direct, simultaneous comparison of RHEED and XRR during homoepitaxial growth of \ce{SrTiO3} (STO) via pulsed laser deposition onto STO \hkl<001> substrates. We used a KrF eximer laser ($\lambda = 248$ nm)
with a fluence of $\approx2$ J/cm$^2$,
with a spot size on the target of $3.7$ mm$^2$,
yielding approximately 10 laser pulses per monolayer. Depositions occurred at 900 $^\circ C$
and an O$_2$ pressure of $1.3\times10^{-5}$ mbar.
Before deposition, the substrates are etched in HF and annealed to produce an atomically smooth \ce{TiO2} terminated surface.\cite{Koster1998, Kawasaki1994} Further experimental details can be found in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Ferguson2009}.
The x-ray and RHEED measurements were performed using a custom PLD/x-ray diffraction system installed in the G3 hutch at the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source. X-ray measurements were taken at the ``anti-Bragg'' or ``quarter-Bragg'' positions ( the \hkl(0 0 \frac{1}{2}) or the \hkl(0 0 \frac{1}{4})) in reciprocal space and images collected using a Pilatus 100K detector. The RHEED system is attached to the chamber at 45$^\circ$ to the x-ray beam. For our substrates, the miscut ran parallel to the \hkl(110) direction, usually to within $\pm5^\circ$, so we were able to align the incident x-ray beam perpendicular to the miscut and the RHEED beam along the \hkl(100) axis. We used the average intensity of the specular reflection for our RHEED oscillations, and the incident angle of the electron beam varied from 0.8$^\circ$ to 1.5$^\circ$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto67_XRRandRHEED_paper2.eps}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto46-XRRandRHEED_paper2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Simultaneous RHEED and XRR intensity oscillations for two growths. XRR was measured at the quarter-Bragg position \hkl(0 0 \frac{1}{4})), the RHEED was parallel to the the \hkl(100) axis. In both, the RHEED intensity (green) is above the XRR intensity (blue). The growth conditions were identical. However, the substrate in (a) was annealed for one hour in $2.7\times10^{-6}$ mbar, the substrate in (b) was annealed for 20 minutes in $1.7\times10^{-3}$ mbar O$_2$. Annealing in low vacuum created RHEED oscillations very nearly in phase with the XRR oscillations ($\phi \approx 0.05 \pi$); annealing in oxygen created oscillations very nearly out of phase ($\phi \approx 0.81\pi$).} \label{fig:r-x}
\end{figure}
Two typical growths of STO on STO \hkl<001> via pulsed laser deposition are presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}. XRR data was taken at the quater-Bragg position, \hkl(0 0 \frac{1}{4}) and RHEED beam was parallel to the \hkl(100) axis. Each individual laser pulse is obvious, marked by the sharp decrease in intensity in both RHEED and XRR, followed by the exponential recovery between pulses. The number of pulses per layer is $\approx 11.3$ and $\approx 10.2$ for Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(a) and (b), respectively.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}{0.35\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto71_double_v1a.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto71-pre.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto71_posta.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.35\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto73_double_v3a.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto73-pre.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.25\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto73_posta.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{(Color online) Atomic force microscope images of two growths. All AFM images are approximately 1 $\mu$m $\times$ 1 $\mu$m. (a) and (d) show the simultaneous RHEED and XRR intensity oscillations, both nearly exactly out of phase. XRR is measured along \hkl(0 0 \frac{1}{2})
in (a), along \hkl(0 0 \frac{1}{4}) in (b). The first growth (a) was interrupted at the minimum of the XRR oscillations and near the maximum of the RHEED oscillations, the second growth (d) was interrupted after three complete monolayers, putting it near the minimum of the RHEED oscillations. Pre-growth AFM images are shown for both substrates in (b) and (e). In (c), we see the surface of (a) post growth, where $\approx$50\% of the surface is covered with islands. The post growth surface of (f) has pinholes over 15\%$\pm$2\% of its surface.\cite{Trofimov2003,Woll2011} For both growths, the maximum of the XRR corresponds to a complete layer, whereas the RHEED intensity cannot be used to determine layer completion.} \label{fig:afms}
\end{figure*}
The growth conditions of these two films were nearly the same (deposition temperatures of 915 $^\circ C$ and 890 $^\circ C$ for Figs.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(a) and \ref{fig:r-x}(b), respectively). For both growths, the XRR intensity oscillation remains out of phase with the roughness (x-ray diffuse scattering), so $\phi = 0$. However, in Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(a), the RHEED intensity oscillation is nearly in phase with the XRR oscillation ($\phi \approx 0.05 \pi$), and in Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(b), the RHEED intensity oscillation is nearly out of phase with the XRR oscillation ($\phi \approx 0.81 \pi$). Other researchers have presented similar growths of STO on STO \hkl<001> that appear to have $\phi \approx -0.62\pi$ (69$^\circ$).\cite{khodan2012} In our experiments, we can repeatably adjust the phase not via \textit{growth} conditions but rather via substrate \textit{annealing} conditions. If the substrate is annealed just before growth in high vacuum, the RHEED oscillations are very nearly in phase; if the substrate is annealed in high \ce{O2} pressure, the oscillations are very nearly out of phase. The substrate in Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(a) was annealed for one hour in $2.7\times10^{-6}$ mbar, the substrate in Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(b) was annealed for 20 minutes in $1.7\times10^{-3}$ mbar. Our experiments show that the annealing condition dictates the RHEED oscillation phase for a wide variety of different growth conditions!
Comprehensive studies of the phase of the RHEED oscillations exist only for semiconductors,\cite{Mitura1998} and as such the mechanism that controls the phase of the RHEED oscillation has not been well studied in the oxide materials. Other researchers have reported results similar to ours for homoepitaxy in STO, with RHEED phases that can vary by 180$^\circ$ for seemingly identical growth conditions.\cite{Haeni2000} However, to our knowledge, this is the first report of the ability to reliably and repeatably control the RHEED phase.
As a compelling visual confirmation, we characterized our substrates using an atomic force microscope (AFM) before and after growth. These data are presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig:afms}. We used the annealing conditions that gave us nearly out-of-phase RHEED and XRR intensity oscillations (in (a), $\phi \approx 0.76\pi$, in (b), $\phi \approx 0.81\pi$). We interrupted the growth of (a) at $t \approx 2.5T$, or at 2.5 monolayers according to XRR intensity oscillations, which means the RHEED intensity oscillation was close to its maximum. We can see in Fig.\ \ref{fig:afms}(b) that the substrate was atomically smooth prior to growth, and after growth the sample has a uniform roughness, with islands covering $\approx$ 50\% of its surface. This maximum roughness occurs at the minimum of the XRR oscillations and thus the maximum roughness, but occurs near the \textit{maximum} of the RHEED oscillation -- providing the clear visual proof that RHEED can be used to track number of layers but with an uncertainty of $\pm$ half a layer.
Fig.\ \ref{fig:afms}(c) shows a similar growth interrupted at $t\approx 2T$, or 2 monolayers according to the XRR intensity oscillations. After two monolayers, the atomically smooth substrate before growth (Fig.\ \ref{fig:afms}(e)) has pinholes covering 15\%$\pm$2\% of its surface.\footnote{To determine the coverage in Fig.\ \ref{fig:afms}(f), we masked any area more than 2 \AA~below the level of the terrace and compared the masked area to the total area. We measured this ratio for two $\approx100$ nm$^2$ areas per terrace. } These pinholes are expected for layer-by-layer growth and are why the XRR intensity does not recover to its initial maximum.\cite{Trofimov2003,Woll2011} Here the RHEED intensity is close to its minimum, yet the surface is very smooth.
Most growth systems do not have the capability to measure both RHEED and XRR simultaneously, so the question is: using only RHEED, is there any way to know when a layer is complete? The answer is simple: yes. As discussed above, determining the growth period $T$ is straightforward. If it is true 2D growth and the starting surface is smooth, then each new monolayer is complete at times $t= T, 2T, 3T,\ldots$. This is true independent of RHEED oscillation phase, and can be seen in Figs.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(a) and (b) as well as Fig.\ \ref{fig:afms}(a) and (d).
For 2D growth, it is still possible to determine when a layer is complete using RHEED -- even if the starting surface is not smooth. Returning our attention to the intensity as measured between pulses, each laser pulse causes a sharp decrease in intensity followed by an exponential recovery as the adatoms move on the surface and the surface heals. The step density model predicts a recovery of the form\cite{Blank1999}
\begin{equation}
I \approx I_o(1-e^{(t-t_{\mathrm{pulse}})/\tau}), \label{eq:relax}
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the relaxation time. When the surface is rough, the relaxation time $\tau$ is short, as it takes very little time for the adatoms to diffuse the short distance required to find a hole, step edge, or island. On the other hand, when the sample is very smooth, this relaxation time is long, as it takes adatoms a long time before finding one of the few islands or holes on the surface.
An increase in relaxation time between laser pulses indicating the completion of a layer has been seen explicitly in XRR.\cite{Fleet2006,Ferguson2009} Increasing relaxation times as layers reach completion has also been seen in RHEED when the phase $\phi = 0$.\cite{Blank1999}
Though it is counterintuitive, the recovery between pulses can be fit using the step density model even when the overall RHEED oscillation is more complex than this simple model.\cite{Blank1998} Thus, we can use the relaxation time after each laser pulse to characterize the layer coverage, as the relaxation times per pulse will still reach a maximum when the layer is complete, independent of the RHEED oscillation phase.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true]{sto46_recoverytimes.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Recovery times per laser pulse for XRR (blue dashed) and RHEED (green solid). Error bars (not shown for clarity) are on average $\pm5$\%. These relaxation times are from the growth in Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(b). Clear oscillations in the relaxation times can be seen, with maxima occurring approximately every 11 laser pulses. Here, the maxima in the relaxation times from RHEED and x-ray occur after the same number of laser pulses and occur at the completion of the layer, thus a maximum in the RHEED relaxation time signals the completion of a layer.} \label{fig:relax}
\end{figure}
Using Eq.\ \ref{eq:relax} we fit the recovery after each laser pulse for the growth shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:r-x}(b), where $\phi \approx 0.81\pi$. In Fig.\ \ref{fig:relax}, the blue dashed curve represents the relaxation times per pulse as measured by XRR and the green solid line represents the relaxation times as measured by RHEED. As expected, the XRR relaxation times are a maxima when the layer is complete, roughly every 11 laser pulses. Since the XRR intensity is at its maximum when the layer is complete, the oscillations of the XRR relaxation times are roughly in phase with the XRR intensity oscillations. Remarkably, the maxima in the relaxation times in the RHEED data occur at the same laser pulse as the XRR relaxation times, that is to say the relaxation times measured by both techniques are a maxima at $t = T, 2T, 3T,\ldots$. Thus, the RHEED relaxation times are a maximum when the layer is complete -- despite the fact that the RHEED intensity oscillation phase is nearly 180$^\circ$!
Similar behavior has been seen at other RHEED intensity oscillation phases. Khodan \textit{et al.} grew STO on STO \hkl<0 0 1> via PLD\cite{khodan2012} and used substrates etched using a similar HF etch. Assuming a smooth starting surface, their data present an oscillation phase of $\phi \approx -0.62\pi$ (69$^\circ$),\cite{khodan2012} with RHEED relaxation times that are a maxima at $t= T, 2T, 3T\ldots$, again as expected.
In conclusion, we have studied the homoepitaxial growth of STO on STO \hkl<001> via simultaneous \textit{in situ} RHEED and XRR. We have shown that the RHEED intensity oscillation phase $\phi$ can change even for identical growth conditions, and that in contrast the XRR intensity oscillations are always at a maximum when the layer is complete ($\phi = 0$ for XRR). From post-growth AFM images, we have shown that the substrate surface can be rough even when the RHEED intensity oscillation is near a maximum and smooth when the RHEED oscillation is near a minimum.
Finally, the main point of this article is to provide a tool to the oxide growth community to determine when a layer is complete, a tool that does not depend on the magnitude of the RHEED intensity oscillation. For PLD, the RHEED and XRR intensities increase after each laser pulse as the adatoms diffuse and the surface heals. The characteristic relaxation time between each laser pulse is a maximum when the surface is least rough, and can be used to determine when a layer is complete. We have shown in our own results that this relaxation time is a maximum at layer completion for various phases of RHEED growth.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors acknowledge Hanjong Paik and Charles Brooks for helpful discussions and assistance in etching substrates and Darrell Schlom for use of his laboratory facilities for etching some substrates. The remainder of our substrates were etched at the Cornell NanoScale Facility, a member of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant ECCS-0335765).
M.\ C.\ Sullivan was supported in part by the Energy Materials Center at Cornell (EMC2), an Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Award Number DE-SC0001086.
This work is based upon experiments conducted at the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source (CHESS) which is supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences under NSF awards DMR-1332208 and DMR-0936384. This work also made use of the Cornell Center for Materials Research Shared Facilities which are supported through the NSF MRSEC program (DMR-1120296).
\end{acknowledgments}
\nocite{*}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The $q$-state Potts model\cite{potts, wfypotts} has been studied for long time in statistical physics.
For the ferromagnetic Potts model, the symmetry of order parameter is simply determined
by the Potts spins. The physics is now well understood, thanks to the hypothesis of universality.
In contrast, for antiferromagnetic Potts (AFP) model, the order parameter is not only
associated with the spins but also with the underlying lattice. Thus, one should study case by case.
The properties of the AFP model are often related to extensive ground-state degeneracy,
which may be caused by frustration\cite{fp} or not\cite{nfp,DengUJ,XiangUJ}.
The extensive degeneracy of ground states may lead to an ``entropy-driven" finite-temperature phase transition.
The phase transition is characterized by partial ordered phase at low temperature,
which is ordered on a sublattice of the lattice, satisfying the minimum energy and maximum entropy by
local modification of the spin states.
The three-state AFP model show good examples of such phase transitions.
In three-dimensional simple-cubic lattice,
when temperature is high, the model is disordered;
when temperature is sufficiently low, some long-range order develops,
and the following states could be favored:
the spins on one of the sublattices are ``frozen" at a random Potts value,
and the spin on any site of the remaining lattice is ``free" to take the other Potts values.
In Refs. \onlinecite{height} and \onlinecite{Sokalsquare}, such states are called ``ideal" states.
On the simple cubic lattice, there are six types of such ideal states.
Thus, the order parameter is of the $Z_6$ symmetry.
Monte Carlo simulations show that the model undergoes a continuous phase transition\cite{wsk,wang3dprb} between
the high-temperature disordered phase and the low-temperature partial ordered phase which breaks the $Z_6$ symmetry.
The critical exponents fall into the universality class of three-dimensional XY model\cite{XY3d}.
In two dimensions, the three-state AFP model is extensively studied on different lattices.
On the dice lattice\cite{Sokaldice}, the model undergoes a continuous ordered-disordered
phase transition at finite-temperature.
which belongs to the universality of three-state ferromagnetic Potts model.
On the honeycomb lattice\cite{honeycomb}, the model is disordered at any temperature, including the zero temperature.
On the kagome lattice\cite{kagome}, the model is disordered at any nonzero temperature but critical at
zero temperature. The magnetic critical exponent, governing the decay of two-point correlation function,
is known to be $\eta = 4/3$.
The phase diagram of the model on the square lattice is similar to that on the kagome lattice,
but the critical exponent $\eta=1/3$.
However, when ferromagnetic next-nearest neighboring (NNN) interactions are included, the model has
two Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transitions\cite{Nijs}.
In this work, using a combination of various Monte Carlo algorithms, including the standard Metropolis method,
the Wang-Swendsen-Kotek\'{y} (WSK) cluster method \cite{wsk} and the geometric cluster method\cite{gc1,gc2,gc3},
we study the three-state Potts antiferromagnet on the square lattice with multilayers,
with antiferromagnetic interactions between layers.
For the two-layer lattice, we find that the system undergoes
a continuous phase transition at finite temperature $T_{c1}>0$.
The transition is of BKT type, which has
magnetic exponent $\eta=1/4$, different from $\eta=1/3$ for the single-layer system at $T=0$.
In the whole low-temperature region $0 \leq T \leq T_{c1}$,
the $L_z=2$ system is quasi-long-rang ordered, with varying critical exponents $\eta$.
As the number of layers is increased up to $L_z=4$,
we find that beside the BKT transition at $T_{c1}$, the system undergoes a second BKT phase transition at a lower temperature $T_{c2} < T_{c1}$, with critical exponent $\eta=1/9$.
When $T< T_{c2}$, a long-range order breaking the $Z_6$ symmetry develops.
The emergent $U(1)$ symmetry is clearly demonstrated for the quasi-long-range ordered phase $T_{c2} \leq T \leq T_{c1}$.
The organization of the present paper is as follows.
Section. \ref{model} defines the model and the observables to be sampled,
and introduces the algorithms used in our simulations.
The simulation results, including the results for two-layer and four-layer square lattices, are
given in Sec. \ref{resul}. We then finally conclude with a discussion in Sec. \ref{concl}.
\section{Model, Algorithm, and Observable}
\label{model}
The three-state Potts model is defined by a simple Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}=-K\sum\limits_{\langle i,j\rangle}\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j} \label{hamil}
\end{eqnarray}
where the sum takes over all nearest neighboring sites $\langle i,j\rangle$.
The spin assumes $\sigma_i=1, 2, 3$, and
$K=J/k_BT$ is a dimensionless coupling constant.
The model is ferromagnetic when $J>0$ or antiferromagnetic when $J<0$.
In the current paper, we focus on the antiferromagnetic case and set $J/k_B=-1$
for convenience.
The Potts spin $\sigma$ can also be written as unit vector in the plane
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{\sigma} =(\cos\theta,\sin\theta ),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta =0,\pm 2\pi/3$ represents the angle of the spin.
The Hamiltonian of the three-state Potts model becomes then
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}=-\frac{2}{3}K\sum\limits_{\langle i,j \rangle} \cos(\theta_i-\theta_j) \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
apart from a constant.
For Monte Carlo simulations of the three-state antiferromagnetic Potts model on the single-layer square lattice,
the Wang-Swendsen-Kotek\'{y} (WSK) algorithm \cite{wsk} is efficient even at zero temperature.
On the two-layer lattice, the algorithm still works but the efficiency drops.
At the low temperatures of the four-layer square lattice, the efficiency drops so much
that it becomes difficult to give reliable data for systems of moderate sizes.
To overcome this problem, we implement the geometric cluster algorithm\cite{gc1,gc2,gc3}.
It is shown that a combination of the geometrical algorithm, the WSK algorithm and the Metropolis algorithm
significantly improves the efficiency, which enables us to extensively simulate systems with linear size up to $L=512$.
The sampled observables in our Monte Carlo simulations include
the staggered magnetization $m_{\rm s}$, the staggered susceptibility $\chi_s$,
the uniform magnetization $m_{\rm u}$, the uniform susceptibility $\chi_{\rm u}$,
and the specific heat $C_{\rm v}$, which are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\rm s}&=&\langle|\mathcal{M}_{\rm s}|\rangle,\\
\chi_{\rm s}&=&N\langle \mathcal{M}_{\rm s}^2\rangle,\\
m_{\rm u}&=&\langle |\mathcal{M}_{\rm u}|\rangle\\
\chi_{\rm u}&=&N\langle \mathcal{M}_{\rm u}^2\rangle,\\
C_{\rm v}&=&N(\langle \mathcal{E}^2\rangle-\langle \mathcal{E}\rangle^2)/T^2,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mathcal{M}_{\rm s}$, $\mathcal{M}_{\rm u}$, and $\mathcal{E}$ defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{M}_{\rm s}&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{\vec{r}}(-1)^{x+y+z} \vec{\sigma}(\vec{r}),\\
\mathcal{M}_{\rm u}&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{\vec{r}}\vec{\sigma}(\vec{r}),\\
\mathcal{E}&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{\langle i,j\rangle}\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{r}=(x,y,z)$ is the coordination, $N=L^2\times L_z$ is the number of sites of the lattice.
The staggered magnetization $m_{\rm s}$ can be conveniently used to probe the breaking of the $Z_6$ symmetry in the ordered phase.
We also sample the correlation length $\xi$ on one sublattice of a given layer.
Specifically, a layered square lattice is divided to two equivalent sublattices according to the
parity of $x+y+z$, denoted by ``sublattice A" and ``sublattice B"; the $z$-th layer of sublattice
A is denoted by ${\rm A}_z$. The in-layer sublattice correlation length $\xi$ is then defined as\cite{Sokalsquare}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi=\frac{(\chi/F-1)^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{\sum\limits_{i=1}^d \sin ^2(\frac{k_i}{2})}} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vec{k}$ is the ``smallest wavevector" of the square lattice along the $x$ direction--i.e., $\vec{k} \equiv (2 \pi/L, 0)$.
The in-layer sublattice susceptibility $\chi$ and the ``structure factor" $F$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi&=&\frac{1}{N}\langle\big|\sum\limits_{\vec{r}{~\rm on~A_z}}\vec{\sigma}(\vec{r})\big|^2 \rangle,\label{chi}\\
F&=&\frac{1}{N}\langle\big|\sum\limits_{\vec{r}{~\rm on~A_z}}e^{i\vec{k} \cdot\vec{r}}
\vec{\sigma}(\vec{r})\big|^2\rangle \; .
\label{F}
\end{eqnarray}
In a critical phase, quantity $\xi/L$ assumes a universal value in the thermodynamic limit $L \rightarrow \infty$.
In a disordered phase, correlation length $\xi$ is finite and $\xi/L$ drops to zero,
while in an ordered phase, $\xi/L$ diverges quickly since ``structure factor" $F$ vanishes rapidly.
Thus, $\xi/L$ is known to be very useful in locating the critical points of phase transitions.
\section{Results}
\label{resul}
In simulations of the three-state AFP model on multilayer square lattice, periodic boundary condition is used,
including the $z$ direction. The largest system size in the simulation
is $L=512$ and each data point is averaged over $5\times 10^6 \sim 10^7 $ samples.
\subsection{Three-state AFP model on the two-layer square lattice}
The left of Fig. \ref{msL2} is an illustrative plot of $m_{\rm s}$ versus $T$
for the two-layer three-state AFP model for a series of system sizes.
The figure shows that in high temperature, the staggered
magnetization converges to zero; in low temperature, the magnetization also decreases
as the system size increases; however the finite-size scaling behavior in this region is obviously different
to that in the high-temperature region. This is shown more clearly by the log-log plot of $m_{\rm s}$ versus $L$
for given temperatures, as shown in the right of Fig. \ref{msL2}.
We find that the magnetization $m_{\rm s}$ in the low temperatures can be described by
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\rm s}&=& L^{y_{\rm s}-d}(a+b_1/\ln L+b_2L^{y_i}), \label{msfss}
\end{eqnarray}
where $d=2$ is the spatial dimension, and $y_{\rm s}$ is renormalization exponent of the staggered magnetic field,
which varies continuously with the temperature.
$b_1/\ln L$ and $b_2L^{y_i}$ are the correction-to scaling terms, with $y_i<0$. $a, b_1$, and $b_2$ are unknown parameters.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{msL2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Left, staggered magnetization $m_s$ versus $T$ for the three-state AFP model
on the two-layer square lattice; the dashed vertical line is set at the critical point $T_{c1}=0.535$.
Right, log-log plot of $m_{\rm s}$ versus $L$ for given temperatures. }
\label{msL2}
\end{figure}
The meaning of the scaling behavior of $m_{\rm s}$ in the low-temperature region is twofold:
First, it means that the staggered magnetization in the
low-temperature region also converges to zero as the system size increases to infinite (because $y_{\rm s}<2$).
This means that in the thermodynamic limit the $Z_6$ symmetry in the system
is not broken, namely the system doesn't have long-range order on the sublattices.
Second, it implies that this region is critical and the phase transition
is of the BKT type.
This result is confirmed by the behaviors of the staggered susceptibility.
In the low temperatures, the staggered susceptibility scales as
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_{\rm s}&=& L^{2y_{\rm s}-d}(a+b_1/\ln L+b_2L^{y_i}). \label{chisfss}
\end{eqnarray}
The values of $y_{\rm s}$ at different temperatures can be obtained by fitting
(\ref{msfss}) or (\ref{chisfss}) to the data; the best estimations are listed in Table \ref{L2tab}.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{mscriL2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Left, plot of $m_sL^{1/8}$ versus $T$ for various $L$.
Right, an enlarge version of the left plot nearing the critical point.
The dashed vertical line is set at the critical point $T_{c1}=0.535$.}
\label{mscriL2}
\end{figure}
The critical point can be located more accurately by the finite-size scaling behavior
of $m_{\rm s}$. Figure \ref{mscriL2} is a plot of $m_sL^{d-y_{\rm s}}$ versus $T$, where we have
set the value of $y_{\rm s}$ as the exact one for BKT transition, i.e., $y_{\rm s}=15/8$.
It obviously indicates a transition at $T_{c1}\approx 0.54$. Fitting the data nearing
this point by the following formula
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\rm s}&=&L^{y_{\rm s}-d}[a_0+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{2}a_k(T-T_{c1})^k(\ln L)^k\nonumber\\
&&+\sum\limits_{j=1}^2b_j(T-T_{c1})^j+\frac{c_0}{\ln L}+c_1L^{y_{_i}}],\label{mscrifss}
\end{eqnarray}
we get $T_{c1}=0.535(3)$.
At this point, $y_{\rm s}$ is estimated to be 1.875(1), which coincides with the exact result 15/8.
This gives a self-consistent check.
The uniform magnetization $m_u$ and uniform susceptibility $\chi_{\rm u}$ are also calculated in the simulations.
It is found that $m_u$ and $\chi_{\rm u}$ show similar scaling behaviors as $m_{\rm s}$ and $\chi_{\rm s}$
respectively,
with the staggered exponent $y_{\rm s}$ replaced by a uniform exponent $y_{\rm u}$.
Doing similar fitting, $y_{\rm u}$ are obtained, which are also listed in Table \ref{L2tab}.
Figure \ref{expL2} is an illustrative plot of the critical exponents versus temperature $T$.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.82]{expL2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Critical exponents $y_{\rm s}$, $y_{\rm u}$ and $X_0$ versus $T$ for the
three-state AFP model on the two-layer square lattice.}
\label{expL2}
\end{figure}
The BKT transition can also be demonstrated by the behavior of $\xi/L$, as shown in
the left of Fig. \ref{xi}.
In the region $T>T_{c1}$, the value of $\xi/L$ converges to zero as the system size increases;
in the region $T\le T_{c1}$, the value of $\xi/L$ converges to a finite nonzero value,
which can be fit according to
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi/L=X_0+b_1/\ln L+b_2L^{y_i}+\cdots,\label{xifss}
\end{eqnarray}
with $y_i<0$.
Table. \ref{L2tab} lists the results of $X_0$ for different temperatures.
In fitting the data according to Eqs. (\ref{msfss}), (\ref{chisfss}), (\ref{mscrifss}), and (\ref{xifss}),
the logarithmic terms are included. In fact, the BKT transition is characterized
by logarithmic corrections\cite{logxy,logxy2,logxy3,logxy4},
due to the presence of marginally relevant temperature field in renormalization\cite{planar}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Critical exponents of the three-state antiferromagnetic Potts model
on the two-layer square lattice.}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l}
\hline
\hline
$T$ &$y_{\rm s}$&$y_{_{\rm u}}$&$X_0$\\
\hline
$0.0$ &1.903(2) &1.613(2)&0.860(5)\\
$0.1$ &1.903(2) &1.612(2)&0.860(5)\\
$0.2$ &1.902(2) &1.609(2)&0.857(5)\\
$0.3$ &1.899(2) &1.596(2)&0.845(5)\\
$0.4$ &1.893(2) &1.571(2)&0.815(5)\\
$0.5$ &1.882(2) &1.529(2)&0.775(5)\\
$0.535$ &1.875(3) &1.501(3)&0.752(5)\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{L2tab}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{xicv.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plot of $\xi/L$ and $C_{\rm v}$ versus $T$ for various system sizes for the
three-state AFP model on the two-layer square lattice; the dashed vertical line is set at the BKT point $T_{c1}=0.535$.}
\label{xi}
\end{figure}
At last, we present the result for the specific heat of the model, as shown in the right of Fig. \ref{xi}. It is seen that
the specific heat doesn't diverge but has a broad peak which converges to finite value.
This is also the typical character of BKT transition.
\subsection{The three-state AFP model on four-layer square lattice}
On the four-layer square lattice, the three-state AFP model undergoes two BKT-like transitions,
which can be clearly demonstrated by the critical behavior of $\xi/L$, as shown in Fig. \ref{xiL4}.
At high temperature, the system is disordered and the value of $\xi/L$ converges to zero as system size
$L \to \infty$; at low temperature, the system is ordered which breaks the $Z_6$ symmetry and the
value of $\xi/L$ diverges;
at the intermediate temperatures,
the system is quasi-long-range ordered and the value of
$\xi/L$ converges to finite nonzero value $X_0$.
By fitting the data according to (\ref{xifss}), a series of $X_0$ are obtained and listed in
Table \ref{L4tab}.
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{xiL4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) $\xi/L$ versus $T$ for the three-state AFP model on the four-layer square lattice.
The dashed vertical line is
set at $T_{c1}=0.97$; the solid vertical line is set at $T_{c2}=0.39$.}
\label{xiL4}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Critical exponents of the three-state antiferromagnetic Potts model
on the four-layer square lattice.}
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
\hline
$T$ &$y_{\rm s}$&$y_{\rm u}$&$X_0$\\
\hline
$0.39$ &1.944(2) &1.777(2)&1.15(1)\\
$0.5$ &1.938(2) &1.752(2)&1.09(1)\\
$0.6$ &1.933(2) &1.731(2)&1.04(1)\\
$0.7$ &1.926(2) &1.704(2)&0.99(1)\\
$0.8$ &1.917(2) &1.669(2)&0.93(1)\\
$0.9$ &1.903(2) &1.612(2)&0.86(1)\\
$0.97$ &1.874(3) &1.501(3)&0.75(1) \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{L4tab}
\end{table}
The two BKT-like transitions are further illustrated by the behavior of $m_s$ in the left of
Fig. \ref{msL4}. At high temperatures, the magnetization converges to zero as the system
size increases; at low temperatures, it converges to nonzero value which
indicates the break of $Z_6$ symmetry; in the intermediate temperatures, it scales as (\ref{msfss}).
The right of Fig. \ref{msL4} is a log-log plot of $m_s$ versus $L$ for given temperatures,
which shows the finite-size scaling behavior of $m_s$ more clearly.
The values of the critical exponent $y_{\rm s} $ in the quasi-LRO phase,
obtained by fitting the data according to (\ref{msfss}),
are also listed in Table \ref{L4tab}.
The fit is perfect in the region $0.39\le T\le 0.97$ but deteriorates when $T<0.97$ or $T>0.39$;
this implies the critical points $T_{c1}\approx 0.97$ and $T_{c2}\approx 0.39$.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{msL4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Left, $m_s$ versus $T$ for the three-state AFP model on
the four-layer square lattice; the dashed vertical line is set at the BKT point $T_{c1}=0.97$, the solid vertical
line is set at the BKT point $T_{c2}=0.39$.
Right, log-log plot of $m_s$ versus $L$ for the three-state AFP model on the four-layer square lattice; the two dashed
lines correspond to the BKT points.}
\label{msL4}
\end{figure}
Similar critical behaviors are observed for $m_u$ and $\chi_{\rm u}$, the estimated values of $y_{\rm u}$
are listed in Table \ref{L4tab}.
Figure \ref{expL4} is an illustrative plot of the critical exponents versus temperature $T$.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.82]{expL4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Critical exponents $y_{\rm s}$, $y_{\rm u}$ and $X_0$ versus $T$ for the
three-state AFP model on the four-layer square lattice.}
\label{expL4}
\end{figure}
The curve of the specific heat of the four-layer model is very similar to that of the two-layer model (right of Fig. \ref{xi});
it has one and only one finite peak (but not diverge) at $T_{c1}$; it does not show any singularity.
The phase diagram of the three-state AFP model on the four-layer lattice is similar to that on the
single-layer square lattice with ferromagnetic NNN interactions\cite{Nijs}.
The latter can be mapped onto a Gaussian model, and the critical exponents $y_{\rm s}$ and
$y_{\rm u}$ are determined by the vortex excitations in the Gaussian model with charge
$\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ respectively, with
\begin{eqnarray}
y=2-\frac{n^2}{4\pi K_G}. \label{yy}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $y=y_{\rm s}$ or $y_{\rm u}$, $n$ is the charge;
$K_G$ is the coupling constant of the Gaussian model.
For $T=T_{c1}$, $K_G=2/\pi$, thus $y_{\rm s}=15/8$ and $y_{\rm u}=3/2$; for $T_{c2}$, $K_G=9/2\pi$,
thus $y_{\rm s}=35/18$ and $y_{\rm u}=16/9$.
Assuming these results are also valid for the three-state AFP model on the multilayer lattice,
we plot $m_sL^{d-y_{\rm s}}$ versus $T$ with $y_{\rm s}=15/8$ in the left of Fig. \ref{mscriL4},
which obviously shows the phase transition at $T_{c1}$. Fitting the data according to (\ref{mscrifss}) with $y_{\rm s}=15/8$ fixed,
we obtained the critical point $T_{c1}=0.967(5)$.
The right of Fig. \ref{mscriL4} is a plot of $m_sL^{d-y_{\rm s}}$ versus $T$ with $y_{\rm s}=35/18$,
which obviously shows the phase transition at $T_{c2}$. A Similar fit yields $T_{c2}=0.393(5)$.
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{mscriL4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plot of $m_sL^{y_{\rm s}-d}$ versus $T$ for the three-state AFP model on
the four-layer square lattice. Left, $y_{\rm s}=15/8$; right, $y_{\rm s}=35/18$.}
\label{mscriL4}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, from Tables \ref{L2tab} and \ref{L4tab} we find that $y_{\rm s}$ and $y_{\rm u}$ satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
2-y_{\rm u}=4(2-y_{\rm s}).
\end{eqnarray}
This is also the case for the three-state AFP model on the single-layer square lattice with
ferromagnetic NNN interactions, which can be easily derived from Eq. (\ref{yy}).
We also calculate the observables concerning the rotational symmetry of the model
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_6&=&\cos 6\theta\\
Q_{\phi}&=&\frac{\langle\phi_6^4\rangle}{\langle\phi_6^2\rangle^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta$ is defined as the angle of the vector $\mathcal{M}_s$
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\tan^{-1}(\mathcal{M}_y/\mathcal{M}_x)+\pi/2, & {\rm if~}\mathcal{M}_x>0\\
\tan^{-1}(\mathcal{M}_y/\mathcal{M}_x)+3\pi/2, & {\rm ~if~}\mathcal{M}_x<0.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\mathcal{M}_x,\mathcal{M}_y$ are the two components of $\mathcal{M}_s$. This definition makes the value of
$\theta$ be in the region $[0,2\pi]$. $Q_{\phi}$ is known to be useful in distinguishing the quasi-LRO phase
and the true LRO phase\cite{gencl}.
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{rs_L4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Plot of $\phi_6$ and the Binder ratio $Q_\phi$ for the three-state
AFP model on the four-layer square lattice. The vertical lines are set at the critical point $T_{c2}=0.39$.}
\label{fi}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htpb]
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{histo.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Histogram of ($\mathcal{M}_x,\mathcal{M}_y$) for the three-state AFP model on the four-layer square lattice,
with system size $L=512$. Left, $T=0.2$; right, $T=0.7$.}
\label{hist}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fi} is the plot of $\phi_6$ and $Q_\phi$; it obviously indicates a phase transition
at $T_{c2}\approx0.39$.
Figure \ref{hist} is the plot of the histogram of ($\mathcal{M}_x$, $\mathcal{M}_y$).
These results are easy to understand. In the the quasi-LRO phase $m_s$ is zero in the thermodynamic limit,
thus the angle of $\mathcal{M}_s$ can take random value in $[0,2\pi]$; it is consistent with
the emergent $U(1)$ symmetry of $\mathcal{M}_s$ in a finite system.
In the low-temperature phase, $m_s$ is not zero and the $Z_6$ symmetry is broken, the
angle of $\mathcal{M}_s$ favors six directions in a finite system, as shown in the left of
Fig. \ref{hist}.
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
\label{concl}
In conclusion, we have studied the three-state antiferromagnetic Potts model on the layered
square lattice. On the two-layer lattice, the model undergoes a BKT-like transition
at $T_{c1}=0.535(3)$, with critical exponent $y_{\rm s}=15/8$ ($\eta=1/4$).
On the four-layer lattice, the model has two BKT-like transitions.
One is between the high-temperature phase and the quasi-long-range ordered phase,
with critical point $T_{c1}=0.967(5)$ and critical exponent $y_{\rm s}=15/8$ ($\eta=1/4$).
Another one is between the quasi-long-range ordered phase and the low-temperature ordered phase which
breaks the $Z_6$ symmetry, with critical point $T_{c2}=0.393(5)$ and critical exponent $y_{\rm s}=35/18$ ($\eta=1/9$).
Emergent $U(1)$ symmetry is found in the quasi-long-range ordered phase.
The critical properties of the three-state AFP model on the square lattice
are related to the vortex excitations, which is investigated by Kolafa\cite{afpvortex} using Monte Carlo simulations.
The simulations show that the positive and negative vortices are bound into dipoles only at
the zero temperature; at any temperature $T>0$, the dipoles unbind.
There is no quasi-LRO phase in the single-layer AFP model.
However, our simulations show that the multilayer structure can lead to a quasi-LRO phase.
This is due to the modifications of the ground states by the layered structure.
On a bipartite lattice such as the square lattice, the simple cubic lattice, or
the layered square lattice, the density of entropy of the ideal states is $s_i=\ln2/2=0.3466$. On the square lattice,
the density of total entropy of the model is $s=3/2\ln(4/3)$\cite{lieb}. The ratio is $r_s=s_i/s=0.803$.
On the simple cubic lattice $s=0.367$ and $r_s=0.945$. For the layered square lattice, although we
have not numerically calculated its entropy density, we believe it
is reasonable to postulate
that the value of $r_s$ is between 0.803 and 0.945; and it will gradually increase as the number of
layers increases.
The increase of $r_s$ means the enhancement of the effect of ideal states,
which will restrict the vortex excitations with nonzero charge, because
the vortex excitations based on ideal states favor zero charge.
As pointed out by Ref. \onlinecite{Nijs}, the zero charge does not
dominate the leading critical properties of the model.
Therefore, comparing to the single-layer model, the multilayer model needs higher temperature to
generate vortices with
nonzero charge, thus the quasi-LRO phase of the two-layer model enters the region with $T>0$.
Another obvious result of the increase of $r_s$ is the enhancement of the effect of $Z_6$ symmetry,
which tends to make the system be ordered. However when the number of layers is two, the effect is not
strong enough. When the number of layers increases to four, it is strong enough to lead to
an ordered phase.
The phase diagram of the four-layer square-lattice AFP model is very similar to that of the single-layer square-lattice
AFP model with ferromagnetic NNN interactions\cite{Nijs}.
For the latter, the ferromagnetic NNN interactions have similar effect as that of the multilayer structure; it also
enhances the $Z_6$ symmetry and restricts the vortex excitations with nonzero charge.
However, the two model still have some subtle difference.
For the single-layer model, if the ratio of the strength of the NNN interactions
and the NN interactions takes fixed nonzero value, the system must be ordered at zero temperature.
In such a case, it does not have a single BKT transition like that in the two-layer lattice.
Furthermore, the entropy of the ground states of the single-layer model is not extensive; this is obviously different to
that of the multilayer lattice, although it doesn't lead to substantial difference in critical behaviors.
For ferromagnetic model on multilayered lattice, the phase transition behavior belongs to the same
universality class as that in the corresponding single-layer lattice\cite{fpl,tli2,tli}, according to the hypothesis of universality.
However, for antiferromagnetic model, due to the lattice structure dependence nature of the model,
the number of layers may lead to substantially different behavior of phase transition from that in the corresponding single-layer lattice.
\section{Acknowledgment}
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China
(NSFC) under Grant Nos. 11205005 (Ding), 11175018 (Guo), and 11275185 (Deng).
|
\section{Introduction and main results}
\subsection{Introduction} Maximal functions are a central object in harmonic analysis; conversely, harmonic analysis is built up from trigonometric functions. We were motivated by the simple question whether a maximal function is able to 'recognize' a trigonometric function in any particular way. We focus on the centered Hardy-Littlewood
maximal function on the real line
$$(\mathcal{M}f)(x) = \sup_{r > 0}\frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{|f(z)|dz}.$$
Classical results are the embedding $\mathcal{M}:L^1 \rightarrow L^{1, \infty}$, where the sharp constant is known \cite{mel}, as well as the embedding $\mathcal{M}:L^p \rightarrow L^p$ for
$1 < p \leq \infty$. The wealth of theory developed around maximal functions can no longer be succinctly summarized: we refer to the book of Stein \cite{stein} for the
classical theory and a survey of Wolff \cite{wo} on the Kakeya problem.
\subsection{The interval length function $r_f(x)$.} Usual questions around maximal functions are concerned with their size: since $(\mathcal{M}f)(x) \geq |f(x)|$ in all Lebesgue points, it
is of interest to understand mapping properties in $L^p$ spaces. Our question goes in an orthogonal direction: how complicated is the dynamical behavior of the 'maximal' intervals?
The question is not well-posed because there might be more than one interval centered at $x$ over which the average value of the function coincides with the maximal function: in these cases, we opt for taking the smallest such interval. Formally, we define the length function $r_f(x):\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ associated to a periodic function $f$ by
$$r_f(x) = \inf \left\{r \geq 0: \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz} = \sup_{s > 0}{\frac{1}{2s}\int_{x-s}^{x+s}{f(z)dz}}\right\},$$
where the integral is to be understood as the point evaluation if $r = 0$. It is easy to see that $r_f$ is well-defined and finite for periodic functions.
\subsection{Main results.} The purpose of this paper is to study the situation, where for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ both $r_f(x)$ and $r_{-f}(x)$ are either 0 or a fixed positive real number and to show that this characterizes the trigonometric
function. This theorem may be understood as a characterization of trigonometric functions by means of a dynamical aspect of the
Hardy-Littlewood maximal function. It seems to have surprisingly little to do with traditional characterizations involving geometry, power series, differential
equations or spectral theory. Indeed, we failed to find a slick reduction to any of the classical characterizations and
ended up needing tools from transcendental number theory.
\begin{theorem} Let $f \in C^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ be a periodic function and $\alpha > 1/2$. There exists a positive number $\gamma > 0$ such that the averaging operator
$$ (A_xf)(r) = \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz}$$
has a critical point in $r = \gamma$ for every $x$ if and only if
$$f(x) = a+b\sin{(cx + d)} \qquad \mbox{for some}~a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\end{theorem}
Theorem 1 is the strongest statement in this paper; it is relatively easy to deduce the following
statement, which formulates everything in terms of the complexity of the maximal intervals.
\begin{theorem} Let $f \in C^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ be a periodic function and $\alpha > 1/2$. Then
$$ \left| \bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\left\{r_f(x), r_{-f}(x)\right\}} \right| \leq 2$$
if and only if
$$f(x) = a+b\sin{(cx + d)} \qquad \mbox{for some}~a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\end{theorem}
We emphasize that we do not even know whether the statement remains true if the constant 2 is replaced by a larger positive integer (but conjecture
that it does).
Another way of stating Theorem 2 is as follows: suppose
the periodic function $f(x)$ does not change sign and that both $\mathcal{M}f$ and $\mathcal{M}(-f)$ can be computed by checking the average over an
interval of fixed interval and comparing it with point evaluation, i.e. suppose there exists a fixed number $0 < \gamma < \infty$
such that $f$ satisfies the equation
$$ (\mathcal{M}f)(x) = \max\left(|f(x)|, \frac{1}{2\gamma}\int_{x-\gamma}^{x+\gamma}{|f(z)|dz}\right) \qquad \mbox{for all}~x \in \mathbb{R}$$
and the same condition (with the same value $\gamma$) holds for $\mathcal{M}(-f)$, then
$$f(x) = a+b\sin{(cx + d)} \qquad \mbox{for some}~a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\subsection{A delay differential equation.} Perhaps the most natural first step after seeing Theorem 1 would be
to try a combination of differentiation and algebraic manipulations to obtain an ordinary differential equation (with
the hope of it being $y'' + y =0$). As it turns out, this does not work and produces much more interesting results
instead. Differentiation in $r$ implies that
$$ 0 = \partial_r \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz}\big|_{r = \gamma} = -\frac{1}{2\gamma^2}\int_{x-\gamma}^{x+\gamma}{f(z)dz} + \frac{1}{2\gamma}(f(x+\gamma) + f(x-\gamma)).$$
Assuming $f \in C^1$, this equation can now be differentiated in $x$ and yields
$$ f'(x+\gamma) - \frac{1}{\gamma}f(x+\gamma) = -f'(x-\gamma) - \frac{1}{\gamma}f(x-\gamma).$$
The qualitative theory of delay differential equations is a lot more complicated than the theory of ordinary differential equations because the space of
solutions is \textit{much} larger (uncountable): any $C^1$ function $g:[0, 2\gamma] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with correct boundary
conditions can always be extended to a solution of the delay differential equation. However, as an easy consequence of Theorem 2, we
can show that there are few periodic solutions.
\begin{theorem} Let $\gamma > 0$ be fixed and let $f \in C^1(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ be a solution of the delay differential equation
$$ f'(x+\gamma) - \frac{1}{\gamma}f(x+\gamma) = -f'(x-\gamma) - \frac{1}{\gamma}f(x-\gamma).$$
If $f$ is periodic, then
$$f(x) = a+b\sin{(cx + d)} \qquad \mbox{for some}~a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\end{theorem}
Considering the large (uncountable) number of solutions, it is utterly remarkable that there are so few periodic solutions. We have not been able to locate any type of argument in the literature
that would allow to prove a result of this type.
\subsection{Open questions.} We believe that many of the assumptions can be weakened. Periodicity of the functions is necessary to allow the use of Fourier series on which
our argument is based, however, it seems natural to assume that the properties discussed could not hold for a nonperiodic function anyway. The assumption
$f \in C^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ with $\alpha > 1/2$ is required at one point in the proof to enforce uniform convergence of the Fourier series; again, it seems to
be an artefact of the method. We note that the condition $f \in C^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ with $\alpha > 1/2$ in our statements could always be replaced with the
condition of $f$ having an absolutely convergent Fourier series. The strongest statement we believe could
to true is the following.
\begin{quote}
\textit{Conjecture.} If $f \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ is real-valued and $r_f(x)$ assumes only finitely many different values, then
$$f(x) = a+b\sin{(cx + d)} \qquad \mbox{for some}~a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\end{quote}
A more daring conjecture would be that it suffices to assume that
$$\bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\left\{r_f(x)\right\}} \subset \mathbb{R}
\qquad \mbox{is a Lebesgue-null set.}$$
If $r_f(x)$ is contained in a set of 'small' non-zero Lebesgue measure, what does that imply for the function? It seems to indicate,
in some weak sense, that Fourier frequencies interact weakly (perhaps in the sense of a $\Lambda(p)-$property?). Furthermore, it
seems that if $f$ is given by a lacunary Fourier series, then
$$\bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\left\{r_f(x)\right\}} \subset \mathbb{R} \qquad \mbox{can have 'fractal' structure}$$
again in a vague sense (small measure and a very large number of connected components): it could be of interest to try to understand quantitative versions of this
basic intuition. One could also ask to which extent this persists in higher dimensions: in $\mathbb{R}^d$, if we consider the maximal function associated to axis-parallel
rectangles and the natural analogue $r_f(x):\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$, then setting
$$f(x_1, \dots, x_d) = \prod_{i=1}^{d}{(a_i + b_i\sin{x_i} + c_i\cos{x_i})} \quad \mbox{implies} \quad \left| \bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\left\{r_f(x), r_{-f}(x)\right\}} \right| \leq 2^d.$$
Already in two dimensions, there are many natural maximal functions and
it is not clear to us whether similar statements hold for any of them. We recall the Pompeiu conjecture \cite{pomp}: if $K \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a simply connected Lipschitz domain and $f: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a nonzero
continuous function such that the integral of f vanishes over every congruent copy of $K$ -- does this imply that $K$ is a ball? Is there a connection between the Pompeiu conjecture
and the maximal problem for disks?\\
\textit{The discrete setting.} In light of the recent results \cite{bob, car, car1} concerning the behavior of the maximal function on the lattice, this might be another interesting direction to investigate. For a function $f:\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we define the maximal function as
$$ (\mathcal{M}f)(n) = \sup_{r \in \mathbb{N}_{\geq 0}}{\frac{1}{2r +1}{\sum_{k=n-r}^{n+r}{f(k)}}}.$$
The length function $r_{f}:\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ is defined as above. Numerical experiments show that
the continuous case translates into the discrete setting: for generic parameters functions of the form
$$ f(n) = a + b \sin{(c n + d)} \qquad a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}$$
seem to give rise to two-valued $r_f$. We do not have a formal proof of this statement, it should be equivalent to a series
of trigonometric inequalities that might actually be in the literature. The property is stable under small perturbations. However, there also exist completely
different functions with a two-valued $r_f$: the following example was found by Xiuyuan Cheng (personal communication). Taking
$$ f(n) = \frac{(-1)^n}{\left(|n|+\frac{1}{2}\right)^{\alpha}} \qquad \mbox{for certain} \quad 0 < \alpha < \frac{1}{2},$$
introducing a cut-off and making it periodic can yield functions with $r_f:\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \left\{0,2\right\}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.7\textwidth]{bild1.pdf}
\caption{A periodic function $f:\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as above (here: $\alpha = 1/3$) with $r_f \in \left\{0,2\right\}$.}
\end{figure}
This example is structurally totally different from the sine: having oscillations at scale 2 seems crucial. We do not know whether there
are any solutions of other types and consider it to be a fascinating problem. A natural conjecture would be that if a periodic function $f:\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfies
$$ |f(n+1) - f(n)| \leq \varepsilon \|f\|_{\ell^{\infty}} $$
and has a two-valued $r_f$, then
$$ \inf_{a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}} ~~ \sup_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} ~~\left| f(n) - (a + b \sin{(cn + d)}) \right| \leq c(\varepsilon)\|f\|_{\ell^{\infty}}$$
for some function $c:\mathbb{R}_{+} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}$ tending to 0 as $\varepsilon$ tends to 0.
\subsection{Related work.} We are not aware of any related work in this direction. Our interest in the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function itself, however, stems
from a series of recent interesting results studying fine properties of $\mathcal{M}f$: since $\mathcal{M}f$ tries to maximize local averages, there is every reason
to believe that it should decrease total variation -- this turns out to be a surprisingly intricate problem. Motivated by a question of Kinnunen \cite{ki}, Tanaka \cite{tan} showed
for the \textit{uncentered} Hardy-Littlewood maximal function $ \mathcal{ M^*}$ that
$$ \| (\mathcal{M}^* f)'\| \leq 2 \| f'\|_{L^1},$$
where the constant 2 was then improved to 1 by J. M. Aldaz \& J. P\'{e}rez L\'{a}zaro \cite{al}. Kurka \cite{k} has recently proven the same inequality for the centered Hardy-Littlewood maximal
function for a large universal constant. Carneiro \& Svaiter \cite{car2} give corresponding results for the maximal heat flow and the maximal Poisson operator. The discrete question on the lattice $\mathbb{Z}$
has been investigated by Bober, Carneiro, Hughes \& Pierce \cite{bob} and Carneiro \& Hughes \cite{car} in higher dimensions. The result of Kurka in the discrete setting has been proven by Temur \cite{tem}. These results are well in line of what one would expect from a maximal function, however, it is quite interesting that all of them seem quite difficult to prove; indeed, the sharp constant 1 for the centered maximal function on the real line is still merely conjectural.\\
\textit{Stokes wave.} Equations of the type appearing in our proof seems to have previously surfaced in a completely different context: in a 1987 paper on on the behaviour of the Stokes wave
of extreme form near its crest, Amick \& Fraenkel \cite{amick} encounter the equation
$$ \sqrt{3}(1+z) = \tan{\left( \frac{\pi}{2} z\right)} \qquad z \in \mathbb{C}$$
and require statements about the linear independence of the solutions of such an equation. All solutions $z_1, z_2, \dots$ with $Re(z) > -1$ are simple and the Amick-Fraenkel conjecture says that
$$ \left\{ 1, z_1, z_2, \dots \right\} \qquad \mbox{is linearly independent over the rationals}.$$
Shargorodsky \cite{shar} showed that this is implied by the Schanuel conjecture. Our proof encounters similar issues but can be unconditionally
resolved using the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem.
\section{Proofs}
\subsection{Outline.} This section contains all the proofs. We first prove Theorem 1 and then show how it implies Theorem 2 and Theorem 3.
The proof of Theorem 1 uses an expansion into Fourier series and the fact that averaging over intervals acts diagonally on the Fourier basis. This implies that a particular Fourier series
has to vanish identically which implies that all Fourier coefficients have to vanish identically -- this can be reduced to a system of 'diophantine' equations (over $\mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}$).
Using arguments from transcendental number theory, we can show that this system only has the trivial solution, which implies that the function has to be localized at one point in the frequency spectrum. The latter part of the argument is exploiting the arising structure in a very particular way and seems to only work in the very special case we are considering.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem 1.}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $f \in C^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ for some $\alpha > 1/2$ is periodic. Without loss of generality, we can use the symmetries of the statement to assume that the function
has mean value 0 and the smallest period is $2\pi$ and that it can be written as
$$ f(x) = \sum_{k =1}^{\infty}{a_k \sin{k x} + b_k \cos{k x}}.$$
We assume now that
$$ \left( \partial_r \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz} \right) \big|_{r = \gamma} = 0 \qquad \mbox{for all}~x \in \mathbb{R}.$$
The trigonometric identities
\begin{align*}
\sin{(x+r)} - \sin{(x-r)} &= 2\sin{r}\cos{x} \\
\cos{(x+r)} - \cos{(x-r)} &= -2 \sin{r} \sin{x}
\end{align*}
yield that
$$ \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz} = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\frac{\sin{rk}}{rk}\left(a_k\sin{kx} + b_k\cos{kx}\right)}.$$
Here we invoke the classical theorem of Bernstein (see, e.g. \cite{katz}) stating that periodic functions in $f \in C^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ for some $\alpha > 1/2$ have
an absolutely convergent Fourier series. Furthermore, this allows us to interchange the sum and derivative with respect to $r$
$$0 = \partial_r \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz} \big|_{r = \gamma} = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\frac{\gamma k \cos{\gamma k} - \sin{\gamma k}}{\gamma^2 k}\left(a_k\sin{kx} + b_k\cos{kx}\right)}$$
because
$$ \left| \frac{\gamma k \cos{\gamma k} - \sin{\gamma k}}{\gamma^2 k} \right| \leq \frac{\gamma k + 1}{\gamma^2 k} \leq \frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma^2}$$
and therefore
$$ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\left|\frac{\gamma k \cos{\gamma k} - \sin{\gamma k}}{\gamma^2 k}\left(a_k\sin{kx} + b_k\cos{kx}\right)\right|} \leq \frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma^2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\left|a_k\sin{kx} + b_k\cos{kx}\right|} < \infty.$$
The only way for a Fourier series to vanish everywhere is for all the coefficients to vanish. Note that $\gamma > 0$ and therefore
$$ \frac{\gamma k \cos{\gamma k} - \sin{\gamma k}}{\gamma^2 k} = 0 \Leftrightarrow \gamma k = \tan{\gamma k}.$$
For any fixed $k$, it is certainly possible to choose $\gamma$ in such a way that the equation is satisfied. It remains to show that no two
such equations can be satisfied at the same time. We prove this by contradiction and assume now that
$$ a_k^2 + b_k^2 > 0 \qquad \mbox{for at least two different values of}~k \in \mathbb{N}.$$
This would imply the existence of a solution $(\gamma, m, n) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N}$
\begin{align*}
\tan{\gamma m} &= \gamma m \\
\tan{\gamma n} &= \gamma n
\end{align*}
with $\gamma > 0$ and $m \neq n$. If we could derive a contradiction from this assumption, it would imply that, independently of the value $\gamma$,
$$ a_k^2 + b_k^2 > 0 \qquad \mbox{can hold for at most one value of}~k \in \mathbb{N}$$
from which the statement follows since then
$$ f(x) = a_k\sin{kx} + b_k\cos{kx}.$$
It is not surprising that number theory enters here: one way of rephrasing the problem is that any two elements in the set
$$ \left\{ z \in \mathbb{R}_{+}: \tan(z) = z \right\} \qquad \mbox{are linearly independent over}~\mathbb{Q}.$$
The rest of the argument can be summarized as follows: the tangent has the powerful property of sending nonzero algebraic numbers to transcendental
numbers. Any nonzero solution $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ of the equation $\tan{(\gamma m)} = \gamma m$ must therefore be transcendental, which means that it is never
the root of a polynomial with rational coefficients. Using multiple angle formulas for the tangent, the assumption of any nontrivial solution $\gamma$
satisfying two of these equations at the same time allows to construct an explicit polynomial for which $\gamma$ is a root -- this contradiction will conclude the proof.
We start with the cornerstone of the argument.
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Claim} (taken from \cite{mor})\textbf{.} \textit{ If $x \neq 0$ is algebraic over $\mathbb{Q}$, then $\tan{x}$ is transcendental over $\mathbb{Q}$.}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\tan{x}$ is algebraic over $\mathbb{Q}$, then we would have that for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and some $r_k \in \mathbb{Q}$
$$ \sum_{k = 0}^{n}{r_k (\tan{x})^k} = 0.$$
We rewrite $x$ using the exponential function
$$ \tan{x} = \frac{1}{i}\frac{e^{ix} - e^{-ix}}{e^{ix} + e^{-ix}}.$$
Inserting this expression and multiplying by $(e^{ix} + e^{-ix})^n$ on both sides allows us deduce that
$$ \sum_{k = 0}^{n}{r_k \left( \frac{e^{ix} - e^{-ix}}{i}\right)^k(e^{ix} + e^{-ix})^{n-k} } = 0.$$
Expanding all brackets, we may deduce that
$$ \sum_{k = -n}^{n}{r_k^*e^{i k x} } = 0$$
for some $r_k^* \in \mathbb{Q}[[i]]$ not all of which are 0. We invoke the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem in the formulation of Baker \cite{bak}: if
$ b_0, b_1, \dots, b_m$ are non-zero algebraic numbers and $\beta_0, \beta_1, \dots, \beta_m$ are distinct algebraic
numbers, then
$$b_0 e^{\beta_0} + b_1 e^{\beta_1} + \dots + b_m e^{\beta_m} \neq 0$$
and this contradiction completes our proof.
\end{proof}
\end{quote}
We now prove a little statement showing that
integer multiples of fixed points $\tan{x} = x$ have a well-defined tangent. Equivalently, we want to guarantee that if
$\tan{\gamma} = \gamma$, then $n \gamma = (m+1/2)\pi$ has no solutions $(n,m) \in \mathbb{N}^2$.
\begin{quote}
\textbf{Claim}\textbf{.} \textit{If $\gamma > 0$ satisfies $\tan{\gamma n} = \gamma n$ for some $n \in \mathbb{N}_{>0}$, then $\gamma$ and $\pi$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$.}
\begin{proof} Suppose that the statement fails and
$$ \gamma n =(p/q)\pi.$$
Note that, by definition,
$$ \tan\left(\tan\left( \pi p/q \right) \right) = \tan\left(\tan\left(\gamma n \right) \right) = \tan{\gamma n} = \tan\left( \pi p/q \right),$$
It is known that $ \tan\left( \pi p/q \right)$ is an algebraic number (even the degree of the minimal polynomial is known, see \cite{ca}).
This would be an instance of the tangent mapping the nonzero algebraic number $\tan\left( \pi p/q \right)$ to an algebraic number, which
is a contradiction to the statement proven above.
\end{proof}
\end{quote}
Suppose now that $(\gamma, m, n) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N}$ is a nontrivial solution of
\begin{align*}
\tan{\gamma m} &= \gamma m \\
\tan{\gamma n} &= \gamma n.
\end{align*}
Then $\gamma$ has to be transcendental: if $\gamma$ were algebraic, then $\gamma m$ would be
algebraic from which we could deduce that $\tan{\gamma m}$ is transcendental, which contradicts $\tan{\gamma m} = \gamma m$.
Now in order to derive a final contradiction exploiting the fact that $\gamma$ is transcendental
we use an addition theorem for the tangent:
$$ \tan{((n+1) x)} = \tan{(n x + x)} = \frac{\tan{n x} + \tan{x}}{1-\tan{nx}\tan{x}}.$$
Iterating this multiple-angle formula, we have
$$ \tan{n x} = \frac{p_n(\tan(x))}{q_n(\tan(x))}$$
for two sequences of polynomials with integer coefficients satisfying the initial conditions $p_1(x) = x$ and $q_1(x) = 1$ and
the recursion formulas
\begin{align*}
p_{n+1}(x) &= p_n(x) + x q_n(x) \\
q_{n+1}(x) &= q_n(x) - xp_n(x).
\end{align*}
We know that $(\gamma, m, n) \in \mathbb{R}_{>0} \times \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N}$ solves
$$ 0 = n\tan{\gamma m} - m\tan{\gamma n} = n\frac{p_m(\tan{\gamma})}{q_m(\tan{\gamma})} - m\frac{p_n(\tan{\gamma})}{q_n(\tan{\gamma})}$$
and therefore
$$ 0 = n q_n(\tan{\gamma}) p_m(\tan{\gamma}) - m q_m(\tan{\gamma}) p_n(\tan{\gamma}).$$
It is easy to see that the polynomial on the right-hand side does not vanish identically by checking that
$$ \frac{d^3}{dx^3}n \tan{x m} - m \tan{x n}\big|_{x=0} = \frac{1}{3}(nm^3 - mn^3) \neq 0.$$
This implies that $\tan{\gamma}$ satisfies a polynomial equation with integer coefficients and thus $\tan{\gamma}$ is algebraic, which is
a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Theorem 1 implies Theorem 2.}
\begin{proof}
Let $f:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a periodic function of regularity $C^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha > 1/2$ such that
$$ \left| \bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{ \left\{ r_f(x), r_{-f}(x) \right\} } \right| \leq 2.$$
Using the symmetries of the maximal function, we may assume without loss of generality that $f$ is periodic with period $2\pi$ and
has vanishing mean value. Let us first assume that
$$ \left| \bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{ \left\{ r_f(x), r_{-f}(x) \right\} } \right| = 1.$$
Since $f$ is periodic, it assumes a global maximum from which it follows that if $r_f$ were to be constant, it would have to be 0
from which it follows that $f$ is constant and the statement holds. Thus we can focus on the remaining case of $r_f$ and $r_{-f}$ being two-valued
(by the same reasoning 0 always has to be one of the two values):
$$ \bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\left\{r_f(x), r_{-f}(x)\right\}} = \left\{0, \gamma\right\} \qquad \mbox{for some real number} ~\gamma > 0.$$
We are now in the case where $f$ is continuous, non-constant and has vanishing mean: this allows to partition $\mathbb{R}$ into three nonempty sets
\begin{align*}
I_1 &= \left\{x \in \mathbb{R}: f(x) < 0\right\} \\
I_2 &= \left\{x \in \mathbb{R}: f(x) = 0\right\} \\
I_3 &= \left\{x \in \mathbb{R}: f(x) > 0\right\}.
\end{align*}
We will now prove that
$$ \left( \partial_r \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz} \right) \big|_{r = \gamma} = 0 \qquad \mbox{for all}~x \in \mathbb{R}.$$
This is easy to see on $I_1$: if $x \in I_1$ and $r_{f}(x) = 0$, then the maximal function would have the value $f(x) < 0$.
However,
by taking the maximal interval of length $2\pi$, we can at least get an average value of 0, which exceeds $f(x)$.
This implies that $r_{f}(x) = \gamma,$ which implies the statement. A similar argument works for $x \in I_3$, where
the same reasoning implies $r_{-f}(x) = \gamma$, which implies
$$ \left( \partial_r \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{-f(z)dz} \right) \big|_{r = \gamma} = 0$$
and gives the statement after multiplication with $-1$. For $x \in I_2$ we have to argue a bit differently: suppose
$r_f(x) = 0$. Then let us consider the function $h:[0, \pi] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
$$h(r) = \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz}.$$
By assumption, we have that $h(0) = h(\pi) = 0$ and $h(r) \leq 0$. If $h$ vanishes identically, the derivative vanishes
everywhere and in particular also in $\gamma$. Suppose now that $h$ does not vanish identically, then it assumes a global minimum on that interval.
By definition, this implies that $r_{-f}(x) > 0$ and thus by assumption $r_{-f}(x) = \gamma$ and this implies the statement as before -- this completes
the reduction of Theorem 1 to Theorem 2.\\
\end{proof}
\subsection{Theorem 1 implies the Theorem 3.}
\begin{proof} Let $\gamma > 0$ be fixed and let $f \in C^1(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ be a periodic solution of the delay differential equation
$$ f'(x+\gamma) - \frac{1}{\gamma}f(x+\gamma) = -f'(x-\gamma) - \frac{1}{\gamma}f(x-\gamma).$$
This can be rephrased as
$$ f'(x+\gamma) + f'(x-\gamma) = \frac{1}{\gamma}\left(f(x+\gamma) - f(x-\gamma)\right).$$
Integrating with respect to $x$ on both sides yields
$$ f(x+\gamma) + f(x-\gamma) = \frac{1}{\gamma}\int_{x-\gamma}^{x+\gamma}{f(z)dz} + c,$$
where $c \in \mathbb{R}$ is some undetermined constant. Since $f$ is periodic with some period $P$, we can deduce that the
average value of the left-hand side of the equation is precisely
$$ \lim_{y \rightarrow \infty}{\frac{1}{y} \int_{0}^{y}{f(x+\gamma) + f(x-\gamma) dx}} = \frac{2}{P}\int_{0}^{P}{f(x)dx}.$$
On the other hand
$$ \lim_{y \rightarrow \infty}{\frac{1}{y} \int_{0}^{y}{ \left( \frac{1}{\gamma}\int_{x-\gamma}^{x+\gamma}{f(z)dz} \right)+ c~dx}} = c + \frac{2}{P}\int_{0}^{P}{f(x)dx} $$
and thus $c=0$. Thus, multiplying the equation with $(2\gamma)^{-1}$, we get
$$ 0 = \frac{1}{2\gamma}(f(x+\gamma) + f(x-\gamma)) - \frac{1}{2\gamma^2}\int_{x-\gamma}^{x+\gamma}{f(z)dz} = \left( \partial_r \frac{1}{2r}\int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(z)dz} \right) \big|_{r = \gamma}.$$
This is precisely the condition in Theorem 2 (with slightly higher regularity on $f$) and implies the result.
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding remarks}
\subsection{A conjectured stronger statement.} It seems reasonable to assume that for a periodic $C^1-$function
$f:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ already
$$ \left| \bigcup_{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\left\{r_f(x)\right\}} \right| \leq 2$$
implies that $f$ has to be a trigonometric function, i.e. that it suffices to demand that the computation of $\mathcal{M}f$ is 'simple' (in the sense described above) and
not additionally that the computation of $\mathcal{M}(-f)$ be simple as well. After adding a suitable constant we can assume w.l.o.g. that $f$ has vanishing
mean and, by using the dilation symmetry, that $r_{f}(x) \in \left\{0, 1\right\}$. Then we know that $r_f(x) = 1$ whenever
$f(x) < 0$ and that therefore
$$ \partial_x \left( \partial_r \frac{1}{2r} \int_{x-r}^{x+r}{f(y) dy} \big|_{r=1} \right) = 0 \qquad \mbox{whenever}~f(x) < 0.$$
The same explicit computation as before implies that one could derive the following statement.
\begin{quote}
\textit{Conjecture.} Suppose $f:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$
is $C^1$ and satisfies
$$ f'(x+1) - f(x+1) = -f'(x-1)-f(x-1) \qquad \mbox{whenever}~f(x) < 0.$$
Then
$$f(x) = a+b\sin{(cx + d)} \qquad \mbox{for some}~a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\end{quote}
This statement would be a \textit{quite} curious strengthening of Theorem 3.
\subsection{A Poincar\'{e} inequality.}
The purpose of this short section is to note a basic observation for the uncentered maximal function (which fails for the centered maximal function):
if the uncentered maximal intervals are all rather short, then this should imply the presence of strong oscillation in the function. We give a
very simple form of that statement. Let $f \in C^1([0,1])$ and consider the uncentered maximal function $\mathcal{M}^*$ defined via
$$ (\mathcal{M}^*f)(x) = \sup_{J \ni x}{\frac{1}{|J|}\int_{J}{f(x)dx}},$$
where $J$ ranges over all intervals $J \subset [0,1]$ containing $x$.
We define analogously $r^*_f(x)$ as the length of the shortest interval
necessary to achieve the maximal possible value.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5]
\draw [fill, ultra thick] (0.7,0) circle [radius=0.02];
\draw [fill, ultra thick] (0.7,-0.5) circle [radius=0.015];
\draw [fill, ultra thick] (0.2,-0.5) circle [radius=0.015];
\draw [thick] (0.2,-0.5) -- (0.7,-0.5);
\draw[->, thick] (0,0) -- (2,0);
\draw[->, thick] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw[ultra thick, scale=1,domain=0:2,smooth,variable=\x] plot ({\x},{0.4*sin(400*\x)});
\node[below] at (0,-0.4) {$J$};
\node[above] at (0.7,0) {$x$};
\draw [fill, ultra thick] (3.4,0) circle [radius=0.02];
\draw [fill, ultra thick] (3.4,-0.5) circle [radius=0.015];
\draw [fill, ultra thick] (3.2,-0.5) circle [radius=0.015];
\draw [thick] (3.15,-0.5) -- (3.4,-0.5);
\draw[ thick] (3,0) -- (5,0);
\draw[->, thick] (3,0) -- (3,1);
\draw[ultra thick, scale=1,domain=3:3.6,smooth,variable=\x] plot ({\x},{0.4*sin(600*\x-1800)});
\draw[ultra thick] (3.6,0) -- (5,0);
\node[below] at (3,-0.4) {$J$};
\node[above] at (3.4,0) {$x$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Two examples where $r^*_f(x)$ is always small: both exhibit strong oscillation.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
It is clear from examples that, in a loose sense, strong oscillation implies that $r^*_f(x)$ is small: it will
be optimal to choose the interval to be either a point evaluation or in such a way that one captures
the one or two adjacent large amplitudes. An inverse result can be quantified as follows.
\begin{proposition} Assume $f \in C^1([0,1])$ has mean value $\overline{f}$. Then we have the Poincar\'{e} inequality
$$ \int_{0}^{1}{\left| f(x) - \overline{f} \right| dx} \leq 4\| r^*_f \|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})} \int_{0}^{1}{|f'(x)|dx}.$$
\end{proposition}
If we were to replace $4\|r^*_f\|_{L^{\infty}}$ by the constant $1/2$, this would be the classical $L^1-$Poincar\'{e} inequality on $[0,1]$.
Put differently, for a function $f:[0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with vanishing mean, we have
an uncertainty relation between the total variation and $ \|r^*_f\|_{L^{\infty}}$
$$ \mbox{var}(f) \|r^*_f\|_{L^{\infty}} \geq \frac{1}{4}\int_{0}^{1}{|f(x)|dx}.$$
It is easy to see that the statement has the sharp scaling: consider
$$ f(x) = \sin{N \pi x} \quad \mbox{where} \qquad \|r^*_f \|_{L^{\infty}} \sim N^{-1} ~ \mbox{and} ~\| f'\|_{L^1} \sim N.$$
Another example is given by taking a positive bump function $\phi \in C^{\infty}_{c}(0,1)$ and consider
the rescaled function
$$ f(x) = a \phi'(b x) \quad \mbox{where} \qquad \int_{0}^{1}{\left| f(x) - \overline{f} \right| dx} \sim a b^{-1}, \|r^* \|_{L^{\infty}} \sim b^{-1} ~ \mbox{and} ~\| f' \|_{L^1} \sim a.$$
We note that the result is not true for the centered maximal function: the function $f(x) = 1 - (x-0.5)^2$ (or, more generally,
any strictly concave function) satisfies $r_f \equiv 0$.
\begin{proof} We may suppose w.l.o.g. that $f$ has vanishing mean $\overline{f} = 0$. Now we write
$$\int_{0}^{1}{\left| f(x) \right| dx} = 2\int_{0}^{1}{\chi_{f < 0}(x)|f(x)| dx}$$
and estimate the number on the right. It is easy to see that the set
$$ \left\{x \in [0,1]: f(x) < 0\right\}$$
cannot contain an interval of length larger than $2\|r^{*}_f\|_{L^{\infty}}$ because, since $\overline{f} = 0$, the maximal function is always nonnegative
(one can always simply choose the entire interval). Clearly, for any $g \in C^1$,
$$ \int_{s}^{t}{|g(x)|dx} \leq (t-s)\int_{s}^{t}{|g'(x)| dx} \qquad \mbox{if}~g(s)=0.$$
We can now use that inequality on every connected component $ \left\{x \in [0,1]: f(x) < 0\right\}$: by the reasoning above, we will always have $t-s \leq 2\|r^{*}_f\|_{L^{\infty}}$
and therefore
$$\int_{0}^{1}{\chi_{f < 0}|f| dx} \leq 2\|r^{*}_f\|_{L^{\infty}} \int_{0}^{1}{| f'(x)|dx},$$
which implies the statement.
\end{proof}
It could be quite interesting to
understand under which conditions and to which extent such improved Poincar\'{e} inequalities are
true in higher dimensions and how they depend on the maximal function involved.\\
\textbf{Acknowledgement.} I am grateful for discussions with Raphy Coifman and indebted to Lillian Pierce for a number helpful remarks, which
greatly improved the manuscript. My interest in non-standard aspects of the maximal function traces back to a series of very enjoyable conversations
with Emanuel Carneiro at the Oberwolfach Workshop 1340 -- I am grateful to both him and the organizers of the workshop.
|
\section{Introduction}
The wire-tap channel with side information at the decoders has been previously investigated. It was studied in \cite{villard-allerton} under an equivocation constraint at the eavesdropper and a complete characterization of the rate-distortion-equivocation region was derived. A related problem with coded side information was studied in \cite{gunduz}. However, using equivocation as the description of secrecy does not capture how much distortion will occur if the eavesdropper is forced to reconstruct the source. In this work, both the legitimate receiver and the eavesdropper's reconstructions of the source are measured by distortion. Furthermore, the eavesdropper is assumed to make the best use of her side information along with the encoded message. This setting can also be interpreted as a game-theoretic model where the two receivers are playing a zero-sum game and each one is required to output a sequence that is closest to the source sequence being transmitted.
This distortion-based notion of secrecy was also used in \cite{cuff-allerton2010}, \cite{schieler-isit2012} and \cite{song-isit2013} with the presence of secret key sharing between the encoder and the legitimate receiver. It was shown in \cite{schieler-isit2012} that a secret key with any strictly positive rate can force the eavesdropper's reconstruction of the source to be as bad as if she knows only the source distribution, i.e. the distortion under perfect secrecy. This result suggests, if instead of a shared secret key, the decoders have access to different side information, we should be able to force the eavesdropper's reconstruction of the source to be the distortion under perfect secrecy as long as the legitimate receiver's side information is somewhat stronger than the eavesdropper's side information with respect to the source. This is indeed the case, which will be formally stated herein. However, in the more general case, the legitimate receiver may not have the stronger side information. Can a positive distortion still be forced upon the eavesdropper? We will show in this paper that we can encode the source in favor of the legitimate receiver's side information so that the eavesdropper can only make limited use of the encoded message even with the help of her side information.
The proof technique used in the achievability in this paper follows the same line as \cite{cuff-itw2013}, \cite{song-isit2014}, which relies on the soft-covering lemmas. This approach differs from the traditional joint-typicality and random-binning based proofs in that it requires no effort on bounding the different kinds of error events, and the results obtained from this approach apply to both discrete and continuous alphabets, since the soft-covering lemmas have no restriction on the alphabet size.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{prelim}
\subsection{Notation} \label{notation}
A sequence $X_1,..., X_n$ is denoted by $X^n$. Limits taken with respect to ``$n\rightarrow \infty$" are abbreviated as ``$\rightarrow_n$". Inequalities with $\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty}h_n\leq h$ and $\liminf_{n\rightarrow \infty}h_n\geq h$ are abbreviated as $h_n\leq_n h$ and $h_n\geq_n h$, respectively.
When $X$ denotes a random variable, $x$ is used to denote a realization, $\mathcal{X}$ is used to denote the support of that random variable, and $\Delta_{\mathcal{X}}$ is used to denote the probability simplex of distributions with alphabet $\mathcal{X}$. The symbol $|\cdot|$ is used to denote the cardinality. A Markov relation is denoted by the symbol $-$.
We use $\mathbb{E}_P$, $\mathbb{P}_P$, and $I_{P}(X;Y)$ to indicate expectation, probability, and mutual information taken with respect to a distribution $P$; however, when the distribution is clear from the context, the subscript will be omitted. We use a bold capital letter $\mathbf{P}$ to denote that a distribution $P$ is random. We use $\mathbb{R}$ to denote the set of real numbers and $\mathbb{R}^+$ to denote the nonnegative subset.
For a distortion measure $d: \mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}\mapsto \mathbb{R}^+$, we use $\mathbb{E} \left[d(X,Y)\right]$ to measure the distortion of $X$ incurred by reconstructing it as $Y$. The maximum distortion is defined as
$$d_{max}=\max_{(x,y) \in \mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}} d(x,y).$$
The distortion between two sequences is defined to be the per-letter average distortion
$$d(x^n,y^n)=\frac1n\sum_{t=1}^n d(x_t,y_t).$$
\subsection{Total Variation Distance}
The total variation distance between two probability measures $P$ and $Q$ on the same $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{F}$ of subsets of the sample space $\mathcal{X}$ is defined as
$$\lVert P-Q\rVert_{TV}\triangleq \sup_{\mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{F}}|P(\mathcal{A})-Q(\mathcal{A})|.$$
\begin{property}[Property 2 \cite{schieler-journal}] \label{property-tv}
The total variation distance satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \label{a} Let $\varepsilon>0$ and let $f(x)$ be a function in a bounded range with width $b \in\mathbb{R}$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{tvcontinuous}
\lVert P-Q \rVert_{TV} < \varepsilon \:\Longrightarrow\: \big| \mathbb{E}_P[f(X)] - \mathbb{E}_Q[f(X)] \big | < \varepsilon b.
\end{equation}
\item \label{b} Total variation satisfies the triangle inequality. For any $S \in \Delta_{\mathcal{X}}$,
\begin{equation}
\lVert P - Q \rVert_{TV} \leq \lVert P - S \rVert_{TV} + \lVert S - Q \rVert_{TV}.
\end{equation}
\item \label{c} Let $P_{X}P_{Y|X}$ and $Q_XP_{Y|X}$ be two joint distributions on $\Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}}$. Then
\begin{equation}
\lVert P_XP_{Y|X} - Q_X P_{Y|X} \rVert_{TV} = \lVert P_X - Q_X \rVert_{TV}.
\end{equation}
\item \label{d} For any $P,Q \in \Delta_{\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{Y}}$,
\begin{equation}
\lVert P_X - Q_X \rVert_{TV} \leq \lVert P_{XY} - Q_{XY} \rVert_{TV}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{property}
\subsection{Soft-covering Lemmas}
We now introduce two versions of soft-covering lemma, which will be used for the achievability proof. The basic soft-covering lemma has been used to obtain lossy source coding results \cite{cuff-itw2013} and \cite{song-isit2014}. However, a generalized superposition soft-covering lemma is required for meeting secrecy constraints.
\begin{lem}(\textbf{Basic soft-covering}, \cite{cuff2012distributed}] \label{bsc}
Given a joint distribution $P_{XY}$, let $\mathcal{C}^{(n)}$ be a random collection of sequences $Y^n(m)$, with $m=1,...,2^{nR}$, each drawn independently and i.i.d. according to $P_Y$. Denote by $\mathbf{P}_{X^n}$ the output distribution induced by selecting an index $m$ uniformly at random and applying $Y^n(m)$ to the memoryless channel specified by $P_{X|Y}$. Then if $R>I(X;Y)$,
$$\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^n}\left[\lVert \mathbf{P}_{X^n}-\prod_{t=1}^n P_X\rVert_{TV}\right]\leq \epsilon_n,$$
where $\epsilon_n\rightarrow_n 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}(\textbf{Generalized superposition soft-covering}, \cite{schieler-journal}) \label{gsc}
Given a joint distribution $P_{UVXZ}$, let $\mathcal{C}_U^{(n)}$ be a random codebook of $2^{nR_1}$ sequences in $\mathcal{U}^n$, each drawn independently according to $\prod_{t=1}^n P_U(u_t)$ and indexed by $m_1\in[1:2^{nR_1}]$. For each $m_1$, let $\mathcal{C}_V^{(n)}(m_1)$ be a random codebook of $2^{nR_2}$ sequences in $\mathcal{V}^n$, each drawn independently according to $\prod_{t=1}^nP_{V|U}(v_i|u_i(m_1))$ and indexed by $(m_1,m_2)\in[1:2^{nR_2}]$.
Let
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{P}_{M_1M_2X^nZ^k}(m_1,m_2,x^n,z^k)\nonumber\\
&\triangleq& 2^{n(R_1+R_2)}\prod_{t=1}^n P_{X|UV}(x_t|U_t(m_1),V_t(m_1,m_2))\nonumber\\
&& P_{Z|XUV}(z_t|x_t,u_t,v_t)^{1\{t\in[k]\}},
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{Q}_{M_1X^nZ^k}(m_1,x^n,z^k)\nonumber\\
&\triangleq&2^{-nR_1}\prod_{t=1}^n P_{X|U}(x_i|U_i(m_1))\nonumber\\
&&P_{Z|XU}(z_i|x_i,U_i(m_1))^{1\{t\in[k]\}}
\end{eqnarray}
If $R_2>I(X;V|U)$, then there exists $\alpha\in(0,1]$, depending only on the gap $R_2-I(X;V|U)$, such that if $k<\lfloor\alpha n\rfloor$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\Vert \mathbf{P}_{M_1X^nZ^k}-\mathbf{Q}_{M_1X^nZ^k}\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq e^{-\gamma n}\rightarrow_n 0
\end{eqnarray}
for some $\gamma>0$.
\end{lem}
\section{Problem Setup and Main Results}\label{result}
\subsection{Problem Setup}
We want to determine the rate-distortion region for a secrecy system with an i.i.d. source and two side information sequences $(X^n, B^n, W^n)$ distributed according to $\prod_{t=1}^n \overline{P}_{XBW}(x_t,b_t,w_t)$ satisfying the following constraints:
\begin{itemize}
\item Encoder $f_n: \mathcal{X}^n \mapsto \mathcal{M}$ (possibly stochastic);
\item Legitimate receiver decoder $g_n: \mathcal{M}\times \mathcal{B}^n \mapsto {\mathcal{Y}}^n$ (possibly stochastic);
\item Eavesdropper decoder $P_{Z^n|MW^n}$;
\item Compression rate: $R$, i.e. $|\mathcal{M}|=2^{nR}$.
\end{itemize}
The system performance is measured according to the following distortion metrics:
\begin{itemize}
\item Average distortion for the legitimate receiver:
$$\mathbb{E}[d_b(X^n,Y^n)]\leq_n D_b$$
\item Minimum average distortion for the eavesdropper:
$$\min_{P_{Z^n|MW^n}}\mathbb{E}[d_w(X^n,Z^n)]\geq_n D_w$$
\end{itemize}
Note that $d_b$ and $d_w$ can be the same or different distortion measures.
\begin{defn}
The rate-distortion triple $(R,D_b,D_w)$ is achievable if there exists a sequence of rate $R$ encoders and decoders $(f_n,g_n)$ such that
$$\mathbb{E}[d_b(X^n,Y^n)]\leq_n D_b$$
and
$$\min_{P_{Z^n|MW^n}}\mathbb{E}[d_w(X^n,Z^n)]\geq_n D_w.$$
\end{defn}
The above mathematical formulation is illustrated in Fig.\ref{setup}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
[node distance=1cm,minimum height=7mm,minimum width=10mm,arw/.style={->,>=stealth'}]
\node[coordinate] (source) {};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (encoder) [right =of source] {Encoder $f_n$};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (decoder) [right =2cm of encoder] {Decoder $g_n$};
\node[coordinate] (sink)[right =of decoder] {};
\node[coordinate] (side)[above =0.5cm of decoder] {};
\node[rectangle,draw,rounded corners] (decoder2) [below =of decoder] {$P_{Z^n|MW^n}$};
\node[coordinate] (mid)[right=1cm of encoder]{};
\node[coordinate] (sink2)[right =of decoder2]{};
\node[coordinate] (side2)[below =0.5cm of decoder2] {};
\draw [arw] (source) to node[midway,above]{$X^n$} (encoder);
\draw [arw] (encoder) to node[midway,above]{$M$} (decoder);
\draw [arw] (decoder) to node[midway,above]{$Y^n$} (sink);
\draw [arw] (side) to node[midway,above]{$B^n$} (decoder);
\draw [->] (mid) |- (decoder2);
\draw [arw] (decoder2) to node[midway, above]{$Z^n$} (sink2);
\draw [arw] (side2) to node[midway,below]{$W^n$} (decoder2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Secrecy system setup with side information at the decoders}
\label{setup}
\end{figure}
For the special case of lossless compression between the transmitter and the legitimate receiver, we make the following definition.
\begin{defn}
A rate-distortion pair $(R,D_w)$ is achievable if there exists a sequence of encoders and decoders $(f_n, g_n)$ such that
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\mathbb{P}\left[X^n\neq Y^n\right] = 0$$
and
$$ \min_{P_{Z^n|M,W^n}} \mathbb{E} [d_w(X^n, Z^n)]\geq_n D_w.$$
\end{defn}
\subsection{Less Noisy and More Capable Side Information}
\begin{defn}
The side information $B$ is strictly less noisy than the side information $W$ with respect to $X$ if
$$I(V;B)> I(V;W)$$
for all $V$ such that $V- X- (B,W)$ and $I(V;B)>0$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
The side information $B$ is strictly more capable than the side information $W$ with respect to $X$ if
$$I(X;B)> I(X;W).$$
\end{defn}
\subsection{Main Achievability Result}
\begin{thm} \label{inner}
A rate-distortion triple $(R,D_b,D_w)$ is achievable if
\begin{eqnarray}
&&R> I(V;X|B)\\
&&D_b\geq\mathbb{E} [d_b(X,Y)]\\
&&D_w\leq\min_{z(u,w)}\mathbb{E} [d_w(X,Z(U,W))]\\
&&I (V;B|U)>I (V;W|U)
\end{eqnarray}
for some $\overline{P}_{UVXBW}=\overline{P}_{XBW}\overline{P}_{V|X}\overline{P}_{U|V}$, where $Y=\phi(V,B)$ for some function $\phi(\cdot,\cdot)$.
\end{thm}
The proof of the above theorem is provided in the Section \ref{achievability}.
Theorem \ref{inner} involves two auxiliary variables $U$ and $V$ that are correlated with the source $X$ in a Markov chain relationship. The variable $V$ can be understood as the lossy representation of $X$ that is communicated efficiently using random binning to the intended receiver, which will be used with the side information $B$ to estimate $X$, just as in the setting without an eavesdropper which was pioneered by \cite{wyner-ziv}. The purpose of the auxiliary variable $U$ is to provide secrecy similar to the way secrecy is achieved in \cite{villard-allerton}. The side information at the intended receiver must be better than that of the eavesdropper (as measured by mutual information with $V$) in order to prevent decoding of $V$. The variable $U$ (if needed) is given away to all parties as the first layer of a superposition code in order to generate this condition for $V$.
\subsection{A Trivial Converse}
A tight outer bound is not attained and hence, the optimality of Theorem \ref{inner} is not yet known. A trivial outer bound is stated as follows for completeness.
\begin{thm} \label{outer}
If a rate-distortion triple $(R,D_b,D_w)$ is achievable, then
\begin{eqnarray}
&&R> I(V;X|B) \label{rate-wz}\\
&&D_b\geq\mathbb{E} [d_b(X,Y)] \label{distortion-bob}\\
&&D_w\leq \min_{z(w)} \mathbb{E} [d_w(X,Z(W))] \label{distortion-eve}
\end{eqnarray}
for some $\overline{P}_{VXBW}=\overline{P}_{XBW}\overline{P}_{V|X}$, where $Y=\phi(V,B)$ for some function $\phi(\cdot,\cdot)$ and all the quantities are with respect to $\overline{P}_{XBW}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To get $(\ref{rate-wz})$ and $(\ref{distortion-bob})$, we just need to apply the Wyner-Ziv converse; and to get $(\ref{distortion-eve})$, observe that the reconstruction cannot be worse than the symbol-by-symbol estimation of $X^n$ from $W^n$ without using $M$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Less Noisy Side Information}
\begin{cor} \label{less-noisy}
If the legitimate receiver has \textbf{strictly} less noisy side information than the eavesdropper, the converse of Theorem \ref{outer} is tight.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
To see the achievability, we just need to set the $U$ in Theorem \ref{inner} to be $\varnothing$.
\end{proof}
Note that the strictly less noisy condition meets the inequality in Theorem \ref{inner}. Corollary \ref{less-noisy} covers the case of degraded side information at the eavesdropper, i.e. $X-B-W$, except for the corner case where $I(X;W)=I(X;B)$.
\subsection{Lossless Compression}
When the legitimate receiver must reconstruct the source sequence losslessly, we have the following inner bound.
\begin{cor} \label{lossless-ach}
$(R,D_w)$ is achievable if
\begin{eqnarray}
&&R> H(X|B)\\
&&D_w\leq \min_{z(u,w)}\mathbb{E}[d_w(X,z(U,W))]\\
&&I(X;B|U)>I(X;W|U) \label{ineq}
\end{eqnarray}
for some $\overline{P}_{UXBW}=\overline{P}_{XBW}\overline{P}_{U|X}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This is consistent with Theorem \ref{inner} by setting $V=X$ and that the additional proof required for lossless recovery follows naturally from the construction of the achievability scheme for Theorem \ref{inner}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{lossless-capable}
If the legitimate receiver has strictly more capable side information than the eavesdropper with respect to the source, then the rate-distortion pair $(R,D_w)$ is achievable if and only if
\begin{eqnarray}
&&R\geq H(X|B)\\
&&D_w\leq \min_{z(w)}\mathbb{E}[d_w(X,z(W))].
\end{eqnarray}
\end{cor}
\section{Proof of Achievability}\label{achievability}
We now give the achievability proof of Theorem \ref{inner} using the soft-covering lemmas. We apply the same proof technique using the likelihood encoder as introduced in \cite{song-isit2014} with the modification of using a superposition codebook.
The source is encoded into four messages $M_p$, $M_p'$, $M_s$ and $M_s'$, where $M_p$ and $M_s$ are transmitted and $M_p'$ and $M_s'$ are virtual messages that are not physically transmitted, but will be recovered with small error at the legitimate receiver with the help of the side information. On the other hand, $M_p$ and $M_p'$ play the role of public messages, which both the legitimate receiver and the eavesdropper will decode; $M_s$ and $M_s'$ index a codeword that is kept secret from the eavesdropper, which only the legitimate receiver can make sense of with its own side information.
Fix a distribution $\overline{P}_{UVXBW}=\overline{P}_U\overline{P}_{V|U}\overline{P}_{X|V}\overline{P}_{BW|X}$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray*}
I_{\overline{P}} (V;B|U)>I_{\overline{P}} (V;W|U),\\
\mathbb{E}_{\overline{P}} [d_b (X,\phi(V,B))] \leq D_b,\\
\min_{z(u,w)}\mathbb{E}_{\overline{P}} [d_w(X,Z(U,W))] \geq D_w,
\end{eqnarray*}
and fix rates $R_p$, $R_p'$, $R_s$, $R_s'$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
R_p+R_p'>I_{\overline{P}}(U;X),\nonumber\\
R_p'<I_{\overline{P}}(U;B),\nonumber\\
R_s+R_s'>I_{\overline{P}}(X;V|U), \nonumber\\
I_{\overline{P}}(V;W|U)<R_s'<I_{\overline{P}}(V;B|U).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The distribution induced by the encoder and decoder is
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{P}(x^n,b^n,w^n,m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s',\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s',y^n)\nonumber\\
&\triangleq& \overline{P}_{X^nB^nW^n}(x^n,b^n,w^n) \mathbf{P}_{E}(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s'|x^n)\nonumber\\
&&\mathbf{P}_D(\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s'|m_p,m_s,b^n) \mathbf{P}_{\Phi}(y^n|m_p,\hat{m}_p',m_s,\hat{m}_s',b^n),
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
where $\mathbf{P}_{E}(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s'|x^n)$ is the source encoder; $\mathbf{P}_D(\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s'|m_p,m_s,b^n)$ is the first part of the decoder that estimates $m_p'$ and $m_s'$ as $\hat{m}_p'$ and $\hat{m}_s'$; $\mathbf{P}_{\Phi}(y^n|m_p,\hat{m}_p',m_s,\hat{m}_s',b^n)$ is the second part of the decoder that reconstructs the source sequence.
{\textbf{Codebook generation}}: We independently generate $2^{n(R_p+R_p')}$ sequences in $\mathcal{U}^n$ according to $\prod_{t=1}^n\overline{P}_{U}(u_t)$ and index by $(m_p,m_p')\in[1:2^{nR_p}]\times[1:2^{nR_p'}]$. We use $\mathcal{C}_U^{(n)}$ to denote this random codebook. For each $(m_p,m_p')\in[1:2^{nR_p}]\times[1:2^{nR_p'}]$, we independently generate $2^{n(R_s+R_s')}$ sequences in $\mathcal{V}^n$ according to $\prod_{t=1}^n\overline{P}_{V|U}(v_t|u_t(m_p,m_p'))$ and index by $(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s')$, $(m_s,m_s')\in [1:2^{nR_s}]\times[1:2^{nR_s'}]$. We use $\mathcal{C}_V^{(n)}(m_p,m_p')$ to denote this random codebook.
{\textbf{Encoder}}: The encoder $\mathbf{P}_{E}(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s'|x^n)$ is a likelihood encoder \cite{song-isit2014} that chooses $M_p, M_p', M_s, M_s'$ stochastically according to the following probability:
$$\mathbf{P}_{E}(m|x^n)=\frac{\mathcal{L}(m|x^n)}{\sum_{\bar{m}\in \mathcal{M}}\mathcal{L}(\bar{m}|x^n)}$$
where $m=(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s')$, $\mathcal{M}=[1:2^{nR_p}]\times[1:2^{nR_p'}]\times[1:2^{nR_s}]\times[1:2^{nR_s'}]$, and
$$\mathcal{L}(m|x^n)=\overline{P}_{X^n|V^n}(x^n|v^n(m)).$$
{\textbf{Decoder}}: The decoder has two parts. Let $\mathbf{P}_D(\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s'|m_p,m_s,b^n)$ be a good channel decoder with respect to the superposition sub-codebook $\{v^n(m_p,a_p,m_s,a_s)\}_{a_p,a_s}$ and the memoryless channel $\overline{P}_{B|V}$. For the second part of the decoder, fix a function $\phi(\cdot,\cdot)$. Define $\phi^n(v^n,b^n)$ as the concatenation $\{\phi(v_t,b_t)\}_{t=1}^n$ and set the decoder $\mathbf{P}_{\Phi}$ to be the deterministic function
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{P}_{\Phi}(y^n|m_p,\hat{m}_p',m_s,\hat{m}_s',b^n)\nonumber\\
&\triangleq& {1}\{y^n=\phi^n(v^n(m_p,\hat{m}_p',m_s,\hat{m}_s'),b^n)\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
{\textbf{Analysis}}: We examine the distortions at the two receivers one at a time. To analyze the distortion at the legitimate receiver, we will consider four distributions, the induced distribution $\mathbf{P}$, two approximating distributions $\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}$, and an auxiliary distribution $\mathbf{Q}'$ that helps with the analysis. The idea is to show that 1) the system has nice behavior for distortion under $\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}$; and 2) $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}$ are close in total variation (on average over the random codebook) through $\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}$. To analyze the distortion at the eavesdropper, we will consider the induced distribution $\mathbf{P}$ together with an auxiliary distribution $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}$.
\subsection{Distortion at the Legitimate Receiver}
This part of the proof follows the same idea of the achievability proof for the Wyner-Ziv setting using the likelihood encoder given in \cite{song-isit2014}. For clarity, we outline the key steps and some technical details are referred to \cite{song-isit2014}.
The approximating distributions $\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}$ are defined through an idealized distribution $\mathbf{Q}$ of the structure given in Fig.\ref{superposition}. This idealized distribution $\mathbf{Q}$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{Q}(x^n,b^n,w^n,m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s',u^n,v^n)\nonumber\\
&=&Q(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s')\mathbf{Q}(u^n|m_p,m_p')\mathbf{Q}(v^n|u^n,m_s,m_s')\nonumber\\
&&\mathbf{Q}(x^n,b^n,w^n|m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s')\\
&=&\frac{1}{2^{n(R_p+R_p'+R_s+R_s')}}{1}\{u^n=U^n(m_p,m_p')\}\nonumber\\
&&1\{v^n=V^n(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s')\}\nonumber\\
&&\overline{P}_{X^nB^nW^n|V^n}(x^n,b^n,w^n|V^n(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s')) \\
&=&\frac{1}{2^{n(R_p+R_p'+R_s+R_s')}}{1}\{u^n=U^n(m_p,m_p')\}\nonumber\\
&&1\{v^n=V^n(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s')\}\nonumber\\
&&\prod_{t=1}^n \overline{P}_{X|V}(x_t|v_t)\overline{P}_{BW|X}(b_t,w_t|x_t), \label{Qf}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\ref{Qf})$ follows from the Markov relation $V- X- BW$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1cm]
\node (src1) [coordinate] {};
\node (src11) [coordinate,above=0.15cm of src1] {};
\node (src12) [coordinate, below=0.15cm of src1] {};
\node (enc1) [node,minimum width=12mm,right=10mm of src1] {$\mathcal{C}_U^{(n)}$};
\node (src2) [coordinate,below=1.5cm of src1] {};
\node (src21) [coordinate,above=0.15cm of src2] {};
\node (src22) [coordinate, below=0.15cm of src2] {};
\node (chv) [coordinate,below=5mm of src1] {};
\node (label1) [coordinate,right=2cm of src1] {};
\node (enc2) [node,minimum width=12mm,below=0.8cm of enc1] {$\mathcal{C}_V^{(n)}$};
\node (split1) [coordinate] at (src1 -| enc2.center) {};
\node (chh) [coordinate,right=27mm of enc2] {};
\node (ch) [node,minimum width=14mm,minimum height=2cm,right=1cm of enc2] {$\overline{P}_{X|V}$};
\node (ch2) [node,minimum width=14mm,minimum height=2cm,right=1cm of ch] {$\overline{P}_{BW|X}$};
\node (sink) [coordinate, right=1.5cm of ch2] {};
\draw[arw] (src11) to node[midway,above]{$M_p$} (src11 -| enc1.west);
\draw[arw] (src12) to node[midway,below]{$M_p'$} (src12 -| enc1.west);
\draw[arw] (src21) to node[midway,above]{$M_s$} (src21 -| enc2.west);
\draw[arw] (src22) to node[midway,below]{$M_s'$} (src22 -| enc2.west);
\draw[arw] (enc1) to node[right]{$U^n$} (enc2.north);
\draw[arw] (enc2) to node [midway,above] {$V^n$} (ch);
\draw[arw] (ch) to node[midway,above]{$X^n$} (ch2);
\draw[arw] (ch2) to node[midway,above]{$B^n,W^n$} (sink);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Idealized distribution $\mathbf{Q}$ via a superposition codebook and memoryless channels $\overline{P}_{X|V}$ and $\overline{P}_{BW|X}$.}
\label{superposition}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note that the encoder $\mathbf{P}_E$ satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{P}_E(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s'|x^n)= \mathbf{Q}(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s'|x^n) \label{PE}.
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, it can be verified with the same technique used in \cite{song-isit2014} that the idealized distribution $\mathbf{Q}$ satisfies:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\mathbf{Q}(x^n,b^n,w^n,u^n,v^n)\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\overline{P}_{X^nB^nW^nU^nV^n}(x^n,b^n,w^n,u^n,v^n), \label{Qexpectation}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}[\cdot]$ denotes $\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}_U^{(n)}}\left[\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}_V^{(n)}}\left[\cdot \right]\right].$
We now define the distributions $\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}$ via the idealized distribution $\mathbf{Q}$ as follows:
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}(x^n,b^n,w^n,u^n,v^n,m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s',\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s')\nonumber\\
&\triangleq&\mathbf{Q}(x^n,b^n,w^n,m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s',u^n,v^n)\nonumber\\
&&\mathbf{P}_D(\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s'|m_p,m_s,b^n)\mathbf{P}_{\Phi}(y^n|m_p,\hat{m}_p',m_s,\hat{m}_s')
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}(x^n,b^n,w^n,u^n,v^n,m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s',\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s')\nonumber\\
&\triangleq&\mathbf{Q}(x^n,b^n,w^n,m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s',u^n,v^n)\nonumber\\
&&\mathbf{P}_D(\hat{m}_p',\hat{m}_s'|m_p,m_s,b^n)\mathbf{P}_{\Phi}(y^n|m_p,{m}_p',m_s,{m}_s').
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Notice that the distributions $\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}$ and $\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}$ differ only in $\mathbf{P}_{\Phi}$. From $(\ref{Qexpectation})$, it can be shown that the distortion under distribution $\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}$ averaged over the random codebook is given by the following:
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{Q}^{(2)}}[d_b(X^n,Y^n)]\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{x^n,v^n,b^n}\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\mathbf{Q}(x^n,v^n,b^n)\right]d_b(x^n,\phi^n(v^n,b^n))\\
&=&\sum_{x^n,v^n,b^n}\overline{P}_{X^nV^nB^n}(x^n,v^n,b^n)d_b(x^n,\phi^n(v^n,b^n))\\
&=&\mathbb{E}_{\overline{P}}\left[d_b(X,Y)\right]. \label{dUnderQ2}
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Define the auxiliary distribution $\mathbf{Q}'$ on a subset of the variables as
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{Q}'(m_p,m_p',x^n)\triangleq \frac{1}{2^{n(R_p+R_p')}}\overline{P}_{X^n|U^n}(x^n|U^n(m_p,m_p')).
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Since $R_s+R_s'>I_{\overline{P}}(X;V|U)$, applying the generalized superposition soft-covering lemma, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert \mathbf{Q}_{M_pM_p'X^n}-\mathbf{Q}'_{M_pM_p'X^n}\right\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq e^{-\gamma_2 n} \triangleq{\epsilon_2}_n.\label{Q2Qp}
\end{eqnarray}
Also since $R_p+R_p'>I_{\overline{P}}(U;X)$, applying the basic soft-covering lemma, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert\overline{P}_{X^n}-\mathbf{Q}'_{X^n}\right\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq e^{-\gamma_1 n}\triangleq{\epsilon_1}_n.\label{Qp2Pbar}
\end{eqnarray}
Using Property \ref{property-tv}$(\ref{b})$, $(\ref{Qp2Pbar})$, and $(\ref{Q2Qp})$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert\mathbf{Q}_{X^n}-\overline{P}_{X^n}\right\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq {\epsilon_1}_n+{\epsilon_2}_n\triangleq {\epsilon_3}_n.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, by definitions of $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}$ and Property \ref{property-tv}$(\ref{c})$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert \mathbf{P}-\mathbf{Q}^{(1)} \right\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq {\epsilon_3}_n \label{P2Q1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the distributions are taken over $X^nB^nW^nM_pM_p'M_sM_s'\hat{M}_p'\hat{M}_s'Y^n$.
On the one hand, we need to apply the Wyner-Ziv technique to complete the distortion bound at the legitimate receiver.
Since $R_p'<I_{\overline{P}}(U;B)$ and $R_s'<I_{\overline{P}}(V;B|U)$, the codebooks are randomly generated, and $M_p'$ and $M_s'$ are uniformly distributed under $\mathbf{Q}$, it is well known that the maximum likelihood decoder (as well as a variety of other decoders) will drive the error probability to zero as $n$ goes to infinity. This can be seen from Fig. \ref{superposition}, by identifying for fixed $M_p$ and $M_s$, that $M_p'$ and $M_s'$ are the messages to be transmitted over the memoryless channel $\overline{P}_{B|V}$ with the superposition codebook. Specifically,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}}\left[(\hat{M}_p', \hat{M_s'})\neq(M_p',M_s')\right]\right]\leq \delta_n \rightarrow_n 0.
\end{eqnarray}
With Lemma 2 of \cite{song-isit2014}, it can be shown that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\bigg[\bigg\Vert\mathbf{Q}_{X^nB^nW^nM_p\hat{M}_p'M_s\hat{M}_s'}^{(1)}\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\mathbf{Q}_{X^nB^nW^nM_p{M}_p'M_s{M}_s'}^{(2)}\bigg\Vert_{TV}\bigg]\nonumber\\
&\leq&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\mathbb{P}_{\mathbf{Q}^{(1)}}\left[(\hat{M}_p', \hat{M_s'})\neq(M_p',M_s')\right]\right]\\
&\leq&\delta_n. \label{Q12Q2}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, by $(\ref{dUnderQ2})$, $(\ref{P2Q1})$ and $(\ref{Q12Q2})$ and Property \ref{property-tv}$(\ref{a})$ and $(\ref{b})$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{P}}[d_b(X^n,Y^n)]\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq& \mathbb{E}_{\overline{P}}[d_b(X,Y)]+{d_b}_{max}({\epsilon_3}_n+\delta_n)\\
&\leq&D_b+{d_b}_{max}({\epsilon_3}_n+\delta_n). \label{dis}
\end{eqnarray}
This completes the distortion analysis at the legitimate receiver.
\subsection{Distortion at the Eavesdropper}
To evaluate the enforced distortion at the eavesdropper with the best possible decoder, we will consider two distributions: the system induced distribution $\mathbf{P}$ and an auxiliary distribution $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}^{(i)}$ defined as
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(i)}(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s',u^n,x,w^n)\nonumber\\
&\triangleq&\frac{1}{2^{n(R_p+R_p'+R_s+R_s')}}{1}\{u^n=U^n(m_p,m_p')\}\nonumber\\
&&\prod_{t=1}^n\overline{P}_{W|U}(w_t|U_t(m_p,m_p')) \overline{P}_{X|WU}(x|w_i,U_i(m_p,m_p')). \label{defQt}
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Note that under ${\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(i)}$, we have the markov relation
\begin{eqnarray}
X- U_i(M_p,M_p')W_i- M_pM_p'M_sM_s'W^n. \label{Qtilde-markov}
\end{eqnarray}
The auxiliary distribution $\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}^{(i)}$ has the following property:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}_{U^n}}\left[\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}^{(i)}(u^n,w^n,x)\right]\nonumber\\
&=&\prod_{t=1}^n\overline{P}_U(u_t)\overline{P}_{W|U}(w_t|u_t)\overline{P}_{X|WU}(x|w_i,u_i). \label{expected-iid}
\end{eqnarray}
Recall that under distribution $\mathbf{Q}$, for fixed $M_s=m_s$,
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{Q}(m_p,m_p',m_s',w^n,x_i|m_s)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2^{n(R_p+R_p'+R_s')}}\overline{P}_{W^n|V^n}(w^n|V^n(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s'))\nonumber\\
&&\overline{P}_{X|WVU}(x_i|w_i,V_i(m_p,m_p',m_s,m_s'),U_i(m_p,m_p'))
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Since $R_s'>I_{\overline{P}}(V;W|U)$, by applying the generalized superposition soft-covering lemma, we have for fixed $m_s$,
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}^{(i)}_{M_pM_p'W^nX}-\mathbf{Q}_{M_pM_p'W^nX_i}\right\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq e^{-\gamma_4 n}\triangleq{\epsilon_4}_n .
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Averaging over $M_s$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}^{(i)}_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX}-\mathbf{Q}_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX_i}\right\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq {\epsilon_4}_n, \label{Q2Qt}
\end{eqnarray}
and by Property \ref{property-tv}$(\ref{b})$, $(\ref{P2Q1})$ and $(\ref{Q2Qt})$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert\tilde{\mathbf{Q}}^{(i)}_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX}-\mathbf{P}_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX_i}\right\Vert_{TV}\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq& {\epsilon_3}_n+{\epsilon_4}_n\triangleq {\epsilon_5}_n. \label{e5}
\end{eqnarray}
Also note that, since $R_p+R_p'>0$, we can invoke Lemma \ref{gsc} by identifying
$$(R_1,R_2,U,V,X,Z)\leftarrow (0,R_p+R_p',\varnothing, U, \varnothing ,U),$$
where the left side symbols represents the symbols from Lemma \ref{gsc}. This gives us
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\left[\left\Vert\tilde \mathbf{Q}^{(i)}_{u_i(M_p,M_p')}-\overline{P}_U\right\Vert_{TV}\right]\leq e^{-\gamma_6n}\triangleq{\epsilon_6}_n.\label{e6}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining $(\ref{dis})$, $(\ref{e5})$ and $(\ref{e6})$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbb{E}_{\mathcal{C}^{(n)}}\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^n\left\Vert \mathbf{P}_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX_i}-\tilde\mathbf{Q}^{(i)}_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX}\right\Vert_{TV}\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^n\left\Vert \tilde\mathbf{Q}^{(i)}_{u_i(M_p,M_p')}-\overline{P}_U\right\Vert_{TV}\nonumber\\
&&+\left\vert\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{P}}[d_b(X^n,Y^n)]-D_b\right\vert\bigg]\nonumber\\
&\leq&n{\epsilon_5}_n+n{\epsilon_6}_n+{d_b}_{max}({\epsilon_3}_n+\delta_n)\\
&\leq&ne^{-n\min(\gamma_1,\gamma_2, \gamma_4,\gamma_6)}+{d_b}_{max}({\epsilon_3}_n+\delta_n)\\
&\triangleq&\epsilon_n\rightarrow_n 0.
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Therefore, there exists a codebook under which
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{i=1}^n\left\Vert P_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX_i}-\tilde Q^{(i)}_{M_pM_p'M_sW^nX}\right\Vert_{TV}\leq \epsilon_n,\\
\sum_{i=1}^n\left\Vert \tilde Q^{(i)}_{u_i(M_p,M_p')}-\overline{P}_U\right\Vert_{TV}\leq\epsilon_n, \label{tot}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}_{P}[d_b(X^n,Y^n)]\leq D_b+\epsilon_n.
\end{eqnarray}
\normalsize
Finally, the distortion at the eavesdropper can be lower bounded by
\small
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\min_{z^n(m_p,m_s,w^n)}\mathbb{E}_P \left[d_w(X^n,z^n(M_p,M_s,W^n))\right]\nonumber\\
&\geq&\min_{z^n(m_p,m_p',m_s,w^n)}\mathbb{E}_{P}\left[d_w(X^n,z^n(M_p,M_p',M_s,W^n))\right]\\
&=&\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\min_{z_i(m_p,m_p',m_s,w^n)}\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mathbb{E}_{P}\left[d_w(X_i,z_i(M_p,M_p',M_s,W
^n))\right]\\
&\geq&\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n\min_{z_i(m_p,m_p',m_s,w^n)}\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mathbb{E}_{{\tilde{Q}^{(i)}}}\left[d_w(X,z_i(M_p,M_p',M_s,W
^n))\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\epsilon_n {d_w}_{max}\\
&=&\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n \min_{z(u,w)}\mathbb{E}_{{\tilde{Q}^{(i)}}} \left[d_w(X,z(u_i(M_p,M_p'),W_i))\right]\nonumber\\
&&-\epsilon_n {d_w}_{max} \label{using-markov}\\
&\geq&\frac1n\sum_{i=1}^n\min_{z(u,w)}\mathbb{E}_{\overline{P}}\left[d_w(X,z(U,W))\right]-2\epsilon_n {d_w}_{max} \label{last}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\ref{using-markov})$ uses the markov relation under ${\tilde{Q}}^{(i)}$ given in $(\ref{Qtilde-markov})$, and $(\ref{last})$ uses $\left\Vert\tilde Q^{(i)}_{u_i(M_p,M_p')}-\overline{P}_U\right\Vert_{TV}\leq \epsilon_n$ from $(\ref{tot})$ and the fact that
$$\tilde Q^{(i)}_{W_iX|U_i}(w_i,x|u_i)=\overline{P}_{W|U}(w_i|u_i) \overline{P}_{X|WU}(x|w_i,u_i)$$
from $(\ref{defQt})$.
\normalsize
This completes the distortion analysis at the eavesdropper.
\section{Example}
We give an example for lossless compression case with Hamming distortion measure for the eavesdropper. The Hamming distortion measure is defined as
\begin{displaymath}
d(x,y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
0, &x=y\\
1, &\text{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
Let $X^n$ be a sequence of i.i.d. $Bern(p)$ source, and let $B^n$ and $W^n$ be side information obtained through a binary erasure channel (BEC) and binary symmetric channel (BSC), respectively, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\overline{P}_{X}(0)=1-\overline{P}_{X}(1)=1-p,\\
\overline{P}_{B|X}(e|x)=\alpha,\\
\overline{P}_{W|X}(1-x|x)=\beta.
\end{eqnarray*}
This is illustrated in Fig. \ref{bsc-bec}. This type of side information was also considered in \cite{villard-journal}, but only with $Bern(\frac12)$ source.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{.2\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (a) [circle] at (0,0) {$1$};
\node (b) [circle] at (0,2) {$0$};
\node (c) [circle] at (2,0) {$1$};
\node (d) [circle] at (2,2) {$0$};
\node (e) [circle] at (2,1) {$e$};
\node (X) [circle] at (0,2.7) {$X$};
\node (B) [circle] at (2,2.7) {$B$};
\draw[->] (a) -- (c) node[pos=.5,sloped,below] {$1-\alpha$};
\draw[->] (a) -- (e) node[pos=.45,below] {$\alpha$};
\draw[->] (b) -- (e) node[pos=.45,above] {$\alpha$};
\draw[->] (b) -- (d) node[pos=.5,sloped,above] {$1-\alpha$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.2\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node (a) [circle] at (0,0) {$1$};
\node (b) [circle] at (0,2) {$0$};
\node (c) [circle] at (2,0) {$1$};
\node (d) [circle] at (2,2) {$0$};
\node (X) [circle] at (0,2.7) {$X$};
\node (B) [circle] at (2,2.7) {$W$};
\draw[->] (a) -- (c) node[pos=.5,sloped,below] {$1-\beta$};
\draw[->] (a) -- (d) node[pos=.45,below] {$\beta$};
\draw[->] (b) -- (c) node[pos=.45,above] {$\beta$};
\draw[->] (b) -- (d) node[pos=.5,sloped,above] {$1-\beta$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
\caption{Side information $B$ and $W$ correlated with source $X$}
\label{bsc-bec}
\end{figure}
We consider a generic discrete auxiliary random variable $U$ that takes values on $1,...,|\mathcal{U}|$ with $\overline{P}_{U}(i)=u_i$ and $\overline{P}_{X|U}(0|i)=\delta_i$, $\overline{P}_{X|U}(1|i)=1-\delta_i$. It can be shown that the distortion $D_w$ takes the following form. By applying Corollary \ref{lossless-ach}, we can obtain the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
$(R,D_w)$ is achievable for the BEC-BSC side information with Hamming distortion $d_w(\cdot,\cdot)$ if
\begin{eqnarray*}
R&\geq& \alpha h(p)\\
D_w&\leq& \max_{\{u_i,\delta_i\}_{i=1}^3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} u_i \min(\delta_i,1-\delta_i,\beta)\\
&s.t.& 0\leq u_i, \delta_i \leq 1\\
&&\sum_{i=1}^{3}u_i=1\\
&&\sum_{i=1}^{3}u_i\delta_i=1-p\\
&&\sum_{i=1}^{3}u_i[(1-\alpha)h(\delta_i)-h(\delta_i\ast\beta)]+h(\beta)\geq0
\end{eqnarray*}
where $h(\cdot)$ denotes the binary entropy function.
\end{thm}
We plot the distortion at the eavesdropper as a function of the source distribution $p$ for fixed $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in Fig. \ref{plot1} and Fig. \ref{plot2}, where the outer bounds are calculated from Theorem \ref{outer}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9 cm]{Ucard2_500_point4_point04.eps}
\caption{Distortion at the eavesdropper as a function of source distribution $p$ with $\alpha=0.4$, $\beta=0.04$}
\label{plot1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9 cm]{point4_point1.eps}
\caption{Distortion at the eavesdropper as a function of source distribution $p$ with $\alpha=0.4$, $\beta=0.1$}
\label{plot2}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{plot1}, when the legitimate receiver's side information is more capable than the eavesdropper's side information with respect to the source, perfect secrecy at the eavesdropper is achieved; when the eavesdropper's side information is more capable than the legitimate receiver, with our encoding scheme, we achieve a positive distortion at the eavesdropper with no additional cost on the compression rate to ensure lossless decoding at the legitimate receiver. It is worth noting that our scheme encodes the source so that it favors the side information for the legitimate receiver even if the legitimate receiver's side information is less capable, as opposed to the case where the regular Wyner-Ziv (Slepian-Wolf) encoding scheme that gives the same compression rate but no distortion at the eavesdropper.
In Fig. \ref{plot2}, since the legitimate receiver's side information is always more capable than the eavesdropper's side information, it is a direct application of Corollary \ref{lossless-capable} and perfect secrecy is ensured.
\section{Conclusion}
We have investigated the performance of a secrecy system with side information at receivers under the rate-distortion criteria. Our results show that even if the legitimate receiver has a weaker side information, a positive distortion can be enforced to the eavesdropper. Although exact bounds have been obtained for several special cases, the outer bound for arbitrarily correlated side information is not tight. This suggests an interesting direction for future work.
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
\section{Acknowledgement}
This research was supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant FA9550-12-1-0196 and MURI Grant FA9550-09-05086 and in part by National Science Foundation under Grants CCF-1116013, CNS-09-05086 and CCF-1350595.
|
\section{Introduction}
Variable Coefficient Korteweg de Vries (vcKdV) and Modified Korteweg de Vries (vcMKdV)equations have a long history dating from their derivation in various applications\cite{K1}-\cite{K10}. However, almost all studies, including those which derived exact solutions by a variety of techniques, as well as those which considered integrable sub-cases and various integrability properties by methods such as Painlev\'e analysis, Hirota's method, and Bell Polynomials treat vcKdV equations with coefficients which are functions of the time only. For instance, for generalized variable coefficient NLS (vcNLS) equations, a particular coefficient is usually taken to be a function of $x$ \cite{K11}, as has also been sometimes done for vcMKdV equations\cite{K12}. The papers \cite{K13}-\cite{Khawaja} are somewhat of an exception in that they treat vcNLS equations having coefficients with general $x$ and $t$ dependences. Variational principles, solutions, and other integrability properties have also been considered for some of the above variable coefficient NLPDEs in cases with time-dependent coefficients.
In applications, the coefficients of vcKdV or vcNLS equations may include spatial dependence, in addition to the temporal variations that have been extensively considered using a variety of techniques. Both for this reason, as well as
for their general mathematical interest, extending integrable hierarchies of nonlinear PDEs (NLPDEs) to include {\it both} spatial and temporal dependence of the coefficients is worthwhile.
Given the above, we compare two methods for deriving the integrability conditions of both a general form of variable-coefficient MKdV (vcMKdV) equation, as well as a general, variable-coefficient KdV (vcKdV) equation. In all of these cases,the coefficients are allowed to vary in space AND time.
The first method employed here is based on directly establishing Lax integrability (or S-integrability to use the technical term) as detailed in the following sections. As such, it is fairly
general, although subject to the ensuing equations being solvable. We should stress that the computer algebra involved is quite challenging, and an order of magnitude beyond that encountered for integrable, constant coefficient NLPDEs.
However, this first technique, although operationally effective, has the significant disadvantage that, for any integrable system with spatiotemporally varying coefficients, one must 'guess' a generalization of the structure of the known Lax Pair for the corresponding system with constant coefficients. This involves
replacing constants in the Lax Pair for the constant coefficient integrable system, including powers of the spectral parameter, by functions. Provided that one has guessed correctly and generalized the constant coefficient system's Lax Pair sufficiently, and this is of course hard to be sure of 'a priori', one may then
proceed to systematically deduce the Lax Pair for the corresponding variable-coefficient integrable system.
Motivated by the somewhat arbitrary nature of the above procedure, we next attempt to systematize the derivation of Lax-integrable sytems with variable coefficients. Of the many techniques which have been employed for constant coefficient integrable systems, the Estabrook-Wahlquist (EW) prolongation technique \cite{EW1}-\cite{EW4}is among the most self-contained. The method directly proceeds to attempt construction of the Lax Pair or linear spectral problem, whose compatibility condition is the integrable system under discussion. While not at all guaranteed to work, any successful implementation of the technique means that Lax-integrability has already been verified during the procedure, and in addition the Lax Pair is algorithmically obtained. If the technique fails, that does not necessarily imply non-integrability of the equation contained in the compatibility condition of the assumed Lax Pair. It may merely mean that some of the starting assumptions may not be appropriate or general enough.
Hence we attempt to apply the Estabrook-Wahlquist (EW) method as a second, more algorithmic, technique to generate a variety of such integrable systems with such spatiotemporally varying coefficients. However, this immediately requires that the technique be significantly generalized or broadened in several different ways which we then develop and outline, before illustrating this new and extended method with examples.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we briefly review the Lax Pair method and its modifications for variable-coefficient NLPDEs, and then apply it to the vcNLS and vc Pt-symmetric NLS systems. In section 3 we consider an analogous treatment of a generalized vcDNLS equation. In section 4, we lay out the extensions required to apply the EW procedure to Lax-integrable systems
with spatiotemporally varying coefficients. Sections 5 and 6 then illustrate this new, extended EW method in detail for Lax-integrable versions of the
NLS/PTNLS and generalized DNLS systems respectively, each with spatiotemporally varying coefficients. We also illustrate that this generalized
EW procedure algorithmically generates the same results as those obtained in a more ad hoc manner in Sections 2 and 3.
Section 7 briefly reviews the results and conclusions, and directions for possible future work.
More involved algebraic details, which are integral to both the procedures employed here, are relegated to the appendices.
\section{Extended Lax Pair method and application to the vc-NLS and vcPT-Symmetric NLS Systems}
In the Lax pair method \cite{K15} - \cite{K16} for solving and determining the integrability conditions for nonlinear partial differential equations (NLPDEs) a pair of $n\times n$ matrices, $\textbf{U}$ and $\textbf{V}$ needs to be derived or constructed. The key component of this construction is that the integrable nonlinear PDE under consideration must be contained in, or result from, the compatibility of the following two linear Lax equations (the Lax Pair)
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{x} &=& U\Phi \\
\Phi_{t} &=& V\Phi
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi$ is an eigenfunction, and $\textbf{U}$ and $\textbf{V}$ are the time-evolution and spatial-evolution (eigenvalue problem) matrices.
From the cross-derivative condition (i.e. $\Phi_{xt} = \Phi_{tx}$) we get
\begin{equation} \label{ZCC1}
U_{t}-V_{x}+[U,V] = \dot{0}
\end{equation}
known as the zero-curvature condition where $\dot{0}$ is contingent on $q(x,t)$ and $r(x,t)$ being solutions to the system of nonlinear PDEs. A Darboux transformation can then be applied to the linear system to obtain solutions from known solutions and other integrability properties of the integrable NLPDE.
We first consider the variable coefficient cubic nonlinear Schrodinger and PT-symmetric nonlinear Schrodinger equations given by
\begin{equation}
iq_{t}(x,t) + f(x,t)q_{xx}(x,t) + g(x,t)|q(x,t)|^{2}q(x,t) + v(x,t)q(x,t) + i\gamma(x,t)q(x,t) = 0
\end{equation}
\noindent
and
\begin{equation}
iq_{t}(x,t) = a_{1}(x,t)q_{xx}(x,t) + a_{2}(x,t)q(x,t)^{2}\overline{q(-x,t)}
\end{equation}
\noindent
respectively. We can decouple these equations into the systems
\begin{eqnarray} \label{NLS}
&& iq_{t}(x,t) + f(x,t)q_{xx}(x,t) + g(x,t)q^{2}(x,t)r(x,t) + v(x,t)q(x,t) + i\gamma(x,t)q(x,t) = 0 \\
&& -ir_{t}(x,t) + f(x,t)r_{xx}(x,t) + g(x,t)r^{2}(x,t)q(x,t) + v(x,t)r(x,t) - i\gamma(x,t)r(x,t) = 0
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{PTNLS}
iq_{t}(x,t) &=& a_{1}(x,t)q_{xx}(x,t) + a_{2}(x,t)q^{2}(x,t)r(x,t) \\
-ir_{t}(x,t) &=& a_{1}(x,t)r_{xx}(x,t) + a_{2}(x,t)r^{2}(x,t)q(x,t)
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, where in $\eqref{NLS}$ $r(x,t) = \overline{q(x,t)}$ and in $\eqref{PTNLS}$ $r(x,t) = \overline{q(-x,t)}$. It is clear that without prescribing the relation between $r(x,t)$ and $q(x,t)$, which neither Lax pair technique presented depends on, if we let $f(x,t) = -a_{1}(x,t)$, $g(x,t) = -a_{2}(x,t)$, and $v(x,t) = \gamma(x,t) = 0$ in $\eqref{NLS}$ we obtain the system given by $\eqref{PTNLS}$. That is, we can expect that the integrability conditions for the variable coefficients in the PTNLS will be a special case of the integrability conditions for variable coefficients in the NLS.
These equations, which we shall always call the physical (or field) NLPDEs to distinguish them from the many other NLPDEs we encounter, will be Lax-integrable or S-integrable if we can find a Lax pair whose compatibility condition $\eqref{ZCC1}$
contains the appropriate equation ($\eqref{NLS}$ or $\eqref{PTNLS}$).
One expands the Lax pair $\textbf{U}$ and $\textbf{V}$ in powers of $q$ and $r$ and their derivatives with unknown functions as coefficients. This results in a large system of coupled NLPDEs for the variable coefficient functions in $\eqref{NLS}$-$\eqref{PTNLS}$. Upon solving these (and a solution is not guaranteed, and may prove to be impossible to obtain in general for some physical NLPDEs), we simultaneously obtain the Lax pair and integrability conditions on the variable coefficients for which $\eqref{NLS}$-$\eqref{PTNLS}$ are Lax-integrable.
The results for the cubic-NLS, for which the details previously derived by Khawaja are given in Appendix A, are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x,t) &=& \frac{c_{1}(t)}{g(x,t)^{2}} \\
\gamma(x,t) &=& \frac{g_{t}(x,t)}{g(x,t)} - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{c_{2}}(t)}{c_{2}(t)}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&& fg^{3}(f_{t}(g_{t}-2g\gamma)-f_{tt}g) + f_{t}^{2}g^{4} + 2f^{3}g^{3}(gv_{xx} - g_{x}v_{x}) + f^{2}g^{2}(g(4g_{t}\gamma + g_{tt}) - 2g_{t}^{2} \nonumber \\
&& - 2g^{2}(\gamma_{t} + 2\gamma^{2})) + f^{4}(36g_{x}^{4} - 48gg_{xx}g_{x}^{2} + 10g^{2}g_{xxx}g_{x} + g^{2}(6g_{xx}^{2} - gg_{xxxx})) = 0
\end{eqnarray}
The results for the PT-symmetric NLS, for which the details are also given in Appendix A, are given by
\begin{equation}
a_{1}(x,t) = \frac{h(t)}{a_{2}(x,t)^{2}}
\end{equation}
\section{The Variable Coefficient DNLS System}
Here, we will apply the technique of the last section in exactly the same fashion to generalized DNLS equation, but will omit the details for the sake of brevity. Please note that {\it the coefficients $a_i$ in this section are totally distinct or different from those given the same symbols in the
previous section. All equations in this section are thus to be read independently of those in the previous one.}
Consider the variable coefficient DNLS given by
\begin{equation}
iq_{t}(x,t) = a_{1}(x,t)q_{xx}(x,t) + ia_{2}(x,t)(q(x,t)^{2}\overline{q(x,t))_{x}}
\end{equation}
As with the previous section it will be advantageous to decouple this system into the following system
\begin{eqnarray} \label{DNLS}
iq_{t}(x,t) + a_{1}(x,t)q_{xx}(x,t) + ia_{2}(x,t)(q^{2}(x,t)r(x,t))_{x} = 0 \\
-ir_{t}(x,t) + a_{1}(x,t)r_{xx}(x,t) - ia_{2}(x,t)(r^{2}(x,t)q(x,t))_{x} = 0
\end{eqnarray}
where $r(x,t) = \overline{q(x,t)}$. As before, we consider the variable-coefficient DNLS equation to be integrable if we can find a Lax pair which satisfies $\eqref{ZCC1}$. In the method given in (cite Khwaja) one expands the Lax pair $\textbf{U}$ and $\textbf{V}$ in powers of $q$ and $r$ and their derivatives with unknown function coefficients and require $\eqref{ZCC1}$ to be equivalent to the nonlinear system. This results in a system of coupled PDEs for the unknown coefficients for which upon solving we simultaneously obtain the Lax pair and integrability conditions on the $a_{i}$. The results, for which the details are given in Appendix B, are as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{1}(x,t) &=& F_{4}(t)F_{2}(x)(c_{1} + c_{2}x) - c_{1}F_{4}(t)F_{2}(x)\int{\frac{x \ dx}{F_{2}(x)}} + c_{1}xF_{4}(t)F_{2}(x)\int{\frac{dx}{F_{2}(x)}} \\
a_{2}(x,t) &=& F_{2}(x)F_{3}(t)
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{1-4}$ are arbitrary functions in their respective variables and $c_{1,2}$ are arbitrary constants.
Having considered these two examples of various NLS-type equations, we shall now proceed to consider
whether these results may be recovered in a more algorithmic manner. As discussed in Section 1, {\it it would be
advantageous if they could be obtained without: a. requiring to know the form of the Lax Pair for the corresponding
constant-coefficient Lax-integrable equation, and b. requiring to generalize this constant-coefficient Lax Pair
by guesswork.} Towards that end, we now proceed to consider how this may be accomplished by generalizing and extending
the Estabrook-Wahlquist technique to Lax-integrable systems with variable coefficients.
\section{The Extended Estabrook-Wahlquist Technique}
In the standard Estabrook-Wahlquist method one begins with a constant coefficient NLPDE and assumes an implicit dependence on $u(x,t)$ and its partial derivatives of the spatial and time evolution matrices ($\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}$) involved in the linear scattering problem
\[ \psi_{x} = \mathbb{F}\psi, \ \ \ \psi_{t} = \mathbb{G}\psi \]
The evolution matrices $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ are connected via a zero-curvature condition (independence of path in spatial and time evolution) derived by mandating $\psi_{xt} = \psi_{tx}$. That is, it requires
\[ \mathbb{F}_{t} - \mathbb{G}_{x} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}] = 0 \]
provided $u(x,t)$ satisfies the NLPDE.
Considering the forms
\[ \mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F}(q,r,q_{x},r_{x},q_{t},r_{t},\ldots,q_{m_{1}x,n_{1}t},r_{m_{2}x,n_{2}t}) \]
and
\[ \mathbb{G} = \mathbb{G}(q,r,q_{x},,r_{x},q_{t},r_{t},\ldots,q_{k_{1}x,j_{1}t},r_{k_{2}x,j_{2}t}) \]
for the space and time evolution matrices where $u_{px,qt} = \frac{\partial^{p+q}u}{\partial x^{p}\partial t^{q}}$ we see that this condition is equivalent to
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sum_{m_{1},n_{1}}{\mathbb{F}_{q_{m_{1}x,n_{1}t}}q_{m_{1}x,(n_{1}+1)t}} + \sum_{m_{2},n_{2}}{\mathbb{F}_{r_{m_{2}x,n_{2}t}}r_{m_{2}x,(n_{2}+1)t}} - \sum_{j_{1},k_{1}}{\mathbb{G}_{q_{j_{1}x,k_{1}t}}q_{(j_{1}+1)x,k_{1}t}} \\
&& - \sum_{j_{2},k_{2}}{\mathbb{G}_{r_{j_{2}x,k_{2}t}}r_{(j_{2}+1)x,k_{2}t}} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}] = 0
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent
From here there is often a systematic approach\cite{EW1}-\cite{EW4} to determining the form for $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ which is outlined in \cite{EW3} and will be utilized in the examples to follow.
Typically a valid choice for dependence on $q(x,t)$, $r(x,t)$ and their partial derivatives is to take $\mathbb{F}$ to depend on all terms in the NLPDE for which there is a partial time derivative present. Similarly we may take $\mathbb{G}$ to depend on all terms for which there is a partial space derivative present. For example, given the standard NLS,
\begin{eqnarray*}
iq_{t} &=& q_{xx} + 2q^{2}r \\
ir_{t} &=& -r_{xx} - 2qr^{2}
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent
one would consider $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F}(q,r)$ and $\mathbb{G} = \mathbb{G}(q,r,q_{x},r_{x})$. Imposing compatibility allows one to determine the explicit form of $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ in a very algorithmic way. Additionally the compatibility condition induces a set of constraints on the coefficient matrices in $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$. These coefficient matrices subject to the constraints generate a finite dimensional matrix Lie algebra.
In the extended Estabrook-Wahlquist method we allow for $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ to be functions of $t$, $x$, $q$, $r$ and the partial derivatives of $q$ and $r$. Although the details change, the general procedure will remain essentially the same. We will begin by equating the coefficient of the highest partial derivative of the unknown function(s) to zero and work our way down until we have eliminated all partial derivatives of the unknown function(s).
{\it This typically results in a large partial differential equation (in the standard Estabrook-Wahlquist method, this is an algebraic equation) which can be solved by equating the coefficients of the different powers of the unknown function(s) to zero.} This final step induces a set of constraints on the coefficient matrices in $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$. {\it Another big difference which we will see in the examples comes in the final and, arguably, the hardest step. In the standard Estabrook-Wahlquist method the final step involves finding explicit forms for the set of coefficient matrices such that they satisfy the contraints derived in the procedure. Note these constraints are nothing more than a system of algebraic matrix equations. In the extended Estabrook-Wahlquist method these constraints will be in the form of matrix partial differential equations which can be used to derive an integrability condition on the coefficients in the NLPDE.}
As we are now letting $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ have explicit dependence on $x$ and $t$ and for notational clarity, it will be more convenient to consider the following version of the zero-curvature condition
\begin{equation}\label{ZCC}
\mbox{D}_{t}\mathbb{F} - \mbox{D}_{x}\mathbb{G} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}] = 0
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\mbox{D}_{t}$ and $\mbox{D}_{x}$ are the total derivative operators on time and space, respectively. Recall the definition of the total derivative
\[ \mbox{D}_{y}f(y,z,u_{1}(y,z),u_{2}(y,z),\ldots,u_{n}(y,z)) = \frac{\partial f}{\partial y} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial u_{1}}\frac{\partial u_{1}}{\partial y} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial u
_{2}}\frac{\partial u_{2}}{\partial y} + \cdots + \frac{\partial f}{\partial u_{n}}\frac{\partial u_{n}}{\partial y} \]
\noindent
Thus we can write the compatibility condition as
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \mathbb{F}_{t} + \sum_{m_{1},n_{1}}{\mathbb{F}_{q_{m_{1}x,n_{1}t}}q_{m_{1}x,(n_{1}+1)t}} + \sum_{m_{2},n_{2}}{\mathbb{F}_{r_{m_{2}x,n_{2}t}}r_{m_{2}x,(n_{2}+1)t}} - \sum_{j_{1},k_{1}}{\mathbb{G}_{q_{j_{1}x,k_{1}t}}q_{(j_{1}+1)x,k_{1}t}} \\
&& - \sum_{j_{2},k_{2}}{\mathbb{G}_{r_{j_{2}x,k_{2}t}}r_{(j_{2}+1)x,k_{2}t}} - \mathbb{G}_{x} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}] = 0
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent
It is important to note that the subscripted $x$ and $t$ denotes the partial derivative with respect to only the $x$ and $t$ elements, respectively. That is, although $q$, $r$ and their derivatives depend on $x$ and $t$ this will not invoke use of the chain rule as they are treated as independent variables. This will become more clear in the examples of the next section.
Note that compatibility of the time and space evolution matrices will yield a set of constraints which contain the constant coefficient constraints as a subset. In fact, taking the variable coefficients to be the appropriate constants will yield exactly the Estabrook-Wahlquist results for the constant coefficient version of the NLPDE. That is, the constraints given by the Estabrook-Wahlquist method for a constant coefficient NLPDE are always a proper subset of the constraints given by a variable-coefficient version of the NLPDE. This can easily be shown. Letting $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ not depend explicitly on $x$ and $t$ and taking the coefficients in the NLPDE to be constant the zero-curvature condition as it is written above becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \sum_{m_{1},n_{1}}{\mathbb{F}_{q_{m_{1}x,n_{1}t}}q_{m_{1}x,(n_{1}+1)t}} + \sum_{m_{2},n_{2}}{\mathbb{F}_{r_{m_{2}x,n_{2}t}}r_{m_{2}x,(n_{2}+1)t}} - \sum_{j_{1},k_{1}}{\mathbb{G}_{q_{j_{1}x,k_{1}t}}q_{(j_{1}+1)x,k_{1}t}} \\
&& - \sum_{j_{2},k_{2}}{\mathbb{G}_{r_{j_{2}x,k_{2}t}}r_{(j_{2}+1)x,k_{2}t}} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}] = 0
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent
which is exactly the standard Estabrook-Wahlquist method.
The conditions derived via mandating $\eqref{ZCC}$ be satisfied upon solutions of the vc-NLPDE may be used to determine conditions on the coefficient matrices and variable-coefficients (present in the NLPDE). Successful closure of these conditions is equivalent to the system being S-integrable. A major advantage to using the Estabrook-Wahlquist method that carries forward with the extension is the fact that it requires little guesswork and yields quite general results.
In Khawaja's method\cite{Khawaja}-\cite{Lecce} an educated guess is made for the structure of the variable-coefficient NLS Lax pair based on the associated constant coefficient Lax pair. That is, Khawaja considered the matrices
\[ \mathbb{F} = U = \begin{bmatrix}
f_{1} + f_{2}q & f_{3} + f_{4}q \\
f_{5} + f_{6}r & f_{7} + f_{8}r
\end{bmatrix} \]
and
\[ \mathbb{G} = V = \begin{bmatrix}
g_{1} + g_{2}q + g_{3}q_{x} + g_{4}rq & g_{5} + g_{6}q + g_{7}q_{x} + g_{8}rq \\
g_{9} + g_{10}r + g_{11}r_{x} + g_{12}rq & g_{13} + g_{14}r + g_{15}r_{x} + g_{16}rq
\end{bmatrix} \]
where $f_{i}$ and $g_{i}$ unknown functions of $x$ and $t$ which satisfy conditions derived by mandating the zero-curvature condition be satisfied on solutions of the variable-coefficient NLS. In fact, in a previous paper Khawaja derives the associated Lax pair via a similar means where he begins with an even weaker assumption on the structure of the Lax pair. This Lax pair is omitted from the paper as it becomes clear the zero-curvature condition mandates many of the coefficients be zero.
{\it An ideal approach would be a method which does not require knowledge of the Lax pair to an associated constant coefficient system and involves little to no guesswork. The extended Estabrook-Wahlquist does exactly this. It will be shown that the results obtained from Khawaja's method are in fact a special case of the extended Estabrook-Wahlquist method. }
We now proceed with the variable coefficient NLS and PTNLS equations as our first examples of this extended Estabrook Wahlquist method.
\section{The vc-NLS Equation Reconsidered}
Following with the procedure outlined above we choose
\[ \mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F}(x,t,q,r), \ \ \ \mathbb{G} = \mathbb{G}(x,t,r,q,r_{x},q_{x}) \]
Compatibility requires these matrices satisfy the zero-curvature conditions given by $\eqref{ZCC}$. Plugging $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ into $\eqref{ZCC}$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{Step1}
\mathbb{F}_{t} + \mathbb{F}_{r}r_{t} + \mathbb{F}_{q}q_{t} - \mathbb{G}_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{r}r_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{r_{x}}r_{xx} - \mathbb{G}_{q_{x}}q_{xx} + \left[\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}\right] = 0
\end{equation}
Now requiring this be satisfied upon solutions of $\eqref{NLS}$ we follow the standard technique of eliminating $r_{t}$ and $u_{t}$ via $\eqref{NLS}$
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
&& \mathbb{F}_{t} - i\mathbb{F}_{r}(fr_{xx} + gr^{2}q + (\upsilon-i\gamma)r) + i\mathbb{F}_{q}(fq_{xx} + gq^{2}r + (\upsilon+i\gamma)q) \\ \label{Step2}
&& - \mathbb{G}_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{r}r_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{r_{x}}r_{xx} - \mathbb{G}_{q_{x}}q_{xx} + \left[\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}\right] = 0
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ do not depend on $q_{xx}$ or $r_{xx}$ we collect the coefficients of $q_{xx}$ and $r_{xx}$ and equate them to zero. This requires
\begin{equation}
-if\mathbb{F}_{r} - \mathbb{G}_{r_{x}} = 0, \ \ \ \ \ if\mathbb{F}_{q} - \mathbb{G}_{q_{x}} = 0
\end{equation}
Solving this linear system yields
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{G} = if(\mathbb{F}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{F}_{r}r_{x}) + \mathbb{K}^{0}(x,t,q,r)
\end{equation}
Plugging this into $\eqref{Step2}$ gives us
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{F}_{t} - i\mathbb{F}_{r}(gr^{2}q + (\upsilon-i\gamma)r) + i\mathbb{F}_{q}(gq^{2}r + (\upsilon+i\gamma)q) - if_{x}(\mathbb{F}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{F}_{r}r_{x}) - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{r}r_{x} \nonumber \\
&& - if(\mathbb{F}_{qx}q_{x} - \mathbb{F}_{rx}r_{x}) - if(\mathbb{F}_{qq}q_{x}^{2} - \mathbb{F}_{rr}r_{x}^{2}) - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{x} + ifq_{x}\left[\mathbb{F},\mathbb{F}_{q}\right] - ifr_{x}\left[\mathbb{F},\mathbb{F}_{r}\right] + \left[\mathbb{F},\mathbb{K}^{0}\right] = 0 \label{Step3}
\end{eqnarray}
Now since $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{K}^{0}$ do not depend on $q_{x}$ and $r_{x}$ we collect the coefficients of the $q_{x}^{2}$ and $r_{x}^{2}$ and equate them to zero. This now requires
\[ if\mathbb{F}_{rr} = 0 = -if\mathbb{F}_{qq} \]
From this, it follows via simple integration
\[ \mathbb{F} = \mathbb{X}_{1}(x,t) + \mathbb{X}_{2}(x,t)q + \mathbb{X}_{3}(x,t)r + \mathbb{X}_{4}(x,t)rq \]
\noindent
where the $\mathbb{X}_{i}$ are arbitrary matrices whose elements are functions of $x$ and $t$. Plugging this into $\eqref{Step3}$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{X}_{1,t} + \mathbb{X}_{2,t}q + \mathbb{X}_{3,t}r + \mathbb{X}_{4,t}rq - i(\mathbb{X}_{3} + \mathbb{X}_{4}q)(gr^{2}q + (\upsilon-i\gamma)r) + i(\mathbb{X}_{2} + \mathbb{X}_{4}r)(gq^{2}r + (\upsilon+i\gamma)q) \nonumber \\
&& - if_{x}((\mathbb{X}_{2} + \mathbb{X}_{4}r)q_{x} - (\mathbb{X}_{3} + \mathbb{X}_{4}q)r_{x}) - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{r}r_{x} - if((\mathbb{X}_{2,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}r)q_{x} - (\mathbb{X}_{3,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}q)r_{x}) \nonumber \\
&& - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{2}]rq_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{4},\mathbb{X}_{2}]rqq_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}]rq_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}]rqq_{x} \nonumber \\
&& + if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}]r^{2}q_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]qr_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{4},\mathbb{X}_{3}]qrr_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}]qr_{x} \nonumber \\
&& - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}]q^{2}r_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}]qrr_{x} + [\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{K}^{0}] + [\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{K}^{0}]q + [\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{K}^{0}]r + [\mathbb{X}_{4},\mathbb{K}^{0}]qr = 0 \label{Step4a}
\end{eqnarray}
Noting the antisymmetry of the commutator we can further simplify this to
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{X}_{1,t} + \mathbb{X}_{2,t}q + \mathbb{X}_{3,t}r + \mathbb{X}_{4,t}rq - i(\mathbb{X}_{3} + \mathbb{X}_{4}q)(gr^{2}q + (\upsilon-i\gamma)r) + i(\mathbb{X}_{2} + \mathbb{X}_{4}r)(gq^{2}r + (\upsilon+i\gamma)q) \nonumber \\
&& - if_{x}((\mathbb{X}_{2} + \mathbb{X}_{4}r)q_{x} - (\mathbb{X}_{3} + \mathbb{X}_{4}q)r_{x}) - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{r}r_{x} - if((\mathbb{X}_{2,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}r)q_{x} - (\mathbb{X}_{3,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}q)r_{x}) \nonumber \\
&& - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{2}]rq_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}]rq_{x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}]r^{2}q_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r_{x} \nonumber \\
&& - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]qr_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}]qr_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}]q^{2}r_{x} = 0 \label{Step4b}
\end{eqnarray}
As before, since the $\mathbb{X}_{i}$ and $\mathbb{K}^{0}$ do not depend on $r_{x}$ or $q_{x}$ we equate the coefficients of the $q_{x}$ and $r_{x}$ terms to zero. Thus we require
\begin{eqnarray}
&& -if_{x}(\mathbb{X}_{2} + \mathbb{X}_{4}r) - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{q} - if(\mathbb{X}_{2,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}r) + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] + ifr[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] \nonumber \\
&& - ifr[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + ifr^{2}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}] = 0 \label{FindKa} \\
&& if_{x}(\mathbb{X}_{3} + \mathbb{X}_{4}q) - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{r} + if(\mathbb{X}_{3,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}q) - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - ifq[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] \nonumber \\
&& - ifq[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - ifq^{2}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}] = 0 \label{FindKb}
\end{eqnarray}
Upon trying to integrate this system one finds that the system is in fact inconsistent. Recall that given a system of PDEs
\[ \Psi_{q} = \xi(q,r), \ \ \Psi_{r} = \eta(q,r) \]
if we are to recover $\Psi$ we must satisfy a consistency condition. That is, we must have $\xi_{r} = \Psi_{qr} = \Psi_{rq} = \eta_{q}$. In $\eqref{FindKa}$ and $\eqref{FindKb}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi(q,r) &=& -if_{x}(\mathbb{X}_{2} + \mathbb{X}_{4}r) - if(\mathbb{X}_{2,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}r) + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] + ifr[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] \nonumber \\
&& - ifr[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + ifr^{2}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}] = 0 \\
\eta(q,r) &=& if_{x}(\mathbb{X}_{3} + \mathbb{X}_{4}q) + if(\mathbb{X}_{3,x} + \mathbb{X}_{4,x}q) - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - ifq[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] \nonumber \\
&& - ifq[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - ifq^{2}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}] = 0
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the consistency condition ($\xi_{r} = \eta_{q}$) requires
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& -if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{4} - if\mathbb{X}_{4,x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + 2if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}]r = if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{4} + if\mathbb{X}_{4,x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] \\
&& - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - 2if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}]q
\end{eqnarray*}
But this means we must have
\begin{equation}
2if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{4} + 2if\mathbb{X}_{4,x} - 2if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] - 2if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}](r+q) = 0
\end{equation}
One easy choice to make the system consistent, and for the purpose of demonstrating how this method can reproduce results previously obtained in the literature, is to set $\mathbb{X}_{4} = 0$. Thus the system becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{K}^{0}_{q} &=& -if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{2} - if\mathbb{X}_{2,x} + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] - ifr[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] \label{Step5a} \\
\mathbb{K}^{0}_{r} &=& if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{3} + if\mathbb{X}_{3,x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - ifq[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] \label{Step5b}
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating the first equation with respect to $q$ we obtain
\[ \mathbb{K}^{0} = -if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{2}q - if\mathbb{X}_{2,x}q + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]rq + \mathbb{K}^{*}(x,t,r) \]
Now differentiating this and mandating that it equal our previous expression for $K^{0}_{r}$ we find that $K^{*}$ must satisfy
\[ \mathbb{K}^{*}_{r} = if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{3} + if\mathbb{X}_{3,x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] \]
Integrating this expression with respect to $r$ we easily find
\[ \mathbb{K}^{*} = if_{x}\mathbb{X}_{3}r + if\mathbb{X}_{3,x}r - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r + \mathbb{X}_{0}(x,t) \]
Now plugging this into our previous expression for $\mathbb{K}^{0}$ we have
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{K}^{0} = if_{x}(\mathbb{X}_{3}r - \mathbb{X}_{2}q) + if(\mathbb{X}_{3,x}r - \mathbb{X}_{2,x}q) + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]qr + \mathbb{X}_{0}
\end{equation}
Now plugging this into $\eqref{Step4b}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{X}_{1,t} + \mathbb{X}_{2,t}q + \mathbb{X}_{3,t}r - i\mathbb{X}_{3}(gr^{2}q + (\upsilon-i\gamma)r) + i\mathbb{X}_{2}(gq^{2}r + (\upsilon+i\gamma)q) - if_{xx}(\mathbb{X}_{3}r - \mathbb{X}_{2}q) \nonumber \\
&& - 2if_{x}(\mathbb{X}_{3,x}r - \mathbb{X}_{2,x}q) - if(\mathbb{X}_{3,xx}r - \mathbb{X}_{2,xx}q) - i(f[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}])_{x}q + i(f[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x}r \nonumber \\
&& - \mathbb{X}_{0,x} + if_{x}([\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r - [\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q) + if([\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3,x}]r - [\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2,x}]q) + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]]q \nonumber \\
&& - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]r - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]qr + [\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{0}] + if_{x}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]qr + i(f[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x}qr \nonumber \\
&& + if[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]]q^{2} - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]qr - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]q^{2}r + [\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{0}]q - if_{x}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{2}]rq \nonumber \\
&& + if([\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{3,x}]r^{2} - [\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{2,x}]rq) + if[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]]rq - if[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]r^{2} - if[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]qr^{2} \nonumber \\
&& + if([\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3,x}]qr - [\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{2,x}]q^{2}) + [\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{0}]r = 0 \label{Step6}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the $\mathbb{X}_{i}$ are independent of $r$ and $q$ we equate the coefficients of the different powers of $r$ and $q$ to zero and thus obtain the following constraints:
\begin{eqnarray}
O(1) &:& \mathbb{X}_{1,t} - \mathbb{X}_{0,x} + \left[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{0}\right] = 0 \\
O(q) &:& \mathbb{X}_{2,t} + i\mathbb{X}_{2}(\upsilon + i\gamma) + i(f\mathbb{X}_{2})_{xx} - i(f[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}])_{x} - if_{x}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2,x}] \nonumber \\
&& + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] + [\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{0}] = 0 \\
O(r) &:& \mathbb{X}_{3,t} - i\mathbb{X}_{3}(\upsilon - i\gamma) - i(f\mathbb{X}_{3})_{xx} + i(f[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x} + if_{x}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3,x}] \nonumber \\
&& - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] + [\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{0}] = 0 \\
O(qr) &:& 2i(f[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x} - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] + if_{x}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] \nonumber \\
&& + if[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] = 0 \\
O(q^{2}) &:& if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{2,x}] - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] = 0 \label{Satisf1} \\
O(r^{2}) &:& if[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{3,x}] - if[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0 \label{Satisf2} \\
O(q^{2}r) &:& ig\mathbb{X}_{2} - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0 \\
O(r^{2}q) &:& ig\mathbb{X}_{3} + if[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0
\end{eqnarray}
These equations collectively determine the conditions for integrability of the system. Note that in general, as with the standard Estabrook-Wahlquist method, the solution to the above system is not unique. Provided we can find representations for the $\mathbb{X}_{i}$ and thus reduce the system down to an integrability condition on the coefficients we will obtain our Lax pair $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$. We will now show how to reproduce the results given in Khawaja's paper. Let us consider Khawaja's choices, thus
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{X}_{0} = \begin{bmatrix}
g_{1} & 0 \\
0 & g_{13}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}
f_{1} & 0 \\
0 & f_{7}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{2} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & ip_{1} \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{3} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
-ip_{2} & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
Plugging this into our integrability conditions yields
\begin{eqnarray}
O(1) &:& f_{1t} - g_{1x} = 0 \label{KC1} \\
O(1) &:& f_{7t} - g_{13x} = 0 \label{KC2} \\
O(q) &:& ip_{1t} - ip_{1}(g_{1} - g_{13} - i\upsilon + \gamma) - (fp_{1})_{xx} + 2(f_{1}-f_{7})(p_{1}f)_{x} \nonumber \\
&& -fp_{1}(f_{1}-f_{7})^{2} + fp_{1}(f_{1}-f_{7})_{x} = 0 \label{KC3} \\
O(r) &:& ip_{2t} + ip_{2}(g_{1} - g_{13} - i\upsilon - \gamma) + (fp_{2})_{xx} + 2(f_{1}-f_{7})(fp_{2})_{x} \nonumber \\
&& + (f_{1}-f_{7})^{2}fp_{2} + fp_{2}(f_{1}-f_{7})_{x} = 0 \label{KC4} \\
O(qr) &:& f_{x}p_{1}p_{2} + 2(fp_{1}p_{2})_{x} = 0 \label{KC5} \\
O(q^{2}r) \ \mbox{and} \ O(r^{2}q) &:& g + 2fp_{1}p_{2} = 0 \label{KC6}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\eqref{Satisf1}$ and $\eqref{Satisf2}$ were identically satisfied. In Khawaja's paper we see $\eqref{KC1},\eqref{KC2},\eqref{KC5}$ and $\eqref{KC6}$ given exactly. To see that the other conditions are equivalent we note that in his paper he had the additional determining equations
\begin{eqnarray}
&& (fp_{1})_{x} - fp_{1}(f_{1}-f_{7}) - g_{6} = 0 \label{EKC1} \\
&& (fp_{2})_{x} + fp_{2}(f_{1}-f_{7}) - g_{10} = 0 \label{EKC2} \\
&& g_{6}(f_{1}-f_{7}) - ip_{1}(g_{1} - g_{13} - i\upsilon + \gamma) - g_{6x} + ip_{1t} = 0 \label{EKC3} \\
&& g_{10}(f_{1}-f_{7}) + ip_{2}(g_{1} - g_{13} - i\upsilon - \gamma) + g_{10x} + ip_{2t} = 0 \label{EKC4}
\end{eqnarray}
We begin by solving $\eqref{EKC1}$ and $\eqref{EKC2}$ for $g_{6}$ and $g_{10}$, respectively. Now plugging $g_{6}$ into $\eqref{EKC3}$ and $g_{10}$ into $\eqref{EKC4}$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&& 2(fp_{1})_{x}(f_{1}-f_{7}) - fp_{1}(f_{1}-f_{7})^{2} - ip_{1}(g_{1} - g_{13} - i\upsilon + \gamma) - (fp_{1})_{xx} \nonumber \\
&& + fp_{1}(f_{1}-f_{7})_{x} + ip_{1t} = 0 \\
&& (fp_{2})_{x}(f_{1}-f_{7}) + fp_{2}(f_{1}-f_{7})^{2} + ip_{2}(g_{1} - g_{13} - i\upsilon - \gamma) + (fp_{2})_{xx} \nonumber \\
&& + fp_{2}(f_{1}-f_{7})_{x} + ip_{2t} = 0
\end{eqnarray}
which is exactly $\eqref{KC3}$ and $\eqref{KC4}$. The Lax pair for this system is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
F &=& \mathbb{X}_{1} + \mathbb{X}_{2}q + \mathbb{X}_{3}r \\
G &=& if(\mathbb{X}_{2}q_{x} - \mathbb{X}_{3}r_{x}) + if_{x}(\mathbb{X}_{3}r - \mathbb{X}_{2}q) + if(\mathbb{X}_{3,x}r - \mathbb{X}_{2,x}q) + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q - if[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r \nonumber \\
&& - if[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]qr + \mathbb{X}_{0}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The Variable Coefficient PT-symmetric Nonlinear Schrodinger Equation}
As the procedure for deriving the Lax pair and conditions necessary for Lax integrability are merely a special case of the standard cubic-NLS considered in the previous section we will not go through the entire procedure but rather list the main results here. The final constraints obtained in the extended Estabrook-Wahlquist technique are the following
\begin{eqnarray}
O(1) &:& \mathbb{X}_{1,t} - \mathbb{X}_{0,x} + \left[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{0}\right] = 0 \\
O(q) &:& \mathbb{X}_{2,t} - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{xx} + i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}])_{x} + ia_{1x}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2,x}] \nonumber \\
&& + if[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] + [\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{0}] = 0 \\
O(r) &:& \mathbb{X}_{3,t} + i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{xx} - i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x} - ia_{1x}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3,x}] \nonumber \\
&& ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] + [\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{0}] = 0 \\
O(qr) &:& - 2i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] - ia_{1x}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] \nonumber \\
&& - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] = 0 \\
O(q^{2}) &:& - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{2,x}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] = 0 \label{PTSatisf1} \\
O(r^{2}) &:& - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{3,x}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0 \label{PTSatisf2} \\
O(q^{2}r) &:& - ia_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0 \\
O(r^{2}q) &:& - ia_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3} - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0
\end{eqnarray}
Utilizing the same set of generators
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{X}_{0} = \begin{bmatrix}
g_{1} & 0 \\
0 & g_{13}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}
f_{1} & 0 \\
0 & f_{7}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{2} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & ip_{1} \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{3} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
-ip_{2} & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
we have the following set of conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
O(1) &:& f_{1t} - g_{1x} = 0 \label{PTKC1} \\
O(1) &:& f_{7t} - g_{13x} = 0 \label{PTKC2} \\
O(q) &:& ip_{1t} - ip_{1}(g_{1} - g_{13}) + (a_{1}p_{1})_{xx} - 2(f_{1}-f_{7})(p_{1}a_{1})_{x} \nonumber \\
&& + a_{1}p_{1}(f_{1}-f_{7})^{2} - a_{1}p_{1}(f_{1}-f_{7})_{x} = 0 \label{PTKC3} \\
O(r) &:& ip_{2t} + ip_{2}(g_{1} - g_{13}) - (a_{1}p_{2})_{xx} - 2(f_{1}-f_{7})(a_{1}p_{2})_{x} \nonumber \\
&& - (f_{1}-f_{7})^{2}a_{1}p_{2} - a_{1}p_{2}(f_{1}-f_{7})_{x} = 0 \label{PTKC4} \\
O(qr) &:& - a_{1x}p_{1}p_{2} - 2(a_{1}p_{1}p_{2})_{x} = 0 \label{PTKC5} \\
O(q^{2}r) \ \mbox{and} \ O(r^{2}q) &:& a_{2} + 2a_{1}p_{1}p_{2} = 0 \label{PTKC6}
\end{eqnarray}
The Lax pair for this system can thus be found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
F &=& \mathbb{X}_{1} + \mathbb{X}_{2}q + \mathbb{X}_{3}r \\
G &=& - ia_{1}(\mathbb{X}_{2}q_{x} - \mathbb{X}_{3}r_{x}) - ia_{1x}(\mathbb{X}_{3}r - \mathbb{X}_{2}q) - ia_{1}(\mathbb{X}_{3,x}r - \mathbb{X}_{2,x}q) - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r \nonumber \\
&& + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]qr + \mathbb{X}_{0}
\end{eqnarray}
Next, we illustrate our generalized Estabrook-Wahlquist technique by applying it to
the generalized DNLS equation.
\section{The vc-DNLS Equation Reconsidered}
In this section we consider treatment of the derivative NLS given by the system
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
iq_{t} + a_{1}q_{xx} + 2iqrq_{x} + ia_{2}q^{2}r_{x}&=0, \label{DNLSa} \\
-ir_{t} + a_{1}r_{xx} - 2ia_{2}rq_{x}r - ia_{2}r^{2}q_{x}&=0, \label{DNLSb}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\noindent
where $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are arbitrary functions of $x$ and $t$ with the extended Estabrook-Wahlquist method. The details of this example will be similar to that of the standard NLS and PT-symmetric NLS. Following the procedure we let
\[ \mathbb{F} = \mathbb{F}(x,t,r,q) ,\ \ \ \mathbb{G} = \mathbb{G}(x,t,r,q,r_{x},q_{x}) \]
Plugging this into $\eqref{ZCC}$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{F}_{t} + \mathbb{F}_{q}q_{t} + \mathbb{F}_{r}r_{t} - \mathbb{G}_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{q_{x}}q_{xx} - \mathbb{G}_{r}r_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{r_{x}}r_{xx} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}] = 0
\end{equation}
\noindent
Now using substituting for $q_{t}$ and $r_{t}$ using $\eqref{DNLSa}$ and $\eqref{DNLSb}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{F}_{t} + (ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{q}-\mathbb{G}_{q_{x}})q_{xx} - (ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{r}+\mathbb{G}_{r_{x}})r_{xx} - \mathbb{F}_{q}(2a_{2}rqq_{x} + a_{2}q^{2}r_{x}) \nonumber \\
&& - \mathbb{F}_{r}(2a_{2}qrr_{x} + a_{2}r^{2}q_{x}) - \mathbb{G}_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{G}_{r}r_{x} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{G}] = 0 \label{DNLSP1}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{G}$ do not depend on $q_{xx}$ or $r_{xx}$ we can set the coefficients of the $q_{xx}$ and $r_{xx}$ terms to zero. This requires
\begin{equation}
ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{q} - \mathbb{G}_{q_{x}} = 0, \ \mbox{and} \ ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{r} + \mathbb{G}_{r_{x}} = 0
\end{equation}
\noindent
Solving this in the same manner as in the NLS expample we obtain
\begin{equation}
G = ia_{1}(\mathbb{F}_{q}q_{x} - \mathbb{F}_{r}r_{x}) + \mathbb{K}^{0}(x,t,r,q)
\end{equation}
\noindent
Plugging this into $\eqref{DNLSP1}$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{F}_{t} - \mathbb{F}_{q}(2a_{2}rqq_{x} + a_{2}q^{2}r_{x}) - \mathbb{F}_{r}(2a_{2}qrr_{x} + a_{2}r^{2}q_{x}) - i(a_{1}\mathbb{F}_{q})_{x}q_{x} + i(a_{1}\mathbb{F}_{r})_{x}r_{x} - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{x} \nonumber \\
&& + ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{rr}r_{x}^{2} - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{r}r_{x} - ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{qq}q_{x}^{2} - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{q}q_{x} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{F},\mathbb{F}_{q}]q_{x} - ia_{1}[\mathbb{F},\mathbb{F}_{r}]r_{x} + [\mathbb{F},\mathbb{K}^{0}] = 0 \label{DNLSP2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now since $\mathbb{F}$ and $\mathbb{K}^{0}$ do not depend on $q_{x}$ or $r_{x}$ we can set the coefficients of the different powers of $r_{x}$ and $q_{x}$ to zero. Thus, setting the coefficients of the $q_{x}^{2}$ and $r_{x}^{2}$ terms to zero we have
\begin{equation}
-ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{qq} = ia_{1}\mathbb{F}_{rr} = 0
\end{equation}
\noindent
from which it follows $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{X}_{1}(x,t) + \mathbb{X}_{2}(x,t)r + \mathbb{X}_{3}(x,t)q + \mathbb{X}_{4}(x,t)qr$. Now setting the coefficients of the $q_{x}$ and $r_{x}$ terms to zero we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&& -a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}q^{2} - a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}q^{2}r + i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x} + i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{4})_{x}q - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{r} - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}]q \nonumber \\
&& - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}]q^{2} - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}rq - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}q^{2}r = 0 \label{XIEQ2} \\
&& -a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}r^{2} - a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}r^{2}q - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x} - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{4})_{x}r - \mathbb{K}^{0}_{q} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}]r \nonumber \\
&& + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}]r^{2} - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}rq - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}r^{2}q = 0 \label{ETA2}
\end{eqnarray}
In much the same way as for the NLS we denote the left-hand side of $\eqref{XIEQ2}$ as $\xi(r,q)$ and the left-hand side of $\eqref{ETA2}$ as $\eta(r,q)$. For recovery of $\mathbb{K}^{0}$ we require that $\xi_{q} = \eta_{r}$. Thus, computing $\xi_{q}$ and $\eta_{r}$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{q} &=& -2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}q - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}qr + i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{4})_{x} - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{2}] - 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}]q \nonumber \\
&& - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}r - 4a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}qr \\
\eta_{r} &=& -2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}r - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}rq - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{4})_{x} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}]r \nonumber \\
&& - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}q - 4a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{4}rq
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
from which it follows that we must have
\begin{equation}
2i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{4})_{x} - 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] - 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}]q - 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}]r = 0
\end{equation}
Since the $\mathbb{X}_{i}$ do not depend on $q$ or $r$ this previous condition requires
\begin{eqnarray}
&& 2i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{4})_{x} - 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{4}] = 0 \\
&& - 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{4}] = 0 \\
&& - 2ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{4}] = 0
\end{eqnarray}
As with the standard NLS we will take $\mathbb{X}_{4} = 0$ in order to simplify computations. Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{K}^{0}_{q} &=& -a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}r^{2} - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]r - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}rq \\
\mathbb{K}^{0}_{r} &=& -a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}q^{2} + i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x} - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{2}]q - 2a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}rq
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating the first equation with respect to $q$ yields
\[ \mathbb{K}^{0} = -a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}r^{2}q - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}q + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]q + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]rq - a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}q^{2}r + \mathbb{K}^{*}(x,t,r) \]
Now differentiating this equation with respect to $r$ and mandating that it equal our previous expression for $\mathbb{K}^{0}_{r}$ we find that $\mathbb{K}^{*}$ must satisfy
\[ \mathbb{K}^{*}_{r} = i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x} - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] \]
\noindent
from which it follows
\[ \mathbb{K}^{*} = i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}r - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]r + \mathbb{X}_{0}(x,t) \]
\noindent
and thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{K}^{0} &=& i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}r - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}q - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]r + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]q + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]rq - a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2}r^{2}q \nonumber \\
&& - a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}q^{2}r + \mathbb{X}_{0}(x,t)
\end{eqnarray}
Now plugging this and our expression for $\mathbb{F}$ into $\eqref{DNLSP2}$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathbb{X}_{1,t} + \mathbb{X}_{2,t}r + \mathbb{X}_{3,t}q - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{xx}r + i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{xx}q + i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}])_{x}r - i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x}q \nonumber \\
&& - i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x}rq + (a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}r^{2}q + (a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}q^{2}r - \mathbb{X}_{0,x} + i[\mathbb{X}_{1},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}]r - [\mathbb{X}_{1},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}]q \nonumber \\
&& - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]]r + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]q + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]rq - a_{2}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]r^{2}q - a_{2}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]q^{2}r \nonumber \\
&& + [\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{0}] + i[\mathbb{X}_{2},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}]r^{2} - i[\mathbb{X}_{2},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}]rq - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]]r^{2} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]rq \nonumber \\
&& + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]r^{2}q + [\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{0}]r + i[\mathbb{X}_{3},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}]rq - i[\mathbb{X}_{3},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}]q^{2} - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]]rq \nonumber \\
&& + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]q^{2} + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]]q^{2}r + [\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{0}]q = 0
\end{eqnarray}
Since the $\mathbb{X}_{i}$ are independent of $r$ and $q$ we equate the coefficients of the different powers of $r$ and $q$ to zero and thus obtain the following constraints:
\begin{eqnarray}
O(1) &:& \mathbb{X}_{1,t} - \mathbb{X}_{0,x} + [\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{0}] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND1} \\
O(q) &:& \mathbb{X}_{3,t} + i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{xx} - i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x} - i[\mathbb{X}_{1},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] \nonumber \\
&& + [\mathbb{X}_{3},\mathbb{X}_{0}] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND2} \\
O(r) &:& \mathbb{X}_{2,t} - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{xx} + i(a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}])_{x} + i[\mathbb{X}_{1},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}] - ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] \nonumber \\
&& + [\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{0}] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND3} \\
O(rq) &:& - (a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}])_{x} + a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] - [\mathbb{X}_{2},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}] + a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] + [\mathbb{X}_{3},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}] \nonumber \\
&& - a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND4} \\
O(q^{2}) &:& - [\mathbb{X}_{3},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}] + a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND5} \\
O(r^{2}) &:& [\mathbb{X}_{2},(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x}] - a_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}]] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND6} \\
O(r^{2}q) &:& (a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{2})_{x} - a_{2}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{2}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{2},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND7} \\
O(q^{2}r) &:& (a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x} - a_{2}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}] + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{3},[\mathbb{X}_{2},\mathbb{X}_{3}]] = 0 \label{DNLSCOND8}
\end{eqnarray}
Allowing the following forms for the generators
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{X}_{0} = \begin{bmatrix}
g_{1} & g_{2} \\
g_{3} & g_{4}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{1} = \begin{bmatrix}
f_{1} & 0 \\
0 & f_{2}
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{2} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & f_{3} \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \mathbb{X}_{3} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
f_{4} & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
Note that with this choice the $\eqref{DNLSCOND5}$ and $\eqref{DNLSCOND6}$ equations are immediately satisfed. From $\eqref{DNLSCOND2}$ and $\eqref{DNLSCOND3}$ we obtain the conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
&& g_{3}f_{4} = g_{2}f_{3} = 0 \\
&& f_{4t} + i(a_{1}f_{4})_{xx} - i(a_{1}f_{4}(f_{1} - f_{2}))_{x} + (f_{2} - f_{1})(a_{1}f_{4})_{x} + ia_{1}f_{4}(f_{1} - f_{2})^{2} \nonumber \\
&& + f_{4}(g_{4} - g_{1}) = 0 \label{DNLSFINAL2} \\
&& f_{3t} - i(a_{1}f_{3})_{xx} - i(a_{1}f_{3}(f_{1} - f_{2}))_{x} + (f_{2} - f_{1})(a_{1}f_{3})_{x} - ia_{1}f_{3}(f_{1} - f_{2})^{2} \nonumber \\
&& - f_{3}(g_{4} - g_{1}) = 0 \label{DNLSFINAL3}
\end{eqnarray}
To keep $\mathbb{X}_{2}$ and $\mathbb{X}_{3}$ nonzero we force $g_{2} = g_{3} = 0$. The condition given by $\eqref{DNLSCOND4}$ becomes the single equation
\begin{equation}
(a_{1}f_{3}f_{4})_{x} + f_{3}(a_{1}f_{4})_{x} + f_{4}(a_{1}f_{3})_{x} = 0 \label{DNLSFINAL4} \\
\end{equation}
The final two conditions now yield the system
\begin{eqnarray}
&& (a_{2}f_{3})_{x} - a_{2}f_{3}(f_{2} - f_{1}) - 2ia_{1}f_{3}^{2}f_{4} = 0 \label{DNLSFINAL5} \\
&& (a_{2}f_{4})_{x} + a_{2}f_{4}(f_{2} - f_{1}) + 2ia_{1}f_{4}^{2}f_{3} = 0 \label{DNLSFINAL6}
\end{eqnarray}
At this point solution of the system given by $\eqref{DNLSCOND1}$ and $\eqref{DNLSFINAL2} - \eqref{DNLSFINAL6}$ such that the $a_{i}$ are real-valued requires either $f_{3} = 0$ or $f_{4} = 0$. Without loss of generality we choose $f_{3} = 0$ from which we obtain the new system of equations
\begin{eqnarray}
&& f_{1t} - g_{1x} = 0 \label{DNLSE1} \\
&& f_{2t} - g_{4x} = 0 \label{DNLSE2} \\
&& f_{4t} + i(a_{1}f_{4})_{xx} - i(a_{1}f_{4}(f_{1} - f_{2}))_{x} + (f_{2} - f_{1})(a_{1}f_{4})_{x} + ia_{1}f_{4}(f_{1} - f_{2})^{2} \nonumber \\
&& + f_{4}(g_{4} - g_{1}) = 0 \label{DNLSE3} \\
&& (a_{2}f_{4})_{x} + a_{2}f_{4}(f_{2} - f_{1}) = 0 \label{DNLSE4}
\end{eqnarray}
Solving $\eqref{DNLSE1},\eqref{DNLSE3}$ and $\eqref{DNLSE4}$ for $f_{1},g_{4}$ and $f_{2}$, respectively we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&f_{1} = \int{g_{1x}dt} + F_{1}(x) \\
&& f_{2} = -\frac{(a_{2}f_{4})_{x}}{a_{2}f_{4}} + \int{g_{1x}dt} + F_{1}(x) \\
&& g_{4} = \frac{-ia_{2}^{2}f_{4}a_{1xx} + ia_{1}a_{2}f_{4}a_{2xx} - 2ia_{1}a_{2x}^{2}f_{4} + 2ia_{2}a_{2x}a_{1x}f_{4} - f_{4t}a_{2}^{2}}{a_{2}^{2}f_{4}} + g_{1}
\end{eqnarray}
Plugging this into $\eqref{DNLSE2}$ yields the integrability condition
\begin{eqnarray}
&& a_{2}^{3}a_{1xxx} - ia_{2t}a_{2x}a_{2} + ia_{2xt}a_{2}^{2} - 3a_{2}^{2}a_{2xx}a_{1x} - 4a_{2x}^{3}a_{1} + 5a_{1}a_{2}a_{2x}a_{2xx} + 4a_{2x}^{2}a_{2}a_{1x} \nonumber \\
&& - a_{2}^{2}a_{1}a_{2xxx} - 2a_{2x}a_{2}^{2}a_{1xx} = 0
\end{eqnarray}
Since we require that the $a_{i}$ be real we decouple this final equation into the conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
&& a_{2t}a_{2x} - a_{2xt}a_{2} = 0 \\
&& a_{2}^{3}a_{1xxx} - 3a_{2}^{2}a_{2xx}a_{1x} - 4a_{2x}^{3}a_{1} + 5a_{1}a_{2}a_{2x}a_{2xx} + 4a_{2x}^{2}a_{2}a_{1x} \nonumber \\
&& - a_{2}^{2}a_{1}a_{2xxx} - 2a_{2x}a_{2}^{2}a_{1xx} = 0
\end{eqnarray}
With the aid of MAPLE we find that the previous system is solvable with solution given by
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{1}(x,t) &=& F_{4}(t)F_{2}(x)(c_{1} + c_{2}x) - c_{1}F_{4}(t)F_{2}(x)\int{\frac{x \ dx}{F_{2}(x)}} + c_{1}xF_{4}(t)F_{2}(x)\int{\frac{dx}{F_{2}(x)}} \\
a_{2}(x,t) &=& F_{2}(x)F_{3}(t)
\end{eqnarray}
The Lax pair for this system is thus found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
F &=& \mathbb{X}_{1} + \mathbb{X}_{3}q \\
G &=& ia_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3}q_{x} - i(a_{1}\mathbb{X}_{3})_{x}q + ia_{1}[\mathbb{X}_{1},\mathbb{X}_{3}]q - a_{2}\mathbb{X}_{3}q^{2}r + \mathbb{X}_{0}
\end{eqnarray}
This completes the extended EW analysis of the vc-DNLS equation.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
We have used two direct methods to obtain very significantly extended Lax- or S-integrable families
of generalized NLS, PT-symmetric NLS, and DNLS equations with coefficients which may in general vary in both space and time.
Of these, the second technique which was developed here is a new, significantly extended version of the
well-known Estabrook-Wahlquist technique for Lax-integrable systems with constant coefficients.
Future work will address the derivation of additional solutions by various methods,
as well as detailed investigations of other integrability properties of these
novel integrable inhomogeneous NLPDEs such as Backlund
Transformations, conservation laws, and, if at all feasible, bi-Hamiltonian structures and Liouville integrability.
|
\section{I. Details of the experimental setup}
Magnetization measurements at temperatures down to 0.1~K were performed by a capacitively-detected Faraday method in a dilution refrigerator.
A translational magnetic force ($M dH_z/dz$) acting on a magnetic moment $M$ situated in a spatially-varying field $H_z(z)$ was detected by a transducer made of a parallel-plate capacitor.
One of the capacitor plate, on which a sample was mounted, was suspended by thin phosphor-bronze wires and could move in proportion to an applied force.
Hence, the magnetic force was detected by a change in the capacitance value $\Delta C$.
For this purpose, we used a vertical superconducting solenoid equipped with a pair of gradient coils,
driven by independent power supplies; the field gradient ($dH_z/dz$) at the sample position could be varied independent of the central field [$H_z(0)$].
For a magnetically anisotropic sample, a torque component (${\pmb M}\times{\pmb H}$) is usually superposed on the capacitor output.
In order to eliminate the torque effect and to obtain the magnetization, we took a difference between the capacitance data with $dH_z/dz\neq 0$ and those ($\Delta C_0$) with $dH_z/dz= 0$, the latter providing the torque component only. The zero-gradient capacitance data $\Delta C_0$ were also used to analyze the field variation of the magnetic torque.
To measure the magnetization and the magnetic torque under a precise control of the magnetic-field orientation,
we developed a device illustrated in Fig. S1.
The capacitor transducer is mounted on a tilting stage, which can be rotated around the $x$ axis.
The tilting angle is adjusted by rotating a screw rod from the top of the dilution insert using an upper shaft made of glass epoxy,
which goes through a line-of-sight port of the refrigerator insert. One revolution of the screw rod corresponds to a rotation of the tilting stage of 1.5 deg [Fig. S1 (b)].
The revolution of the screw rod is read by a potentiometer dial.
The sample is mounted on a sample stage of the capacitor transducer so that the [110] axis coincides with the rotational axis of the tilting stage.
In order to cut a heat flow through the upper shaft into the capacitor transducer, we use a thermal isolator as illustrated in Fig. S1 (c).
When the upper shaft is rotated, two arms touch the columns and transmit revolution to the lower shaft.
During the measurement,
the arms and the columns are detached so that the upper and lower shafts are thermally isolated to each other.
Then, the sample temperature can reach below 0.1~K.
In order to avoid a backlash of the isolator, we always read the potentiometer dial with a clockwise rotation.
We also improved the sensitivity of the magnetization measurement by a factor of 100 over the previous apparatus used in Ref.~24,
by reducing the mass of the movable capacitor plate, on which a sample was mounted, and making the background magnetization significantly smaller.
\section{II. Temperature variation of the magnetization curve}
Figure~S2(a) shows the field dependence of the magnetization $M_{\rm SC}\!=\!M\!-\!\chi_{\rm n}H$ of $\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4$
taken in the increasing and decreasing field sweeps ($M_{\rm SC}^{\rm u}$ and $M_{\rm SC}^{\rm d}$, respectively), at various temperatures for $H \parallel ab$.
We also plot a field derivative $dM_{\rm SC}/dH$ of the increasing-field data, $dM_{\rm SC}^{\rm u}/dH$, in Fig.~S2(b).
The ramp rate of the magnetic field is 750 Oe/min in all the measurements, and each data point is taken while the field is held constant.
With increasing temperature, the magnetization jump and the peak height of $dM_{\rm SC}^{\rm u}/dH$ become smaller and broader.
Above 0.6 K, the amplitude of the $dM_{\rm SC}^{\rm u}/dH$ peak is strongly suppressed [see Fig. S2(c)].
The present results demonstrate that the first-order S-N transition becomes remarkable for $T \lesssim 0.6$~K.
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{S\arabic{figure}}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=6.in]{PRL_figS1.eps}
\caption{
(Color online)
(a) Schematic view of the device for fine tuning of the field angle $\theta$, on which a capacitor transducer is mounted.
(b) Enlarged view of the tilting stage and a capacitor transducer. The sample was fixed on the sample stage at $z=0$ and
was rotated around the $x$ axis by rotating the tilting stage.
One side of the tilting stage is pulled up (pushed down) by the spring (the screw rod connected to the lower shaft).
(c) Enlarged view of the thermal isolator to cut the heat flow.
The arms and columns were touched (detached) during changing $\theta$ (the measurement).
}
\label{Supp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.3in]{PRL_figS2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
(Color online)
Field dependence of (a) $M_{\rm SC}^{\rm u}$ (solid line), $M_{\rm SC}^{\rm d}$ (dashed line), and (b) $dM_{\rm SC}^{\rm u}/dH$ at various temperatures.
Each data in (a) and (b) is vertically shifted by 0.02 and $1 \times 10^{-4}$~emu/g, respectively, for clarity.
(c) Temperature dependence of the peak height in $dM_{\rm SC}^{\rm u}/dH(H)$ appearing near $H_\mathrm{c2}$.
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Delmotte \cite{Delmotte99} proved that the transition density of the simple random walk on a graph satisfies
Gaussian bounds and the parabolic Harnack inequality holds if all the balls have regular volume growth and satisfy a Poincar\'e inequality.
Barlow \cite{Barlow} relaxed these conditions by imposing them only on all {\it large enough} balls, and showed that they
imply large time Gaussian bounds and the elliptic Harnack inequality for large enough balls.
Later, Barlow and Hambly \cite{BH09} proved that the parabolic Harnack inequality also follows from Barlow's conditions.
Barlow \cite{Barlow} verified these conditions for the supercritical cluster of Bernoulli percolation on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$,
which lead to the almost sure Gaussian heat kernel bounds and parabolic Harnack inequality.
By using stationarity and heat kernel bounds, the quenched invariance principle was proved in \cite{SS04,BergerBiskup,MathieuPiatnitski},
which lead to many further results about supercritical Bernoulli percolation,
including the local central limit theorem \cite{BH09} and the fact that the dimension of harmonic functions of at most linear growth is $d+1$ \cite{BDCKY14}.
The independence property of Bernoulli percolation was essential in verifying Barlow's conditions,
and up to now it has been the only example of percolation model for which the conditions were verified.
On the other hand, once the conditions are verified, the derivation of all the further results
uses rather robust methods and allows for extension to other stationary percolation models.
The aim of this paper is to develop an approach to verifying Barlow's conditions for infinite clusters of percolation models, which
on the one hand, applies to supercritical Bernoulli percolation, but on the other, does not rely on independence
and extends beyond models which are in any stochastic relation with Bernoulli percolation.
Motivating examples for us are random interlacements, vacant set of random interlacements, and the level sets of the Gaussian free field \cite{SznitmanAM,SidoraviciusSznitman_RI,RodSz}.
In all these models, the spatial correlations decay only polynomially with distance,
and classical Peierls-type arguments do not apply.
A unified framework to study percolation models with strong correlations was proposed in \cite{DRS12},
within which the shape theorem for balls \cite{DRS12} and the quenched invariance principle \cite{PRS} were proved.
In this paper we prove that Barlow's conditions are satisfied by infinite percolation clusters in the general setting of \cite{DRS12}.
In particular, all the above mentioned properties of supercritical Bernoulli percolation extend to all the models satisfying assumptions from \cite{DRS12},
which include supercritical Bernoulli percolation,
random interlacements at every level in any dimension $d\geq 3$, the vacant set of random interlacements and the level sets of the Gaussian free field in the regime of local uniqueness.
\bigskip
\subsection{General graphs}
Let $G$ be an infinite connected graph with the vertex set $V(G)$ and the edge set $E(G)$.
For $x,y\in V(G)$, define the weights
\[
\nu_{xy} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1,&\{x,y\}\in E(G),\\ 0,&\text{otherwise,}\end{array}\right.
\qquad \mu_x = \sum_y\nu_{xy},
\]
and extend $\nu$ to the measure on $E(G)$ and $\mu$ to the measure on $V(G)$.
For functions $f:V(G)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $g : E(G)\to{\mathbb{R}}$, let
$\int f d\mu = \sum_{x\in V(G)}f(x)\mu_x$ and $\int g d\nu = \sum_{e\in E(G)}g(e)\nu_e$, and define
$|\nabla f|:E(G)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ by $|\nabla f|(\{x,y\}) = |f(x) - f(y)|$ for $\{x,y\}\in E(G)$.
Let ${\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}$ be the graph distance on $G$, and define ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r) = \{y\in V(G):{\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)\leq r\}$.
We assume that $\mu({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r))\leq C_0 r^d$ for all $x\in V(G)$ and $r\geq 1$.
In particular, this implies that the maximal degree in $G$ is bounded by $C_0$.
We say that a graph $G$ satisfies the {\it volume regularity} and the {\it Poincar\'e inequality}
if for all $x\in V(G)$ and $r>0$, $\mu({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,2r))\leq C_1\cdot \mu({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r))$ and, respectively,
$\min_a\int_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}(f-a)^2 d\mu \leq C_2\cdot r^2\cdot \int_{E({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r))} |\nabla f|^2 d\nu$,
with some constants $C_1$ and $C_2$. Graphs satisfying these conditions are very well understood.
Delmotte proved in \cite{Delmotte99} the equivalence of such conditions to Gaussian bounds on the transition density of the simple random walk
and to the parabolic Harnack inequality for solution to the corresponding heat equation, extending results of
Grigoryan \cite{Grigoryan} and Saloff-Coste \cite{SC92} for manifolds. Under the same assumptions, he also obtained in \cite{Delmotte98}
explicit bounds on the dimension of harmonic functions on $G$ of at most polynomial growth.
Results of this flavor are classical in geometric analysis, with seminal ideas going back
to the work of De Giorgi \cite{DeGiorgi}, Nash \cite{Nash}, and Moser \cite{Moser61,Moser64} on the regularity of solutions of uniformly elliptic second order equations in divergence form.
The main focus of this paper is on random graphs, and more specifically on random subgraphs of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$, $d\geq2$.
Because of local defects in such graphs caused by randomness, it is too restrictive to expect that various properties
(e.g., Poincar\'e inequality, Gaussian bounds, or Harnack inequality) should hold globally.
An illustrative example is the infinite cluster $\mathcal C_\infty$ of supercritical Bernoulli percolation \cite{Grimmett} defined as follows.
For $p\in[0,1]$, remove vertices of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ independently with probability $(1-p)$. The graph induced by the retained vertices
almost surely contains an infinite connected component (which is unique) if $p>p_c(d)\in(0,1)$, and contains only finite components
if $p<p_c(d)$. It is easy to see that for any $p>p_c(d)$ with probability $1$, $\mathcal C_\infty$ contains copies of any finite connected subgraph of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$,
and thus, none of the above global properties can hold.
Barlow \cite{Barlow} proposed the following relaxed assumption which takes into account possible exceptional behavior on microscopic scales.
\begin{definition}\label{def:vgb}(\cite[Definition~1.7]{Barlow})
Let $C_V$, $C_P$, and $C_W\geq 1$ be fixed constants.
For $r\geq 1$ integer and $x\in V(G)$, we say that ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-{\it good} if
$\mu({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r))\geq C_V r^d$ and the weak Poincar\'e inequality
\[
\min_a\int_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}(f-a)^2 d\mu \leq C_P\cdot r^2\cdot \int_{E({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,C_Wr))} |\nabla f|^2 d\nu.
\]
holds for all $f:{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,C_Wr) \to {\mathbb{R}}$.
We say ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-{\it very good} if there exists $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)}\leq R^{\frac{1}{d+2}}$ such that
${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,r)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-good whenever ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,r)\subseteq {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$, and $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)} \leq r\leq R$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:wpi:minimum}
For any finite $H\subset V(G)$ and $f:H\to{\mathbb{R}}$, the minimum $\min_a\int_H(f-a)^2 d\mu$ is attained by
the value $a = \overline f_H = \frac{1}{\mu(H)}\int_H f d\mu$.
\end{remark}
\medskip
For a very good ball, the conditions of volume growth and Poincar\'e inequality are allowed to fail on microscopic scales.
Thus, if all large enough balls are very good, the graph can still have rather irregular local behavior.
Despite that, on large enough scales it looks as if it was regular on all scales, as the following results from \cite{Barlow, BH09, BDCKY14} illustrate.
\medskip
Let $X = (X_n)_{n\geq 0}$ and $Y = (Y_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be the discrete and continuous time simple random walks on $G$.
$X$ is a Markov chain with transition probabilities $\frac{\nu_{xy}}{\mu_x}$, and $Y$ is the Markov process with generator
$\mathcal L_G f(x) = \frac{1}{\mu_x}\sum_y\nu_{xy}(f(y) - f(x))$.
In words, the walker $X$ (resp., $Y$) waits a unit time (resp., an exponential time with mean $1$) at each vertex $x$, and then jumps to a uniformly chosen neighbor of $x$ in $G$.
For $x\in V(G)$, we denote by $\mathrm P_x = \mathrm P_{G,x}$ (resp., $\mathrm Q_x = \mathrm Q_{G,x}$) the law of $X$ (resp., $Y$) started from $x$.
The transition density of $X$ (resp., $Y$) with respect to $\mu$ is denoted by $p_n(x,y) = p_{G,n}(x,y) = \frac{\mathrm P_{G,x}[X_n = y]}{\mu_y}$
(resp., $q_t(x,y) = q_{G,t}(x,y) = \frac{\mathrm Q_{G,x}[Y_t = y]}{\mu_y}$).
\medskip
The first implications of Definition~\ref{def:vgb} are large time Gaussian bounds for $q_t$ and $p_n$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:hk:vgb}(\cite[Theorem~5.7(a)]{Barlow} and \cite[Theorem~2.2]{BH09})
Let $x\in V(G)$. If there exists $R_0 = R_0(x,G)$ such that ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-very good with $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)}^{3(d+2)}\leq R$ for each $R\geq R_0$,
then there exist constants $C_i = C_i(d,C_0,C_V,C_P,C_W)$ such that for all $t\geq R_0^{3/2}$ and $y\in V(G)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hk:vgb:ub}
F_t(x,y)\leq C_1\cdot t^{-\frac d2}\cdot e^{-C_2\cdot \frac{{\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)^2}{t}},\qquad \text{if $t\geq {\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)$,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hk:vgb:lb}
F_t(x,y)\geq C_3\cdot t^{-\frac d2}\cdot e^{-C_4\cdot \frac{{\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)^2}{t}},\qquad \text{if $t\geq {\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)^{\frac 32}$,}
\end{equation}
where $F_t$ stands for either $q_t$ or $p_{\lfloor t\rfloor} + p_{\lfloor t\rfloor +1}$.
\end{theorem}
The next result gives an elliptic Harnack inequality.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:ehi:vgb}(\cite[Theorem~5.11]{Barlow})
There exists $C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{ehi}}} = C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{ehi}}}(d,C_0,C_V,C_P,C_W)$ such that for any $x\in V(G)$ and $R\geq 1$, if ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R\log R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-very good with $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R\log R)}^{4(d+2)}\leq R$,
then for any $y\in{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,\frac 13 R\log R)$, and $h:{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,R+1)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ nonnegative and harmonic in ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,R)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ehi:vgb}
\sup_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,\frac12 R)} h\leq C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{ehi}}}\cdot \inf_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,\frac12 R)} h.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In fact, more general parabolic Harnack inequality also takes place.
(For the definition of parabolic Harnack inequality see, e.g., \cite[Section~3]{BH09}.)
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:phi:vgb}(\cite[Theorem~3.1]{BH09})
There exists $C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{phi}}} = C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{phi}}}(d,C_0,C_V,C_P,C_W)$ such that
for any $x\in V(G)$, $R\geq 1$, and $R_1 = R\log R\geq 16$, if ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R_1)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-very good with
$N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R_1)}^{2(d+2)}\leq \frac{R_1}{2\log R_1}$, then for any $y\in{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,\frac 13 R_1)$,
the parabolic Harnack inequality (in both discrete and continuous time settings) holds with constant $C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{phi}}}$
for $(0,R^2]\times{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,R)$.
In particular, the elliptic Harnack inequality \eqref{eq:ehi:vgb} also holds.
\end{theorem}
Next result is about the dimension of the space of harmonic functions on $G$ with at most polynomial growth.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:vgb:hf:poligrowth}(\cite[Theorem~4]{BDCKY14})
Let $x\in V(G)$. If there exists $R_0 = R_0(x,G)$ such that ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-very good for each $R\geq R_0$,
then for any positive $k$, the space of harmonic functions $h$ with $\limsup_{{\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)\to\infty}\frac{h(y)}{{\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)^k}<\infty$ is finite dimensional,
and the bound on the dimension only depends on $k$, $d$, $C_0$, $C_V$, $C_P$, and $C_W$.
\end{theorem}
\medskip
The notion of very good balls is most useful in studying random subgraphs of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
Up to now, it was only applied to the unique infinite connected component of supercritical Bernoulli percolation, see \cite{Barlow, BH09}.
Barlow \cite[Section 2]{Barlow} showed that on an event of probability $1$,
for every vertex of the infinite cluster, all large enough balls centered at it are very good.
Thus, all the above results are immediately transfered into the almost sure statements for all
vertices of the infinite cluster.
Despite the conditions of Definition~\ref{def:vgb} are rather general,
their validity up to now has only been shown for the independent percolation.
The reason is that most of the analysis developed for percolation is tied very sensitively with
the independence property of Bernoulli percolation.
One usually first reduces combinatorial complexity of patterns by a coarse graining,
and then balances the complexity out by exponential bounds coming from the independence,
see, e.g., \cite[Section 2]{Barlow}.
The main purpose of this paper is to develop an approach to verifying properties of Definition~\ref{def:vgb} for random graphs
which does not rely on independence or any comparison with Bernoulli percolation, and,
as a result, extending the known results about Bernoulli percolation to models with strong correlations.
Our primal motivation comes from percolation models with strong correlations,
such as random interlacements, vacant set of random interlacements, or the level sets of the Gaussian free field,
see, e.g., \cite{SznitmanAM,SidoraviciusSznitman_RI,RodSz}.
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:vgb}
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(1)]
The lower bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:hk:vgb} can be slightly generalized by following the proof of \cite[Theorem~5.7(a)]{Barlow}.
Let $\epsilon\in(0,\frac 12]$ and $K>\frac{1}{\epsilon}$.
If there exists $R_0 = R_0(x,G)$ such that ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-very good with $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)}^{K(d+2)}\leq R$ for each $R\geq R_0$,
then for all $t\geq R_0^{1+\epsilon}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hk:vgb:lb:epsilon}
F_t(x,y)\geq C_3\cdot t^{-\frac d2}\cdot e^{-C_4\cdot \frac{{\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)^2}{t}},\qquad \text{if $t\geq {\dist_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,y)^{1+\epsilon}$.}
\end{equation}
The constants $C_3$ and $C_4$ are the same as in \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:lb}, in particular, they do not depend on $K$ and $\epsilon$.
For $\epsilon=\frac 12$ and $K=3$, we recover \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:lb}.
(There is a small typo in the statements of \cite[Theorem~5.7(a)]{Barlow} and \cite[Theorem~2.2]{BH09}: $R_0^{2/3}$ should be replaced by $R_0^{3/2}$.)
Indeed, the proof of \cite[Theorem~5.7(a)]{Barlow} is reduced to verifying assumptions of \cite[Theorem~5.3]{Barlow} for some choice of $R$.
The original choice of Barlow is $R = t^{\frac23}$, and it implies \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:lb}.
By restricting the choice of $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)}$ as above, one notices that
all the conditions of \cite[Theorem~5.3]{Barlow} are satisfied by $R = t^{\frac{1}{1+\epsilon}}$, implying \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:lb:epsilon}.
\item[(2)]
In order to prove the lower bound of \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:lb} for the same range of $t$'s as in the upper bound \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:ub}, one needs to impose
a stronger assumption on the regularity of the balls ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$ (see, for instance, \cite[Definition~5.4]{Barlow} of the exceedingly good ball
and \cite[Theorem~5.7(b)]{Barlow}).
In fact, the recent result of \cite[Theorem~1.10]{BarlowChen14} states that the volume doubling property and the Poincar\'e inequality
satisfied by large enough balls are equivalent to certain partial Gaussian bounds (and also to the parabolic Harnack inequality in large balls).
\item[(3)]
Under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:phi:vgb}, various estimates of the heat kernels for the processes $X$ and $Y$ killed on exiting from a box
are given in \cite[Theorem~2.1]{BH09}.
\item[(4)]
Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:hf:poligrowth} holds under much weaker assumptions, although reminiscent of the ones of Definition~\ref{def:vgb} (see \cite[Theorem~4]{BDCKY14}).
Roughly speaking, one assumes that the conditions from Definition~\ref{def:vgb} hold with $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)}$ only sublinear in $R$, i.e., a volume growth condition and
the weak Poincar\'e inequality should hold only for macroscopic subballs of ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\subsection{The model}
We consider the measurable space $\Omega = \{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$, $d\geq 2$, equipped with
the sigma-algebra $\mathcal F$ generated by the coordinate maps $\{\atom\mapsto\atom(x)\}_{x\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$.
For any $\atom\in\{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$, we denote the induced subset of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ by
\[
\set = \set(\atom) = \{x\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d~:~\atom(x) = 1\} \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}^d .\
\]
We view $\set$ as a subgraph of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ in which the edges are drawn between any two vertices of $\set$ within $\ell^1$-distance $1$ from each other,
where the $\ell^1$ and $\ell^\infty$ norms of $x=(x(1),\dots,x(d))\in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ are defined in the usual way by
$|x|_1 = \sum_{i=1}^d|x(i)|$ and $|x|_\infty = \max\{|x(1)|,\ldots|x(d)|\}$, respectively.
For $x \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $r \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, we denote by
$\ballZ(x,r) = \{y\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d~:~|x-y|_\infty\leq \lfloor r \rfloor \}$ the closed $\ell^{\infty}$-ball in ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ with
radius $\lfloor r \rfloor$ and center at $x$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:setr}
For $r\in [0,\infty]$, we denote by $\set_r$, the set of vertices of $\set$
which are in connected components of $\set$ of $\ell^1$-diameter $\geq r$.
In particular, $\set_\infty$ is the subset of vertices of $\set$ which are in infinite connected components of $\set$.
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Assumptions}
On $(\Omega,\mathcal F)$ we consider a family of probability measures $(\mathbb P^u)_{u\in(a,b)}$ with $0<a<b<\infty$,
satisfying the following assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{} from \cite{DRS12}.
Parameters $d$, $a$, and $b$ are considered fixed throughout the paper, and dependence of various constants on them is omitted.
\medskip
An event $G \in \mathcal F$ is called \emph{increasing} (respectively, \emph{decreasing}), if
for all $\atom\in G$ and $\atom' \in \{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$ with $\atom(y) \leq \atom(y')$
(respectively, $\atom(y) \geq \atom(y')$) for all $y\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, one has $\atom' \in G$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\p{}] {\it (Ergodicity)}
For each $u\in(a,b)$, every lattice shift is measure preserving and ergodic on $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\mathbb P^u)$.
\item[\pp{}] {\it (Monotonicity)}
For any $u,u'\in(a,b)$ with $u<u'$, and any increasing event $G\in\mathcal F$,
$\mathbb P^u[G] \leq \mathbb P^{u'}[G]$.
\item[\ppp{}] {\it (Decoupling)}
Let $L\geq 1$ be an integer and $x_1,x_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
For $i\in\{1,2\}$, let $A_i\in\sigma(\{\atom\mapsto\atom(y)\}_{y\in \ballZ(x_i,10L)})$ be decreasing events, and
$B_i\in\sigma(\{\atom\mapsto\atom(y)\}_{y\in \ballZ(x_i,10L)})$ increasing events.
There exist $R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}},L_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}} <\infty$ and ${\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}},{\chi_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}}>0$ such that for any integer $R\geq R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}$ and $a<\widehat u<u<b$ satisfying
\[
u\geq \left(1 + R^{-{\chi_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}}}\right)\cdot \widehat u ,\
\]
if $|x_1 - x_2|_\infty \geq R\cdot L$, then
\[
\mathbb P^u\left[A_1\cap A_2\right] \leq
\mathbb P^{\widehat u}\left[A_1\right] \cdot
\mathbb P^{\widehat u}\left[A_2\right]
+ e^{-f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}(L)} ,\
\]
and
\[
\mathbb P^{\widehat u}\left[B_1\cap B_2\right] \leq
\mathbb P^u\left[B_1\right] \cdot
\mathbb P^u\left[B_2\right]
+ e^{-f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}(L)} ,\
\]
where $f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}$ is a real valued function satisfying $f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}(L) \geq e^{(\log L)^{\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}}}$ for all $L\geq L_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}$.
\item[\s{}] {\it (Local uniqueness)}
There exists a function $f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}:(a,b)\times{\mathbb{Z}}_+\to \mathbb R$ such that for each $u\in(a,b)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:funcS}
\begin{array}{c}
\text{there exist ${\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}} = {\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}(u)>0$ and $R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}} = R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u)<\infty$}\\
\text{such that $f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u,R) \geq (\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}$ for all $R\geq R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}$,}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and for all $u\in(a,b)$ and $R\geq 1$, the following inequalities are satisfied:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb P^u\left[ \,
\set_R\cap\ballZ(0,R) \neq \emptyset \,
\right]
\geq
1 - e^{-f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u,R)} ,
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb P^u\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\text{for all $x,y\in\set_{\scriptscriptstyle{R/10}}\cap\ballZ(0,R)$,}\\
\text{$x$ is connected to $y$ in $\set\cap\ballZ(0,2R)$}
\end{array}
\right]
\geq 1 - e^{-f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u,R)} .
\end{equation*}
\item[{\bf S2}{}] {\it (Continuity)}
Let $\eta(u) = \mathbb P^u\left[0\in\set_\infty\right]$. The function $\eta(\cdot)$ is positive and continuous on $(a,b)$.
\end{itemize}
\medskip
\begin{remark}
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(1)]
The use of assumptions \pp{}, \ppp{}, and {\bf S2}{} will not be explicit in this paper.
They are only used to prove likeliness of certain patterns in $\set_\infty$ produced by
a multi-scale renormalization, see \eqref{eq:nbad:proba}.
(Of course, they are also used in already known results of Theorems~\ref{thm:chd} and \ref{thm:qip}).
Roughly speaking, we use \ppp{} repeatedly on multiple scales for a convergent sequence of parameters $u_k$ and use \pp{} and {\bf S2}{}
to establish convergence of iterations.
\item[(2)]
If the family $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies \s{}, then a union bound argument gives that for any $u\in(a,b)$,
$\mathbb P^u$-a.s., the set $\set_\infty$ is non-empty and connected,
and there exist constants $C_i = C_i(u)$ such that for all $R\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C1:infty}
\mathbb P^u\left[ \,
\set_\infty\cap\ballZ(0,R) \neq \emptyset \,
\right]
\geq
1 - C_1 \cdot e^{-C_2\cdot(\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}} .
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\medskip
\subsubsection{Examples}\label{sec:examples}
Here we briefly list some motivating examples (already announced earlier in the paper) of families of probability measures satisfying assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
All these examples were considered in details in \cite{DRS12}, and
we refer the interested reader to \cite[Section~2]{DRS12} for the proofs and further details.
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(1)]
Bernoulli percolation with parameter $u\in[0,1]$ corresponds to the product measure $\mathbb P^u$ with $\mathbb P^u[\atom(x) = 1] = 1 - \mathbb P^u[\atom(x) = 0] = u$.
The family $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{} for any $d\geq 2$ and $p_c(d)<a<b\leq 1$, see \cite{Grimmett}.
\item[(2)]
Random interlacements at level $u>0$ is the random subgraph of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$, $d\geq 3$, corresponding to the measure $\mathbb P^u$ defined by the equations
\[
\mathbb P^u[\set\cap K=\emptyset] = e^{-u\cdot \mathrm{cap}(K)},\qquad \text{for all finite }K\subset{\mathbb{Z}}^d,
\]
where $\mathrm{cap}(\cdot)$ is the discrete capacity.
It follows from \cite{RS:Transience,SznitmanAM,Sznitman:Decoupling} that the family $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies
assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{} for any $0<a<b<\infty$.
Curiously, for any $u>0$, $\set$ is $\mathbb P^u$-almost surely connected \cite{SznitmanAM}, i.e., $\set_\infty=\set$.
\item[(3)]
Vacant set of random interlacements at level $u>0$ is the complement of the random interlacements at level $u$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
It corresponds to the measure $\mathbb P^u$ defined by the equations
\[
\mathbb P^u[K\subseteq \set] = e^{-u\cdot \mathrm{cap}(K)},\qquad \text{for all finite }K\subset{\mathbb{Z}}^d.
\]
Unlike random interlacements, the vacant set undergoes a percolation phase transition in $u$ \cite{SznitmanAM,SidoraviciusSznitman_RI}.
If $u<u_*(d)\in(0,\infty)$ then $\mathbb P^u$-almost surely $\set_\infty$ is non-empty and connected, and if $u>u_*(d)$, $\set_\infty$ is $\mathbb P^u$-almost surely empty.
It is known that the family $\mathbb P^{\frac1u}$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies
assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} for any $0<a<b<\infty$ \cite{SznitmanAM,Sznitman:Decoupling}, {\bf S2}{} for any $\frac{1}{u_*(d)}<a<b<\infty$ \cite{Teixeira09},
and \s{} for some $\frac{1}{u_*(d)}<a<b<\infty$ \cite{DRS}.
\item[(4)]
The Gaussian free field on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$, $d \geq 3$, is a centered Gaussian field with covariances given by the Green function of
the simple random walk on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$. The excursion set above level $h\in{\mathbb{R}}$ is the random subset of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ where the fields exceeds $h$.
Let $\mathbb P^h$ be the measure on $\Omega$ for which $\set$ has the law of the excursion set above level $h$.
The model exhibits a non-trivial percolation phase transition \cite{BLM,RodSz}.
If $h<h_*(d)\in[0,\infty)$ then $\mathbb P^h$-almost surely $\set_\infty$ is non-empty and connected, and if $h>h_*(d)$, $\set_\infty$ is $\mathbb P^h$-almost surely empty.
It was proved in \cite{DRS12,RodSz} that the family $\mathbb P^{h_*(d)-h}$, $h\in(a,b)$, satisfies
assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and {\bf S2}{} for any $0<a<b<\infty$, and \s{} for some $0<a<b<\infty$.
\end{itemize}
\medskip
The last three examples are particularly interesting, since they have {\it polynomial decay of spatial correlations}
and cannot be studied by comparison with Bernoulli percolation on any scale.
In particular, many of the methods developed for Bernoulli percolation do not apply.
As we see from the examples, assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and {\bf S2}{} are satisfied by all the $4$ models through their {\it whole}
supercritical phases. However, assumption \s{} is currently verified for the whole range of interesting parameters only
in the cases of Bernoulli percolation and random interlacements, and only for a non-empty subset of interesting parameters in the last two examples.
We call all the parameters $u$ for which $\mathbb P^u$ satisfies \s{} the regime of {\it local uniqueness}
(since under \s{}, there is a unique giant cluster in each large box).
It is a challenging open problem to verify if the regime of local uniqueness coincides with
the supercritical phase for the vacant set of random interlacements and the level sets of the Gaussian free field.
A positive answer to this question will imply that all the results of this paper hold unconditionally also for the last two considered examples through their whole
supercritical phases.
\medskip
\subsubsection{Known results}
Below we recall some results from \cite{DRS12,PRS} about the large scale behavior of graph distances in $\set_\infty$
and the quenched invariance principle for the simple random walk on $\set_\infty$.
Both results are formulated in the form suitable for our applications.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:chd}(\cite[Theorem~1.3]{DRS12})
Let $d\geq 2$ and ${\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}}\in(0,1)$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$. There exist $\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}\in\mathcal F$ with $\mathbb P^u[\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}] = 1$,
constants $C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}$, $c_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:chd}}}$, and $C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:chd}}}$ all dependent on $u$ and ${\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}}$,
and random variables ${R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}}(x)$, $x\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, such that
for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$ and $x\in\set_\infty(\omega)$,
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
${R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}}(x,\omega)<\infty$,
\item[(b)]
for all $R\geq {R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}}(x,\omega)$ and $y,z\in\ballZ_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x,R)\cap\set_\infty(\omega)$,
\[
{\mathrm d}_{\set_\infty(\omega)}(y,z)\leq C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}} \cdot \max\left\{{\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(y,z),~R^{{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}}}\right\},
\]
\item[(c)]
for all $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $r\geq 1$,
\[
\mathbb P^u[{R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{chd}}}}(z)\geq r]\leq C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:chd}}}\cdot e^{-c_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:chd}}}\cdot (\log r)^{1 + {\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}},
\]
where ${\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:funcS}.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
For $T>0$, let $C[0,T]$ be the space of continuous functions from $[0,T]$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^d$,
and $\mathcal W_T$ the Borel sigma-algebra on it.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{def:widetildeBn}
\widetilde B_n(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt n}\left(X_{\lfloor tn\rfloor} + (tn-\lfloor tn\rfloor)\cdot(X_{\lfloor tn\rfloor + 1} - X_{\lfloor tn\rfloor})\right).
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:qip} (\cite[Theorem~1.1, Lemma~A.1, and Section~5]{PRS})
Let $d\geq 2$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$ and $T>0$. There exist $\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{qip}}}\in\mathcal F$ with $\mathbb P^u[\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{qip}}}] = 1$
and a non-degenerate matrix $\Sigma = \Sigma(u)$, such that for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{qip}}}\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$,
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
there exists $\chi:\set_\infty(\omega)\to{\mathbb{R}}^d$ such that $x\mapsto x+\chi(x)$ is harmonic on $\set_\infty(\omega)$,
and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1n\max_{x\in\set_\infty\cap\ballZ(0,n)}|\chi(x)| = 0$,
\item[(b)]
the law of $\left(\widetilde B_n(t)\right)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ on $(C[0,T],\mathcal W_T)$ converges weakly (as $n\to\infty$) to the law of Brownian motion
with zero drift and covariance matrix $\Sigma$.
\end{itemize}
In addition, if reflections and rotations of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ by $\frac\pi2$ preserve $\mathbb P^u$, then the limiting Brownian motion isotropic, i.e.,
$\Sigma = \sigma^2\cdot \mathrm{I}_d$ with $\sigma^2>0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:qip}
\cite[Theorem~1.1]{PRS} is stated for the (``blind'') random walk which jumps to a neighbor with probability $\frac{1}{2d}$ and stays put with probability $1 - \frac{1}{2d}\cdot(\text{number of neighbors})$.
Since the blind walk and the simple random walk are time changes of each other,
the invariance principle for one process implies the one for the other (see, for instance, \cite[Lemma~6.4]{BergerBiskup}).
\end{remark}
\medskip
\subsection{Main results}
The main contribution of this paper is Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main}, where we prove that
under the assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{},
all large enough balls in $\set_\infty$ are very good in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:vgb}.
This result has many immediate applications, including Gaussian heat kernel bounds, Harnack inequalities, and finiteness of the dimension of harmonic functions on $\set_\infty$ with
prescribed polynomial growth, see Theorems~\ref{thm:hk:vgb}, \ref{thm:phi:vgb}, \ref{thm:ehi:vgb}, \ref{thm:vgb:hf:poligrowth}.
In fact, all the results from \cite{BH09,BDCKY14} can be easily translated from Bernoulli percolation to our setting, since (as also pointed out by the authors)
their proofs only rely on (some combinations of) stationarity, Gaussian heat kernel bounds, and the invariance principle.
Among such results are estimates on the gradient of the heat kernel (Theorem~\ref{thm:hk:grad}) and on the Green function (Theorem~\ref{thm:gf:bounds}),
which will be deduced from the heat kernel bounds by replicating the proofs of \cite[Theorem~6]{BDCKY14} and \cite[Theorem~1.2(a)]{BH09},
the fact that the dimension of at most linear harmonic functions on $\set_\infty$ is $d+1$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:hf:d+1}),
the local central limit theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:localclt}), and the asymptotic for the Green function (Theorem~\ref{thm:gf:asymp}),
which we derive from the heat kernel bounds and the quenched invariance principle by mimicking the proofs of \cite[Theorem~5]{BDCKY14}, \cite[Theorem~1.1]{BH09}, and \cite[Theorem~1.2(b,c)]{BH09}.
We begin by stating the main result of this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:vgb:main}
Let $d\geq 2$ and ${\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}\in(0,\frac{1}{d+2})$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$. There exist $\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}\in\mathcal F$ with $\mathbb P^u[\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}] = 1$,
constants $C_V$, $C_P$, $C_W$, $c_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:vgb:main}}}$, and $C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:vgb:main}}}$ all dependent on $u$ and ${\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}$,
and random variables ${R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}(x)$, $x\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, such that
for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$ and $x\in\set_\infty(\omega)$,
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
${R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}(x,\omega)<\infty$,
\item[(b)]
for all $R\geq {R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}(x,\omega)$, $\ballZ_{\set_\infty(\omega)}(x,R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-very good
with $N_{\ballZ_{\set_\infty(\omega)}(x,R)}\leq R^{{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}}$,
\item[(c)]
for all $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $r\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vgb:main:R}
\mathbb P^u[{R_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}(z)\geq r]\leq C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:vgb:main}}}\cdot e^{-c_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:vgb:main}}}\cdot (\log r)^{1 + {\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}},
\end{equation}
where ${\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:funcS}.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main} will immediately follow from a certain isoperimetric inequality, see Definition~\ref{def:vrb}, Claim~\ref{cl:rb-gb}, and Proposition~\ref{prop:verygoodbox}.
This isoperimetric inequality is more than enough to imply the weak Poincar\'e inequality that we need.
In fact, as we learned from a discussion with Jean-Dominique Deuschel, it implies stronger Sobolev inequalities,
and may be useful in situations beyond the goals of this paper (see, e.g., \cite[Section~3]{Nguyen}).
\medskip
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:vgb:main}
Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main} immediately implies that all the results of Theorems~\ref{thm:hk:vgb}, \ref{thm:phi:vgb}, \ref{thm:ehi:vgb}, and \ref{thm:vgb:hf:poligrowth}
hold almost surely for $G = \set_\infty$. Since the constants $C_V$, $C_P$, and $C_W$ in the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main} are deterministic,
all the constants in Theorems~\ref{thm:hk:vgb}, \ref{thm:phi:vgb}, \ref{thm:ehi:vgb}, and \ref{thm:vgb:hf:poligrowth} are also deterministic.
\end{corollary}
Combining Corollary~\ref{cor:vgb:main} with Theorem~\ref{thm:chd} and Remark~\ref{rem:vgb}(1), we notice that the quenched heat kernel bounds of Theorem~\ref{thm:hk:vgb} hold almost surely for $G=\set_\infty$
with ${\mathrm d}_G$ replaced by ${\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$ in \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:ub}, \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:lb}, and \eqref{eq:hk:vgb:lb:epsilon}.
Since we will use the quenched heat kernel bounds often in the paper, we give a precise statement here.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:hk:dZd}
Let $d\geq 2$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$ and $\epsilon>0$. There exist $\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}\in\mathcal F$ with $\mathbb P^u[\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}] = 1$,
constants $C_i = C_i(u)$, $C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:hk:dZd}}}=C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:hk:dZd}}}(u,\epsilon)$,
and $c_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:hk:dZd}}}=c_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:hk:dZd}}}(u,\epsilon)$, and random variables $T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(x,\epsilon)$, $x\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, such that
for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$ and $x\in\set_\infty(\omega)$,
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
$T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(x,\epsilon,\omega)<\infty$,
\item[(b)]
for all $t\geq T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(x,\epsilon,\omega)$ and $y\in\set_\infty(\omega)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hk:ub}
F_t(x,y)\leq C_1\cdot t^{-\frac d2}\cdot e^{-C_2\cdot \frac{\mathrm{D}(x,y)^2}{t}},\qquad \text{if $t\geq \mathrm{D}(x,y)$,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hk:lb}
F_t(x,y)\geq C_3\cdot t^{-\frac d2}\cdot e^{-C_4\cdot \frac{\mathrm{D}(x,y)^2}{t}},\qquad \text{if $t\geq \mathrm{D}(x,y)^{1+\epsilon}$,}
\end{equation}
where $F_t$ stands for either $q_t$ or $p_{\lfloor t\rfloor} + p_{\lfloor t\rfloor +1}$, and $\mathrm{D}$ for either ${\mathrm d}_{\set_\infty(\omega)}$ or ${\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}$,
\item[(c)]
for all $z\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $r\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hk:T0}
\mathbb P^u[T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(z,\epsilon)\geq r]\leq C_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:hk:dZd}}}\cdot e^{-c_{\scriptscriptstyle {\ref{thm:hk:dZd}}}\cdot (\log r)^{1 + {\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}},
\end{equation}
where ${\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}$ is defined in \eqref{eq:funcS}.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
In the applications of Theorem~\ref{thm:hk:dZd} in this paper, {\it we always take} $\epsilon = \frac 12$ (the original choice of Barlow) and omit the dependence on $\epsilon$ from the notation.
For instance, we will always write $T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(x)$ meaning $T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(x,\frac 12)$. Any other choice of $\epsilon$ would also do.
\medskip
It is well known that the parabolic Harnack inequality of Theorem~\ref{thm:phi:vgb} implies H\"older continuity of caloric functions (e.g., $q_t$ and $p_n$),
see \cite[Proposition~3.2]{BH09}, in particular, by Corollary~\ref{cor:vgb:main} this is true almost surely for $G=\set_\infty$.
The next result is a sharp bound on the discrete gradient of the heat kernel, proved in \cite[Theorem~6]{BDCKY14} for supercritical Bernoulli percolation using an elegant entropy argument.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:hk:grad}
Let $d\geq 2$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$. There exist constants $C_i = C_i(u)$, such that
for all $x,x',y\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $n>\max\left\{{\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x,y),{\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x',y)\right\}$,
\[
\mathbb E^u\left[\left(p_n(x,y) - p_{n-1}(x',y)\right)^2\cdot \mathds{1}_{\{y\in\set_\infty\}}\cdot\mathds{1}_{\{\text{$x$ and $x'$ are neighbors in $\set_\infty$}\}}\right]
\leq \frac{C_1}{n^{d+1}}\cdot e^{-C_2\cdot \frac{{\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x,y)^2}{n}}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\medskip
The heat kernel bounds of Theorem~\ref{thm:hk:dZd} imply also the following quenched estimates on the Green function
$g_G(x,y) = \int_0^\infty q_{G,t}(x,y) dt=\sum_{n\geq 0}p_{G,n}(x,y)$ for almost all $G=\set_\infty$.
It is proved in \cite[Theorem~1.2]{BH09} for supercritical Bernoulli percolation,
but extension to our setting is rather straightforward.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:gf:bounds}
Let $d\geq 3$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$. There exist constants $C_i=C_i(u)$ such that
for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}$ and distinct $x,y\in\set_\infty(\omega)$, if
${\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x,y)^2 \geq \min\left\{T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(x),T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(y)\right\}\cdot\left(1+C_3\cdot \log{\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x,y)\right)$,
then
\[
C_1\cdot {\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x,y)^{2-d}\leq g_{\set_\infty(\omega)}(x,y) \leq C_2\cdot {\mathrm d}_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}(x,y)^{2-d}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\bigskip
The remaining results are derived from the Gaussian heat kernel bounds and the quenched invariance principle.
In the setting of supercritical Bernoulli percolation, all of them were obtained in \cite{BH09,BDCKY14},
but all the proofs extend directly to our setting.
We begin with results about harmonic functions on $\set_\infty$.
It is well known that Theorems~\ref{thm:vgb:main} and Theorem~\ref{thm:ehi:vgb} imply the almost sure Liouville property for positive harmonic functions on $\set_\infty$.
The absence of non-constant sublinear harmonic functions on $\set_\infty$ is even known assuming just stationary of $\set$ (see \cite[Theorem~3 and discussion below]{BDCKY14}).
In particular, it implies the uniqueness of the function $\chi$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:qip}(a).
The following result about the dimension of at most linear harmonic functions is classical on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
It was extended to supercritical Bernoulli percolation on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ in \cite[Theorem~5]{BDCKY14}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:hf:d+1}
Let $d\geq 2$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$. There exist $\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hf}}}\in\mathcal F$ with $\mathbb P^u[\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hf}}}] = 1$ such that
for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hf}}}\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$,
the dimension of the vector space of harmonic functions on $\set_\infty(\omega)$ with at most linear growth equals $d+1$.
\end{theorem}
\medskip
Since the parabolic Harnack inequality for solutions to the heat equation on $\set_\infty$ implies
H\"older continuity of $p_n$ and $q_t$, it is possible to replace the weak convergence of Theorem~\ref{thm:qip} by pointwise convergence.
\cite[Theorems~4.5 and 4.6]{BH09} give general sufficient conditions for the local central limit theorem on general graphs.
They were verified in \cite[Theorem~1.1]{BH09} for supercritical Bernoulli percolation.
Theorems~\ref{thm:qip} and \ref{thm:hk:dZd} allow to check these conditions in our setting leading to the following (same as for Bernoulli percolation) result.
For $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, $t>0$, the Gaussian heat kernel with covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is defined as
\[
k_{\Sigma,t}(x) = (2\pi \mathrm{det}(\Sigma) t)^{-\frac d2}\cdot \exp\left(-\frac{x'\Sigma^{-1}x}{2 t}\right),
\]
where $x'$ is the transpose of $x$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:localclt}
Let $d\geq 2$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$, $m=\mathbb E^u[\mu_0\cdot\mathds{1}_{0\in\set_\infty}]$, and $T>0$.
There exist $\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{lclt}}}\in\mathcal F$ with $\mathbb P^u[\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{lclt}}}] = 1$,
and a non-degenerate covariance matrix $\Sigma = \Sigma(u)$ such that for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{lclt}}}\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:localclt}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\sup_{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d}\sup_{t\geq T}\left|n^{\frac d2}\cdot F_{nt}(0,g_n(x)) - \frac{C(F)}{m}\cdot k_{\Sigma,t}(x) \right| = 0,
\end{equation}
where $F_s$ stands for $q_s$ or $p_{\lfloor s\rfloor} + p_{\lfloor s\rfloor +1}$, $C(F)$ is $1$ if $F=q$ and $2$ otherwise, and
$g_n(x)$ is the closest point in $\set_\infty$ to $\sqrt n x$.
\end{theorem}
\medskip
Theorems~\ref{thm:hk:dZd} and \ref{thm:localclt} imply the following asymptotic for the Green function,
extending results of \cite[Theorem~1.2(b,c)]{BH09} to our setting.
For a covariance matrix $\Sigma$, let $\mathrm{G}_{\Sigma}(x) = \int_0^\infty k_{\Sigma,t}(x)dt$
be the Green function of a Brownian motion with covariance matrix $\Sigma$. In particular, if $\Sigma = \sigma^2\cdot \mathrm{I}_d$, then
$\mathrm{G}_\Sigma(x) = (2\sigma^2\pi^{\frac d2})^{-1}\Gamma(\frac d2 - 1)|x|^{2-d}$ for all $x\neq 0$, where $|\cdot |$ stands for the Euclidean norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:gf:asymp}
Let $d\geq 3$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
Let $u\in(a,b)$, $m$ and $\Sigma$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:localclt}, and $\varepsilon>0$.
There exist $\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{gf}}}\in\mathcal F$ with $\mathbb P^u[\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{gf}}}] = 1$ and a proper random variable $M = M(\varepsilon)$, such that
for all $\omega\in\Omega_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{gf}}}\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$,
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
for all $x\in\set_\infty(\omega)$ with $|x|\geq M$,
\[
\frac{(1-\varepsilon)\mathrm{G}_\Sigma(x)}{m}\leq g_{\set_\infty(\omega)}(0,x) \leq \frac{(1+\varepsilon)\mathrm{G}_\Sigma(x)}{m},
\]
\item[(b)]
for all $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$,
$\lim_{k\to\infty}k^{2-d}\cdot \mathbb E^u\left[g_{\set_\infty(\omega)}(0,\lfloor ky\rfloor)~\Big|~0\in\set_\infty\right] = \frac{\mathrm{G}_\Sigma(y)}{m}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\bigskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:results}
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(1)]
Let us emphasize that our method does not allow to replace $(\log r)^{1 + {\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}$ in \eqref{eq:vgb:main:R} by $f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u,R)$ from \s{}.
In particular, even if $f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u,R)$ growth polynomially with $R$, we are not able to improve the bound in \eqref{eq:vgb:main:R} to stretched exponential.
In the case of independent Bernoulli percolation, it is known from \cite[Section~2]{Barlow} that the result of Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main} holds with
a stretched exponential bound in \eqref{eq:vgb:main:R}.
\item[(2)]
The fact that the right hand side of \eqref{eq:hk:T0} decays faster than any polynomial
will be crucially used in the proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:hk:grad}, \ref{thm:hf:d+1}, and \ref{thm:gf:asymp}.
Quenched bounds on the diagonal $p_n(x,x)$ under the assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{} were obtained in \cite{PRS} (see Remarks 1.3 (4) and (5) there) for all $n\geq n_0(\omega)$,
although without any control on the tail of $n_0(\omega)$.
\item[(3)]
In the case of supercritical Bernoulli percolation, Barlow showed in \cite[Theorem~1]{Barlow} that the bound \eqref{eq:hk:lb} holds for all
$t\geq\max\{T_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{hk}}}(x),\mathrm{D}(x,y)\}$.
The step ``from $\epsilon>0$ to $\epsilon=0$'' is highly nontrivial and follows from the fact that very good boxes on \emph{microscopic} scales are dense,
see \cite[Definition~5.4 and Theorem~5.7(b)]{Barlow}.
We do not know if such property can be deduced from the assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{} or proved for any of the specific models
considered in Section~\ref{sec:examples} (except for Bernoulli percolation).
Our renormalization does not exclude the possibility of dense mesoscopic traps in $\set_\infty$, but we do not have a counterexample either.
For comparison, let us mention that the heat kernel bounds \eqref{eq:hk:ub} and \eqref{eq:hk:lb} were obtained in \cite{BD10,ABDH13} for the random conductance model with i.i.d. weights,
where it is also stated in \cite[Remark~3.4]{BD10} and \cite[Remark~4.12]{ABDH13}
that the lower bound for times comparable with $\mathrm{D}(x,y)$ can likely be obtained by adapting Barlow's proof,
but omitted there because of a considerable amount of extra work and few applications.
\item[(4)]
The first proofs of the quenched invariance principle for random walk on the infinite cluster of Bernoulli percolation \cite{SS04,BergerBiskup,MathieuPiatnitski}
relied significantly on the quenched upper bound on the heat kernel.
It was then observed in \cite{BiskupPrescott} that it is sufficient to control only the diagonal of the heat kernel
(proved for Bernoulli percolation in \cite{MathieuRemy}).
This observation was essential in proving the quenched invariance principle for percolation models satisfying \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{} in \cite{PRS},
where the desired upper bound on the diagonal of the heat kernel was obtained by means of an isoperimetric inequality (see \cite[Theorem~1.2]{PRS}).
Theorem~\ref{thm:hk:dZd} allows now to prove the quenched invariance principle of \cite{PRS} by following the original path, for instance,
by a direct adaptation of the proof of \cite[Theorem~1.1]{BergerBiskup}.
\item[(5)]
Our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:localclt} follows the approach of \cite{BH09} in the setting of supercritical Bernoulli percolation, namely, it is deduced from
the quenched invariance principle, parabolic Harnack inequality, and the upper bound on the heat kernel.
If we replace in \eqref{eq:localclt} $\sup_x$ by $\sup_{|x|<K}$ for any fixed $K>0$, then
it is not necessary to assume the upper bound on the heat kernel, see \cite[Theorem~1]{CH08}.
\item[(6)]
A new approach to limit theorems and Harnack inequalities for the elliptic random conductance model
under assumptions on moments of the weights and their reciprocals has been recently developed in \cite{ADS13,ADS14}.
It relies on Moser's iteration and new weighted Sobolev and Poincar\'e inequalities, and
is applicable on general graphs
satisfying globally conditions of regular volume growth and an isoperimetric inequality (see \cite[Assumption~1.1]{ADS14}).
We will comment more on these conditions in Remark~\ref{rem:ADS}.
The method of \cite{ADS13} was recently used in \cite{Nguyen} to prove the quenched invariance principle for
the random conductance model on the infinite cluster of supercritical Bernoulli percolation under the same assumptions on moments of the weights as in \cite{ADS13}.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\medskip
\subsection{Some words about the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main}}
Theorem~\ref{thm:chd} is enough to control the volume growth, thus we only discuss here the weak Poincar\'e inequality.
A finite subset $H$ of $V(G)$ satisfies the (strong) Poincar\'e inequality $P(C,r)$, if for any function $f:H\to{\mathbb{R}}$,
$\min_a\int_H(f-a)^2 d\mu \leq C\cdot r^2\cdot \int_{E(H)} |\nabla f|^2 d\nu$.
The well known sufficient condition for $P(C,r)$ is the following isoperimetric inequality for subsets of $H$ (see, e.g., \cite[Proposition~3.3.10]{Kumagai} or \cite[Lemma~3.3.7]{SC97}):
there exists $c>0$ such that for all $A\subset H$ with $|A|\leq \frac12|H|$, the number of edges between $A$ and $H\setminus A$ is at least $\frac cr|A|$.
Thus, if the ball ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,r)$ is contained in a subset $\mathcal C(y,r)$ of $V(G)$ such that $\mathcal C(y,r)\subseteq {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,C'r)$ and
the above isoperimetric inequality holds for subsets of $\mathcal C(y,r)$, then it is easy to see that
the weak Poincar\'e inequality with constants $C$ and $C'$ holds for ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,r)$ (see Claim~\ref{cl:rb-gb}).
In the case $G=\set_\infty\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^d$, the natural choice is to take $\mathcal C(y,r)$ to be the cluster of $y$ in $\set_\infty\cap\ballZ(y,r)$,
which turns out to be also the largest cluster in $\set\cap\ballZ(y,r)$ (here and below, we implicitly assume that $r$ is large enough).
In the setting of Bernoulli percolation, it is known that subsets of $\mathcal C(y,r)$ satisfy the above isoperimetric inequality (see \cite[Proposition~2.11]{Barlow}).
In our setting, Theorem~\ref{thm:chd} implies that $\mathcal C(y,r)\subseteq{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,C'r)$, thus we only need to prove the isoperimetric inequality.
The first isoperimetric inequality for subsets of $\mathcal C(y,r)$ was proved in \cite[Theorem~1.2]{PRS}.
It states that for any $A\subset \mathcal C(y,r)$ with $|A|\geq r^{\delta}$, the number of edges between $A$ and $\set_\infty\setminus A$ is at least $c|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}$
(thus, also at least $\frac{c'}{r}|A|$).
Note the key difference, the edges are taken between $A$ and $\set_\infty\setminus A$, not just between $A$ and $\mathcal C(y,r)\setminus A$.
The above isoperimetric inequality implies certain Nash-type inequalities sufficient to prove a diffusive upper bound on the heat kernel
(see \cite[Theorem~2]{MorrisPeres}, \cite[Proposition~6.1]{BiskupPrescott}, \cite[Lemma~3.2]{BBHK}, \cite[(A.4)]{PRS}),
but it is too weak to imply the Poincar\'e inequality (see, e.g., \cite[Sections~3.2 and 3.3]{Kumagai} for an overview of the two isoperimetric inequalities and
their relation to various functional inequalities).
Let us also mention that in the setting of Bernoulli percolation, the ``weak'' isoperimetric inequality admits a simple proof (\cite[Theorem~A.1]{BBHK}),
but the proof of the ``strong'' one is significantly more involved (\cite[Proposition~2.11]{Barlow}).
After all said, we have to admit that we are not able to prove the strong isoperimetric inequality for subsets of $\mathcal C(y,r)$,
and do not know if it holds in our setting.
Nevertheless, we can rescue the situation by proving that a certain {\it enlarged} set $\widetilde {\mathcal C}(y,r)$,
obtained from $\mathcal C(y,r)$ by adding to it all vertices from $\set_\infty$ to which it is {\it locally} connected,
satisfies the desired strong isoperimetric inequality (see Proposition~\ref{prop:verygoodbox}, Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}, and Corollaries~\ref{cor:isop:cemax} and \ref{cor:tildeC:existence}).
The general outline of the proof of our isoperimetric inequality for $\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)$ is similar to the one
of the proof of the weak isoperimetric inequality for $\mathcal C(y,r)$ in \cite{PRS},
but we have to modify renormalization and coarse graining of subsets of $\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)$ and rework some arguments
to get good control of the boundary and the volume of subsets of $\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)$ in terms of the boundary and the volume of
the corresponding coarse grainings. For instance, it is crucial for us (but not for \cite{PRS}) that the coarse graining of a big set (say, of size $\frac12 |\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)|$)
should not be too big (see, e.g., the proof of Claim~\ref{cl:isopmain2}).
We partition the lattice ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ into large boxes of equal size. For each configuration $\omega\in\Omega$, we
subdivide all the boxes into {\it good} and {\it bad}. Restriction of $\set$ to a good box contains a unique largest {\it in volume} cluster,
and the largest clusters in two adjacent good boxes are connected in $\set$ in the union of the two boxes.
Traditionally in the study of Bernoulli percolation, the good boxes
are defined to contain a unique cluster of large diameter.
In our case, the existence of several clusters of large diameter in good boxes is not excluded.
The reason to work with volumes is that the existence of a unique giant cluster in a box can be expressed
as an intersection of two events, an increasing (existence of cluster with big volume) and decreasing (smallness of the total volume of large clusters).
Assumption \ppp{} gives us control of correlations between monotone events, which is sufficient to set up two multi-scale renormalization schemes with scales $L_n$
(one for increasing and one for decreasing events) and conclude that bad boxes tend to organize in blobs on multiple scales,
so that the majority of boxes of size $L_n$ contain at most $2$ blobs of diameter bigger than $L_{n-1}$ each, but even their diameters are much smaller than
the actual scale $L_n$. By removing two boxes of size $r_{n-1}L_{n-1}\ll L_n$ containing the biggest blobs of an $L_n$-box,
then by removing from each of the remaining $L_{n-1}$-boxes two boxes of size $r_{n-2}L_{n-2}\ll L_{n-1}$ containing its biggest blobs,
and so on, we end up with a subset of good boxes,
which is a dense in ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$, locally well connected, and well structured coarse graining of $\set_\infty$.
Similar renormalization has been used in \cite{RS:Disordered,DRS12,PRS}.
By reworking some arguments from \cite{PRS},
we prove that large subsets of the restriction of the coarse graining to any large box satisfy a $d$-dimensional isoperimetric inequality,
if the scales $L_n$ grow sufficiently fast (Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl}).
We deduce from it the desired isoperimetric inequality for large subsets $A$ of $\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}) as follows.
If $A$ is spread out in $\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)$, then it has large boundary, otherwise,
we associate with it a set of those good boxes from the coarse graining, the unique largest cluster of which is entirely contained in $A$.
It turns out that the boundary and the volume of the resulting set are comparable with those of $A$. Moreover, if $|A|\leq \frac 12|\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)|$,
then the volume of its coarse graining is also only a fraction of the total volume of the coarse graining of $\widetilde{\mathcal C}(y,r)$.
The isoperimetric inequality then follows from the one for subsets of the coarse graining.
\subsection{Structure of the paper}
In Section~\ref{sec:perforatedlattices} we define perforated sublattices of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and state an isoperimetric inequality
for subsets of perforations. The main definition there is \eqref{def:pl}, and the main result is Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl}.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} is given in Section~\ref{sec:pl:isop:proof}.
In Section~\ref{sec:propertiesofclusters} we define a coarse graining of $\set_\infty$
and
study certain extensions of largest clusters of $\set_\infty$ in boxes (Definition~\ref{def:cemax}).
Particularly, we prove that they satisfy the desired isoperimetric inequality (Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}) and
the volume growth (Corollary~\ref{cor:chemdist}).
In Section~\ref{sec:proof:main} we introduce the notions of {\it regular} and {\it very regular} balls, so that
a (very) regular ball is always (very) good, and use it to prove the main result of the paper.
In fact, in Proposition~\ref{prop:verygoodbox} we prove that large balls are very likely to be very regular, which is stronger than Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main}.
In Section~\ref{sec:proofs}, we sketch the proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:hk:grad} -- \ref{thm:gf:asymp}.
\bigskip
Finally, let us make a convention about constants.
As already said, we omit from the notation dependence of constants on $a$, $b$, and $d$.
We usually also omit the dependence on ${\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}}$, ${\chi_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}}$, and ${\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}$.
Dependence on other parameters is reflected in the notation, for example, as $c(u,{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}})$.
Sometimes we use $C$, $C'$, $c$, etc., to denote ``intermediate'' constants, their values may change
from line to line, and even within a line.
\section{Perforated lattices}\label{sec:perforatedlattices}
In this section we define lattices perforated on multiple scales and study their isoperimetric properties.
Informally, for a sequence of scales $L_n = l_{n-1}\cdot L_{n-1}$, we define a perforation of the box $[0,L_n)^d$
by removing small rectangular regions of $L_{n-1}$-boxes from it, then removing small rectangular regions of $L_{n-2}$-boxes from
each of the remaining $L_{n-1}$-boxes, and so on down to scale $L_0$. The precise definition is given in \eqref{def:pl}.
Such perforated lattices will be used in Section~\ref{sec:propertiesofclusters} as coarse approximations of largest connected components of $\set$ in boxes.
The main result of this section is an isoperimetric inequality for subsets of perforations, see Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl}.
The rules for perforation (the shape and location of removed regions) are determined by certain cascading events, which we define first, see \eqref{def:seedcascade} and Definition~\ref{def:dinbad}.
The recursive construction of the perforated lattice is given in Section~\ref{sec:perforatedlattice:construction}, where the main definition is \eqref{def:pl}.
\medskip
Let $l_n,r_n,L_n$, $n\geq 0$ be sequences of positive integers such that $l_n>r_n$ and $L_n = l_{n-1}\cdot L_{n-1}$, for $n \geq 1$.
To each $L_n$ we associate the rescaled lattice
\[
\GG_n = L_n\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}^d = \left\{L_n\cdot x ~:~ x\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d\right\} ,\
\]
with edges between any pair of ($\ell^1$-)nearest neighbor vertices of $\GG_n$.
\subsection{Cascading events}
Let ${\overline {\mathrm E}}=({\overline {\mathrm E}}_{x,L_0}~:~L_0\geq 1,x\in\GG_0)$ be a family of events from some sigma-algebra.
For each $L_0\geq 1, n\geq 0$, $x\in\GG_n$, define recursively the events ${\overline {\mathrm G}}_{x,n,L_0}({\overline {\mathrm E}})$ by
${\overline {\mathrm G}}_{x,0,L_0} ({\overline {\mathrm E}}) = {\overline {\mathrm E}}_{x,L_0}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{def:seedcascade}
{\overline {\mathrm G}}_{x,n,L_0}({\overline {\mathrm E}})=
\bigcup_{\begin{array}{c}\scriptscriptstyle{x_1,x_2\in \GG_{n-1}\cap(x + [0,L_n)^d)} \\ \scriptscriptstyle{|x_1-x_2|_\infty \geq r_{n-1} \cdot L_{n-1}}\end{array}}
{\overline {\mathrm G}}_{x_1,n-1,L_0}({\overline {\mathrm E}}) \cap {\overline {\mathrm G}}_{x_2,n-1,L_0}({\overline {\mathrm E}}) ~.
\end{equation}
The events in \eqref{def:seedcascade} also depend on the scales $l_n$ and $r_n$,
but we omit this dependence from the notation, since these sequences will be properly chosen and fixed later.
\begin{definition}\label{def:dinbad}
Given sequences $l_n, r_n, L_n$, $n\geq 0$, as above, and two families of events $\seedde$ and $\seedin$,
we say that for $n\geq 0$, $x\in\GG_n$ is $(\seedde,\seedin,n)$-{\it bad} (resp., $(\seedde,\seedin,n)$-{\it good}), if the event ${\overline {\mathrm G}}_{x,n,L_0}(\seedde)\cup {\overline {\mathrm G}}_{x,n,L_0}(\seedin)$ occurs
(resp., does not occur).
\end{definition}
Good vertices give rise to certain geometrical structures on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ (perforated lattices), which we define in the next subsection.
\medskip
The choice of the families $\seedde$ and $\seedin$ throughout the paper is either irrelevant for the result (as in Sections~\ref{sec:perforatedlattices} and \ref{sec:pl:isop:proof})
or fixed (as in Section~\ref{sec:localevents}).
Thus, from now on we write $n$-bad (resp., $n$-good) instead of $(\seedde,\seedin,n)$-{\it bad} (resp., $(\seedde,\seedin,n)$-{\it good}), hopefully without causing any confusions.
\begin{remark}
Definition~\ref{def:dinbad} can be naturally generalized to $k$ families of events ${\overline {\mathrm E}}_1,\dots,{\overline {\mathrm E}}_k$, for any fixed $k$,
and all the results of Sections~\ref{sec:perforatedlattices} and \ref{sec:pl:isop:proof} still hold (with suitable changes of constants).
For our applications, it suffices to consider only two families of events (see Section~\ref{sec:localevents}).
Thus, for simplicity of notation, we restrict to this special case.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Recursive construction}\label{sec:perforatedlattice:construction}
Throughout this subsection, we fix sequences $l_n, r_n, L_n$, $n\geq 0$, such that $l_n>8r_n$ and $l_n$ is divisible by $r_n$ for all $n$.
We also fix two local families of events $\seedde$ and $\seedin$, and integers $s\geq 0$ and $K\geq 1$.
Recall Definition~\ref{def:dinbad} of $n$-good vertices in $\GG_n$.
For $x\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d$, define
\begin{equation}\label{def:QKs}
Q_{K,s}(x) = x + {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap [0,KL_s)^d ~,
\end{equation}
and write $Q_{K,s}$ for $Q_{K,s}(0)$.
We also fix $x_s\in\GG_s$ and assume that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:assumptionframe}
\text{all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ are $s$-good}.
\end{equation}
Our aim is to construct a subset of $0$-good vertices in the lattice box $\GG_0\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$
by recursively perforating it on scales $L_s, L_{s-1},\ldots, L_1$.
We use Definition~\ref{def:dinbad} to determine the rules of perforation on each scale.
\medskip
We first recursively define certain subsets of $i$-good vertices in $\GG_i\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ for $i\leq s$, see \eqref{def:GKss} and \eqref{def:GKsi-1}. Let
\begin{equation}\label{def:GKss}
\mathcal G_{K,s,s}(x_s) = \GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s).
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eq:assumptionframe}, all $z_s\in\mathcal G_{K,s,s}(x_s)$ are $s$-good.
Assume that $\mathcal G_{K,s,i}(x_s)\subset \GG_i$
is defined for some $i\leq s$ so that all $z_i\in\mathcal G_{K,s,i}(x_s)$ are $i$-good.
By Definition~\ref{def:dinbad}, for each $z_i\in\mathcal G_{K,s,i}(x_s)$, there exist
\[
a_{z_i},b_{z_i}\in (r_{i-1}L_{i-1})\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap(z_i + [0,L_i)^d)
\]
such that the boxes $(a_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d)$ and $(b_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d)$ are contained in $(z_i + [0,L_i)^d)$, and
all the vertices in
\[
\left(\GG_{i-1}\cap(z_i + [0,L_i)^d)\right)\setminus\left(\left(a_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d\right)\cup\left(b_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d\right)\right)
\]
are $(i-1)$-good. If the choice is not unique, we choose the pair arbitrarily.
All the results below hold for any allowed choice of $a_{z_i}$ and $b_{z_i}$.
To save notation, we will not mention it in the statements.
Define $\mathcal R_{z_i}\subseteq \GG_{i-1}$ to be
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
the empty set, if all the vertices in $\GG_{i-1}\cap(z_i + [0,L_i)^d)$ are $(i-1)$-good, or
\item[(b)]
$\GG_{i-1}\cap((a_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d)\cup(b_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d))$
if $|a_{z_i} - b_{z_i}|_\infty> 2r_{i-1}L_{i-1}$, or
\item[(c)]
a box $\GG_{i-1}\cap(c_{z_i} + [4r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d)$ in $\GG_{i-1}\cap (z_i + [0,L_i)^d)$, with $c_{z_i}\in (r_{i-1}L_{i-1})\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}^d$, which contains
$\GG_{i-1}\cap((a_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d)\cup(b_{z_i}+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d))$.
\end{itemize}
Possible outcomes (b) and (c) of $\mathcal R_{z_i}$ are illustrated on Figure~\ref{fig:Rzi}.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{15cm}{!}{\input Rzi.pdf_t}
\caption{Two possible outcomes of $\mathcal R_{z_i}$. On the left, the points $a_{z_i}$ and $b_{z_i}$ are far from each other,
on the right, they are close.}
\label{fig:Rzi}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:propRzi}
By construction, the set $\mathcal R_{z_i}$ is the disjoint union of $0$, $2$, or $2^d$ boxes $\GG_{i-1}\cap(x+[0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^d)$ with
$x\in (r_{i-1}L_{i-1})\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
\end{remark}
To complete the construction, let
\begin{equation}\label{def:GKsi-1}
\mathcal G_{K,s,i-1}(x_s) = \GG_{i-1}\cap\bigcup_{z_i\in\mathcal G_{K,s,i}(x_s)}\left((z_i+[0,L_i)^d)\setminus\mathcal R_{z_i}\right).
\end{equation}
Note that all $z_{i-1}\in\mathcal G_{K,s,i-1}(x_s)$ are $(i-1)$-good.
\medskip
Now that the sets $(\mathcal G_{K,s,j}(x_s))_{j\leq s}$, are constructed by \eqref{def:GKss} and \eqref{def:GKsi-1},
we define the multiscale perforations of $\GG_0\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ by
\begin{equation}\label{def:pl}
{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,j}(x_s) =\GG_0\cap\bigcup_{z_j\in\mathcal G_{K,s,j}(x_s)}(z_j + [0,L_j)^d), \quad j\leq s.
\end{equation}
See Figure~\ref{fig:QKs0} for an illustration.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{16cm}{!}{\includegraphics{QKs0_1.pdf}~\includegraphics{QKs0_2.pdf}~\includegraphics{QKs0_3.pdf}}
\caption{Perforations ${\mathcal Q}_{2,s,s}$, ${\mathcal Q}_{2,s,s-1}$, and ${\mathcal Q}_{2,s,s-2}$ of $Q_{2,s}$.}
\label{fig:QKs0}
\end{figure}
By construction,
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
for all $j$, ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,j-1}(x_s)\subseteq{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,j}(x_s)$,
\item[(b)]
all the vertices of ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ are $0$-good.
\end{itemize}
We will view the sets ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,j}(x_s)$ as subgraphs of $\GG_0$ with edges drawn between any two vertices of the set which are at $\ell^1$ distance $L_0$ from each other.
The next lemma summarizes some basic properties of ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$'s, which are immediate from the construction.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:rect}
Let $d\geq 2$, $K\geq 1$, and $s\geq 0$.
For any choice of scales $l_n, r_n, L_n$, $n\geq 0$, such that $l_n>8r_n$ and $l_n$ is divisible by $r_n$ for all $n$,
and for any admissible choice of $a_{z_i},b_{z_i}$ or $c_{z_i}$ in the construction of ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$,
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ is connected in $\GG_0$,
\item[(b)]
$|{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)| \geq \prod_{j=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_j}{l_j}\right)^d\right)\cdot |Q_{K,s}|$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Isoperimetric inequality}\label{sec:pl:isopineq}
For a graph $G$ and a subset $A$ of $G$, the boundary of $A$ in $G$ is the subset of edges of $G$, $E(G)$, defined as
\[
\partial_G A = \{\{x,y\}\in E(G)~:~x\in A,~y\in G\setminus A\}.
\]
\medskip
The next theorem states that under assumption \eqref{eq:assumptionframe}
and some assumptions on $l_n$ and $r_n$ (basically that $\sum_{n\geq 0}\frac{r_n}{l_n}$ is sufficiently small),
there exist $\gamma>0$ such that for all large enough $A\subset {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ with $|A|\leq \frac12\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)|$,
$|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)}A| \geq \gamma\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}$.
\medskip
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:isop:pl}
Let $d\geq 2$.
Let $l_n$ and $r_n$, $n\geq 0$, be integer sequences such that for all $n$, $l_n>8r_n$, $l_n$ is divisible by $r_n$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isop:pl}
\prod_{j=0}^\infty \left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_j}{l_j}\right)^2\right) \geq
\max\left\{\frac{15}{16}, e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}, \frac{1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+2}}}{1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+3}}}\right\}
\quad\text{and}\quad
3456\cdot \sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{r_j}{l_j}\leq \frac{1}{10^6}.
\end{equation}
Then for any integers $s\geq 0$, $L_0\geq 1$, and $K\geq 1$, $x_s\in\GG_s$,
and two families of events $\seedde$ and $\seedin$,
if all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ are $s$-good, then
any $\mathcal A\subseteq {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ with
\[
\left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2} \leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap \GG_0|
\]
satisfies
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A|\geq
\frac{1}{2d\cdot 32^d\cdot 27^d\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot |\mathcal A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:isop:pl}
In the setting of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl}, if $\mathcal A\subseteq {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ satisfies
\[
\left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2} \leq |\mathcal A|\leq C\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)|,
\]
for some $\frac12<C<1$, then
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A|\geq
(1-C)\cdot \frac{1}{2d\cdot 32^d\cdot 27^d\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot |\mathcal A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.
\]
This easily follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} by passing, if necessary, to the complement of $\mathcal A$ in ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$,
see, for instance, Remark~\ref{rem:isop}.
\end{remark}
\medskip
We postpone the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} to Section~\ref{sec:pl:isop:proof}.
In fact, in two dimensions, we are able to prove the analogue of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} for {\it all} subsets $\mathcal A\subseteq {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ with
$1\leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap \GG_0|$, see Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d}.
We believe that also in any dimension $d\geq 3$, the isoperimetric inequality of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} holds for all
subsets $\mathcal A\subseteq {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ with $1\leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap \GG_0|$,
but cannot prove it. Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} follows immediately from a more general isoperimetric inequality in Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe}.
\bigskip
\section{Properties of the largest clusters}\label{sec:propertiesofclusters}
In this section we study properties of the largest subset of $\set\cap Q_{K,s}$ (where $Q_{K,s}$ is defined in \eqref{def:QKs}).
We first define two families of events such that the corresponding perforated lattices defined in \eqref{def:pl}
serve as a ``skeleton'' of the largest subset of $\set\cap Q_{K,s}$.
Then, we provide sufficient conditions for the uniqueness of the largest subset of $\set\cap Q_{K,s}$ (Lemma~\ref{l:cmax:uniqueness}).
To avoid problems, which may be caused by roughness of the boundary of the largest subset of $\set\cap Q_{K,s}$,
we {\it enlarge} it by adding to it all the points of $\set$ which are {\it locally} connected to it (Definition~\ref{def:cemax}).
For the enlarged set we prove under some general conditions (Definition~\ref{def:mainevent}) that
its subsets satisfy an isoperimetric inequality (Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax} and Corollary~\ref{cor:isop:cemax}).
Under the same condition we prove that the graph distance is controlled by that on ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ (Lemma~\ref{l:chemdist}),
large enough balls have regular volume growth (Corollary~\ref{cor:chemdist}) and
have local extensions satisfying an isoperimetric inequality (Corollary~\ref{cor:tildeC:existence}).
\medskip
\subsection{Special sequences of events}\label{sec:localevents}
Recall Definition~\ref{def:setr} of $\set_r$. Consider an ordered pair of real numbers
\begin{equation}\label{def:eta}
\den = (\den_1,\den_2),\quad \text{with }\den_1\in(0,1)\text{ and }\den_1\leq \den_2<2\den_1.
\end{equation}
Two families of events $\seedde^\den = (\seedde^\den_{x,L_0}, L_0\geq 1, x\in \GG_0)$ and $\seedin^\den = (\seedin^\den_{x,L_0}, L_0\geq 1, x\in \GG_0)$ are defined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item
The complement of $\seedde^\den_{x,L_0}$ is the event that
for each $y\in\GG_0$ with $|y-x|_1 \leq L_0$, the set $\set_{L_0}\cap(y+[0,L_0)^d)$ contains a connected component $\mathcal C_y$ with at least $\den_1 L_0^d$ vertices
such that for all $y\in\GG_0$ with $|y-x|_1 \leq L_0$, $\mathcal C_y$ and $\mathcal C_x$ are connected in $\set \cap((x+[0,L_0)^d)\cup(y+[0,L_0)^d))$.
\item
The event $\seedin^\den_{x,L_0}$ occurs if
$\left|\set_{L_0}\cap(x+[0,L_0)^d)\right| > \den_2 L_0^d$.
\end{itemize}
Note that $\seedde^\den_{x,L_0}$ are decreasing and $\seedin^\den_{x,L_0}$ increasing events.
From now on we fix these two local families, and say that $x\in\GG_n$ is $n$-bad / $n$-good, if
it is $n$-bad / $n$-good for the two local families $\seedde^\den$ and $\seedin^\den$ in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:dinbad}.
In particular, $x\in\GG_0$ is $0$-good if both $\seedde^\den_{x,L_0}$ and $\seedin^\den_{x,L_0}$ do not occur, see Figure~\ref{fig:0good}.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{6cm}{!}{\input 0good.pdf_t}
\caption{A $0$-good vertex $x$. A unique connected component $\mathcal C_x$ of size $\geq \den_1 L_0^d$ in $(x + [0,L_0)^d)$
is connected to a connected component of size $\geq \den_1 L_0^d$ in each of the adjacent boxes.}
\label{fig:0good}
\end{figure}
The following lemma is immediate from the definition of $0$-good vertex and the conditions \eqref{def:eta} on $\den$.
(See, e.g., \cite[Lemma~5.2]{DRS12} for a similar result.)
\begin{lemma}\label{l:fromG0toZd}
Let $L_0\geq 1$ and $\den$ as in \eqref{def:eta}.
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
For any $0$-good vertex $x\in\GG_0$, connected component $\mathcal C_x$ in $\set_{L_0}\cap(x+[0,L_0)^d)$
with at least $\den_1 L_0^d$ vertices is defined uniquely.
\item[(b)]
For any $0$-good $x,y\in\GG_0$ with $|x-y|_1 = L_0$,
(uniquely chosen) $\mathcal C_x$ and $\mathcal C_y$ are connected in the graph $\set\cap ((x+[0,L_0)^d)\cup(y+[0,L_0)^d))$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Uniqueness of the largest cluster}
\begin{definition}\label{def:cmax}
Let $(L_n)_{n\geq 0}$ be an increasing sequence of scales.
For $x\in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and $r\geq 1$, let ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,r}(x)$ be the largest connected component in $\set_r\cap Q_{K,s}(x)$ (with ties broken arbitrarily),
and write ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,r} = {\mathcal C}_{K,s,r}(0)$.
\end{definition}
Fix $\den$ as in \eqref{def:eta} and two families of events $\seedde^\den$ and $\seedin^\den$ as in Section~\ref{sec:localevents}.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:cmax:uniqueness}
Let $l_n$ and $r_n$ be integer sequences such that for all $n$, $l_n$ is divisible by $r_n$, $l_n > 8r_n$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cmax:uniqueness:ratio}
\prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)> \frac{1 + \den_2}{1+2\den_1}.
\end{equation}
Let $L_0\geq 1$, $K\geq 1$, and $s\geq 0$ integers, $x_s\in\GG_s$.
If all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ are $s$-good, then ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$ is uniquely defined and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cmax:uniqueness:size}
|{\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)| \geq \frac12\den_2\cdot |Q_{K,s}|.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we assume that $x_s = 0$.
Since all vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}$ are $s$-good, we can define the perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}$ by \eqref{def:pl}.
By definition, all the vertices of ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}$ are $0$-good, and by Lemma~\ref{l:rect}, ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}$ is connected in $\GG_0$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:fromG0toZd}, for any $x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}$,
there is a uniquely defined connected subset $\mathcal C_x$ of $\set_{L_0}\cap(x + [0,L_0)^d)$ with at least $\den_1 L_0^d$ vertices.
Since ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}$ is connected in $\GG_0$, by Lemma~\ref{l:fromG0toZd},
the set $\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}} \mathcal C_x$ is contained in a connected component of $\set_{L_0}\cap Q_{K,s}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sizecmax1}
\left|\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}} \mathcal C_x\right|
\geq \den_1\cdot|{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}|
\geq
\den_1\cdot \prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\cdot |Q_{K,s}|,
\end{equation}
where the second inequality follows from Lemma~\ref{l:rect}.
On the other hand, since for any $0$-good vertex $x$, the set $x + [0,L_0)^d$ contains at most $\den_2 L_0^d$ vertices from $\set_{L_0}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\set_{L_0}\cap Q_{K,s}\right|
&\leq
&\den_2 L_0^d\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}| + L_0^d\cdot \left(|Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0| - |{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}|\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq &\left(\den_2 + 1 - \prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\right)\cdot |Q_{K,s}|\nonumber\\
&< &2\den_1\cdot \prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\cdot |Q_{K,s}|,\label{eq:sizecmax2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the second inequality follows from
the inequality $|{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}|\leq |{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,s}| = \frac{|Q_{K,s}|}{L_0^d}$ and Lemma~\ref{l:rect},
and the third inequality follows from the assumption \eqref{eq:cmax:uniqueness:ratio}.
We have shown that the connected component of $\set_{L_0}\cap Q_{K,s}$ which contains $\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}} \mathcal C_x$ has volume
$>\frac 12\cdot |\set_{L_0}\cap Q_{K,s}|$.
In particular, it is the unique largest in volume connected component of $\set_{L_0}\cap Q_{K,s}$.
Moreover, by \eqref{eq:sizecmax1}, its volume is
\[
\geq \den_1\cdot \prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\cdot |Q_{K,s}|
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:cmax:uniqueness:ratio}}\geq \den_1\cdot\frac{1 + \den_2}{1+2\den_1}\cdot |Q_{K,s}|
\stackrel{\eqref{def:eta}}\geq \frac12\den_2\cdot |Q_{K,s}|,
\]
which proves \eqref{eq:cmax:uniqueness:size}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:cmax:uniqueness}
From the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:cmax:uniqueness}, if the conditions of Lemma~\ref{l:cmax:uniqueness} are satisfied, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:framecmax}
\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}} \mathcal C_x \subseteq {\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}.
\end{equation}
In particular, for any $1\leq K'\leq K''\leq K$ and $x',x''\in\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}$ such that $Q_{K',s}(x')\subseteq Q_{K'',s}(x'') \subseteq Q_{K,s}$,
${\mathcal C}_{K',s,L_0}(x') \subseteq {\mathcal C}_{K'',s,L_0}(x'')\subseteq {\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Isoperimetric inequality}
In this section we prove an isoperimetric inequality for subsets of a certain extension ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x)$ of ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x)$
obtained by adding to ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x)$ all the vertices to which it is locally connected.
\begin{definition}\label{def:cemax}
Let ${\mathcal E}_{K,s,r}(x)$ be the set of vertices $y'\in\set$
such that for some $y\in{\mathcal C}_{K,s,r}(x)$, $y'$ is connected to $y$ in $\set\cap\ballZ(y,2L_s)$, and define
\[
{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,r}(x) = {\mathcal C}_{K,s,r}(x)\cup{\mathcal E}_{K,s,r}(x).
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Mind that ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,r}(x)$ is contained in $x + [-2L_s,(K+2)L_s)^d$, but it is different from the largest cluster of $\set_r\cap(x + [-2L_s,(K+2)L_s)^d)$.
\end{remark}
We study isoperimetric properties of ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x)$ for configurations from the following event.
\begin{definition}\label{def:mainevent}
Let $\den$ be as in \eqref{def:eta}, $K\geq 1$ and $s\geq 0$ integers, $x_s\in\GG_s$.
The event $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(x_s)\in\mathcal F$ occurs if
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(a)]
all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap (x_s + [-2L_s,(K+2)L_s)^d)$ are $s$-good,
\item[(b)]
any $x,y\in\set_{L_s}\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ with $|x-y|_\infty\leq L_s$
are connected in $\set\cap\ballZ(x,2L_s)$.
\end{itemize}
We write $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}$ for $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(0)$.
\end{definition}
Here is the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:isop:cemax}
Let $\den$ be as in \eqref{def:eta}.
Assume that the sequences $l_n$ and $r_n$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isop:cemax:ratio}
\prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\geq \frac{1 + \den_2}{1+\frac{\den_2 + 2\den_1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
Let $L_0\geq 1$, $K\geq 1$, and $s\geq 0$ integers, $x_s\in\GG_s$.
If $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(x_s)$ occurs, then ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$ is uniquely defined and
there exists $\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}} = \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}(\den,L_0)\in(0,1)$
such that
for any $A\subseteq{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$ with $L_s^{d(d+1)}\leq |A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)|$,
\[
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)}A| \geq \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\medskip
In the applications, we will not use directly the result of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}, but only the following corollary,
which estimates from below the size of the boundary of {\it any} subset of ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$ with volume $\leq \frac 12\cdot |{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)|$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:isop:cemax}
Let $\den$ be as in \eqref{def:eta} and $\epsilon\in(0,\frac1d]$.
Assume that the sequences $l_n$ and $r_n$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}.
Assume that
\[
K\geq L_s^{d + \frac{d^2 - 1}{\epsilon d}}.
\]
If $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(x_s)$ occurs, then for any $A\subseteq{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$ with $|A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)|$,
\[
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)}A| \geq \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon} \cdot ((K+4)L_s)^{-\epsilon d}.
\]
In particular, if $\epsilon = \frac1d$, then
$|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)}A| \geq \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot \frac{|A|}{(K+4)L_s}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:isop:cemax}]
If $|A|\geq L_s^{d(d+1)}$, then we apply Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax},
\[
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)}A|\geq\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}
\geq\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon} \cdot ((K+4)L_s)^{-\epsilon d}.
\]
If $|A|\leq L_s^{d(d+1)}$, then we use the trivial bound $|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)}A|\geq 1$.
By the assumption on $K$,
\[
((K+4)L_s)^{\epsilon d} \geq (L_s^{d(d+1)})^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon},
\]
which implies, using the assumption on $|A|$, that $|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon} \leq ((K+4)L_s)^{\epsilon d}$.
Thus, in this case,
\[
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)}A|\geq 1
\geq\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon} \cdot ((K+4)L_s)^{-\epsilon d}.
\]
The proof of corollary is complete.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax} is subdivided into several claims.
In Claim~\ref{cl:cemax:localconnected} we prove that ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$ is locally connected and
in Claims~\ref{cl:isopmain} and \ref{cl:isopmain2} we reduce the isoperimetric problem for subsets of ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$
to the one for subsets of a perforated lattice.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:cemax:localconnected}
Any $x,y\in{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$ with $|x-y|_\infty\leq L_s$ are connected in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(x,15L_s)$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Fix $x,y\in{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$ with $|x-y|_\infty\leq L_s$, and take $x',y'\in{\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}$ such that
$x$ and $x'$ are connected in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(x',2 L_s)$, $y$ and $y'$ are connected in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(y',2L_s)$.
By the triangle inequality, $|x'-y'|_\infty\leq 5L_s$.
\medskip
Since all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}$ are $s$-good, there exist $x'',y''\in\bigcup_{z\in{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}}\mathcal C_z$ such that
$|x' -x''|_\infty\leq L_s$ and $|y'-y''|_\infty\leq L_s$.
By the definitions of $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}$ and ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$,
$x''$ is connected to $x'$ in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(x',2L_s)$ and $y''$ is connected to $y'$ in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(y',2L_s)$.
\medskip
By the triangle inequality, $|x''-y''|_\infty\leq 7L_s$.
Let $(z + [0,8L_s)^d)$ be a box in $Q_{K,s}$ which contains both $x''$ and $y''$, where $z\in \GG_s$.
Since all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap (z + [0,8L_s)^d)$ are $s$-good,
the perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{8,s,0}(z) = {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}\cap(z+ [0,8L_s)^d)$ of $(z + [0,8L_s)^d)$ is
connected in $\GG_0$ by Lemma~\ref{l:rect}.
Thus, by Lemma~\ref{l:fromG0toZd}, the set $\bigcup_{w\in{\mathcal Q}_{8,s,0}(z)}\mathcal C_w$
is contained in a connected component of $\set\cap(z + [0,8L_s)^d)$.
In particular, $x''$ and $y''$ are connected in $\set\cap(z + [0,8L_s)^d)$.
By \eqref{eq:framecmax} and the fact that \eqref{eq:isop:cemax:ratio} implies \eqref{eq:cmax:uniqueness:ratio},
the set $\bigcup_{w\in{\mathcal Q}_{8,s,0}(z)}\mathcal C_w$ is contained in ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}$.
Therefore, $x''$ is connected to $y''$ in ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}\cap(z + [0,8L_s)^d)\subset {\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(x'',8L_s)$.
\medskip
We conclude that $x$ is connected to $y$ in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(x,15L_s)$.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
Let
\[
x_s' = (-2L_s,\dots,-2L_s)\in\GG_s\quad\text{and}\quad K' = K+4.
\]
Since all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K',s}(x_s')$ are $s$-good,
we can define its perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')$ as in \eqref{def:pl}.
By definition, ${\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')$ is a subset of $0$-good vertices in $\GG_0\cap Q_{K',s}(x_s')$,
and by Lemma~\ref{l:rect}, ${\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')$ is connected in $\GG_0$.
By the fact that \eqref{eq:isop:cemax:ratio} implies \eqref{eq:cmax:uniqueness:ratio},
Lemma~\ref{l:fromG0toZd}, \eqref{eq:framecmax}, and the definition of ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:framecemax}
\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')} \mathcal C_x \subseteq {\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}.
\end{equation}
The next two claims allow to reduce the isoperimetric problem for subsets of ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$
to the isoperimetric problem for subsets of ${\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')$.
The crucual step for the proof is the following definition of ${\mathcal A}$ and ${A'}$.
\begin{definition}
For $A\subseteq{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$,
let ${\mathcal A}$ be the set of all $x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')$ such that $\mathcal C_x\subseteq A$, and
${A'}$ the set of $x\in A$ such that there exists $y\in {\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\setminus A$ with $|x-y|_\infty\leq L_s$.
\end{definition}
\begin{claim}\label{cl:isopmain}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopmain:boundary}
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A|
\geq \max\left\{\frac{1}{2d}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')}{\mathcal A}|,\frac{|{A'}|}{(31\cdot L_s)^d} \right\}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopmain:volume}
|A| \leq 2\cdot 3^d\cdot L_0^d\cdot|{\mathcal A}| + |{A'}| .\
\end{equation}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We begin with the proof of \eqref{eq:isopmain:boundary}.
For any $x\in{\mathcal A}$ and $y\in {\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')\setminus {\mathcal A}$ such that $|x-y|_1 = L_0$,
$\mathcal C_x\subseteq A$ and $\mathcal C_y \nsubseteq A$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:fromG0toZd} and \eqref{eq:framecemax},
$\mathcal C_x$ and $\mathcal C_y$ are connected in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap((x+[0,L_0)^d)\cup(y+[0,L_0)^d))$.
Each path in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$ connecting $\mathcal C_x$ and $\mathcal C_y\setminus A$ contains an edge from $\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A$.
This implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopmain:boundary:1}
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A| \geq \frac{1}{2d}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')}{\mathcal A}| .
\end{equation}
Next, by the definition of ${A'}$, for any $x\in {A'}$, there exists $y\in {\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\setminus A$ such that $|x-y|_\infty\leq L_s$.
By Claim~\ref{cl:cemax:localconnected}, $x$ and $y$ are connected in ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}\cap\ballZ(x,15L_s)$.
In particular, the ball $\ballZ(x,15L_s)$ contains an edge from $\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A$.
Since every edge from $\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A$ is within $\ell^\infty$ distance $15L_s$ from at most $(31L_s)^d$ vertices of ${A'}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopmain:boundary:2}
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A| \geq \frac{|{A'}|}{(31\cdot L_s)^d} .
\end{equation}
Inequalities \eqref{eq:isopmain:boundary:1} and \eqref{eq:isopmain:boundary:2} imply \eqref{eq:isopmain:boundary}.
\bigskip
We proceed with the proof of \eqref{eq:isopmain:volume}.
We need to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aminussetd}
|A\setminus{A'}| \leq 2\cdot 3^d\cdot L_0^d\cdot |{\mathcal A}|.
\end{equation}
Let $z\in A\setminus{A'}$.
By the definition of ${\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}$, there exists $z_s\in\GG_s\cap Q_{K',s}(x_s')$ such that
\[
z_s + [0,L_s)^d\subset \ballZ(z,L_s).
\]
By the definition of ${A'}$ and \eqref{eq:framecemax}, for any $x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')\cap(z_s + [0,L_s)^d)$, $\mathcal C_x\subset A$.
Thus, ${\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')\cap(z_s + [0,L_s)^d)\subseteq {\mathcal A}$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:rect} and \eqref{eq:isop:cemax:ratio},
\[
|{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')\cap (z_s + [0,L_s)^d)| =
|{\mathcal Q}_{1,s,0}(z_s)|
\geq \frac{1 + \den_2}{1+\frac{\den_2 + 2\den_1}{2}}\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d
\geq \frac 12\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d.
\]
Thus,
\[
|{\mathcal A}\cap \ballZ(z,L_s)| \geq \frac 12\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d,
\]
and we conclude that
\[
\frac12\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d\cdot |A\setminus{A'}|\leq \left|\{z\in A\setminus{A'}, x\in{\mathcal A}~:~ x\in\ballZ(z,L_s)\}\right|
\leq |\ballZ(0,L_s)|\cdot |{\mathcal A}|,
\]
which implies \eqref{eq:aminussetd}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
Let $\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}$ be the isoperimetric constant from Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl}:
\[
\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}} = \frac{1}{2d\cdot 32^d\cdot 27^d\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right).
\]
\begin{claim}\label{cl:isopmain2}
Let $c_\den = \frac{2\den_1 - \den_2}{4\den_1}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ineqmax}
\max\left\{|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')}{\mathcal A}|,\frac{|{A'}|}{L_s^d} \right\}
\geq c_\den\cdot \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}\cdot \max\left\{|{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}},\frac{|{A'}|}{L_s^d} \right\} .\
\end{equation}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
If $|{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}} < \frac{|{A'}|}{L_s^d}$, then \eqref{eq:ineqmax} trivially holds.
Thus, we assume that $|{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}} \geq \frac{|{A'}|}{L_s^d}$. We will deduce \eqref{eq:ineqmax} from Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl}.
By \eqref{eq:isopmain:boundary:2},
\[
|A| \leq 2\cdot 3^d\cdot L_0^d\cdot|{\mathcal A}| + L_s^d\cdot |{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}} \leq 3^{d+1}\cdot L_s^d\cdot|{\mathcal A}| .\
\]
Since $|A|\geq L_s^{d(d+1)}$, we obtain that $|{\mathcal A}|\geq \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2}$.
Since ${\mathcal A}\subseteq{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')$, for all $x\in{\mathcal A}$, $|\mathcal C_x| \geq \den_1 L_0^d$.
Thus, $|A| \geq \den_1 L_0^d\cdot |{\mathcal A}|$.
Since also all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K',s}(x_s')$ are $s$-good, we obtain as in \eqref{eq:sizecmax2} that
\begin{multline*}
|A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}|
\leq \frac 12\cdot \left(\den_2 + 1 - \prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\right)\cdot |Q_{K',s}(x_s')|\\
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:isop:cemax:ratio}}\leq \frac{\den_2 + 2\den_1}{4}\cdot \prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\cdot |Q_{K',s}(x_s')|
\leq \frac{\den_2 + 2\den_1}{4}L_0^d\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')|,
\end{multline*}
where the last inequality follows from Lemma~\ref{l:rect}. Thus, $|{\mathcal A}| \leq (1-c_\den)\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')|$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} and Remark~\ref{rem:isop:pl},
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(x_s')}{\mathcal A}|\geq c_\den\cdot \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}\cdot |{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}},
\]
completing the proof of \eqref{eq:ineqmax}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
We are now ready to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}. It easily follows from Claims~\ref{cl:isopmain} and \ref{cl:isopmain2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}]
By \eqref{eq:isopmain:boundary}, \eqref{eq:isopmain:volume}, and \eqref{eq:ineqmax},
\[
\frac{|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A|}{|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}
\geq \frac{\frac{1}{31^d}\cdot c_\den\cdot\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}\cdot\max\left\{|{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}},\frac{|{A'}|}{L_s^d} \right\}}
{(2\cdot 3^d\cdot L_0^d\cdot|{\mathcal A}| + |{A'}|)^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}\\
\geq \frac{\frac{1}{31^d}\cdot c_\den\cdot\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}\cdot \max\left\{|{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}},\frac{|{A'}|}{L_s^d} \right\}}
{2\cdot 3^{d-1}\cdot L_0^{d-1}\cdot|{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}} + |{A'}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}} .\
\]
On the one hand, if $L_0^d\cdot |{\mathcal A}| \geq |{A'}|$, then
\[
\frac{|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A|}{|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}
\geq \frac{\frac{1}{31^d}\cdot c_\den\cdot\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}\cdot |{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}
{2\cdot 3^{d-1}\cdot L_0^{d-1}\cdot|{\mathcal A}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}} + |{A'}|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}
\geq \frac{\frac{1}{31^d}\cdot c_\den\cdot\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}}{3\cdot (3\cdot L_0)^{d-1}} .\
\]
On the other hand, if $L_0^d\cdot |{\mathcal A}| \leq |{A'}|$, then by \eqref{eq:isopmain:volume},
$|{A'}| \geq \frac{1}{3^{d+1}}\cdot |A| \geq \frac{1}{3^{d+1}}\cdot L_s^{d(d+1)}\geq L_s^{d^2}$, and
\[
\frac{|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K,s,L_0}} A|}{|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}}
\geq \frac{\frac{1}{31^d}\cdot c_\den\cdot\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}\cdot|{A'}|^{\frac 1d}}
{3^d\cdot L_s^d}
\geq \frac{1}{93^d}\cdot c_\den\cdot\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}} .\
\]
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax} is complete with
$\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}} = \frac{1}{93^d\cdot L_0^{d-1}}\cdot c_\den\cdot\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:pl}}$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{remark}
With a more careful analysis and assuming that Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} holds for all subsets of size at least $\left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{2d}$
(see Remark~\ref{rem:isopframe:conditions}), condition on $A$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax} can be relaxed to $|A|\geq L_s^{2d}$.
Assuming that Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} holds for all subsets (see Remark~\ref{rem:isopframe:conditions}),
condition on $A$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax} can be relaxed to $|A|\geq L_s^d$.
Since for our purposes the current statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax} suffices, we do not prove the stronger statement here.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Graph distance}
In this section we study the graph distances ${\mathrm d}_\set$ in $\set$ between vertices of ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$ for configurations in $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(x_s)$.
As consequences, we prove that large enough balls centered at vertices of ${\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$ have
regular volume growth (Corollary~\ref{cor:chemdist}) and allow for local extensions which satisfy an isoperimetric inequality (Corollary~\ref{cor:tildeC:existence}).
These results will be used in Section~\ref{sec:proof:main} to prove our main result.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:chemdist}
Let $d\geq 2$ and $\den$ as in \eqref{def:eta}. Let $l_n$ and $r_n$, $n\geq 0$, be integer sequences such that for all $n$, $l_n>16r_n$ and
$\prod_{n\geq 0}\left(1 + \frac{32r_n}{l_n}\right) \leq 2$.
Let $L_0\geq 1$, $K\geq 1$, and $s\geq 0$ integers, $x_s\in\GG_s$.
There exists $C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}= C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}(L_0)$ such that
if $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(x_s)$ occurs, then for all $y,y'\in{\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$,
\[
{\mathrm d}_{\set}(y,y') \leq C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}\cdot \max\left\{|y-y'|_\infty,L_s^d\right\}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $y_s, y_s'\in Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s$ be such that $(y_s + [0,L_s)^d)\subset\ballZ(y,L_s)$ and $(y_s'+[0,L_s)^d)\subset\ballZ(y',L_s)$.
By \cite[Lemma~5.3]{DRS12} (applied to sequences $l_n$ and $4r_n$), there exist $y_0\in {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (y_s + [0,L_s)^d)$ and $y_0'\in {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (y_s' + [0,L_s)^d)$
which are connected by a nearest neighbor path of $0$-good vertices $z_1 = y_0, z_2,\ldots, z_{k-1},z_k = y_0'$ in ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$, where
$k\leq \prod_{n\geq 0}\left(1 + \frac{32r_n}{l_n}\right)\cdot\frac{|y_s - y_s'|_1 + L_s}{L_0}$.
\medskip
Let $\widetilde z_i$ be an arbitrary vertex in $\mathcal C_{z_i}$. (Recall the definition of $\mathcal C_z$ from Lemma~\ref{l:fromG0toZd}.)
By Lemma~\ref{l:fromG0toZd}, for all $1\leq i < k$, $\widetilde z_i$ is connected to $\widetilde z_{i+1}$ in
$\set\cap((z_i + [0,L_0)^d)\cup(z_{i+1} + [0,L_0)^d)$.
Therefore, any vertices $\widetilde y\in \mathcal C_{y_0}$ and $\widetilde y'\in\mathcal C_{y_0'}$ are connected by a nearest neighbor path in
$\set\cap \cup_{i=1}^k (z_i + [0,L_0)^d)$. Any such path consists of at most
$L_0^d\cdot \prod_{n\geq 0}\left(1 + \frac{32r_n}{l_n}\right)\cdot\frac{|y_s - y_s'|_1 + L_s}{L_0}$ vertices.
\medskip
By Corollary~\ref{cor:cmax:uniqueness}, $\widetilde y\in {\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)\cap \ballZ(y,L_s)$ and $\widetilde y' \in {\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)\cap \ballZ(y',L_s)$.
Thus, by the definition of $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(x_s)$, $y$ is connected to $\widetilde y$ in $\set\cap\ballZ(y,2L_s)$ and
$y'$ is connected to $\widetilde y'$ in $\set\cap\ballZ(y',2L_s)$.
\medskip
By putting all the arguments together, we obtain that $y$ is connected to $y'$ by a nearest neighbor path
in $\set$ of at most $2\cdot |\ballZ(0,2L_s)| + L_0^d\cdot \prod_{n\geq 0}\left(1 + \frac{32r_n}{l_n}\right)\cdot\frac{|y_s - y_s'|_1 + L_s}{L_0}$ vertices.
Since $|y_s - y_s'|_1\leq d\cdot |y-y'|_\infty + 2dL_s$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:chemdist}
In the setup of Lemmas~\ref{l:cmax:uniqueness} and \ref{l:chemdist},
there exists $c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{cor:chemdist}} = c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{cor:chemdist}}(\den,L_0)>0$ such that
for any $C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}} L_s^d\leq r\leq KL_s$ and $y\in{\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$,
\[
\mu({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r))\geq c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{cor:chemdist}}\cdot r^d.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $K' = \max\{k~:~kL_s\leq \frac{r}{C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}}\}$.
There exists $y_s\in Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap \GG_s$ such that $Q_{K',s}(y_s)\subset\ballZ(y,\frac{r}{C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}})\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$.
Since $\mathcal H^\den_{K,s}(x_s)$ occurs, we can define the perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ of $Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ as in \eqref{def:pl}.
Consider also the perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(y_s) = {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap Q_{K',s}(y_s)$ of $Q_{K',s}(y_s)$.
By \eqref{eq:framecmax},
\[
\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(y_s)}\mathcal C_x\subset{\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s).
\]
Since also $\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(y_s)}\mathcal C_x\subset\ballZ(y,\frac{r}{C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}})$,
Lemma~\ref{l:chemdist} implies that
\[
\bigcup_{x\in{\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(y_s)}\mathcal C_x \subset {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r).
\]
By applying Lemma~\ref{l:rect} to ${\mathcal Q}_{K',s,0}(y_s)$ and using the fact that $|\mathcal C_x|\geq \den_1L_0^d$, we conclude from the above inclusion that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)|
&\geq &\den_1\cdot (K'L_s)^d\cdot \prod_{i\geq 0}\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right)\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{eq:isop:cemax:ratio}}\geq & \den_1\cdot (K'L_s)^d\cdot\frac{1 + \den_2}{1+\frac{\den_2+2\den_1}{2}}\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{def:eta}}\geq &\frac12\den_2\cdot \left(\frac{r}{2C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}}\right)^d~.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\mu({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r))\geq |{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)|$, the result follows with $c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{cor:chemdist}} = \frac12\den_2\cdot \frac{1}{(2C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}})^d}$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:tildeC:existence}
Let $\epsilon\in(0,\frac1d]$.
In the setup of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax} and Lemma~\ref{l:chemdist},
if $\mathcal H^\den_{5K,s}(x_s')$ occurs with $x_s' = x_s + (-2KL_s,\dots,-2KL_s)$,
then for all $L_s^{d+1+\frac{d^2-1}{\epsilon d}}\leq r\leq KL_s$ and $y\in{\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$, there exists $\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)}$ such that
${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)\subseteq \mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)}\subseteq {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,8C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}} r)$ and for all $A\subset\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)}$ with
$|A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)}|$,
\[
|\partial_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)}}A|\geq \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon}\cdot (8r)^{-\epsilon d}.
\]
In particular, if $\epsilon = \frac1d$, then $|\partial_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)}}A|\geq \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot\frac{|A|}{8r}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $K' = \min\{k~:~kL_s\geq 2r+1\}+1$. (Note that $K'L_s\leq 4r$.) For $y\in{\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$, let $y_s\in\GG_s\cap Q_{5K,s}(x_s')$ be such that
$\ballZ(y,r)\subseteq Q_{K',s}(y_s)\subseteq Q_{5K,s}(x_s')$.
Since $\mathcal H^\den_{K',s}(y_s)$ occurs, by Corollary~\ref{cor:cmax:uniqueness}, ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)\subseteq{\mathcal C}_{K',s,L_0}(y_s)\subseteq {\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K',s,L_0}(y_s)$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:chemdist}, for $r\geq L_s^d$,
\[
{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K',s,L_0}(y_s)\subseteq {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}(K'+4)L_s)\subseteq {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,8C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}r).
\]
By Corollary~\ref{cor:isop:cemax}, since $K' \geq L_s^{d+\frac{d^2-1}{\epsilon d}}$, for any $A\subset {\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K',s,L_0}(y_s)$ with $|A|\leq \frac 12|{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K',s,L_0}(y_s)|$,
\[
|\partial_{{\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K',s,L_0}(y_s)}A|\geq \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon}\cdot ((K'+4)L_s)^{-\epsilon d}
\geq \gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon}\cdot (8r)^{-\epsilon d}.
\]
The proof is complete by taking $\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)} = {\widetilde {\mathcal C}}_{K',s,L_0}(y_s)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main}}\label{sec:proof:main}
In this section we collect together the deterministic results that large enough balls have regular volume growth (Corollary~\ref{cor:chemdist})
and allow for local extensions satisfying an isoperimetric inequality (Corollary~\ref{cor:tildeC:existence})
to deduce Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main}.
In fact, the result that we prove here is stronger.
In Definition~\ref{def:vrb} we introduce the notions of regular and very regular balls, so that
(very) regular ball is always (very) good (see Claim~\ref{cl:rb-gb}), and then prove in Proposition~\ref{prop:verygoodbox} that
large balls are likely to be very regular. The main result is an immediate consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop:verygoodbox}.
The following definition will only be used for the special choice of $\epsilon = \frac 1d$, see Claim~\ref{cl:rb-gb}.
Nevertheless, we choose to work with the more general definition involving arbitrary $\epsilon \in(0,\frac1d]$,
since smaller $\epsilon$'s give better isoperimetric inequalities, and could be used to prove stronger functional inequalities than
the Poincar\'e inequality, as we learned from Jean-Dominique Deuschel (see, e.g., \cite[Section~3.2]{Nguyen}).
\begin{definition}\label{def:vrb}
Let $C_V$, $C_P$, and $C_W\geq 1$ be fixed constants. Let $\epsilon\in(0,\frac1d]$.
For $r\geq 1$ integer and $x\in V(G)$, we say that ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W,\epsilon)$-{\it regular} if
\[
\mu({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r))\geq C_V r^d
\]
and there exists a set $\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}$ such that
${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)\subseteq\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}\subseteq {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,C_Wr)$ and for any $A\subset \mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}$ with $|A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}|$,
\[
|\partial_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}}A|\geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{C_P}}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d} + \epsilon} \cdot r^{-\epsilon d}.
\]
We say ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W,\epsilon)$-{\it very regular} if there exists $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)}\leq R^{\frac{1}{d+2}}$ such that
${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,r)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-regular whenever ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(y,r)\subseteq {\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)$, and $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,R)} \leq r\leq R$.
\medskip
In the special case $\epsilon = \frac 1d$, we omit $\epsilon$ from the notation and call $(C_V,C_P,C_W,\frac1d)$-(very) regular ball simply $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-(very) regular.
\end{definition}
\medskip
\begin{claim}\label{cl:rb-gb}
If ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-{\it regular}, then it is $(C_V,C_P,C_W)$-{\it good}.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Proposition~3.3.10]{Kumagai} and Remark~\ref{rem:wpi:minimum},
\[
\min_a\int_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}}(f-a)^2 d\mu = \int_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}}\left(f-\overline f_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}}\right)^2 d\mu
\leq C_P\cdot r^2\cdot \int_{E(\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)})} |\nabla f|^2 d\nu.
\]
Thus, again by Remark~\ref{rem:wpi:minimum},
\begin{multline*}
\min_a\int_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}(f-a)^2 d\mu \leq \int_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}\left(f-\overline f_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}}\right)^2 d\mu
\leq \int_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}}\left(f-\overline f_{\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)}}\right)^2 d\mu\\
\leq C_P\cdot r^2\cdot \int_{E(\mathcal C_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,r)})} |\nabla f|^2 d\nu
\leq C_P\cdot r^2\cdot \int_{E({\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle G}}(x,C_W r))} |\nabla f|^2 d\nu.
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
\bigskip
Theorem~\ref{thm:vgb:main} is immediate from Claim~\ref{cl:rb-gb} and the following proposition, in which one needs to take $\epsilon = \frac1d$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:verygoodbox}
Let $d\geq 2$, $u\in(a,b)$, and ${\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}\in(0,\frac{1}{d+2})$. Let $\epsilon\in(0,\frac1d]$.
Assume that the family of measures $\mathbb P^u$, $u\in(a,b)$, satisfies assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{}.
There exist constants $C_V$, $C_P$, and $C_W$, $c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{prop:verygoodbox}}$ and $C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{prop:verygoodbox}}$
depending on $u$, ${\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}$, and $\epsilon$, such that for all $R\geq 1$,
\[
\mathbb P^u\left[
\begin{array}{c}\text{${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(0,R)$ is $(C_V,C_P,C_W,\epsilon)$-very regular}\\
\text{with $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(0,R)}\leq R^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}$}
\end{array}~\Big|~0\in\set_\infty\right]
\geq 1 - C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{prop:verygoodbox}}\cdot e^{-c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{prop:verygoodbox}}(\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We first make a specific choice of various parameters.
Fix $u\in(a,b)$. We take
\begin{equation}\label{def:eta:main}
\den_1 = \frac34\eta(u) \quad\text{and}\quad \den_2 = \frac54\eta(u),
\end{equation}
where $\eta(u)$ is defined in {\bf S2}{}.
It is easy to see that $\den_1$ and $\den_2$ satisfy assumptions \eqref{def:eta}.
We fix this choice of $\den=(\den_1,\den_2)$ throughout the proof.
\medskip
Next we choose the scales for renormalization. For positive integers $l_0$, $r_0$, and $L_0$, we take
\begin{equation}\label{def:scales}
{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}} = \lceil 1/{\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}} \rceil,\qquad l_n = l_0\cdot 4^{n^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}}},\qquad r_n = r_0\cdot 2^{ n^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}}},\qquad
L_n = l_{n-1}\cdot L_{n-1},\quad n\geq 1,
\end{equation}
where ${\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}}$ is defined in \ppp{}. By \cite[Lemmas~4.2 and 4.4]{DRS12}, under the assumptions \p{} -- \ppp{} and \s{} -- {\bf S2}{},
there exist $C_1 = C_1(u)<\infty$ and $C_2 = C_2(u,l_0)<\infty$ such that for all
$l_0,r_0\geq C_1$, $L_0\geq C_2$, and $n\geq 0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nbad:proba}
\mathbb P^u\left[\text{$0$ is $n$-bad}\right] \leq 2\cdot 2^{-2^n} .\
\end{equation}
We choose $l_0,r_0\geq C_1$ so that the scales $l_n$ and $r_n$ defined in \eqref{def:scales} satisfy the conditions of
Lemma~\ref{l:cmax:uniqueness}, Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:cemax}, and Lemma~\ref{l:chemdist},
and choose $L_0\geq C_2$. Thus, \eqref{eq:nbad:proba} is also satisfied.
\medskip
Next we choose $s$ and $K$.
Fix $R\geq 1$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that
\[
R^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}\geq \max(C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}L_0^d,L_0^{d+1+\frac{d^2-1}{\epsilon d}}).
\]
Let
\[
s=\max \left\{s'~:~\max\{C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}L_{s'}^d,L_{s'}^{d+1+\frac{d^2-1}{\epsilon d}}\} \leq R^{{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}}\right\}.
\]
With this choice of $s$, let $K = \min\{k : kL_s\geq 2R+1\}+1$, $x_s\in \GG_s$ such that $\ballZ(0,R)\subseteq Q_{K,s}(x_s)$,
and $x_s' = x_s + (-2KL_s,\dots,-2KL_s)$.
\bigskip
We begin with the proof.
If the event $\mathcal H^\den_{5K,s}(x_s')\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$ occurs, then ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(0,R)\subseteq {\mathcal C}_{K,s,L_0}(x_s)$.
Therefore, for all $y\in{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(0,R)$ and $R^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}\leq r\leq R$, by Corollaries~\ref{cor:chemdist} and \ref{cor:tildeC:existence},
the ball ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(y,r)$ is $(c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{cor:chemdist}},\frac{64^{\epsilon d}}{\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}^2},8C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}},\epsilon)$-regular.
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hu:veryregular}
\begin{array}{c}
\text{if the event $\mathcal H^\den_{5K,s}(x_s')\cap\{0\in\set_\infty\}$ occurs, then the ball ${\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(0,R)$}\\[7pt]
\text{ is $(c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{cor:chemdist}},\frac{64^{\epsilon d}}{\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}^2},8C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}},\epsilon)$-very regular
with $N_{{\ballZ_{\scriptscriptstyle \set}}(0,R)}\leq R^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}$.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Let
\[
C_V = c_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{cor:chemdist}}, \quad
C_P = \frac{64^{\epsilon d}}{\gamma_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{thm:isop:cemax}}^2}, \quad C_W = 8C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}.
\]
By \eqref{eq:Hu:veryregular}, it suffices to prove that there exist constants $c=c(u,{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}},\epsilon,{\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}})>0$ and $C = C(u,{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}},\epsilon,{\varepsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm P}}})<\infty$ such that for all $R\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HuKs:proba}
\mathbb P^u\left[\mathcal H^\den_{5K,s}(x_s')~|~0\in\set_\infty\right] \geq 1 - Ce^{-c(\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}}.
\end{equation}
By Definition~\ref{def:mainevent}, \eqref{eq:nbad:proba}, and \s{}, there exists $C = C(u)<\infty$ such that
\[
\mathbb P^u\left[\mathcal H^\den_{5K,s}(x_s')^c\right] \leq
(5K+4)^d\cdot 2\cdot 2^{-2^s} + (5KL_s)^d\cdot C\cdot e^{-f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u,2L_s)} ~.\
\]
Thus, it remains to show that for our choice of all the parameters, the right hand side of the above display is at most $Ce^{-c(\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}}$.
\medskip
Let $D = d+1 + \frac{d^2-1}{\epsilon d}$.
By \eqref{def:scales} and the choice of $s$, for all $R\geq C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}\cdot L_0^{D/{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}}$,
\[
\left(\frac{R}{C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}}\right)^{\frac{{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}}{D}} \leq L_{s+1} = l_s\cdot L_s \leq l_0\cdot 4 \cdot (L_s)^{1+2^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}}},
\]
which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ls:lowerbound}
L_s \geq \frac{1}{4l_0} \left(\frac{R}{C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}}\right)^{\frac{{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}}{D(1+2^{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}})}} .\
\end{equation}
By \eqref{def:scales} and \eqref{eq:Ls:lowerbound}, there exists a constant $c = c({\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}, {\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}}, l_0, L_0,\epsilon)>0$ such that for all $R\geq C_{\scriptscriptstyle \ref{l:chemdist}}\cdot L_0^{D/{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bounds}
s\geq c\cdot(\log R)^{\frac{1}{1+{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}}}} - 1 .\
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:funcS}, \eqref{eq:Ls:lowerbound}, and \eqref{eq:bounds},
we deduce that there exist $c' = c'(u,{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}},{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}},\epsilon)>0$ and $C' = C'(u,{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}}, {\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}}, l_0, L_0,\epsilon)<\infty$ such that for all $R\geq C'$,
\[
2^s \geq (\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}} \quad\mbox{and}\quad f_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}(u,2L_s) \geq c'(\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}} ~.\
\]
By the choice of $K$, $KL_s\leq 4R$.
Therefore, there exist $c''=c''(u,{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}},{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}},\epsilon)>0$ and $C'' = C''(u,{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm{vgb}}}},{\theta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm sc}}},l_0,L_0,\epsilon)<\infty$ such that for all $R\geq C''$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eventH:proba}
\mathbb P^u\left[\mathcal H^\den_{5K,s}(x_s')^c \right]\leq C''e^{-c''(\log R)^{1+{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle {\mathrm S}}}}} .\
\end{equation}
Since $\mathbb P^u[0\in\set_\infty] = \eta(u)>0$, \eqref{eq:eventH:proba} implies \eqref{eq:HuKs:proba}.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{remark}
The events $\seedde^\den_{x,L_0}$ and $\seedin^\den_{x,L_0}$ slightly differ
from the corresponding events $\overline A^u_x$ and $\overline B^u_x$ in \cite{DRS12},
but only minor modifications are needed to adapt \cite[Lemmas~4.2 and 4.4]{DRS12}
to our setting.
There is room for flexibility in the choice of $\den$.
For instance, if $\epsilon = \epsilon(u)\geq 0$ is chosen so that $\eta(u(1-\epsilon)) > \frac56\cdot \eta(u(1+\epsilon))$,
Then $\den_1 = \frac34\eta(u(1-\epsilon))$ and $\den_2 = \frac54 \eta(u(1+\epsilon))$ satisfy \eqref{def:eta},
and \eqref{eq:nbad:proba} remains true for this choice of $\den$ by monotonicity.
\end{remark}
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:ADS}
As we already mentioned in Remark~\ref{rem:results}(6), a new approach to the random conductance model
on general graphs satisfying some regularity assumptions has been recently developed in \cite{ADS13,ADS14}.
The main assumption on graphs there is \cite[Assumption~1.1]{ADS14}, which is reminiscent of Definition~\ref{def:vrb}, but stronger.
The main difference is that we do not require that an isoperimetric inequality is satisfied by subsets of a ball, but by those of a local extension of the ball.
In fact, we do not know how to show (and if it is true) that subsets of balls satisfy the desired isoperimetric inequality of \cite[Assumption~1.1]{ADS14} in our setting.
It would be very interesting to see if the machinery developed in \cite{ADS13,ADS14} can be applied to
graphs with all large balls being very regular in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:vrb}.
\end{remark}
\bigskip
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl}}\label{sec:pl:isop:proof}
The rough outline of the proof is the following. We first prove the isoperimetric inequality for all subsets of perforated lattices in two dimensions,
see Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d}. In dimensions $d\geq 3$, we proceed in two steps.
We first consider only macroscopic subsets $\mathcal A$ of the perforated lattice, i.e., those with the volume comparable with the volume of the perforated lattice.
By applying a selection lemma, see Lemma~\ref{l:selection}, we identify a large number of disjoint two dimensional slices in the ambient box which on the one hand
have a small non-empty intersection with $\mathcal A$, and on the other, all together contain a positive fraction of the volume of $\mathcal A$.
We estimate the boundary of $\mathcal A$ in each of the slices using the two dimensional result, and conclude by estimating the boundary of $\mathcal A$ in the perforation
by the sum of the boundaries of $\mathcal A$ in each of the slices.
Finally, we treat the general case by constructing a suitable coarse graining of $\mathcal A$
from mesoscopic boxes in which $\mathcal A$ has positive density.
The restriction of the boundary of $\mathcal A$ to such boxes is estimated by using the result from the first case.
Both isoperimetric inequalities in $d\geq 3$ are stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe}.
\medskip
We begin with a number of auxiliary ingredients for the proof: (a) some general facts about isoperimetric inequalities (Section~\ref{sec:isop:generalfacts}) and
(b) a combinatorial selection lemma (Section~\ref{sec:selection}).
\subsection{Auxiliary results}
\subsubsection{General facts about isoperimetric inequalities}\label{sec:isop:generalfacts}
Here we collect some isoperimetric inequalities that we will frequently use.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:boundaries}
Let $d\geq 2$, $n_1,\dots,n_d\geq 1$ integers with $\max_i n_i\leq N\cdot \min_i n_i$,
and $C$ a positive real such that $N\cdot C^{\frac 1d}<1$.
Then, for any subset $A$ of $G={\mathbb{Z}}^d\cap[0,n_1)\times\dots\times[0,n_d)$ with $|A|\leq C\cdot |G|$,
\[
|\partial_G A|\geq \max\left\{\left(1 + 2d\cdot (1 - N\cdot C^{\frac 1d})^{-1}\right)^{-1}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d}A|,~
(1 - N\cdot C^{\frac 1d}) \cdot|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}\right\}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of \cite[Proposition~2.2]{DeuschelPisztora}.
Let $\pi_i$ be the projection of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ onto the $(d-1)$ dimensional sublattice of vertices with $i$th coordinate equal to $0$.
Let $P_i = \pi_i(A)$, $i'$ be a coordinate corresponding to $P_i$ with the maximal size, and $P' = P_{i'}$.
Let $P'' = P'\cap\pi_{i'}(G\setminus A)$, i.e., the projection of those $i'$-columns that contain vertices from both $A$ and $G\setminus A$.
Note that $|\partial_G A| \geq |P''|$ and $|\partial_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d} A| \leq |\partial_G A| + 2d\cdot |P'|$.
Also note that $|P'\setminus P''| \leq \frac{|A|}{n_{i'}}\leq N\cdot C^{\frac 1d}\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}$.
By the Loomis-Whitney inequality, $|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}\leq |P'|$.
Thus, $|\partial_G A|\geq |P''|\geq (1 - N\cdot C^{\frac 1d}) \cdot |P'|\geq (1 - N\cdot C^{\frac 1d}) \cdot|A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}$ and
$|\partial_{{\mathbb{Z}}^d} A|\leq |\partial_G A| \cdot \left(1 + 2d\cdot (1 - N\cdot C^{\frac 1d})^{-1}\right)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:isop}
Let $G$ be a finite graph, and assume that for all $A\subseteq G$ with $c_1\cdot |G|\leq |A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |G|$,
$|\partial_G A|\geq c_2\cdot |A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}$.
Then for any $A'\subset G$ with $\frac 12\cdot |G|\leq |A'|\leq (1-c_1)\cdot |G|$,
$|\partial_G A'| = |\partial_G (G\setminus A')| \geq c_2\cdot |G\setminus A'|^{\frac{d-1}{d}} \geq (c_1c_2)\cdot |A'|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}$.
Thus, any such $A'$ also satisfies an isoperimetric inequality, but possibly with a smaller constant.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Selection lemma}\label{sec:selection}
The aim of this section is to prove the following combinatorial lemma.
Its Corollaries~\ref{cor:selection1} and \ref{cor:selection2} together with the two dimensional isoperimetric inequality of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d} will be crucially used in
the proof of the isoperimetric inequality for macroscopic subsets of perforated lattices in any dimension $d\geq 3$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe}.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:selection}
Let $\frac 67\leq C_2<1$, and for $d\geq 2$, let
\[
C_d = \frac{C_2^{d-1}}{\prod_{j=1}^{d-2}\left(1 + \frac{3}{9^j}\right)},\qquad
\delta_d = \frac{1}{9^{d-2}} ~.
\]
Let $R_1,\dots,R_d$ be positive integers. Then, for any subset $A$ of $Q = [0,R_1)\times\dots\times[0,R_d)\cap{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ satisfying
\[
1\leq |A|\leq C_d\cdot |Q|,
\]
there exist $S_1,\dots S_k$, disjoint two dimensional subrectangles of $Q$ such that
\[
|A\cap \cup_i S_i| \geq \delta_d\cdot |A|,
\]
and for all $1\leq i\leq k$,
\[
1\leq |A\cap S_i| \leq C_2\cdot |S_i|.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:selection1}
Note that $\prod_{j=1}^{d-2}\left(1 + \frac{3}{9^j}\right) \leq e^{\sum_{j\geq 1}\frac{3}{9^j}} = e^{\frac 38}$.
Thus, if we take $C_2 = e^{-\frac{1}{8(d-1)}} > \frac 67$, then $C_d > e^{-\frac 12} > \frac 12$, and Lemma~\ref{l:selection} implies that
for any $A\subset Q$ with $|A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q|$, there exist disjoint two dimensional rectangles $S_1,\dots,S_k$ such that
$|A\cap \cup_i S_i| \geq \frac{1}{9^{d-2}}\cdot |A|$ and $1\leq |A\cap S_i| \leq e^{-\frac{1}{8(d-1)}}\cdot |S_i|$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:selection2}
If $R_1 = \dots = R_d = R$, and $|A|\geq c_d\cdot R^d$ for some $c_d>0$,
then at least $\frac{\delta_d c_d}{2} R^{d-2}$ of the $S_i$'s contain at least $\frac{\delta_d c_d}{2} R^2$ vertices from $A$.
Indeed, if such a choice did not exist, then we would have
\[
\delta_d c_d R^d \leq \delta_d\cdot |A|\leq |A\cap\cup_i S_i| < R^2\cdot \frac{\delta_d c_d}{2} R^{d-2} + \frac{\delta_d c_d}{2}R^2\cdot \left(k - \frac{\delta_d c_d}{2}R^{d-2}\right)
\leq \delta_d c_d R^d.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{l:selection}]
The proof is by induction on $d$. For $d=2$ the statement is obvious. We assume that $d\geq 3$.
Consider all two dimensional slices of the form $[0,R_1)\times [0,R_2)\times x$, $x\in [0,R_3)\times\dots\times[0,R_d)$.
If among them there exist slices $S_1,\dots,S_k$ such that $|A\cap\cup_iS_i|\geq \delta_d\cdot |A|$ and for all $i$, $1\leq |A\cap S_i|\leq C_2\cdot R_1R_2$,
then we are done.
Thus, assume the contrary.
Let $\mathcal S_1$ be the subset of those slices that contain $> C_2\cdot R_1R_2$ vertices from $A$, and
$\mathcal S_2$ the rest. By definition, $|\mathcal S_1| \leq \frac{|A|}{C_2\cdot R_1R_2}$, and by assumption,
$|A\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_2}S| < \delta_d \cdot |A|$.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{7cm}{!}{\input select_1.pdf_t}~\resizebox{7cm}{!}{\input select_2.pdf_t}
\caption{An illustration of a slice $[0,R_1)\times [0,R_2)\times z$, $z\in [0,R_3)$ (left), and
a rectangle $x\times[0,R_2)\times[0,R_3)$, $x\in[0,R_1)$ from $\mathcal M$ (right) in $3$ dimensions.}
\label{fig:select}
\end{figure}
\medskip
Consider $(d-1)$ dimensional rectangles
\[
\mathcal M = \left\{x\times[0,R_2)\times\dots\times[0,R_d),\quad x\in[0,R_1)\right\},
\]
and consider separately their intersections with $\mathcal S_1$ and $\mathcal S_2$.
First, consider intersections with $\mathcal S_1$.
Each of the rectangles from $\mathcal M$ intersects $\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_1}S$ in at most $R_2\cdot \frac{|A|}{C_2\cdot R_1R_2} = \frac{|A|}{C_2\cdot R_1}$ vertices.
Since $|A\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_1}S| \geq (1 - \delta_d)\cdot |A|$,
the number of rectangles $M\in\mathcal M$ with $|M\cap A|\geq \frac{|A|}{3\cdot R_1}$ is at least $\frac 23 R_1$.
Indeed, if not, then at least $\frac 13 R_1$ of rectangles from $\mathcal M$ contain $< \frac{|A|}{3\cdot R_1}$ vertices from $A$, and
\[
|A\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_1}S| < \frac 13 R_1\cdot \frac{|A|}{3\cdot R_1} + \frac 23 R_1\cdot \frac{|A|}{C_2\cdot R_1}
= \left(\frac 19 + \frac{2}{3\cdot C_2}\right)\cdot |A|
\leq \frac 89\cdot |A| \leq (1 - \delta_d)\cdot |A|,
\]
which is a contradiction.
Next, consider intersections with $\mathcal S_2$.
Since $|A\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_2}S| \leq \delta_d\cdot |A|$,
the number of rectangles $M\in\mathcal M$ with $|A\cap M\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_2}S|\leq 3\delta_d\cdot \frac{|A|}{R_1}$ is
at least $\frac 23 R_1$.
Indeed, if not, then for at least $\frac 13 R_1$ of them, $|A\cap M\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_2}S|>3\delta_d\cdot \frac{|A|}{R_1}$, and
\[
|A\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_2}S|> \frac 13 R_1 \cdot 3\delta_d\cdot \frac{|A|}{R_1} = \delta_d \cdot |A|,
\]
which is a contradiction.
Therefore, we can choose $M_1,\dots,M_{\frac 13R_1}\in\mathcal M$
such that for each $1\leq i\leq \frac 13R_1$,
\[
|A\cap M_i|\geq \frac{|A|}{3\cdot R_1}, \quad
|A\cap M_i\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_1}S| \leq \frac{|A|}{C_2\cdot R_1},
\quad
|A\cap M_i\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_2}S| \leq 3\delta_d\cdot \frac{|A|}{R_1}.
\]
In particular, for each $1\leq i\leq \frac 13R_1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|A\cap M_i|
&=
&|A\cap M_i\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_1}S| + |A\cap M_i\cap\cup_{S\in\mathcal S_2}S|
\leq
\frac{|A|}{C_2\cdot R_1} + 3\delta_d\cdot \frac{|A|}{R_1}\\
&\leq &\frac{C_d}{C_2}\cdot \prod_{j=2}^dR_j\cdot \left(1 + \frac{3}{9^{d-2}}\right)
= C_{d-1}\cdot\prod_{j=2}^dR_j
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\[
|A\cap\cup_i M_i| = \sum_i|A\cap M_i| \geq \frac 13 R_1 \cdot \frac{|A|}{3\cdot R_1} = \frac{|A|}{9}.
\]
If $d=3$, then $M_i$ are disjoint two dimensional rectangles satisfying all the requirements of the lemma.
If $d>3$, consider the sets $A_i = A\cap M_i$, $1\leq i\leq \frac 13R_1$.
They satisfy assumption of the lemma with $d$ replaced by $d-1$.
Therefore, there exist disjoint two dimensional rectangles $(S_{ij})_{1\leq j\leq k_j}$ in $M_i$ such that
for all $1\leq j\leq k_i$,
\[
|A_i\cap S_{ij}|\leq C_2\cdot |S_{ij}|,
\]
and
\[
|A_i\cap\cup_j S_{ij}| \geq \delta_{d-1}\cdot |A_i|.
\]
It is now easy to conclude that the two dimensional rectangles $(S_{ij})_{1\leq j\leq k_i, 1\leq i\leq \frac 13R_1}$
satisfy all the requirements of the lemma.
Indeed, they are disjoint,
\[
|A\cap\cup_{ij} S_{ij}| = \sum_i |A_i\cup_j S_{ij}|\geq \frac 13R_1\cdot \delta_{d-1}\cdot |A_i|
\geq \frac 13R_1\cdot \delta_{d-1}\cdot\frac{|A|}{3\cdot R_1} = \delta_d\cdot |A|,
\]
and for each $i$ and $j$,
\[
|A\cap S_{ij}|= |A_i\cap S_{ij}| \leq C_2 \cdot |S_{ij}|.
\]
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Isoperimetric inequality in two dimensions}
The main goal of this section is to prove the following lemma.
It immediately implies Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} in the case $d=2$, but actually gives
an isoperimetric inequality which holds for {\it all} $\mathcal A\in {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ with $1\leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:isopineqG:2d}
Let $d=2$. Let $l_n$ and $r_n$, $n\geq 0$, be integer sequences such that for all $n$, $l_n>8r_n$, $l_n$ is divisible by $r_n$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopineqG:2d:ratio}
\prod_{j=0}^\infty \left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_j}{l_j}\right)^2\right) \geq \frac{15}{16}\qquad\text{and}\qquad
3456\cdot \sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{r_j}{l_j}\leq \frac{1}{10^6}.
\end{equation}
Then for any integers $s\geq 0$, $L_0\geq 1$, and $K\geq 1$, $x_s\in\GG_s$,
and two families of events $\seedde$ and $\seedin$,
if all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ are $s$-good, then
for any $\mathcal A\subseteq {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ such that
$1 \leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_0|$,
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A|\geq \frac{1}{10^6}\cdot |\mathcal A|^{\frac 12}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item[(1)]
Assumptions \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:ratio} and the constant $\frac{1}{10^6}$ in the result of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d} are not optimal for our proof,
but rather chosen to simplify calculations.
\item[(2)]
We believe that an analogue of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d} holds for all $d\geq 2$, but cannot prove it.
There is only one place in the proof where the assumption $d=2$ is used, see Remark~\ref{rem:extensiond>2}.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Fix $s\geq 0$ and $K\geq 1$ integers, $x_s\in\GG_s$.
Recall the definition of ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,i}(x_s)$ from \eqref{def:pl}, and write ${\mathcal Q}_i$ for ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,i}(x_s)$ throughout the proof.
Note that ${\mathcal Q}_s = Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_0$ and for all $i$, ${\mathcal Q}_{i-1}\subseteq{\mathcal Q}_i$.
\medskip
Let $\mathcal A$ be a subset of ${\mathcal Q}_0$ such that $1\leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_s|$.
We need to prove that $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0} \mathcal A|\geq \frac{1}{10^6}\cdot |\mathcal A|^{\frac 12}$.
First of all, without loss of generality we can assume that both $\mathcal A$ and ${\mathcal Q}_0\setminus \mathcal A$ are connected in $\GG_0$.
(For the proof of this claim, see page 112 in \cite[Section~3.1]{MathieuRemy}.)
\medskip
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{7cm}{!}{\input mathcalA_1.pdf_t}~\resizebox{7cm}{!}{\input mathcalA_2.pdf_t}~
\caption{The set $\mathcal A'$ is obtained from $\mathcal A$ by adding to it all the holes $B_i$ completely surrounded by $\mathcal A$.
This operation does not change the boundary of $\mathcal A$ in ${\mathcal Q}_0$.}
\label{fig:mathcalA}
\end{figure}
Let $B,B_1,\dots, B_m$ be all the connected components (in $\GG_0$) of ${\mathcal Q}_s\setminus\mathcal A$, of which
$B$ is the unique component intersecting ${\mathcal Q}_0$, and $B_i$'s are the ``holes'' in ${\mathcal Q}_s$ completely surrounded by $\mathcal A$.
(See Figure~\ref{fig:mathcalA}.)
The boundary of $\mathcal A$ in ${\mathcal Q}_0$ does not contain any edges adjacent to $B_i$'s.
It is convenient to absorb all the holes $B_i$'s into $\mathcal A$ to get the set $\mathcal A'$
with the same boundary in ${\mathcal Q}_0$, but with an important feature that its exterior vertex boundary in ${\mathcal Q}_s$ is $*$-connected.
More precisely, let
\[
\mathcal A' = \mathcal A\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^m B_i \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathcal Q}_i' = {\mathcal Q}_i\cup \bigcup_{i=1}^m B_i.
\]
Then, (a) $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'}\mathcal A' = \partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0}\mathcal A$, (b) $|\mathcal A'| \geq |\mathcal A|$,
(c) $\mathcal A'$ is connected in $\GG_0$, (d) ${\mathcal Q}_0'\setminus \mathcal A' = {\mathcal Q}_0\setminus\mathcal A$ (in particular, connected in $\GG_0$),
and (e) for any $x,x'\in \mathcal E = \{y\in{\mathcal Q}_s~:~\{x,y\}\in\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'\text{ for some }x\in\mathcal A'\}$
(the exterior vertex boundary of $\mathcal A'$ in ${\mathcal Q}_s$) there exist
$z_0 = x,z_1,\dots,z_m = x'\in\mathcal E$ such that $|z_k - z_{k+1}|_\infty = L_0$ for all $k$
(i.e., $\mathcal E$ is $*$-connected).
Properties (a-d) are immediate from the definition of $\mathcal A'$, and property (e) follows from \cite[Lemma~2.1(ii)]{DeuschelPisztora}
and the facts that $\mathcal A'$ and ${\mathcal Q}_s\setminus \mathcal A'$ are connected in $\GG_0$.
\medskip
By properties (a-b) of $\mathcal A'$, it suffices to prove that
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'} \mathcal A'|\geq \frac{1}{10^6}\cdot |\mathcal A'|^{\frac 12}.
\]
By Lemma~\ref{l:rect} and the first part of \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:ratio},
$|\mathcal A'| \leq |\mathcal A| + |{\mathcal Q}_s\setminus{\mathcal Q}_0| \leq \frac{9}{16}\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_s|$.
Thus, by Lemma~\ref{l:boundaries},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryGs}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'|\geq \frac 14 \cdot |\mathcal A'|^{\frac 12}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, it suffices to prove that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'} \mathcal A'|\geq \frac{2}{5\cdot 10^5}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'|.
\end{equation}
The proof of \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0} is done by partitioning $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'\setminus \partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'} \mathcal A'$
into the sets $\delta_i$ of edges with one end vertex in $\mathcal A'$ and the other in ${\mathcal Q}_i \setminus{\mathcal Q}_{i-1}$
and comparing the cardinality of $\delta_i$'s with that of $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'$.
If $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'$ is very large (macroscopic), then all $\delta_i$ are negligibly small in comparison to $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'$.
It is more delicate to estimate the size of $\delta_i$'s if $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'$ is small, as the contribution of some $\delta_i$'s
to the boundary $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'$ may be quite significant. In this case, we will introduce a suitable scale on which $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} \mathcal A'$
is large, and view $\mathcal A'$ as a disjoint union of subsets of boxes on the new scale. Let
\[
\delta_i = \partial_{{\mathcal Q}_i'}\mathcal A'\setminus \partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{i-1}'}\mathcal A'.
\]
Then, $\delta_j$'s are disjoint and for any $1\leq i\leq s$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundaries:i}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'}\mathcal A'| = |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_i'}\mathcal A'| - \sum_{j=1}^i|\delta_j|.
\end{equation}
Let
\[
t = \max\left\{0\leq i\leq s~:~|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|\geq \frac{1}{12}\cdot\frac{L_i}{L_0}\right\}.
\]
The scale $L_t$ is the correct scale to study $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$. As we will see below in \eqref{eq:relationdelta},
the intersection of $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ with ${\mathcal Q}_i\setminus{\mathcal Q}_{i-1}$, $i\leq t$ (holes of size significantly smaller than $L_t$),
is negligible in comparison to $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$.
In particular, it will be enough to conclude \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0} in the case $t=s$, see \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:1}.
If $t<s$, then $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is small and may have a significant intersection with ${\mathcal Q}_{t+1}\setminus{\mathcal Q}_t$.
An additional argument will be used to deal with this case, see below \eqref{eq:caset<s}.
\medskip
We begin with an estimation of the part of $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ adjacent to ``small holes''.
\begin{claim}\label{cl:relationdelta}
For all $1\leq i\leq t$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relationdelta}
|\delta_i|\leq 3456\cdot \frac{r_{i-1}}{l_{i-1}}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|.
\end{equation}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim~\ref{cl:relationdelta}]
By the definition of ${\mathcal Q}_i$'s,
the set ${\mathcal Q}_i \setminus{\mathcal Q}_{i-1}$ can be expressed as the disjoint union of boxes $S_j = \GG_0\cap(y_j + [0,2r_{i-1}L_{i-1})^2)$,
for some $y_1,\dots,y_k\in(r_{i-1}L_{i-1})\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, such that
every box $S_j$ is within $\ell^\infty$ distance $L_i$ from at most $36$ $S_{j'}$'s. (By Remark~\ref{rem:propRzi}, each $L_i$-box contains at most $4$ $S_j$'s,
and it is adjacent to at most $8$ other $L_i$-boxes, hence $4\cdot 9 = 36$.)
\medskip
To estimate the size of $\delta_i$, we consider two cases: (a) $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is adjacent to few $S_j$'s, in
which case $\delta_i$ is very small, (b) $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is adjacent to many $S_j$'s, in which case many of
the $S_j$'s will be well-separated and $\mathcal A'$ will be spread out. To handle this case we will use the fact that the exterior vertex boundary of
$\mathcal A'$ is $*$-connected, thus the majority of edges in $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ will be ``in between'' $S_j$'s. (See Figure~\ref{fig:deltai}.)
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{8cm}{!}{\input deltai_1.pdf_t}
\caption{Since every $S_j$ is within $L_i$ distance from at most $35$ other $S_j$'s,
if the set $\mathcal A'$ is adjacent to many $S_j$'s then it must be adjacent to
some sufficiently separated $S_j$ (drawn in yellow), and its boundary is thus stretched between these $S_j$'s.
In two (and only two) dimensions, this is sufficient to conclude that the boundary of $\mathcal A'$
is much larger than its part adjacent to all the $S_j$'s, which we call $\delta_i$.}
\label{fig:deltai}
\end{figure}
Let $N_i$ be the total number of those $S_j$'s which are adjacent (in $\GG_0$) to $\mathcal A'$.
Since for each $j$, $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s} S_j|\leq 8\frac{r_{i-1}L_{i-1}}{L_0}$,
it follows that $|\delta_i| \leq N_i\cdot 8 \frac{r_{i-1}L_{i-1}}{L_0}$.
We consider separately the cases $N_i\leq 36$ and $N_i> 36$.
If $N_i\leq 36$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltai:Ni<100}
|\delta_i| \leq N_i\cdot 8 \frac{r_{i-1}L_{i-1}}{L_0}
\leq 36\cdot 8\cdot \frac{r_{i-1}}{l_{i-1}}\cdot \frac{L_i}{L_0}
\leq 36\cdot 8\cdot 12\cdot\frac{r_{i-1}}{l_{i-1}}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality follows from the definition of $t$ and the fact that $i\leq t$.
If $N_i>36$, then $\mathcal A'$ is adjacent to at least $\lceil \frac{N_i}{36}\rceil (\geq 2)$ of $S_j$'s which are
pairwise at $\ell^\infty$ distance at least $L_i$ from each other.
Recall from property (e) of $\mathcal A'$ that $\mathcal E$ is the exterior vertex boundary of $\mathcal A'$, which is $*$-connected.
Since $\mathcal E$ intersects each of the $\lceil \frac{N_i}{36}\rceil$ well separated $S_j$'s,
the intersections of $\mathcal E$ with $\frac13 L_i$-neighborhoods of the $S_j$'s are disjoint sets of vertices of cardinality $\geq \frac 13\frac{L_i}{L_0}$ each.
Therefore, $|\mathcal E|\geq \frac 13\frac{L_i}{L_0}\cdot \frac{N_i}{36}$, and we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltai:Ni>100}
|\delta_i| \leq N_i\cdot 8 \frac{r_{i-1}L_{i-1}}{L_0}
\leq 36\cdot 3\cdot 8\cdot \frac{r_{i-1}}{l_{i-1}}\cdot |\mathcal E|
\leq 36\cdot 3\cdot 8\cdot 4\cdot \frac{r_{i-1}}{l_{i-1}}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that each vertex of $\mathcal E$ is adjacent to at most $4$ edges from $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$.
Combining \eqref{eq:deltai:Ni<100} and \eqref{eq:deltai:Ni>100} we get \eqref{eq:relationdelta}.
\end{proof}
\medskip
If the boundary $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is macroscopic, namely, if $t=s$, then
the intersection of $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ with any hole is negligible, and Claim~\ref{cl:relationdelta} immediately implies \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0}.
Indeed, by \eqref{eq:boundaries:i} and \eqref{eq:relationdelta},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:1}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'}\mathcal A'| = |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_t'}\mathcal A'| - \sum_{j=1}^t|\delta_j|
\geq
\left(1 - 3456\cdot \sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{r_j}{l_j}\right)\cdot|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\end{equation}
and \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0} follows from \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:1} and the second part of \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:ratio}.
\medskip
In the rest of the proof we consider the case of small $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$, namely $t<s$.
In this case,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:caset<s}
\frac{1}{12}\cdot\frac{L_t}{L_0}\leq |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|< \frac{1}{12}\cdot\frac{L_{t+1}}{L_0}\leq \frac{1}{12}\cdot\frac{L_s}{L_0}.
\end{equation}
As already mentioned, this case is more delicate, since $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ may have large intersection with big holes,
for instance, $\delta_{t+1}$ is generally not negligible in comparison to $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$.
\medskip
We first consider the case when $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is still relatively big in comparison to the boundary of holes in ${\mathcal Q}_{t+1}\setminus {\mathcal Q}_t$.
Assume that $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|> 14\cdot 36\cdot 8\cdot \frac{r_tL_t}{L_0}$.
In this case we will show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltat+1plt+1}
|\delta_{t+1}| \leq \frac{1}{14}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|\quad \text{and}\quad
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{t+1}'}\mathcal A'|\geq \frac{1}{7}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|.
\end{equation}
Together with Claim~\ref{cl:relationdelta},
\eqref{eq:deltat+1plt+1} is sufficient for \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0}. Indeed, by \eqref{eq:boundaries:i},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:2}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'}\mathcal A'|
= |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{t+1}'}\mathcal A'| - \sum_{j=1}^{t+1}|\delta_j|
\geq \left(\frac{1}{14} - 3456\cdot \sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{r_j}{l_j}\right)\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\end{equation}
and \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0} follows from \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:2} and the second part of \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:ratio}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \eqref{eq:deltat+1plt+1}]
To estimate the size of $\delta_{t+1}$, we proceed as in the proof of \eqref{eq:relationdelta}.
The set ${\mathcal Q}_{t+1}\setminus{\mathcal Q}_t$ can be
expressed as a disjoint union of boxes $S_j = \GG_0\cap(y_j + [0,2r_tL_t)^2)$,
for some $y_1,\dots,y_k\in(r_tL_t)\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}^2$, such that
every box is within $\ell^\infty$ distance $L_{t+1}$ from at most $36$ of the boxes.
Since $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|< \frac{1}{12}\cdot\frac{L_{t+1}}{L_0}$ and the exterior vertex boundary of $\mathcal A'$ is $*$-connected,
the set $\mathcal A'$ can be adjacent (in $\GG_0$) to at most $36$ such boxes
(in fact, to at most $4\cdot 4 = 16$),
which implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gsdeltat+1}
|\delta_{t+1}| \leq 36\cdot8\frac{r_tL_t}{L_0} \leq \frac{1}{14}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality follows from the assumption on $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|$.
To estimate $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{t+1}'}\mathcal A'|$ from below,
we view $\mathcal A'$ as a disjoint union of subsets $\mathcal A_j'$ of $L_{t+1}$-boxes, and
estimate from below the relative boundary of each $\mathcal A_j'$ in the corresponding box.
By definition, ${\mathcal Q}_{t+1}$ is the disjoint union of boxes $\GG_0\cap(z_j + [0,L_{t+1})^2)$, $z_j\in\mathcal G_{K,s,t+1}(x_s)$.
Let $\mathcal A_j'$ be the restriction of $\mathcal A'$ to the box $(z_j + [0,L_{t+1})^2)$.
By \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryGs} and \eqref{eq:caset<s}, for every $j$,
\[
|\mathcal A_j'|\leq |\mathcal A'| \leq 16\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|^2
\leq \frac{1}{9} \cdot |\GG_0\cap[0,L_{t+1})^2|.
\]
By applying Lemma~\ref{l:boundaries} in each of $\GG_0\cap(z_j + [0,L_{t+1})^2)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:boundaryt+1}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{t+1}'}\mathcal A'|\geq \sum_j|\partial_{\GG_0\cap(z_j+[0,L_{t+1})^d)}\mathcal A_j'|
\geq \frac{1}{7}\cdot \sum_j|\partial_{\GG_0}\mathcal A_j'|
\geq \frac{1}{7}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|.
\end{equation}
The combination of \eqref{eq:Gsdeltat+1} and \eqref{eq:boundaryt+1} gives \eqref{eq:deltat+1plt+1}.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
It remains to consider the case $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|\leq 14\cdot 36\cdot 8\cdot \frac{r_tL_t}{L_0}$.
In this case $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is comparable to the boundary of holes in ${\mathcal Q}_{t+1}\setminus {\mathcal Q}_t$.
We will show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:plt}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_t'}\mathcal A'|\geq \frac{1}{2\cdot 10^5}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|.
\end{equation}
Together with Claim~\ref{cl:relationdelta},
\eqref{eq:plt} is sufficient for \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0}. Indeed, by \eqref{eq:boundaries:i},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:3}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'}\mathcal A'|
= |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_t'}\mathcal A'| - \sum_{j=1}^t|\delta_j|
\geq \left(\frac{1}{2\cdot 10^5} - 3456\cdot \sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{r_j}{l_j}\right)\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\end{equation}
and \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0} follows from \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:3} and the second part of \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:ratio}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \eqref{eq:plt}]
Since $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is comparable to the boundary of holes in ${\mathcal Q}_{t+1}\setminus {\mathcal Q}_t$,
this time we will look at $\mathcal A'$ on the scale $r_tL_t$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:rect} and the assumption that $l_t$ is divisible by $r_t$,
${\mathcal Q}_t$ can be expressed as a disjoint union of boxes $(z_j + [0,r_tL_t)^2)$, $z_j\in(r_tL_t)\cdot{\mathbb{Z}}^2$.
Let $\mathcal A_j'$ be the restriction of $\mathcal A'$ to the box $(z_j + [0,r_tL_t)^2)$.
We will compare the boundary $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ to the relative boundary of $\mathcal A_j'$'s in the respective boxes.
\medskip
If for all $j$, $|\mathcal A_j'|\leq \frac{1}{4}\cdot |\GG_0\cap [0,r_tL_t)^2|$,
then by Lemma~\ref{l:boundaries} applied in each of $\GG_0\cap(z_j+[0,r_tL_t)^2)$,
\[
|\partial_{\GG_0\cap(z_j+[0,r_tL_t)^2)}\mathcal A_j'|
\geq \frac{1}{9}\cdot |\partial_{\GG_0}\mathcal A_j'|.
\]
Since the sets $\partial_{\GG_0\cap(z_j+[0,r_tL_t)^2)}\mathcal A_j'$ are disjoint subsets of $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_t'}\mathcal A'$,
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_t'}\mathcal A'| \geq \sum_j|\partial_{\GG_0\cap(z_j+[0,r_tL_t)^2)}\mathcal A_j'|
\geq \frac{1}{9}\cdot \sum_j|\partial_{\GG_0}\mathcal A_j'|
\geq \frac{1}{9}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\]
which implies \eqref{eq:plt}.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{7cm}{!}{\input smallA_1.pdf_t}~\resizebox{7cm}{!}{\input smallA_2.pdf_t}
\caption{The case when the boundary of $\mathcal A'$ is comparable to the boundary of holes on the scale of $\mathcal A'$.
Two subcases: $\mathcal A'$ has small intersection with every $r_tL_t$-box (left) or
large intersection with some $r_tL_t$-box (right). In the second subcase we can identify a box $(\widetilde z + [0,r_tL_t)^d)$
in which $\mathcal A'$ has non-trivial density.}
\label{fig:smallA}
\end{figure}
\medskip
On the other hand, if $|\mathcal A_j'|> \frac{1}{4}\cdot |\GG_0\cap [0,r_tL_t)^2|$ for at least one $j$, then
there exists $\widetilde z\in\GG_t$ such that
\begin{itemize}\itemsep0pt
\item
$\GG_0\cap(\widetilde z + [0,r_tL_t)^2)\subset {\mathcal Q}_t$ and
\item
$\frac 14\cdot |\GG_0\cap [0,r_tL_t)^2|\leq |\mathcal A'\cap(\widetilde z + [0,r_tL_t)^2)|\leq \frac 34\cdot |\GG_0\cap [0,r_tL_t)^2|$.
\end{itemize}
Indeed, if none of $z_j$'s satisfies the two requirements, then there exist
$j_1$ and $j_2$ such that $|z_{j_1} - z_{j_2}|_\infty = r_tL_t$,
$|\mathcal A_{j_1}'|> \frac{3}{4}\cdot |\GG_0\cap [0,r_tL_t)^2|$ and
$|\mathcal A_{j_2}'|\leq \frac{1}{4}\cdot |\GG_0\cap [0,r_tL_t)^2|$.
Then, $\widetilde z = \lambda\cdot z_{j_1} + (1-\lambda)\cdot z_{j_2}$ satisfies the two requirements for some $\lambda\in(0,1)$.
(If $r_t$ is divisible by $2$, then one can take $\lambda = \frac 12$.)
By applying Lemma~\ref{l:boundaries} to $\GG_0\cap(\widetilde z + [0,r_tL_t)^2)$,
\begin{multline*}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_t'}\mathcal A'| \geq |\partial_{\GG_0\cap(\widetilde z + [0,r_tL_t)^2)}(\mathcal A'\cap(\widetilde z + [0,r_tL_t)^2)|
\geq \left(1 - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\right)\cdot |\mathcal A'\cap(\widetilde z + [0,r_tL_t)^2)|^{\frac 12} \\
\geq \left(1 - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\right)\cdot \frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{r_tL_t}{L_0}
\geq\frac{1}{16}\cdot \frac{r_tL_t}{L_0}
\geq \frac{1}{16\cdot 14\cdot 36\cdot 8}\cdot |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|,
\end{multline*}
where the last inequality follows from the assumption on $|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'|$.
This inequality completes the proof of \eqref{eq:plt}.
\end{proof}
\medskip
To summarize, the desired relation \eqref{eq:mathcalA':boundaryQsQ0} between $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_0'}\mathcal A'$ and $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ follows from
the three inequalities \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:1} (the boundary $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is macroscopic), \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:2}
(the boundary $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is small, but much bigger than the boundaries of holes on the given scale),
and \eqref{eq:isopineqG:2d:boundaryG0:3} (the boundary $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_s}\mathcal A'$ is small and comparable to the boundaries of holes on the given scale).
The proof of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d} is complete.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:extensiond>2}
The only step in the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d} that uses (crucially!) the assumption $d=2$ is
the derivation of \eqref{eq:deltai:Ni>100}. More precisely, the
fact that the boundary of a set is well approximated by simple paths.
In higher dimensions this is clearly not the case (the dimension of the boundary is generally bigger than
the dimension of a simple path), and the above argument breaks down. See Figure~\ref{fig:deltai}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Isoperimetric inequality in any dimension for large enough subsets}
In this section we prove the following theorem, which includes Theorem~\ref{thm:isop:pl} as a special case.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:isopframe}
Let $d\geq 2$, $c>0$. Let $l_n$ and $r_n$, $n\geq 0$, be integer sequences satisfying assumptions of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d} and
such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopframe:ratio}
\prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^2\right) \geq e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\quad\text{and}\quad
\prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1 - \left(\frac{4r_i}{l_i}\right)^d\right) \geq \frac{1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+2}}}{1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+3}}}.
\end{equation}
Then for any integers $s\geq 0$, $L_0\geq 1$, and $K\geq 1$, $x_s\in\GG_s$,
and two families of events $\seedde$ and $\seedin$,
if all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ are $s$-good, then
any $\mathcal A\subseteq {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ with
\[
\min\left\{ c\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|,~\left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2}\right\} \leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap \GG_0|
\]
satisfies
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A|\geq
\frac{c^2}{2d\cdot 32^d\cdot 27^d\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot |\mathcal A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe}]
Fix $s\geq 0$ and $K\geq 1$ integers, $x_s\in\GG_s$,
and assume that all the vertices in $\GG_s\cap Q_{K,s}(x_s)$ are $s$-good.
Take $\mathcal A \subseteq {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)$ such that $|\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|$.
\medskip
We consider separately the cases $|\mathcal A|\geq c\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|$ and $|\mathcal A|\geq \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2}$.
In fact, we will use the result for the first case to prove the result for the second.
In the first case, we use Corollaries~\ref{cor:selection1} and \ref{cor:selection2} to the selection lemma from Section~\ref{sec:selection}
to identify a large number of disjoint two dimensional slices in the ambient box $Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0$ which
on the one hand have a small non-empty intersection with $\mathcal A$, and on the other, all together contain a positive fraction of the volume of $\mathcal A$.
We estimate the boundary of $\mathcal A$ in each of the slices using the two dimensional isoperimetric inequality of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d}.
Since the slices are pairwise disjoint, we can estimate the boundary of $\mathcal A$ by the sum of the boundaries of $\mathcal A$ in each of the slices.
In the second case, we consider a coarse graining of $\mathcal A$ by densely occupied $L_s$-boxes.
If the number of densely occupied $L_s$-boxes is small, then $\mathcal A$ is scattered in $Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0$ and
has big boundary. If, on the other hand, the number of densely occupied $L_s$-boxes is big, then
the set of such boxes has large boundary (the poorly occupied boxes adjacent to some densely occupied ones).
Each pair of adjacent densely and poorly occupied $L_s$-boxes are contained in a $2L_s$-box.
Vertices from $\mathcal A$ occupy a non-trivial fraction of vertices in this $2L_s$-box.
Thus, we can estimate the boundary of $\mathcal A$ restricted to this box using the first part of the theorem.
By summing over all pairs of adjacent densely and poorly occupied $L_s$-boxes we obtain a desired lower bound on the size of the boundary of $\mathcal A$.
\bigskip
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\resizebox{15cm}{!}{\input slice.pdf_t}
\caption{Left: a two dimensional slice $S_i$. Right: perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i$ of $S_i$ and the intersection of $\mathcal A$ with $S_i$.}
\label{fig:slice}
\end{figure}
We first consider the case $|\mathcal A|\geq c\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|$.
By Corollaries~\ref{cor:selection1} and \ref{cor:selection2},
there exist
\[
\geq \frac{c}{2\cdot 9^{d-2}}\cdot \left(\frac{KL_s}{L_0}\right)^{d-2}
\]
two dimensional subrectangles $S_i$ in $Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:slice}) such that for all $i$,
\[
|\mathcal A\cap S_i|\geq \frac{c}{2\cdot 9^{d-2}}\cdot \left(\frac{KL_s}{L_0}\right)^2\quad\text{and}\quad
|\mathcal A\cap S_i|\leq e^{-\frac{1}{8(d-1)}}\cdot \left(\frac{KL_s}{L_0}\right)^2.
\]
By Lemma~\ref{l:rect} (applied to the perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i$ of $S_i$) and the first part of \eqref{eq:isopframe:ratio},
$|{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i|\geq e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\cdot \left(\frac{KL_s}{L_0}\right)^2$, which implies that for all $i$,
\[
|\mathcal A\cap S_i|\leq e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\cdot|{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i|.
\]
We apply the two dimensional isoperimetric inequality of Lemma~\ref{l:isopineqG:2d} and Remark~\ref{rem:isop}
to each of the sets $\mathcal A\cap S_i$ in ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i$, and obtain that for all $i$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i}(\mathcal A\cap S_i)| &\geq &\frac{1}{10^6}\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot |\mathcal A\cap S_i|^{\frac 12}\\
&\geq &\frac{1}{10^6}\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot\frac{c}{2\cdot 3^{d-2}}\cdot \frac{KL_s}{L_0}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since all $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i}(\mathcal A\cap S_i)$ are disjoint subsets of $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A$,
\begin{eqnarray}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A|
&\geq &\sum_i |\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap S_i}(\mathcal A\cap S_i)|\nonumber\\
&\geq
&\frac{c}{2\cdot 9^{d-2}}\cdot \left(\frac{KL_s}{L_0}\right)^{d-2}\cdot
\frac{1}{10^6}\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot\frac{c}{2\cdot 3^{d-2}}\cdot \frac{KL_s}{L_0}\nonumber\\
&\geq
&\frac{c^2}{4\cdot 27^{d-2}\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot|\mathcal A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.\label{eq:boundaryA1}
\end{eqnarray}
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe} for sets with $|\mathcal A|\geq c\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|$.
\bigskip
Next, we consider the case $|\mathcal A|\geq \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2}$.
Let
\[
\mathbb A_s = \left\{x\in \GG_s ~:~\mathcal A\cap (x + [0,L_s)^d)\neq\emptyset\right\}
\]
be the set of bottom-left corners of $L_s$-boxes which contain a vertex from $\mathcal A$.
Note that $|\mathbb A_s| \geq |\mathcal A|\cdot \left(\frac{L_0}{L_s}\right)^d$.
We also define the subset $\widetilde{\mathbb A}_s$ of $\mathbb A_s$ corresponding to the densely occupied boxes,
\[
\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s = \left\{x\in\GG_s~:~|\mathcal A\cap (x + [0,L_s)^d)|\geq \frac 34\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d\right\}.
\]
We consider separately the cases when $|\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|\geq \frac 12\cdot |\mathbb A_s|$ and $|\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|\leq \frac 12\cdot |\mathbb A_s|$.
\medskip
We first consider the case $|\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|\geq \frac 12\cdot |\mathbb A_s|$, i.e., the number of densely occupied boxes is large.
Since
$\frac 34\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d\cdot |\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s| \leq |\mathcal A|\leq \frac 12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|$,
\[
|\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s| \leq \frac 23\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|\cdot \left(\frac{L_0}{L_s}\right)^d = \frac 23\cdot |Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s|.
\]
By applying Lemma~\ref{l:boundaries} to $\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s\subset Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isop:widetildeAs}
|\partial_{Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s}\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s| \geq \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot |\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}.
\end{equation}
Next, we zoom in onto the boundary $\partial_{Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s}\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s$.
Take any pair $x\in\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s$ and $y\in (Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s)\setminus\widetilde{\mathbb A}_s$ from $\partial_{Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s}\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s$.
Note that
\[
|\mathcal A\cap (x + [0,L_s)^d)| \geq \frac 34\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d
\quad\text{and}\quad
|\mathcal A\cap (y + [0,L_s)^d)| < \frac 34\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d.
\]
Take a box $(z + [0,2L_s)^d)$ in $Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_0$ containing both $(x+[0,L_s)^d)$ and $(y + [0,L_s)^d)$,
where $z\in(Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s)$.
Note that $\mathcal A$ occupies a non-trivial fraction of vertices in $(z + [0,2L_s)^d)$. More precisely,
\[
\frac{3}{2^{d+2}}\cdot |(z+[0,2L_s)^d)\cap\GG_0|\leq |\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|\leq \left(1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+2}}\right)\cdot |(z+[0,2L_s)^d)\cap\GG_0|.
\]
Moreover, all the vertices in $(z+[0,2L_s)^d\cap\GG_s$ are $s$-good.
We are in a position to apply the first part of the theorem to $\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)$ in $(z+[0,2L_s)^d)$.
Combining the upper bound on $|\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|$ with
the lower bound on the volume of the perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{2,s,0}(z) = {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)$ given by Lemma~\ref{l:rect}
and the second part of the assumption \eqref{eq:isopframe:ratio},
we obtain that
\[
|\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|\leq \left(1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+3}}\right)\cdot |{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|.
\]
Therefore, by the first part of the theorem (with $c = \frac{3}{2^{d+2}}$)
applied to the subset $\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)$ of ${\mathcal Q}_{2,s,0}(z)$
and Remark~\ref{rem:isop},
\begin{multline*}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)}(\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|\\
\geq
\frac{1}{2^{d+3}}\cdot
\frac{9}{4\cdot 4^{d+2}\cdot 27^{d-2}\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot|\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}\\
\geq \frac{3}{4}\cdot \frac{9}{8^{d+3}\cdot 27^{d-2}\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d-1}.
\end{multline*}
This inequality gives us an estimate on the part of the boundary $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A$ contained in $(z + [0,2L_s)^d)$
for each $z\in (Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s)$ such that the cube $(z + [0,2L_s)^d)$ contains an overcrowded and undercrowded adjacent $L_s$-boxes
$(x + [0,L_s)^d)$ and $(y+[0,L_s)^d)$ with $x\in\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s$ and $y\in (Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s)\setminus\widetilde{\mathbb A}_s$.
By \eqref{eq:isop:widetildeAs}, the total number of such $z$'s is
\[
\geq \frac{1}{d2^{d-1}}\cdot |\partial_{Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s}\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|
\geq \frac{1}{d2^{d-1}}\cdot \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot |\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|^{\frac{d-1}{d}},
\]
where the factor $\frac{1}{d2^{d-1}}$ counts for possible overcounting, since
every cube $(z+[0,2L_s)^d)$, $z\in\GG_s$, contains at most $d2^{d-1}$ pairs $x,y$ with $\{x,y\}\in\partial_{Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_s}\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s$.
Moreover, every edge from $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A$ belongs to at most $2^d$ cubes $(z+[0,2L_s)^d)$, $z\in\GG_s$.
Thus,
\[
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A|\geq \frac{1}{2^d}\cdot\sum_{z\in\GG_s}|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)}(\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|.
\]
By putting all the estimates together, we obtain that
\begin{multline}\label{eq:isopframe:gamma}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)} \mathcal A|\geq
\frac{1}{2^d}\cdot\sum_{z\in\GG_s}|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)}(\mathcal A\cap (z+[0,2L_s)^d)|\\
\geq \frac{1}{2^d}\cdot
\frac{1}{d2^{d-1}}\cdot \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot |\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|^{\frac{d-1}{d}}\cdot
\frac{3}{4}\cdot \frac{9}{8^{d+3}\cdot 27^{d-2}\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d-1}\\
\geq \frac{1}{2d\cdot 32^d\cdot 27^d\cdot 10^6}\cdot \left(1 - \left(\frac 23\right)^{\frac 1d}\right)\cdot \left(1 - e^{-\frac{1}{16(d-1)}}\right)\cdot
|\mathcal A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}},
\end{multline}
where the last inequality follows from the case assumption $|\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|\geq \frac 12\cdot |\mathbb A_s|\geq\frac12\cdot|\mathcal A|\cdot \left(\frac{L_0}{L_s}\right)^d$.
\bigskip
It remains to consider the case $|\widetilde {\mathbb A}_s|\leq \frac 12\cdot |\mathbb A_s|$.
In this case, $\mathcal A$ is scattered in $Q_{K,s}(x_s)\cap\GG_0$, and should have big boundary.
Indeed, for each $x\in \mathbb A_s\setminus \widetilde{\mathbb A}_s$,
\[
1\leq |\mathcal A\cap(x+[0,L_s)^d|< \frac 34\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d.
\]
By the lower bound on the volume of the perforation ${\mathcal Q}_{1,s,0}(x) = {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (x+[0,L_s)^d)$ given in Lemma~\ref{l:rect} and the second part of \eqref{eq:isopframe:ratio},
\[
|{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (x+[0,L_s)^d|
\geq \frac{1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+2}}}{1 - \frac{1}{2^{d+3}}}\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d
\geq\frac 34\cdot \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^d.
\]
Thus, $(x+[0,L_s)^d)$ contains vertices from both $\mathcal A$ and ${\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\setminus\mathcal A$.
By Lemma~\ref{l:rect}, ${\mathcal Q}_{1,s,0}(x) = {\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)\cap (x+[0,L_s)^d)$ is connected in $\GG_0$, thus it contains an edge from $\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)}\mathcal A$.
Since all $(x+[0,L_s)^d)$, $x\in \mathbb A_s\setminus \widetilde{\mathbb A}_s$ are disjoint, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:isopframe:gamma2}
|\partial_{{\mathcal Q}_{K,s,0}(x_s)}\mathcal A|\geq |\mathbb A_s\setminus \widetilde{\mathbb A}_s|\geq \frac 12\cdot |\mathbb A_s|
\geq \frac 12\cdot |\mathcal A|\cdot \left(\frac{L_0}{L_s}\right)^d
\geq \frac 12\cdot |\mathcal A|^{\frac{d-1}{d}},
\end{equation}
where the last inequality follows from the case assumption.
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe} in the case $|\mathcal A|\geq \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2}$ is complete by \eqref{eq:isopframe:gamma} and \eqref{eq:isopframe:gamma2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:isopframe:conditions}
We believe that Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe} holds for all $\mathcal A$ with $|\mathcal A|\leq \frac12\cdot |Q_{K,s}\cap\GG_0|$.
With a more involved proof, we can relax the assumption $|\mathcal A|\geq \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{d^2}$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe}
to $|\mathcal A|\geq \left(\frac{L_s}{L_0}\right)^{2d}$.
Since this does not give us the result for all $\mathcal A$, and the current statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:isopframe} suffices for the applications in this paper,
we do not include this proof here.
\end{remark}
\bigskip
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $X\to S$ be a smooth scheme in positive characteristic.
Ogus-Vologodsky \cite{OV} established two Simpson type equivalences of categories between certain $\cal D$-modules on $X$ and certain Higgs modules on $X'$, thus establishing a nonabelian Hodge theory in characteristic $p$.
Here $X'\to S$ denotes the Frobenius pull back of $X\to S$.
Their construction is based on the Azumaya nature of the sheaf ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(0)}$ of differential operators of level $0$ over its center.
Actually, ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(0)}$ contains the symmetric algebra $S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ of the tangent bundle of $X'\to S$ as the center via the $p$-curvature map.
Ogus-Vologodsky constructed a splitting module of ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(0)}$ over $\hat{\Gamma}_{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ under the existence of a lifting of $X'\to S$ modulo $p^{2}$.
Here $\hat{\Gamma}_{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ denotes the completion of the PD algebra ${\Gamma}_{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ by its augmentation ideal.
They also constructed a splitting module of ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(0)}$ over $\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ under the existence of a lifting of the relative Frobenius modulo $p^{2}$.
Here $\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ denotes the completion of $S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ by its augmentation ideal.
The latter assumption is obviously stronger than the former assumption.
Furthermore, it is known that a lifting of the relative Frobenius modulo $p^{2}$ rarely exists globally on $X$.
In this sense, they call the equivalence obtained from the former splitting module the global Cartier transform and that from the latter splitting module the local Cartier transform.
Various generalizations of the Cartier transform such as the logarithmic version \cite{S} and the case of the sheaf ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ of differential operators of level $m$ \cite{GLQ} are studied by Schepler and Gros-Le Stum-Quir\'os.
Let us first recall the technical construction of the higher level version of the local Cartier transform \cite{GLQ}.
\subsection{The local Cartier transform of higher level}
Let $X\to S$ be a smooth morphism of schemes in positive characteristic of the relative dimension $r$.
We consider the following commutative diagram:
\[\xymatrix{
{X}\ar[r] \ar@/^1pc/[rr]^{F_{X}}\ar@/_/[rd] &\ar@{}[rd]|{\square} {X'} \ar[d] \ar[r] & X \ar[d] \\
& S \ar[r]^{F_{S}} & S ,}
\]
where $F_{X}$ (resp. $F_{S}$) denotes the $(m+1)$-st composition of the absolute Frobenius of $X$ (resp. $S$)
and the right square is cartesian.
We denote $X\to X'$ by $F_{X/S}$ and call it the $(m+1)$-st relative Frobenius of $X\to S$.
Let ${\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}$ be the structure sheaf of the $m$-PD envelope of the diagonal $X\to X\times_{S} X$ and ${\Gamma}_{\cdot}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}$ the PD algebra defined by the cotangent bundle ${\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}$ of $X'\to S$.
Assume that we are given a strong lifting which is a certain lifting of $F_{X/S}$ modulo $p^{2}$ (for the definition of strong lifting, see [GLQ, Definition 4.1]).
Gros-Le Stum-Quir\'os constructed the morphism of PD-algebras [GLQ, Proposition 4.7]
\begin{equation}\label{e7}
\Psi: F^{*}_{X/S}{\Gamma}_{\cdot}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}
\end{equation}
and proved that the ${\cal O}_{X}$-dual of the scalar extension $F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} {{\cal O}_{X\times_{X'}X}}\to {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}$ of $\Psi$ defines a splitting isomorphism [GLQ, Theorem 4.13]
\begin{equation}\label{e5}
\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}{\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}\xrightarrow{\cong}{\cal E}nd_{\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}(F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}).
\end{equation}
Here we regard ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ as a $S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-module via the higher level version of the classical
$p$-curvature map constructed in the section 3 of \cite{GLQ}.
Note that, because $F_{X/S}$ is finite flat of rank $p^{r(m+1)}$, $F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ is a locally free $\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-module of rank $p^{r(m+1)}$.
Then, by the Morita equivalence, they obtained an equivalence of categories [GLQ, Proposition 5.7]
\begin{equation}\label{e1}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of} \\
\text{left $\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}{\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-modules on $X$}
\end{array}
\right)
\xrightarrow{\cong}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of} \\
\text{$\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-modules on $X'$}
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
This is regarded as the higher level version of [OV, Theorem 2.11].
We call it the local Cartier transform of higher level.
Note that, in the proof of (\ref{e5}), the local freeness of $F_{X/S}$ is essential for their dual calculation.
They also proved the Azumaya nature of ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ over $S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ [GLQ, Proposition 3.6],
but they does not use it for the proof of (\ref{e5}).
\subsection{Logarithmic version} \label{ss1}
One of aims of this paper is to construct the logarithmic version of the local Cartier transform of higher level.
Let $X\to S$ be an integral log smooth morphism of fine log schemes in positive characteristic.
A difficulty in the logarithmic case is the fact that the relative Frobenius of $X\to S$ is not necessarily finite flat even when $X\to S$ is log smooth.
Sometimes we cannot simply generalize the theory of differential modules in positive characteristic to the case of log schemes.
For example, it was well-known that the Cartier descent cannot be generalized in a naive manner.
We will overcome this difficulty by using Lorenzon-Montagnon indexed algebras ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ and ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}$ associated to log structures and
modify the proof due to Gros-Le Stum-Quir\'os to work in the logarithmic case.
Roughly speaking, ${\cal A}^{gp}_{X}$ and ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}$ are algebras indexed by ${\cal M}^{gp}_{X}/{\cal O}^{*}_{X}$ and there is a natural inclusion ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S} \hookrightarrow {\cal A}^{gp}_{X}$
which is locally free in the category of ${\cal M}^{gp}_{X}/{\cal O}^{*}_{X}$-indexed modules, which gives a natural extension of $F^{*}_{X/S}: {\cal O}_{X'}\to {\cal O}_{X}$.
Here ${\cal M}_{X}^{gp}$ denotes the group envelope of the log structure of $X$ and ${\cal O}^{*}_{X}$ denotes the sheaf of invertible functions on $X$.
Let $F_{X/S}$ be the $(m+1)$-st relative Frobenius $X\to X'$ of $X\to S$.
Let ${\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}$ be the structure sheaf of the log $m$-PD envelope of the diagonal $X\to X\times_{S} X$.
In our previous paper \cite{O}, we proved the Azumaya nature of the indexed version of the sheaf
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}:={\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}
\end{equation*}
of logarithmic differential operators of level $m$ over its center, which is isomorphic to ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}} S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$
via the $p^{m+1}$-curvature map.
Here ${\cal T}_{X'/S}$ denotes the log tangent bundle of $X'\to S$.
In this paper, we will first define the notion of log strong lifting (Definition \ref{d1}), which is a certain lifting of the $(m+1)$-st relative Frobenius of $X\to S$ modulo $p^{2}$ and generalizes the notion of strong lifting defined in [GLQ, Definition 4.4] to the case of log schemes.
Under the existence of a log strong lifting, we construct the divided Frobenius map (\ref{d6})
\begin{equation*}
\Psi: F^{*}_{X/S}{\Gamma}_{\cdot}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)},
\end{equation*}
which generalizes (\ref{e7}) to the case of log schemes.
We next prove the following theorem (Theorem \ref{t8}), which is the log version of (\ref{e5}).
\begin{theo}\label{t8}
Let $X\to S$ be an integral log smooth morphism in positive characteristic with a log strong lifting.
Then there exists an isomorphism of ${\cal M}^{gp}_{X}/{\cal O}^{*}_{X}$-indexed algebras
\begin{equation*}
{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S} \otimes_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}\xrightarrow{\cong}
{\cal E}nd_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\left({\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\right)
\end{equation*}
depending on the choice of a log strong lifting.
\end{theo}
As is mentioned above, since Gros-Le Stum-Quir\'os's dual argument in the proof of (\ref{e5}) strongly depend on the local freeness of the $(m+1)$-st relative Frobenius of $X\to S$,
it is hard to imitate their proof in the logarithmic case.
We will give a simpler proof based on the Azumaya nature of $\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}$.
Then we will obtain our main result (Theorem \ref{t9}), which we call the log local Cartier transform of higher level, by using the indexed version of Morita equivalence due to Schepler.
\begin{theo}
Let $\cal J$ be a sheaf of ${\cal M}^{gp}_{X}/{\cal O}^{*}_{X}$-sets on $X$.
Then there exists an equivalence of categories
\begin{equation*}
C_{\tilde{F}}:
{\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of } {\cal J}\text{-indexed left }\\
\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right)}
\xrightarrow{\cong}
{\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of } {\cal J}\text{-indexed left }\\
{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theo}
We can write the ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-action on $C_{\tilde{F}}^{-1}({\cal E})$ explicitly (Theorem \ref{t12}).
This is a good point for working with a log strong lifting $\tilde{F}$.
As a natural question of the study of ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-modules in characteristic $p$,
we also prove the compatibility of the log Frobenius descent and the log local Cartier transform (Theorem \ref{t3}).
This is done by studying the behavior of the splitting module with respect to the log Frobenius descent.
Finally, we clarify the relation between the global version of a splitting module constructed in our previous paper \cite{O} and the local version of a splitting module constructed in this paper.
We construct a global version of a splitting module by glueing our local construction and show that it is isomorphic to our previous splitting module.
As a consequence, we know that the log global Cartier transform of higher level can be reconstructed by a glueing of the log Local Cartier transform of higher level.
\subsection{Overview}
The content of each section is as follows:
In the second section, we recall several notions and terminologies which we often use in this paper.
We also recall important results in our previous paper \cite{O} which are used in later sections.
In the third section, we construct the divided Frobenius $\Psi: F_{X/S}^{*}\Gamma_{.} {\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}$ mentioned in the subsection \ref{ss1}
and give an explicit description of it.
In the fourth section, we prove the main result of this paper called the log local Cartier transform of higher level
and give an explicit description of it.
In the fifth section, we discuss the compatibility of the log local Cartier transform and the log Frobenius descent.
In the final section, we construct the global version of a splitting module by the glueing argument and show that this is coincide with a splitting module constructed in \cite{O}.
\subsection{Conventions}
Throughout this paper, we fix a prime number $p$ and a natural number $m$.
We use the following notations on multi-indices.
The element $(0, . . . , 1, . . . , 0)\in {\mathbb N}^{r}$, where 1 sits in the $i$-th entry, is denoted by $\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}$.
When $\underline{k}$ is an element of ${\mathbb N}^{r}$, we denote its $i$-th entry by $k_{i}$, $k_{1}+\cdots +k_{r}$ by $|\underline{k}|$.
We denote a log scheme by a single letter such as $X$.
For a log scheme $X$, we denote the structure sheaf of $X$ by ${\cal O}_{X}$ and the log structure of $X$ by ${\cal M}_{X}$.
\section{Review}\label{s1}
In this section, after recalling basic notations on log differential operators of higher level and indexed algebras associated to log structure, we recall some results in our previous paper \cite{O} needed later.
\subsection{Log differential operators of higher level}\label{a}
In this subsection, we recall basic definitions and notations on log differential operators of higher level introduced by Montagnon.
For more details, see \cite{M}.
We also refer the reader to the subsection 3.1 of \cite{O}.
Let us first recall the definition of $m$-PD structures [B1, D\'efinition 1.3.1].
\begin{defi}
Let $X$ be a log scheme over ${\mathbb Z}_{(p)}$, $I$ a quasi coherent ideal of ${\cal O}_{X}$.
Then $m$-PD structure on $I$ is a PD ideal $(J, \gamma)$ such that $I^{(p^{m})}+pI\subset J\subset I$ and $\gamma$ is compatible with the standard PD structure on $p{\mathbb Z}_{(p)}$.
Here $I^{(p^{m})}$ denotes the subideal of $I$ generated by $p^{m}$-th powers of local sanctions of $I$.
\end{defi}
In the case $m=0$, the definition of $m$-PD structures coincides with that of classical PD structures.
Let $(J, \gamma)$ be an $m$-PD structure on $I$ . For each natural number $k$, we define by $f^{\{k\}}:=f^{r}\gamma_{q}(f^{p^{m}})$, where $k=p^{m}q+r$ and $0\leq r< p^{m}$.
For a while, $X\to S$ denotes a log smooth morphism of fine log schemes over ${\mathbb Z}_{(p)}$ with a suitable $m$-PD structure on a quasi-coherent ideal of ${\cal O}_{S}$ (see [B1, D\'efinition 1.3.2]).
We assume that $p$ is locally nilpotent on $X$.
Let us take the log $m$-PD envelope $X\hookrightarrow P_{X/S, (m)}$ of the diagonal immersion $X\hookrightarrow X\times_{S}X$, that is,
$X\hookrightarrow P_{X/S, (m)}$ is the universal object of exact closed immersions with an $m$-PD structure on its defining ideal, which is compatible with the $m$-PD structure on $S$, over $X\hookrightarrow X\times_{S}X$ (for more details, see [M, Proposition 2.1.1]).
We denote by ${\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}$ the structure sheaf of $P_{X/S, (m)}$.
We also denote by $\bar{I}$ the defining ideal of the exact closed immersion $X\hookrightarrow P_{X/S, (m)}$.
Note that, by definition of log $m$-PD envelope, $\bar{I}$ is endowed with the $m$-PD structure,
so one can take the $m$-PD-adic filtration (for its definition, see \cite{B2} D\'efinition A.3) $\left\{\bar{I}^{\{n\}}\right\}_{n\in {\mathbb N}}$ associated to $\bar{I}$.
For a natural number $n$, we put ${\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}:={\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}/\bar{I}^{\{n+1\}}$ and ${\cal D}_{X/S, n}^{(m)} :={\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}({{\cal P}}_{X/S, (m)}^{n}, {\cal O}_{X})$.
Then we define the sheaf ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ of log differential operators of level $m$ by
\begin{equation*}
{\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}:=\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}} {\cal D}_{X/S, n}^{(m)}.
\end{equation*}
${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ forms a sheaf of ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra via the comultiplication $\delta^{n, n'}: {\cal P}^{n+n'}_{X/S, (m)}\to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal P}^{n'}_{X/S, (m)}$
naturally induced from the projection $X\times_{S}X\times_{S}X\to X\times_{S}X$ to the first and the third factors.
Finally we recall a local description of ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$.
Let us denote by $p_{0}$ (resp. $p_{1}$) the first (resp. the second) projection of $P_{X/S, (m)}$.
For any section $a\in {\cal M}_{X}$, there exists the unique section $\mu(a)\in (1+\bar{I})$ such that $p_{1}^{*}(a)=p_{0}^{*}(a)\cdot \mu(a)$.
We define the section $\eta_{a}\in \bar{I}$ by $\mu(a)-1$.
Log smoothness of $X\to S$ implies that, \'etale locally on $X$, there is a logarithmic system of coordinates $m_{1}, \ldots, m_{r}\in {\cal M}_{X}^{gp}$, that is, a system of sections such that the set $\left\{d\log m_{1},\ldots, d\log m_{r}\right\}$ forms a basis of the log differential module $\Omega_{X/S}^{1}$ of $X$ over $S$.
We define the section $\eta^{\{\underline{k}\}}$ by $\eta^{\{\underline{k}\}}=\prod_{i:=1}^{r}\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{k_{i}\}}$ for each multi-index $\underline{k}\in {\mathbb N}^{r}$.
Then the set $\left\{ \underline{\eta}^{\{\underline{k}\}} \bigl| |\underline{k}|\leq n\right\}$ forms a local basis of ${\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}^{n}$ over ${\cal O}_{X}$.
We denote the dual basis of $\bigl\{ \underline{\eta}^{\{\underline{k}\}} \bigl| |\underline{k}|\leq n\bigr\}$ by $\bigl\{ \partial_{\langle \underline{k} \rangle} \bigl| |\underline{k}|\leq n\bigr\}$.
\subsection{Indexed algebras associated to log structure}\label{c2}
In this subsection, after recalling basics on indexed modules, we introduce two indexed algebras ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$, ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}$ associated to log structures introduced by Lorenzon and Montagnon.
For more details, see \cite{L}, \cite{S} and \cite{M}.
See also the section 2 of \cite{O} for basics on indexed modules and the subsection 4.1 of \cite{O} for basics on ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ and ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}$.
Let $X$ be a scheme and $\cal I$ a sheaf of abelian groups on $X$.
Let $a$ be the addition ${\cal I \times I\to I}$ of $\cal I$.
\begin{defi}
{\rm (1)} an $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-module is a sheaf $\cal F$ over $\cal I$ with an addition $\cal F \times_{I}F\to F$ over $\cal I$, a unit $\cal I\to F$ over $\cal I$, an inverse $\cal F\to F$ over $\cal I$ and
an ${\cal O}_{X}$-action ${\cal O}_{X}\times \cal F\to F$ over $\cal I$ satisfying the usual axiom of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules.
{\rm (2)} an $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra is an $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-module $\cal A$ with an
${\cal O}_{X}$-bilinear multiplication $\cal A \times A \to A$ over $a$, a global section $1_{\cal A}\in {\cal A}$ over the zero section $0 : e\to \cal I$ satisfying the usual axiom of non commutative rings.
The notion of commutative $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra is also defined in a natural way.
\end{defi}
Let $\cal A$ be an $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra.
Let $\cal J$ be a sheaf of $\cal I$-sets on $X$ and $\rho$ the action $\cal I\times J\to J$ of $\cal I$ on $\cal J$.
\begin{defi}
$\cal J$-indexed $\cal A$-module is a
$\cal J$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-module $\cal E$ with an ${\cal O}_{X}$-linear ${\cal A}$-action ${\cal A\times E\to E}$ over $\rho$ satisfying the usual axiom of modules over a ring.
\end{defi}
As is the same with the theory of usual modules over a ring, we can define and construct several notions on indexed modules such as tensor products, internal homomorphisms, local freeness etc.
Furthermore, Schepler proved the indexed version of the Morita equivalence.
\begin{pro}\label{l}
Let $\cal A$ be a commutative $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra and $\cal J$ a sheaf of $\cal I$-sets,
Let $M$ be a locally free $\cal I$-indexed $\cal A$-module of finite rank.
We put ${\cal E}nd_{\cal A}(M):=\cal E$ (this naturally forms an $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebras).
Then the functor $E \longmapsto M\otimes_{{\cal A}} E$ defines an equivalence of categories between the category of $\cal J$-indexed $\cal A$-modules and the category of $\cal J$-indexed left $\cal E$-modules with a quasi inverse
$F\longmapsto {\cal H}om(M, F)$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
See [S, Theorem 2.2].
\end{proof}
Let us define the notion of Azumaya algebra.
\begin{defi}
Let $\cal A$ be a commutative $\cal I$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra and $\cal E$ an $\cal I$-indexed $\cal A$-algebra.
$\cal E$ is an Azumaya algebra over $\cal A$ of rank $r$ if there exists some commutative faithfully flat $\cal I$-indexed $\cal A$-algebra $\cal B$ and
an $\cal I$-indexed locally free $\cal B$-module $M$ of rank $r$ such that
\begin{equation*}
{\cal E\otimes_{A}B }\xrightarrow{\cong}{\cal E}nd_{\cal B}(M).
\end{equation*}
Let $\cal E$ be an Azumaya algebra over $\cal A$.
When there exists some commutative $\cal I$-indexed $\cal A$-algebra $\cal C$ such that ${\cal E\otimes_{A}C }\xrightarrow{\cong}{\cal E}nd_{\cal C}(M)$
for some $\cal I$-indexed locally free $\cal C$-module $M$,
we call $M$ a splitting module of $\cal E$ over $\cal C$.
\end{defi}
Let us introduce ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ which can be considered as a generalization of the structure sheaf of $X$ in some sense.
Let $X$ be a fine log scheme.
We denote by ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$ the quotient sheaf ${\cal M}_{X}^{gp}/{\cal O}_{X}^{*}$ of abelian groups.
Here ${\cal M}_{X}^{gp}$ denotes the group associated to ${\cal M}_{X}$.
As an \'etale sheaf, we define ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}:=({\cal M}_{X}^{gp}\times{\cal O}_{X})/\sim$, where $\sim$ denotes an equivalence relation defined by $(ax, y)\sim (x, ay)$ for any $a\in {\cal O}^{*}_{X}$, $x\in {\cal M}_{X}^{gp}$ and $y\in {\cal O}_{X}$.
We then regard ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ as an \'etale sheaf over ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$ via the natural morphism induced by a composition ${\cal M}_{X}^{gp}\times {\cal O}_{X}\to {\cal M}_{X}^{gp}\to {\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$, where the first morphism is the first projection and the second one is the natural projection.
Furthermore, ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ naturally forms an ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra via the ${\cal O}_{X}$-action on the second entry and a multiplication induced from the addition of ${\cal M}_{X}^{gp}$.
Let $X\to S$ be a log smooth morphism of fine log schemes over ${\mathbb Z}_{(p)}$ with a suitable $m$-PD structure on a quasi-coherent ideal of ${\cal O}_{S}$.
One can prove the ${\cal O}_{X}$-action on ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ naturally extend to the ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action and this action satisfies the Leibniz type formulas.
Therefore the scalar extension
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}:={\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}
\end{equation*}
naturally forms an ${\cal I}^{gp}_{X}$-indexed ${\cal A}^{gp}_{X}$-algebra.
From the rest of this paper, we will study the Azumaya nature of $\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}$ instead of ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$.
From now on, let $X\to S$ be a log smooth morphism of fine log schemes defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$ and we endow
$S$ with the $m$-PD structure on the zero ideal.
Let us consider the following commutative diagram:
\[\xymatrix{
{X}\ar[r] \ar@/^1pc/[rrr]^{F_{X}}\ar@/_/[rrd] & {X'}\ar[r]&\ar@{}[rd]|{\square} {X''} \ar[d] \ar[r] & X \ar[d] \\
& & S \ar[r]^{F_{S}} & S ,}
\]
where $F_{X}$ (resp. $F_{S}$) denotes the $(m+1)$-st composition of the absolute Frobenius of $X$ (resp. $S$), the right square is cartesian and the above diagram $X\to X'\to X''$
denotes a unique factorization by a purely inseparable morphism $X\to X'$ and a log \'etale morpsiam $X'\to X''$ (see [K, Proposition 4.10 (2)]).
We denote $X\to X'$ by $F_{X/S}$ and call it the $(m+1)$-st relative Frobenius of $X\to S$.
We denote the composition $X'\to X''\to X$ by $\pi$.
We denote $X'$ by $X^{(m+1)}$, if there is a risk of confusion (especially we will use this notation in section \ref{s5}).
As an ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed sheaf of abelian groups, we define ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}$ by
\begin{equation*}
{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}:= {\cal H}om_{{\cal D}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}}\left(F_{X/S}^{*}{\cal D}_{X'/S}^{(0)}, {\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\right).
\end{equation*}
For the definition of left ${\cal D}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}$-action on $F_{X/S}^{*}{\cal D}_{X'/S}^{(0)}$, see [M, Chapitre 3] or the subsection 4.1.2 of \cite{O}.
If we define a morphism $i:{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\rightarrow {\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ by $g\mapsto g(1\otimes1)$,
then this is injective and one can check that ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}$ forms an indexed subalgebra of ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$.
Furthermore we define ${\cal O}_{X'}$-action on ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}$ by the right multiplication of ${\cal O}_{X'}$ on $F^{*}{\cal D}_{X'/S}^{(0)}$.
Then ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}$ forms an ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X'}$-algebra.
The following theorem proved by Montagnon is important.
\begin{theo}\label{e}
${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}$ is a locally free ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}$-module of rank $p^{r(m+1)}$.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
See [M, Corollaire 4.2.1].
\end{proof}
\subsection{Azumaya algebra property}\label{j}
In this subsection, we recall the Azumaya nature of $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)}$.
For more details, see the sections 3 and 4 of \cite{O}.
Let $X\to S$ be as in the end of the subsection \ref{c2}.
First we recall the $p^{m+1}$-curvature map which generalizes the classical $p$-curvature map.
\begin{theo} \label{t2}
There exists a unique morphism of ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebras $\beta: S^{\cdot} {\cal T}_{X'/S}\to {\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$ which sends $\xi^{'}_{i}$ to $\underline{\partial}_{\langle p^{m+1}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}$,
where $\left\{\xi_{i}^{'}\bigl| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ denotes the dual basis of $\left\{\pi^{*}d\log m_{i}\bigl| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ with a logarithmic system of coordinates $\left\{m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ of $X\to S$.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
For the construction of the $p^{m+1}$-curvature map, see [O, Definition 3.10] and its local description, see [O, Proposition 3.11].
\end{proof}
In the case of the trivial log structure and $m=0$, the $p^{m+1}$-curvature map coincides with the classical $p$-curvature map.
\begin{theo} \label{t1}
{\rm (1)}
Let $\tilde{\mathfrak Z}$ denote the center of $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)}$.
Then $\beta: {S^{\cdot} {\cal T}_{X'/S}}\to {\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ induces an isomorphism between ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot} {\cal T}_{X'/S}$ and $\tilde{\mathfrak Z}$ as an indexed subalgebra of $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)}$.
{\rm (2)}
The ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X}$-algebra $\tilde{{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ is an Azumaya algebra over its center $\tilde{\mathfrak Z}$ of rank $p^{r(m+1)}$.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
See [O, Theorem 4.16] for a proof of $(1)$ and [O, Corollary 4.20] for a proof of $(2)$.
\end{proof}
\section{The divided Frobenius map}
In this section, we construct the divided Frobenius map $\Psi: F_{X/S}^{*}\Gamma_{.} {\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}$ (see (\ref{d6})) which
is essential for a construction of a splitting module of our Azumaya algebra.
Throughout this section, $X\to S$ denotes an integral log smooth morphism of fine log schemes defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$ and
and we endow $S$ with the $m$-PD structure on the zero ideal.
To simplify the argument, we assume that the underlying scheme $S$ is noetherian and $X\to S$ is of finite type.
We essentially use this assumption in the construction of $\Psi$ but we expect that we can construct $\Psi$ without this assumption.
We freely use terminologies introduced in the section \ref{s1}.
We first confirm the definition of a lifting modulo $p^{2}$ in this paper.
\begin{defi}
Let $f:Y\to Z$ be a morphism of fine log schemes defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$.
Then a lifting of $f$ modulo $p^{2}$ is a morphism $\tilde{f}: \tilde{Y}\to \tilde{Z}$ of fine log schemes flat over ${\mathbb Z}/p^{2}{\mathbb Z}$ which fits into a cartesian square in the category of fine log schemes
\begin{equation*}
\begin{CD}
Y @>>>\tilde{Y}\\
@VVV @VVV\\
Z @>>> \tilde{Z},\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation*}
where $Z\to \tilde{Z}$ is the exact closed immersion defined by $p$.
\end{defi}
We state the following lemmas needed later.
\begin{lemm}\label{l3}
Let $M$ be a ${\mathbb Z}/p^{2}{\mathbb Z}$-module.
Then multiplication by $p!$ induces a surjective homomorphism
\begin{equation*}
p!: M/pM \to pM
\end{equation*}
which is an isomorphism if $M$ is flat over ${\mathbb Z}/p^{2}{\mathbb Z}$.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We omit the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}\label{l4}
We have for any $m>0$
\begin{equation*}
\binom{p^{m+1}}{i}=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{$1$} \\
\text{$\frac{(-1)^{k}p!}{k}$}\\
\text{$0$ }
\end{array}
\right.\,\,\,\,\,\,
\begin{array}{l}
\text{if $i=0$ or $i=p^{m+1}$}\\
\text{if $i=kp^{m}$}\\
\text{othewise}
\end{array}
\,\,\,\,\,\,
\text{mod } p^{2}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
See [GLQ, Lemma 4.3].
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
It seems that there is a misprint in [GLQ, Lemma 4.3].
The author would like to thank Kazuaki Miyatani for pointing him out this misprint and teaching him its correct version.
\end{rem}
Next, let us introduce the notion of log strong lifting of the $(m+1)$-st relative Frobenius of $X\to S$ which is the log version of strong lifting defined in \cite{GLQ} (see [GLQ, Definition 4.4]).
\begin{defi}\label{d1}
Let $\tilde{F}: \tilde{X}\to \tilde{X'}$ be a lifting of $F_{X/S}$ mod $p^{2}$.
We say $\tilde{F}$ is a log strong lifting if, for any $m\in {\cal M}_{X}$ with a lifting $\tilde{m}\in {\cal M}_{\tilde{X}}$ of $m$ and any lifting $\tilde{m'}\in {\cal M}_{\tilde{X'}}$ of $\pi^{*}m\in {\cal M}_{X'}$,
there exists $\tilde{g}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{e3}
\tilde{F}^{*}(\tilde{m'})=\tilde{m}^{p^{m+1}}(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}).
\end{equation}
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
In the case $m=0$, any lifting of $F_{X/S}$ modulo $p^{2}$ is a log strong lifting.
\end{rem}
We give a basic property of log strong lifting.
\begin{lemm}\label{r1}
Let $\tilde{F}$ be a log strong lifting.
For any $f\in {\cal O}_{X}$ with a lifting $\tilde{f}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$ of $f$, there exists a lifting $\tilde{f'}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X'}}$ of $1\otimes f\in {\cal O}_{X'}$
satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{e4}
\tilde{F}^{*}(\tilde{f'})=\tilde{f}^{p^{m+1}} +p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\text{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,for some $\tilde{g}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We may work locally on $X$.
In the case $f\in {\cal O}^{*}_{X}$, the assertion is obvious.
In the case $f \notin {\cal O}^{*}_{X}$, $1+f\in {\cal O}^{*}_{X}$.
So we can write $\tilde{F}^{*}(\tilde{f'})=(1+\tilde{f})^{p^{m+1}} +p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}$ for some lifting $\tilde{f'}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X'}}$ of $\left(1\otimes1+1\otimes f\right)$ and $\tilde{g}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$.
Then $\tilde{f'}-1$ is a lifting of $1\otimes f$ and, by Lemma \ref{l4}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{F}^{*}(\tilde{f'}-1)=(1+\tilde{f})^{p^{m+1}} +p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}-1=\tilde{f}^{p^{m+1}}+p\tilde{f}^{p^{m}}+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}=\tilde{f}^{p^{m+1}}+p(\tilde{f}+\tilde{g})^{p^{m}}
\end{equation*}
in modulo $p^{2}$.
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following lemma gives a typical example of log strong liftings.
\begin{lemm}\label{l1}
Let $\tilde{F}_{X}$ be a lifting of the absolute Frobenius of $X$.
Then, for any $\tilde{m}\in {\cal M}_{\tilde{X}}$, there exists $\tilde{g}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{F}_{X}^{n+1*}(\tilde{m})=\tilde{m}^{p^{n+1}}(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{n}}) \text{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,for any $n\in {\mathbb N}$}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We show it induction on $n$.
In the case when $n=1$, we have $\tilde{F}_{X}^{*}\left(\tilde{m}\right)=\tilde{m}^{p}\tilde{u}$ with $\tilde{u}\in {\cal O}^{*}_{\tilde{X}}$ satisfying $q^{*}\tilde{u}=1$.
By this, $\tilde{u}=1+p\tilde{g}$ for some $\tilde{g}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$.
Hence we have $\tilde{F}_{X}^{*}(\tilde{m})=\tilde{m}^{p}(1+p\tilde{g})$.
Let us assume $\tilde{F}_{X}^{n+1*}(\tilde{m})=\tilde{m}^{p^{n+1}}(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{n}})$.
Then, by Lemma \ref{r1},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{F}_{X}^{n+2*}(\tilde{m})&=&\tilde{F}_{X}^{*}\left(\tilde{m}^{p^{n+1}}(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{n}})\right)\\
&=& \left\{\tilde{m}^{p}(1+p\tilde{g})\right\}^{p^{n+1}}\left(1+\tilde{F}_{X}^{*}\left( p\tilde{g}^{p^{n}}\right)\right)\\
&=& \tilde{m}^{p^{n+2}} (1+p\tilde{g})^{p^{n+1}} \left(1+p \left(\tilde{g}^{p}+p\tilde{h} \right)^{p^{n}}\right)\\
&=& \tilde{m}^{p^{n+2}} (1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{n+1}}).
\end{eqnarray*}
We finish the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \label{r2}
Since $X\to S$ is log smooth, a lifting $\tilde{F}_{X}$ of the absolute Frobenius of $X$ always exists \'etale locally on $X$.
So, by Lemma \ref{l1}, we can always take a log strong lifting \'etale locally on $X$.
\end{rem}
In the rest of this section, we fix a log strong lifting $\tilde{F}$.
Now we may start to construct the divided Frobenius $\Psi: F_{X/S}^{*}\Gamma_{.} {\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}$.
Let $\tilde{X}\hookrightarrow P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}$ be the log $m$-PD envelope of the diagonal $\tilde{X}\to {\tilde{X}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X}}$.
Let us consider the following commutative diagram:
\[\xymatrix{
{\tilde{X}} \ar[rr]^{\tilde{F}}\ar[d] & & {\tilde{X'}}\ar[d] \\
{P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}} \ar[r] & {\tilde{X}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X}} \ar[r]^{\tilde{F}\times \tilde{F}} & {\tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X'}}
.}\]
By [Proposition 4.10, K], \'etale locally on $\tilde{X'}$, $\tilde{X'}\hookrightarrow \tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X'}$ factors as $\tilde{X'}\hookrightarrow Z \to \tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X'}$.
Here the first map is an exact closed immersion and the second one is log \'etale.
Then, since the defining ideal $\bar{I}$ of $\tilde{X}\hookrightarrow {P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}}$ is endowed with the $m$-PD structure, so $\tilde{X}\hookrightarrow P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}$ is nilimmersion and
the morphism $P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)} \to \tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X'}$ uniquely factors as $P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)} \to Z \to \tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X'}$ (cf, [NS, Lemma 2.3.14]).
Since the underlying scheme of $Z$ is locally noetherian and $\tilde{X}\hookrightarrow P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}$ is nilimmersion, $P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)} \to Z$ uniquely factors as $P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)} \to \tilde{X'}(N) \to Z$ for a sufficiently large number $N$, where $\tilde{X'}(N)$ denotes the $N$-th log infinitesimal neighborhood of $\tilde{X'}\hookrightarrow Z$.
Then, since $\tilde{X'}\hookrightarrow \tilde{X'}(N)$ has the universality, we obtain the morphism $\tilde{\Psi}_{N}: P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)} \to \tilde{X'}(N)$ for some large number $N$ globally on $\tilde{X'}$.
Here we use the quasi-compactness of $\tilde{X'}$ to bound such $N$'s.
Let us calculate the image of ${\cal I}:=Ker({\cal O}_{\tilde{X'}(N)}\to {\cal O}_{\tilde{X'}})$ under $\tilde{\Psi}^{*}_{N}: {\cal O}_{\tilde{X'}(N)}\to {{\cal P}_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}}$.
Let $m$ be a local section of ${\cal M}_{X}$ with a lift $\tilde{m}\in {\cal M}_{\tilde{X}}$.
Let $\tilde{m'}\in {\cal M}_{\tilde{X'}}$ be a lift of $\pi^{*}m$.
Then, by the definition of log strong lifting, we can write $\tilde{F}^{*}\left(\tilde{m'}\right)=\tilde{m}^{p^{m+1}}\left(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)$ for some $\tilde{g}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$.
On the other hand, there exists a unique section $\mu_{(\infty)}(\tilde{m'})\in {\cal M}_{\tilde{X'}(N)}$ satisfying $q_{1}^{*}\left(\tilde{m'}\right)=q_{0}^{*}\left(\tilde{m'}\right)\cdot\mu_{(\infty)}(\tilde{m'})$
(cf, subsection \ref{a}).
Note that $\mu_{(\infty)}(\tilde{m'})-1$ is contained in $\cal I$.
Under these notations (see also subsection \ref{a}), we give the following calculation.
\begin{lemm}\label{l2}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\Psi}^{*}_{N}(\mu_{(\infty)}(\tilde{m'})-1)=p!\left\{\eta_{\tilde{m}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{\tilde{m}}^{k}+ \left(1\otimes \tilde{g}-\tilde{g}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Since the following diagram is commutative
\[\xymatrix{
{P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}}} \ar[r]^{\Psi}\ar[d] & {\tilde{X'}(N)} \ar[d]\\
{\tilde{X}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X}} \ar@<1ex>[d]^{p_{1}}\ar@<-1ex>[d]_{p_{0}}\ar[r]^{\tilde{F}\times \tilde{F}} & {\tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}\tilde{X'}}\ar@<1ex>[d]^{q_{1}}\ar@<-1ex>[d]_{q_{0}}\\
{\tilde{X}} \ar[r]^{\tilde{F}} & {\tilde{X'}}
,}\]
we have $\tilde{\Psi}^{*}\left(\mu_{(\infty)}(\tilde{m'})\right)= \mu\left(\tilde{F}^{*}\left(\tilde{m'}\right)\right)=\mu\left(\tilde{m}^{p^{m+1}}\left(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)\right)=\mu\left(\tilde{m}\right)^{p^{m+1}}\mu\left(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)$.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu\left(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)&=&p_{0}^{*}\left(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)^{-1}p_{1}^{*}\left(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)\\
&=&\left(1-p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)\otimes \left(1+p\tilde{g}^{p^{m}}\right)\\
&=&1\otimes1+p\left(1\otimes \tilde{g}-\tilde{g}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{l4} and the fact $p! \equiv -p$ mod $p^{2}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Psi^{*}\left(\mu_{(\infty)}(\tilde{m})-1\right)&=& \mu(\tilde{m'})^{p^{m+1}}\left(1\otimes1+p\left(1\otimes \tilde{g}-\tilde{g}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}\right)-1\\
&=& \left(\eta_{\tilde{m}} +1\right)^{p^{m+1}}\left(1\otimes1+p\left(1\otimes \tilde{g}-\tilde{g}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}\right)-1 \\
&=& \left(\eta_{\tilde{m}}^{p^{m+1}}+\sum_{k=1}^{p^{m+1}-1}\binom {p^{m+1}}{k} \eta_{\tilde{m}}^{k}+1\right) \left(1\otimes1+p\left(1\otimes \tilde{g}-\tilde{g}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}\right)-1\\
&=& \left(p!\eta_{\tilde{m}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}}+\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}p!\eta_{\tilde{m}}^{k}+1\right) \left(1\otimes1+p\left(1\otimes \tilde{g}-\tilde{g}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}\right)-1\\
&=& p!\left\{\eta_{\tilde{m}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{\tilde{m}}^{k}+ \left(1\otimes \tilde{g}-\tilde{g}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
By Lemma \ref{l2}, $\Psi^{*}$ sends $\cal I$ into $p!{\cal P}_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}$.
We define the morphism ${\cal I}\to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S}$ by the composition
\begin{equation*}
{\cal I}\xrightarrow{\tilde{\Psi}_{N}^{*}} p!{\cal P}_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)} \xrightarrow{\cong} p{\cal P}_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}\xrightarrow{\cong} {\cal P}_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}/p{\cal P}_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}\xrightarrow{\cong}
{\cal P}_{X/S, (m)},
\end{equation*}
where the first isomorphism is induced by ${\rm id}_{{\cal P}_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}}$ (hence $p!x$ maps to $-px$) and the second isomorphism is the one in Lemma \ref{l3}.
Since the image of $\cal I$ under this map is contained in the ideal generated by $p$, the image of ${\cal I}^{2}$ under this map is zero.
We thus obtain the morphism ${\Omega}^{1}_{\tilde{X'}/\tilde{S}}\to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S}$.
Again by Lemma \ref{l2}, the image of $p{\Omega}^{1}_{\tilde{X'}/\tilde{S}}$ under this map is zero.
We thus obtain the morphism ${\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S}$.
Again by Lemma \ref{l2}, the image of ${\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}$ under this map is contained in the underlying PD-ideal of $\bar{I}$.
Therefore we have the morphism of PD algebras
\begin{equation}\label{d6}
\Psi: F^{*}_{X/S}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}.
\end{equation}
We call $\Psi$ the divided Frobenius map.
For each $n$, we define $\Psi_{n}: F^{*}_{X/S}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S}$ by the composition of morphisms
\begin{equation}\label{d6}
\Psi_{n}: F^{*}_{X/S}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\xrightarrow{\Psi} {\cal P}_{X/S, (m)} \to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S},
\end{equation}
where the second morphism is the natural projection.
By taking the ${\cal O}_{X}$-duals of $\Psi$ and $\Psi_{n}$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{n}: {\cal D}_{X/S, n}^{(m)}\to {\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}(F_{X/S}^{*}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}, {\cal O}_{X})\xrightarrow{\cong} F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S},
\end{equation*}
where the first morphism is the ${\cal O}_{X}$-dual of $\Psi^{*}$ and $\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ denotes the completion of $S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ by the augmentation ideal,
and
\begin{equation*}
\Phi: {\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}({\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}, {\cal O}_{X})\to F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}.
\end{equation*}
To give the local description of $\Phi_{n}$, let us set up some notations.
Let us assume we are given a logarithmic system of coordinates $\left\{m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ of $X\to S$.
Then $\left\{\pi^{*}m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ forms a logarithmic system of coordinates of $X'\to S$.
Let take a lifting $\tilde{m'}_{i}$ of $\pi^{*}m_{i}$.
Then, since $\tilde{F}$ is a log strong lifting,
we can write
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{F}^{*}(\tilde{m'}_{i})=\tilde{m}_{i}^{p^{m+1}}(1+p\tilde{g}_{i}^{p^{m}}) \text{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,for some $\tilde{g}_{i}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$}.
\end{equation*}
for each $i$.
We put $g_{i}:=\tilde{g}_{i}$ modulo $p\in {\cal O}_{X}$.
Let $\{\underline{\partial}_{\langle \underline{k}\rangle} \}$ be an ${\cal O}_{X}$-basis of ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$ associated to $\{m_{i} \}$
and $\left\{\xi_{i}^{'}\bigl| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ the dual basis of $\left\{\pi^{*}d\log m_{i}\bigl| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$.
Under these notations, we give the following calculation which is the log version of [GLQ, Proposition 4.10].
\begin{pro}\label{p3}
For any $n\geq p^{m}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{n}\left(\partial_{\langle\underline{k}\rangle}\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{$1$} \\
\text{$0$}\\
\text{$\left(1-\partial_{i}(g_{i})^{p^{m}}\right)\xi'_{i} -\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^{r}\partial_{j}(g_{j})^{p^{m}}\xi'_{j}$ }
\end{array}
\right.
\begin{array}{l}
\text{if \,\,\,\,\,$|\underline{k}|=0$}\\
\text{if \,\,\,\,\,$0<|\underline{k}|< p^{m}$}\\
\text{if \,\,\,\,\,$\underline{k}=p^{m}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}$,}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
where $\partial_{j}$ denotes $\partial_{\langle \underline{\varepsilon}_{j}\rangle}$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
In the case $|\underline{k}|=0$ the assertion is obvious.
By Lemma \ref{l2} and the construction of $\Psi_{n}: F^{*}_{X/S}\Gamma_{\cdot}\Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}$, $\Psi_{n}$ sends $1\otimes d\log \pi^{*}m_{j}$ to
\begin{equation}\label{e6}
-\eta_{m_{j}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} - \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{j}}^{p^{m}k}-\left(1\otimes g_{j}-g_{j}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}.
\end{equation}
By this description, we see the assertion in the case $0<|\underline{k}|< p^{m}$.
Let us consider the case of $\underline{k}=p^{m}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}$.
We need to calculate the image of (\ref{e6}) under $\partial_{\langle \underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}$, so
we may ignore $\eta_{m_{j}}^{\{\underline{l}\}}$ with $|\underline{l}|> p^{m}$.
We thus calculate
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\ref{e6})&=& -\eta_{m_{j}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} - \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{j}}^{p^{m}k}-\left(\sum_{\underline{k}\neq 0} \partial_{\langle \underline{k}\rangle}(g_{j})\eta^{\{\underline{k}\}} \right)^{p^{m}}\\
&=&\eta_{m_{j}}^{p^{m}}-\sum_{j=1}^{r}\partial_{j}\left( g_{j}\right)^{p^{m}}\eta_{m_{j}}^{p^{m}}+ \text{ (the terms of $\eta_{m_{j}}^{\{\underline{l}\}}$ with $|\underline{l}|> p^{m}$)}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
By this description, we see that $\partial_{\langle \underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}$ sends (\ref{e6}) to $-\left(1+\partial_{i}(g_{j})^{p^{m}}\right)$ if $i=j$
and to $\partial_{j}\left( g_{j}\right)^{p^{m}}$ if $i\neq j$.
We have seen the image of $\left(1\otimes d\log \pi^{*}m_{j}\right)^{\left[\underline{l}\right]}$ under $\Psi_{n}$ is zero if $|\underline{l}|>1$.
Hence $\Phi_{n}\left(\partial_{\langle p^{m}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}\right)\in \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ is
\begin{equation*}
\left(1-\partial_{i}(g_{i})^{p^{m}}\right)\xi'_{i}-\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^{r}\partial_{j}\left( g_{j}\right)^{p^{m}}\xi'_{j}.
\end{equation*}
We finish the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Local Cartier transform}
In this section, we construct the log Local Cartier transform of higher level.
Throughout this section, assume that we are given an integral log smooth morphism $X\to S$ defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$ with a log strong lifting $\tilde{F}$ and
a sheaf of ${\cal I}^{gp}_{X}$-sets $\cal J$.
\begin{defi}
For each $n\in {\mathbb N}$, we define the morphism
$\rho_{n}: {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S} \to F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}$ of ${\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}$-modules by the ${\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}$-linearization of the composition
\begin{equation*}
\rho'_{n}: F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\xrightarrow{\Delta} F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\xrightarrow{{\rm id}\otimes {\Psi}_{n}}F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)},
\end{equation*}
where $\Delta$ is the comultiplication of $F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}$ (which is the ${\cal O}_{X}$-dual of the multiplication of $F^{*}_{X/S}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$).
\end{defi}
\begin{pro}\label{p1}
$\{\rho_{n} \}$ forms an $m$-PD stratification on $F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
By [M, Proposition 2.6.1], it suffices to show that $\{\rho'_{n}\}$ satisfies $\rho'_{1}={\rm id}$ and the following diagram is commutative:
\[\xymatrix{
{F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}}\ar[r]^{\rho'_{n+n'}} \ar[d]_{\rho'_{n}}& {F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} {\cal P}^{n+n'}_{X/S, (m)}}\ar[d]^{{\rm id}\otimes \delta^{n, n'}}\\
{F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)} }\ar[r] & {F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} {\cal P}^{n'}_{X/S, (m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}}
,}\]
where the lower horizontal arrow is $\rho'_{n'}\otimes {\rm id}$.
$\rho'_{1}={\rm id}$ is obvious.
The commutativity of the above diagram follows from the commutativity of the following diagram:
\[\xymatrix{
{F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}} \ar[r]^{\Psi_{n+n'}} \ar[d]_{\Delta} & {{\cal P}^{n+n'}_{X/S, (m)}}\ar[d]^{\delta^{n, n'}}\\
{F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}{\Gamma}_{\cdot} \Omega^{1}_{X'/S}} \ar[r] & {{\cal P}^{n'}_{X/S, (m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)},}
}\]
where the lower horizontal arrow is $\Psi_{n'}\otimes\Psi_{n}$.
This fact follows from our geometric construction of $\Psi$.
\end{proof}
By Proposition \ref{p1}, $F_{X/S}^{*}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}$ has the ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action associated to $\{\rho_{n} \}$.
By taking the dual as left ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-modules,
we obtain the ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action on $F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ .
On the other hand, let us endow $F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ with an $\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-action as follows.
We first consider the morphism of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules defined by
\begin{equation*}
S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\to {\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}\to {\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}({\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}, {\cal O}_{X}),
\end{equation*}
where the first morphism is the $p^{m+1}$-curvature map (see Theorem \ref{t2}) and the second one is the inductive limit of the dual of the natural projection
${\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}\to {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}$.
This naturally extends to the morphism of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules $\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\to {\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}({\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}, {\cal O}_{X})$.
We define $\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-action on $F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}&\xrightarrow{\beta\otimes{\rm id}}& {\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}({\cal P}_{X/S, (m)}, {\cal O}_{X})\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\\
&\xrightarrow{\Phi\otimes {\rm id}}& F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\\
&\longrightarrow & F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S}^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the third arrow denotes the multiplication.
We now obtain the following splitting isomorphism.
\begin{theo}\label{t8}
There exists an action of $\left({\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\right) \otimes_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}$ on ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$, which depends on a choice of a log strong lifting $\tilde{F}$ such that it defines an isomorphism of ${\cal I}^{gp}_{X}$-indexed algebras
\begin{equation*}
\left({\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\right) \otimes_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}\xrightarrow{\cong}
{\cal E}nd_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\left({\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
By construction, we see that our ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action on $F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ naturally extends to $\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S} \otimes_{S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}{\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action on it.
Thus ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ has an action of
\begin{equation*}
{\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S} \otimes_{S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}{\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S} \xrightarrow{\cong} \left({\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\right) \otimes_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}
\end{equation*}
and we obtain the morphism of ${\cal I}^{gp}_{X}$-indexed algebras in Theorem \ref{t8}.
By Theorem \ref{e}, ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\xrightarrow{\cong}{\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ is locally free over ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ of rank $p^{r(m+1)}$
and, by Theorem \ref{t1} (2), ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S} \otimes_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S}$ is an Azumaya algebra of rank $p^{r(m+1)}$ over ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$.
Therefore this morphism is an isomorphism of ${\cal I}^{gp}_{X}$-indexed algebras by [S, Corollary 2.5].
\end{proof}
By virtue of Proposition \ref{l}, we now obtain our main theorem in this paper, which we call the log local Cartier transform of higher level.
\begin{theo}\label{t9}
The functor ${\cal F}\mapsto {\cal H}om({\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}, {\cal F})$ induces an equivalence of categories
\begin{equation*}
C_{\tilde{F}}: \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of $\cal J$-indexed} \\
\text{left $\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-modules on $X$}
\end{array}
\right)
\xrightarrow{\cong}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of $\cal J$-indexed} \\
\text{${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-modules on $X'$}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation*}
with a quasi-inverse $C_{\tilde{F}}^{-1}: {\cal E}\mapsto {\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes {\cal E}$.
\end{theo}
\begin{rem}
Theorem \ref{t9} is regarded as a generalization of [OV, Theorem 2.8] and [GLQ, Theorem 5.8] to the case of log schemes and that of [S, Theorem 4.16] to the case of higher level.
\end{rem}
Let us describe the ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-action on the Cartier transform $C_{\tilde{F}}^{-1}\left({\cal E} \right)$ with a $\cal J$-indexed ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-module $\cal E$ explicitly.
Note that $\cal E$ can be regarded as the $\cal J$-indexed ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}$-module $\cal E$ with the morphism of indexed algebras
\begin{equation*}
\theta: \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\to {\cal E}nd_{{\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}}({\cal E}).
\end{equation*}
As a ${\cal J}$-indexed ${\cal A}^{gp}_{X}$-module, $C_{\tilde{F}}^{-1}\left({\cal E} \right)$ is isomorphic to ${\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}}{\cal E}$.
We want to describe the ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-action on ${\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}}{\cal E}$ by using $\theta$.
Let $\left\{m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ of $X\to S$ be a logarithmic system of coordinates of $X\to S$.
Let $\{\underline{\partial}_{\langle \underline{k}\rangle} \}$, $\left\{\xi_{i}^{'}\bigl| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ and $\{\tilde{g}_{i}\}$ be as in Proposition \ref{p3}.
Then $\underline{\partial}_{\langle p^{s}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}$ with $0\leq s\leq m$ and $1\leq i\leq r$ acts on $1\otimes1\otimes e\in {\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes {\cal E}$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underline{\partial}_{\langle p^{s}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}. (1\otimes1\otimes e) &=& 1\otimes \Phi_{n}\left(\underline{\partial}_{\langle p^{s}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}\right)\otimes e\\
\end{eqnarray*}
for a sufficiently large $n\in {\mathbb N}$.
Therefore, by Proposition \ref{p3}, we have the following formulas.
\begin{theo}\label{t12}
Under the notation above, $\underline{\partial}_{\langle p^{s}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}$ acts on $1\otimes e\in {\cal A}^{gp}_{X}\otimes_{{\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}}{\cal E}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\underline{\partial}_{\langle p^{s}\underline{\varepsilon}_{i}\rangle}. (1\otimes e)=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{$0$} \\
\text{$1\otimes\left\{ \left(1-\partial_{i}(g_{i})^{p^{m}}\right)\theta\left(\xi'_{i}\right)(e) -\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^{r}\partial_{j}(g_{j})^{p^{m}}\theta\left(\xi'_{j}\right)(e)\right\}$}
\end{array}
\right.
\begin{array}{l}
\text{if \,\,\,\,\,$s<m$}\\
\text{if \,\,\,\,\,$s=m$.}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\end{theo}
Finally, we give a variant of the log local Cartier transform of level $0$.
Let $F: X\to X^{(m)}$ denote the $m$-th relative Frobenius of $X\to S$ (see the subsection \ref{c2}).
Let $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$ denote the ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}$-module ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}}{\cal D}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$.
Then there exists a natural ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}$-algebra structure on $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$, for more details see [M, Lemma 4.2.1].
Note that $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$ is not equal to ${\cal A}^{gp}_{X^{(m)}}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}}{\cal D}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$ since ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m)}\neq {\cal A}^{gp}_{X^{(m)}}$ in general (see [L, 1.8] for a counter-example).
As in the case of $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)}$, we had the following theorem in \cite{O}.
\begin{theo}\label{t4}
Let $X\to S$ be a log smooth morphism of fine log schemes.
{\rm (1)}
${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m)}$ is locally free as an ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}$-module of rank $p^{r}$.
{\rm (2)}
Let $\tilde{\mathfrak Z'}$ denote the center of $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$.
Then the $p$-curvature map ${\mathfrak Z}\to {\cal D}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$ induces an isomorphism between ${\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\mathfrak Z$ and $\tilde{\mathfrak Z'}$ as an indexed subalgebra of $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$.
{\rm (3)}
The ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}$-algebra $\tilde{{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$ is an Azumaya algebra over its center $\tilde{\mathfrak Z'}$ of rank $p^{2r}$.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
See [O, Proposition 4.14] for the proof of (1).
See [O, Theorem 4.21] for the proof of (2) and (3).
\end{proof}
Let $\tilde{F'}$ be a lifting of the first relative Frobenius $F': X^{(m)}\to X^{(m+1)}=X'$ of $X^{(m)}\to S$.
Then, by the similar argument in Theorem \ref{t8}, one can see that there exists an isomorphism of ${\cal I}^{gp}_{X}$-indexed algebras
\begin{equation*}
{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S} \otimes_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(0)}_{X^{(m)}/S}\xrightarrow{\cong}
{\cal E}nd_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\left({\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}}F'^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\right)
\end{equation*}
by Theorem \ref{t4} (1), (2) and (3).
Then we have a variant of the log local Cartier transform of level $0$ (see also [S, Theorem 4.16]).
\begin{theo}
The functor ${\cal F}\mapsto {\cal H}om({\cal B}^{(m)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}}F'^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}, {\cal F})$ induces an equivalence of categories
\begin{equation*}
C'_{\tilde{F'}}: \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of $\cal J$-indexed} \\
\text{left $\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$-modules on $X^{(m)}$}
\end{array}
\right)
\xrightarrow{\cong}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of $\cal J$-indexed} \\
\text{${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-modules on $X'$}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation*}
with a quasi-inverse $C_{\tilde{F}}^{-1}: {\cal E}\mapsto {\cal B}^{(m)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}}F'^{*}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes {\cal E}$.
\end{theo}
\section{Frobenius descent}\label{s5}
In this section, we discuss the compatibility of the log local Cartier transform and the log Frobenius descent.
Let us first briefly recall Montagnon's log Frobenius descent.
Let $X\to S$ be a log smooth morphism of fine log schemes defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$.
Let $F: X\to X^{(m)}$ be the $m$-th relative Frobenius of $X\to S$.
We fix a sheaf of ${\cal I}^{gp}_{X}$-sets $\cal J$ and let $\cal F$ be a $\cal J$-indexed left $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)}$-module.
We consider ${\cal J}$-indexed sheaf defined by
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb G}_{\cal J}({\cal F}):={\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{F^{*}{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m)}} F^{*}{\cal F} .
\end{equation*}
Then we can endow ${\mathbb G}_{\cal J}({\cal F})$ with a ${\cal J}$-indexed $\tilde{\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-module structure and obtain a functor
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb G}_{\cal J}:
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of} \\
{\cal J}\text{-indexed left } \tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right)
\to
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of} \\
{\cal J}\text{-indexed left } \tilde {{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation*}
For more details for the construction of ${\mathbb G}_{\cal J}$ , we refer the reader to the subsection 6.1 in \cite{O}.
\begin{theo}
${\mathbb G}_{\cal J}$ is an equivalence of categories.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
For a proof, see Th\'eor\`eme 4.2.1 of \cite{M}.
\end{proof}
We call (a quasi-inverse of) ${\mathbb G}_{\cal J}$ the log Frobenius descent.
\begin{lemm}
The functor ${\mathbb G}_{\cal J}$ induces an equivalence of categories between
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb G}_{\cal J}:
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of } {\cal J}\text{-indexed left } \\
\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}} \tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right)
\to
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of } {\cal J}\text{-indexed left }\\
\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the same as [O, Lemma 6.6].
\end{proof}
Let us state our main result in this subsection.
Let $X\to S$ be an integral log smooth morphism of fine log schemes defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$
and we endow $S$ with the $m$-PD structure on the zero ideal.
We assume that the underlying scheme $S$ is noetherian and $X\to S$ is of finite type.
Let $F$ be the $m$-th relative Frobenius of $X\to S$ and $F'$ the first relative Frobenius of $X^{(m)}\to S$.
Then $F'\circ F$ is nothing but the $(m+1)$-st relative Frobenius $F_{X/S}$ of $X\to S$.
Assume that we are given the following diagram:
\[\xymatrix{
{X} \ar[r]^{F}\ar[d] & {X^{(m)}} \ar[r]^{F'}\ar[d] & {X'}\ar[d]\\
{\tilde{X}\ar[r]} & {\tilde{X^{(m)}}} \ar[r]^{\tilde{F'}} & {\tilde{X'}},
}\]
where $\tilde{X}\to \tilde{X^{(m)}}$ and $\tilde{F'}: \tilde{X^{(m)}} \to \tilde{X'}$ are liftings of $X\to X^{(m)}$ and $X^{(m)} \to X'$ modulo $p^{2}$ respectively.
We also assume $\tilde{F}: \tilde{X}\to \tilde{X^{(m)}}\to \tilde{X'}$ is a log strong lifting.
\begin{rem}
In the case when the absolute Frobenius $F_{S}^{*}: {\cal O}_{S}\to {\cal O}_{S}$ of $S$ is surjective, one can prove that, if we are given the above diagram, then
$\tilde{F}: \tilde{X}\to \tilde{X^{(m)}}\to \tilde{X'}$ is automatically a log strong lifting.
\end{rem}
Now we may state our main result in this subsection.
\begin{theo}\label{t3}
Let $\cal J$ be a sheaf of ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-sets on $X$.
Then the following diagram of categories commutes:
\[\xymatrix{
{\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of } {\cal J}\text{-indexed left } \\
\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}} \tilde {{\cal D}}_{X^{(m)}/S}^{(0)} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right)
} \ar[d]_{{\mathbb G}_{\cal J}} \ar[r]^{C'_{\tilde{F'}}} & {\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of } {\cal J}\text{-indexed left }\\
{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right)
}\\
{\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{The category of } {\cal J}\text{-indexed left }\\
\hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{S^{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m)} \text{-modules}
\end{array}
\right)}\ar[ru]_{C_{\tilde{F}}} }.
\]
\end{theo}
\begin{rem}
Theorem \ref{t3} can be regarded as the log version of the result stated in Subsection 6.6 of \cite{GLQ}.
For the global version of Theorem \ref{t3}, see [O, Theorem 6.9].
\end{rem}
One can prove Theorem \ref{t3} in the same way as the proof of [O, Theorem 6.7].
It suffices to show the following lemma.
\begin{lemm}
The image of ${\cal B}^{(m)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}}F'^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ under ${\mathbb G}_{{\cal I}_{X}^{gp}}$ is naturally isomorphic to ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$,
that is,
\begin{equation*}
{\mathbb G}_{{\cal I}_{X}^{gp}}({\cal B}^{(m)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X^{(m)}}}F'^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S})={\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*} \hat{S^{\cdot}}{\cal T}_{X'/S}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that $F^{*}F'^{*}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}_{X'/S}$ is isomorphic to $F_{X/S}^{*}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}_{X'/S}$ as ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-modules.
We can naturally identify these two objects as ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules.
So we need to check that these two objects have the same ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-action.
Let $\tilde{X}\hookrightarrow {P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}}$ (resp. $\tilde{X^{(m)}}\hookrightarrow {P_{\tilde{X^{(m)}}/\tilde{S}, (0)}}$) be the log $m$-PD envelope of the diagonal of $\tilde{X}$ over $\tilde{S}$ (resp. the log $0$-PD envelope of the diagonal of $\tilde{X^{(m)}}$ over $\tilde{S}$).
Let us recall the ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action on $F^{*}F'^{*}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}_{X'/S}$.
There exists the unique morphism $F_{\Delta}: {P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}}\to {P_{\tilde{X^{(m)}}/\tilde{S}, (0)}}$ (see [M, Subsection 3.3]).
Then the ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action on $F^{*}F'^{*}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}_{X'/S}$ is defined by the log $m$-stratification, which is defined by the pull-back of the log $0$-stratification associated to the ${\cal D}^{(0)}_{X^{(m)}/S}$-action on $F'^{*}\Gamma_{.}{\Omega}_{X'/S}$ via the modulo $p$ reduction of $F_{\Delta}$.
So it suffices to prove the equality $\tilde{\Psi}_{N}=\tilde{\Psi'}_{N}\circ F_{\Delta}$ for a sufficiently large number $N$.
Here $\tilde{\Psi}_{N} :P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}\to \tilde{X'}(N)$ (resp. $\tilde{\Psi'}_{N}:P_{\tilde{X^{(m)}}/\tilde{S}, (0)}\to \tilde{X'}(N)$) is as in the section $3$.
By definition of $\tilde{\Psi}_{N}$, $\tilde{\Psi}_{N}$ is the unique morphism which makes the diagram
\[\xymatrix{
{\tilde{X}} \ar[r]\ar[d]& {\tilde{X^{(m)}}}\ar[r] & {\tilde{X'}}\ar[d]\\
{P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}} \ar[r]^{\tilde{\Psi}_{N}}& {\tilde{X'}(N)} \ar[r] & {\tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}{\tilde{X'}}}
}
\]
commutative.
On the other hand, by definition of $F_{\Delta}$ and $\tilde{\Psi'}_{N}$, the following diagram is commutative
\[\xymatrix{
{\tilde{X}} \ar[r]\ar[d]& {\tilde{X^{(m)}}}\ar[d]\ar[r] & {\tilde{X'}}\ar[rd]\\
{P_{\tilde{X}/\tilde{S}, (m)}} \ar[r]^{F_{\Delta}} & {P_{\tilde{X^{(m)}}/\tilde{S}, (0)}} \ar[r]^{\tilde{\Psi'}_{N}}& {\tilde{X'}(N)}\ar[r] & {\tilde{X'}\times_{\tilde{S}}{\tilde{X'}}}
.}
\]
By the above characterization of $\tilde{\Psi}_{N}$, $\tilde{\Psi'}_{N}\circ F_{\Delta}$ must be $\tilde{\Psi}_{N}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Local-global compatibility}
Let $X\to S$ be an integral log smooth morphism defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$ with a lifting $\tilde{X'}\to \tilde{S}$
of $X'\to S$ modulo $p^{2}$.
We denote $(X\to S, \tilde{X'}\to \tilde{S})$ by $\cal X/S$.
Let $\hat{\Gamma}.{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ be the completion of the PD algebra ${\Gamma}.{\cal T}_{X'/S}$.
In the previous paper \cite{O}, we constructed a splitting module $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$ of the Azumaya algebra $\tilde{\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$ over $\hat{\Gamma}.{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}{{\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}}$ (see [O, (5.6)]).
In this section, we give another construction of $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$
under the existence of a lifting $\tilde{X'}\to \tilde{S} \leftarrow \tilde{X}$ of the diagram $X'\to S \leftarrow X$ modulo $p^{2}$.
\subsection{Review of the previous paper}
In this subsection, we briefly recall the construction of $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$ given in the subsection 5.2 in \cite{O}.
For more details, see the section 5 in \cite{O}.
Assume that we are given a lifting of the diagram $X'\to S \leftarrow X$ modulo $p^{2}$.
We define an \'etale sheaf ${\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$ on $\tilde{X}$ by
\begin{equation*}
\text{for each \'etale open $\tilde{U}$ of $\tilde{X}$}\mapsto \text{\{$f: \tilde{U}\to \tilde{X'}$ such that $f$ mod $p=F_{X/S}|_{U}$\}},
\end{equation*}
where $U$ denotes the modulo $p$ reduction of $\tilde{U}$.
Note that in our previous paper, this sheaf is denoted by ${\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}, \tilde{X}}$.
By the deformation theory, ${\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$ forms a
${\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}(F_{X/S}^{*}\Omega^{1}_{X'/S}, {\cal O}_{X})\cong F^{*}_{X/S}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-torsor [O, Lemma 5.15].
For $a\in {\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$ and $\varphi \in {\cal H}om({\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}, {\cal O}_{X})$,
we define the morphism of sheaves $\varphi_{a}:F^{*}_{X/S}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\to {\cal O}_{X}$ by $D\mapsto \varphi(a+D)-\varphi(a)$.
We denote by ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$ the subsheaf of ${\cal H}om({\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}, \tilde{X}}, {\cal O}_{X})$ consisting of $\varphi:{\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}\to {\cal O}_{X}$
such that $\varphi_{a}$ is an ${\cal O}_{X}$-homomorphism for any $a\in {\cal L}^{(m)}_{\cal X/S}$.
Then one can check that, for $\varphi\in {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$, $\varphi_{a}$ does not depend on the choice of $a$ and we put $\omega_{\varphi}:=\varphi_{a}$.
We have the following sequence of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules:
\begin{equation}\label{e9}
\,\,\,\,\,0\longrightarrow {\cal O}_{X}\longrightarrow {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}\xrightarrow[\varphi\mapsto \omega_{\varphi}] \ F^{*}_{X/S}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\longrightarrow 0,
\end{equation}
where the first map is defined by $b\in {\cal O}_{X} \mapsto {\text {\rm constant function of $b$}}$.
This is a locally splitting exact sequence of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules.
In fact, one can check exactnesses at ${\cal O}_{X}$ and ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$ by definition and if we define an ${\cal O}_{X}$-homomorphism $\sigma_{a}: F^{*}_{X/S}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$ for $a\in {\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$ by $\omega\mapsto [f\mapsto \langle \omega,f-a\rangle]$,
then $\sigma_{a}$ defines a section of ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}\to F^{*}_{X/S}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}$.
For each natural number $n$, we consider $S^{n}({\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)})\hookrightarrow S^{n+1}({\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)})$ induced from ${\cal O}_{X}\hookrightarrow {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$ and
we define the ${\cal O}_{T}$-algebra ${\cal K}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$ by the inductive limit $\displaystyle \lim_{\to} S^{n}({\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)})$.
Then, by the above locally splitting exact sequence, we have ${\cal E}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}\simeq {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F^{*}_{X/S}\Omega^{1}_{X'/S}$ in local situation.
We thus locally obtain
\begin{equation*}
\check{{\cal K}}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}:={\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}({\cal K}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}, {\cal O}_{X})\simeq {\cal H}om_{{\cal O}_{X}}(S^{.}F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega^{1}_{X/S}}, {\cal O}_{X})\simeq \hat{\Gamma.}(F^{*}_{X/S}{\cal T}_{X'/S}).
\end{equation*}
Therefore $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}:={\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}\check{{\cal K}}^{(m)}_{\cal X/S}$ is a locally free ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\hat{\Gamma}_{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}$-module of rank $1$.
By Theorem \ref{e}, we see that $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$ is a locally free ${\cal I}_{X}^{gp}$-indexed ${\cal B}^{(m+1)}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\hat{\Gamma}_{.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}$-module of rank $p^{r(m+1)}$.
Furthermore $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$ has an action of
\begin{equation*}
\left({\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}\hat{\Gamma.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}\right) \otimes_{{\cal B}_{X/S}^{(m+1)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X'}}S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}}\tilde{{\cal D}}^{(m)}_{X/S} \xrightarrow{\cong}{\cal A}_{X}^{gp}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} {\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}\otimes_{S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}} \hat{\Gamma.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}
\end{equation*}
(in our previous paper this sheaf is denoted by $\tilde {{\cal D}}_{X/S}^{(m), \gamma}$)
defined as follows.
First of all, we define an action of ${\cal T}_{X'/S}$ on ${\cal K}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}$ by
\begin{equation*}
{\cal K}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}\simeq S^{\cdot}(F^{*}_{X/S}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S})\xrightarrow{D} S^{\cdot}(F^{*}_{X/S}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S})\simeq{\cal K}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}.
\end{equation*}
Then one can see that this action is well-defined globally on $X$ and naturally extends to $\hat{\Gamma.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$-action on ${\cal K}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$.
On the other hand, we can endow ${\cal K}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$ with ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-action associated to the structure of log $m$-crystals on it.
Actually sheaves ${\cal L}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$, ${\cal E}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}$ and ${\cal K}^{(m)}_{{\cal X/S}}$ naturally extend to log $m$-crystals on ${\rm{Cris}}^{(m)}(X/S)$ (see the subsection 5.2 of \cite{O}).
Then, we can see that these two actions extend to the action of ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}\otimes_{S^{\cdot}{\cal T}_{X'/S}} \hat{\Gamma.}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$
(see [O, Lemma 5.17]).
Therefore, by the same argument in the proof of Theorem \ref{t9}, we can see $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$ is a splitting module of $\tilde{\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$ over $\hat{\Gamma}.{\cal T}_{X'/S}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{{\cal A}^{gp}_{X}}$.
\subsection{Glueing}
In this subsection, we give another construction of $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$ based on the maps $\Psi_{n}$ and $\Psi$, which we used to define the log local Cartier transform of higher level.
To do so, it suffices to construct the ${\cal D}^{(m)}_{X/S}$-module ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$.
Let $X\to S$ be an integral log smooth morphism of fine log schemes defined over ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$.
We assume that the underlying scheme $S$ is noetherian and $X\to S$ is of finite type.
We also assume that we are given a lifting of the diagram $X'\to S \leftarrow X$ modulo $p^{2}$.
First, assume that we are given a log strong lifting $\tilde{F}$.
For each $n\in {\mathbb N}$, we define the morphism $\epsilon_{n, \tilde{F}}$ of ${\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}$-modules by the ${\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)}$-linearization of a composition
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F}}: {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\xrightarrow{{\rm id}\otimes \Delta} {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\xrightarrow{{a}\oplus {\Psi}_{n}\circ i}\left({\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\right)\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}} {\cal P}^{n}_{X/S, (m)},
\end{equation*}
where $\Delta$ is defined by $x\mapsto x\otimes 1 +1\otimes x$, $a$ is defined by $x\mapsto 1\otimes x$ for $x\in {\cal O}_{X}$ and $i$ is the natural map $F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\to F_{X/S}^{*}\Gamma_{\cdot}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}$.
Then $\{\epsilon_{n, \tilde{F}}\}$ forms a log $m$-PD stratification on ${\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}$ and we have the left ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-action on ${\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}$ associated to $\{\epsilon_{n, \tilde{F}}\}$.
Next, we assume we are given two log strong liftings $\tilde{F}_{1}$ and $\tilde{F}_{2}$ which have the the same domain $\tilde{X}$.
Then we obtain the morphism of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules $\alpha: F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\to {\cal O}_{X}$ characterized by
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^{*}_{X/S}(dx)\mapsto a \text{ where }p\tilde{a}=\tilde{F}_{1}^{*}(\tilde{x})-\tilde{F}_{2}^{*}(\tilde{x})\\
F^{*}_{X/S}(d\log m)\mapsto b \text{ where }\tilde{F}_{2}^{*}(\tilde{m})(1+p\tilde{b})=\tilde{F}_{1}^{*}(\tilde{m}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tilde{a}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$ (resp. $\tilde{b}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$) is a lift of $a\in {\cal O}_{X}$ (resp. $b\in {\cal O}_{X}$).
We define $u_{12}: {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}} \to {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}$ by the composition
\begin{equation*}
{\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\xrightarrow{0\oplus \alpha}{\cal O}_{X}\hookrightarrow {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}},
\end{equation*}
where the second map is the natural inclusion to the first factor.
If we are given another log strong lifting $\tilde{F}_{3}$ of the same domain, then, by construction, $u_{ij}$ satisfies the relation $u_{13}=u_{12}+u_{23}$.
We now define a morphism of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules $\phi_{12}: {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\to {\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}$ by
$\phi_{12}:={\rm Id}+u_{12}$.
By the above relation, we have the cocycle condition $\phi_{13}=\phi_{12}\circ \phi_{23}$, so in particular $\phi_{12}$ is an isomorphism of ${\cal O}_{X}$-modules.
Let us give the local description of $\phi_{12}$.
Assume that we are given a logarithmic system of coordinates $\left\{m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ of $X\to S$.
Then $\left\{\pi^{*}m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ forms a logarithmic system of coordinates of $X'\to S$.
Let take a lifting $\tilde{m'}_{i}$ of $\pi^{*}m_{i}$.
Then, since $\tilde{F}_{1}$ (resp. $\tilde{F}_{2}$) is a log strong lifting,
we can write $\tilde{F}_{1}^{*}(\tilde{m'}_{i})=\tilde{m}_{i}^{p^{m+1}}(1+p\tilde{g}_{i}^{p^{m}})$ (resp. $\tilde{F}_{2}^{*}(\tilde{m'}_{i})=\tilde{m}_{i}^{p^{m+1}}(1+p\tilde{h}_{i}^{p^{m}})$) for some $\tilde{g}_{i}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$ (resp. $\tilde{h}_{i}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$)
for each $i$.
By construction of $\phi_{12}$, we then have the following lemma.
\begin{lemm}\label{l9}
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{12}\left(F_{X/S}^{*}\left(\log \pi^{*}m_{i} \right)\right)= F_{X/S}^{*}\left(\log \pi^{*}m_{i}\right)+ \left(g_{i}-h_{i} \right)^{p^{m}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemm}
We need the following lemma.
\begin{lemm}
$\phi_{12}$ is an isomorphism of ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-modules.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that $\phi_{12}$ is compatible with $\epsilon_{n}$.
We may work \'etale locally on $X$.
Let $\left\{m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ a logarithmic system of coordinates of $X\to S$.
Let $g_{i}$ and $h_{i}$ be as in Lemma \ref{l9}.
$\epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F_{1}}}\circ \phi_{12}(1)=\phi_{12}\otimes {\rm id}\circ \epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F_{2}}}(1)$ is obvious.
By Lemma \ref{l9} and Lemma \ref{l2}, $\epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F_{1}}}\circ \phi_{12}\left(F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\right)$ is equal to
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\otimes 1+ 1\otimes \Psi_{n}(F^{*}_{X/S}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}) +1\otimes (g_{i}-h_{i})^{p^{m}}\\
&=&F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\otimes 1- 1\otimes \left(\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}\right)-\left(1\otimes g_{i}-g_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}+1\otimes (g_{i}-h_{i})^{p^{m}}\\
&=&F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\otimes 1- 1\otimes \left(\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}\right)-\left(1\otimes h_{i}-g_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}
\end{eqnarray*}
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{l9} and Lemma \ref{l2}, $\phi_{12}\otimes {\rm id}\circ \epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F_{2}}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})$ is equal to
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\phi_{12}\otimes {\rm id}\left( F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\otimes1 - 1\otimes \left(\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}\right)-\left(1\otimes h_{i}-h_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}} \right)\\
&=& F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\otimes 1 +\left(g_{i}-h_{i} \right)^{p^{m}} \otimes 1- 1\otimes \left(\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}\right)-\left(1\otimes h_{i}-h_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}\\
&=&F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\otimes 1 - 1\otimes \left(\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}\right)-\left(1\otimes h_{i}-g_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
We now construct a ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-module ${\cal E}'$ by a glueing argument and show that ${\cal E}'$ is isomorphic to ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$.
By Remark \ref{r2}, there exists an \'etale covering $\left\{U_{i}\right\}$ of $X$ with log strong liftings $\tilde{F}_{i}$ of $F_{U_{i}/S}$.
By the above argument, we obtain a ${\cal D}_{U_{i}/S}^{(m)}$-module ${\cal O}_{U_{i}}\oplus F_{U_{i}/S}^{*}{\Omega_{U_{i}'/S}^{1}}$ for sech $i$ and an isomorphism of ${\cal D}_{U_{ij}/S}^{(m)}$-modules $\phi_{ij}: \left({\cal O}_{U_{i}}\oplus F_{U_{i}/S}^{*}{\Omega_{U_{i}'/S}^{1}}\right)|_{U_{ij}}\xrightarrow{\cong} \left({\cal O}_{U_{j}}\oplus F_{U_{j}/S}^{*}{\Omega_{U_{j}'/S}^{1}}\right)|_{U_{ij}}$, where $U_{ij}$ is $U_{i}\times_{X}U_{j}$.
Then $\left\{{\cal O}_{U_{i}}\oplus F_{U_{i}/S}^{*}{\Omega_{U_{i}'/S}^{1}}, \phi_{ij}\right\}$ defines a glueing data of ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-modules and it descents to a ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-module ${\cal E}'$.
We prove the following theorem.
\begin{theo}\label{t21}
${\cal E}'$ is isomorphic to ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$ as ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-modules.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Let us remember the locally split exact sequence (\ref{e9}).
If we are given a log strong lifting $\tilde{F}_{1}$, then we have a section $\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{1}}: F^{*}_{X/S}{\Omega}^{1}_{X'/S}\to {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}; \omega\mapsto [f\mapsto \langle \omega,f-\tilde{F}_{1}\rangle]$ and we have
\begin{equation*}
\phi'_{\tilde{F}_{1}}: \left({\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\right)\xrightarrow{\cong} {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}; (a, \omega)\mapsto a+ \sigma_{\tilde{F}_{1}}(\omega).
\end{equation*}
We have to see the agreement of the glueing datum.
Let $\tilde{F}_{2}$ be another log strong lifting with the same domain of $\tilde{F}_{1}$.
We have $\phi'_{\tilde{F}_{2}}: \left({\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\right)\xrightarrow{\cong} {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$ in a similar manner.
We then define
\begin{equation*}
\phi'_{12}:={\phi'}_{\tilde{F}_{1}}^{-1}\circ\phi'_{\tilde{F}_{2}}: \left({\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\right)\xrightarrow{\cong} {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}\xleftarrow{\cong}\left({\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\right).
\end{equation*}
Let us check $\phi_{12}=\phi'_{12}$.
Since the question is \'etale local on $X$, we may work with a logarithmic system of coordinates $\left\{m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ of $X\to S$.
Let $g_{i}$ and $h_{i}$ be as in Lemma \ref{l9}.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi'_{12}(0, F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})&=&(\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{2}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})-\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{1}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}), F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}).
\end{eqnarray*}
As a section of ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$, $\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{2}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})-\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{1}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})$ sends $f\in {\cal L}^{(m)}_{\cal X/S}$ to $\langle F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}, \tilde{F}_{1}-\tilde{F}_{2}\rangle$.
Here $\tilde{F}_{1}-\tilde{F}_{2}$ is a section of $F_{X/S}^{*}{\cal T}_{X'/S}$ characterized by
\begin{equation*}
F^{*}_{X/S}(d\log \pi^{*}m_{i})\mapsto f \text{ where }\tilde{F}_{2}^{*}(\tilde{m_{i}})(1+p\tilde{f})=\tilde{F}_{1}^{*}(\tilde{m_{i}}).
\end{equation*}
So $\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{2}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})-\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{1}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})$ is a constant function on ${\cal L}^{(m)}_{\cal X/S}$, which is nothing but $f=\left(g_{i}-h_{i}\right)^{p^{m}}$.
This shows $\phi_{12}=\phi'_{12}$ by Lemma \ref{l9}.
Finally, let us prove the agreement of the ${\cal D}_{X/S}^{(m)}$-actions.
To do this, we explicitly calculate the log $m$-stratification on ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}$ under the existence of log strong lifting $\tilde{F_{1}}$ and a logarithmic system of coordinates $\left\{m_{i}| 1\leq i\leq r\right\}$ of $X\to S$ (cf, the proof of [O, Lemma 5.17]).
Let $\tilde{X}\hookrightarrow \tilde{P}$ be the log $m$-PD envelope of the diagonal of $\tilde{X}$ over $\tilde{S}$.
Let $P$ denote the modulo $p$ reduction of $\tilde{P}$ and $p_{0}$ and $p_{1}$ denote the first and the second projection of $\tilde{P}$ respectively.
By definition, $\epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F_{1}}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})=F_{X/S}^{*}\left(d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\right)\otimes 1- 1\otimes \left(\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}\right)-\left(1\otimes g_{i}-g_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}$.
We have to prove that the image of $F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}$ under the map defined by
\begin{equation*}
F^{*}_{X/S}\Omega^{1}_{X'/S}\xrightarrow{\sigma_{\tilde{F_{1}}}} {\cal E}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)} \xrightarrow{p^{*}_{1}} {\cal O}_{P}\otimes {\cal E}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}\xrightarrow{\cong} {\cal E}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}\otimes {\cal O}_{P}\xrightarrow {\cong}\left({\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\right)\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal O}_{P}
\end{equation*}
is equal to $\epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F_{1}}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})$.
Here the first isomorphism is the HPD-stratification associated to the log $m$-crystal structure on ${\cal E}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}$ and the second one is
${\phi'}^{-1}_{\tilde{F}_{1}}\otimes {\rm id}_{{\cal O}_{P}}$.
Let $f_{P/S}$ be the composition $P\to X\xrightarrow{F_{X/S}}X'$.
Let ${\cal L}$ be an \'etale sheaf on $\tilde{P}$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\text{for each \'etale open $\tilde{U}$ of $\tilde{P}$}\mapsto \text{\{$f: \tilde{U}\to \tilde{X'}$ such that $f$ mod $p=f_{P/S}|_{U}$\}},
\end{equation*}
where $U$ denotes the modulo $p$ reduction of $\tilde{U}$.
Let us calculate the image of $\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{1}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})$ under the composition
\begin{equation}\label{e19}
{\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}\xrightarrow{p_{1}^{*}} {\cal O}_{P}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)} \xrightarrow{\cong} {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal O}_{P}.
\end{equation}
We denote this image by $B$.
As a map $B: {\cal L}\to {\cal O}_{P}$, $B$ sends $\tilde{F'}\in {\cal L}$ to $b$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\left(\tilde{F_{1}}\circ p_{1}\right)^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right)(1+p\tilde{b})=\left(\tilde{F'}\circ p_{0}\right)^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right),
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{b}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{P}}$ is a lift of $b$.
Let us define the map $C: {\cal L}\to {\cal O}_{P}$ by $\tilde{F'}\in {\cal L}\mapsto c$.
Here $c$ is characterized by
\begin{equation*}
\left(\tilde{F_{1}}\circ p_{1}\right)^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right)(1+p\tilde{c})=\left(\tilde{F_{1}}\circ p_{0}\right)^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right),
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{c}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{P}}$ is a lift of $c$.
We also define the map $D: {\cal L}\to {\cal O}_{P}$ by $\tilde{F'}\in {\cal L}\mapsto d$.
Here $d$ is characterized by
\begin{equation*}
\left(\tilde{F_{1}}\circ p_{0}\right)^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right)(1+p\tilde{d})=\left(\tilde{F'}\circ p_{0}\right)^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right),
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{d}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{P}}$ is a lift of $d$.
Then $C$ and $D$ can be regarded as a section of ${\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal O}_{P}$ and $B=C+D$.
Now, by the similar calculation in the proof of Lemma \ref{l2} (note that $p!=-p$ modulo $p^{2}$), we have
\begin{equation*}
c=-\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} - \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}-\left(1\otimes g_{i}-g_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore $C$ is a constant function and ${\phi'}_{\tilde{F}_{1}}^{-1}\otimes {\rm id}_{{\cal O}_{P}}(C)=-\eta_{m_{i}}^{\{p^{m+1}\}} - \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\frac{(-1)^{p^{m}k}}{k}\eta_{m_{i}}^{p^{m}k}-\left(1\otimes g_{i}-g_{i}\otimes1\right)^{p^{m}}$.
On the other hand, by definition, $d$ can be described by the pullback of $d'\in {\cal O}_{X}$ via $p_{0}$, where $d'$ is characterized by its lift $\tilde{d'}\in {\cal O}_{\tilde{X}}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{F_{1}}^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right)(1+p\tilde{d'})=\tilde{F'}^{*}\left(\tilde{m_{i}'}\right).
\end{equation*}
By definition, $\sigma_{\tilde{F}_{1}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})$ is the map ${\cal L}_{\cal X/S}^{(m)}\to {\cal O}_{X}$ defined by $\tilde{F'}\mapsto d'$.
Thus $D$ corresponds to $F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i}\otimes 1$ via the isomorphism ${\phi'}_{\tilde{F}_{1}}^{-1}\otimes {\rm id}: {\cal E}_{{\cal X/S}}^{(m)}\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal O}_{P}\xrightarrow {\cong}\left({\cal O}_{X}\oplus F_{X/S}^{*}{\Omega_{X'/S}^{1}}\right)\otimes_{{\cal O}_{X}}{\cal O}_{P}$.
Therefore $B=C+D$ corresponds to $\epsilon'_{n, \tilde{F_{1}}}(F_{X/S}^{*}d{\log}\pi^{*}m_{i})$ via the isomorphism ${\phi'}_{\tilde{F}_{1}}^{-1}\otimes {\rm id}$.
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of Theorem \ref{t21}, the global version of a splitting module $\check{{\cal K}}^{(m), {\cal A}}_{\cal X/S}$ is reconstructed by glueing based on the maps $\Psi_{n}$ and $\Psi$ defined in a local situation.
We also know that the log global Cartier transform of higher level is a glueing of the local Cartier transform of higher level.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author expresses his hearty thanks to his supervisor Atsushi Shiho for many useful discussions and the careful reading of this paper.
He would like to thank to Nobuo Tsuzuki, Atsushi Shiho and Tomoyuki Abe
for inviting him to give a talk at a conference held at Tohoku University, and to Ahmed Abbes and Fabrice Orgogozo for inviting him to give a talk at a conference held at IH\'ES.
This paper owes its existence to the work of Gros-Le Stum-Quir\'os \cite{GLQ},
Lorenzon \cite{L}, Montagnon \cite{M}, Ogus-Vologodsky \cite{OV} and Schepler \cite{S}.
He thanks them heartily.
This work was supported by the Program for Leading Graduate
Schools, MEXT, Japan and the Grant-in-Aid for JSPS fellows.
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum annealing (QA)~\cite{Kadowaki1998, Kadowaki1998Thesis, Finnila1994, Das2008, Santoro2006, Morita2008, Bapst2013} is a model of quantum computation designed for combinatorial optimization problems.
In particular, adiabatic quantum computation~\cite{Farhi2001} is for the exact solutions of combinatorial optimization problems.
From the physics point of view, some combinatorial optimization problems can be reduced to finding the ground states of Ising spin systems, which is very difficult when the system has a huge number of spin configurations, and the energy landscape is complicated.
A typical example is the ground state search of the three-dimensional spin-glass model.
For this type of problems, QA is known to reach the solution faster than simulated annealing, the classical counterpart, according to numerical~\cite{Kadowaki1998, Kadowaki1998Thesis, Santoro2006} and analytical~\cite{Morita2008} studies although a guaranteed exponential speedup is known only in a single case~\cite{Somma2012}.
Quantum annealing finds the ground state of an Ising spin system according to the following procedure.
First, the Hamiltonian of the Ising model is appended by a term representing quantum fluctuations, typically as a transverse field.
The system is first subjected to a strong transverse field, and the wave function is spread over the whole configuration space under strong quantum fluctuations.
We then reduce quantum fluctuations by controlling the strength of the transverse field, and let the system evolve according to the time-dependent Schr\"{o}dinger equation.
It turns out that an ingenious control of quantum fluctuations drives the wave function toward the ground state of the system.
According to the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics~\cite{Messiah1999}, the system stays in the instantaneous ground state during the time evolution if the total time from the initial state, the ground state of the transverse-field only, to the final state, the ground state of the Ising model, is proportional to the inverse square of the minimum energy gap between the instantaneous ground state and the first excited state.
This means that the total computational time grows exponentially fast as a function of the system size if the gap closes exponentially.
It is therefore important to investigate the behavior of the minimum energy gap.
The efficiency of QA in the sense described above is related to statistical-mechanical properties of the system.
According to the finite-size scaling theory, a system with a second-order quantum phase transition has the minimum gap decreasing polynomially with an increasing system size.
This implies that QA can follow the instantaneous ground state and find the desired ground state in a polynomial time.
In contrast, if a system undergoes a first-order quantum phase transition, the gap often decays exponentially at the transition point~\cite{Jorg2008, Jorg2010, Jorg2010:2}, and QA cannot solve the problem efficiently although an anomalous exception is known to exist~\cite{Tsuda2013}.
Thus, we can estimate the efficiency of QA by analyzing the existence and order of quantum phase transitions, which is reflected in the phase diagram.
The phase diagram analysis is more convenient than the energy gap analysis because the phase analysis is not affected by finite-size effects.
The minimum gap may decrease exponentially even without a first-order quantum phase transition.
For example, it has been shown that the minimum gap of the quantum random subcubes model is exponentially small in the system size due to a continuum of level crossing~\cite{Foini2010}.
Although such an exceptional case exists, we focus on the typical case where a first-order quantum phase transition is closely related with difficulties in QA.
Conventional quantum annealing using a transverse field has the following difficulties.
J\"{o}rg \textit{et al}.\ have shown that QA using a transverse field cannot efficiently solve the problem of the simple model with many-body ferromagnetic interactions, whose ground state is the trivial perfect ferromagnet, by showing the existence of a first-order quantum phase transition~\cite{Jorg2010:2}.
Similar arguments have been given in Refs.~\cite{Jorg2008, Jorg2010, Young2010}.
To solve this problem, we have introduced QA using two types of quantum fluctuations induced by a transverse field and antiferromagnetic transverse interactions~\cite{Seki2012} (see also~\cite{Seoane2012}).
We showed that first-order phase transitions in the ferromagnetic model with many-body interactions can be avoided by using antiferromagnetic transverse interactions.
It is interesting to study whether this effectiveness of antiferromagnetic transverse interactions is specific to the ferromagnetic Ising model or it is more generically useful for wider class of models including random cases.
For this purpose, we investigate the Hopfield model with many-body interactions as a typical example of random-spin systems.
The Hopfield model was proposed as a model for associative memory~\cite{Hopfield1982}.
Memories expressed by spin configurations are embedded in the quenched random couplings.
The Hopfield model exhibits different behaviors depending on the number of embedded memory patterns.
If only a single pattern is embedded, the Hopfield model is equivalent to the Mattis model, in which there is no frustration.
This means that the Hopfield model has the same statistical-mechanical properties as the fully connected ferromagnetic model.
In the other extreme limit where the number of embedded patterns is very large, the coupling constants tend to Gaussian variables with zero mean.
This is very similar to the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model, although there are still correlations among coupling constants.
We expect that the case with finite patterns greater than one to be an interpolation between the Mattis model and the SK model.
The statistical-mechanical property of the Hopfield model with finite patterns has been investigated by Amit \textit{et al}.~\cite{Amit1985}.
The case of many patterns has been studied in Ref.~\cite{Amit1987}.
Nishimori and Nonomura have developed a full statistical-mechanical analysis of the quantum Hopfield model, i.e., the Hopfield model in a transverse field~\cite{Nishimori1996}.
The statistical-mechanical property of the Hopfield model with many-body interactions has been studied by Gardner~\cite{Gardner1987}.
Ma and Gong have shown the phase diagram of the Hopfield model with many-body interactions in a transverse field in the limit of infinite degree of interactions~\cite{Ma1995}.
The present paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec: qa} explains QA with antiferromagnetic transverse interactions.
We apply QA with antiferromagnetic transverse interactions to the Hopfield model in Sec.~\ref{sec: application}.
We first show the self-consistent equations, then give the result.
The detailed calculation to derive the self-consistent equations is described in the appendices.
Finally, we conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec: conclusion}.
\section{Quantum annealing and antiferromagnetic transverse interactions}
\label{sec: qa}
We first formulate the procedure of conventional QA.
The system is described by the following time-dependent Hamiltonian:
\begin{align}
\hat{H}(t)&=s(t)\hat{H}_{0}+[1-s(t)]\hat{V},
\end{align}
where $\hat{H}_{0}$ is the target Hamiltonian whose ground state is to be found.
Considering that $\hat{H}_{0}$ is the Hamiltonian of an Ising spin system, we represent $\hat{H}_{0}$ in terms of the $z$ component of Pauli matrices $\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{z}$ $(i=1,\dotsc , N)$, where $N$ is the number of spins.
The other operator $\hat{V}$ is the driver Hamiltonian, e.g., the transverse-field operator $\hat{V}_{\text{TF}}\equiv -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{x}$, that induces quantum fluctuations.
The driver Hamiltonian must not commute with $\hat{H}_{0}$ to induce quantum fluctuations.
We can control quantum fluctuations through $s(t)$.
Since quantum fluctuation is strong at the beginning, we set $s(0)=0$, and fluctuations must eventually vanish, $s(\tau)=1$.
Here, $\tau$ is the running time of QA.
Let us next consider quantum annealing with antiferromagnetic transverse interactions.
This method uses two driver Hamiltonians: One is the following antiferromagnetic interaction
\begin{align}
\hat{V}_{\!\text{AFF}} &= +N\Bigl(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{x}\Bigr)^{2},
\label{eq:Vaff}
\end{align}
and the other is the conventional transverse-field term $\hat{V}_{\text{TF}}$.
The total Hamiltonian is
\begin{align}
\hat{H}(s,\lambda ) &= s[\lambda \hat{H}_{0} + (1-\lambda )\hat{V}_{\!\text{AFF}}] + (1-s)\hat{V}_{\text{TF}},\label{eq: total Hamiltonian}
\end{align}
where the control parameters $s$ and $\lambda$ should be changed appropriately as functions of time.
The initial Hamiltonian has $s=0$ and any $\lambda$, and the final Hamiltonian has $s=\lambda =1$.
Intermediate values of $(s,\lambda )$ should be chosen according to the prescription given in the subsequent sections.
It is convenient to consider the quantum annealing procedure on the $s$-$\lambda$ plane.
A line $\{(s(t),\lambda (t))\mid 0\le t \le \tau\}$ is called an annealing path.
For example, the line $\lambda = 1$ corresponds to the conventional QA since the antiferromagnetic term $\hat{V}_{\!\text{AFF}}$ completely vanishes.
Note that we must keep $\lambda$ strictly positive, however small it is, since quantum fluctuations completely disappear on this line, and the system does not perform quantum annealing processes.
\section{Application to the models}
\label{sec: application}
This section shows the phase diagrams of the Hamiltonian~\eqref{eq: total Hamiltonian}.
We first discuss the Hopfield model with $k$-body interactions and finite patterns embedded.
Next, we study the case with many patterns.
\subsection{Hopfield model with finite patterns}
\label{sec: analysis Hopfield finite patterns}
We give self-consistent equations for the Hopfield model with finite patterns embedded.
It is known that the quantum Hopfield model that has two-body interactions exhibits a second-order transition~\cite{Nishimori1996}.
We deal with the case of $k>2$ to check whether antiferromagnetic transverse interactions enable us to avoid a first-order transition.
Furthermore, we restrict the values of $k$ to odd integers in $3 \le k \le 21$ to compare the results with those for the simple ferromagnetic model~\cite{Seki2012}.
Comparing the free energies of symmetric solutions, we show that the phase diagrams are identical with those of the ferromagnetic model with many-body interactions.
\subsubsection{Self-consistent equations}
The Hamiltonian of the Hopfield model with many-body interactions is given as
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_{0} &= -\sum_{i_{1}<\dotsb <i_{k}}J_{i_{1},\dotsc ,i_{k}}\hat{\sigma}_{i_{1}}^{z}\dotsm \hat{\sigma}_{i_{k}}^{z}
\label{eq: Hamiltonian of extension}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
J_{i_{1},\dotsc ,i_{k}} &= \frac{1}{N^{k-1}}\sum_{\mu=1}^{p}\xi_{i_{1}}^{\mu}\dotsm \xi_{i_{k}}^{\mu}.\label{eq: Hebb rule for extension}
\end{align}
Here, $k$ is an integer denoting the degree of interactions, and $\xi_{i}^{\mu}$ takes $\pm 1$ at random.
The number of embedded patterns $p$ is a finite integer independent of $N$.
The total Hamiltonian is given as
\begin{align}
\hat{H}(s,\lambda)
&=
-s\lambda N \sum_{\mu=1}^{p}\Bigl(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_{i}^{\mu}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{z}\Bigr)^{k} + s(1-\lambda)N\Bigl(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{x}\Bigr)^{2} - (1-s)\sum_{i=1}^{N}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{x}.\label{eq: many-body interaction Hamiltonian}
\end{align}
We use the mean-field analysis to investigate the phase diagram (see Appendix~\ref{app: finite patterns} for detailed calculations), which gives exact results for the present infinite-range model in the thermodynamic limit.
The order parameters of the Hopfield model are the overlaps with embedded patterns $m_{\mu}$ $(\mu = 1, \dotsc p)$.
In the low-temperature limit $\beta \to \infty $, the pseudo free energy and the self-consistent equations are
\begin{align}
f(s ,\lambda ; \{m_{\mu}\},m^{x})
&=
(k-1)s\lambda\sum_{\mu}(m_{\mu})^{k}-s(1-\lambda)(m^{x})^{2}\notag \\
&\hphantom{={}}
-\biggl[\sqrt{\{ks\lambda \sum\nolimits_{\mu}(m_{\mu})^{k-1}\xi^{\mu}\}^{2}+\{1-s-2s(1-\lambda) m^{x}\}^{2}}\,\biggr],\label{eq: free energy in low-temp limit for finite patterns}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
(m_{\mu})^{k-1} &= \left[\frac{ks\lambda \bigl(\sum\nolimits_{\mu}(m_{\mu})^{k-1}\xi^{\mu}\bigr)(m_{\mu})^{k-2}\xi^{\mu}}{\sqrt{\{ks\lambda \sum\nolimits_{\mu}(m_{\mu})^{k-1}\xi^{\mu}\}^{2} + \{1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x}\}^{2}}}\right],\label{eq: hopfield low temp m_mu}\\
m^{x} &= \left[\frac{1-s-2s(1-\lambda )m^{x}}{\sqrt{\{ks\lambda \sum\nolimits_{\mu}(m_{\mu})^{k-1}\xi^{\mu}\}^{2} + \{1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x}\}^{2}}}\right].\label{eq: hopfield low temp mx}
\end{align}
Here, $m^{x}$ denotes the magnetization along the $x$ direction, and the brackets $[{\dots} ]$ are for the average over the randomness of the embedded patterns.
The self-consistent equations~\eqref{eq: hopfield low temp m_mu} and \eqref{eq: hopfield low temp mx} have the quantum paramagnetic (QP) solution in the region $0 \le s \le 1/(3 - 2\lambda)$.
The order parameters in the QP phase satisfy $m_{\mu}=0$ for all $\mu$ and $m^{x}=1$.
The free energy in the QP phase is
\begin{align}
f_{\text{QP}}(s, \lambda) &= -s \lambda + 2s -1.
\end{align}
Let us consider the solutions for nonzero $m_{\mu}$'s.
According to the experience in the classical case~\cite{Amit1985}, we expect that the overlaps that give the lowest value of the free energy are symmetric, i.e., $m^{\mu}=m$ for $\mu \le l$ with a given integer $l$, and the others are zero.
The pseudo free energy and self-consistent equations for such symmetric solutions are
\begin{align}
f_{l}(s,\lambda ; m, m^{x}) &= (k-1)s\lambda l m^{k} -s(1-\lambda )(m^{x})^{2}\notag \\
&\hphantom{={}}
- \Bigl[\sqrt{\{ks\lambda m^{k-1}z_{l}\}^{2} + \{1-s-2s(1-\lambda )m^{x}\}^{2}}\,\Bigr],\label{eq: Hopfield free energy zl}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
m &=\left[\frac{ks\lambda m^{k-1}(z_{l})^{2}/l}{\sqrt{\{ks\lambda m^{k-1}z_{l}\}^{2} + \{1-s-2s(1-\lambda )m^{x}\}^{2}}}\right],\label{eq: m zl}\\
m^{x} &= \left[\frac{1-s-2s(1-\lambda )m^{x}}{\sqrt{\{ks\lambda m^{k-1}z_{l}\}^{2} + \{1-s-2s(1-\lambda )m^{x}\}^{2}}}\right],\label{eq: mx zl}
\end{align}
where we defined the random variable $z_{l} \equiv \sum_{\mu=1}^{l}\xi^{\mu}$.
In particular, for $l=1$, the pseudo free energy $f_{1}$ and the self-consistent equations are identical with those of the many-body interacting ferromagnetic model in the ferromagnetic phase.
This assures us that the phase diagram of the Hopfield model with finite patterns is the same as that of the many-body interacting ferromagnetic model if $f_{1}$ has the lowest value in the symmetric solutions.
The phase for $l=1$ is referred to as the retrieval (R) phase.
The state in the R phase correlates with one of the embedded patterns.
\subsubsection{Numerical results}
We compared the free energies for symmetric order parameters~\eqref{eq: Hopfield free energy zl}, finding that the free energy for the R phase has the lowest value in the free energies among $f_{1}$, $f_{2}$, $f_{3}$, and $f_{4}$, at least for $3 \le k \le 21$ and odd $k$.
We show an example for $k=5$ in Fig.~\ref{fig: k5}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{cc}
\includegraphics[clip]{f_k5lam02.eps} &
\includegraphics[clip]{f_k5lam05.eps} \\
\includegraphics[clip]{f_k5lam08.eps} &
\includegraphics[clip]{f_k5lam1.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{(color online) The free energies for symmetric order parameters with $k=5$, $f_{1}$, $f_{2}$, $f_{3}$, and $f_{4}$, for $\lambda = 0.2$ (top left), $0.5$ (top right), $0.8$ (bottom left), and $1$ (bottom right).
The free energy $f_{1}$ always has the lowest value among the free energies compared.}
\label{fig: k5}
\end{figure}
From this result, we conclude that the R phase is the most stable one among the phases having a symmetric order parameter.
This result indicates that antiferromagnetic transverse interactions greatly improve the process of QA for the generalized Hopfield model with finite patterns.
Since the pseudo free energy and the self-consistent equations for $l=1$ are identical with those of the ferromagnetic model with many-body interactions, the phase diagrams for the generalized Hopfield model with finite patterns are the same as those of the many-body interacting ferromagnetic model shown in Ref.~\cite{Seki2012} except that the ferromagnetic phase is replaced by the R phase.
We have shown in Ref.~\cite{Seki2012} that, whereas the phase transition from the QP phase to the ferromagnetic phase is of first order in the case of three-body interactions, the first-order transition disappears in a range of low $\lambda$ for $5 \le k \le 21$ and odd $k$.
The conventional QA with a transverse field undergoes a first-order quantum phase transition from the QP phase to the R phase.
Antiferromagnetic transverse interactions have thus shown to enable us to avoid the difficulty of QA coming from the first-order phase transitions for $5 \le k \le 21$ and odd $k$, even in the presence of randomness.
\subsection{Hopfield model with many patterns}
\label{sec: analysis Hopfield many patterns}
Let us next consider the case of many patterns, i.e., the number of patterns increases as $N$ increases.
Unlike the case of finite patterns, the quantum Hopfield model with $k=2$ exhibits a first-order phase transition between the spin-glass (SG) phase and the R phase.
Hence, we also deal with the $k=2$ case.
First, we analyze the $k=2$ case, and next the case of $k>2$.
\subsubsection{Self-consistent equations for the case of $k=2$}
The target Hamiltonian is
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_{0} &= -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}J_{ij}\hat{\sigma}_{i}^{z}\hat{\sigma}_{j}^{z},
\end{align}
where $J_{ij}$ is given as
\begin{align}
J_{ij}&=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\mu=1}^{p}\xi_{i}^{\mu}\xi_{j}^{\mu}.
\end{align}
The number of patterns must be proportional to the number of spins $p=\alpha N$ so that the free energy is extensive, as explained in Appendix~\ref{app: Hopfield many patterns}.
To obtain the self-consistent equations, we closely follow Chap.~10 of Ref.~\cite{Hertz1991}.
Detailed calculations are described in Appendix~\ref{app: Hopfield many patterns}.
We assume that the system has a non-vanishing overlap with only one embedded pattern.
Then we have the following self-consistent equations in the low-temperature limit:
\begin{align}
m &= \int Dz\,\frac{s \lambda m + \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{q}}z}{\sqrt{(s \lambda m + \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{q}}z)^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}}},\label{eq: m k=2 low temp}\\
m^{x} &= \int Dz\,\frac{1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x}}{\sqrt{(s \lambda m + \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{q}}z)^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}}},\label{eq: mx k=2 low temp}\\
q &= \int Dz\,\frac{(s \lambda m + \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{q}}z)^{2}}{(s \lambda m + \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{q}}z)^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}},\label{eq: q k=2 low temp}
\end{align}
where $m$ denotes the overlap, $m^{x}$ the magnetization along the $x$ direction, and $q$ the spin-glass order parameter.
We defined the Gaussian measure as $Dz \equiv dz\exp (-z^{2}/2)/\sqrt{2 \pi}$.
The variable $\tilde{q}$ satisfies
\begin{align}
\tilde{q} &= \frac{(s \lambda)^{2}q}{(1-s \lambda C)^{2}}\label{eq: q tilde k=2 low temp}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
C &= \int Dz\,\frac{\{1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x}\}^{2}}{\{(s \lambda m + \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{q}}z)^{2} + (1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}\}^{3/2}}.\label{eq: C k=2 low temp}
\end{align}
The pseudo free energy is written as
\begin{align}
f &= \frac{1}{2}s \lambda m^{2} - s(1-\lambda)(m^{x})^{2} -\frac{\alpha}{2}s \lambda + \frac{\alpha}{2}\tilde{q}C \notag \\
&\hphantom{={}}
-\int Dz\,\sqrt{(s \lambda m + \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{q}})^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}}.
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Phase diagram for the case of $k=2$}
\label{sec: result k=2}
We compared the free energies for three phases: The first is the R phase, $m>0$, the second is the SG phase, $m=0$ and $q>0$, and the last is the QP phase, $m=q=0$.
The phase diagram for the case of $p=0.04N$ is given in Fig.~\ref{fig: k2alpha004}.
Although the phase transition from the QP phase to the SG phase is of second order, the phase transition from the SG phase to the R phase is always of first order.
Therefore, even the method using antiferromagnetic transverse interactions requires an exponentially long time to find the ground state.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[clip]{k2alpha004.eps}
\caption{(color online) The phase diagram of the Hopfield model with $k=2$ and with many patterns $p=0.04N$.
The red solid line represents the first-order phase boundary, and the blue dashed line the second-order boundary.
The first-order phase transition is inevitable for the QA process.}
\label{fig: k2alpha004}
\end{figure}
The second-order boundary can be obtained analytically.
Expanding Eq.~\eqref{eq: q k=2 low temp} in powers of $q$, we have
\begin{align}
q&=\alpha\Bigl(\frac{s \lambda}{1-s(3-\lambda)}\Bigr)^{2}q + \mathrm{O}(q^{2}).
\end{align}
Hence, the phase boundary is
\begin{align}
s&=\frac{1}{3-\lambda (1-\sqrt{\alpha})}\label{eq: phase boundary k=2 QP SG}
\end{align}
or
\begin{align}
s&=\frac{1}{3-\lambda (1+\sqrt{\alpha})}.\label{eq: spurious phase boundary k=2 QP SG}
\end{align}
Since the boundary~\eqref{eq: phase boundary k=2 QP SG} lies below the other~\eqref{eq: spurious phase boundary k=2 QP SG}, Eq.~\eqref{eq: phase boundary k=2 QP SG} gives the true thermodynamic phase boundary between the QP phase and the SG phase.
\subsubsection{Self-consistent equations for the case of $k>2$}
Let us next consider the case of $k>2$.
The Hamiltonian is given by Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Hamiltonian of extension} and \eqref{eq: Hebb rule for extension}.
The number of patterns must be $p=\alpha N^{k-1}$ so that the free energy is extensive.
We consider the case where the system has a non-zero overlap with a single pattern only.
We closely follow the calculation in Ref.~\cite{Gardner1987} to derive the self-consistent equations (see Appendix~\ref{app: Hopfield many patterns many-body} for detailed calculations).
The self-consistent equations in the low-temperature limit are
\begin{align}
m &= \int Dz\,\frac{s \lambda (km^{k-1} + \sqrt{\alpha kq^{k-1}}z)}{\sqrt{(s \lambda [k m^{k-1} + \sqrt{\alpha k q^{k-1}}z])^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}}},\label{eq: m k>2 low temp}\\
m^{x} &= \int Dz\,\frac{1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x}}{\sqrt{(s \lambda [km^{k-1} + \sqrt{\alpha k q^{k-1}}z])^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}}},\label{eq: mx k>2 low temp}\\
q &= \int Dz\,\frac{(s \lambda [k m^{k-1} + \sqrt{\alpha kq^{k-1}}z])^{2}}{(s \lambda [km^{k-1} + \sqrt{\alpha kq^{k-1}}z])^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}}.\label{eq: q k>2 low temp}
\end{align}
The pseudo free energy is
\begin{align}
f &= s \lambda (k-1) m^{k} - s(1-\lambda)(m^{x})^{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2}k(k-1)(s \lambda)^{2}Cq^{k-1}
\notag \\
&\hphantom{={}}
- \int Dz \sqrt{(s \lambda [k m^{k-1} + \sqrt{\alpha k q^{k-1}}z])^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
C = \int Dz\,\frac{\{1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x}\}^{2}}{\{(s \lambda [k m^{k-1} + \sqrt{\alpha k q^{k-1}}z])^{2}+(1-s-2s(1-\lambda)m^{x})^{2}\}^{3/2}}.
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Phase diagram for the case of $k>2$}
We now show the phase diagram of the generalized Hopfield model with $k=3$, $4$, and $5$ and many patterns $p=0.04N^{k-1}$.
In the same way as in Sec.~\ref{sec: result k=2}, the free energies for the three phases were compared.
We show the resulting phase diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig: k>2_alpha004}.
The SG phase does not appear: The free energy for the SG phase has a higher value than the other free energies for the R phase and the QP phase.
The first-order boundary vanishes for $k=4$ and $5$, and there exist annealing paths to avoid the first-order transition.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}c@{}c@{}c@{}}
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm, clip]{k3alpha004.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm, clip]{k4alpha004.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm, clip]{k5alpha004.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{(color online) The phase diagram of the generalized Hopfield model with many patterns $p=0.04N^{k-1}$ for $k=3$ (left), $k=4$ (center), $k=5$ (right).
The red solid line represents the first-order phase boundary, and the blue dashed line the second-order boundary.
In contrast to the previous case of $k=2$, the SG phase does not appear.
Whereas the first-order transition is inevitable for $k=3$, we can avoid the first-order transition for $k=4$ and $5$.}
\label{fig: k>2_alpha004}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec: conclusion}
We have studied the effectiveness of antiferromagnetic transverse interactions in QA of the Hopfield model to determine whether or not the success of the application of antiferromagnetic transverse interactions in the ferromagnetic model with many-body interactions is specific to that model.
The analysis of the model is divided into three cases.
First, we have considered the generalized Hopfield model with $k$-body interactions and a finite number of patterns embedded.
The Suzuki-Trotter decomposition and the mean-field analysis have given the self-consistent equations and the pseudo free energy.
We have concluded that the phase diagram is the same as the many-body interacting ferromagnetic model at least for $3 \le k \le 21$ and odd $k$.
Considering the result in Refs.~\cite{Seki2012, Seoane2012}, the present result indicates that antiferromagnetic transverse interactions greatly improve the QA process for the model except for the case of $k=3$.
We conclude that antiferromagnetic transverse interactions are effective also for the random spin system.
Second, the Hopfield model with two-body interactions and extensively many patterns is analyzed.
The difference from the previous case is that the SG phase appears owing to the many unretrieved patterns.
The spins in the SG phase tend to align in the $\pm z$ direction, but do not correlate with any embedded patterns.
We have used the Suzuki-Trotter decomposition, the mean-field analysis, the replica trick, and the static ansatz to study the phase diagram.
The analysis within the RS solution has derived the phase diagram including three phases: the QP phase, the SG phase, and the R phase.
Although the phase boundary between the QP phase and the SG phase is of second order, the boundary between the SG phase and the R phase stays always of first order.
This result indicates difficulties for QA with antiferromagnetic transverse interactions.
Once the system is trapped in a basin in the SG phase, it is hard to escape there to reach the true ground state.
Finally, we have investigated the generalized Hopfield model with many-body interactions and extensively many patterns.
The resulting phase diagram consists of the QP and R phases.
Although the SG solution exists, it has a higher free energy than the other states.
We have confirmed that the first-order phase boundary vanishes at certain values of $\lambda$ for $k=4$ and $k=5$.
Hence, it is possible to avoid the difficulty of exponentially long running time of QA that results from a first-order phase transition.
In conclusion, we have revealed that antiferromagnetic transverse interactions improve the efficiency of QA for some random spin systems.
Using quantum fluctuations other than those induced by a transverse field is helpful for solving combinatorial optimization problems with QA.
In the present paper, we have investigated the efficiency of QA only for the Hopfield model.
It is an interesting problem to identify the class of problems that can be solved by QA with antiferromagnetic transverse interactions.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
Y.S. is grateful for the financial support provided through the Research Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
|
\section{Introduction}
We will work in the category of finitely generated $\GL(V)$-equivariant modules over the polynomial ring (see Section ~\ref{sec:CatMod} for definitions). This and related categories are the subject of \cite{SamSnowd} where a much more elaborate treatment is given. In our paper we concentrate on studying the resolutions of what we will call (see Section~\ref{sec:Elem}) "elementary equivariant modules associated with partition $\lambda$" and denote by $M_{\lambda}$. To our knowledge, these modules first appeared in Section 2.2 of \cite{SamSnowd} where their properties are discussed. One thing that makes $M_{\lambda}$'s remarkable is that every equivariant $\GL(V)$-module has a filtration with the associated graded being the direct sum of either $M_{\lambda}$'s or their truncations. This is our Theorem~\ref{thm:filt}, but this was already known (see Corollary 2.2.7 of \cite{SamSnowd}). It turns out that the resolutions of $M_{\lambda}$'s are linear and their terms are described in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. As Steven Sam explained to me, this result can be obtained (see Section~\ref{subsec:Geom}) using the so-called geometric technique of Weyman (see Theorem 5.1.2 of \cite{Wey}). However, our method is completely algebraic and it also allows to study the resolutions of truncations of $M_{\lambda}$ which we do in Section~\ref{sec:ResTr}. Our approach is to analyze the complex which computes $\Tor^R_{\bullet}(M_{\lambda}, \Bbbk)$ in explicit way. The main difficulty in this analysis is to establish bijection between irreducible summands of tensor product of three representations induced by associativity. In general, this is a pretty hard problem (see Section 5 of \cite{Knu-Tao-Wood}), but we only need a very special case of it. This is done in Section~\ref{sec:Emb}.
I would like to thank Steve Sam, who pointed out Lemma~\ref{lem:Sam} to me and read a draft of this paper. Also I thank Ragnar-Olaf Buchweitz for helpful suggestions.
\subsection*{Notation and Conventions} Let $\Bbbk$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero and $V$ be a vector space over $\Bbbk$ of dimension $n$ with basis $x_1, \cdots x_n$. We will think of elements of $V$ as having degree $1$ and elements of $\Bbbk$ have degree $0$ of course. We will only work with finitelly generated graded modules and graded maps. Such category will be denoted by $S-\fmod$ where any graded ring can take place of $S$.
Let $\lambda=(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \cdots \lambda_m)$ be some partition. By $\ExtAlg^{\lambda}V$ we will mean the tensor product $\ExtAlg^{\lambda_1}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^{\lambda_2}V \tnsr \cdots \ExtAlg^{\lambda_m}V$ and similarly for the symmetric powers. We will denote the Schur functor corresponding to $\lambda$ by $\mathbb S_{\lambda} V$ and most often we will abbreviate it to simply $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$.
\section{Technical Results}
\label{sec:TechRes}
\subsection{Coassociativity of the Exterior Algebra}
See Section I of \cite{Ak-Buch-Wey} for details of this section. The exterior algebra $\ExtAlg V$ is a graded-commutative Hopf algebra. Let $l:=(l_1, \cdots l_t)$, $a:=(a_1, \cdots a_t)$ and $b:=(b_1, \cdots b_t)$ be vectors with all integer components. Consider the map
\[
\Phi(l,a) \colon \ExtAlg^{l}V= \ExtAlg^{l_1}V \tnsr \cdots \ExtAlg^{l_t}V \to (\ExtAlg^{l_1-a_1}V \tnsr \cdots \ExtAlg^{l_t-a_t}V) \tnsr (\ExtAlg^{a_1}V \tnsr \cdots \ExtAlg^{a_t}V)=\ExtAlg^{l-a}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^{a}V
\]
The map $\Phi(l,a)$ is a tensor product of the appropriate components of comultiplications followed by a permutation of factors.
As a consequence of coassociativity of $\ExtAlg V$ the following diagram commutes:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=4.0em, column sep=8.0em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{\ExtAlg^l V & \ExtAlg^{l-b}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^b V\\
& \ExtAlg^{l-b-a}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^{a}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^bV \\
\ExtAlg^{l-a}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^aV & \ExtAlg^{l-a-b}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^bV \tnsr \ExtAlg^aV \\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge node[above]{$\Phi(l,b)$}(m-1-2)
(m-3-1) edge node[above]{$\Phi(l-a,b) \tnsr 1_{\ExtAlg^aV}$}(m-3-2)
(m-1-1) edge node[right]{$\Phi(l,a)$}(m-3-1)
(m-1-2) edge node[right]{$\Phi(l-b,a) \tnsr 1_{\ExtAlg^bV}$} (m-2-2)
(m-3-2) edge node[right]{$\sigma$} node[left]{$\cong$}(m-2-2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{fig:coass}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
The map $\sigma$ is a permutation of factors.
\subsection{Representations of $\GL(V)$}
\label{subsec:Rep}
Every finite-dimensional polynomial (more generally, rational) representation of $G:=\GL(V)$ decomposes into direct sum of irreducible ones. Every irreducible polynomial representation of $G$ is isomorphic to a Schur Functor. See Section 8.2 of ~\cite{Fult} for a reference.
Let $\lambda:=(\lambda_1, \cdots \lambda_n)$ be a partition. By $D(\lambda)$ we will mean the Young diagram of $\lambda$ which we draw as a set of boxes in the plane. For example, the Young diagram of the partition $(3,2,2,1)$ is
\[
{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}
\]
The conjugate partition of $\lambda$ is the partition $\tilde{\lambda}=(\tilde{\lambda}_1, \cdots \tilde{\lambda}_t)$ where $\tilde{\lambda}_i$ is the number of boxes in the $i$-th column of $D(\lambda)$. For example, the conjugate partition of $(3,2,2,1)$ is the partition $(4,3,1.0)$ and its Young diagram is:
\[
{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}
\]
Let us recall:
\begin{theorem}
There is only one representation occurring in both $\Sym_{\lambda} V$ and $\ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}} V$. This common representation is the Schur functor $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$ and can be realized as
\begin{enumerate}
\item As an image of the (unique) map $\Sym_{\lambda} V \to \underset{(i,j) \in D(\lambda)}{\TnsrAlg} V(i,j) \to \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}} V$ and thus as a quotient of $\Sym_{\lambda} V$, or
\item as an image of the (unique) map $\ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}} V \to \underset{(i,j) \in D(\lambda)}{\TnsrAlg} V(i,j) \to \Sym_{\lambda} V$ and thus as a quotient of $\ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}} V$
\end{enumerate}
Here $V(i,j)$ means the copy of $V$ indexed by the box $(i,j)$ of $D(\lambda)$. The first map in (1) is the tensor product of components of comultiplications in the symmetric algebra: $\Sym_{\lambda_i}V \to \underset{1 \leq j \leq \lambda_i}{\TnsrAlg}V(i,j)$ and the second map is the tensor product of projections $\underset{1 \leq i \leq \tilde{\lambda}_j}{\TnsrAlg}V(i,j) \to \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}_j}V$
\end{theorem}
For each semistandard tableaux $T$ one can write down an element $v_T$ of $\ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}}V$ which is a tensor product of wedge products of elements, the $i$-th factor being the wedge product of elements (in order) occuring in the $i$-th column of $T$. These elements are linearly independent and span the subspace of $\ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}}V$ isomorphic to $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$. Moreover, the images of those elements under the composite map in (2) above form a basis for the subspace of $\Sym_{\lambda}V$ isomorphic to $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$.
According to our grading conventions, $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$ is a graded vector space concentrated in the degree $|\lambda|$- the number of boxes in $D(\lambda)$. For example, both $\mathbb S_{(3,2,2,1)}$ and $\mathbb S_{(4,3,1.0)}$ are of degree $3+2+2+1=4+3+1+0=8$.
\subsection{Pieri Inclusions}
For a partition $\lambda$ define $VS(\lambda, k)$ (here "$VS$" stands for "vertical strip") to be the set of all partitions obtained from $\lambda$ by adjoining $k$ boxes, no two in the same row. Similarly let $HS(\lambda, k)$ (here "$HS$" stands for "horizontal strip") to be the set of all partitions obtained from $\lambda$ by adjoining $k$ boxes with no two in the same column. Let us recall the well-known Pieri Formulas (see Section 6.1 of \cite{Fult-Harr}):
\[
\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \Sym_k V \cong \underset{\eta \in HS(\lambda, k)}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\eta}
\]
and
\[
\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V \cong \underset{\eta \in VS(\lambda, k)}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\eta}
\]
For a fixed $\lambda$ and $k$ let us take $\eta \in VS(\lambda, k)$. Suppose $a_j$ boxes were added to the $j$-th column of $\lambda$ to get $\eta$ (in particular, the $a_j$'s add up to $k$) Let $a:=(a_1, \cdots a_j)$. The inclusion $\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} \mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$ is the composition (see proof of Theorem IV.2.1 in \cite{Ak-Buch-Wey})
\[
\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta}}V \to \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}}V \tnsr (\ExtAlg^{a} V) \to \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\lambda}}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V \to \mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV
\]
\begin{example}
\label{ex:Pieri1}
The formula for the Pieri inclusion $\mathbb S_{(2,2)}V {\rightarrowtail} \Sym_2V \tnsr \Sym_2V$ is:
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\scriptsize\young(ab,cd)} \mapsto \pseudofrac{a}{\wdg}{c} \tnsr \pseudofrac{b}{\wdg}{d} \mapsto (\pseudofrac{a}{\tnsr}{c} - \pseudofrac{c}{\tnsr}{a}) \tnsr (\pseudofrac{b}{\tnsr}{d} - \pseudofrac{d}{\tnsr}{b}) \mapsto \\
\pseudofrac{a}{\tnsr}{c} \tnsr \pseudofrac{b}{\tnsr}{d}-\pseudofrac{a}{\tnsr}{c} \tnsr \pseudofrac{d}{\tnsr}{b}-\pseudofrac{c}{\tnsr}{a} \tnsr \pseudofrac{b}{\tnsr}{d}+\pseudofrac{c}{\tnsr}{a} \tnsr \pseudofrac{d}{\tnsr}{b} \mapsto \\
ab \tnsr cd-ad \tnsr cb-cb \tnsr ad+cd \tnsr ab
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:Pieri2}
The formula for the Pieri inclusion $\mathbb S_{(2,1)}V {\rightarrowtail} V \tnsr \Sym_2V$ is:
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\scriptsize\young(ab,c)} \mapsto \pseudofrac{a}{\wdg}{c} \tnsr b \mapsto \pseudofrac{a}{\tnsr}{c} \tnsr b - \pseudofrac{c}{\tnsr}{a} \tnsr b \mapsto c \tnsr ab - a \tnsr cb
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{example}
\subsection{Embeddings into $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV$}
\label{sec:Emb}
We will need a technical result which describes the embeddings of irreducible representations into $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$. First let us think about this tensor product with brackets placed as follows: $V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V)$. With this placement of brackets we will think about each irreducible summand $\eta$ as being obtained from the diagram of $\lambda$ by first adding $k$ boxes according to Pieri rule (i.e. first tensor with $\ExtAlg^k V$) and then adding one more box (tensor with $V$). Moreover, we will mark the $k$ boxes that were added first with the symbol "$\ExtAlg$" and the box which was added last will be marked with the symbol "$V$".
\begin{example}
Suppose the dimension of $V$ is $3$. Consider the tensor product $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{(2,1,0)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^2 V$. The irreducible summands of $\mathbb S_{(2,1,0)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^2 V$ are obtained from the diagram of $\lambda$ by adding two boxes according to the Pieri rule. Let us mark these boxes with the symbol '$\ExtAlg$'. Thus the summands of $\mathbb S_{(2,1,0)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^2 V$ are:
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg)}
Now to get all the summands of $V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{(2,1,0)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^2 V)$ we add one more box to all the summands above. Let us mark this box with the symbol "$V$". We get:
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg V,\hfil \ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg V)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg,V)},\\
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg V,\hfil,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil V,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil,\ExtAlg,V)},\\
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil V,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg V)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg,V)}.
\end{example}
Note that with this bracket placement no "$\ExtAlg$"'s will be to the right or below the "$V$". Each such (labeled) diagram $\eta$ defines an embedding $\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V)$ in the following way: suppose $\eta$ has $a_j$ $\ExtAlg$'s in the column $j$ and the $V$ is in the column $s$ Let $a:=(a_1, \cdots a_t)$ and $b$ be the vector all of whose components are zero, except $1$ in the position $s$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta}} V \xrightarrow{\Phi(\tilde{\eta}, b)} V \tnsr \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta}-b}V \xrightarrow{1_V \tnsr \Phi(\tilde{\eta}-b,a)} V \tnsr (\ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta}-b-a}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^aV) \to V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV)
\end{eqnarray*}
In other words this labeling of $\eta$ tells us to first separate off the box labeled "$V$" by applying appropriate component of comultiplication on exterior algebra. Then we separate off all the "$\ExtAlg$"'s. Precomposing with the inclusion $\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta}} V$ and postcomposing with the projection gives us the desired embedding.
Now let us think about this tensor product with brackets placed in a different way: $(V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda}) \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$. With this placement of the brackets we will think about each irreducible summand $\eta'$ as being obtained from the diagram of $\lambda$ by first adding one box (i.e. first tensor with $V$) and then adding $k$ more boxes (tensor with $\ExtAlg^k V$). Again, we will mark the box that was added first with the symbol "$V$" and the $k$ boxes which were added later will be marked with the symbol "$\ExtAlg$".
\begin{example}
Now we think about the tensor product $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{(2,1,0)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^2 V$ with brackets placed as $(V \tnsr \mathbb S_{(2,1,0)}) \tnsr \ExtAlg^2 V$. The summands of $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{(2,1,0)}$ are:
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil V,\hfil)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil V)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil,V)}
Now we add two "$\ExtAlg$"'s according to the Pieri rule:
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil V\ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil V\ExtAlg,\hfil,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil V,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg)}, \\
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil V\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil V,\ExtAlg)},\\
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg,V)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil,V,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,V\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,V,\ExtAlg)}
\end{example}
Note that this time "$V$" is "inside" of "$\ExtAlg$"'s, i.e. all the "$\ExtAlg$" occur to the right and below the "$V$". Each such (labeled) diagram $\eta'$ defines an embedding $\mathbb S_{\eta'} {\rightarrowtail} (V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda}) \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$ in the following way: suppose $\eta$ has $a'_j$ $\ExtAlg$'s in the column $j$ and the $V$ is in the column $s'$. Let $a':=(a'_1, \cdots a'_t)$ and $b'$ be the vector all of whose components are zero, except $1$ in the position $s'$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb S_{\eta'} {\rightarrowtail} \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta'}} V \xrightarrow{\Phi(\tilde{\eta'}, a')} \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta'}-a'}V \tnsr \ExtAlg^{a'}V \xrightarrow{\Phi(\tilde{\eta'}-a',b') \tnsr 1_{\ExtAlg^{a'}V}} (V \tnsr \ExtAlg^{\tilde{\eta'}-a'-b'}V)\tnsr \ExtAlg^{a'}V \to V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV)
\end{eqnarray*}
We will need to know "how to move "$V$" from outside to inside". More precisely, suppose we have a labeled diagram $\eta$ which comes from the bracket placement $V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V)$. This labeled diagram defines the embedding $\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V)$. The question is: which labbeled diagram $\eta'$ which comes from bracket placement $(V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda}) \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$ defines the same embedding as $\eta$? We will write $\eta \sim \eta'$ when $\eta$ and $\eta'$ define the same embedding into $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$.
The skew shape $\eta-\lambda$ has at most one row with two boxes. Suppose $\eta-\lambda$ has a row with two boxes, then multiplicity of such $\eta$ in $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$ is equal to $1$, so there is only one labeled diagram $\nu$ coming from bracket placement $(V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda}) \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$ that has the same shape as $\eta$.
\begin{example}
In the above example we have the following equivalences:
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg V,\hfil \ExtAlg)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil V\ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg V)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil V\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg V,\hfil,\ExtAlg)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil V\ExtAlg,\hfil,\ExtAlg)},{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg V)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,V\ExtAlg)}.
\end{example}
Suppose now that the skew-shape $\eta-\lambda$ has no row with two boxes. If there is no column that has both "$\ExtAlg$"'s and "$V$" then this $\eta$ appears in both bracket placements and no moving is necessary.
\begin{example}
In our example we see that the labeled diagrams
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg,V)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil V,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg,V)}.
appear in both bracket placements.
\end{example}
Finally, suppose that the skew shape $\eta-\lambda$ has no row with two boxes and some column has both "$\ExtAlg$"'s and "$V$". Then we need to "slide the "$V$" up". This does not change the embedding. One can easily see it by writing down the corresponding embeddings and using coassotiativity of $\ExtAlg V$ (see Figure ~\ref{fig:coass}).
\begin{example}
{\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil,\ExtAlg,V)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil,V,\ExtAlg)}, {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg,V)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young( \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg,V)}.
\end{example}
We will also need the Lemma 2.1 from \cite{SamWey} :
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Sam}
Let $\nu$ be a partition and take $\mu \in HS(\nu)$, i.e. the skew shape $\mu-\nu$ has no two boxes in the same comlumn. This means that there exist (unique) Pieri inclusion $\mathbb S_{\mu} {\rightarrowtail} R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\nu}$, which induces the map of $R$-modules $R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\mu} \to R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\nu}$. Suppose now we take $\eta$ to be any partition such that $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ occurs in both $R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\mu}$ and $R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\nu}$. Then the composition $\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\mu} \to R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\nu}$ is not zero.
\end{lemma}
\section{Category of Equivariant Modules Over $\GL(V)$}
\label{sec:CatMod}
Set $G:=\GL(V)$, $R:=\Sym V$. Then $G$ acts on $R$ by ring automorphisms in the usual way. Let $A:=R \rtimes G$ denote the twisted group algebra. The multiplication is given by the rule $(r_1, g_1)(r_2, g_2)=(r_1g_1(r_2), g_1g_2)$. The grading on $A$ comes from the usual grading of $R$.
Let $N \in A-\fmod$ be a graded left $A$-module all whose components are finite dimensional vector spaces, then it is also a graded $R$-module via the inclusion $R {\rightarrowtail} A$ and a representation of $G$, moreover the multiplication map $\mu \colon R \tnsr N \to N$ is a map of representations. Conversely, a representation $N$ of $G$ with graded $R-$module structure such that the multiplication map $R \tnsr N \to M$ is a map of representations defines a graded module over the twisted group algebra.
\begin{definition}
We will call such a finitely generated module over $A$ an equivariant module.
\end{definition}
We will display the structure of an equivariant module $N$ by drawing a lattice. The vertices of the lattice are the representations that occur in $N$. An arrow going from a representation $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ to a representation $\mathbb S_{\nu}$ means that $\mathbb S_{\nu} $ lies in the image of the map $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} V \tnsr N \to N$.
\begin{example}
Consider the equivariant module $R \tnsr \ExtAlg^3 V$. It's lattice is the following:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (0,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (2,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil,\hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,5) {$\vdots$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,5)
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5)
(2,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(2,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(2,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(2,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$R \tnsr \ExtAlg^3V$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
We see that whenever there is a posibility of an arrow we do have an arrow. This follows from the Lemma ~\ref{lem:Sam}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
In fact all the modules of the form $R \tnsr \mathbb S_{\lambda}$ have this kind of lattice (see next section for precise statement). Here is another example:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (0,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (2,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (4,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (4,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (4,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (4,5) {$\vdots$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,5)
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5)
(2,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(2,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(2,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(2,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5)
(2,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,2)
(2,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,3)
(2,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,4)
(2,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,5)
(4,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,3)
(4,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,4)
(4,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$R \tnsr \Sym_2 V$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
\end{example}
\section{Projectives}
\label{sec:Proj}
We are working in the category of graded equivariant modules. In each degree such a module $N$ is just a finite-dimensional representation of $G$, so in each degree it decomposes into irreducible representations (see Section ~\ref{subsec:Rep}). Let $(\_)^G \cong \Hom_G(\Bbbk, \_) \colon A-\fmod \to \Bbbk-\fmod$ denote the functor which takes each $A$-module to the (graded!) vector space of its $G$-invariants. The functor $N \mapsto N^G$ picks out the copies of trivial representation $\Bbbk$ from $N$ in each degree, thus it is exact.
The morphisms in $A-\fmod$ are also easy to describe:
\[
\Hom_A(M,N) \cong \Hom_R(M,N)^G
\]
Also, $P \in A-\fmod$ is projective if and only if $P$ is projective as an $R$-module, i.e. is free $R$-module. Let $\lambda$ be a partition and $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$ the corresponding irreducible representation of $G$. Then the $A$-module $P_{\lambda}:=R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \mathbb S_{\lambda}$ is projective and indecomposable because its ring of $A$-endomorphisms is just $\Bbbk$. Moreover, for any $A$-module $N$ there is a surjection $\underset{\lambda \in I}{\Drsum} P_{\lambda} \twoheadrightarrow N$ where $\lambda$ varies over some finite set $I$. For example, this set can be taken to be the set of all representations in $N$ which contain generators.
The structure of $P_{\lambda}$ is quite easy to understand, thanks to Lemma ~\ref{lem:Sam}. Let us pick some representation $\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} P_{\lambda}$ which occurs in $P_{\lambda}$. We would like to know what is the next-to-lowest degree of the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ in $P_{\lambda}$. In other words we would like to know what is the image of the composition $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} V \tnsr P_{\lambda} \to P_{\lambda}$ where the first map is the given inclusion $\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} P_{\lambda}$ tensored with $V$ and the second map is the multiplication on $P_{\lambda}$. The answer is that it consists of all the representations in $P_{\lambda}$ which can be obtained from $\mathbb S_{\eta} $ by the Pieri rule.
\section{Elementary Equivariant Module Associated with a Partition $\lambda$.}
\label{sec:Elem}
Let $M=M_{\lambda}$ be the (graded) $R$- module defined in the following way. As a vector space $M= \underset{\mu \in R_{\lambda}} {\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\mu}$ where $R_{\lambda}:= \{\mu | \text{ $\mu$ is obtained from $\lambda$ by adding boxes to the first row}\}$. The multiplication map just adds another box to the first row of each $\mu$. Let us describe the multiplication map more rigorously: first we want to define the map of vector spaces $V \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} M_{\lambda} \to M_{\lambda}$. When restricted to the summand $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\mu}$ of $V \tnsr M_{\lambda}$ we define it to be the projection $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\mu} \to \mathbb S_{\mu+(1,0, \cdots)}$ where $\mu+(1,0, \cdots)$ is the partition obtained from $\mu$ by adding one box to the first row. Now it is clear that applying the map twice $V \tnsr (V \tnsr M_{\lambda}) \to V \tnsr M_{\lambda} \to M_{\lambda}$ factors through $\Sym_2 V \tnsr M_{\lambda} \to M_{\lambda}$, so the multiplication map so defined indeed gives $M_{\lambda}$ the structure of an equivariant module over $R$.
There is also a less direct way to see that this indeed defines an $R$-module structure. In Section~\ref{sec:Filt} we will see that each $M_{\lambda}$ can be realized as a submodule of $P_{\underline{\lambda}}$ where $\underline{\lambda}$ is obtained from $\lambda$ be removing a box from each non-empty column. Also see Subsection~\ref{subsec:Geom}.
\begin{definition}
We will call the module $M_{\lambda}$ defined above the elementary equivariant module associated with partition $\lambda$.
\end{definition}
It follows from the definition that $M_{\lambda}$ is generated in its lowest degree and in each degree it has one representation.
\begin{example}
Consider the module of K\"{a}hler differentials. It is often defined as the kernel of the canonical map $R \tnsr V \to R$. The lattice of $R \tnsr V$ is shown below:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (0,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil)}};
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (2,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,5) {$\vdots$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,5)
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5)
(2,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(2,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(2,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(2,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$R \tnsr V$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
Clearly, the kernel of the canonical map $R \tnsr V \to R$ consists of all the representations in the right column, thus the module of K\"{a}hler differentials is just $M_{(1,1,0, \cdots)}$.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}
From the lattice of $M_{\lambda}$ it is clear that the only equivariant submodules of $M_{\lambda}$ are isomorphic to $M_{\lambda+(l,0, \cdots)}$. We will denote the $l$-th power of the maximal ideal generated by $V$ in $R$ by $V^l$ and so the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\lambda+(l,0,\cdots)}$ in $M_{\lambda}$ will be denoted by $V^lM_{\lambda}$. This also means that the only equivariant quotients of $M_{\lambda}$ are $M_{\lambda}/V^lM_{\lambda}$. We will call such module a $l$-truncation of $M_{\lambda}$.
\end{definition}
The importance of the modules $M_{\lambda}$ and their truncations is explained in Theorem~\ref{thm:filt} below.
Now we consider an interesting phenomenon to which we will refer to as "splicing". Let us illustrate it with an example:
\begin{example}
\label{ex:spl}
Take two elementary modules, say $M_{(2,1)}$ and $M_{(3,1)}$. Note that $M_{(3,1)}$ can be imbedded as a submodule of $M_{(2,1)}$. Let us draw the lattice of the direct sum $M_{(3,1)} \drsum M_{(2,1)}$:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-2,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,5) {$\vdots$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,5)
(-2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,1)
(-2,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,2)
(-2,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,3)
(-2,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,4)
(-2,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$M_{(3,1)} \drsum M_{(2,1)}$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
Now let us embed $\mathbb S_{(5,1)}$ into $M_{(3,1)} \drsum M_{(2,1)}$ by diagonal embedding: we define the map $\iota \colon \mathbb S_{(5,1)} \to \mathbb S_{(5,1)} \drsum \mathbb S_{(5,1)}$ to be identity on both components. Now the submodule generated by the image $\iota$ is clearly isomorphic to $M_{(5,1)}$, but in each degree this submodule embeds into the direct sum diagonally. Now let us take the quotient. We get a an interesting equivariant module! (it's lattice is on the right)
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-1,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-1,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-1,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-2,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-4,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-4,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-4,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-4,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-4,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-6,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-6,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-6,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-6,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-6,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-6,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-8,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-8,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (-8,5) {$\vdots$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,3)
(-1,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,4)
(-1,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,5)
(-2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,1)
(-2,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,2)
(-2,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,3)
(-1,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,4)
(-1,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,5)
(-4,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,2)
(-4,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,3)
(-4,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,4)
(-4,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,5)
(-6,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,1)
(-6,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,2)
(-6,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,3)
(-6,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,4)
(-6,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,5)
(-8,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-8,4)
(-8,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-8,5)
(-8,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm](-4.8,2.8)
(-5.2,3.2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,3)
(-8,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm](-4.8,3.8)
(-5.2,4.2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-1,4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The module on the right is obtained by splicing $M_{(3,1)}$ with $M_{(2,1)}$ in degree $6$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
We will say that the module on the right is obtained by splicing $M_{(3,1)}$ with $M_{(2,1)}$ in degree $6$. One can now see how more than two $M_{\lambda}$'s could be spliced.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Suppose now we have a submodule $K {\rightarrowtail} \underset{\lambda \in J}{\Drsum}M_{\lambda}$ and we want to take the quotient. $K$ is generated by a finite number of representations $\mathbb S_{\lambda_1}, \mathbb S_{\lambda_2}, \cdots \mathbb S_{\lambda_m}$ each of which occurs in $\underset{\lambda \in J}{\Drsum}M_{\lambda}$. Let us order $\mathbb S_{\lambda_1}, \mathbb S_{\lambda_2}, \cdots \mathbb S_{\lambda_m}$ by the degree (which is the number of boxes), say $\mathbb S_{\lambda_1} \cdots \mathbb S_{\lambda_p}$ are all the generators of $K$ which have lowest degree. We will take the quotient by first dividing out $<\mathbb S_{\lambda_1}>$ - the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\lambda_1}$ in $\underset{\lambda \in J_k}{\Drsum}M_{\lambda}$, then dividing out the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\lambda_2}$ in $\underset{\lambda \in J_k}{\Drsum}M_{\lambda}/<\mathbb S_{\lambda_1}>$ and so on.
The lattice of $\underset{\lambda \in J_k}{\Drsum}M_{\lambda}$ looks like several vertical branches, each starting in some degree. Looking back at Example~\ref{ex:spl} we see that dividing out by $<\mathbb S_{\lambda_1}>$ has the effect that some branches are spliced together at some degree and possibly truncated to get the lattice of $\underset{\lambda \in J_k}{\Drsum}M_{\lambda}/<\mathbb S_{\lambda_1}>$. Now dividing out by $<\mathbb S_{\lambda_2}>$ just splices or truncates more branches at the same degree, so once we are done with all of $\mathbb S_{\lambda_1} \cdots \mathbb S_{\lambda_p}$ the lattice has some branches spliced or truncated at the same degree. Similar things will happen when we go on with generators in the higher degrees.
\end{example}
\section{Filtration of an Equivariant Module}
\label{sec:Filt}
We will need the following definitions.
\begin{definition}
Let $\lambda$ be a partition of $d$ and let $t$ be the number of columns of $\lambda$. The saturation of $\lambda$ denoted by $\overline{\lambda}$ is the partition of $d+t$ obtained from $\lambda$ by putting one box in each column.
For $0 \leq i \leq t$ and define $S(\lambda, i)$ to be the set of partitions $\beta$ (of $d+t-i$) such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The skew-shape $\beta-\lambda$ has at most one box in each column, and
\item The skew shape $\beta-\lambda$ needs $i$ boxes to be added to it to get the skew shape $\overline{\lambda}-\lambda$. Note that $S(\lambda, t)=\{\lambda\}$ and $S(\lambda, 0)=\{\overline{\lambda}\}$
\end{enumerate}
Define $S(\lambda, i)$ to be the empty set if $i$ is not in the range $0 \leq i \leq t$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Let $\lambda={\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}$ Then $\overline{\lambda}={\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}$, so $S(\lambda,0)=\{ {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil,\hfil)} \}$, $S(\lambda,1)=\{ {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)}, {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil)} \}$ and $S(\lambda, 2)=\{ {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)} \}$.
\end{example}
Now consider the module $P_{\lambda}=R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \mathbb S_{\lambda}$. The submodule $<\mathbb S_{\overline{\lambda}}> $ generated by $\mathbb S_{\overline{\lambda}}$ in $P_{\lambda}$ is isomorphic to $M_{\overline{\lambda}}$ because by Pieri rule the only possibility to add new boxes to $\overline{\lambda}$ is to put them all in the first row, thus creating new columns.
\begin{example}
Suppose dimension of $V$ is $3$ and consider $P_{(2,0,0)}:=R \tnsr \Sym_2 V$. The saturation of $\lambda=(2,0,0)$ is the partition $(2,2,0)$. The representation $\mathbb S_{(2,2,0)}$ has dimemsion $6$ with the basis consisting of
\[
{\scriptsize\young(11,22)}, {\scriptsize\young(11,23)}, {\scriptsize\young(11,33)}, {\scriptsize\young(12,23)}, {\scriptsize\young(12,33)}, {\scriptsize\young(22,33)}
\]
The images of these elements in $R \tnsr \Sym_2 V$ are:
\begin{flalign*}
& {\scriptsize\young(11,22)} \mapsto x_1^2 \tnsr x_2^2-x_1x_2 \tnsr x_2x_1-x_2x_1 \tnsr x_1x_2+x_2^2 \tnsr x_1^2 \\
&{\scriptsize\young(11,23)} \mapsto x_1^2 \tnsr x_2x_3-x_1x_3 \tnsr x_2x_1-x_2x_1 \tnsr x_1x_3+x_2x_3 \tnsr x_1^2 \\
&{\scriptsize\young(11,33)} \mapsto x_1^2 \tnsr x_3^2-x_1x_3 \tnsr x_3x_1-x_3x_1 \tnsr x_1x_3+x_3^2 \tnsr x_1^2 \\
&{\scriptsize\young(12,23)} \mapsto x_1x_2 \tnsr x_2x_3-x_1x_3 \tnsr x_2^2-x_2^2 \tnsr x_1x_3+x_2x_3 \tnsr x_1x_2 \\
&{\scriptsize\young(12,33)} \mapsto x_1x_2 \tnsr x_3^2-x_1x_3 \tnsr x_3x_2-x_3x_2 \tnsr x_1x_3+x_3^2 \tnsr x_1x_2 \\
&{\scriptsize\young(22,33)} \mapsto x_2^2 \tnsr x_3^2-x_2x_3 \tnsr x_3x_2-x_3x_2 \tnsr x_2x_3+x_3^2 \tnsr x_2^2
\end{flalign*}
The submodule generated by these elements in $R \tnsr \Sym_2 V$ is isomorphic to $M_{(2,2,0)}$.
\end{example}
Consider the quotient $P_{\lambda}/<\mathbb S_{\overline{\lambda}}>$ and take some $\beta$ from $S(\lambda, 1)$, say the skew shape $\beta-\lambda$ needs one box to be added to column $j$ to get $\overline{\lambda}-\lambda$. Let us look at the submodule generated by such $\beta$ in $P_{\lambda}/<\mathbb S_{\overline{\lambda}}>$. It consists of representations which occur in $P_{\lambda}$ obtained from $\beta$ by adding new boxes by the Pieri rule. If one of the boxes gets added to the column $j$ (this makes $\overline{\lambda}$ from $\beta$) all the other boxes have to go to the first row and the representation obtained in this way lies in $<\mathbb S_{\overline{\lambda}}>$, so it is zero in $P_{\lambda}/<\mathbb S_{\overline{\lambda}}>$. Thus the submodule generated by such $\beta$ in $P_{\lambda}/<\mathbb S_{\overline{\lambda}}>$ is isomorphic to $M_{\beta}$.
\begin{example}
Let us look at the quotient $(R \tnsr \Sym_2 V)/<\mathbb S_{(2,2,0)}>$. Its lattice looks like so:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (0,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (0,5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (2,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,4) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (2,5) {$\vdots$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,5)
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(0,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(0,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5)
(2,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,2)
(2,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,3)
(2,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,4)
(2,4) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (2,5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$(R \tnsr \Sym_2 V)/<\mathbb S_{(2,2,0)}>$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
When dimension of $V$ is $3$ the represenation $\mathbb S_{(2,1,0)}$ has dimension $8$ and the standard basis is:
\[
{\scriptsize\young(11,2)}, {\scriptsize\young(11,3)}, {\scriptsize\young(12,2)}, {\scriptsize\young(12,3)}, {\scriptsize\young(13,2)}, {\scriptsize\young(13,3)}, {\scriptsize\young(22,3)}, {\scriptsize\young(23,3)}
\]
The images of these elements in $R \tnsr \Sym_2 V$ are:
\begin{flalign*}
&{\scriptsize\young(11,2)} \mapsto x_2 \tnsr x_1^2-x_1 \tnsr x_2x_1\\
&{\scriptsize\young(11,3)} \mapsto x_3 \tnsr x_1^2-x_1 \tnsr x_1x_3\\
&{\scriptsize\young(12,2)} \mapsto x_2 \tnsr x_1x_2-x_1 \tnsr x_2^2\\
&{\scriptsize\young(12,3)} \mapsto x_3 \tnsr x_1x_2-x_1 \tnsr x_2x_3 \\
&{\scriptsize\young(13,2)} \mapsto x_2 \tnsr x_1x_3-x_1 \tnsr x_2x_3\\
&{\scriptsize\young(13,3)} \mapsto x_3 \tnsr x_1x_3-x_1 \tnsr x_3^2\\
&{\scriptsize\young(22,3)} \mapsto x_3 \tnsr x_2x_3-x_2 \tnsr x_3^2\\
&{\scriptsize\young(23,3)} \mapsto x_3 \tnsr x_2x_3-x_2 \tnsr x_3^2\\
\end{flalign*}
Thus the images of these elements in the quotient $(R \tnsr \Sym_2 V)/<\mathbb S_{(2,2,0)}>$ generate a submodule isomorphic to $M_{(2,1,0)}$.
\end{example}
Now the proof of the following lemma should be clear:
\begin{lemma}
The module $P_{\lambda}$ has a filtration:
\[
F_{\lambda}^{\bullet} \colon 0 {\rightarrowtail} F_{\lambda}^{0} {\rightarrowtail} F_{\lambda}^{1} {\rightarrowtail} \cdots {\rightarrowtail} F_{\lambda}^{t-1} {\rightarrowtail} F_{\lambda}^{t}=P_{\lambda}
\]
with the associated graded $\underset{i \in \mathbb Z}{\Drsum}F_{\lambda}^{i}/F_{\lambda}^{i-1} \cong \underset{i \in \mathbb Z}{\Drsum} \underset{\beta \in S(\lambda, i)}{\drsum} M_{\beta}$
In fact, $F_{\lambda}^i = <\underset{\beta \in S(\lambda, i)}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\beta}>$ - the submodule generated by all representations $\mathbb S_{\beta}$ where $\beta \in S(\lambda, i)$.
\end{lemma}
Now let $N$ be any finitely generated equivariant module. Then there exists a surjection $\pi \colon \underset{\lambda \in I}{\Drsum} P_{\lambda} \twoheadrightarrow N$ where $I$ is some finite set of partitions (possibly with some elements occuring more than once). Let $F_{\lambda}^{\bullet}$ to be the filtration of the summand $P_{\lambda}$ from the above lemma. Now define the filtration $F^{\bullet}$ of $\underset{\lambda \in I}{\Drsum} P_{\lambda}$ to be $F^i:=\underset{\lambda \in I}{\Drsum} F_{\lambda}^i$. Now push this filtration forward to $N$ to get a filtration $F_N^{\bullet}$: $F_N^i:= \im \pi|_{F_i}$. Let us illustrate this with a diagram:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=3.0em, column sep=3.0em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{0 & 0 &\\
F^i/F^{i-1} & F_N^i/F_N^{i-1} & \\
F^i & F_N^i & 0 \\
F^{i-1} & F_N^{i-1} & 0 \\
0 & 0 &\\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-2-1) edge (m-2-2)
(m-3-1) edge node[above]{$\pi$}(m-3-2)
(m-3-2) edge (m-3-3)
(m-4-1) edge node[above]{$\pi$} (m-4-2)
(m-4-2) edge (m-4-3)
(m-5-1) edge (m-4-1)
(m-4-1) edge (m-3-1)
(m-3-1) edge (m-2-1)
(m-2-1) edge (m-1-1)
(m-5-2) edge (m-4-2)
(m-4-2) edge (m-3-2)
(m-3-2) edge (m-2-2)
(m-2-2) edge (m-1-2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
After chasing the diagram, we see that the induced map $F^i/F^{i-1} \to F_N^i/F_N^{i-1}$ is a surjection.
Now let us prove the following:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:filt}
Any finitely generated equivariant module $N$ has a filtration with the associated graded being the direct sum of modules of only two kinds: either $M_{\lambda}$ or truncations of $M_{\lambda}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Filter each $F^i/F^{i-1}$ so that the associated graded has just one $M_{\lambda}$ in each piece. Lift this to get a refinement of filtration $F^{\bullet}$ of $\underset{\lambda \in I}{\Drsum} P_{\lambda}$. Pushing this to $N$ gives the desired filtration.
\end{proof}
\section{Resolution of $M_{\lambda}$}
\label{sec:Res}
Consider now the module $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$. It is generated in its lowest degree. Let us take the summand $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ of $\mathbb S_{\mu} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$. We would like to know what is the image of $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\alpha}$ under the multiplication. More precisely, let $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ be a summand of $V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\alpha}$. We would like to know the image of the following map:
\[
\mathbb S_{\eta} {\rightarrowtail} V \tnsr \mathbb S_{\alpha} {\rightarrowtail} V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\mu} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV) \xrightarrow{\cong} (V\tnsr \mathbb S_{\mu})\tnsr \ExtAlg^kV \to \mathbb S_{\mu+(1,0, \cdots)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV
\]
We know the labeled diagram of $\eta$ coming from the bracket placement $V \tnsr (\mathbb S_{\mu} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V)$. By the definition of multiplication on $M_{\lambda}$, the image of $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ is equal to $0$ if $\eta$ is not equivalent to an embedding with "$V$" in the first row. Otherwise, the image is just $\mathbb S_{\eta}$.
\begin{example}
Let the dimension of $V$ be equal to $2$. Let us work out the lattice of $M_{(1,1)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^1 V$. The lowest degree is $3$ where we find just one representation {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}. Now,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)} \tnsr {\scriptsize\young(V)} \cong {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg V,\hfil)} \drsum {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil V)}
\end{eqnarray*}
But both of these diagrams are equivalent to a diagram with "$V$" in the first row: {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg V,\hfil)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young(\hfil V\ExtAlg,\hfil)} and {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil V)} $\sim$ {\scriptsize\young(\hfil V,\hfil \ExtAlg)}. Thus in degrees $3$ and $4$ the lattice looks like:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (2,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}};
\node at (4,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg)}};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,1)
(2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Degrees $3$ and $4$ of $M_{(1,1)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^1V$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
Starting with degree $4$ things stabilize in the sence that each representation $\alpha$ generates a submodule isomorphic to $M_{\alpha}$:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (2,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}};
\node at (4,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg)}};
\node at (0,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}};
\node at (4,2) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg)}};
\node at (0,3) {$\vdots$};
\node at (4,3) {$\vdots$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,1)
(2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,1)
(0,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,2)
(0,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,3)
(4,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,2)
(4,2) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (4,3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$M_{(1,1)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^1V$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
\end{example}
In general, the structure of $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV$ is described by the following
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:str}
Suppose first $(j+1), j \geq 1$ rows of $\lambda$ have the same length. Then all the summands $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ of $\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^kV$ which have at most $j$ and at least one "$\ExtAlg$"'s in the right-most column will generate two representations in the next degree. All the other summands will generate just one representation. Starting with degree $|\lambda|+k+1$ each representation $\nu$ generates a submodule isomorphic to $M_{\nu}$.
If the first row of $\lambda$ is strictly longer than the second one, then $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V \cong \underset{\alpha \in VS(\lambda,k)}{\Drsum}M_{\alpha}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathbb S_{\alpha} {\rightarrowtail} \mathbb S_{\mu} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$ be a direct summand and mark the extra boxes of $\alpha$ that were added to $\mu$ with "$\ExtAlg$"'s. If the right-most column of $\alpha$ consists of $s$ "$\ExtAlg$"'s and the $(s+1)$-st row of $\alpha$ is one box shorter then the row $s$ of $\alpha$ then $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ will generate two representations in the next degree: one obtained by adding "$V$" to the first row and then switching it with the "$\ExtAlg$" and the other one by adding "$V$" to the row $(s+1)$ and then sliding it up to the first row. Otherwise, $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ will only generate one representation in the next degree - the one obtained from adjoining "$V$" to the first row (and possibly switching it with "$\ExtAlg$" if there is one in the first row). But recall that $\mu$ itself was obtained from $\lambda$ by adjoining boxes to the first row, so nothing starting from the next-to-lowest degree can generate more than one representation.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to calculate $\Tor^R_{\bullet}(M_{\lambda}, \Bbbk)$. This is our main result. In particular, it implies that the resolution of $M_{\lambda}$ is linear.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Tor^R_i(M_{\lambda}, \Bbbk) \cong \underset{\eta \in B}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\eta}
\end{eqnarray*}
where the set $B$ is the set of all representations $\eta$ obtained from $\lambda$ by adding $i$ boxes according to the Pieri rule (for exterior powers), but no box is added to the first row.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The tautological Koszul complex is a projective resolution of $\Bbbk$:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=0.5em, column sep=0.5em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{K^{\bullet} \colon 0 & \underset{-n}{R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^n V} & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^{n-1} V & \cdots & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^2 V & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} V & \underset{0}{R} & 0\\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge (m-1-3)
(m-1-3) edge (m-1-4)
(m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-1-5) edge (m-1-6)
(m-1-6) edge (m-1-7)
(m-1-7) edge (m-1-8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
After tensoring (over $R$) with $M_{\lambda}$ we get the complex:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=0.5em, column sep=0.5em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet} \colon 0 & \underset{-n}{M_{\lambda} \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^n V} & M_{\lambda} \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^{n-1} V & \cdots & M_{\lambda} \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^2 V & M_{\lambda} \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} V & \underset{0}{M_{\lambda}} & 0\\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge (m-1-3)
(m-1-3) edge (m-1-4)
(m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-1-5) edge (m-1-6)
(m-1-6) edge (m-1-7)
(m-1-7) edge (m-1-8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
The differential $d^{-i} \colon M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV \to M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$ is determined where the lowest degree piece of $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$ (namely $\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i}V$) goes. Its image has to be in $\mathbb S_{\lambda+(1,0, \cdots)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1} V$ because the differential is a map of graded modules.
Consider the direct summand $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ of $\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i}V$ where $\alpha$ was obtained from $\lambda$ by adding $i$ boxes according to the Pieri rule and one of the boxes is added to the first row. Such a representation also occurs in $\mathbb S_{\lambda+(1,0, \cdots)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1} V$ and \emph{nowhere else}. Let us for now assume the following claim:
\begin{claim}
The differential has to be nonzero when restricted to such representation.
\end{claim}
The image of the entire submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$ has to be the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$, which is isomorphic to $M_{\alpha}$ because $d^{-i}$ puts $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in the next-to-lowest degree of $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$. Moreover, all the representations in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$ that also appear in $<\mathbb S_{\alpha}> \subset M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$ are generated by $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$.
Now we want to show that nothing from degree $|\lambda|+i+1$ (next-to-lowest degree of $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^i V$) or higher can contribute to the cohomology $H^{-i}(M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})$. From the structure of the modules $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^k V$ it is clear that it is enough to prove that nothing from degree $|\lambda|+i+1$ contributes to cohomology.
So, consider next-to-lowest degree of $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^i V$ which is $\mathbb S_{\lambda+(1,0,\cdots)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^i V$. All the representations in this degree have either one or two more boxes than $\lambda$ in the first row. If there is two more boxes, it means that this summand $\mathbb S_{\nu}$ was obtained from adding one box to the first row to a summand $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ of $\mathbb S_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$ which had a box added to the first row of $\lambda$. By the claim $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ has to map to something nonzero under the differential and because the image of the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^i V$ has to map to a submodule isomorphic to $M_{\eta}$ we see that differential restricted to $\mathbb S_{\nu}$ is non-zero, so $\mathbb S_{\nu}$ will not contribute to cohomology.
If we take a summand $\mathbb S_{\nu}$ of $\mathbb S_{\lambda+(1,0,\cdots)} \tnsr \ExtAlg^i V$ such that first row of $\nu$ is longer than the first row of $\lambda$ only by one box then it means that there are representations in the lowest degree of the previous term of the complex which have to map to it, so summands of this kind also contribute nothing to cohomology.
Thus only representations in the lowest degree of $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$ will contribute to cohomology, and it will be those which are in the kernel of the differential $d^{-i}$ - the ones obtained from $\lambda$ by adding boxes by the Pieri rule with no box added to the first row.
It remains to prove the claim. Assume the contrary. Let us recall a standard argument: given a partition $\alpha$ consider the function which takes finite complex of $A$-modules:
\[
C^{\bullet} \colon \cdots \to C^{i-1} \to C^i \to C^{i+1} \to \cdots
\]
to $\Sigma_i (-1)^i \dim_{\Bbbk} \Hom_{\Bbbk[G]} (\mathbb S_{\alpha}, C^i)$ - the alternating sum of numbers of copies of $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in the terms of the complex. One can calculate this function either from a complex $C^{\bullet}$ or from its cohomology $HC^{\bullet}$. When we calculate this function from the complex $M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet}$ itself, we get zero. This means we should also get zero when we calculate it from $H(M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})$. Clearly there is one copy of $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $H^{-i}(M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})$, because it is not in the image of a differential $d^{-i-1}$ by degree considerations, and we assumed that it is in the kernel of the differential $d^{-i} \colon M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV \to M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$. So to cancell this, it must be that $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ contributes to the cohomology group $H^{-i+1}(M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})$. In particular, the whole submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$ is in the kernel of $d^{-i+1}$.
The entire submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$ has to go to zero under the differential $d^{-i}$, but this means that nothing hits the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$ (which is isomorphic to $M_{\alpha}$). We see that the entire submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{\alpha}$ in $M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^{i-1}V$ has to contribute to the cohomology $H^{-i+1}(M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})$. This is a contradiction because this group has to be finite-dimensional over $\Bbbk$, because all our modules are finetely generated.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
We illustrate the above proof with the complex $M_{(1,1,0)} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet}$
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.0]
\node at (0,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,1.5) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,3) {$\vdots$};
\node at (0,-1.5) {$M_{(1,1,0)}$};
\node at (-2,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}};
\node at (-2,4.5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-3,1.5) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil)}};
\node at (-3,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-3,4.5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-4,1.5) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil,\hfil,\ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-4,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil,\ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-4,4.5) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-3,0) {$M_{(1,1,0) \tnsr V}$};
\node at (-6,4.5) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-6,6) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-7,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil,\ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-7,4.5) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil,\ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-7,6) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-8,3) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-8,4.5) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-8,6) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-7,1.5) {$M_{(1,1,0) \tnsr \ExtAlg^2V}$};
\node at (-10,4.5) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \ExtAlg,\hfil \ExtAlg,\ExtAlg)}};
\node at (-10,6) {$\vdots$};
\node at (-10,3) {$M_{(1,1,0) \tnsr \ExtAlg^3 V}$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .0cm] (0,1)
(-2,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,4.5)
(-3,1.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-3,3)
(-3,1.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,3)
(-3,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-3,4.5)
(-4,1.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,3)
(-4,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,4.5)
(-6,4.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,6)
(-7,4.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-7,4.5)
(-7,4.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-7,6)
(-7,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,4.5)
(-8,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-8,4.5)
(-8,4.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-8,6)
(-10,4.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-10,6)
(-3,1.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,1.5)
(-8,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-3,2.8)
(-7,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,3.2)
(-10,4.5) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-6,4.5)
(-7,3) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-7,4.5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$M_{(1,1,0)} \tnsr K^{\bullet}$}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
As we see from the diagram the there are only two cohomology groups, namely $H^0(M_{(1,1,0)} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})=\scriptsize\young(\hfil,\hfil)$ and $H^1(M_{(1,1,0)} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})=\scriptsize\young(\hfil,\hfil,\hfil)$ as it should be by the above theorem.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
The tautological Koszul complex and its cut-offs which resolve the modules of cycles is a familiar example of resolutions for $M_{\lambda}$ where $\lambda$ is a partition corresponding to an exterior power.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Note that our results agree with the known resolutions of powers of the maximal ideal generated by $V$ in $R$. See Remark 2.2 in \cite{Guard}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let us continue with $R \tnsr \Sym_2 V$, where dimension of $V$ is $3$. We saw that $<\mathbb S_{(2,2,0)}> \cong M_{(2,2,0)}$. The resolution of this module should look as follows:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=0.5em, column sep=0.5em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{0 & \underset{-1} {R \tnsr {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}} & \underset{0}{R \tnsr {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)}} & 0\\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge (m-1-3)
(m-1-3) edge (m-1-4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
and indeed this is the answer produced by Macaulay 2.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Now let us look at $(R \tnsr \Sym_2 V)/<\mathbb S_{(2,2,0)}>$ (dimension of $V$ is still $3$). We saw that the submodule generated by $\mathbb S_{(2,1,0)}$ in this quotient is isomorphic to $M_{(2,1,0)}$. So the resolution is
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=0.5em, column sep=0.5em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{0 & \underset{-2}{R \tnsr {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}} & R \tnsr ({\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)} \Drsum {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil,\hfil)}) & \underset{0}{R \tnsr {\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil,\hfil)}} & 0\\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge (m-1-3)
(m-1-3) edge (m-1-4)
(m-1-4) edge (m-1-5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
and indeed this is the answer produced by Macaulay 2.
\end{example}
\subsection{Using the Geometric Method}
\label{subsec:Geom}
One can use the geometric method (Theorem 5.1.2 of \cite{Wey}) to prove our Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. Consider the projective space $\mathbb P:=\Proj R = \Proj \Sym V$. We have the (exact) tautological sequence of vector bundles:
\[
0 \to \mathcal R \to V^* \times \mathbb P \to \mathcal Q \to 0
\]
Where $\mathcal R$ is the tautological rank $1$ subbundle of the trivial bundle $\mathcal R:=\{(v,[L]) \in V^* \times \mathbb P | v \in L\}$.
Given a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \cdots \lambda_n)$, let $\gamma$ be the partition $\gamma=(\lambda_2, \lambda_3, \cdots \lambda_n)$. Define the vector bundle $\mathcal V:=(\Sym_{\lambda_1} \mathcal R^*) \tnsr \mathbb S_{\gamma} \mathcal Q^*$. Now Theorem 5.1.2 of \cite{Wey} tells us how to construct the complex $F(\mathcal V)_{\bullet}$ which in our case will be the minimal free resolution of the graded $R$-module $H^0(\mathbb P, \Sym(\mathcal R^*) \tnsr \mathcal V)$. In degree $d$ of $H^0(\mathbb P, \Sym \mathcal R^* \tnsr \mathcal V)$ we have $H^0(\mathbb P, \Sym_d \mathcal R^* \tnsr \Sym_{\lambda_1} \mathcal R^* \tnsr \mathbb S_{\gamma} \mathcal Q^*) \cong H^0(\mathbb P, \Sym_{\lambda_1+d} \mathcal R^* \tnsr \mathbb S_{\gamma} \mathcal Q^*)$ because $\mathcal R^*$ is locally free of rank $1$. Using Corollary 4.1.9. of \cite{Wey} this cohomology is just $\mathbb S_{\lambda+(d,0,\cdots)}V$. So the complex $F(\mathcal V)_{\bullet}$ will resolve $M_{\lambda}$.
The terms of the complex $F(\mathcal V)_{\bullet}$ are
\[
F(\mathcal V)_i= R \tnsr \underset{j \geq 0}{\Drsum} H^j(\mathbb P, \ExtAlg^{i+j} \mathcal Q^* \tnsr \mathcal V)=R \tnsr \underset{j \geq 0}{\Drsum} H^j(\mathbb P, \Sym_{\lambda_1} \mathcal R^* \tnsr (\ExtAlg^{i+j} \mathcal Q^* \tnsr \mathbb S_{\gamma} \mathcal Q^*))
\]
Again, using Corollary 4.1.9 and Bott's Algorithm 4.1.5 of \cite{Wey} we see that we get the same answer as in our Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\section{Resolutions of Truncations of $M_{\lambda}$}
\label{sec:ResTr}
By examining the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we see that it should also work for truncations of $M_{\lambda}$'s, but some care needs to be taken for what happens at the top of each term in the complex. There will be two contributions to cohomology: one from the top and one from the bottom. Hopefully this explains the choice of letters "$T$" and "$B$" below.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main2}
Suppose $l \geq 2$, then
\[
\Tor^R_i(M_{\lambda}/V^l M_{\lambda}, \Bbbk) \cong (\underset{\eta \in B}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\eta}) \drsum (\underset{\eta \in T}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\eta})
\]
where the set $B$ is the set of all representations $\eta$ obtained from $\lambda$ by adding $i$ boxes according to the Pieri rule (for exterior powers), but no box is added to the first row. The set $T$ is the set of all representations obtained from $\lambda+(l-1, 0, \cdots)$ by adding $i$ boxes according to Pieri rule (for exterior powers) and one box is added to the first row. Equivalently, the set $T$ consists of all representations obtained from $\lambda+(l,0, \cdots)$ by adding $i-1$ boxes according to Pieri rule for exterior powers, but no box is added to the first row.
When $l=1$:
\[
\Tor^R_i(M_{\lambda}/V M_{\lambda}, \Bbbk) \cong \underset{\eta \in VS(\lambda, i)}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\eta}
\]
\end{theorem}
We will find the resolution of $M_{\lambda}/V M_{\lambda}$ in a different way in the next section.
\begin{proof}
We will use the complex $(M_{\lambda}/V^l M_{\lambda}) \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet}$ to compute the $\Tor$.
First, the case $l=1$. By degree reasons the differentials in the complex are all $0$ and the result follows immediately.
Now let $l \geq 2$. Let us find $H^{-i}(M_{\lambda}/V^l M_{\lambda} \underset{R}{\tnsr} K^{\bullet})$ All the arguments from the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} remain valid, so the contribution $\underset{\eta \in B}{\Drsum} \mathbb S_{\eta}$ is definitely there.
The top of the term $M_{\lambda}/V^l M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$ has nowhere to go under the differential for degree reasons, so now it remains to see which of the summands of the top of this term are in the image of the differential. In fact, this is determined by what happens in the next-to-lowest degree of $M_{\lambda}/V^l M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^iV$. Each representation at the top of $M_{\lambda}/V^l M_{\lambda} \tnsr \ExtAlg^i$ is obtained from some representation in the next-to-the lowest degree by adjoining $l-2$ boxes to the first row. From the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we know that each representation in the next-to-lowest degree which has the first row longer than the first row of $\lambda$ just by one box are in the image. It means that all the representations at the top which were generated by these are also in the image, thus they do not contribute to cohomology. Thus the only representations at the top that do contribute to cohomology are the ones generated by a representation in next-to-lowest degree whose first row is longer than the first row of $\lambda$ by two boxes. These are exactly the representations from $T$.
\end{proof}
\section{Simple Objects}
\label{sec:SimOb}
The simple objects in $A-\fmod$ are the irreducible representations $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$ where all the variables act by zero.
Consider (again!) the tautological Koszul complex $K^{\bullet}$, which is the projective resolution of $\Bbbk=\mathbb S_{\emptyset}$:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=0.5em, column sep=0.5em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{K^{\bullet} \colon 0 & \underset{-n}{R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^n V} & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^{n-1} V & \cdots & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \ExtAlg^2 V & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} V & \underset{0}{R} & 0\\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge (m-1-3)
(m-1-3) edge (m-1-4)
(m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-1-5) edge (m-1-6)
(m-1-6) edge (m-1-7)
(m-1-7) edge (m-1-8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
If we now apply the exact functor $\_\underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \mathbb S_{\lambda}$ we will get a projective resolution of the simple module $\mathbb S_{\lambda}$:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\matrix(m) [matrix of math nodes,
row sep=0.5em, column sep=0.5em,
text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]
{K^{\bullet}\underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr}\mathbb S_{\lambda} \colon 0 & \underset{-n}{R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr}
(\ExtAlg^n V\underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr}\mathbb S_{\lambda})} & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} (\ExtAlg^{n-1} V \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr}\mathbb S_{\lambda}) & \cdots & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} (\ExtAlg^2 V\underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr}\mathbb S_{\lambda}) & R \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} (V \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr}\mathbb S_{\lambda}) & \underset{0}{R\underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr}(\mathbb S_{\lambda}}) & 0\\};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)
(m-1-2) edge (m-1-3)
(m-1-3) edge (m-1-4)
(m-1-4) edge (m-1-5)
(m-1-5) edge (m-1-6)
(m-1-6) edge (m-1-7)
(m-1-7) edge (m-1-8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
Note that the terms in this resolution are the same as predicted by Theorem~\ref{thm:main2}. By degree considerations, when we apply $\Hom_A(\_, \mathbb S_{\eta})$ to the above resolution, all the differentials become $0$. Now we can calculate $\Ext_{A}^{\bullet}(\mathbb S_{\lambda}, \mathbb S_{\eta})$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Ext_{A}^i(\mathbb S_{\lambda}, \mathbb S_{\eta})=\Hom_A(R\underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} (\ExtAlg^i V \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \mathbb S_{\lambda}), \mathbb S_{\eta}) \cong \Hom_R(R\underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} (\ExtAlg^i V \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \mathbb S_{\lambda}), \mathbb S_{\eta})^G \cong \\
\Hom_{\Bbbk}(\ExtAlg^i V \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \mathbb S_{\lambda}, \mathbb S_{\eta})^G \cong
\begin{cases}
\Bbbk \text{ if $\mathbb S_{\eta}$ occurs in $\ExtAlg^i V \underset{\Bbbk}{\tnsr} \mathbb S_{\lambda}$} \\
0 \text{ otherwise }
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
One can imagine the $1$-extension which corresponds to the nonzero element of $\Ext_{A}^1(\mathbb S_{\lambda}, \mathbb S_{\eta})$. For example, when $\eta=\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)$ and $\lambda=\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)$ ($\eta$ has one box added to the second row of $\lambda$) the $1$-extension is the complex:
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
\node at (-5,1) {$0$};
\node at (-4,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (-2,1) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil \hfil)}};
\node at (-2,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (0,0) {{\scriptsize\young(\hfil \hfil \hfil,\hfil)}};
\node at (1,0) {$0$};
\path[->,font=\scriptsize]
(-5,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-4,1)
(-4,1) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,1)
(-2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (-2,1)
(-2,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (0,0)
(0,0) edge[shorten <= .5cm, shorten >= .5cm] (1,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
where in the middle we have the lattice of a small equivariant module which only has two representations in it, the map on the left is the inclusion and map on the right is the projection.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:Intro}
The prospect of directly probing the intergalactic medium (IGM) during the cosmic dark ages, through the ``Cosmic Dawn" and culminating with the Epoch of Reionization (EoR) has generated tremendous excitement in 21\,cm cosmology over the past few years. Not only could it provide the first direct constraints on the astrophysics of the first stars and galaxies, but it could make an enormous new cosmological volume accessible to tomographic mapping---enabling exquisitely precise new tests of $\Lambda$CDM \cite{Yi}. For recent reviews, see e.g. \cite{FurlanettoReview, miguelreview, PritchardLoebReview, aviBook}.
More recently, that excitement has translated into marked progress toward a statistical detection of the 21\,cm signal in the power spectrum. The first generation of experiments, including the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR \cite{LOFARinstrument}), the Donald C. Backer Precision Array for Probing the Epoch of Reionization (PAPER \cite{PAPER}), the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT \cite{GMRT}), and the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA \cite{TingaySummary,BowmanMWAScience}) have already begun their observing campaigns. Both PAPER \cite{DannyMultiRedshift} and the MWA \cite{X13} have released upper limits on the 21\,cm power spectrum across multiple redshifts. PAPER has already begun to use their results to constrain some models of the thermal history of the IGM \cite{PAPER32Limits}.
Still, the observational and analytical challenges that lie ahead for the field are considerable. The sensitivity requirements for a detection of the 21\,cm power spectrum necessitate large collecting areas and thousands of hours of observation across multiple redshifts \citep{MiguelNoise,Judd06,LidzRiseFall,LOFAR2,AaronSensitivity}. Of no less concern is the fact that the cosmological signal is expected to be dwarfed by foreground contaminants---synchrotron radiation from our Galaxy and other radio galaxies---by four or more orders of magnitude in brightness temperature at the frequencies of interest \citep{Angelica,LOFAR,BernardiForegrounds,PoberWedge,InitialLOFAR1,InitialLOFAR2}.
The problem of power spectrum estimation in the presence of foregrounds has been the focus on considerable theoretical effort over the past few years \cite{paper1, paper2, JelicRealistic,CathWedge,LT11,DillonFast}. \citet{LT11} adapted inverse-covariance-weighted quadratic estimator techniques developed for Cosmic Microwave Background \cite{Maxpowerspeclossless} and galaxy survey \cite{Maxgalaxysurvey1} power spectrum analysis to 21\,cm cosmology. \citet{DillonFast} showed how those methods, which nominally take $\BigO{N^3}$ steps, where $N$ is the number of voxels in a 3D map or ``data cube", could be accelerated to as fast as $\BigO{N\log N}$.
However, both of those works took as their starting point data cubes containing signal, foregrounds, and noise. Neither considered the important impact that an interferometer has, not just on the noise in our maps, but on the maps themselves. An instrument-convolved map or ``dirty map" has fundamentally different statistical properties than the underlying sky and the effects of the instrument cannot in general be fully undone. \citet{X13} discussed this problem approximately by assuming that point spread functions (PSFs) or ``synthesized beams" depended only on frequency. Generally speaking, that is not true; PSFs are direction-dependent and typically not invertible. In this work, we relax the assumption that went into \citet{LT11} and \citet{DillonFast} while retaining the goals they strove for: minimal information loss, rigorously understood statistics, and well-controlled approximations that make the analysis computationally feasible.
For any near-future 21\,cm measurement, interferometric maps are essentially an intermediate data compression step. The ultimate goal is to turn time-ordered data coming from the instrument---namely, visibilities---into statistical measurements that constrain our models of astrophysics and cosmology. So why even bother making a map if we are only going to take Fourier transforms of it and look at power spectra? The answer to that question depends on which strategy we pursue for separating the cosmological signal from foregrounds. There are two major approaches, which we will review presently.
Over the last few years, it has been realized that a region of cylindrical Fourier space\footnote{Points in cylindrical or ``2D" Fourier space are denoted by $k_\|$, modes along the light of sight, and $k_\perp$, modes perpendicular to the line of sight. Cylindrical Fourier space takes advantage of isotropy perpendicular to the line of sight while keeping modes along the line of sight separate, since they are measured in a fundamentally different way.} should be essentially free of foreground contamination \cite{Dattapowerspec,AaronDelay,VedanthamWedge,MoralesPSShapes,Hazelton2013,CathWedge,ThyagarajanWedge,EoRWindow1,EoRWindow2}. We call this region the ``EoR window" (see Figure \ref{fig:EoRWindow}). Observations of the EoR window thus far have found it noise dominated \cite{PoberWedge,X13}. For slowly varying spectral modes (i.e. low $k_\|$), the edge of the window is set by a combination of the intrinsic spectral structure of foreground residuals and the spectral structure introduced by the instrument. Fundamentally, an interferometer is a chromatic instrument and the fact that the shape of its point spread functions depends on frequency creates complex spectral structure in 3D maps of intrinsically smooth foregrounds \cite{EoRWindow1,EoRWindow2}.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{EoR_Window_Cartoon.pdf}
\caption{The ``EoR window" is a region of Fourier space believed to be essentially foreground free and thus represents a major opportunity for detecting the 21\,cm signal. Along the horizontal axis, the window is limited by the field of view, which sets the largest accessible modes, and the angular resolution of the instrument, which sets the smallest. Along the vertical axis, the window is limited by the spectral resolution of the instrument and by the intrinsic spectral structure of galactic and extragalactic foregrounds, which dominate the spectrally smooth modes. The EoR window is further limited by ``the wedge," which results from the modulation of spectrally smooth foregrounds by the instrument's frequency-dependent and spatially varying point spread function. Much of the power in the wedge should fall below the wedge line associated with the primary beam while the horizon line serves as a hard cutoff for flat-spectrum foregrounds \cite{AaronDelay}. Limited ``suprahorizon" emission has been observed and can be attributed to intrinsic spectral structure of the foregrounds \cite{PoberWedge}, so it is possible we need a small buffer beyond the horizon to be certain that the window is foreground free. Without foreground subtraction, foregrounds are expected to dominate over the cosmological signal throughout the wedge.}
\label{fig:EoRWindow}
\end{figure}
Fortunately, there is a theoretical limit to the region of Fourier space where instrumentally induced spectral structure can contaminate the power spectrum. It is set by the delay associated with a source at the horizon (which is the maximum possible delay) for any given baseline \cite{AaronDelay}. This region of cylindrical Fourier space is known colloquially as ``the wedge." Furthermore, we expect that most of the foreground emission should appear in the main lobe of the primary beam, setting a soft limit on foreground emission at lower $k_\|$ (see Figure \ref{fig:EoRWindow}).
The simplest approach to power spectrum estimation in the presence of foregrounds, and likely the most robust, is to simply excise the entire section of Fourier space that could potentially be foreground-dominated. This conservative approach takes the perspective that we have no knowledge about the detailed spatial or spectral structure of the foregrounds and therefore that the entire region under the wedge is hopelessly contaminated. If that were the case, the optimal strategy would simply be to project out those modes. This ``foreground avoidance" strategy has been used to good effect by both PAPER \cite{PAPER32Limits,DannyMultiRedshift} and the MWA \cite{X13}, though neither made sensitive enough measurements to be sure that foregrounds are sufficiently suppressed inside the EoR window to make a detection without subtracting them. Considerable work has already been done with methods of estimating the power spectrum that minimize foreground contamination from the wedge into the window \cite{X13,EoRWindow2}.
Foreground avoidance, however, comes at a significant cost to sensitivity. The more aggressive alternative is ``foreground subtraction", a strategy that tries to remove power associated with foregrounds and expand the EoR window. The idea behind foreground subtraction is twofold. First, we remove our best guess as to which part of the data is due to foreground contamination. Second, we treat residual foregrounds as a form of correlated ``noise," downweighting appropriately in the power spectrum estimator and taking into account biases introduced. In the limiting case where we know very little about the foregrounds, foreground subtraction becomes foreground avoidance.
For the upcoming Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA), \citet{PoberNextGen} compared the effects of foreground avoidance to foreground subtraction. If the window can be expanded from delay modes associated with the horizon to delay modes associated with the full width at half maximum of the primary beam, the sensitivity to the EoR signal improves dramatically. Over one observing season with a 547-element HERA, the detection significance of a fiducial EoR signal improves from 38$\sigma$ to 122$\sigma$. For smaller telescopes, this might mean the difference between an upper limit and a solid detection. More importantly, the errors on the measurements of parameters that describe reionization from the power spectrum improve from about 5\% to less than 1\% when employing extensive foreground subtraction. That would be the most sensitive measurement ever made of the direct effect of the first stars and galaxies on the IGM. Simply put, there is much that might be gained by an aggressive foreground subtraction approach.
That said, it will not be easy. In order to expand the EoR window and reduce the effect of foregrounds, one must model them very carefully. Likely we will want to use outside information like high-resolution surveys to try to measure source fluxes to be much better than a percent. Even more importantly, one must take our own uncertainty about these models into account. If we do not, we risk mistakenly claiming a detection. We must propagate both our best estimates for the foregrounds and our uncertainty in our models through the instrument, which is the source of the wedge itself.
Both galactic and extragalactic foregrounds have complex spatial structure. Any precise model for their emission is direction dependent. More importantly, our model for the statistics of our uncertainty about their emission, is also direction dependent. The covariance of residual foregrounds, especially of bright sources, is most simply and compactly expressed in real space \cite{DillonFast}.
We can now finally answer the question of why we should make maps if we are ultimately interested in power spectra. We need maps as an intermediate data product because they allow us to prepare our data in a highly compressed form that puts us in a natural position to carefully pick apart the signal from the foregrounds and the noise. Forming power spectra directly with visibilities, by comparison, requires treating each local sidereal time separately and vastly increases the data volume. In Figure \ref{fig:pipeline} we put mapmaking into the larger context of data reduction all the way from calibrated visibilities to cosmological and astrophysical constraints. The goal of each step is to reduce the volume of data while keeping as much cosmological information as possible, allowing for quantification of errors, and making the next step easier.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.25\textwidth]{Pipeline.png}
\caption{Mapmaking is the first in a series of steps that reduce the volume of data while trying not to lose any astrophysical or cosmological information. The goal of this work is to address that first data-compressional step---turning calibrated visibilities into a stack of dirty maps or a data cube---with any eye toward the next step---power spectum estimation in the presence of dominant astrophysical foregrounds. This data compression is achieved by combining together different observations a single, relatively small set of maps. Power spectra represent the cosmological signal even more compactly by taking advantage of homogeneity and isotropy and serve as the natural data product to connect to simulations and theory and thus constrain cosmological and astrophysical parameters.}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure}
The science requirements of our maps are very different from those that motivated most interferometric mapmaking in radio astronomy to date. Usually, radio astronomers are interested in the astrophysics of what we call ``foregrounds" and focus on detailed images and spectra. For us it is especially important to understand how our maps are related statistically to the true sky, whose underlying statistics we would like to characterize using the power spectrum. Because interferometers do not uniformly or completely sample the Fourier plane, the relationship between our maps and the true sky is complicated. The PSFs of our maps depend both on frequency and on position on the sky. In order to estimate power spectra from maps accurately, we need to know precisely both the relationship of our dirty maps to the true sky and the covariance of our dirty maps that relates every pixel at every frequency to every other.\footnote{It is worth mentioning that the techniques developed here do not apply only to 21\,cm tomography. Any power spectrum made with maps produced from interferometric data needs to take into account the effects of the frequency-dependent and spatially varying PSF on both the signal and the contaminants. This includes intensity mapping of CO and CII and interferometric measurements of the CMB. Higher-order statistics, like the bispectrum and trispectrum, also need precise knowledge of the relationship between the true sky and the dirty maps.} Current imaging techniques do not compute these quantities. It is the main point of this paper to show why and how that must be done.
Both \cite{EoRWindow1} and \cite{EoRWindow2} focused on a similar point about the important effect of the instrument on the power spectrum. There, the authors derived a framework for rigorously quantifying the errors and error correlations associated with instrument-convolved data and showed how the wedge feature arose even in a rigorous and optimal framework. However, because they formed power spectra directly from visibilities without using maps as an intermediate data-compression step, their tools are impractical for use with large data sets.
In this work, we have two main goals. First, we would like to mathematically understand how the instrument gives rise to a complicated PSF and how that PSF can be self-consistently incorporated into the inverse-covariance-weighted power spectrum estimation techniques (e.g. \cite{LT11} and \cite{DillonFast}). In Section \ref{sec:Mapmaking}, we discuss the theory of mapmaking as an intermediate step between observation and power spectrum estimation. Then, in Section \ref{sec:method}, we investigate how to put that theory into practice. We use HERA as a case study in carrying out the calculation of dirty maps and their statistics. Although the computational cost of performing those calculations is naively quite large, we develop and analyze three main ways reducing it dramatically:
\begin{itemize}
\item We explore how restricting our maps to independent facets on the sky lets us reduce the number of elements in our PSF matrices and the difficulty of calculating them (Section \ref{sec:faceting}).
\item We show how individual timesteps can be combined and analyzed simultaneously, approximately accounting for the rotation of the sky over the instrument (Section \ref{sec:snapshots}).
\item We show how the point spread functions, while not translationally invariant, vary smoothly enough spatially that the associated matrix operations can take advantage of certain symmetries for a computational speedup (Section \ref{sec:PSFfitting}).
\end{itemize}
We will show how each of these approximations works and analyze them to understand the trade-off between speed and accuracy in each case.
\section{Precision Mapmaking And Map Statistics in Theory} \label{sec:Mapmaking}
Making maps from interferometric data has a long history and a great number of techniques have been developed with different science goals in mind \cite{ThompsonMoranSwenson}. Most focus on deconvolution, the removal of point source side lobes (or the side lobes of extended sources represented as multiple components) after their convolution with the synthesized beam. This is the basic idea behind the CLEAN algorithm \cite{CLEAN} and its many descendants, including \cite{Schwab1984,Cotton2004,Cotton2005,Bhatnagar2008,Carozzi2009,Mitchell2008,bernardi,Bart,Smirnov2011,Li2011,FHD,WSCLEAN}. Some of these, notably that of \citet{FHD}, take inspiration from \cite{TegmarkCMBmapsWOLosingInfo}, in that they use the framework of ``optimal mapmaking" for forming dirty maps without losing any cosmological information contained in the visibilities. Additionally \cite{Richard} and \cite{ShawCoaxing}, which use the optimal mapmaking formalism in the $m$-mode basis to exploit the observational symmetries of a drift scanning interferometer, are also closely related to the work presented here.
A notable exception is \cite{SutterBayesianImaging}, which develops a method of Bayesian deconvolution via Gibbs sampling in the relatively simplified case of a gridded $uv$-plane, which can then be used for power spectrum estimation \cite{GibbsPSE}. This method not only calculates a map but also gives error estimates on each pixel in that map. This is an especially promising technique for finding sources and quantifying the errors on our measurements of their fluxes and spectral indices. We take a different tack and do not focus on deconvolution at all.
In this work, we are interested not just in a dirty map but also in the statistical properties of that map. As in previous work, we want to know how sources are convolved with the instrument. But we also want to know how that instrumental convolution affects our covariance models for everything in the map, including signal, noise, and foregrounds. A complete understanding of the relationship between the true sky and our dirty maps will allow us to comprehensively model these important statistical quantities. Current imaging methods simply do not compute that relationship and the resulting noise covariance matrix. However, these are required for methods of power spectrum estimation in order to properly weight data in the presence of correlated noise and foregrounds and to account for missing modes. The importance of this was realized by \cite{FFTT2}, though we will use a different computational approach to speed up the calculations.
We begin this section by summarizing the relevant physics behind interferometry in Section \ref{sec:interferometry}. We then review the optimal mapmaking formalism in Section \ref{sec:OMM}. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:powerspectra} we work out the consequences of proper map statistics for the inverse-covariance-weighted quadratic power spectrum estimation formalism, including how they affect the models of the covariance of cosmological signal, noise, and foreground residuals.
\subsection{Interferometric Measurements} \label{sec:interferometry}
When we make maps from interferometric data, we are interested in computing a map estimator or ``dirty map," which we call $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, and understanding its relationship to $\mathbf{x}$, the true, discretized sky.\footnote{We write these quantities as vectors as a compact way of combining indices over both angular dimensions on the sky and over frequency.} We do not have access to $\mathbf{x}$ directly; we can only make inferences about it by making a set of complex ``visibility" measurements which we call $\mathbf{y}$. Each measurement made with our instrument is a linear combination of the true sky added to instrumental noise. Therefore, we can represent all our measurements with
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{A} \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{n}, \label{eq:measurement}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{A}$ represents the interferometric response of our instrument over all times, frequencies, and baselines and where each $n_i$ is the instrumental noise on the $i$th visibility. The matrix $\mathbf{A}$ has the dimensions of the number of measured visibilities (for every baseline, frequency, and integration) by the number of voxels in the 3D sky (all pixels at all frequencies).
The statistics of $\mathbf{n}$ are fairly simple. It has zero mean and the noise on each visibility is generally treated as independent of that on every other visibility. Therefore,
\begin{align}
\langle n_i \rangle &= 0 \\
N_{ij} \equiv \langle n_i n_j^* \rangle &= \sigma^2_i \delta_{ij}.
\end{align}
The form of $\mathbf{A}$ is considerably more complicated, it can be written in the form of Equation \eqref{eq:measurement} because a visibility is a weighted integral over the whole sky which can be approximated to any desired precision by a finite matrix operation.
The visibility measured by a noise-free instrument with arbitrarily fine frequency resolution at frequency $\nu$ and baseline $\mathbf{b}_m$ in response to a sky specific intensity $I(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu)$ defined continuously over all points on the sky $\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ is
\begin{align}
V(\mathbf{b}_m,\nu) = \int B_m\left(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu \right)
I(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu) \exp\left[-2 \pi i \frac{\nu}{c} \mathbf{b}_m \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \right] d\Omega . \label{eq:AnalyticVisibility}
\end{align}
Here $B_m(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu)$ is the product of the complex primary beams of the two antenna elements that form the $m$th baseline. In this equation and in the rest of this section, we will ignore the polarization of the sky and the fact that there are different beams for each polarization, assuming homogenous antenna elements. We do this for simplicity; the results are straightforwardly generalizable to a complete treatment of polarization, which we will explore in Appendix \ref{app:PolAndBeams}. In that appendix, we will also look at how heterogenous arrays straightforwardly incorporated into our framework as well.
Given a finite number of measurements, we are interested in the relationship between visibilities and a discretized true sky, $\mathbf{x}$. In frequency, that discretization comes from the spectral response of our instrument---we can only measure a limited number of frequency channels. Spatially, we need to choose our pixelization of the sky. Let us define a 3D pixelization function $\psi_i(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu)$ that incorporates both these kinds of pixelization. It is defined so that,
\begin{equation}
x_i = \int \psi_i(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu) \frac{c^2}{2k_B\nu^2} I(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu) d\Omega d\nu ,\label{eq:PixelizationDefinition}
\end{equation}
where the extra factor of $c^2/2k_B\nu^2$ converts from units of specific intensity to brightness temperature. For simplicity, we define $\psi_i(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu)$ to be the unitless top-hat function, normalized such that
\begin{equation}
\int \psi_i(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu) \frac{d\Omega}{\Delta \Omega} \frac{d\nu}{\Delta \nu} = 1 \label{eq:pixelization_defintiion}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta \nu$ is the frequency resolution of the instrument and $\Delta \Omega$ is the angular size of the pixels. Other choices of $\psi_i(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu)$ are perfectly acceptable, in which case $\Delta \nu$ and $\Delta \Omega$ become characteristic spectral and spatial sizes of pixels.
Therefore we can rewrite Equation \eqref{eq:AnalyticVisibility} as a sum:
\begin{align}
V(\mathbf{b}_m,\nu_n) \approx \sum_k &\Delta\Omega \frac{2 k_B \nu_n^2}{c^2} x_k(\nu_n) \times \nonumber \\
&B_m(\hat{\mathbf{r}}_k,\nu_n) \exp\left[-2 \pi i \frac{\nu_n}{c} \mathbf{b}_m \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}_k \right]. \label{eq:VisibilitySum}
\end{align}
Here we have chosen to break apart the index $i$ into a spatial subindex, $k$, and a spectral subindex, $n$. The sum is over all spatial pixels. This approximation relies on choosing a frequency and angular resolution small enough that $B(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu)$ and $ \exp\left[-2 \pi i (\nu / c) \mathbf{b}_m \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \right]$ can be approximated as constants inside of a single spatial pixel and frequency channel. Since $V(\mathbf{b}_m,\nu_n)$ is an entry in $\mathbf{y}$, Equation \eqref{eq:VisibilitySum} gives us the elements of $\mathbf{A}$ by relating $\mathbf{y}$ to $\mathbf{x}$ for a single observation and a single baseline. Of course, the full matrix $\mathbf{A}$ that goes into Equation \eqref{eq:measurement} gives us a relationship between the true sky and every visibility at every frequency and at every local sidereal time. The basic physics, however, is captured by Equation \eqref{eq:VisibilitySum}.
\subsection{The Optimal Mapmaking Formalism}\label{sec:OMM}
Given a set of visibilities (or any time-ordered data) of the form in Equation \eqref{eq:measurement}, there is a well known technique for forming estimators of the true sky without losing any information about the discretized sky contained in the time-ordered data \cite{TegmarkCMBmapsWOLosingInfo}. Those estimators, known as ``optimal mapmaking" estimators, take the general form
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{y} \label{eq:OMM}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{D}$ can be any invertible normalization matrix. Especially for long observations, $\mathbf{y}$ is a much larger vector than $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$. Mapmaking represents a major data compression step.
The expected value of the estimator is
\begin{align}
\langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle &= \langle \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} (\mathbf{A} \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{n}) \rangle \nonumber \\
&= \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} (\mathbf{A} \mathbf{x} + \langle \mathbf{n} \rangle) \nonumber \\
&= \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{x}. \label{eq:<xhat>}
\end{align}
In general, the expected value of $\widehat{x}$ is not the same as the true sky but is rather some complicated linear combination of pixels on the true sky. We define
\begin{equation}
\PSF \equiv \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A} \label{eq:PSFdef}
\end{equation}
to be the matrix of point spread functions. Each column of this matrix tells us how each pixel on the true sky gets mapped to all the pixels of the dirty map. If we want to normalize the PSF to always have a central value of 1, we can achieve that by a judicious choice of $\mathbf{D}$. In this work, we make that choice of PSF normalization. Recall that $\mathbf{D}$ can be any invertible matrix. Since we are not trying to make images that look as much as possible like the true sky but rather just to keep track of exactly how our dirty maps are related to the true sky, making a very simple choice for $\mathbf{D}$ is sensible.\footnote{The choice of $\mathbf{D}=\left[\mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A}\right]^{-1}$ was used by WMAP \cite{WMAPconjugategrad} because it makes $\PSF = \mathbf{I}$, but that matrix is generally not invertible in radio interferometry. Whenever one cannot make that choice of $\mathbf{D}$, $\PSF$ is not the identity and one must keep track of its effects.} Therefore, we use our freedom in choosing $\mathbf{D}$ to make it a diagonal matrix---effectively a per-pixel normalization. In Figure \ref{fig:PSFs} we plot an example of the central portions of two different rows of $\PSF$ at three different frequencies.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Example_PSFs.png}
\caption{The point spread function (or equivalently, the synthesized beam) of a dirty map varies both as a function of position on the sky and as a function of frequency. In the top row, we show the point spread functions at three frequencies corresponding to the center of the primary beam calculated for HERA. They exhibit clear diffraction rings and fairly strong side lobes due to tje fact that the minimum separation between antennas is significantly longer than the wavelength. The hexagonal pattern is due to the geometry of the array. In the bottom row, we look at off-center point spread functions. These also have side lobes, though they are asymmetric due to the primary beam and the projected layout of the array and thus a clear example of the translational variation of the PSF. All six can be thought of as single rows of different frequency blocks of the full matrix of point spread functions, $\PSF$. Each PSF peaks at 1, but we have saturated the color scale to show detail. In Section \ref{sec:method}, we will explain in detail how these PSFs are calculated.}
\label{fig:PSFs}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Connecting Maps to Power Spectra}\label{sec:powerspectra}
As we discussed earlier, we are interested in mapmaking in order to reduce the volume of our data without losing any sky information or the ability to remove foregrounds. From the map, the next step is to further compress the data by calculating a power spectrum, which can be directly compared with theoretical predictions. To connect the mapmaking formalism to 21\,cm power spectrum estimation, we will review the statistical estimator formalism for calculating power spectra while not losing any cosmological information. In the process, we will enumerate the quantities that we need to calculate in order to estimate a power spectrum from $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$. Then we will show the form that those quantities take in terms of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, $\PSF$, and $\mathbf{D}$.
\subsubsection{Power Spectrum Estimation Reivew}
Fundamentally, a power spectrum estimate is a quadratic combination of the data. To calculate a power spectrum, roughly speaking, one simply Fourier transforms real-space data, squares, and then averages in discrete bins to form ``band powers." In a real-world measurement with noise and foreground contamination, we need a more sophisticated technique.
Because we have a finite amount of data, we must discretize the power spectrum we estimate by approximating $P(\mathbf{k})$ as a piecewise constant function described by a set of band powers $\mathbf{p}$ using
\begin{equation}
P(\mathbf{k}) \approx \sum_\alpha p_\alpha \chi_\alpha(\mathbf{k}), \label{eq:bandpowers}.
\end{equation}
Here $\chi_\alpha(\mathbf{k})$ is a characteristic function which equals 1 inside the region described by the band power $p_\alpha$ and vanishes elsewhere.
Since the power spectrum is a quadratic quantity in the data, an estimator $\widehat{\mathbf{p}}$ of the band power spectrum $\mathbf{p}$ (which is discretized by approximating the power spectrum as piecewise-constant) takes the form
\begin{equation}
\widehat{p}_\alpha = (\widehat{\mathbf{x}} - \boldsymbol\mu)^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{E}_\alpha (\widehat{\mathbf{x}} - \boldsymbol\mu) - b_\alpha.
\end{equation}
Here $\mathbf{E}_\alpha$ very generally represents the operations we want to perform on the data and $\boldsymbol\mu \equiv \langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle$ is the ensemble average over many realizations of the same exact observation, each with different noise, and $\mathbf{b}$ removes additive bias from noise and residual foregrounds in the power spectrum.
Just as estimators of the form in Equation \eqref{eq:OMM} do not lose any information about the true sky contained in the visibilities, there exists an optimal quadratic estimator for power spectra that does not lose cosmological information \cite{Maxpowerspeclossless}.\footnote{This entails certain assumptions, most notably that the noise, residual foregrounds, and signal are all completely described by their means and covariances---in other words that they are Gaussian. We know that this is not exactly true in the case of residual foregrounds and signal, though it is generally assumed to be a pretty good approximation for the purposes of the first generation of 21\,cm measurements \cite{LT11}.} Those estimators take the form
\begin{equation}
\widehat{p}_\alpha = \frac{1}{2}M^{\alpha\beta} (\widehat{\mathbf{x}} - \boldsymbol\mu)^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{C}^{-1} \mathbf{C},_\beta \mathbf{C}^{-1} (\widehat{\mathbf{x}} -\boldsymbol\mu) - b_\alpha. \label{eq:QE}
\end{equation}
In this equation, $\mathbf{M}$ is an invertible normalization matrix, analogous to $\mathbf{D}$ and $\mathbf{C}$ is the covariance of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ (not of the true sky $\mathbf{x}$) and is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C} \equiv \langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \widehat{\mathbf{x}}^\mathsf{T} \rangle - \langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle \langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle ^\mathsf{T}.
\end{equation}
Each $\mathbf{C},_\beta$ matrix, which encodes the Fourier transforming and binning steps of the power spectrum, is defined such that
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{C}^\text{contaminants} + \sum_\beta p_\beta \mathbf{C},_\beta.
\end{equation}
Here $\mathbf{C}^\text{contaminants}$ represents the covariance of anything that appears in $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ that is not the 21\,cm cosmological signal. In other words, the set of $\mathbf{C},_\beta$ matrices tells us how the covariance of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ responds to changes in the underlying band powers, $\mathbf{p}$. We will explain the precise form of $\mathbf{C},_\beta$ shortly.
\subsubsection{The Statistics of the Mapmaking Estimator}
All of the quantities we are interested in calculating when estimating the power spectrum, including the bias term, the errors on our band powers, the error covariance between band powers, and the ``window functions" that encode the relationship between $\widehat{\mathbf{p}}$ and $\mathbf{p}$, are derived from our models of $\boldsymbol\mu$ and $\mathbf{C}$ (see e.g. \cite{Maxpowerspeclossless, LT11, DillonFast, X13} for the exact forms of these quantities). In this section, we will see how those quantities depend on the mapmaking algorithm and are inextricably linked to the response of the interferometer.
We have already shown that $\langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle = \PSF \mathbf{x}$ in Equations \eqref{eq:<xhat>} and \eqref{eq:PSFdef}. When we are making a map, this is sufficient---there is a ``true" sky and we are trying to estimate a quantity related to it from noisy data in a well-understood way. In the context of power spectrum estimation, simply averaging down instrumental noise is not enough. Because we are interested in the statistical properties of the Universe as a whole, we are trying to use multiple independent spatial modes to learn about at the underlying statistics of $\mathbf{x}$, taking advantage of homogeneity and isotropy. Though there is only one true sky, we treat it as a random field with Gaussian statistics. Therefore,
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol\mu &= \langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle = \PSF \langle \mathbf{x} \rangle \nonumber \\
&= \PSF\left[ \langle \mathbf{x}^S \rangle + \langle \mathbf{x}^N \rangle + \langle \mathbf{x}^{FG} \rangle \right] = \PSF \langle \mathbf{x}^{FG} \rangle. \label{eq:mean}
\end{align}
Here we have explicitly separated our model for the sky into three statistically independent parts: the 21\,cm signal, the noise, and the foregrounds. Only the foregrounds have nonzero mean.\footnote{The mean of the cosmological signal is zero only because it is usually defined as the fluctuations from the mean brightness temperature of the global 21\,cm signal. For our purposes, the global signal is a contaminant and can be treated as part of the diffuse foregrounds without loss of generality.} Because they are statistically independent, the covariance can be separated into the sum of three matrices.\footnote{It should be noted that each of these covariance matrices is the covariance of the instrument-convolved sky and not the true sky, in contrast to the notation in \cite{DillonFast} which, by treating an idealized scenario, ignored the distinction.} Hence,
\begin{align}
\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{C}^S + \mathbf{C}^N + \mathbf{C}^{FG}.
\end{align}
We will now show how all of these are calculated in the context of optimal mapmaking.
\subsubsection{The Signal Covariance}
First, let us turn to the signal covariance, $\mathbf{C}^S$. To understand what this really means, we need to first explain what we mean by $\mathbf{x}^S$. Imagine a continuous 21\,cm temperature field as a function of position in comoving coordinates, $x^S(\mathbf{r})$. Each element of the vector $\mathbf{x}^S$ is given by
\begin{equation}
x^S_i \equiv \int \psi_i(\mathbf{r})x^S(\mathbf{r}) \frac{d^3r}{\Delta V},
\end{equation}
where $\psi_i(\mathbf{r})$ encloses exactly the same volume as $\psi_i(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu)$ and $\Delta V \equiv \int \psi_i(\mathbf{r}) d^3r$ is the comoving volume of a voxel. The continuous 21\,cm power spectrum, $P(\mathbf{k})$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\left< \left[\widetilde{x}^S(\mathbf{k})\right]^* \widetilde{x}^S(\mathbf{k}') \right> \equiv (2\pi)^3 \delta(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}') P(\mathbf{k}),
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{x}^S(\mathbf{k})$ is the Fourier transform of $x^S(\mathbf{r})$. It follows then that
\begin{equation}
\langle x^S_i x^S_j \rangle - \langle x^S_i \rangle \langle x^S_j \rangle = \int \widetilde{\psi}_{i}(\mathbf{k})\widetilde{\psi}_{j}^{*}(\mathbf{k})P(\mathbf{k})\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}. \label{eq:signalcov}
\end{equation}
By combining Equations \eqref{eq:signalcov} and \eqref{eq:bandpowers}, we can write down the covariance of $\mathbf{x}^S$:
\begin{equation}
\langle x^S_i x^S_j \rangle - \langle x^S_i \rangle \langle x^S_j \rangle \approx \sum_\alpha p_\alpha Q^\alpha_{ij}, \label{eq:covx}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
Q^\alpha_{ij} \equiv \int \widetilde{\psi}_{i}(\mathbf{k})\widetilde{\psi}_{j}^{*}(\mathbf{k})\chi_\alpha(\mathbf{k})\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}.
\end{equation}
Finally, using the fact that $\langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle = \PSF \mathbf{x}$ determines also the relationship between the cosmological components of $\mathbf{x}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, we find that
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}^S \approx \PSF \left[ \sum_\alpha p_\alpha \mathbf{Q}_\alpha \right]\PSF^\mathsf{T} \label{eq:CS}
\end{equation}
and therefore that
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C},_\alpha \approx \PSF \mathbf{Q}_\alpha \PSF^\mathsf{T}. \label{eq:CcommaAlpha}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{The Noise Covariance}
While $\langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}}^N \rangle = \langle \mathbf{x}^N \rangle = 0$, the instrumental noise still contributes to the covariance. Our mapmaking formalism makes it straightforward to track how the noise on individual visibilities, $\sigma^2_i$, translates into correlated noise between pixels in a dirty map, which is described by $\mathbf{C}^N$. Let us imagine that $\mathbf{x} = 0$ and our instrument measured just noise for each visibility. If we compute the covariance of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ in this case we will have $\mathbf{C}^N$, since $\mathbf{C}^{S}$ and $\mathbf{C}^{FG}$ represent our knowledge about the sky. This is true because there are no cross terms that correlate noise with foregrounds or signal.
Therefore, since our usual inverse-covariance-weighted map estimator now gives us
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathbf{x}}^N = \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{n},
\end{equation}
it follows that
\begin{align}
\mathbf{C}^N &= \left< \widehat{\mathbf{x}}^N \left(\widehat{\mathbf{x}}^N \right)^\mathsf{T} \right> = \left< \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{n} \mathbf{n}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{D}^\mathsf{T} \right> \nonumber \\
&= \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \left< \mathbf{n} \mathbf{n}^\dagger \right> \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{D}^\mathsf{T} \nonumber \\
&= \mathbf{D} \mathbf{A}^\dagger\mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{D}^\mathsf{T} = \PSF \mathbf{D}^\mathsf{T}. \label{eq:CN}
\end{align}
This is a gratifyingly simple result; calculating $\PSF$ yields $\mathbf{C}^N$ virtually for free. It also allows us to avoid the common assumption (made for example by \cite{X13}, \cite{LT11} and, \cite{DillonFast}) that instrumental noise is uncorrelated between pixels in a gridded $uv$-plane. Correlations between $uv$ pixels introduced by the primary beam are fully taken into account in our framework because, like in \cite{EoRWindow1}, $\mathbf{C}^N$ contains all the relevant information about the instrument and the mapmaking process.
\subsubsection{The Foreground Covariance}
Finally, we come to the statistics of the foregrounds. The reason that we treat $\mathbf{x}^{FG}$ as a random field even though there is really only one set of true foregrounds is that we want to represent both our best guess at the foregrounds and our uncertainty about that guess. When we write $\langle \mathbf{x}^{FG} \rangle$ in Equation \eqref{eq:mean}, we really mean our best guess as to the true foregrounds---the average of our incomplete knowledge about their positions, fluxes, spectral indices, and angular extents. Therefore we need to calculate
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol\mu = \langle \widehat{\mathbf{x}}^{FG} \rangle = \PSF \langle \mathbf{x}^{FG} \rangle = \PSF \mathbf{x}^{FG}_\text{model}
\end{equation}
to use in our quadratic estimator in Equation \eqref{eq:QE}.
Previous work (e.g. \cite{LT11,DillonFast}) built explicit models of the foreground uncertainty by looking at the first and second moments of $\mathbf{x}^{FG}$ and not at $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}^{FG}$. We can take that work and generalize it straightforwardly. If $\mathbf{C}^{FG}_\text{model}$ is a model of foregrounds that takes into account our uncertainties about fluxes, spectral indices, and angular correlations, like the one developed in \cite{LT11} and \cite{DillonFast}, then the foreground covariance of the estimator is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}^{FG} = \PSF \mathbf{C}^{FG}_\text{model} \PSF^\mathsf{T}. \label{eq:CFG}
\end{equation}
This equation compactly illustrates a key difference between the analysis methods developed by \citet{LT11} and \citet{DillonFast} and any future work that takes into account the inherent frequency dependence of foregrounds in dirty maps---the focus of this work. Intrinsic foregrounds are believed to be dominated by only a few Fourier modes \cite{AdrianForegrounds}. That means that the expression of our uncertainty about the level of foreground contamination and thus our ability to subtract foreground, $C^{FG}_\text{model}$, should also be dominated by a few Fourier modes. However the PSF's spectral and spatial structure moves power from those low $k_\|$ modes up into the wedge. In Figure \ref{fig:chromaticity}, we plot a few representative lines of sight of a field-centered PSF of a zenith-pointed instrument at different distances from field center.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{PSF_Chromaticity.pdf}
\caption{The position and frequency dependence of the synthesized beam is the origin of the ``wedge" feature and plays a key role in determining which Fourier modes are foreground dominated in any power spectrum estimate. Here we show four different example lines of sight through a single frequency-dependent PSF, namely the one we showed for HERA in the top row of Figure \ref{fig:PSFs}. The structure we see means that intrinsically flat spectrum sources will appear far more complicated in a dirty map. We can also see that emission further from the zenith has more complicated spectral structure---an observation that helps explain the wedge. Any attempt at foreground subtraction will require detailed knowledge of this spectral behavior, both for our models for foregrounds and for our models of our uncertainty about foreground fluxes and spectral indices.}
\label{fig:chromaticity}
\end{figure}
Even a flat-spectrum source would see considerable structure introduced on many spatial scales along the line of sight, especially far from the zenith. This is the origin of the wedge \cite{MoralesPSShapes} and, as \cite{EoRWindow1} pointed out, it can be fully understood as a consequence of the fact that frequency appears in the exponent of Equation \eqref{eq:AnalyticVisibility}. An interferometer is an inherently chromatic instrument.
To summarize, in order to optimally estimate a 21\,cm power spectrum from the results of an optimal mapmaking routine, we must properly take into account the relationship between the dirty map and the true sky. To do this, we will need:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Our estimated dirty map, $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$.
\item The normalization matrix for that map, $\mathbf{D}$, and the matrix of point spread functions, $\PSF$. Those require knowledge of the instrument, the observing strategy, and the noise in our measurements.
\item A model for the cosmological signal, which will allow us to properly account for sample variance.
\item A ``best guess" for the foregrounds and a model for our uncertainty about that best guess.
\end{enumerate}
With all these components, we can go from visibilities, through the data-compressing mapping step, and all the way to band powers in a self-consistent way while minimizing the loss of cosmological information and maintaining a full understanding of the error properties of our measurements.
\section{Precision Mapmaking in Practice: Methods, Trade-Offs, and Results} \label{sec:method}
The theoretically optimal mapmaking method outlined in Section \ref{sec:Mapmaking} poses immense computational challenges. To make it useful for real-world application, we need to find and assess ways of simplifying it while maintaining its precision and statistical rigor.
Because this work serves in large part to generalize the work of \cite{DillonFast}, it is essential to continue to assess that the proposed algorithms are computationally feasible, despite the large size of these data sets and the potentially cost-prohibitive matrix operations involved. That work showed that as long as $\mathbf{C}$ could be decently preconditioned and then multiplied by a vector quickly, we could estimate the power spectrum in a way that scaled favorably with the data volume---between $\BigO{N\log N}$ and $\BigO{N^{5/3}}$, where $N$ is the number of voxels in a data volume. This was accomplished using various numerical tricks, taking advantage of translational invariance, the fast Fourier transform, various symmetries, and the flat-sky approximation.
Without any approximations, the vectors and matrices we introduced in Section \ref{sec:Mapmaking} are very big. $\PSF$, for example relates the whole true sky to the whole dirty map---for every frequency, it has as many entries as the number of pixels squared. The time-ordered data vector is very big too---it has entries for every baseline, at every frequency, for every integration. That means that $\mathbf{A}$ is enormous, since it maps from $\mathbf{x}$ to $\mathbf{y}$. We quantify exactly the exact scale of the problem of data volume and computational difficulty in Section \ref{sec:challenges}, but it is clear that calculating every vector and matrix quantity we have enumerated in Section \ref{sec:Mapmaking} is not feasible.
When making maps, there are at least six ways to make $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\PSF$ smaller or easier to calculate or use. Three have to do with the geometry of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$; three have to do with approximate methods of calculating $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ or $\PSF$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We can make faceted maps of only very small parts of the sky at a time.
\item We can pixelize the sky more coarsely.
\item We can average together neighboring frequencies, lowering the frequency resolution.
\item We can average together neighboring timesteps before computing $\PSF$.
\item We can make $\PSF$ smaller by taking advantage of the finite sizes of the primary and the synthesized beams.
\item We can make $\PSF$ sparser by approximately fitting it in some basis.
\end{enumerate}
Roughly speaking, the first three approaches affect the kind of maps we want to make and the information content in them. The last three affect the quality of the maps we make or the fidelity with which an approximate version of $\PSF$ represents the relationship between $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\mathbf{x}$. The exact properties of the desired maps depends upon the power spectrum estimation technique used. For example, if we want to measure high $k_\perp$ modes, we need high angular resolution and therefore a lot of pixels.
In this work, we take a specific case of the first three---choices motivated by the particular array we assess and the desire not to lose much cosmological information. We then evaluate quantitatively the trade-offs inherent in approaches that affect the quality of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and any approximation to $\PSF$. We begin by specifying both the array (Section \ref{sec:HERA}) and the sky model (Section \ref{sec:skymodel}) that we use for the case study we present. In that context, we can quantify the computational challenges involved in mapmaking in Section \ref{sec:challenges}.
From there, we examine the three ways of making the mapmaking problem easier for a given kind of map. In Section \ref{sec:faceting} we look at truncating $\PSF$ and how that affects our understanding of the relationship between the dirty map and the true sky. In Section \ref{sec:snapshots} we look at the optimal way to perform time averaging and the trade-offs involved. Then we look at finding a sparse approximation to $\PSF$ in Section \ref{sec:PSFfitting}, which is important because multiplication by all three parts of $\mathbf{C}$ also requires multiplication by $\PSF$. We discuss a way of accomplishing that in the spirit of \cite{DillonFast}.\footnote{The question of preconditioning for rapid conjugate gradient convergence, which was addressed in \cite{DillonFast} in the context of estimators based on $\mathbf{x}$ rather than $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, is left for future work. That question cannot be answered until the exact form of the $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ is chosen. We may choose estimators with a tapering function, such as those suggested by \cite{EoRWindow1} and \cite{EoRWindow2}. We may also choose to project out certain modes from the dirty map, as we discuss in Appendix \ref{app:projection}.} All of these speed-ups require small approximations and we assess the effect of those approximations quantitatively. Finally, in Section \ref{sec:computationalSummary} we summarize those results and what we can confidently say so far about the accuracy requirements for approximating $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\PSF$ for the purposes of 21\,cm power spectrum estimation.
\subsection{HERA: A Mapmaking Case Study} \label{sec:HERA}
To test our mapmaking method and our techniques for speeding it up, we need to simulate the visibilities that a real instrument would see. We choose the planned design of the recently commenced Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA) as a particularly timely and relevant case study. HERA will have 331 parabolic dishes, each 14\,m in diameter. They will be fixed to point at the zenith with crossed dipole antennas suspended at prime focus. They will be arranged into a maximally dense hexagonal packing (see Figure \ref{fig:HERA-331}), both to maximize sensitivity to cosmological modes \cite{AaronSensitivity,PoberNextGen} and for ease and precision of calibration \cite{redundant,MITEoR_IEEE,MITEoR}.\footnote{Plans for HERA also include outrigger antennas at much greater distances from the hexagonal core to enable low signal-to-noise, high angular resolution imaging. Though they will be useful for making high-resolution maps and modeling astrophysical foregrounds, they do not add significantly to the cosmological sensitivity of the instrument. Since we are focused on maps as a data-compression step between visibilities and power spectra, we ignore them in this analysis.} In this work, our calculations assume perfect calibration of the instrument and (unless otherwise stated) perfect antenna placement.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{HERA_Configuration.pdf}
\caption{We test our method on simulated visibilities from the planned Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA). The array, seeen schematically in the top panel, consists of 331 14\,m parabolic dishes, arranged in a close-packed hexagonal configuration. In the bottom panel, we show a rendering of the final array, which will feature more than $0.05\text{\,km}^2$ of collecting area (a standard shipping container, on the right side of the image, is shown for comparison.)}
\label{fig:HERA-331}
\end{figure}
HERA also has two advantages that make our algorithms easier to carry out on a relatively small number of computers. First, although it has 331 elements, it only has 630 unique baselines. That is because a highly-redundant array with $N$ baselines has $\BigO{N}$ unique baselines, as opposed to minimally redundant arrays, which have $\BigO{N^2}$ baselines. That is why the MWA has an order of magnitude more baselines than HERA, even though it has only 128 elements. Second, it has a relatively small primary beam, in contrast to both MWA and PAPER. In this work, we model it fairly accurately as a Gaussian beam with a full width at half maximum of $10^\circ$ at 150\,MHz. It should be noted that the method described in this work is independent of the interferometric design. HERA happens to be both a particularly convenient and relevant example.
\subsection{Testing Mapmaking with a Specific Sky Model} \label{sec:skymodel}
As we find ways to compute mapmaking statistics quickly and accurately, we need to answer a key question: do we understand the relationship between our dirty map $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and the input sky model from which we simulated visibilities? It is not important how much our dirty maps look like the sky itself. We just want to make sure that we keep track of everything the instrument and our mapmaking algorithm has done to the data so we can take it into account properly when start estimating power spectra.
We therefore need an input sky model for two reasons. First, we need to be able to use Equation \eqref{eq:AnalyticVisibility} to compute visibilities and thus $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$. Next, we also want to compute the matrix of point spread functions $\PSF$ corresponding to the same set of observations and multiply it by our true sky model $\mathbf{x}$. The error metric we use therefore is
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon = \frac{\left| \widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{exact} - \widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{approx} \right|}{\left|\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{exact} \right|}. \label{eq:errorMetric}
\end{equation}
To be clear, this does not measure the difference between our dirty map and the true sky. It is merely a measure of the discrepancy between what the instrument and our mapmaking routine did to the sky in order to form the dirty map ($\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{exact}$) and what we think we know about those effects ($\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{approx}$) when we write down $\boldsymbol\mu$ and $\mathbf{C}$.
One advantage to this metric is that it is often relatively easy to calculate $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{exact}$, at least up to $\mathbf{D}$ which we can factor out of the numerator of Equation \eqref{eq:errorMetric}, compared to calculating $\PSF$. That is because calculating $\mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{y}$ is as computationally difficult as calculating a single row of $\PSF$. In the following sections, we will be examining ways of computing $\PSF$ faster. Sometimes (e.g. in Sections \ref{sec:faceting} and \ref{sec:PSFfitting}) that means an approximate $\PSF$ but an exact $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, in which case $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{approx} = \PSF_\text{approx} \mathbf{x}$. Other times (e.g. in Section \ref{sec:snapshots}) that means a method for computing $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ that also makes $\PSF$ easier to compute. In that case, Equation \eqref{eq:errorMetric} compares the approximate method for computing $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ with the exact one.
We have chosen a sky model with two components: 1) bright point sources and 2) diffuse emission from our Galaxy and other dim, confusion-limited galaxies. Since each frequency is measured and analyzed independently (meaning that $\mathbf{A}$ is sparse and can be written compactly in blocks), we will perform all the simulations at a representative frequency of 150\,MHz. While the simulations properly weight visibilities based on how many times each unique baseline was measured, we do not include any noise in our calculation of the quantities in Equation \eqref{eq:errorMetric}. We also assume that all baselines at a given frequency have the same noise properties, though that assumption can be straightforwardly relaxed.
\subsubsection{Point Sources}
Our sky model includes bright point sources above 1\,Jy with specified positions, fluxes, and spectral indices. These are taken from the MWA Commissioning Survey Catalog \cite{MWACS}, which is complete to below 1\,Jy for a large fraction of the sky. The included spectral indices are used to extrapolate their fluxes at 150\,MHz down from the survey frequency of 180\,MHz. For the calculation of visibilities using Equation \eqref{eq:AnalyticVisibility}, they are treated as true point sources with Dirac delta function spatial extent. In Figure \ref{fig:PointSources}, we show a representative sample of those point sources and what they look like in the dirty map, $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Sample_Point_Sources.png}
\caption{To test our mapmaking method and our approximate techniques for making it much faster, we need a fiducial sky model. One component of that model is bright point sources, which are taken from the MWA Commisioning Survey Catalog \cite{MWACS}. In the top panel, we show the spatial distribution and intrinsic flux of all point sources whose primary-beam-weighted fluxes are above 1\,Jy. In the bottom panel, we show $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}=\PSF\mathbf{x}$, the PSF-convolved and discretized dirty map with HEALPix $N_\text{side}=128$. Since the point spread functions are computed at the locations corresponding to each point source, the bottom panel is exact.}
\label{fig:PointSources}
\end{figure}
The sky model for point sources is completely independent of our pixelization. Since we know the location of all the point sources, we can think of $\mathbf{x}$ as having a discretized component covering the whole sky in pixels---which we will use for analyzing diffuse emission---and a set of Dirac delta function fluxes at the positions of the point sources. The sky model for point sources is completely independent of our pixelization. This is completely compatible with the definition of our pixelization in Section \ref{sec:interferometry}, it is just that some pixels have finite area and some have infinitesimal area. It is the pixels with finite volume that we care about for 21\,cm power spectrum estimation, but the infinitesimal ``pixels" matter for foreground subtraction. Likewise, $\PSF$ has two blocks: one that maps pixels on the true sky to pixels on the dirty map and one that maps points on the true sky to pixels on the dirty map.
\subsubsection{Diffuse Emission}
In the case of point sources, we might hope to use precise locations on the sky to refine our models of $\boldsymbol\mu$ and $\mathbf{C}$ and do a better job of separating foregrounds from the 21\,cm signal. That is simply not possible with diffuse synchrotron emission from our Galaxy or with the confusion-limited emission from relatively dim radio galaxies. Fundamentally, our best guess at that emission and its statistics will have to be discretized and pixelized. Uncertainty about how many confusion-limited point sources appear in a single pixel introduces shot noise, which can be modeled \cite{LT11,DillonFast}.
In this work, we are interested in errors caused by assumptions and approximations in our mapmaking routine whose effects are not taken into account when estimating power spectra. In order to write down a vector $\mathbf{x}$ that we can use to compute $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and thus $\varepsilon$ with Equation \eqref{eq:errorMetric}, we can either treat the emission as constant in the pixel or we can treat the emission as a ``point source" at the center of each pixel. For computational simplicity, we choose the latter. With relatively small pixels, there is no practical difference between the two. Since we are concerned about translating our models for foreground residuals in the true sky into models in the dirty map, the pixelization here is not an approximation so much as a consequence of the discretized models for foreground residuals we need for power spectrum estimation. It is possible to construct $\PSF$ to have different angular resolutions of $\mathbf{x}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, if one would like to incorporate a high-resolution diffuse foreground covariance model. The more information we can incorporate about the foregrounds, the smaller our uncertainties get and the better foreground subtraction works.
We use the popular HEALPix software package \cite{HEALPIX} for discretizing the celestial sphere into regularly spaced, equal-area pixels. As a model for the emission itself, we use the Global Sky Model of \citet{GSM} (see Figure \ref{fig:GSM}). The precise model we choose for this work matters only insofar as it is relatively realistic and representative of the true sky. That said, building good foreground models is an important ongoing endeavor relevant to power spectrum estimation and foreground subtraction \cite{ChrisMWA,PoberWedge,JacobsFluxScale,InitialLOFAR1,InitialLOFAR2}.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Sample_GSM.png}
\caption{The sky model we use to evaluate our mapmaking algorithm and the accuracy of the approximations we make also includes diffuse emission from our Galaxy and faint radio galaxies. For our model of diffuse emission, we use the Global Sky Model of \cite{GSM}. In the top panel, we show a small part of our model for the true diffuse emission. Since we are not trying to model fine spatial information or the precise locations of point sources with our diffuse models, we pixelize the emission identically to the pixelization of our dirty map. In the bottom panel, we show that dirty map. It looks fairly different from the true sky, largely because of the appearance of a side lobe from a bright object outside the field. This occurs because the $\PSF$ maps a very large region of the sky to a small one shown here. The effects of faceting and side lobes will be explored further in Section \ref{sec:faceting}.}
\label{fig:GSM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Computational Challenges of Mapmaking} \label{sec:challenges}
We already alluded to the fact that we need to investigate various simplifications and approximations to make the calculation of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and $\PSF$ tractable. Let us take the time to see exactly where the problem lies.
Consider the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ where $\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{A} \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{n}$. $\mathbf{A}$ maps a discretized sky into time-ordered data. If we want to slightly over-resolve the sky with HERA, we might choose a HEALPix map with $N_\text{side} = 256$, which gives an angular resolution of about $0.2^\circ$. That is almost $10^6$ pixels at each of about 1000 different frequencies (assuming 100\,kHz resolution and 100\,MHz of simultaneous bandwidth). If we measure all our visibilities every two seconds for 1000 total hours at all 1000 frequencies, that is $10^{14}$ visibilities, so naively, $\mathbf{A}$ is a $10^{14} \times 10^9$ matrix. That is a problem.
Of course, there are many standard simplifications. Each frequency is treated completely independently during mapmaking, so we can treat $\mathbf{A}$ as either block diagonal or as a family of 1000 much smaller matrices, $\mathbf{A}(f)$. Redundant baselines measure the same sky, so their visibilities can be combined together, reducing both instrumental noise and the number of visibilities by a factor of almost 100 in the case of HERA. Getting 1000 hours of nighttime observation takes about 100 days, so we can LST-bin, reducing both noise variance and data volume by another two orders of magnitude. Since each time-step is independent of all others, we can further break $\mathbf{A}$ into about 10,000 pieces for each integration.
We still have $10^7$ different $\mathbf{A}$ matrices, each $10^3 \times 10^6$. This size is challenging but acceptable for either simulating visibilities or calculating $\mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{y}$. However, it is simply too big for the calculation of $\PSF$, which would require the computationally infeasible task of multiplying together two matrices of this size $10^7$ times, each multiplication taking roughly $10^{15}$ operations. In the following sections, we will look at ways of reducing the number of $\mathbf{A}(f)$ matrices and making each $\mathbf{A}(f)$ smaller, especially during the calculation of $\PSF$.
\subsection{Faceting and First Mapmaking Results} \label{sec:faceting}
The matrix of point spread functions $\PSF$ is defined by the relation $\langle\widehat{\mathbf{x}} \rangle = \PSF \mathbf{x}$. It can be thought of as a transformation from one pixelized real space---that of the true sky---to another---that of the dirty map. For even a modest angular resolution, that is an enormous matrix. Do we really need to know the relationship between every pixel in the sky and every pixel in the dirty map?
\subsubsection{Why We Facet}
Breaking up the field of view into a number of smaller facets is a standard technique in radio astronomy, especially when one wants to minimize the effects of noncoplanar baselines \cite{CornwellWProj}. For purposes of 21\,cm cosmology, there are two good reasons to consider relatively small regions of the sky one at a time. The first is HERA's observing strategy. Because it statically points at the zenith, HERA scans a fixed stripe in declination about $10^\circ$ degrees wide. It seems reasonable that we can analyze parts of the stripe independently, making maps and computing power spectra for each small facet. In Figure \ref{fig:HERA_Stripe}, we show an example of what that faceting might look like.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.48\textwidth]{HERA_Facets.png}
\caption{The faceted approach we use to speed up optimal mapmaking and power spectrum estimation will be especially useful for HERA because it is limited to only observe an approximately $10^\circ$ stripe of constant declination, centered on the array's latitude of approximately $-30.7^\circ$. It is fairly natural to split up the observation into roughly $10^\circ\times10^\circ$ facets, each analyzed separately. This makes $\PSF$ much easier to compute and lets us use the flat-sky approxmation, a requirement for implementing the power spectrum methods of \citet{DillonFast}. Very little cosmological information is lost in this process; only the longest spatial modes are thrown out and they should be dominated by galactic emission.}
\label{fig:HERA_Stripe}
\end{figure}
The only significant disadvantage to faceting is that we lose the ability to measure modes in the power spectrum with wavelengths perpendicular to the line of sight that are larger than the facet. Doing so properly and with precisely quantified error properties would require calculating covariance between facets, which is effectively the same as not faceting at all. This is not such a great hardship. Due to the survey geometry, only the long modes oriented along the HERA stripe could have been measured at all. They are longer than the shortest baseline, meaning that they can only be sampled after considerable sky rotation. The same $|\mathbf{k}|$ modes can be also be accessed along the line of sight, except those at very low spectral wave-numbers, which are bound to be foreground dominated.
The other major upside to faceting is that, if we want to use the fast power spectrum techniques developed in \cite{DillonFast}, we need to take our maps and chop them up into facets anyway. That is because any fast algorithm that takes advantage of the fast Fourier transform (e.g. that in \cite{DillonFast}) and translational invariance relies on rectilinear data cubes, which is only an accurate approximation for small fields where the flat-sky approximation holds. Happily, that rough size is also about $10^\circ$. For other instruments, the choice of facet size is less obvious and depends on the computational demands of both mapmaking and power spectrum estimation. Bigger facets preserve more information, but they can be more computationally expensive than they are cosmologically useful. The exact right choice for other interferometers is a matter for future work.
\subsubsection{Faceted Mapmaking Method And Results}
So, instead of using $\mathbf{D}\mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{y}$ to calculate $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, we instead redefine $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ using
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{D} \mathbf{K}_\text{facet}\mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{y},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{K}_\text{facet}$ maps the full sky to a small portion of the sky, thus making $\PSF$ asymmetric. Doing this for every facet basically amounts to only mapping the parts of the sky that are ever near the center of the primary beam. This provides a computational simplification by a factor of $4\pi / (\Omega_\text{facet} N_\text{facets})$, which for HERA is about an or order of magnitude. An instrument that can see the whole sky would see no computational benefit just from breaking the sky in facets.
The real computationally limiting step is the calculation of $\PSF$. Since we are only interested in the dirty map of a facet, we care only about source flux that could have contributed to that dirty map. That means that we can truncate each point spread function some distance from the facet center. Flux outside that truncation radius is assumed not to contribute significantly. In other words,
\begin{equation}
\PSF = \mathbf{D} \mathbf{K}_\text{facet} \mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A} \mathbf{K}_\text{PSF}^\mathsf{T}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{K}_\text{PSF}$ is the same as $\mathbf{K}_\text{facet}$ except that it cuts off at some larger radius than the facet size. We get to choose exactly what radius we want to assume that no outside flux contributes to the facet. This is a completely tunable approximation and it becomes exact in the limit that that radius encompasses the whole sky.
Therefore, instead of mapping the whole sky to the whole sky, the matrix of point spread functions now maps some moderate portion of the sky to a somewhat smaller part of the sky. Since $\mathbf{N}$ is diagonal, both the time it takes to calculate $\PSF$ and the memory it takes to store it are reduced by very large factor. If the truncation region is 4 times the $10^\circ$ facet size, for example, then that savings is a factor of about $10^4$.
This new definition of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ means that $\mathbf{D}$ is now a much, much smaller matrix---it has only as many elements as there are pixels in the facet. And since we are only interested in the correlation between pixels in the map, the noise covariance is now
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}^N = \PSF \mathbf{K}_\text{facet}^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{D}^\mathsf{T},
\end{equation}
which is much smaller and still quite simple.
We illustrate the effect of the PSF truncation radius in Figure \ref{fig:PSF_Progress}, showing the large impact that increasing the truncation radius has on our calculations of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{approx} = \PSF_\text{approx} \mathbf{x}$ and therefore of $\varepsilon$. We find that once the PSF includes both the central peak of the synthesized beam and the first major side lobes, the convergence of $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{approx}$ to $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{exact}$ is very quick.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{PSF_Progress.png}
\caption{In order to accurately reproduce dirty maps, we must include in our $\PSF$ matrix the effect flux from outside the facet that appears in the side lobes of off-facet sources. Here we demonstrate that effect by looking at how the approximate PSF-convolved sky, $\PSF_\text{approx}\mathbf{x}$, evolves as we expand the distance from the center of the facet at which the point spread function is approximated to not contribute. In the top row, we plot $\PSF_\text{approx}\mathbf{x}$ while on the bottom row we plot $\PSF_\text{approx}\mathbf{x} - \widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{exact}$. ($\PSF_\text{exact}\mathbf{x} = \widehat{\mathbf{x}}_\text{exact}$ is shown in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:GSM}.) Since the visibilites that go into computing $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ derive from a full-sky calculation, side lobes are automatically included. The bright spot we see on the top right panel, which appears as a dark spot on the bottom left and bottom middle panels, is a prominent side lobe from a very bright source outside the facet, but within $15^\circ$ of the facet center. This explains what we saw in Figure \ref{fig:GSM} and the dramatic improvement in the error we see in the right-hand panels.}
\label{fig:PSF_Progress}
\end{figure*}
We further tested the expected convergence of the algorithm for a fixed facet size and variable $\mathbf{K}_\text{PSF}$ using the sky model from Section \ref{sec:skymodel}. Our results, which we show in Figure \ref{fig:PSF_Size_Test}, again demonstrate that the PSF truncation radius does not need to be much larger than the facet, if the facet is comparable in size to the primary beam. The exact level of error introduced by faceting will, in general, depend upon the compactness of both the primary and synthesized beams. The approximation that the point spread function is Gaussian might make the plotted relative error a bit optimistic, though the side lobes in the real HERA primary beam are quite small.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{PSF_Size_Test.pdf}
\caption{The error introduced by the approximation that the PSF can be truncated past a certain distance from the facet center gets very small very quickly. Here we show how both that error, which we define in Equation \eqref{eq:errorMetric}, and the number of pixels in each point spread function depend on the truncation radius. The number of pixels, and thus the computational difficulty of computing the matrix of point spread functions, $\PSF$, scales as the truncation radius squared---there are simply more pixel values to calculate. In general, the approximation works because the point spread functions are relatively compact. HERA's design is especially helpful here with its dense grid of baselines and its relatively small primary beam. Other arrays may need larger truncation radii to acheive the same accuracy.}
\label{fig:PSF_Size_Test}
\end{figure}
In summary, faceting allows us to decrease the time it takes to calculate the $\PSF$ and the memory required to store it by a factor of $(4\pi)^2 / (\Omega_\text{facet} \Omega_\text{PSF})$, where $\Omega_\text{PSF}$ is the angular size of the region left by $\mathbf{K}_\text{PSF}$. In the case of HERA, that works out to about 10,000 times faster and smaller.
\subsubsection{Mitigating Nonredundancy} \label{sec:nonredundant}
Making maps in facets also has one extra advantage useful in addressing a common complication presented by real-world arrays. If we assume in our analysis that every baseline of a given designed separation actually has that separation, we will be ignoring errors that can be a decent fraction of a wavelength. And though HERA is a zenith-pointed array for which noncoplanar effects are small, they are not zero and can be quite large for other instruments like the MWA. Noncoplanarity creates nonredundancy.
However, as long as we know precise positions of all of our antennas (which is far easier than making the array perfectly redundant) we can use the fact that we are only mapping a single facet at a time to reduce those phase errors near the center of our map. We can think of each baseline corresponding to some unique baseline $\mathbf{b}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{b}_m = \mathbf{b} + \Delta \mathbf{b}_m,
\end{equation}
where the residuals are caused by inexact antenna placement. That means that Equation \eqref{eq:VisibilitySum} becomes
\begin{align}
V(\mathbf{b}_m,\nu_n) \approx \sum_k &\Delta\Omega \frac{2 k_B \nu_n^2}{c^2} x_k(\nu_n) B(\hat{\mathbf{r}}_k,\nu_n) \times \nonumber \\
& \exp\left[-2 \pi i \frac{\nu_n}{c} \left(\mathbf{b} + \Delta \mathbf{b}_m\right) \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}_k \right]. \label{eq:nonredundant}
\end{align}
We need the right-hant side of this equation to be the same for all $\mathbf{b}_m$ corresponding to the unique baseline $\mathbf{b}$, otherwise we lose the redundancy bonus we discussed in Section \ref{sec:challenges}.
We can achieve this approximately for small $\Delta \mathbf{b}_m$ because our facets are relatively small. Let us define $\Delta \hat{\mathbf{r}}_k \equiv \hat{\mathbf{r}}_k - \hat{\mathbf{r}}_0$ where $\hat{\mathbf{r}}_0$ points to the center of the facet and $\Delta\hat{\mathbf{r}}_k$ is generally not a unit vector. We can expand the exponent of Equation \eqref{eq:nonredundant} as
\begin{align}
&\left(\mathbf{b} + \Delta \mathbf{b}_m\right)\cdot \left( \hat{\mathbf{r}}_0 + \Delta\hat{\mathbf{r}}_k \right) \nonumber \\
= & \mbox{ } \mathbf{b}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}_0 + \mathbf{b}\cdot\Delta\hat{\mathbf{r}}_k + \Delta\mathbf{b}_m\cdot\hat{\mathbf{r}}_0 + \Delta\mathbf{b}_m \cdot \Delta\hat{\mathbf{r}}_k.
\end{align}
The first two terms in the expansion are $\mathbf{b}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{r}}_k$ and normally appear in $\mathbf{A}$. The last term, which second order in this expansion, is approximated to be zero. Even if $\mathbf{b} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}_0$ is small, the last term is in general much smaller than the second term. We can, however, correct for the middle term by multiplying both sides of Equation \eqref{eq:nonredundant} by a constant phase factor, since
\begin{equation}
V(\mathbf{b}, \nu_n) \approx \exp\left[2 \pi i \frac{\nu_n}{c} \Delta \mathbf{b}_m \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}_0 \right] V(\mathbf{b}_m, \nu_n).
\end{equation}
As was our goal, the $\PSF$ matrix that results from taking the above equation to be exactly true is the same as if we had not had any antenna placement errors or noncoplanarity. Rephasing lets us mitigate the effect of known errors without having to calculate a vastly more complicated $\PSF$, which treats all baselines completely independently, even if they are supposed to be redundant.
Effectively, our approximate correction cancels out the phase error at the exact center of the facet and thus minimizes its effect throughout the facet. For example, for $10^\circ$ facets at 150\,MHz, a 4\,cm antenna placement error (roughly the level seen in \cite{MITEoR}) leaves only a $0.63^\circ$ phase error in the visibility after rephasing. The error might be a bit worse when calculating the parts of $\PSF$ near the truncation radius. For very large fields, as \cite{CornwellWProj} addressed, this becomes a bigger problem and we may need to break each set of baselines that was supposed to be redundant into a few groups, each closer to exactly redundant, and treat each group separately. The exact effect on the accuracy of the dirty maps from this small correction is left to future work when the exact antenna placement of HERA or a similar array is known.
\subsection{Grouping Visibilities into Snapshots} \label{sec:snapshots}
Standard interferometric mapmaking techniques accumulate visibilities in the $uv$-plane via sky rotation and thereby combine minutes or even hours of visibilities together \cite{Schwab1984,Cotton2004,Cotton2005,Bhatnagar2008,Carozzi2009,Mitchell2008,bernardi,Bart,Smirnov2011,Li2011,FHD,WSCLEAN,TrottObservingModes}. We would like to find a way of reducing the number of rows in $\mathbf{A}$ for the purpose of calculating $\PSF$ by grouping integrations into ``snapshots" that are each analyzed as a single timestep when we calculate $\PSF$. How can we average together multiple visibilities over a range of times while approximating the $\PSF$ as having been calculated at only the middle timestep of each snapshot?
Once again, we can use our freedom to rephase both the visibilities and the $\mathbf{A}$ matrix as we did in Section \ref{sec:nonredundant}. The idea is to try to remove, as much as possible, the effect of sky rotation from the visibilities. Consider again Equation \eqref{eq:AnalyticVisibility}, now with explicit time dependence:
\begin{align}
V(\mathbf{b},\nu,t) = \int & B\left(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu \right)
I(\hat{\mathbf{r}},\nu,t) \times \nonumber \\
&\exp \left[-2 \pi i \frac{\nu}{c} \mathbf{b} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}} \right] d\Omega.
\end{align}
While the sky rotates, the primary beam is fixed relative to the ground.
By contrast, let us consider a new reference frame with angle vector $\hat{\mathbf{r}}'$, which rotates with the sky:
\begin{align}
V(\mathbf{b},\nu,t) = \int& B\left(\hat{\mathbf{r}}',\nu,t \right)
I(\hat{\mathbf{r}}',\nu) \times \nonumber \\
&\exp\left[-2 \pi i \frac{\nu}{c} \mathbf{b}(t) \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}' \right] d\Omega'.
\end{align}
Now the beam and the baseline vector have picked up an explicit time dependence while the sky has lost its time dependence. Let us assume that the primary beam is varying very slowly spatially---generally a good assumption since the primary beam is much larger than the spatial scales probed by most baselines.
Let us think of $V(\mathbf{b},\nu,t)$ as the visibility measured for the middle integration of a snapshot. A visibility measured a bit later during that snapshot would look like
\begin{align}
V(\mathbf{b},\nu,t+\Delta t) \approx& \int d\Omega' B\left(\hat{\mathbf{r}}',\nu,t \right)
I(\hat{\mathbf{r}}',\nu) \times \nonumber \\
&\exp\left[-2 \pi i \frac{\nu}{c} (\mathbf{b}(t)+\Delta \mathbf{b}) \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}' \right],
\end{align}
where $\Delta \mathbf{b}$ is the difference between $\mathbf{b}(t+\Delta t)$ and $\mathbf{b}(t)$ in the primed coordinate system. The dot product is basis independent, so
\begin{equation}
(\mathbf{b}(t)+\Delta \mathbf{b}) \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}' = \mathbf{b}\cdot \left(\hat{\mathbf{r}} + \Delta \hat{\mathbf{r}}(\hat{\mathbf{r}}) \right),
\end{equation}
where the right-hand side is back in the frame that is stationary relative to the Earth. $\Delta \hat{\mathbf{r}}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})$, which is not a unit vector, is the amount of sky rotation between times $t$ and $t+\Delta t$. It is approximately constant across the facet for fairly short snapshots and moderately sized facets, meaning that we can pull it out of the integral. We can therefore undo much of the effect of sky rotation using the approximation that
\begin{equation}
V(\mathbf{b},\nu,t+\Delta t) \approx e^{i \Delta\phi} V(\mathbf{b},\nu,t)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi \equiv -2 \pi \frac{\nu}{c} \mathbf{b} \cdot (\hat{\mathbf{r}}_0(t+\Delta t) - \hat{\mathbf{r}}_0(t))
\end{equation}
and where again, $\hat{\mathbf{r}}_0(t)$ points to the facet center.
We can therefore add together many visibilities taken at different times and approximately treat them as if there were all taken at the middle integration in the snapshot by rephasing them. This is very similar to the ``fringe-stopping" technique from traditional radio astronomy, which seeks to counteract the effect of the rotation of the earth at the location of a source \cite{ThompsonMoranSwenson}. As we saw in Section \ref{sec:nonredundant}, the effect of rephasing visibilities cancels out in $\PSF$, since the extra term in $\mathbf{A}$ gets canceled out in $\mathbf{A}^\dagger.$ That is why we only have to perform the calculation of $\PSF$ once per snapshot rather than once per integration. We show in Figure \ref{fig:Snapshot_Progress} a marked improvement, especially in the case of long snapshots, between naively adding together visibilities as if the sky were not rotating overhead and adding together rephased visibilities.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Snapshot_Progress.png}
\caption{One way to make the calculation of the matrix of point spread functions, $\PSF$, faster is to combine many consecutive integrations together into snapshots. When we compute $\PSF$, we effectively assume that all the associated visibilities we have grouped into one snapshot were taken exactly at the snapshot's middle time. Usually, this is a poor approximation. As we can see from the top row, where we have simply added together 10 second integrations to snapshots of increasing length, we are effectively spreading out sources in right ascension as the sky rotates overhead. However, if we use our freedom to rephase visibilities individually, we can dramatically reduce the error associated with forming snapshots. For example, the bottom right panel only exhibits error on the order of a few percent compared to the exact single-integration dirty maps in the left-hand panels. The result is related to the traditional radio astronomy technique of ``fringe stopping."}
\label{fig:Snapshot_Progress}
\end{figure*}
In Figure \ref{fig:Snapshot_Time_Test} we show quantitatively how the error increases as snapshots get longer. Here we care how these approximate dirty maps compare to the exact dirty maps made when each 10\,s integration is treated completely separately. We also found it important to rephase the visibilities to the exact middle of the snapshot, which creates a first-order cancellation that removes some of the error associated with this approximation.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Snapshot_Time_Test.pdf}
\caption{The error introduced by approximating the observation as having taken place at at only a few discrete times, many seconds or minutes apart, can be mitigated by appropriately rephasing visibilities before combining them. Here we show quantitatively how the length of snapshots---all multiples of the 10 second integration time used in our simulation---introduces small errors. We calculate the relative error $\varepsilon$ between dirty maps calculated with a given integration time and those calculated exactly using only one integration per snapshot. We also show how the computational difficulty of calculating $\PSF$ is affected, since it scales linearly with the number of independent snapshots considered.}
\label{fig:Snapshot_Time_Test}
\end{figure}
Based on the results we show in Figure \ref{fig:Snapshot_Time_Test}, it is likely that we can cut another one to two orders of magnitude off the total number of operations we need to perform to calculate $\PSF$, making that calculation considerably easier. For a given accuracy goal, it is also possible to make the calculation of $\PSF$ even simpler by forming snapshots with different durations for baselines of different lengths, keeping $\Delta \phi$ small.
\subsection{PSF Fitting} \label{sec:PSFfitting}
Now that we have found accurate and well-understood approximations that make computing $\PSF$ computationally feasible, we need to worry about multiplying a vector by $\PSF$. This is a necessary step in any power spectrum estimation scheme adapted from \cite{DillonFast}, since $\PSF$ appears in Equations \eqref{eq:CS}, \eqref{eq:CcommaAlpha}, \eqref{eq:CN}, and \eqref{eq:CFG}. In general, the number of operations in this calculation scales with the number of pixels in the facet, the number of pixels in the PSF, and the number of frequency channels, i.e. as $\BigO{N_\text{facet} N_\text{PSF} N_f}$. This is slower than we would like, so we will endeavor to show how it can be sped up.
If the point spread function were constant across the field---if it looked the same in the top and bottom rows of Figure \ref{fig:PSFs}---then the solution would be simple. We could calculate only one PSF and then use it to fill out all of $\PSF$. Then, if we approximate HEALPix pixelization as a regular grid---which is true in the flat-sky approximation---we can write $\PSF$ using Toeplitz matrices. A Toeplitz or ``constant-diagonal" matrix represents a translationally invariant relationship.\footnote{Toeplitz matrices have a number of nice properties, including the fact that an $N\times N$ Toeplitz matrix can be multiplied by a vector in $\BigO{N\log N}$ operations. This is because the translational invariance lets us use the fast Fourier transform. See \cite{Toeplitz} for a review of these matrices and their properties or \cite{DillonFast} for a previous application to 21\,cm cosmology of the same relevant properties.} A Toeplitz matrix $\mathbf{T}$ has the property that each element only depends on its distance from the diagonal of the matrix, or in other words that
\begin{equation}
T_{ii'} = t_{i-i'}. \label{eq:Toeplitz}
\end{equation}
We can imagine that, if any part of the PSF can be fully represented by its displacement from the facet center, then we can write $\PSF$ for each frequency and facet as a tensor product of two matrices, each describing translational invariance along one of the two principal axes of the HEALPix grid.\footnote{We define the axes by taking the center pixel and computing the linearly independent vector directions towards the nearest two pixels. It is not a problem that these two directions are not orthogonal---the FFT can be performed along nonorthogonal directions, as pointed out by \cite{FFTT2}.} If we index along those axes with $i$ and $j$ in the dirty map and $i'$ and $j'$ in the true sky, then for a single frequency the matrix of point spread functions can be written as
\begin{equation}
P_{ii'jj'} = t_{i-i'}s_{j-j'}
\end{equation}
or as
\begin{equation}
\PSF = \mathbf{T} \otimes \mathbf{S}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{T}$ and $\mathbf{S}$ are Toeplitz matrices.
And yet we can easily see from Figure \ref{fig:PSFs} that point spread functions do not respect translational invariance. In the bottom row where the PSFs are displaced from the center of the facet, the side lobes nearer the edge of the primary beam are downweighted relative to those nearer the center. This is a consequence of optimal mapmaking, which downweights the contribution from regions of the sky that the telescope is less sensitive to. However, we expect that the physical effects that lead to a translationally varying PSF, like the primary beam and the projected array geometry, should change smoothly over the field. So while the PSF is translationally varying, perhaps its translational variation can be modeled with a small number of parameters.
If we calculate $\PSF$, the matrix of point spread functions that maps every pixel in some extended facet to every pixel on the facet of interest, we can model this translational variation by reorganizing $\PSF$. We have chosen our normalization $\mathbf{D}$ so that the specific point spread function mapping the sky onto a given pixel has a value of 1 at the center pixel of its main lobe. But what about all the pixels displaced exactly pixel northeast from the center of the main lobe in all the PSFs? Or ten pixels?
We expect these all to be similar, but also to vary slowly over the facet---though exactly how is not obvious \emph{a priori}. In the right-hand panel of Figure \ref{fig:PSF_Fitting_Demo} we plot the points on the PSFs displaced exactly 15 pixels along one of the two principal axes from the centers of their main lobes (illustrated by the left-hand panel). The $x$ and $y$ axes of the plot tell us which pixel a given PSF is centered on. As we expected, the variation over the facet is very smooth and is well approximated by a low-order polynomial. If we had instead plotted a displacement of 0, the right-hand panel would have been a perfectly flat plan of all ones because of the definition of $\mathbf{D}$.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Displaced_PSF_v2.png}
\caption{Though our point spread functions are not translationally invariant---a fact we saw clearly in Figure \ref{fig:PSFs}---their translational variation is fairly smooth and can be captured by a relatively low order polynomial. In this figure, we examine a typical example consisting of all the entries in $\PSF$ displaced exactly 15 pixels along one of the two principal axes of the pixelization from the center of the main lobe of the synthesized beam. This displacement is represented by the four identical white arrows on top of the point spread functions in the left-hand panel. All such entries in $\PSF$ (white circles in the right-hand planel) are plotted as a function of the displacement of the corresponding main lobe from the facet center. The points indicated by the white arrows in panels (a) through (d) are the same as the white circles indicated on the right hand plot. We then fit those points as a low-order 2D polynomial (in this case, as a quartic), which we plot as a colored plane cutting through them. The fit on the right hand side is merely one in a family of fits to each possible displacement vector from the main lobe of the PSF. Fitting the translational variation of the PSF in this way is potentially very useful, since a sparse representation of $\PSF$, the matrix of point spread functions, would allow us to quickly multiply it by a vector. Though this is not important for mapmaking, it is important for estimating power spectra from the dirty maps and mapping statistics produced by our method. }
\label{fig:PSF_Fitting_Demo}
\end{figure*}
How can we take advantage of the sparsity of information needed to describe $\PSF$ to write it as the sum of matrices that can be quickly multiplied by a vector? Let us first consider the simpler, 1D case. Instead of the translational invariance that leads to matrices of the form in Equation \eqref{eq:Toeplitz} where the main diagonal and all parallel off diagonals are constant, instead we model them all as polynomials:
\begin{equation}
P^\text{1D}_{ii'} = \sum_n t_{n,i-i'}(i+i')^n. \label{eq:polyToeplitz}
\end{equation}
This is a polynomial expansion in $(i+i')$, the distance along a diagonal, with coefficients $t_{n,i-i'}$ that make up a Toeplitz matrix. Again, primed indices tell us where on the true sky and unprimed indices tell us where in the faceted dirty map. The polynomial fit coefficients are a function of specific displacement of the main lobe of the PSF, hence the index $i-i'$. However, to fit all PSF values for the same displacement, we need to multiply those coefficients by the displacement from the center of the facet to the correct polynomial power. Our hope is that we can approximate $\PSF$ with a relatively low-order polynomial.
Expanding this out and cutting off the series after the second order in $n$, we get that
\begin{equation}
\PSF^\text{1D} \approx \mathbf{T}_0 + \mathbf{J}\mathbf{T}_1 + \mathbf{T}_1\mathbf{J} + \mathbf{J}^2\mathbf{T}_2 + 2\mathbf{J}\mathbf{T}_2\mathbf{J} + \mathbf{T}_2 \mathbf{J}^2
\end{equation}
where each $\mathbf{T}_n$ is a Toeplitz matrix and $\mathbf{J}$ is a diagonal matrix with integer indices centered on zero as its entries:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{J} \equiv \text{diag}\left(...,-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... \right).
\end{equation}
Terms in the expansion that involve $(i')^n$ look like $\mathbf{J}^n$ to the right of $\mathbf{T}_n$, since they index into a vector multiplied by $\PSF^\text{1D}$ on the right, like the true pixelized sky. Likewise, terms that involve $i^n$ have a $\mathbf{J}^n$ matrix on the left.
In 2D, the situation is a bit more complicated. For clarity, let us treat $\PSF$ as a 4-indexed object, mapping two spatial dimensions to two other spatial dimensions. We approximate $\PSF$ as a polynomial sum of the form
\begin{equation}
P_{ii'jj'} = \sum_{n,m} t_{n,m,i-i',j-j'}(i+i')^n(j+j')^m.
\end{equation}
Now $\mathbf{T}_{n,m}$ is a ``block Toeplitz" matrix, essentially a Toeplitz matrix of Toeplitz matrices. Thankfully, multiplying by the matrix by a vector of size $N_\text{PSF}$ still only scales as $\BigO{N_\text{PSF} \log N_\text{PSF}}$ \cite{BlockToeplitz}. Expanding this to second order yields quite a few more terms:
\begin{align}
&\PSF \approx \overbrace{\mathbf{T}_{0,0}}^{\text{$0^\text{th}$ Order}} + \nonumber \\
&\overbrace{\mathbf{T}_{1,0}(\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{I}) + (\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{I}) \mathbf{T}_{1,0} }^{\text{$1^\text{st}$ Order}} \nonumber +\\
&\mathbf{T}_{0,1} (\mathbf{I}\otimes\mathbf{J}) + (\mathbf{I}\otimes\mathbf{J})\mathbf{T}_{0,1} +\nonumber \\
&\overbrace{\mathbf{T}_{2,0}(\mathbf{J}^2\otimes\mathbf{I}) + 2(\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{I})\mathbf{T}_{2,0}(\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{I}) + (\mathbf{J}^2\otimes\mathbf{I})\mathbf{T}_{2,0}}^{\text{$2^\text{nd}$ Order}} + \nonumber \\
&\mathbf{T}_{1,1}(\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{J}) + (\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{I})\mathbf{T}_{1,1}(\mathbf{I}\otimes\mathbf{J}) + \nonumber \\
&(\mathbf{I}\otimes\mathbf{J})\mathbf{T}_{1,1}(\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{I}) + (\mathbf{J}\otimes\mathbf{J})\mathbf{T}_{1,1} + \nonumber \\
&\mathbf{T}_{0,2}(\mathbf{I}\otimes\mathbf{J}^2) + 2(\mathbf{I}\otimes\mathbf{J})\mathbf{T}_{0,2}(\mathbf{I}\otimes\mathbf{J}) + (\mathbf{J}^2\otimes\mathbf{I})\mathbf{T}_{0,2}.
\end{align}
Here, we adopt the convention that all tensor products have the matrices in the $i$ or $i'$ dimension on the left-hand side of the $\otimes$ symbol and $j$ or $j'$ matrices on the right-hand side. In fact, it turns out that the exact number of polynomial terms is
\begin{equation}
N_\text{poly} = \frac{1}{24}\left(24 + 50\omega + 35\omega^2 + 10\omega^3 + \omega^4\right), \label{eq:NPolyTerms}
\end{equation}
where $\omega \equiv \max(n+m)$ is the highest order polynomial considered.
The good news is that this fitting works pretty well at relatively low order, such as cubic or quartic. In Figure \ref{fig:PSF_Fitting_Order} we calculate the relative error between a dirty map computed by convolving the pixelized ``true" sky with a very accurate $\PSF$ (one computed with a large truncation radius and no snapshotting) and one computed with a polynomial fit to the translationally varying component of $\PSF$. We find that the method outlined above can faithfully reproduce the dirty map to high precision.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Poly_Fitting_Order.pdf}
\caption{Approximating the translational variation of the point spread function with a low order polynomial can produce fairly small errors at a relatively low accuracy cost. Here we show the accuracy of multiplying a polynomially approximated $\PSF$ with the true sky compares to a direct calculation (using a large PSF truncation radius and no snapshotting). The errors are not negligible and the use of this approximation requires a carful examination of the accuracy requirements of the dirty maps. This technique saves time when the total number of terms in a polynomial/Toeplitz expansion of $\PSF$ is considerably smaller than the number of pixels in a facet. Unfortunately, that number of terms grows quartically with the polynomial order, meaning that very high orders and thus very high accuracy are not computationally useful.}
\label{fig:PSF_Fitting_Order}
\end{figure}
Increasing accuracy, however, comes at a steep cost. While multiplication of $\PSF$ by a vector for a single frequency can be performed in $\BigO{N_\text{facet}N_\text{PSF}}$, multiplication of a polynomially-approximated $\PSF$ takes $\BigO{N_\text{poly}N_\text{PSF}\log N_\text{PSF}}$. Since $N_\text{poly}$ scales with the fourth power of the maximum order, it gets expensive very quickly. Thus the method outlined above is especially useful when $\sim 1\%$ to $0.1\%$ errors are acceptable or when facets are exceptionally big or of exceptionally high resolution.
It is possible to reduce that cost by attacking the problem with a hybrid approach. We find that the biggest fitting errors come far from the facet center, especially in the brightest side lobes. This makes sense, since it is where the notion of a fixed ``displacement" from the main lobe of the PSF runs up against the limits of the flat-sky approximation. One could use this technique to incorporate the effects of most of $\PSF$, zeroing out the contributions from side lobe displacements. Then we could take the remainder of the $\PSF$ into account by simple matrix multiplication, achieving the same error with many fewer polynomial terms.
With big facets or at high resolution, PSF fitting serves another function. If the computational cost of mapmaking and power spectrum estimation is dominated by the matrix multiplication $\mathbf{A}^\dagger \mathbf{N}^{-1} \mathbf{A}$ in the calculation of $\PSF$, we can choose to calculate only a representative sample of the entries in $\PSF$ (i.e. only some of the points on the right-hand side of Figure \ref{fig:PSF_Fitting_Demo}). Then we would rely on the fact that the polynomial fit is overdetermined to back out the missing entries.\footnote{It is worth noting that although a large number of terms might be needed to multiply $\PSF$ by a vector, there are not nearly so many free parameters in the fits. The number of free parameters needed to find a best-fit surface like that in Figure \ref{fig:PSF_Fitting_Demo} only scales like the square of the highest polynomial order.}
Whether or not to use the polynomial approximation to the $\PSF$ will depend on the exact telescope configuration and the nature of the mapmaking and power spectrum estimation problems at hand. If we want to try to precisely subtract foregrounds and work deep within the wedge, the polynomial approximation might not be good enough. However, if instead our power spectrum estimation strategy is to focus on isolating the EoR window and projecting out foreground-dominated modes entirely, it is less important that we very precisely understand the effect of the instrument. In that case, it is more likely that the polynomial PSF fitting approach outlined above will be useful. We explore these two approaches in the context of the mapmaking formalism in Appendix \ref{app:projection}.
\subsection{Computational Methods Summary} \label{sec:computationalSummary}
In the previous three sections, we explored three different ways of speeding up either the calculation of $\PSF$ or the multiplication of $\PSF$ by a vector. In Table \ref{tab:summary} we summarize those results. In general, we find that PSF truncation and snapshotting have the most utility for HERA. PSF fitting, in the fiducial scenario we considered, is the least helpful. However, for a telescope with much higher angular resolution than HERA, PSF fitting is likely to be more useful, since multiplication of a vector by $\PSF$ scales quadratically with the number of pixels in the facet.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ r c c c }
\textbf{Approximation Parameter} & \textbf{PSF Truncation Radius} & \textbf{Snapshot Time} & \textbf{PSF Fitting Order} \\ \hline
\textbf{Improves} & Size of $\PSF$ & Steps in computing $\PSF$ & Multiplying by $\PSF$ \\
\textbf{More exact when...} & ...larger & ...smaller & ...larger \\
\textbf{Cost scaling} & Quadratic & Inverse Linear & Quartic \\
\textbf{Acheives 1\% Error\footnote{Assumes HEALPix $N_\text{side}=256$, 2\,s integrations, and $10^\circ$ diameter facets.} for HERA at} & $5^\circ$ or\footnote{This depends on whether point sources are included, since they are mostly inside the facet in our simulations, depressing the error at small truncation radius.} $15^\circ$ & 10 minutes & $3^\text{rd}$ order \\
\textbf{Speed-up at 1\% error} & $\sim$60 or $\sim$500 & $\sim$300 & $\sim$5 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\caption{Summary of the techniques we use to approximate the calculation of multiplication by the matrix of point spread functions, $\PSF$, in order to dramatically improve the speed of those operations. Faceting alone makes calculating $\PSF$ faster by a factor of 500 in our fiducial scenario. Combining PSF truncation and snapshotting brings the calculation of $\PSF$ well within the realm of feasibility. The benefit to fitting the PSF with polynomials and Toeplitz matrices is relatively small for our scenario, but it gets much better for higher resolution instruments.}
\label{tab:summary}
\end{table*}
While these results are specific to HERA, we can draw a few general conclusions. For HERA at 150\,MHz, the first side lobes are about $13^\circ$ from the main lobe of the synthesized beam. At $13^\circ$ from the zenith, the primary beam is down by 20\,dB. In general, it is likely we will only be able to truncate the PSF in regions where the primary beam is small, meaning that a telescope with a broader primary beam will benefit less from cropping in a way that scales quadratically with the PSF truncation radius and therefore also the PSF's full width at half maximum. By contrast, larger primary beams are more slowly varying spatially, meaning that longer snapshots are likely to achieve the same error. If the primary beam is relatively smooth, that benefit scales inverse-linearly with the size of the primary beam.
Though we used 1\% as a somewhat arbitrary point of comparison in Table \ref{tab:summary}, it remains an open question how good our models of the $\PSF$ have to be. The only comprehensive way to answer this question is through a full end-to-end simulation of the signal, noise, and foregrounds all passed through a simulated instrument, a mapmaking code, and then power spectrum estimation. That sort of quantitative answer is outside the scope of this paper. However, it is worthwhile to enumerate the ways in which we need to use $\PSF$ to make maps and estimate power spectra and to examine the accuracy requirements for those tasks. By our count, $\PSF$ appears in six key places in the power spectrum estimation process:
\begin{enumerate}
\item When we calculate $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, we need $\PSF$ to define $\mathbf{D}$. However, looking closely at Equation \eqref{eq:QE} shows that $\mathbf{D}$ actually cancels out---the factor of $\mathbf{D}$ in each $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$ and the two in $\mathbf{C},_\beta$ are canceled by the two in each $\mathbf{C}^{-1}$. Therefore, it does not matter whether we get $\mathbf{D}$ right or not, as long as we are consistent about what we use for it. This makes sense, $\mathbf{D}$ was supposed to be an arbitrary choice, so as long as it is invertible, there is no way to get it ``wrong" per se.
\item $\PSF$ also appears in our models for the parts of $\boldsymbol\mu$ and $\mathbf{C}^{FG}$ corresponding to bright point sources in $\mathbf{C}^{FG}$. Accounting properly for bright point sources has the highest bang for the buck, in the sense that it is relatively straightforward to model both their means and covariances in the dirty map. In Section \ref{sec:skymodel}, we discussed how we could account for bright point sources with well-characterized positions, fluxes, and spectral indices by calculating a column in $\PSF$ that maps the point source to the entire facet in the dirty map. For that calculation, the PSF truncation radius is irrelevant because we account for the brightest sources in a separate part of the PSF independent of the HEALPix grid. Since we calculate only a moderate number of columns of $\PSF$, we do not even have to combine integrations into the snapshot. For bright point sources, it is not much extra effort to get $\PSF$ almost exactly right.
\item By contrast, diffuse emission from confusion-limited and galactic synchrotron emission in $\boldsymbol\mu$ and $\mathbf{C}^{FG}$ depends, as we have argued, on knowing how $\PSF$ maps a large part of the true sky onto the facet. It is in this context that approximate versions of $\PSF$ are the most useful, but also where they are potentially the most worrisome. Galactic and confusion-limited foregrounds are still orders of magnitude stronger than the cosmological signal and understanding them precisely is very important. Forming $\boldsymbol\mu$ from these foregrounds should be comparatively easy---all we need to do is take our sky model, compute visibilities, and then pass it through our mapmaking routine. We do not even need to calculate the full $\PSF$ matrix. Writing down $\mathbf{C}^{FG}$ is substantially more difficult, since $\mathbf{C}^{FG} = \PSF \mathbf{C}^{FG}_\text{model} \PSF^\mathsf{T}$. Exactly how well we need to know $\PSF$ in order for $\mathbf{C}^{FG}$ to accurately reflect the foreground uncertainty depends on the specific instrument, the foreground model, and our uncertainty about that model. A quantitative answer requires detailed covariance modeling outside the scope of this work and is therefore left for future investigation.
\item Modeling noise properly is extremely important since inside the EoR window only noise and signal should matter. A slight mismodeling of noise due to an error in the calculation of $\mathbf{C}^N$ could lead to an erroneous detection. If however we perform mapmaking twice from a cross power spectrum of interleaved timesteps, we can eliminate noise bias \cite{X13,PAPER32Limits}. If we do that, it is acceptable (albeit not optimal) to be very conservative in our model of the instrumental noise, effectively increasing the error bars due to noise without biasing our measurement. If we adopt this conservative stance, then we can confidently use an approximate form of $\PSF$ when calculating $\mathbf{C}^N$.
\item Modeling $\mathbf{C}^S$ is mostly important for the calculation of sample variance. In any foreseeable experiment, this is a small contribution to the error. Getting $\mathbf{C}^S$ slightly wrong is unlikely to be the dominant error associated with approximating $\PSF$.
\item The $\mathbf{C},_\beta$ family of matrices is necessary for telling us how to translate properly weighted dirty maps into power spectra. We need $\PSF$ to be as accurate as the precision with which we would like to measure the power spectrum.
\end{enumerate}
In general, the question of exactly how accurately we need to know $\PSF$---and by extension, exactly how well we need to understand our instruments---is an open question for future investigation.
\section{Summary and Future Directions} \label{sec:Summary}
In this work, we showed how to make precise maps with well-understood statistics specifically for 21\,cm power spectrum estimation. We investigated how to connect the framework of optimal mapmaking to that of inverse-variance weighted quadratic power spectrum estimation in order to understand what sort of maps and map statistics we need for power spectrum estimation. We showed that in addition to the dirty map estimator $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}$, we need the matrix of point spread functions, $\PSF$, and the noise covariance matrix which takes a gratifyingly simple form: $\mathbf{C}^N = \PSF \mathbf{D}^\mathsf{T}$ where $\mathbf{D}$ is an invertible normalization matrix that we can choose to be diagonal.
This analysis technology will allow us to consistently integrate our best understanding of an instrument with our best models for noise, foregrounds, and the cosmological signal. Not only does this approach help prevent the loss of cosmological information, but it will allow for a precise measurement of the 21\,cm power spectrum and for the confident and robust description of the errors in our estimates.
In the main part of this work, we focused on the matrix of point spread functions, $\PSF$, which relates the true sky to our dirty maps. We calculated simulated dirty maps and PSFs for HERA, the upcoming Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array. While calculating $\PSF$ exactly is computationally prohibitive, we explored three methods for approximating $\PSF$. First, we explored how making maps in facets with truncated PSFs can dramatically reduce the computational cost of calculation $\PSF$ for only a small hit to accuracy. Next we showed how to combine consecutive integrations while controlling for the errors introduced by the process. It turns out that observations many minutes apart can be combined with minimal error. Lastly, we showed how the multiplication of $\PSF$ by a vector---a necessary step for power spectrum estimation---might be sped up by approximating its translational variance as slowly varying. Though the cost scaling of this approximation is steep, we find this technique especially promising when moderate errors are tolerable or for instruments with high angular resolution.
Just as importantly, all these methods have tunable knobs---they can be made more accurate at the cost of speed or memory. Though our specific, quantitative results are only applicable to HERA, the accuracy trade-offs and the computational scalings we find should be quite general. In that sense, we hope that this work serves as a versatile guide to mapmaking in the context of 21\,cm cosmology.
Much work remains to be done to develop a clear and computationally tractable pathway from visibilities all the way to power spectra with rigorous errors and error correlations. Even after connecting this work to an appropriately updated version of the \citet{DillonFast} algorithm, one still needs to assess the effect of our approximations, as well as a number of important data analysis choices, on power spectrum estimates and ultimately on cosmological parameter constraints. Though the errors incurred by each can be made arbitrarily small, it is difficult to say yet what level of approximation is tolerable. This is an open question for future work.
We would like to see a full end-to-end simulation, starting with the 21\,cm signal, passing through the instrument, and ending with power spectra and their statistics. Such a full-scale test could prove the effectiveness of these techniques and clarify exactly what the approximations utilized both in this work and in \citet{DillonFast} do to our measured power spectra. A power spectrum estimation technique that passes such a test with realistic foregrounds and noise will be the one to produce trustworthy cosmological measurements.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank James Aguirre, Adam Beardsley, Lu Feng, Bryna Hazelton, Alex Ji, Daniel Jacobs, Alan Levine, Jonathan Pober, Ron Remillard, Michael Valdez, and Ian Sullivan for helpful discussions. We would also like to thank David DeBoer for the rendering of HERA in Figure \ref{fig:HERA-331} and S\'{e}bastien Loisel for the idea behind Equation \eqref{eq:polyToeplitz}. This work was supported by NSF grants AST-0457585, AST-0821321, AST-0804508, AST-1105835, AST-1125558, AST-1129258, AST-1410484, and AST-1411622, a grant from the Mt. Cuba Astronomical Association, the MIT School of Science, the Marble Astrophysics Fund, and by generous donations from Jonathan Rothberg and an anonymous donor.
|
\section{Introduction}
The irregularities in the Earth's rotation axis direction and norm originate in various complex phenomena such as interaction with Solar system bodies, mass redistribution in the oceans and the atmosphere, as well as interactions between the various internal layers (see \cite{lambeck_1989}, Figure \ref{fig:poleyear} and Figure \ref{fig:j2}).\\
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.8 \textwidth]{pole.eps}
\caption{Evolution of the position of the Earth's pole over few years, \tiny http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/}
\label{fig:poleyear}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.8\textwidth]{j2.eps}
\caption{Earth's second degree zonal harmonic $J_2$, \tiny http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/J2/}
\label{fig:j2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Dynamical illustrations of the Earth.}
\end{figure}
In order to take into account these irregularities, classical models of Earth's dynamics are constructed on geophysical considerations such as oceans and atmosphere dynamics and the Earth's neighborhood like the Moon, the planets and the Sun (see \cite{bizouard}, \cite{Jin20131}, \cite{chao1993}, \cite{barnes1983}, \cite{lambeck_1989}, \cite{sidorenkov2009}). In these models, the short time (diurnal and subdiurnal time-scale) irregularities are badly modeled due to the complexity of the phenomena (see \cite{viron2005}, \cite{yseboodt2002}, \cite{cheng_variation_obl}). With this problem, we are led to the following question : \textit{Is an alternative approach of Earth's rotation model possible ?} \\
The complex mechanisms underlying the irregularities in the Earth's rotation strongly suggest modeling the Earth's rotation, over short time scales, with random processes. Indeed, the short time variations of the \emph{rotation speed}, \emph{length of the day} and \emph{polar motion} are strongly correlated with the time variations in the dynamics of the ocean and the atmosphere, for periods of order between the day and the year. It has been observed that these short time variations seem to be of stochastic nature (see \cite{eubanks1988}, \cite{lambeck_1989}, \cite{sidorenkov2009}). This induces strong changes in the modeling process. An example of such considerations is the two-body problem with a stochastic perturbation studied in \cite{cpp}. Up to now, the stochastic behavior has been taken into account using \emph{filtering theory} which consists in adding noises governed by constants and adjust them to best estimate the observations (see \cite{hamdan1996},\cite{markov2005}, \cite{chin2005}, \cite{chin2009}). Such a method, although effective, can not be used to determine how a given stochastic perturbation impacts the other quantities of interest. Indeed, the form of the stochastic process is not explicitly related to the physical parameters entering in the physical process as the experimental data mix phenomenon of different origins. \\
In this work, we model an oblate homogeneous ellipsoid of revolution, which could represent the Earth, whose geometric flattening is varying and contains a stochastic component. We use the framework of stochastic differential equations in the sense of It\^o. The major difference with an approach through filtering theory is that we are looking for a physical phenomenon linked to the ellipsoid itself by explicit formula. This allows us to identify the influence of the stochastic term on the stochastic variation of the flattening, which is responsible of the stochastic behavior observed in the zonal harmonic $J_2$ and the length of the day. Precisely, we obtain explicit formulas relating the stochastic variation of the geometric flattening to the stochastic fluctuation of the dynamical flattening and the second zonal harmonic (see Proposition \ref{H_drift} and Lemma \ref{j2_drift}). This result is consistent with the expected interactions between these different phenomenon, in particular for what concerns the length of the day.\\
It must be noted that adding a stochastic contribution to a known deterministic model is not easy. At least two difficulties must be overcome :
\begin{itemize}
\item First, one must find expressions of quantities of interest which can be computed in the stochastic setting. In our case, we are concerned with adding random fluctuations of the ellipsoid shape to an existing deterministic models. A non exhaustive list of models are given in \cite{barnes1983}, \cite{chao1993}, \cite{vermeersen1999}, \cite{getino1990}, \cite{getino1991}. As a first approach, we restrict our attention to the Euler-Liouville equation (see Section \ref{det_eq_motion}).
\item Second, one must be careful with the stochastic component entering in the geometric flattening. Indeed, without any assumptions, a stochastic process induces unbounded fluctuations leading to unrealistic values. Then, one must construct an ``admissible'' stochastic deformation having bounded variations with probability one (see Section \ref{adm_stoc_def}).
\end{itemize}
Another difficulty deserves to be mentioned and concerns the numerical study of such kind of models. Indeed, classical numerical schemes do not preserve in general the specific constraints of a model. For example, the usual Euler-Maruyama scheme destroys the invariance condition used to construct admissible stochastic deformations, leading to inconsistent results, even for a short time simulation. This can be overcome using an appropriate time step during the numerical integration (see Section \ref{num_inv} and \cite{pierret_nsem}).\\
The plan of this paper is as follows : \\
In Section 2, we remind the classical equations of motion for a rigid ellipsoid. Section 3 deals with the case of an ellipsoid with a time variable flattening : deterministic or stochastic. In particular we discuss the notion of admissible deformations based on the invariance criterion for (stochastic) differential equations. Section 4 is devoted to the numerical exploration of a toy-model obtained by a particular deformation equation of the flattening. In Section 5 we conclude and give some perspectives.
\section{Free motion of a rigid ellipsoid}
In this section we remind the equations of motion for a rotating homogeneous rigid ellipsoid. We refer to Chapter 4 and 5 of \cite{goldstein}, Chapter 6 of \cite{landau} and Chapter 3 of \cite{lambeck1988} for full details.\\
We consider an ellipsoid of revolution $\mathcal{E}$ of major axis $a$ and $c$ of mass $M_\mathcal{E}$ and volume $V_\mathcal{E}$. Let \textbf{L} be the angular momentum of $\mathcal{E}$ with $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{I}\mathbf{\Omega}$ where \textbf{I} is the inertia matrix of $\mathcal{E}$ and $\mathbf{\Omega}$ is the rotation vector. The equation of free motion for $\mathcal{E}$ is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\mathbf{L}}{dt} + \mathbf{\Omega} \wedge \mathbf{L} = 0 \label{eqmotion}.
\end{equation}
We remind that free motion means that there is no external moments acting on the body $\mathcal{E}$. In the principal axes which are the reference frame attached to the center of $\mathcal{E}$ and where the inertia is diagonal whose coefficients are directly linked to the major axis $a$ and $c$. Indeed, in the case of an ellipsoid of revolution, the inertia matrix is expressed as
\begin{equation}
{\bf I} =
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
I_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & I_{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & I_{3}
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
where $I_2=I_1$, $I_1 = \frac{1}{5} M_\mathcal{E} (a^2+c^2) \label{I1}$ and $I_3=\frac{2}{5}M_\mathcal{E}a^2 \label{I3}$. The volume satisfies the classical formula $V_\mathcal{E}=\frac{4}{3}\pi a^2 c \label{V}$. In the principal axes, the equation of free motion is expressed as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{d\Omega_1}{dt} & =& \frac{I_1 - I_3}{I_1}\Omega_3 \Omega_2, \\
\frac{d\Omega_2}{dt} & = & -\frac{I_1 - I_3}{I_1}\Omega_3 \Omega_1, \\
\frac{d\Omega_3}{dt} & = & 0 .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Theses equations are the well known {\it Euler-Liouville equations} of a body in rotation in the case of an ellipsoid of revolution. \\
Multiple definitions related to the characterization of an oblate homogeneous rigid ellipsoid exist. We remind the three most used (see \cite{bizouard}, Appendix C and \cite{lambeck1988}, Eq. 2.4.6, 2.4.7):
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{geometric flattening} $f$ which is the quantity related to the major-axis as $\displaystyle \frac{a-c}{a}$,
\item The \emph{dynamical flattening} $H$ which is the quantity related to the inertia coefficients as $\frac{I_3-I_1}{I_3}$,
\item The \emph{second degree zonal harmonic} $J_2$ which is the quantity related to the inertia coefficients and major-axis as $\frac{I_1-I_3}{Ma^2}$.
\end{itemize}
The flattening that we consider is a geometric variation, a temporal evolution of his shape. In consequence, we always refer to the \emph{geometric flattening} when we discuss about the \emph{flattening}.
\section{Motion of an ellipsoid with time-varying flattening}
We are interested in variations of the flattening and we want to derive the perturbed Euler-Liouville equation of motion under the following assumptions:
\begin{align}
&\text{(H1) Conservation of the ellipsoid mass} \ M_\mathcal{E}. \\
&\text{(H2) Conservation of the ellipsoid volume} \ V_\mathcal{E}, \\
&\text{(H3) Bounded variation of the flattening}.
\end{align}
Those assumptions are physically consistent with observations and the physical considerations as we are only interested in a first approach by the effect of a homogeneous flattening. \\
The entire dynamic will be encoded and described with the major axis $c_t$ through the formula of the inertia matrix and the volume. The basic idea to approach variation of the flattening is that there exists a "mean" deformation of the flattening and a lower and an upper variation around it. Characterization of admissible deformations under the assumptions (H3) depends on its nature, i.e. deterministic or stochastic.
\subsection{Motion of an ellipsoid with deterministic flattening}
\subsubsection{Deterministic variation of the flattening}
Let $c_t$ satisfying the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{dc_t}{dt} = f(t,c_t)
\end{equation}
where $f\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$. \\
{\it Consequence of assumption (H1)} : Computing the derivative of the volume formula (\ref{V})
\begin{equation}
a_t^2=\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi} \frac{1}{c_t},
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{d(a_t^2)}{dt} = \frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi} \left( -\frac{1}{c_t^2}\frac{dc_t}{dt} \right).
\end{equation}
Thus using the expression of $\frac{dc_t}{dt}$ we obtain the following lemma :
\begin{lemma}
Under assumption (H1) the variation of $a$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d(a_t^2)}{dt} = \frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi}\left( -\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} \right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
We can now determine the variation of the inertia matrix coefficients $I_1$ and $I_3$.
{\it Consequence of assumption (H2)} : Computing the derivative of the expression of $I_1$ and $I_3$ gives the following lemma
\begin{lemma}
Under assumption (H2) the variation of $I_1$ and $I_3$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{dI_3}{dt} = \frac{3 M_\mathcal{E} V_\mathcal{E}}{10\pi}\left( -\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} \right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{dI_1}{dt} = \frac{M_\mathcal{E}}{5} \left(-\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi}\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} + 2 c_t f(t,c_t)\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Deterministic equations of motion}
\label{det_eq_motion}
In order to formulate the equations of motion of $\mathcal{E}$ with a deterministic flattening, we first rewrite the equations of motion as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dL_i}{dt} = l_i(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{\Omega}) ,
\end{equation}
with $l_1({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega) = (I_1 - I_3) \Omega_2\Omega_3$, $ l_2({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega) = - (I_1 - I_3) \Omega_1\Omega_3$ and $l_3({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega)=0$.
Taking into account our deterministic variation of the flattening, we get the full set of the deterministic equations of motion for $\mathcal{E}$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{dL_i}{dt} & = & l_i({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega),\\
\frac{dI_i}{dt} & = & k_i(c_t) \nonumber,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,2,3$ where
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
k_1(c_t)&=&\frac{M_\mathcal{E}}{5} \left(-\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi}\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} + 2 c_t f(t,c_t)\right), \\
k_3(c_t)&=&\frac{3 M_\mathcal{E} V_\mathcal{E}}{10\pi}\left( -\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} \right), \\
k_2(c_t)&=& k_3(c_t).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
A deterministic version of the Euler-Liouville equation induced by the deterministic flattening can then be obtained. As we consider only variation of the flattening, we still have a rotational symmetry . Hence, we have $L_i = I_i \Omega_i$ or equivalently $\Omega_i = \frac{L_i}{I_i}$ for $i=1,2,3$. Computing the derivative for each component of $\mathbf{\Omega}$ we obtain the following definition :
\begin{definition}
We call Deterministic Euler-Liouville equations for an ellipsoid with a deterministic flattening the following equations
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{d\Omega_i}{dt} &= \left(\frac{l_i({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega)}{I_i} - \frac{\Omega_i}{I_i^2}k_i(c_t)\right), \\
\frac{dI_i}{dt} & = k_i(c_t), \\
\frac{dc_t}{dt} &= f(t,c_t)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,2,3$.
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Admissible deterministic deformations}
We give the form of the differential equations governing a deformation respecting assumption $(H3)$ in the deterministic case.
\begin{definition}
Let $d_{min}<0$ and $d_{max}>0$ fixed values which correspond to the minimum and maximum variation with respect to the initial value $c_0 > 0$, with $d_{min} +c_0 >0$. If $c_t$ satisfies the condition $c_0 + d_{min} \leq c_t \leq c_0 + d_{max}$ for $t\ge 0$ then we say that $c_t$ is an admissible deterministic deformation.
\end{definition}
In order to characterize admissible deterministic deformations we use the classical invariance theorem (see \cite{walter}, \cite{pavel}) :
\begin{theorem}\label{invd}
Let $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $b>a$ and $\frac{dX(t)}{dt} = f(t,X(t))$ where $f \in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$. Then, the
set
$$
K:=\{x\in\mathbb{R} :\ a\leq x\leq b\}
$$
is invariant for $X(t)$ if and only if
\begin{eqnarray}
f (t,a) &\geq & 0 ,\nonumber \\
f (t,b) &\leq & 0 ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for all $t\geq 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}[Characterization of admissible deterministic deformations]
Let $c_t$ satisfying $\frac{dc_t}{dt} = f(t,c_t)$ then $c_t$ is an admissible deterministic variation if and only if
\begin{align*}
f(t,c_0 + d_{min}) & \geq 0, \\
f(t,c_0 + d_{max}) & \leq 0 \ , \quad \forall t \geq 0.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{A deterministic toy-model}
In order to perform numerical simulations, we define an ad-hoc admissible deformations given by
\begin{equation}
f(x) = \alpha\cos(\gamma t)(x-(c_0 + d_{min}))((c_0+d_{max})-x) \ , \quad e,\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^+ .
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are real numbers. As a consequence, the major axis $c_t$ satisfies the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{dc_t}{dt} = \alpha\cos(\gamma t)(c_t-(c_0 + d_{min}))((c_0+d_{max})-c_t) .
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
It is reasonable to take a periodic deformation for the deterministic part as we observe such kind of variations for the Earth's oblateness (see \cite{bizouard}, \cite{cheng_variation_obl})
\end{remark}
\subsection{Motion of an ellipsoid with stochastic flattening}
\subsubsection{Reminder about stochastic differential equations}
We remind basic properties and definition of stochastic differential equations in the sense of It\^o. We refer to the book \cite{oksendal} for more details.\\
A {\it stochastic differential equation} is formally written (see \cite[Chapter V]{oksendal}) in differential form as
\begin{equation}
\label{stocequa}
dX_t = \mu (t,X_t)dt+\sigma(t,X_t)dB_t ,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the stochastic integral equation
\begin{equation}
\label{stocintegral}
X_t=X_0+\int_0^t \mu (s,X_s)\,ds+\int_0^t \sigma (s,X_s)\,dB_s ,
\end{equation}
where the second integral is an It\^o integral (see \cite[Chapter III]{oksendal}) and $B_t$ is the classical Brownian motion (see \cite[Chapter II, p.7-8]{oksendal}).\\
An important tool to study solutions to stochastic differential equations is the {\it multi-dimensional It\^o formula} (see \cite{oksendal},Chap.III,Theorem 4.6) which is stated as follows : \\
We denote a vector of It\^o processes by $\mathbf{X}_t^\mathsf{T} = (X_{t,1}, X_{t,2}, \ldots, X_{t,n})$ and we put $\mathbf{B}_t^\mathsf{T} = (B_{t,1}, B_{t,2}, \ldots, B_{t,n})$to be a $n$-dimensional Brownian motion (see \cite{karatzas},Definition 5.1,p.72), $d\mathbf{B}_t^\mathsf{T} = (dB_{t,1}, dB_{t,2}, \ldots, dB_{t,n})$. We consider the multi-dimensional stochastic differential equation defined by (\ref{stocequa}). Let $f$ be a $\mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$-function and $X_t$ a solution of the stochastic differential equation (\ref{stocequa}). We have
\begin{eqnarray}
df(t,\mathbf{X}_t) = \frac{\partial f}{\partial t} dt + (\nabla_\mathbf{X}^{\mathsf T} f) d\mathbf{X}_t + \frac{1}{2} (d\mathbf{X}_t^\mathsf{T}) (\nabla_\mathbf{X}^2 f) d\mathbf{X}_t,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\nabla_\mathbf{X} f = \partial f/\partial \mathbf{X}$ is the gradient of $f$ w.r.t. $X$, $\nabla_\mathbf{X}^2 f = \nabla_\mathbf{X}\nabla_\mathbf{X}^\mathsf{T} f$ is the Hessian matrix of $f$ w.r.t. $\mathbf{X}$, $\delta$ is the Kronecker symbol and the following rules of computation are used : $dt dt = 0$, $dt dB_{t,i} = 0$, $dB_{t,i} dB_{t,j} = \delta_{ij} dt$.
\subsubsection{Stochastic variation of the flattening}
Let $c_t$ be a stochastic process expressed as
\begin{equation}
dc_t = f(t,c_t)dt + g(t,c_t)dB_t \label{dc_t}
\end{equation}
where $f,g \in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$. \\
\noindent{\bf Consequence of assumption (H1)} : Applying the It\^o formula on the volume formula (\ref{V})
\begin{equation}
a_t^2=\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi} \frac{1}{c_t},
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}
d(a_t^2) = \frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi} \left( -\frac{1}{c_t^2}dc_t + \frac{1}{c_t^3}(dc_t)^2 \right).
\end{equation}
Thus using the expression of $dc_t$ we obtain the following lemma :
\begin{lemma}
Under assumption (H1) the variation of $a$ is given by
\begin{equation}
d(a_t^2) = \frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi} \left[\left( -\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} + \frac{g(t,c_t)^2}{c_t^3} \right)dt - \frac{g(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} dB_t \right]. \label{da2}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
We can now determine the variation of the inertia matrix coefficients $I_1$ and $I_3$. \\
\noindent{\bf Consequence of assumption (H2)} : Applying the It\^o formula on the expression of $I_1$ and $I_3$ leads to
\begin{lemma}
Under assumption (H2) the variation of $I_1$ and $I_3$ are given by
\begin{equation}
dI_3 = \frac{3 M_\mathcal{E} V_\mathcal{E}}{10\pi}\left[\left( -\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} + \frac{g(t,c_t)^2}{c_t^3} \right)dt - \frac{g(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} dB_t \right]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align*}
dI_1 = \frac{M_\mathcal{E}}{5}\bigg[& \left(-\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi}\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} + g^2(t,c_t)\left(1+\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi c_t^3}\right) + 2 c_t f(t,c_t)\right)dt \nonumber \\
&+ g(t,c_t)\left(2 c_t-\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi c_t^2} \right)dB_t \bigg] .
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{Stochastic equations of motion}
In order to formulate the equations of motion of $\mathcal{E}$ with a stochastic flattening, we first rewrite the equations of motion (\ref{eqmotion}) in differential form, which is the natural form for the stochastic process, in order to have coherent form of writing :
\begin{equation}
dL_i = l_i(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{\Omega})dt ,
\end{equation}
where $l_i(\mathbf{I},\mathbf{\Omega})$ are the same as previous. Taking into account our stochastic variation of the flattening we get the full set of the stochastic equations of motion for $\mathcal{E}$ as
\begin{align}
dL_i & = l_i({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega)dt \label{Li},\\
dI_i & = h_i(c_t)dt + m_i(c_t)dB_t \nonumber \label{Ii},
\end{align}
for $i=1,2,3$ where
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
h_1(c_t)&=&\frac{M_\mathcal{E}}{5} \left(-\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi}\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} + g^2(t,c_t)\left(1+\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi c_t^3}\right) + 2 c_t f(t,c_t)\right), \\
h_3(c_t)&=&\frac{3 M_\mathcal{E} V_\mathcal{E}}{10\pi}\left( -\frac{f(t,c_t)}{c_t^2} + \frac{g(t,c_t)^2}{c_t^3} \right), \\
h_2(c_t)&=&h_3(c_t),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
m_1(c_t)&=&\frac{M_\mathcal{E}}{5} g(t,c_t)\left(2 c_t-\frac{3V_\mathcal{E}}{4\pi c_t^2} \right), \\
m_3(c_t)&=&-\frac{3 M_\mathcal{E} V_\mathcal{E}}{10\pi}\frac{g(t,c_t)}{c_t^2}, \\
m_2(c_t)&=&m_3(c_t).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
A stochastic version of the Euler-Liouville equation induced by the stochastic flattening is then obtained as follows : As we consider only variation of the flattening, we have a rotational symmetry during the deformation. Hence, we have $L_i = I_i \Omega_i$ or equivalently $\Omega_i = \frac{L_i}{I_i}$ for $i=1,2,3$. Thus, using the It\^o formula for each component of $\mathbf{\Omega}$, we obtain :
\begin{definition}
We call Stochastic Euler-Liouville equations for an ellipsoid with a stochastic flattening the following equations
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
d\Omega_i &=& \left(\frac{l_i({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega)}{I_i} - \frac{\Omega_i}{I_i}h_i(c_t)+\frac{\Omega_i}{I_i^2}m_i^2(c_t) \right)dt - \frac{\Omega_i}{I_i}m_i(c_t)dB_t, \\
dI_i & = & h_i(c_t)dt + m_i(c_t)dB_t, \\
dc_t &= & f(t,c_t)dt + g(t,c_t)dB_t
\end{array}\label{euler_liouville_sto}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,2,3$.
\end{definition}
As we can see, there exist a drift or secular variation in the rotation vector, represented by the term $\displaystyle \frac{\Omega_i}{I_i^2}m_i^2(c_t)$ which is induced by the stochastic nature of the variations considered. If one would like to interpret the rotation vector in terms of the so-called, \emph{Euler angles}, one would observe a secular variation in the angles.
\begin{remark}
Let us remark that Stochastic Euler-Liouville equations are also valid if one would like to consider directly variations on the inertia matrix coefficient $I_1$ and $I_3$. In that case we would have these equations written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
d\Omega_i &=& \left(\frac{l_i({\bf I},\boldsymbol \Omega)}{I_i} - \frac{\Omega_i}{I_i}h_i(t,I_i)+\frac{\Omega_i}{I_i^2}m_i^2(t,I_i) \right)dt - \frac{\Omega_i}{I_i}m_i(t,I_i)dB_t, \\
dI_i & = & h_i(t,I_i)dt + m_i(t,I_i)dB_t,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,2,3$. Such a case is interesting when one want to model variation of the shape of a body in term of the inertia matrix coefficients, the dynamical flattening $H$ or the zonal harmonic $J_2$ as in \cite{yoder}. In that precise case, instead of considering boundedness variation of the flattening $c_t$, one can formulate the assumption (H3) in term of the \emph{invariance of the trace of inertia matrix} using the result in \cite{rochester}.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Variation of the dynamical flattening H and the zonal harmonic $J_2$}
\label{variation_seculaire}
\begin{proposition}
\label{H_drift}
Under assumptions (H1) and (H2), the variation of the dynamical flattening $H$ is given by
\begin{equation}
dH=-\frac{2\pi}{V_\mathcal{E}}c_t^2 dc_t-\frac{2\pi}{V_\mathcal{E}}c_t g(t,c_t)^2dt
\end{equation}
or equivalently by
\begin{equation}
H=H_0-\frac{2\pi}{V_\mathcal{E}} \int_{c_0}^{c_t} c_s^2 dc_s-\frac{2\pi}{V_\mathcal{E}} \int_{0}^{t}c_s g(s,c_s)^2ds.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{equation}
\label{dH_Ii}
dH=\frac{I_1dI_3-I_3dI_1}{I3^2}+\frac{I_3 dI_1dI_3-I_1(dI_3)^2}{I_3^3}.
\end{equation}
Using the expression of the variation of $I_1$ and $I_3$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
dH=\left[\frac{I_1h_3-h_1I_3}{I_3^2}+\frac{m_3(I_3m_1-I_1m_3)}{I_3^3}\right]dt+\frac{I_1m_3-m_1I_3}{I_3^2}dB_t.
\end{equation}
From expressions of $I_1$, $I_3$,$h_1$,$h_3$,$m_1$ et $m_3$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
dH=-\frac{2\pi}{V_\mathcal{E}}c_t^2 dc_t-\frac{2\pi}{V_\mathcal{E}}c_t (dc_t)^2.
\end{equation}
As $(dc_t)^2=g(t,c_t)^2dt$, we obtain the result.
\end{proof}
From the expression of the zonal harmonic $J_2$ and the variation of the dynamical flattening, we obtain its variation:
\begin{lemma}
\label{j2_drift}
Under assumptions (H1) and (H2), the variation of the zonal harmonic $J_2$ is given by
\begin{equation}
dJ_2=\frac{4\pi}{5V_\mathcal{E}}c_t^2 dc_t+\frac{4\pi}{5V_\mathcal{E}}c_t g(t,c_t)^2dt
\end{equation}
or equivalently by
\begin{equation}
J_2=J_{2,0}+\frac{4\pi}{5V_\mathcal{E}} \int_{c_0}^{c_t} c_s^2 dc_s+\frac{4\pi}{5V_\mathcal{E}} \int_{0}^{t}c_s g(s,c_s)^2ds.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
The term $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{t}c_s g(s,c_s)^2ds$ in the variation of the dynamical flattening $H$ or the zonal harmonic $J_2$, is exactly the consequence of the stochastic nature of the variation of the flattening. It induces a drift which could be found when studying the long time behavior of quantity depending on the term $H$ or $J_2$, such as the \emph{length of the day}.
\end{remark}
From the previous proposition and remark, one can see a non negligible consequence of such a stochastic model. Indeed, considering only deterministic variations, there is no chance to obtain the drift induced by the It\^o formula and by consequence, it is impossible to understand why there exist long time drift for example, in the \emph{length of the day}.
\begin{remark}
From a practical point of view, one has to study this extra term to model the stochastic process governing the variation of the flattening.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Admissible stochastic deformations}
\label{adm_stoc_def}
A stochastic process has in general unbounded variations. We have to take precautions when considering stochastic fluctuations of the flattening. Indeed, the assumption (H3) mainly concerns the purely stochastic part and has to be interpreted as a way to have not a noise which ``explodes''. This is the main difference with the deterministic case. Even if it has been showed recently (see \cite{cheng_deceleration}) that there exists a secular variation in the zonal harmonic $J_2$, it is not incompatible with the coupling of a stochastic variation in the flattening which has bounded variations. Indeed, bounded variations of the flattening also induce a drift in the zonal harmonic $J_2$ (see Lemma \ref{j2_drift}). \\
The main constraint on the deformation in the stochastic case comes from the boundedness assumption. :
\begin{definition}
If $c_t$ satisfies the condition $\mathbb{P}\left(c_0 + d_{min} \leq c_t \leq c_0 + d_{max}\right)=1$ for $t\ge 0$ then, we say that $c_t$ is an admissible stochastic deformation where $\mathbb{P}$ is the underlying probability measure.
\end{definition}
In order to characterize admissible stochastic deformations, we use the stochastic invariance theorem (see (\cite{milian}) :
\begin{theorem}\label{mainB}
Let $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $b>a$ and $dX(t) = f(t,X(t) ) dt + g(t,X(t) ) dB_t$ a stochastic process. Then, the
set
$$
K:=\{x\in\mathbb{R} :\ a\leq x\leq b\}
$$
is invariant for the stochastic process $X(t)$ if and only if
\begin{eqnarray}
f (t,a) &\geq & 0, \nonumber \\
f (t,b) &\leq & 0, \nonumber \\
g(t,x) &= &0 \quad \text{for } x\in\{a,b\},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for all $t\geq 0$.
\end{theorem}
As a consequence, we have :
\begin{lemma}[Characterization of admissible stochastic deformations]
Let $c_t$ satisfying $dc_t = f(t,c_t)dt + g(t,c_t)dB_t$ then, $c_t$ is an admissible deterministic variation if and only if
\begin{align*}
f(t,c_0 + d_{min}) & \geq 0, \\
f(t,c_0 + d_{max}) & \leq 0 \ , \quad \forall t \geq 0, \\
g(t,c_0 +d_{min}) & = g(t,c_0 + d_{max}) = 0 \ , \quad \forall t \geq 0 .
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\subsubsection{A stochastic Toy-model}
In order to perform numerical simulations, we introduce an ad-hoc deformation defined by
\begin{align}
f(x) & = \alpha\cos(\gamma t)(x-(c_0 + d_{min}))((c_0+d_{max})-x) \ , \quad e,\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^+ ,\\
g(x) & = \beta(x-(c_0 + d_{min}))((c_0+d_{max})-x) \ , \beta \in \mathbb{R}^+ ,
\end{align}
where $\beta$ is a real number. The function $g$ is designed to reproduce the observed stochastic behavior of the flattening of the Earth. However, as pointed out in the introduction, we do not intend to produce an accurate model but mainly to study if such a model using stochastic processes leads to a good agreement on the shape of the polar motion. \\
The major axis $c_t$ satisfies the stochastic differential equation
\begin{align}
dc_t = &\alpha\cos(\gamma t)(c_t-(c_0 + d_{min}))((c_0+d_{max})-c_t)dt \nonumber \\
&+ \beta(c_t-(c_0 + d_{min}))((c_0+d_{max})-c_t)dB_t \label{procInv} .
\end{align}
\section{Simulations of the Toy-model}
\subsection{Initial conditions}
All the simulations are done under the following set of initial conditions :
\begin{itemize}
\item The semi-major axis of $\mathcal{E}$ : $a_0=1$, $c_0=\sqrt{\frac{298}{300}}$.
\item Mass : $M_\mathcal{E}=1$.
\item Volume : $V_\mathcal{E}=1$.
\item Rotation vector $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ is chosen in the principal axis as $\boldsymbol{\Omega} = \left(5\times 10^{-7},0,1 \right)^\mathsf{T}$.
\item Upper variation $d_\text{max}=a_0-c_0$.
\item Lower variation $d_\text{min}=-d_\text{max}$.
\item Perturbation coefficients : $\alpha=10^{-3}$ and $\beta=10^{-4}$ with $\gamma =10$.
\end{itemize}
These initial conditions correspond to the Earth which rotate around its axis in about 300 days, oscillating with a circle of radius about 3 meters (see \cite{bizouard}, \cite{goldstein}). The perturbation coefficients and also the upper and lower variations are arbitrary. The reader can test different values of the initial conditions using the open-source Scilab program made by F. Pierret (see \cite{pierret3})
\subsection{Numerical scheme and the invariance property}
\label{num_inv}
As we do not perform simulations over a long time, we can use in the deterministic case the Euler scheme and in the stochastic case the Euler-Maruyama scheme. However, in each case a difficulty appears which is in fact present in many other domains of modeling (see for example \cite{cps1} and \cite{cps2}), namely the respect of the invariance condition under discretization. Indeed, even if the continuous model satisfies the invariance condition leading to an admissible deformation, the discrete quantity can sometimes produce unrealistic values leading to, for example, negative values of the major axis. Thanks to an appropriate choice (see \cite{pierret_nsem}) of the time step, it is possible (under some conditions) to obtain a numerical scheme satisfying the invariance property (with a probability which can be as close as we want to one in the stochastic case).\\
In the following, we denote by $h \in \mathbb{R}^+$ the time increment of the numerical scheme. For $n\in \mathbb{N}$, we denote by $t_n$ the discrete time defined by $t_n = nh$ and by $X_n$ the numerical solution compute at time $t_n$ with time step $h=10^{-4}$. In the simulations, the value of $a_0$ can be seen as the \emph{Earth's equatorial radius}, which allow us to display the variations in the oscillation with magnitude of order few centimeters. The simulations are performed over 1 day and 7 days in order to exhibit the random phenomena linked to the period of few days.
\subsubsection{Deterministic case}
In order to perform numerical simulations we use the Euler scheme. Let $X_t$ a smooth function such that
\begin{equation}
X_t=X_0+\int_0^t f(s,X_s)\,ds
\end{equation}
where $f \in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$. The associated Euler scheme associate is given by
\begin{equation}
X_{n+1} = X_n + f(t_n,X_n) h.
\end{equation}
Considering the Euler scheme associate with the stochastic Euler-Liouville equations \eqref{euler_liouville_sto} and the toy-model for the flattening \eqref{procInv} with only a deterministic variation, we display the difference between $c_t$ and its initial value $c_0$ in Figure \ref{fig:ctdet1}. We display also the difference between the zonal harmonic $J_2$ and its initial value $J_{2,0}$ in Figure \ref{fig:j2det1}. The difference is made to see the variation order as, for example, in \cite{cheng_variation_obl}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics{detct1.eps}
\includegraphics{detct2.eps}
}
\caption{Semi-major axis $c_t$}
\label{fig:ctdet1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics{detj2_1.eps}
\includegraphics{detj2_2.eps}
}
\caption{Second zonal harmonic $J_2$}
\label{fig:j2det1}
\end{figure}
As it has been precised in the introduction, this model intends to introduce the deterministic part of the stochastic deformation. Such a model has to be replaced by the actual deterministic models, for example, the part with the well known periodic variations (see \cite{bizouard}, \cite{lambeck_1989}, \cite{sidorenkov2009}).
\subsubsection{Stochastic case}
In order to do numerical simulations we use the Euler-Maruyama scheme which is the stochastic counterpart to the Euler-Liouville scheme for deterministic differential equations (see \cite{higham}, \cite{kloeden1}). Let $X_t$ be a stochastic process written as
\begin{equation}
X_t=X_0+\int_0^t f(s,X_s)\,ds+\int_0^t g(s,X_s)\,dB_s
\end{equation}
where $f,g \in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$. The Euler-Maruyama scheme is given by
\begin{equation}
X_{n+1} = X_n + f(t_n,X_n) h + g(t_n,X_n) \Delta B_n,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta B_n$ is a Brownian increment which is normally distributed with mean zero and variance $h$ for all $n\ge 0$.\\
Considering the Euler-Maruyama scheme associate with the stochastic Euler-Liouville equations \eqref{euler_liouville_sto} and the toy-model for the flattening \eqref{procInv}, we display the difference between $c_t$ and its initial value $c_0$ in Figure \ref{fig:ctsto1}, and we display the zonal harmonic $J_2$ and its initial value $J_{2,0}$ in Figure \ref{fig:j2sto1}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics{stoct1.eps}
\includegraphics{stoct2.eps}
}
\caption{Semi-major axis $c_t$}
\label{fig:ctsto1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\includegraphics{stoj2_1.eps}
\includegraphics{stoj2_2.eps}
}
\caption{Second zonal harmonic $J_2$}
\label{fig:j2sto1}
\end{figure}
Considering stochastic variations of the flattening, we can see that over short periods of time, there exists similarities between the general shape of the flattening curve obtained using simulations of the stochastic toy-model and the observational curves (see \cite{cheng_deceleration}, \cite{cheng_variation_obl}). It shows that the model seems to capture a part of the random effects which could be inside the real observations. \\
Nevertheless, the interpretation of the numerical illustrations with the observational data has to be understand as follows. Such a simple model does not intend to reproduce the actual behavior of the Earth but to show the strategy to interpret the random effects observed. Indeed, when analyzing the real data of the Earth, such as the second zonal harmonic $J_2$, one has to remove all the well known terms like the periodic ones and all others we know exactly quantify. Then, in the ``residual'' data, the observed noise has to be interpreted. Even if, we remove the noise induced by the measure process, this actual noise is very badly understand from the physics or the geological point of view. This exactly what we are showing in the numerical example. If one has periodic terms in its data and remove it, we would obtain a noisy signal which can be exactly identified and modeled as a stochastic variation of the flattening. \\
As precised in the introduction, stochastic variations in the flattening can explain why it is so difficult to predict the rotation motion over few days and also why the filtering methods seems to work but without providing the physical meaning and origin.
\section{Conclusion and perspectives}
This study is a first attempt to take into account stochastic variation of the shape of a body on its rotation through the geometric flattening. It shows that, if there exists a quantification of geophysical mechanisms or an intrinsic description of the ellipsoid on the stochastic variations of the flattening then, this work gives a method to deal with admissible stochastic variations under the assumptions (H1), (H2) et (H3). Thanks to this physical quantification, it allows exhibiting one of the many candidates of the Earth's stochastic rotation dynamics. The results encourage working in this direction. \\
Other mechanisms, such as the non-rigidity of the Earth, induce a major part in the rotation behavior (see \cite{bizouard}, \cite{lambeck1988}). With such a consideration, it follows that Earth's rotation axis is not described in the principal axis and, in consequence, the inertia matrix is not necessarily diagonal. Of course it is possible to adapt all the theoretical and numerical results of this work in such a situation and moreover with a body having a general shape. \\
Obviously the hypothesis on the stochastic nature of the deformation which should be a diffusion process seems to be too restrictive. Indeed, the real data suggest there is sometimes noise coloration (see \cite{bizouard}, \cite{markov2009}). Of course it is also possible to adapt all the results of this work with colored noise (see \cite{hanggi_jung} and \cite{riecke} for example for a short introduction to colored noise using the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process and its white noise limit). Testing such a model with the real data and colored noise and also the actual model of the main perturbation of Earth's rotation such as the oceanic and atmospheric excitation will be the subject of a future paper. \\
One of the applications of this work, is to model a two-body problem perturbed by these stochastic variations of the flattening on its orbitals elements. In consequence, the satellite dynamics used to acquiring data can be investigated when doing a comparison between the data and the Earth's dynamics. Another application, suggested by one of the referee, is to consider such a stochastic approach to the deformation of the Earth and the Moon on the Moon's rotation vector during its formation process. Indeed, an idea due to R.W. Ward (see \cite{ward}) suggests that the Cassini states, which were present, allowed for the Moon's rotation vector to undergo a radical 90 degree flip. It would be interesting to understand, using stochastic deformations, if such a reorientation of the Moon's rotation vector were possible. It could validate a fundamental question relating to the origin and evolution of the Earth-Moon system.
\section{Acknowledgment}
We would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful comments on the paper which led us to an improvement of this work. We would also like to thank S\'ebastien Lambert for his careful proofreading and discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, BWT and FM-index construction of very large string sets has become an important building block for bioinformatics applications such as \emph{de novo} assembly \cite{Simpson:2011} and compression of large genomic databases \cite{Cox:2012}.
In this context, a few novel lightweight algorithms have been developed to work specifically with very large collections of relatively short DNA strings, substantially outperforming previously known general purpose algorithms \cite{Bauer:2011,Li:2014}.
However, these algorithms are either serial or offer very limited parallelism.
Liu et al \shortcite{Liu:2014} has recently provided a new massively parallel algorithm that exploits the excellent sorting speed of modern GPUs for blockwise suffix sorting \cite{Karkkainen:2007} but the algorithm's speed is strongly limited by the speed at which suffixes can be gathered from the CPU's memory subsystem, which is several times slower than high bandwidth GPU memory. Moreover, Liu et al's \shortcite{Liu:2014} algorithm is not incremental.
This work provides a novel algorithm, {\bf set-bwte}, that drastically reduces the impact of the external
memory speed bottleneck while allowing to incrementally add new strings to pre-existing indices.
The algorithm can be seen as extending and adapting the {\bf bwte} algorithm by Ferragina et al \shortcite{Ferragina:2012} to string sets and modern parallel architectures with deep memory hierarchies.
\section{Overview}
Let $\Sigma = \{c_1, ..., c_\sigma\}$ be an ordered alphabet, with $c_1 < c_2 < \dots < c_\sigma$.
For a string $T = T[0 \dots n-1]$, we denote its $i$-th symbol with $T[i]$, and its $i$-th suffix with $T^i = T[i \dots n-1]$.
The \emph{suffix array} of $T$ is an array $SA[0 \dots n-1]$ such that $SA[i]$ is the index of the $i$-th smallest suffix of $T$, i.e. $\{ T^{SA[0]} \leq \dots \leq T^{SA[n-1]}\}$.
The \emph{Burrows-Wheeler Transform}, or \emph{BWT} of T is a string B defined as:
\begin{equation}
B[i] = T[ (SA[i] - 1) \mod n ]
\end{equation}
The BWT of a string set $(S_i)_{0 \leq i < m }$ is defined as the BWT of the string
$T = S_0 \$_0 \dots S_{m-1} \$_{m-1} $, where we define the special terminator symbols $(\$_i)_{0 \leq i < m }$ such that $\$_0 < \dots < \$_{m-1} < c_1$.
As typical in the treatment of the FM-index \cite{Ferragina:2005},
we define the following string \emph{ranking} operation:
\begin{equation}
rank(c,k,B) = |\{i < k : B[i] = c\}|
\end{equation}
counting the occurrences of a character $c$ in the prefix $B[0 \dots k-1]$.
Similarly to the {\bf bwte} algorithm,
{\bf set-bwte} partitions the input
set of strings in K blocks ${0 = j_0 < \dots < j_K = m}$, such that each block $S_{j_k} = S[j_k, j_{k+1})$ contains roughly the same
amount of suffixes $M$, and adds each block in turn to the partial BWT of the previously added blocks, $B_{ext}$.
This is done by first computing the SA of the new block to sort the suffixes relative to each other, then ranking the new, sorted suffixes
relative to $B_{ext}$, and finally inserting the corresponding BWT symbols in sorted order.
Pseudo-code is given in Algorithm 1.
\begin{algorithm}
\For{each block $S_{j_k}$} {
$n := j_{k+1} - j_k$\;
$n_{suf} := \sum_{P \in S_{j_k}}{(1 + |P|)}-1$\;
\emph{// build the suffix array of the block $S_{j_k}$ }\\
$SA_{int}[0 \dots n_{suf}] :=$ {\bf ConstructSA}($S_{j_k}$)\;
\emph{// extract the BWT symbols given the SA }\\
$B_{int}[0 \dots n_{suf}] := B(S_{j_k}, SA_{int})$\;
\emph{// rank the suffixes of $S_{j_k}$ in $B_{ext}$ }\\
$g[0 \dots n_{suf}] :=$ {\bf ComputeRanks}($S_{j_k}, B_{ext}$)\;
\emph{// reorder $g$ by the suffix order }\\
$g_{sa}[0 \dots n_{suf}] := \{ g[SA_{int}[0]] \dots g[SA_{int}[n_{suf}]]\}$
\emph{// insert the symbols of $B_{int}$ in $B_{ext}$ at $g_{sa}$ }\\
$B_{ext} := $ {\bf Insert}($B_{int}, g_{sa}, B_{ext}$)\;
}
\caption{set-bwte}
\end{algorithm}
Notice that the algorithm differs from {\bf bwte} for some relevant aspects: the first is that, unlike the single-string algorithm which proceeded backwards
from the end of the string, in {\bf set-bwte} the strings are added in a forward loop, starting from the beginning of the string set (though reversal is also possible).
This is a crucial difference, allowing the algorithm to be used for adding new strings at any time. This is possible because suffixes have limited length and
don't propagate across block boundaries.
The second is that rather than computing the ranks of the \emph{old} suffixes into the new block, we do the opposite, ranking the new ones relative to the external
BWT: this allows to perform only $O(|B_{int}|)$ work at each step, as opposed to $O(|B_{ext}|)$.
\section{Suffix Array Construction}
Construction of the suffix array of a block of strings can be done with any suffix sorting algorithm.
Our implementation uses a massively parallel GPU based MSD radix-sort algorithm that treats strings as long integer keys made of multiple 32-bit words,
and sieves unique keys at each iteration in a spirit similar to that of the method described by Larsson and Sadakane \shortcite{Larsson:2007}.
The algorithm runs entirely in GPU memory as the blocks are limited in size.
On a Tesla K40, we use blocks of about 250 million symbols.
\section{Computing Ranks}
Computing the ranks of the suffixes of a string $P$ with respect to the external BWT can be done
with an adaptation of Lemma 1 of Ferragina et al \shortcite{Ferragina:2012}.
\paragraph{Lemma 1}: Let $C[c]$ denote the number of symbols in $B_{ext}$ that are smaller
than c, and suppose that suffix $P^k$ is lexicographically larger than precisely $i$ suffixes in $B_{ext}$.
Then, $P^{k-1}$ is lexicographically larger than precisely $j = C[c] + rank(c,i,B_{ext})$ suffixes, where
$c = P[k-1].$
This gives us a simple recipe for a massively parallel implementation of ComputeRanks, in Algorithm 2.
Notice that as anticipated this is reversing the roles of the new and old suffixes ($B_{int}$ and $B_{ext}$)
in the single-string version of the lemma provided by Ferragina et al \shortcite{Ferragina:2012}.
\begin{algorithm}
\KwData{a block of $M$ strings $(P_i)_{0 \leq i < M}$; $B_{ext}$}
\KwResult{g[$0 \dots \sum{(|P_j|+1})$]}
offsets[ $0 \dots M-1$ ] := {\bf prefixsum}( $|P_j|+1$ )\;
\ForAll{j in $[0,M-1]$} {
$k := |P_j|$\;
$i := n_{ext}$\;
offset := offsets[$j$]\;
$g$[offset + $j + k$] := $i$\;
\While {$k > 0$}{
$k := k - 1$\;
$c := P_j[k]$\;
$i := C[c] + rank(c,i,B_{ext})$\;
$g$[offset + $j + k$] := $i$\;
}
}
\caption{ComputeRanks}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Insertion}
The last step of Algorithm 1 involves inserting the symbols $B_{int}[i]$ at the positions $g_{sa}[i]$ in $B_{ext}$. Unlike Ferragina et al \shortcite{Ferragina:2012}, who kept $B_{ext}$ on disk and used serials scans to perform the insertions, we keep $B_{ext}$ in system memory (i.e. the most \emph{external} layer in the random access memory hierarchy of a GPU accelerated system), and employ a new data structure allowing highly parallel insertion.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
{
\begin{tabulary}{1.0\textwidth}{|c|l|c|r|r|}
\hline
Data & Algorithm & RAM & Time & Throughput \\
\hline
NA12878 & beetl-bcr & 1.8G & 11.2h & 3.1 Mbp/s \\
\hline
NA12878 & ropebwt-bcr & 39.3G & 3.3h & 10.5 Mbp/s \\
\hline
NA12878 & ropebwt2 & 34.0G & 5.0h & 6.9 Mbp/s \\
\hline
NA12878 & nvSetBWT & 63.8G & 4.1h & 8.4 Mbp/s \\
\hline
NA12878 & {\bf set-bwte} & 78.0G & {\bf 1.7h} & {\bf 20.4} Mbp/s \\
\hline
Venter & ropebwt2 & 22.2G & 1.4h & 5.4 Mbp/s \\
\hline
Venter & {\bf set-bwte} & 28.6G & {\bf 780s} & {\bf 35.5} Mbp/s \\
\hline
\end{tabulary}
}
\caption{\label{Table:Benchmarks} Benchmarks. Results have been generated on the following hardware: CPU: 24-core Xeon E5-2597-v2 at 2.7Ghz, GPU: NVIDIA Tesla K40, RAM: 128GB. }\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\end{table}
The data structure is essentially a paged array, with pages containing, at any time, between $p/2$ and $p$ symbols. Together with the actual page storage (allocated from a pool) we keep an index of the pages $P$, and an offset vector $O$ specifying the global offset of the first symbol of each page.
The latter allows to efficiently locate all the pages containing all the insertion points with a vectorized binary search.
Once such pages are located, they can be assigned to different threads in a pool which take care
of inserting the new symbols at the proper place and eventually split them if overflowing.
This data structure can be thought of as a \emph{flattened} B+ tree, where the hierarchy has been removed and replaced by a flat index in order to allow more memory-efficient parallel searches.
In our experiments, this provided tenfold speedups on modern multi-core architectures.
In order to facilitate ranking, we incorporate symbol occurrence counters in this paged array. Specifically, we mantain a set of $\sigma$ 64-bit global counters for each page,
and a sampled set of relative 32-bit counters within each page. For DNA we use a spacing of 128 symbols (resulting in 1 bit per symbol).
\section{Complexity Analysis}
In the following, we assume a set of $m$ strings totalling $n$ characters; we further denote with $l$ the average blockwise LCP length, i.e. $l = avg_{j_k}(LCP(S_{j_k}))$; notice that $l$ can be much smaller than the global LCP $L$ if the input is divided in many blocks.
Our parallel suffix sorting algorithm has a worst case complexity of $O(m l)$, though typically the average runtime is much better due to our suffix filtering strategy (which prunes sorted suffixes at an exponential rate on random input).
Ranking has complexity $O(n)$ and insertion has an asymptotic complexity of $O(n \log(n))$.
Hence, the algorithm has a total complexity of $O( m l + n \log(n) )$.
This is asymptotically lower than the $O( m L + n^2/M )$ limit of Liu et al's approach \shortcite{Liu:2014}.
In practice, for genomic datasets the $ml$ dependence is rather weak, and the algorithm seems fairly insensitive to the average read length.
It has also to be noted that these limits are only asymptotic: for finite $n$ and large block sizes $M$ (i.e. when $K = n / M$ is relatively small), the random bulk insertions touch each page, so that the complexity of insertion is initially proportional to $n^2 / M$. \footnote{for fixed $n$ the quantity $n^2/M$ is in fact an improvement over $p n \log(n)$, if the page size $p$ is larger than $n/M$; this also applies to other paged data structures, such as rope and B+ trees.} The actual cost of ranking is also superlinear in $n$, due to the fact that the memory accesses in $B_{ext}$ become sparser and sparser as $n$ grows. These factors typically dominate the runtime.
The algorithm uses a constant amount of high speed memory, and at most $3n \log(\sigma)$ bits of system memory: $2n \log(\sigma)$ bits for the paged array,
and up to $n\log(\sigma)$ bits for the occurrence counters.
\section{Results and Discussion}
We implemented the algorithm and evaluated its performance on the previously published NA12878 dataset containing 1.2 billion x 101bp human reads \cite{Depristo:2011}, and the Venter dataset containing 32 million x 875bp Sanger reads.
In Table 1 we compared the results to those published by Li \shortcite{Li:2014} on similar hardware, including four other algorithms: Illumina's beetle-bcr,
implementing the original disk based BCR \cite{Bauer:2011}; ropebwt-bcr, implementing an in-memory version of BCR; ropebwt2, implementing the algorithm by Li \shortcite{Li:2014}; and NVBIO's nvSetBWT 0.9.8, implementing a custom version of the algorithm by Liu et al \shortcite{Liu:2014}. Of these, only ropebwt2 can efficiently handle longer reads.
For short reads {\bf set-bwte} is almost 2 times faster than the previously fastest non-incremental algorithm, {ropebwt-bcr}, and almost 3 times faster than the state-of-the-art incremental algorithm, {ropebwt2}.
For longer reads the gap is even larger, reaching a speedup of 6.5x.
In our implementation, we perform suffix array construction on the GPU and ranking and insertion on the CPU. The three steps plus I/O are performed as stages in a pipeline,
where separate CPU threads execute each stage while performing multiple buffering of the outputs (see Figure 1). Thus, I/O, GPU and CPU computations are carefully overlapped.
Table 2 reports the average throughputs of the individual stages.
For large sets of short reads, on the Xeon E5-2597-v2 system we ran on, ranking was the bottleneck, and overall CPU processing took almost
three times as long as the GPU portion.
In other words a system with the same GPU and a faster CPU providing higher memory bandwidth could theoretically run almost 3 times as fast.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
{
\begin{tabulary}{1.0\textwidth}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Stage & Venter & NA12878 \\
\hline
Suffix Sorting & 43 Mbp/s & 77 Mbp/s \\
\hline
Ranking & 57 Mbp/s & 37 Mbp/s \\
\hline
Insertion & 98 Mbp/s & 44 Mbp/s \\
\hline
\end{tabulary}
}
\caption{\label{Table:Breakdown} Breakdown of the throughputs of the various stages of our pipeline for the NA12878 and Venter datasets.}\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\end{table}
We would now like to draw the reader's attention on the fundamental primitives employed by our and other external memory BWT construction algorithms.
From a high-level perspective, {\bf set-bwte} can be thought of as a special form of \emph{insertion sort}.
Specifically, at each iteration the algorithm \emph{scatters} partially sorted \emph{symbols} into an external BWT to avoid having to explicitly mantain
a full sorting index, which would demand impractical amounts of memory.
BCR \cite{Bauer:2011} falls into the same category and could be parallelized in a similar manner (except it requires working with a core dataset of exactly $m$ suffixes,
whereas our algorithm allows for an arbitrary block size).
This can be thought of as the dual of the blockwise suffix sorting \cite{Karkkainen:2007} skeleton employed by Liu et al \shortcite{Liu:2014},
which \emph{gathers} sparse input \emph{suffixes} from system memory.
Besides granting a lower asymptotic bound, we empirically observed that the former can be performed more efficiently on contemporary shared memory multi-core architectures,
where all cores share the overall memory system's bandwidth.
It has to be pointed out, however, that the latter is more scalable to small clusters, where each node can keep a copy of the entire input string-set and perform gathers
independently - whereas scattered insertion in a shared database would necessarily involve inter-node communication. We believe the superior single-node performance
and the incremental capability of our algorithm to be interesting tradeoffs against the better inter-node scalability of the slower, non-incremental blockwise suffix sorting
algorithms.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=75.0mm]{pipeline.jpg}
\caption{Our parallel pipeline visualized as a DAG. The blue boxes are stages performed by the CPU, the green box is performed on the GPU.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Aknowledgements}
We thank Jonathan Cohen for insightful discussions and Heng Li for providing the benchmark datasets and initial feedback.
\bibliographystyle{acmsiggraph}
|
\section{Introduction}
The main purpose of this work is to propose a method for constructing
a variety of Gaussian random processes on $\R^d$ by pointwise
evaluation of Gaussian selfsimilar random fields. We will work with
zero mean Gaussian fields $X$ defined with respect to Schwartz functions $\Sc$
on $\R^d$ or, more generally, with respect to a class of signed
measures $\Mc$ on the Borel sets $\Bc(\R^d)$, writing $\phi\mapsto
X(\phi)$, $\phi\in\Sc$, and $\mu\mapsto X(\mu)$, $\mu\in \Mc$.
Defining the dilations $\phi_c$ of $\phi$ and $\mu_c$ of $\mu$, by
\[
\phi_c(x)=c^{-d}\phi(c^{-1}x),\quad x\in \R^d,
\qquad \mu_c(A)=\mu(c^{-1}A), \quad A\subset \Bc(\R^d),
\]
a random field is said to be selfsimilar with self-similarity
index $H$, if
\[
X(\phi_c)\stackrel{d}{=} c^{H} X(\phi), \quad
X(\mu_c)\stackrel{d}{=} c^{H} X(\mu), \quad c>0.
\]
Dobrushin \cite{D}, pioneered a theory of generalized random fields
with $r$th order stationary increments, and characterized all Gaussian
selfsimilar random fields on $\R^d$ by providing a representation of
the covariance functional $C(\phi,\psi)=\mathrm{Cov}(X(\phi),X(\psi))$
parametrized by $r$ and $H$. We will use special instances of such
random fields $\mu\mapsto X(\mu)$ with $H>0$ and extract Gaussian
processes $(X_t)_{t\in \R^d}$ by putting $X_t=X(\mu_t)$ for a suitably
chosen family of indexing measures $(\mu_t)_{t\in \R^d}$.
Gaussian white noise $M_d(dx)$, which is the case $r=0$ and $H=-d/2$, is
such that $M_d(\phi)$ is a zero mean Gaussian random field with covariance
$C(\phi,\psi)=\int_{\R^d} \phi(x)\psi(x)\,dx$. Gaussian random balls
white noise is a class of isotropic, generalized random fields
$W_\beta$, such that for a suitable family $\Mc_\beta$ of signed
measures,
\[
W_\beta(\mu)=\int_{\R^d\times \R_+} \mu(B(x,u))\,M_\beta(dx,du),\quad
\mu\in\Mc_\beta,
\]
where $B(x,u)$ is the Euclidean ball centered in $x$ with radius $u$
and $M_\beta(dx,du)$ is Gaussian white noise on $\R^d\times
[0,\infty)$ with control measure $\nu(dx,du)=dx\,u^{-\beta-1}du$. Such
fields are known to be well-defined for $d-1<\beta<d$ and
$d<\beta<2d$ and $W_\beta$ is selfsimilar with index
$H=(d-\beta)/2\in (-d/2,0)\cap (0,1/2)$,
\cite{BEK2010},\cite{KLNS2007}. These classes of selfsimilar random
fields may be recognized as the cases $r=0$, $-d/2<H<0$ and $r=1$,
$0<H<1/2$, respectively, of isotropic fields in Dobrushin's
characterization. By considering the Riesz transform
\[
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\phi(x)=\int_{\R^d} |x-y|^{-(d-m)}\phi(y)\,dy,\quad 0<m<d,
\]
and random fields defined by
\[
X(\phi)=W_{\beta}((-\Delta)^{-m/2}\phi),\quad
\]
for a suitably restricted class of test functions $\phi$, it is
also possible to extend the range of the self-similarity index $H$
covered by random balls models to any value
$H\not=\Z$ if $d\ge 2$ and $H\not=\frac{1}{2}\Z$ if $d=1$, see \cite{BEK2010}.
In this work we present a more general construction of Gaussian
selfsimilar shot noise random fields, which naturally includes
anisotropic models. We apply the same Gaussian white noises, $M_d$ and
$M_\beta$ as above, use the method of indexing random fields with a
class of signed measures, and extend the range of self-similarity index
with the help of the Riesz transform. These tools allow us to build,
in particular, Gaussian selfsimilar random fields $\mu\mapsto X(\mu)$
with index $H>0$, and apply to them a family of measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in \R^d}$.
By extracting the random fields in this manner, we obtain pointwise
defined random processes
\[
t\mapsto Y_t=X(\mu_t),\quad t\in \R^d,
\]
which inherit relevant properties from the underlying random fields.
The guiding example is fractional Brownian motion $B_H(t)$,
$t\in\R^d$, with $0<H<1$, which we extract from an appropriate random
field by applying $\mu_t=\delta_t-\delta_0$ and/or
$\mu_t=(-\Delta)^{-m/2}(\delta_t-\delta_0)$ with a suitable $m$. As a
byproduct we obtain a new representation of fractional Brownian motion
in terms of $M_\beta$, which may be compared to the well-balanced
representation that results from using $M_d$. To illustrate isotropy
and anisotropy in natural situations, we also compare the random balls
construction with a random cylinder model, which leads to a comparison
between fractional Brownian motions and fractional Brownian sheets.
To investigate further the range of applicability of the briefly
explained extraction principle, we consider for the one-dimensional
case $d=1$ construction of Gaussian bridges on an interval of the real line and
construction of Volterra processes. In higher dimensions we propose
the construction of membranes on a bounded domain $D$ in
$\R^d$, as Gaussian processes $X_t$, $t\in D$, such that $X_t$ converges in probability to $0$ as
$t$ tents to $\partial D$. Finally, we discuss membranes obtained from Gaussian
random balls white noise, which is thinned by a hard boundary in the
sense that balls that do not fall entirely within the domain are
discarded.
Our presentation is organized as follows. In the next Section 2 we
give preliminaries on Gaussian random measures and fields including an
account of Dobrushin's characterization of selfsimilar random fields.
In Section 3 we present our main results on Gaussian shot noise random
fields as Theorem \ref{thmshotnoise}, devoted to fields generated by a
wide range of pulse functions and random balls white noise $M_\beta$,
and Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot}, which instead applies a singular
shot function $h_\beta$ and regular white noise $M_d$. The discussion
on random cylinder models is included as a separate
subsection. Section 4 contains our account of the extraction method
and the various results on fractional Brownian motion, Gaussian
bridges, Volterra processes and membranes constructed by soft boundary
thinning of the harmonic measure. Finally, Section 5 is devoted to
membranes generated by hard boundary thinning.
\section{Preliminaries on Gaussian random measures and fields}
Let $(D,\Dc,\nu)$ be a measure space and let $\Dc_\nu=\{A\in\Dc:
\nu(A)<\infty\}$ denote the set of measurable sets with finite
measures. A Gaussian stochastic measure on $(D,\Dc,\nu)$ is a family
of centered Gaussian random variables $Z(A)$, $A\in\Dc_\nu$, such that
\[
\mathrm{Cov}(Z(A),Z(B))=\nu(A\cap B), \quad A,B\in \Dc_\nu,
\]
and the corresponding Gaussian stochastic integral $f\mapsto \int
f\,dZ$ is the linear isometry $f\mapsto \Ic(f)$ of $L^2(D,\Dc,\nu)$
into a Gaussian Hilbert space $H$, defined by $\Ic(\ind_A)=Z(A)$,
$A\in \Dc_\nu$, \cite{SJ} Ch.\ 7.2. Our main examples will be the
Euclidean case $D=\R^d$ with control measure $\nu(dx)$ which is
uniform or absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on
$\R^d$, and simple product spaces, such as $D=\R^d\times \R_+$
equipped with a product measure $\nu(dx,du)=dx\,\nu_\gamma(du)$, where
$\nu_\gamma(du)=u^{-\gamma-1}\,du$ is a power law measure on the real
positive line.
\subsection*{Gaussian white noise on $\R^d$}
We denote by $M_d(dx)$ the Gaussian stochastic measure on
$(\R^d,\Bc(\R^d),dx)$, the $d$-dimensional Euclidean space with the
Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\Bc(\R^d)$ and Lebesgue control measure $dx$. The
stochastic integral with respect to $M_d$ is the linear map $f\mapsto
\Ic(f)=\int_{\R^d} f(x)\,M_d(dx)$ defined as an isometry from
$L^2(\R^d,\Bc(\R^d),dx)$, equipped with the inner product norm
$\|\cdot\|=\sqrt{\langle \,,\,\rangle}$, where $\langle f,g\rangle=\int
fg\,dx$, into a Gaussian space $L^2(\Omega,\Fc,\Pb)$. Let $\E$ be the
expectation operator associated with $\Pb$. Since
\[
\int_{\R^d} f(x)\,M_d(dx) \int_{\R^d}
g(y)\,M_d(dy)=\int_{\R^d}f(x)g(x)\,dx,
\]
the covariance functional $\E(\Ic(f)\,\Ic(g))=\langle
f,g\rangle$, is given by the ordinary inner product of $L^2$
functions. The same construction works in greater generality,
such as anisotropic white noise with control measure $w(x)\,dx$ for a
nonnegative weight function $w$ and covariance functional given by the
inner product of the weighted space $L_2(\R^d,w\,dx)$.
\subsection*{Gaussian Hilbert space}
Let $\Sc$ be the space of real, rapidly decreasing and smooth Schwartz
functions on $\R^d$. The continuous, bilinear form $\langle
\,,\,\rangle$ is symmetric, semi-definite and non-degenerate on
$\Sc$. Hence $(\Sc,\langle \,,\,\rangle)$ is a pre-Hilbert space with
inner product $\langle f,g\rangle$ for which the completion to a
Hilbert space is the usual space $L^2(\R^d)$ of real-valued
square-integrable functions on $\R^d$. Also, by Minlos's theorem,
$\langle f,g\rangle$ corresponds to a unique Gaussian measure $\Pb$ on
the space $\Sc'$ of real tempered distributions, the dual space of
$\Sc$. Indeed, we obtain a Gaussian Hilbert space $H\subset L^2(\Pb)$
such that the linear functional $f\mapsto u(f)$ on $\Sc'$ is an
isometry which defines the Gaussian white noise measure on $\Sc'$. As
a Gaussian field on an $L^2$-space, white noise on generalized
Schwartz distributions may be regarded as the stochastic integral
$f\mapsto \int f(x)\,M_d(dx)$, cf.\ \cite{SJ}, Ex.\ 1.16, Ex.\ 7.24.
\subsection*{Stationary Gaussian random fields}
We write $|j|=\sum_{k=1}^d j_k$ for each $d$-dimensional multi-index $j=(j_1,\dots,j_d)$ and $x^j=\prod_{k=1}^d x_k^{j_k}$,
$x=(x_1,\dots,x_d)\in \R^d$, and consider the sequence $\Sc_r$,
$r=0,1,\dots$, of closed subspaces of $\Sc$, such that
\[
\Sc_r=\Big\{\phi\in \Sc: \int_{\R^d} x^j\phi(x)\,dx=0,\, |j|<r\Big\},\quad
r=1,2\dots,\quad\Sc_0=\Sc.
\]
A Gaussian random field over $\Sc_r$ is a continuous, linear functional
$X: \Sc_r\to \R$, such that $X(\phi)$ is a Gaussian random variable
for each $\phi\in \Sc_r$. The field is said to be isotropic if the
distribution is invariant under rotations of $\R^d$ and stationary if
it is invariant under translations. A Gaussian random field $X$ over
$\Sc_0$ is said to have stationary $r$th increments if the restriction
of $X$ to $\Sc_r$ is a stationary Gaussian random field over $\Sc_r$.
Let $\Ec$ be the symmetric semidefinite bilinear form on $\Sc_r$,
defined by $\Ec(\phi,\psi)=\E X(\phi)X(\psi)$. Then $(\Sc_r,\Ec)$ is a
pre-Hilbert space with inner product $\Ec(\phi,\psi)$, which may be
completed to a Hilbert space $\Sc_\Ec$ with norm
$\sqrt{\Ec(\phi,\phi)}$, and then $\phi\mapsto X(\phi)$ is an isometry
of $\Sc_\Ec$ onto a Gaussian Hilbert space in $\Sc_r'$. Conversely, by
Minlos's theorem, any continuous bilinear semidefinite symmetric form
gives rise to a unique Gaussian field on $\Sc_r'$.
More generally, we may consider Gaussian random fields defined on a
space of measures. Let $(\Mc,\|\cdot\|)$ denote the normed space of
signed measures $\mu$ on $\R^d$ with variation measure $|\mu|$, such
that the total variation norm is finite,
$\|\mu\|=|\mu|(\R^d)<\infty$. We put $\Mc_0=\Mc$ and for $r=1,2\dots$,
\begin{equation}\label{defspaceofmeasures}
\Mc_r=\left\{\mu\in \Mc: \int_ {\R^d} |x|^{r-1}\,|\mu|(dx)<\infty,
\int_ {\R^d} x^j\,\mu(dx)=0,\; |j|<r\right\}.
\end{equation}
The subspaces $\Mc_r$ are closed under translations $\mu(A)\mapsto
\mu(A-s)$, $s\in\R^d$, $A\in\Bc(\R^d)$. In this framework a Gaussian
random field $X$ over $\Mc _r$ is defined in analogy to those over
$\Sc_r$, and the notions of isotropy, translation invariance and $r$th
order stationary increments carry over. Moreover, by completion one
obtains a Gaussian Hilbert space $\Mc_\Ec$ and an isometry $\mu\mapsto X(\mu)$
onto a Gaussian Hilbert space in the dual space of distributions, cf.\
\cite{SJ} Def.\ 1.18, and \cite{BEK2010} Sect.\ 3.1.
\subsection*{The M.\ Riesz potential kernel}
Let $\Delta=\partial^2/\partial x_1^2+\dots+\partial^2/\partial x_d^2$
be the usual Laplacian operator on $\R^d$. The Fourier transform
$\widehat{\Delta\phi}$, $\phi\in\Sc(\R^d)$, satisfies
\[
\widehat{\Delta\phi}(\xi)=-|\xi|^2\widehat\phi(\xi),\quad \xi\in \R^d.
\]
Then, for any $m\in \Z$, the power operators $(-\Delta)^{-m/2}$ of
the Laplace operator may be defined formally using the Fourier transform, by
\begin{equation}\label{rieszfourier}
\widehat{(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\phi}(\xi)=|\xi|^{-m}\widehat\phi(\xi),\quad
\xi\in \R^d.
\end{equation}
In the context of random fields the family of operators
$(-\Delta)^{-m/2}$, $m\in\Z$, can be given a precise meaning as linear
homeomorphisms defined on the intersection space
$\Sc_\infty=\cap_{r\ge 0} \Sc_r$, see \cite{BEK2010}. For $1\le m\le d-1$,
and more generally for a non-integer parameter $m$, $0<m<d$, the
application $(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\phi$ is well-defined for $\phi\in\Sc$
and can be realized as a fractional integral with respect to the Riesz
kernel, given by
\[
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\phi(x)=C_{m,d}\int_{\R^d}
|x-y|^{-(d-m)}\phi(y)\,dy,\quad
C_{m,d}=\frac{\Gamma((d-m)/2)}{\pi^{d/2}2^m\Gamma(m/2)}.
\]
In one dimension, $d=1$, this extends naturally by putting
$(-\Delta)^{-1/2}\phi(x)=\int_x^\infty \phi(y)\,dy$.
For signed measures in $\mu\in\Mc$ we will understand
$(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu$ to be the map generated by the Riesz potential
of order $m$, defined by
\[
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu(dx)=C_{m,d}\int_{\R^d}
|x-y|^{-(d-m)}\,\mu(dy)\,dx.
\]
For the one-dimensional case, $(-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu(dx)=\int_x^\infty
\,\mu(dy)\,dx$. The Riesz potential of order $m$ is finite almost
everywhere if and only if \cite{landkof}
\[
\int_{\{y\in\R^d:\, |y|>1\}} \frac{\mu(dy)}{|y|^{d-m}}<\infty,
\]
and this condition will be satisfied for all measures $\mu$ considered
here. With regards to the Riesz kernel we will make frequent use of the
composition rule
\begin{equation}\label{rieszcomp}
\int_{\R^d} \frac{C_{m_1,d}}{|y-x|^{d-m_1}}\frac{C_{m_2,d}}{|y'-x|^{d-m_2}}\,dx
=\frac{\mathrm{C_{m_1+m_2,d}}}{|y-y'|^{d-m_1-m_2}},
\end{equation}
valid for $0<m_1,m_2<d$, $m_1+m_2<d$.
\subsection*{Selfsimilar Gaussian random fields}
For $\phi\in \Sc$ let $\phi_c$ be the dilation defined by
$\phi_c(x)=c^{-d}\phi(c^{-1}x)$, $c\ge 0$. Clearly, $\phi_c\in \Sc_r$
if $\phi\in \Sc_r$. A random field $X$ over $\Sc_r$ is said to be
selfsimilar with index $H$, or $H$-selfsimilar, if $X(\phi_c)$ has the
same distribution as $c^H X(\phi)$, $\phi\in \Sc_r$. Similarly, for
$\mu\in \Mc(\R^d)$ define $\mu_c$ by $\mu_c(B)=\mu(B/c)$,
$B\in\Bc(\R^d)$. We will sometimes write $\mu\mapsto X(\mu)$ for the
mapping of a random field even if the space of measures coincides with
the absolutely continuous signed measures $\mu(dx)=\phi(x)\,dx$,
$\phi\in \Sc_r$. In this notation, a random field is $H$-selfsimilar
if $X(\mu_c)$ has the same distribution as $c^H\,X(\mu)$, for all
relevant $\mu$.
\begin{theorem}[Dobrushin '79 \cite{D}] \label{thmdobrushin}
Fix $r\ge 0$. A Gaussian random field
$X$ on $\Sc_r$ is stationary and $H$-selfsimilar if and only if the
covariance functional $C(\phi,\psi)={\rm Cov}(X(\phi),X(\psi))$ is
given by
\begin{align*}
C(\phi,\psi)&=\sum_{|j|=|k|=r} a_{jk}\int_{\R^d} x^j\phi(x)\,dx\int_{\R^d}
y^k\psi(y)\,dy\\
&\qquad \qquad +\int_{\S^{d-1}}\int_0^\infty \widehat \phi(u\theta)\overline{\widehat
\psi(u\theta)} u^{-2H-1}\,du\,\sigma(d\theta),
\end{align*}
where the matrix $(a_{jk})$ is symmetric and nonnegative definite and
$\sigma(d\theta)$ is a finite, positive, and reflection-invariant
measure on the unit sphere $\S^{d-1}$ in $\R^d$. Here, if $H>r$ then
$X\equiv 0$, if $H=r$ then $\sigma(d\theta)=0$ and if $H<r$ then
$(a_{jk})=0$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection*{Random polynomials}
The special case $H=r$ in Theorem \ref{thmdobrushin} corresponds to random
polynomials. For $x\in \R^d$ let $X_r(x)$ be the Gaussian random
polynomial of order $r$ defined by
\[
X_r(x)=\sum_{|j|\le r} \xi_j x^j,
\]
where $x^j=\prod_{k=1}^d x_k^{j_k}$ for each multi index
$j=(j_1,\dots,j_d)$, $|j|=\sum_{k=1}^dj_k$, and $(\xi_j)$ are standard
Gaussian random variables. Then
\[
X_r(\phi)=\sum_{|j|\le r} \xi_j \int_{\R^d} x^j\phi(x)\,dx,\quad \phi\in
\Sc,
\]
defines a corresponding Gaussian random field on $\Sc$. By restricting
to $\Sc_r$ one obtains the order $r$ terms
\[
X_r(\phi)=\sum_{|j|=r} \xi_j \int_{\R^d} x^j\phi(x)\,dx,\quad \phi\in
\Sc_r.
\]
As a field on $\Sc_r$ the polynomial field $X_r$ is $r$-selfsimilar and stationary. Indeed, if
$\phi\in \Sc_r$ then
\[
X_r(\phi(\cdot+a))=\sum_{|j|=r} \xi_j \int_{\R^d}
(x-a)^j\phi(x)\,dx=\sum_{|j|=r} \xi_j \int_{\R^d}
x^j\phi(x)\,dx.
\]
\subsection*{Nondegenerate selfsimilar Gaussian random fields}
Considering Gaussian $H$-selfsimilar random fields on $\Sc_r$ with
$H<r$, it follows by Theorem \ref{thmdobrushin} that
\begin{equation}\label{covdobrushin}
C(\phi,\psi)=
\int_{\S^{d-1}}\int_0^\infty \widehat \phi(u\theta)\overline{\widehat
\psi(u\theta)} u^{-2H-1}\,du\sigma(d\theta),\quad \phi\in \Sc_r,
\end{equation}
and if we specialize to isotropic random fields then the covariance
functional takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{covisotropic}
C(\phi,\psi)=\mathrm{const} \int_{\R^d} \widehat \phi(z)\overline{\widehat
\psi(z)}\, |z|^{-2H-d}\,dz.
\end{equation}
The most basic case is $H=-d/2$ and $r=0$ combined with a rotationally
symmetric measure $\sigma(d\theta)$. By Parseval's identity, this is
Gaussian white noise $M_d(dx)$ with $M_d(\phi)\sim N(0,\int\phi(x)^2\,dx)$
and $C(\phi,\psi)=\int_{\R^d}\phi(x)\psi(x)\,dx$ (ignoring constants).
If we return to (\ref{covdobrushin}) but restrict the range of
parameters to $-d/2<H<r$, then the covariance may be recast into
\begin{equation}\label{covdobrushinalt}
C(\phi,\psi)= \int_{\R^d\times\R^d} \phi(x)
\psi(y) |x-y|^{2H}\,\Kc\Big(\frac{x-y}{|x-y|}\Big)\,dxdy,
\end{equation}
where $\Kc$ is an anisotropy weight function on $\S^{d-1}$ defined by
\[
\Kc(e)=\int_{\S^{d-1}}\int_0^\infty e^{-i r\theta\cdot e}
u^{-2H-1}\,du\sigma(d\theta),\quad e\in \S^{d-1}.
\]
Recalling from (\ref{defspaceofmeasures}) the setting of indexing
measures in $\Mc_r$ we conclude that, with the exception of
independently scattered white noise, all isotropic selfsimilar
Gaussian random fields are characterized by a covariance functional
$C(\mu,\mu')=\mathrm{Cov}(X(\mu),X(\mu'))$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{covfunct}
C(\mu,\mu')=\mathrm{const}
\int_{\R^d\times\R^d} |x-y|^{2H}\,\mu(dx)\mu'(dy),\quad \mu,\mu'\in\widetilde\Mc.
\end{equation}
For $-d/2<H<0$ the relevant set $\widetilde\Mc\subset\Mc_r,$ consists
of signed measures with finite Riesz-energy. For $0<H<r$ the
moment condition $\int\mu(dy)=0$ enters and we have the
additional representation
\[
C(\mu,\mu')=\mathrm{const}
\int_{\R^d\times\R^d} (|x|^{2H}+|y|^{2H}-|x-y|^{2H})\,\mu(dx)\mu'(dy).
\]
The self-similarity of the model is
equivalent to the second order self-similarity property
$C(\mu_c,\mu_c)=c^{2H} C(\mu,\mu)$. Our final remark in this section
is that because of (\ref{rieszfourier}) and (\ref{covdobrushin}), the
Riesz kernel preserves self-similarity, in the sense
\begin{equation}\label{covriesz}
C((-\Delta)^{-m/2}\phi,(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\psi)=
\int_{\S^{d-1}}\int_0^\infty \widehat \phi(r\theta)\overline{\widehat
\psi(r\theta)} u^{-2H-2m-1}\,du\sigma(d\theta).
\end{equation}
Thus, if $X(\phi)$ is selfsimilar with index $H$ then the random field
$Y(\phi)$ defined by $Y(\phi)=X((-\Delta)^{-m/2}\phi)$ for some $m$
with $H+m<r$, is selfsimilar with index H+m, cf.\ \cite{BEK2010} Thm 4.7.
\section{Gaussian shot noise random fields}
In this section we introduce a wide class of Gaussian selfsimilar
random fields on $\R^d$, generated by white noise and obtained by a
shot noise construction. Isotropic as well as anisotropic models are
covered. The white noise is defined on the extended space
$\R^d\times\R_+$ where the additional degree of freedom may be thought
of as a random radius of an euclidean ball located in $\R^d$. A class of
nonnegative functions in $L_2(\R^d)$ adds further generality to the
model, acting as pulse functions for a shot noise mechanism driven by
the random balls. The Riesz kernel transform furthermore provides
means of moving from one range of self-similarity indices to
another. In the end all combined we obtain efficient methods to
extract a variety of processes, bridges and membranes from these
Gaussian random fields.
\subsection*{Random ball white noise}
For fixed spatial dimension $d\ge 1$ we consider a parameter $\beta$,
such that
\[
\beta\in (d-1,d)\cup(d,2d),
\]
put
\begin{equation}\label{defcontrol}
\widetilde\nu_\beta(du)=u^{-\beta-1} du,\; u>0, \quad
\nu(dz)=dx\,\widetilde\nu_\beta(du),\; z=(x,u)\in \R^d\times \R_+,
\end{equation}
and let $M_\beta(dz)$ be white noise on $\R^d\times \R_+$ defined by
the control measure $\nu(dz)$. Also, with some abuse of notation, we
write $M_d(dz)$ for Gaussian noise with control measure
$\nu(dz)=dx\,\delta_1(du)$, which in this manner is identified with
Gaussian white noise $M_d(dx)$ as introduced earlier. It is
convenient to let each Gaussian point $(x,u)$ represent a Euclidean
ball $B(x,u)$ in $\R^d$ centered in $x$ with radius $u>0$. The
general method of evaluating random fields that we adopt in this work
amounts to measure the aggregation of Gaussian mass from all of
$M_\beta(dz)$ as the stochastic integral
\begin{equation}\label{defrandomballs}
X(\mu)=\int_{\R^d\times \R_+} \mu(B(x,u))\,M_\beta(dz),
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ belongs to a suitable class of signed measures. This
approach is introduced in \cite{KLNS2007} and developed further in
\cite{BEK2010} and \cite{BD2010}.
As a preparation to help see the origin of self-similarity in these models we
begin with the simplest case of fixed size balls corresponding to
$M_d(dz)$, and consider
\[
X(\mu)=\int_{\R^d\times \R_+} \mu(B(x,u))\,M_d(dz)
=\int_{\R^d} \mu(B(x,1))\,M_d(dx).
\]
This model is Gaussian with covariance functional
\[
C(\mu,\mu')=\int_{\R^d} \mu(B(x,1)) \mu'(B(x,1)) \,dx
=\int_{\R^d\times\R^d} |B(y,1)\cap B(y',1)|\, \mu(dy)\mu'(dy').
\]
The volume $V(|y-y'|))=|B(y,1)\cap B(y',1)|$ of two intersecting balls
only depends on the distance between the center points $y$ and $y'$
and is given by
\begin{equation}\label{defvolfunction}
V(u)=2v_{d-1}\int_{u/2}^1 (1-s^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\,ds,\quad u\le 2,
\end{equation}
and $V(u)=0$ for $u>2$, where $v_d=|B(0,1)|$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\R^d$, see \cite{G2003}. The one-point
evaluations
\[
X(\delta_t)=\int_{\R^d} \ind_{\{|x-t|\le 1\}}\,M_d(dx),\quad t\in \R^d,
\]
exist and generate a point-wise defined zero mean Gaussian random
field with covariance $C(\delta_t,\delta_{t'})=V(|t-t'|)$. This
random field does not possess the self-similarity property itself but
if we replace the control measure
$dx\,\delta_1(du)$ with $dx\,\tilde\nu_\beta(du)$ for
$M_\beta(dz)$ in (\ref{defrandomballs}), then the covariance is
\begin{align*}
C(\mu,\mu')&=\int_{\R^d\times\R_+} \mu(B(x,u)) \mu'(B(x,u))\,dx u^{-\beta-1}\,du\\
&=\int_{\R^d\times\R^d} \int_0^\infty
u^dV(|y-y'|/u)\,u^{-\beta-1}du\, \mu(dy)\mu'(dy')\\
&=\mathrm{const} \int_{\R^d\times\R^d} \frac{\mu(dy)\mu'(dy')}{|y-y'|^{\beta-d}},
\end{align*}
which is selfsimilar with index $H=(d-\beta)/2$ according to
(\ref{covisotropic}), assuming $\mu$ and $\beta$ are such that the
integral exists. As a second type of modification we replace
$\mu(B(x,1))$ in the previous expression for $X(\mu)$ with integration
of $\mu$ with respect to a spatially shifted power law function
$h_\gamma(y)=|y|^{-(d-\gamma)}$, $0<\gamma<d/2$, and consider
\[
X(\mu)=\int_{\R^d} \int_{\R^d} h_\gamma(y-x)\,\mu(dy)\, M_d(dx).
\]
The heuristic picture of randomly sized overlapping balls in $\R^d$
now changes to one of overlapping pulse functions. By
(\ref{rieszcomp}), the covariance is found to have the selfsimilar
shape
\[
\mathrm{Cov}(X(\mu),X(\mu'))=\mathrm{const}
\int_{\R^d\times\R^d} \frac{\mu(dy)\mu'(dy')}{|y-y'|^{d-2\gamma}}.
\]
An equivalent interpretation of this particular construction is that
we integrate the Riesz kernel with respect to white noise $M_d(dx)$:
\begin{align}\label{rieszkernelwhitenoise}
\langle M_d,(-\Delta)^{-\gamma/2}\mu(\cdot)\rangle
=\int_{\R^d} \int_{\R^d} |y-x|^{-(d-\gamma)}\,\mu(dy)\,M_d(dx).
\end{align}
We emphasize the distinction between the use of the Riesz kernel in
(\ref{rieszkernelwhitenoise}) as opposed to the effect of
Riesz integration by shifting from $\mu$ to
$(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu$ in the random balls model in \eqref{defrandomballs}, applying the composition rule (\ref{rieszcomp}), and obtaining
\begin{align*}
C((-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu,(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu')
&=\mathrm{const} \int_{\R^d\times\R^d} \frac{(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu(dy)(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu'(dy')}{|y-y'|^{\beta-d}}\\
&=\mathrm{const} \int_{\R^d\times\R^d} \frac{\mu(dy)\mu'(dy')}{|y-y'|^{\beta-d-2m}}.
\end{align*}
The range of the self-similarity index in these relations will depend on
a more detailed analysis of which combinations of parameters and
admissible measures one can use, and will be part of the subsequent
results.
\subsection*{Shot noise}
We are now in position to introduce a Gaussian shot noise random
field $X_h$ driven by $M_\beta(dz)$ and with a given pulse function
$h$ in $L_2(\R^d)$. We define the shift and scale mapping
\begin{equation}\label{tauL2}
\tau_z h(y)=h((y-x)/u),\quad z=(x,u)\in \R^d\times\R_+,
\end{equation}
and put
\[
X_h(\mu)=\int_{\R^d \times \R_+}\langle \mu,\tau_z h\rangle\,M_\beta(dz),\quad
\langle \mu,\tau_z h\rangle=\int_{\R^d} \tau_zh(y)\,\mu(dy).
\]
Occasionally we use $\tau_x$ as a short hand notation for $\tau_{(x,1)}$.
The construction of the shot noise then relies on stating proper
assumptions on the class of measures $\mu$ involved and on the class
of admissible pulse functions $h$ for which $X_h$ will exist as a
Gaussian stochastic integral. The shot noise mechanism we investigate here is inspired by similar constructions in \cite{Cag11}.
Following \cite{BEK2010}, for $\beta\not=d$ we let
\begin{align*}
\Mc^\beta=\Big\{ &\mu\in \Mc : \exists \alpha\; s.t.\;
\alpha<\beta<d \mbox{ or } d<\beta<\alpha \\
&\mbox{ and }\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
|y-y'|^{d-\alpha}\,|\mu|(dy)|\mu|(dy')<\infty\Big\}.
\end{align*}
For $d<\beta$ this space of measures is closely related to the set of
measures with finite Riesz energy. Then we combine $\Mc^\beta$ with the
previously introduced sets $\Mc_r$, $r=0,1,\dots$, and put
\[
\Mc^\beta_r=\Mc^\beta\cap \Mc_r.\qquad
\wt\Mc_\beta=
\begin{cases}
\Mc^\beta, &d<\beta<2d, \\
\Mc^\beta_1,& d-1<\beta<d.
\end{cases}
\]
Let $\Hc_\beta$ be the subset of functions in $L_2(\R^d)$, such that,
for the case $d<\beta<2d$,
\[
\Big|\int_{\R^d} h(x) h(x+y)\,dx\Big|\le \frac{\mathrm{const}}{|y|^{\alpha-d}},\,\qquad
\mbox{all $y\in\R^d$ and $\alpha\in (\beta,2d)$,}
\]
and, for the case $d-1<\beta<d$,
\[
\Big|\int_{\R^d} h(x)(h(x+y)-h(x))\,dx\Big|\le \mathrm{const}|y|^{d-\alpha},\,\qquad
\mbox{all $y\in\R^d$ and $\alpha\in (d-1,\beta)$}.
\]
\begin{theorem}
\label{thmshotnoise}
Fix $\beta \in (d-1,d)\cap (d,2d)$. Let $M_\beta(dz)$ be the Gaussian
random ball white noise on $\R^d\times\R_+$ with control measure
$\nu(dz)=dx\,\widetilde\nu_\beta(du)$ as defined in
(\ref{defcontrol}). Assume $h\in \Hc_\beta$ and
let $H$
denote the parameter
\[
H=\frac{d-\beta}{2}\in
\begin{cases}
(-d/2,0),& d<\beta<2d, \\
(0,1/2), & d-1<\beta<d.
\end{cases}
\]
\medskip
\noindent
i)
The shot noise random field
\[
\mu\mapsto X_h(\mu),\quad \mu\in\wt\Mc_\beta,
\]
is well-defined as a zero mean Gaussian $H$-selfsimilar stochastic
integral with covariance functional
\[
\mathrm{Cov}(X_h(\mu),X_h(\mu'))=\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
\Kc_h\Big(\frac{y-y'}{|y-y'|}\Big)\,\frac{\mu(dy)\mu'(dy')}{|y-y'|^{\beta-d}},
\]
where the kernel function $\Kc_h$ is defined on the unit sphere
$\S^{d-1}$ and given by
\[
\Kc_h(e)=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle{C_h\int_0^\infty u^{d-1-\beta}\int_{\R^d} h(x)h(x+e/u)\,dxdu}, & d<\beta<2d, \\[10pt]
\displaystyle{C_h\int_0^\infty u^{d-1-\beta}\int_{\R^d} h(x)(h(x+e/u)-h(x))\,dxdu}, & d-1<\beta<d,
\end{cases}
\]
$e\in \S^{d-1}$, for some constant $C_h$. In particular, if $h$ is
rotationally symmetric on $\R^d$ then $\Kc_h(e)=\Kc_h$ is a constant
and the random field $X_h$ is isotropic.
\medskip
\noindent
ii) Consider the restricted range $d<\beta<2d$. For
the case $d\ge 2$, let $m$ be a real number such that
\[
1<2m<d,\quad 0<d-\beta+2m<2,
\]
and put $H'=H+m$. Assume $(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu\in\Mc^\beta$. Then the random field
\[
\mu\mapsto X_h((-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu)=\int_{\R^d\times\R_+}
\langle (-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu,\tau_zh\rangle \,M_\beta(dz),
\]
is $H'$-selfsimilar. For the one-dimensional case, $d=1$, with
$1<\beta<2$, the random field
\[
\mu\mapsto X_h((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu)=\int_{\R\times\R_+}
\int_\R h((y-x)/u)\mu([y,\infty))\,dy \,M_\beta(dx,du),
\]
is $(3-\beta)/2$-selfsimilar for $\mu$ such that
$\int_y^\infty\mu(dz)\,dy\in \Mc^\beta$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
i) The Gaussian stochastic integral $X_h(\mu)$ exists if and only if
the variance
\[
\mathrm{Cov}(X_h(\mu),X_h(\mu))
=\int_{\R^d\times\R_+} \langle \mu,\tau_{x,u}h\rangle^2\,dx\,u^{-\beta-1}\,du
\]
is finite. We need to verify that this is the case under the stated assumptions
and establish the explicit form of the covariance functional. The
proof can be seen as an adaptation of Lemma 2.3 in
\cite{BEK2010} to the case of a shot noise weight function $h$.
We begin with the case $d<\beta<2d$. Then $\wt\Mc_\beta=\Mc^\beta$.
We introduce the function $g$ defined by
\[
g(u)=\int_{\R^d} \langle \mu,\tau_{x,u}h\rangle^2\,dx,\quad u>0.
\]
Using Fubini's theorem and homogeneity, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{proofidentity}
g(u)=u^d\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
\int_{\R^d}h(x)h(x+(y-y')/u)\,dx\,\mu(dy)\mu(dy').
\end{equation}
Since $h\in \Hc_\beta$ and $\mu\in \Mc^\beta$ we can find $\alpha\in
(\beta,2d)$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{proofbound}
0<g(u)\le \mathrm{const}\, u^\alpha \int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
\frac{|\mu|(dy)|\mu|(dy')}{|y-y'|^{\alpha-d}}<\infty.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, using H\"older's inequality and $\mu\in \Mc$, it
follows from (\ref{proofidentity}) that $g(u)\le \|h\|_2\,
\|\mu\|^2\,u^d$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{proofbound2}
0<g(u)\le \mathrm{const}\, \min(u^\alpha,u^d)
\end{equation}
and hence
\[
\int_0^\infty g(u)\, u^{-\beta-1}du=
\int_{\R^d\times\R_+} \langle\mu,\tau_z h\rangle^2\,\nu(dz)<\infty.
\]
Next we may replace $g$ in the left-hand side integral by the integral
expression in (\ref{proofidentity}) and apply a change of variables, to obtain
\[
\int_{\R^d\times\R_+} \langle\mu,\tau_z h\rangle^2\,\nu(dz)
= \int_{\R^d\times\R^d}\Kc_h\Big(\frac{y-y'}{|y-y'|}\Big)
\frac{\mu(dy)\mu(dy')}{|y-y'|^{\beta-d}}
\]
with the desired function $\Kc_h$, as stated in the theorem. By
(\ref{covdobrushinalt}), this is the covariance functional for a
selfsimilar Gaussian model with self-similarity index
$H=-(\beta-d)/2<0$.
For the remaining case $d-1<\beta<d$ in statement
i), we have $\mu\in \Mc_1$ and hence $\int_{\R^d}\mu(dx)=0$. Thus, we
may replace (\ref{proofidentity}) by
\[
g(u)=u^d\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
\int_{\R^d}h(x)(h(x+(y-y')/u)-h(x))\,dx\,\mu(dy)\mu(dy').
\]
Then we use the relevant property of $h\in \Hc_\beta$ for this range
of the parameter $\beta$ to obtain an $\alpha\in (d-1,\beta)$, such
that the bounds in (\ref{proofbound}) and (\ref{proofbound2}) are
preserved. In parallel with the previous case it remains to integrate
over $u$ to obtain the covariance functional, which now yields a
self-similarity index $H$ in the range $0<H<1/2$.
To prove part ii) of the theorem we begin with the case $d\ge 2$, take
$\beta$ and $m$ as specified, and consider the function
\[
g_m(u)=\int_{\R^d} \langle (-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu,\tau_{x,u}h\rangle^2\,dx,\quad u>0,
\]
for $h\in \Hc_\beta$ and $(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu\in \Mc^\beta$.
Using the notation
\[
V_h(y)=\int_{\R^d} h(x)h(x+y)\,dx, \quad y\in \R^d,
\]
we have
\[
g_m(u)=u^d \int_{\R^d\times\R^d} V_h((y-y')/u)\,
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu(dy)(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu(dy').
\]
By using $h\in \Hc_\beta$ and H\"older's inequality as in the proof of
part 1), we find that $g_m$ satisfies relation (\ref{proofbound2}) for
some $\alpha$ with $\beta<\alpha<2d$, which implies that the
covariance functional
\[
C(\mu,\mu)=\int_0^\infty g_m(u)\, u^{-\beta-1}du=
\int_{\R^d\times\R_+} \langle (-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu,\tau_z h\rangle^2\,\nu(dz)
\]
is finite. Moreover, by a change of variable and relation (\ref{rieszcomp}),
\[
g_m(u)=u^d \int_{\R^d} V_h(w/u)\, \int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
\frac{\mu(dy) \mu(dy')}{|y-y'+w|^{d-2m}}\,dw.
\]
Thus,
\[
C(\mu,\mu)=
\int_{\R^d} \frac{1}{|w|^{\beta-d}} \Kc_h\Big(\frac{w}{|w|}\Big)
\frac{\mu(dy) \mu(dy')}{|y-y'+w|^{d-2m}}\,dw,
\]
where
\[
\Kc_h(e)=\mathrm{const}\int_0^\infty u^{d-\beta-1}V_h(e/u)\,du, \quad e\in\S^{d-1},
\]
is a finite function on the unit sphere. Clearly,
\[
C(\mu_c,\mu_c)=c^{2H'}\,C(\mu,\mu),\quad H'=\frac{d-\beta+2m}{2}.
\]
For $d=1$, the arguments are parallel and lead to the representation
\[
C(\mu,\mu)=\int_{\R\times\R}
\int_0^\infty u^{-\beta}V_h\Big(\frac{y-y'}{|y-y'|}\frac{1}{u}\Big)\,du\,
\frac{\mu([y,\infty)) \mu([y',\infty))}{|y-y'|^{\beta-1}}\,dydy',
\]
which scales with self-similarity index of order $(3-\beta)/2\in (1/2,1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thmsingularshot}
Let $M_d(dx)$ be Gaussian white noise on $\R^d$ with control
measure $dx$. For $\beta\in (d-1,d)\cup (d,2d)$, put
$H=(d-\beta)/2$ and let $h_\beta$ and $h_\beta^+$ be functions defined
by
\[
h_\beta(x)=|x|^{-\beta/2},\quad x\in \R^d,\qquad
h_\beta^+(x)=x_+^{-\beta/2},\quad x\in \R, \quad x_+=x\vee 0.
\]
\medskip\noindent
i) The Gaussian random field
\[
\mu\mapsto X(\mu)=\int_{\R^d} \langle \mu, \tau_x
h_\beta\rangle \,M_d(dx), \quad \mu\in \wt\Mc_\beta,
\]
is $H$-selfsimilar with covariance
\[
\mathrm{Cov}(X(\mu),X(\mu'))=\mathrm{const} \int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
|y-y'|^{2H} \mu(dy)\mu'(dy').
\]
For $d-1<\beta<d$ this may be written
\[
\mathrm{Cov}(X(\mu),X(\mu'))=C_+ \int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
\Big(|y|^{2H}+|y'|^{2H} -|y-y'|^{2H}\Big)\mu(dy)\mu'(dy')
\]
with a positive constant $C_+$.
\medskip\noindent ii) Restricting to $d\ge 2$ and $d<\beta<2d$, let
$m$ be a real number such that
\[
0<2m<d,\quad 0<d-\beta+2m<2.
\]
For $\mu$ such that $(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu\in \Mc^\beta$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mu\mapsto
&\int_{\R^d} \langle
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu,\tau_xh_\beta\rangle\, M_d(dx)\\
&=\mathrm{const}\int_{\R^d}\int_{\R^d}|y-x|^{H'-d/2} \mu(dy)\, M_d(dx),
\end{align*}
and this map defines a selfsimilar Gaussian random field with
self-similarity index $H'=(d-\beta)/2+m\in (0,1)$. For the case $d=1$ and
$1<\beta<2$, the random field
\begin{align*}
\mu\mapsto
\int_{\R} \langle
(-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu,\tau_x h^+_\beta\rangle\, M_1(dx)
=\mathrm{const}\int_{\R}\int_{\R}(y-x)_+^{H'-1/2} \mu(dy)\, M_1(dx),
\end{align*}
is $H'$-selfsimilar with $H'=(3-\beta)/2\in (1/2,1)$. Also,
\begin{equation}\label{thmBM}
\mu\mapsto
\int_{\R} (-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu(x)\, M_1(dx)
=\int_{\R} \int_x^\infty \mu(dy)\, M_1(dx)
\end{equation}
is $1/2$-selfsimilar.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove $i)$ we need to establish that
\[
\mathrm{Cov}(X(\mu),X(\mu))=\int_{\R^d} \langle \mu, h_\beta\rangle^2\,dx
\]
has the required properties. Indeed, there is a constant $c_\beta$
such that
\[
\int_{\R^d} \langle \mu, h_\beta\rangle^2\,dx
=c_\beta \int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
|y-y'|^{d-\beta}\,\mu(dy)\mu(dy').
\]
Here,
\[
c_\beta=\int_{\R^d} h_\beta(x)h_\beta(x+e)\,dx <\infty,
\]
some $e\in \S^{d-1}$, for the case $d<\beta<2d$, and, using $\int\mu(dy)=0$,
\[
c_\beta=
\int_{\R^d} h_\beta(x)(h_\beta(x+e)-h_\beta(x))\,dx<\infty
\]
for the case $d-1<\beta<d$. To prove ii) for $d\ge 2$,
$d<\beta<2d$, and $m$ as specified, we have by (\ref{rieszcomp}),
\begin{align*}
&\int_{\R^d} \langle
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}\mu,\tau_xh_\beta\rangle\, M_d(dx)\\
&\qquad \qquad =\mathrm{const}\int_{\R^d}\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}
\frac{\mu(dy)}{|y-w|^{d-m}}\,\frac{dw}{|w-x|^{\beta/2}}\, M_d(dx)\\
&\qquad \qquad =\mathrm{const}\int_{\R^d}\int_{\R^d}
\frac{\mu(dy)}{|y-x|^{\beta/2-m}}\, M_d(dx)\\
&\qquad \qquad =\mathrm{const}\int_{\R^d}\int_{\R^d}|y-x|^{H'-d/2} \mu(dy)\, M_d(dx),
\end{align*}
and we can check as before that the covariance is finite under the
given assumptions. The proof for the one-dimensional case, which uses
$m=1$, is analogous.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Random cylinder Gaussian fields}
The purpose of this subsection is to show that Brownian sheets models
are naturally included in the general framework of selfsimilar random
fields, and that they emerge from expanding the white noise
construction in Theorem \ref{thmshotnoise} based on random balls to
one based on random cylinders. In the interest of not burdening our main
result Theorem \ref{thmshotnoise} with additional notation and
variations we have chosen to present these results in a separate
subsection and in a less formal manner.
We define random cylinder white noise on the product space $\R^d\times
\R_+^p$, $1\le p\le d$, equipped with a control measure that allows us
to think of the noise as Gaussian fluctuations of overlapping random
cylinders. The special case $p=1$ is the random balls white noise.
For a given spatial integer dimension $d$ we consider an arbitrary
partition $d^\pi=(d_1,\dots,d_p)$ of $d$, $d=\sum_{i=1}^p d_i$. Any
point $x\in \R^d=\prod_{i=1}^p \R^{d_i}$ has the representation
$x^\pi=(x^1,\dots,x^p)$, where $x^i\in\R^{d_i}$ for $1\le i\le p$.
Given a set of parameters $\widetilde\beta=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_p)$
such that either $d_i < \beta_i < 2d_i$, $1\le i\le p$, or $d_i-1 <
\beta_i < d_i$, $1\le i\le p$, we
define a measure $\widetilde\nu_\beta(du)$ on $\R^p_+=[0,\infty)^p$ by
\begin{equation}\label{cylinderrandomradius}
\widetilde\nu_\beta(du)=\prod_{i=1}^p u_i^{-\beta_i-1}\,du_i.
\end{equation}
The scaling relation
\[
\widetilde\nu_\beta(c\, du)=c^{-\beta}\,\widetilde\nu_\beta(du),\quad
c>0, \qquad \beta=\sum_{i=1}^p\beta_i,
\]
holds. Let $M_\beta(dz)$ be a Gaussian measure on $\R^d\times
\R_+^p$ defined by the intensity measure $\nu(dz)=dx\,\widetilde
\nu_\beta(du)$. With each point $z=(x,u)$ we associate a shift and
scale operator $\tau_z h:\R^d\mapsto \R^{d+p}$ acting on functions
$h\in L_2(\R^d)$, by
\[
\tau_zh(y)=h((y^1-x^1)/u_1,\dots,(y^p-x^p)/u_p)\,.
\]
In particular, letting $h$ be the indicator function of the partition
unit ball $C(0,1)=\{y^\pi\in\R^d: |y^i|_{d_i}\le 1, 1\le i\le p\}$,
where $|\cdot|_k$ is the euclidean norm in $\R^k$, it follows that
$\tau_zh$ with $z=(x,u)$ is the indicator function of the random
cylinder $C(x,u)$ with center point $x\in \R^d$ and partition radius
$u$, that is
\[
C(x,u)=\{y^\pi\in \R^d: |y^i-x^i|_{d_i}\le u_i, 1\le i\le p\},
\quad x^\pi\in \R^d, u\in R_+^p.
\]
The map $\tau_z$ has the invariance property
\[
\tau_z h(cy)=\tau_{z/c} h(y),\quad y\in \R^d,\,
z\in\R^{d+p},\quad c>0.
\]
In analogy to the shot noise model we define the cylinder random
field by
\[
X_h(\mu)=\int_{\R^d\times\R^p_+} \langle\mu,\tau_zh\rangle\,M_\beta(dz).
\]
By proper modifications of the arguments given in the previous
sections one can show that the generalized random field $\mu\mapsto
X(\mu)$ is well-defined for a suitably restricted class of measures.
For simplicity we focus on the simplest case $h(y)=\ind_{\{|y|\le
1\}}$ in the rest of this section, and hence consider
\[
X(\mu)=\int_{\R^d\times\R^p_+} \mu(C(x,u))\,M_\beta(dz).
\]
The covariance functional is
\begin{align*}
C(\mu,\mu')&=\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}\mu(dy)\mu'(dy') \int_{\R^p_+}|C(y,u)\cap
C(y',u)|\,\prod_{i=1}^p u_i^{-\beta_i-1}\,du_i\\
&=\mathrm{const}\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}\mu(dy)\mu'(dy') \prod_{i=1}^p
|y^i-{y'}^i|_{d_i}^{d_i-\beta_i}.
\end{align*}
Put
\[
H=\sum_{i=1}^p(d_i-\beta_i)=d-\beta\in (-d/2,0)\cap (0,1/2).
\]
Then $C(\mu_c,\mu'_c)=c^{2H}C(\mu,\mu')$ and it follows that the
cylinder random field is selfsimilar with index $H$. To recognize this
model as an instance of Theorem \ref{thmdobrushin}, let $\Kc$ be the
function on $\S^{d-1}$ defined such that if $e\in\S^{d-1}$ has
decomposition $e^\pi=(e^1,\dots,e^p)$, then
\[
\Kc(e)=\prod_{i=1}^p |e^i|_{d_i}^{d_i-\beta_i},\quad
e=e^\pi\in \S^{d-1}.
\]
Then
\[
C(\mu,\mu')
=\mathrm{const}\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}\mu(dy)\mu'(dy')
\Kc\Big(\frac{y-y'}{|y-y'|_d}\Big)\, |y-y'|_d^{d-\beta}.
\]
\section{Extracting Gaussian processes from the random fields}
The main tool for extracting random processes indexed by points on
the real line or points in Euclidean space, from abstract random
fields $X(\mu)$ indexed by measures $\mu$, will be to evaluate the
random fields using specifically chosen families of measures, such as
$\mu_t=\delta_t-\delta_0$, $0,t\in \R^d$, $d\ge 1$.
\subsection*{Fractional Brownian motion}
Fractional Brownian motion on $\R^d$ is a para\-metrized class of
pointwise defined, centered Gaussian random fields $B_H(t)$, $t\in R^d$,
defined by the covariance functional
\[
{\rm
Cov}(B_H(s),B_H(t))=\frac{1}{2}(|s|^{2H}+|t|^{2H}-|t-s|^{2H}), \quad
s,t\in \R^d,
\]
where the parameter $H$, called the Hurst index, ranges over $0<H<1$
and is the self-similarity index in the sense of
$\{B_H(ct)\}\stackrel{d}{=} \{c^H B_H(t)\}$, $c>0$. The case $H=1/2$ is known
as L\'evy Brownian motion. See \cite{CohenIstas} and \cite{SamTaqqu} for
the general theory of such processes.
Next we show how to obtain $B_H$ from the selfsimilar Gaussian random
fields constructed in Theorem \ref{thmshotnoise}. In part i) of the
theorem we take $\beta$ such that $d-1<\beta<d$ and a rotationally
symmetric function $h$ on $\R^d$ such that $h\in \Hc_\beta$. Then
$\mu=\delta_t-\delta_0\in \wt\Mc_\beta$, and the map
\[
t\mapsto X_h(\delta_t-\delta_0)=\int_{\R^d\times\R_+}
(h((t-x)/u)-h(-x/u))\,M_\beta(dx,du),
\]
defines a zero mean Gaussian random field with
covariance function
\[
C(s,t)=\rm{Cov}(X_h(\delta_s-\delta_0),X_h(\delta_t-\delta_0))
\]
given by
\begin{align*}
C(s,t)&=\mathrm{const}
\int_{\R^d\times\R^d}|y-y'|^{d-\beta}(\delta_s-\delta_0)(dy)(\delta_t-\delta_0)(dy')\\
&=\mathrm{c_h} \,(|t|^{2H}+|s|^{2H}-|t-s|^{2H}),
\end{align*}
which is a multiple of fractional Brownian motion with Hurst index $H\in
(0,1/2)$. In particular, with $h(y)=\ind_{\{|y|\le 1\}}$ we have
\[
X_h(\delta_t-\delta_0)=\int_{\R^d\times \R_+}
(\delta_t(B(x,u))-\delta_0(B(x,u)))\,M_\beta(dx,du).
\]
This representation of $B_H(t)$ for the case $0<H<1/2$ is
discussed in \cite{BEK2010} and may be recognized as a so called $(2,H)$-Takenaka field $B_H(t)=M_\beta(V_t)$, where
\begin{align*}
V_t&=\{\hbox{all spheres separating $0$ and $t$}\}\\
&=\{(x,r):|x|\le r\} \setDiff \{(x,r):|x-t|\le r\},
\end{align*}
where $\setDiff$ denotes the symmetric difference of two sets in $\R^d$, see \cite{SamTaqqu}. Next, in part ii) of Theorem \ref{thmshotnoise}
we consider $d\ge 2$ and take $\beta$ and $m$ such that $d<\beta<2d$,
$0<d-\beta+2m<2$ and $0<2m<d$, and pick $h\in \Hc_\beta$ again
rotationally symmetric. To show that the measure
\[
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}(\delta_t-\delta_0)(dy)=C_{m,d}
\Big(\frac{1}{|t-y|^{d-m}}-\frac{1}{|y|^{d-m}}\Big)\,dy
\]
belongs to $\Mc_\beta$, we observe
\begin{align*}
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}&(\delta_t-\delta_0) \ast
(-\Delta)^{-m/2}(\delta_t-\delta_0)(dy)\\
&=C_{2m,d}\Big(\frac{2}{|y|^{d-2m}}-\frac{1}{|t+y|^{d-2m}}
-\frac{1}{|t-y|^{d-2m}}\Big)\,dy
\end{align*}
and
\[
\int_{\R^d} \frac{1}{|y|^{\beta-d}}\Big|\frac{2}{|y|^{d-2m}}-\frac{1}{|t+y|^{d-2m}}
-\frac{1}{|t-y|^{d-2m}}\Big|\,dy<\infty.
\]
Thus, under the stated assumptions,
\begin{equation}\label{fbmshotnoise}
t\mapsto \int_{\R^d\times\R_+}
\langle(-\Delta)^{-m/2}(\delta_t-\delta_0)),\tau_zh\rangle
\,M_\beta(dz), \quad t\in \R^d,
\end{equation}
is a multiple of fractional Brownian motion with Hurst index
$H'=H+m\in (0,1)$. As an explicit example, with $h(y)=\ind_{\{|y|\le 1\}}$ we
can find a constant $C$, such that
\[
B_{H'}(t)\stackrel{d}{=} C
\int_{\R^d\times \R_+}
\int_{B(x,u)}\Big(\frac{1}{|t-y|^{d-m}}-\frac{1}{|y|^{d-m}}\Big)\,dy\,M(dx,du),
\]
where $M(dx,du)$ is Gaussian white noise on $\R^d\times\R_+$ with
control measure $\nu(dx,du)=dx\,u^{2H'-d-1-2m}du$. The special choice
of parameters $d-\beta+2m=1$ with $1<2m<d$, for which $H'=1/2$, shows
that L\'evy Brownian motion is covered by this construction. In
particular, letting $M(dx,du)$ have control measure
$\nu(dx,du)=dx\, u^{-d-2m}du$,
\[
B_{1/2}(t)\stackrel{d}{=} C
\int_{\R^d\times \R_+}
\int_{B(x,u)}\Big(\frac{1}{|t-y|^{d-m}}-\frac{1}{|y|^{d-m}}\Big)\,dy\,M(dx,du).
\]
Our corresponding result for dimension $d=1$ is less general in the
sense that $1<\beta<2$, $m=1$ and $H'=(3-\beta)/2\in (1/2,1)$. Random balls
representations for the one-dimensional model with this range of Hurst
index have been studied earlier, see e.g. \cite{KLNS2007},
\cite{KT2008}. Now
\begin{equation}\label{rieszonedim}
(-\Delta)^{-1/2}(\delta_t-\delta_0)=\int_x^\infty(\delta_t-\delta_0)(dy)=1_{[0,t]}(x).
\end{equation}
Hence, letting $M(dx,du)$ be a Gaussian measure on $\R\times\R_+$ with
control measure $\nu(dx,du)=dx\,u^{2H'-4}\,du$,
\[
B_{H'}(t)\stackrel{d}{=} C
\int_{\R\times\R_+} \int_0^t h((y-x)/u)\,dy\,M(dx,du).
\]
We conclude this subsection by comparing the representations of
fractional Brownian motion obtained above with those we get by taking
$\mu=\delta_t-\delta_0$ in Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot}. For
$d-1<\beta<d$ this choice of $\mu$ in Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot} i),
generates the map
\begin{align*}
t\mapsto \int_{\R^d} \langle \delta_t-\delta_0, h_\beta\rangle\, M_d(dx)
&=\int_{\R^d} (h_\beta(t-x)-h_\beta(-x))M_d(dx)\\
&=\int_{\R^d} (|t-x|^{H-d/2}-|x|^{H-d/2}))M_d(dx)
\end{align*}
for $H\in (0,1/2)$, which we recognize as the so called well-balanced
representation of fractional Brownian motion. By replacing $h_\beta$
with $h_\beta^+$ for the case $d=1$, we obtain the classical
Mandelbrot and van Ness representation
\begin{equation}\label{mandelbrotness}
B_H(t)\stackrel{d}{=}\int_{\R^d}
((t-x)_+^{H-1/2}-(-x)_+^{H-1/2})\,M(dx),\quad t\ge 0.
\end{equation}
for $0<H<1/2$. Similarly, Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot} ii) with
$\mu=\delta_t-\delta_0$ also yields a pointwise well-defined random
process on $\R^d$ given by
\begin{align*}
t\mapsto
&\int_{\R^d}\Big(\frac{1}{|t-y|^{d-m}}-\frac{1}{|y|^{d-m}}\Big)
\frac{1}{|y-x|^{\beta/2}}\,dy\,M_d(dx)\\
&=\mathrm{const}\int_{\R^d}\Big(|t-y|^{H'-d/2}-|y|^{H'-d/2}\Big)\,M_d(dx),
\end{align*}
which again is the well-balanced representation of fractional Brownian
motion with Hurst index $H'\in (0,1)$. Finally, the case $d=1$ in
Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot} applies the one-sided pulse function
$h(x)=x_+^{-\beta/2}$ on the real line, and hence extends the
Mandelbrot and van Ness representation (\ref{mandelbrotness}) to the
entire range of Hurst index $0<H<1$. In particular, by (\ref{thmBM})
and (\ref{rieszonedim}),
\begin{equation}\label{BM}
W_t=\int_\R (-\Delta)^{-1/2}(\delta_t-\delta_0)(x)\,M_1(dx),\quad t\ge 0,
\end{equation}
is Brownian motion.
\subsection*{Examples of the cylinder model}
a) $\nu_1=d$: This is the heavy-tailed, one-parameter random balls
model with $r=1$ and $d<\beta<2d$, for which
\[
C(\mu,\eta)=V_d\int_{\R^d \times \R^d}\mu(dy)\eta(dy')
|y-y'|_d^{d-\beta}.
\]
b) The case $r=d$, $\nu_1=\dots =\nu_d=1$ gives a non-symmetric random
sheets model with $d$ parameters, $1 < \beta_i < 2$, such that
\[
C(\mu,\eta)=\int_{\R^d \times \R^d}\mu(dy)\eta(dy')
\prod_{i=1}^d C_i|y_i-y'_i|_1^{1-\beta_i}.
\]
Take product measures $\mu(dy)=\prod_{i=1}^d \mu_i(dy_i)$ and
$\eta(dy)=\prod_{i=1}^d \eta_i(dy_i)$ to obtain
\[
C(\mu,\eta)=\prod_{i=1}^d C_i\int_{\R \times \R}\mu_i(dy_i)\eta_i(dy'_i)
|y_i-y'_i|_1^{1-\beta_i}.
\]
In particular, $\mu_i(A)=\int_0^{t_i} \Ind_A(y)\,dy$ and
$\eta_i(A)=\int_0^{s_i} \Ind_A(y)\,dy$, yields
\[
C(\mu,\eta)=\prod_{i=1}^d C_i\int_0^{t_i}\int_0^{s_i}\frac{dy_idy'_i}
{|y_i-y'_i|_1^{\beta_i-1}} =\prod_{i=1}^d C'_i
\Big(|t_i|_1^{3-\beta_i}+|s_i|_1^{3-\beta_i}-|t_i-s_i|_1^{3-\beta_i}\Big).
\]
\subsection*{The Gaussian free field}
The choice of parameters $H=-d/2+1$ and $r=1$ for the isotropic case
in Theorem \ref{thmdobrushin} is sometimes referred to as the Gaussian
free field. By (\ref{covfunct}), the case $d=1$, $H=1/2$ has
covariance functional
\[
C(\mu,\mu')=\mathrm{const}
\int_{\R\times\R} |x-y|\,\mu(dx)\mu'(dy),\quad \mu,\mu'\in\widetilde\Mc.
\]
With $\mu=\delta_t-\delta_0$ and $\mu'=\delta_s-\delta_0$ this gives
Brownian motion:
\[
\mathrm{const}
\int_{\R\times\R}
|x-y|\,(\delta_t-\delta_0)(dx)(\delta_s-\delta_0)(dy)
=\mathrm{const}\, \min(s,t).
\]
For $d\ge 3$ we have $-d/2<H<0$, which is a case covered by Theorem
\ref{thmshotnoise} i) with $\beta=2(d-1)$ and $h\in \Hc_\beta$
rotationally symmetric. The control measure of the driving Gaussian
random balls white noise is $\nu(dx,du)=dx\, u^{-2d+1}du$.
The remaining case $d=2$, $H=0$ is not included in Theorem \ref{thmdobrushin}.
However, white noise $M_2(dx)$ for $d=2$ has $H=-1$ and hence it is
natural to consider for the free field
\[
X(\phi)=M_2((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\phi),\quad \phi\in \Sc_1,
\]
with covariance functional
\begin{align*}
C(\phi,\psi)&=\int_{\R^2} (-\Delta)^{-1/2}\phi(x)
(-\Delta)^{-1/2}\psi(x)\,dx\\
&=\int_{\R^2} \phi(x)
(-\Delta)^{-1}\psi(x)\,dx,
\end{align*}
where
\[
(-\Delta)^{-1}\psi(x)=\int_{\R^2} \psi(y)G(x-y)\,dy
\]
and $G(x)$ is the Green's function of Brownian motion in $d=2$. Thus,
\[
C(\phi,\psi)=-\int_{\R^2 \times \R^2} \phi(x)\psi(y)\,\log (|x-y|)\,dxdy,
\]
which is known as de Wijs random field, see \cite{besagmondal2005} for
a background.
\subsection*{Generalized Gaussian bridges}
For a continuous Gaussian process $X=(X_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ and a
signed finite Borel measure $a$ on an interval $[0,T]$ of the real
line, denote by $X^{(a)}=(X^{(a)}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ the process $X$
conditioned on the event that $a(X) = \int_0^T X_t \,a(dt) = 0$. Such
generalized Gaussian bridges are studied in \cite{Ali02},
\cite{Gor14}, and \cite{Sot14}. It is shown that the conditioned
process $X^{(a)}$ admits a representation of the form
\[
X^{(a)}_t = X_t - f_{(a)}(t) a(X), \qquad 0 \leq t \leq T,
\]
for a suitable continuous function $f_{(a)}: [0,T] \rightarrow \R$.
For example, Brownian motion $W=(W_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ conditioned on
$W_1 = 0$ is obtained from $a = \delta_1$ and yields the Brownian
bridge $B=(B_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ with representation $B_t = W_t - t
W_1$, $0 \leq t \leq 1$.
To obtain the Brownian bridge $B$ in our setting of extracting
Gaussian processes from random fields, we apply relation (\ref{thmBM})
of Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot} with the special choice
\equ[E:M1]{
\mu = \delta_t - \delta_0 - t(\delta_1 - \delta_0) \in \Mc_2.
}
and use the linearity of the mapping $\mu \mapsto M((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu)$
to see
\begin{equation}\label{brownianbridge}
B_t= M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2}(\delta_t - (1-t)\delta_0 - t\delta_1)),
\quad 0\le t\le 1.
\end{equation}
This observation generalizes as follows: consider $X_t =
M((-\Delta)^{-1/2} \mu_t)$, for an unspecified family of measures
$\mu_t\in \Mc_1$, $0 \leq t \leq T$, and assume that $(X_t)_{t \in
[0,T]}$ is continuous on $[0,T]$ almost surely. Let $a$ be a signed
finite Borel measure on $[0,T]$ and for suitable continuous $f^{(a)}:
[0,T] \rightarrow \R$, define
\[
\mu_t^{(a)}(A) = \mu_t(A) - f^{(a)}(t) \int_0^T \mu_s(A) \,a(ds),
\]
for Borel sets $A \subset [0,1]$. Then the conditioned process
$X^{(a)}$ has the representation
\[
X_t^{(a)} = X_t - f^{(a)}(t) a(X)= M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2} \mu_t^{(a)}).
\]
Indeed,
\begin{align*}
X_t^{(a)} &= \int_\R \int_x^\infty \mu_t(dy) M_1(dx) - f^{(a)}(t) \int_0^T \int_\R \int_x^\infty \mu_s(dy)\, M_1(dx)\, a(ds) \\
&= \int_\R \int_x^\infty \left[ \mu_t - f^{(a)}(t) \int_0^T \mu_s
a(ds) \right](dy)\, M_1(dx).
\end{align*}
As a concrete example we consider the Brownian bridge $B$ with
representation (\ref{brownianbridge}) conditioned
to have vanishing Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$, i.e., $a(dt) = dt$. In
\cite{Gor14}, the resulting conditioned process $B^{(a)}$ is called the zero
area Brownian bridge, and is shown to satisfy
\[
B^{(a)}_t = B_t - 6t(1-t) a(B).
\]
Here, we recover this relation as
$B^{(a)}(t) = M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu^{(a)}_t)$
with
\begin{align*}
\mu_t^{(a)}(A) &= \mu_t(A) - 6t(1-t) \int_0^T \mu_s(A) ds \\
&= \delta_t(A) - \delta_0(A) (1-4t+3t^2) + \delta_1(A) (2t - 3t^2) + |A| 6(t^2-t)
\end{align*}
for Borel sets $A \subset [0,1]$. One can check that $\mu_t^{(a)}\in \Mc_3$.
\subsection*{Volterra processes}
The representation of the Brownian bridge in (\ref{brownianbridge})
involves the measure densities
\[
(-\Delta)^{-1/2}(\delta_t-(1-t)\delta_0-t\delta_1)(x)=
(1-t)\ind_{[0,t]}(x)-t\ind_{(t,1]}(x),\quad t \in [0,1],
\]
supported on $[0,1]$. However, the Brownian bridge also admits a
representation as a Volterra process of the form
\[
B_t = \int_0^t \frac{1-t}{1-x}\, M_1(dx).
\]
The question arises if we are able to define measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in
[0,1]}$ on $\R$ such that the support of $(-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu_t$ is a subset of
$[0,t]$ and $B_t = M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu_t)$.
Let $X=(X_t)_{t \in [0, \infty)}$ be a Gaussian Volterra process with
\[
X_t = \int_0^t K(t,x) \,M_1(dx)
\]
and assume that the kernel $K$ is defined on $\R \times \R$ with
$K(t,x) = K(t,x)\, \Ind(0 < x \leq t)$. Moreover, assume that $K(t,
\cdot)$ is continuous from the left and has limits from the right and has
finite total variation. Then the measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in \R}$ defined
by $\mu_t((-\infty, x)) = - K(t,x)$ are admissible in the sense
$\mu_t\in \Mc_1$, and $(-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu_t$ is supported on $[0,t]$. If
$K(t, x)$ is differentiable for $0 < x < t$ then
\[
\mu_t(dx) = K(t,t) \,\delta_t(dx) - K(t,0+) \,\delta_0(dx) -
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}K(t,x) \, \Ind_{(0,t]}(x)\, dx.
\]
By defining $\mu_t$ in this manner it follows that
$X_t = M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu_t)$. In fact,
\begin{align*}
M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu_t)
&= \int_0^\infty \int_x^\infty \mu_t(dy) \,M_1(dx)
= \int_0^\infty \mu_t([x, \infty)) \,M_1(dx)
\end{align*}
and so, since $\mu_t(\R) = 0$,
\begin{align*}
M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2}\mu_t) &= \int_0^\infty - \mu_t((-\infty, x)) M_1(dx) \\
&= \int_0^\infty K(t,x) \,M_1(dx) = \int_0^t K(t,x) \,M_1(dx).
\end{align*}
We give some examples. Of course, the simplest example is Brownian
motion, where $K(t,x) = \Ind_{(0,t]}(x)$ and $\mu_t(dx) =
\delta_t(dx) - \delta_0(dx)$. For $\alpha \geq 0$ and $0 \leq t < 1$
define
\[
X^{(\alpha)}_t = \int_0^t \left( \frac{1-t}{1-x} \right)^\alpha\,M_1(dx).
\]
For $\alpha = 0$ we get the Brownian motion and for $\alpha = 1$ we
get the usual Brownian bridge. The integration kernel
$K(t,x)$ is such that, for $0<x<t$,
\[
K(t,x) = (1-t)^\alpha (1-x)^{-\alpha}\, \Ind_{(0,t]}(x),\quad
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} K(t,x) = \alpha
(1-t)^\alpha (1-x)^{-\alpha-1}.
\]
Hence the measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in [0,1]}$ become
\[
\mu_t(dx) = \delta_t(dx) - (1-t)^\alpha \delta_0(dx) - \alpha
\frac{(1-t)^\alpha}{(1-x)^{1+\alpha}}\, \Ind_{(0,t]}(x)\, dx.
\]
A further example is the centered Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with
stability parameter $\alpha > 0$ and diffusion parameter $\sigma > 0$,
given by
\[
X^{(\alpha, \sigma)}_t = \int_0^t \sigma e^{\alpha(x-t)} \, dW_x.
\]
The kernel is $K(t,x) = \sigma e^{\alpha(x-t)}\, \Ind_{(0,t]}(x)$ and
thus $\frac{\partial}{\partial x} K(t,x) =
\alpha \sigma e^{\alpha (x-t)}$, $0 < x < t$. Therefore
\[
\mu_t(dx) = \sigma \delta_t(dx) - \sigma e^{-\alpha t} \delta_0(dx) -
\alpha \sigma e^{\alpha (x-t)} \, \Ind_{(0,t]}(x)\,dx.
\]
\subsection*{Fractional bridges}
For $0<H<1$, let $B_H$ be a standard fractional Brownian motion on the
real line and let $a_t$ be the function on the unit interval defined by
\[
a^H_t=\frac{1+t^{2H}-(1-t)^{2H}}{2},\quad 0\le t\le 1.
\]
It is known that the fractional Brownian bridge process obtained by
pinning $B_H$ to zero at time $t=1$ is equal in distribution to
$Y_t=B_H(t)-a^H_t B_H(1)$, see~\cite{Gas04}, \cite{Gor14}.
To obtain the fractional Brownian bridge in this work we apply Theorem
\ref{thmsingularshot} i) for $d=1$ and $0<\beta<1$ to get
\[
Y_t\stackrel{d}{=} \mathrm{const} X(\delta_t-\delta_0-a^H_t(\delta_1-\delta_0)),\quad 0<H<1/2.
\]
Similarly, by Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot} ii) for $d=1$,
$1<\beta<2$, and $1/2<H<1$,
\[
Y_t\stackrel{d}{=} \mathrm{const} \int_\R
\Big((t-x)_+^{H-1/2} -(1-a_t^H)(-x)_+^{H-1/2}-a_t^H(1-x)_+^{H-1/2}\Big)\,M_1(dx).
\]
\subsection*{Membranes by soft boundary thinning}
In this subsection we discuss briefly an approach of extending
the method for extracting Gaussian bridge processes in one dimension to
a method for extracting Gaussian membranes in higher dimensions.
We start again with the representation $B_t = M_1((-\Delta)^{-1/2}
\mu_t)$ in (\ref{brownianbridge}) of the Brownian bridge on $[0,1]$.
Here $\mu_t = \delta_t - \omega_t$, where the measure $\omega_t =
(1-t)\delta_0 - t \delta_1$ is the harmonic measure on the set
$\{0,1\}$ (the start and end point of the bridge) of a Brownian motion
starting in $t$. This observation leads us to defining a class of
Gaussian membranes as follows. Let $D \subset \R^d$ be a bounded
domain satisfying the Poincar\'e cone condition (see Definition~3.10
in~\cite{Mor10}). For $t \in D$, let $\omega_t$ denote the harmonic measure
\[
\omega_t(A) = \Prob(W(\tau) \in A), \qquad A \in \Bc(\R^d),
\]
where $\{W(x),x\in\R^d\}$ is $d$-dimensional Brownian motion with $W(0)=t$ and
$\tau$ is the stopping time $\tau = \inf\{ s \geq 0: W(s) \in \partial D \}$,
and let $\mu_t$ in this subsection denote the signed measure
\[
\mu_t = \delta_t - \omega_t,\quad t\in D.
\]
Given a continuous function $f: \partial D \rightarrow \R$, a solution to the Dirichlet problem with boundary value $f$ is a function $u: \bar D \rightarrow \R$ which is harmonic in $D$ and satisfies $u(t) = f(t)$ for $t \in \partial D$. It can be shown that the unique solution is
\equ[E:DIRI]{ u(t) = \int_{\R^d} f(y) \omega_t(dy), \qquad t \in \bar D,}
see \cite{Mor10}, Corollary~3.40.
We have $\int_{\R^d} \mu_t(dy)=0$ and, since the function $u(t)=t$ is harmonic on
$\R^d$,
\[
\int_{\R^d} y\,\mu_t(dy)=t-\int_{\partial D} y\,\omega_t(dy)=0.
\]
Thus, $\mu_t\in\Mc_2$. Considering now the Gaussian selfsimilar
random fields $\mu\mapsto X(\mu)$ in Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot} i),
or Theorem \ref{thmshotnoise} i), with self-similarity index $H\in
(0,1/2)$, we can introduce for $d\ge 1$ a collection $(X_t)_{t \in
\bar D}$ of zero mean Gaussian random variables defined by $t\mapsto
X_t=X(\mu_t)$, with finite covariance
\begin{equation}\label{covsoft}
\E X_s X_t = \mathrm{const}
\int_{\R^d \times \R^d} |y - y'|^{2H} \mu_s(dy)\mu_t(dy'),\quad s,t\in
D.
\end{equation}
To construct a Brownian membrane on $D$ vanishing on $\partial D$, we
apply Theorem \ref{thmsingularshot} ii) with $H=1/2$ and put
\[
X_t=\int_{\R^d}\int_{\R^d}
\frac{\mu_t(dy)}{|y-x|^{(d-1)/2}}\,M_d(dx),\quad t\in \R^d.
\]
The variance now is
\begin{equation}\label{covsoftbrownian}
\E X_t^2=\int_{\R^d} \Big(\frac{1}{|t-x|^{(d-1)/2}}
-\int_{\partial D} \frac{\omega_t(dy)}{|y-x|^{(d-1)/2}}\Big)^2\,dx,
\end{equation}
assuming the integral exists. Here, we restrict to $H=1/2$ but the
same construction works for $H<1$.
The following Proposition justifies the term membrane for this
class of processes in the domain $D$ which vanishes on the boundary
$\partial D$.
\begin{proposition} The processes $(X_t)_{t \in \bar D}$ described above for $0<H\le
1/2$ are well-defined, and
for $x \in \partial D$ we have $\lim_{t \rightarrow x} \E X_t^2 = 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, we show that, for $x \in \partial D$, we have $\lim_{t
\rightarrow x} \omega_t = \delta_x$ in the weak sense: Assume that
$f: \R^d \rightarrow \R$ is continuous and bounded. By~\eqref{E:DIRI},
the function
\[
u(t) = \int_{\R^d} f(y)\, \omega_t(dy),
\]
is continuous on $\bar D$ with $u(t) = f(t)$ on $\partial D$, and thus
\[
\lim_{t \rightarrow x} \int_{\R^d} f(y)\, \omega_t(dy) = \lim_{t \rightarrow x} u(t) = u(x) = f(x) = \int_{\R^d} f(y)\, \delta_x(dy).
\]
Next, for $0<H<1/2$ by (\ref{covsoft}),
\[
\E X_t^2
=\mathrm{const}\Big( \int_{\R^d \times \R^d} |y - y'|^{2H} \omega_t(dy)\omega_t(dy')
- 2 \int_{\R^d} |t - y|^{2H} \omega_t(dy)\Big).
\]
From the first part of the proof it follows that $\omega_t \otimes
\omega_t \rightarrow \delta_x \otimes \delta_x$ as $t \rightarrow x$
and thus
\begin{align*}
&\lim_{t \rightarrow x} \int_{\R^d \times \R^d} |y - y'|^{2H}
\omega_t(dy) \omega_t(dy')\\
&\qquad \qquad = \lim_{t \rightarrow x} \int_{\R^d \times \R^d} |y - y'|^{2H}
\delta_x(dy) \delta_x(dy') = 0.
\end{align*}
Moreover, we have $\delta_t \otimes \omega_t \rightarrow \delta_x
\otimes \delta_x$ as $t \rightarrow x$. Hence,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow x} \int_{\R^d} |t - y|^{2H} \omega_t(dy) &
= \lim_{t \rightarrow x} \int_{\R^d \times \R^d} |y - y'|^{2H} \omega_t(dy) \delta_t(dy') \\
&= \int_{\R^d \times \R^d} |y - y'|^{2H} \delta_x(dy)
\delta_x(dy') = 0.
\end{align*}
Turning to the case $H=1/2$, by rewriting (\ref{covsoftbrownian}),
\[
\E X_t^2=\int_{\partial D\times\partial D} F_t(y,y')\,\omega_t(dy)\omega_t(dy'),
\]
where, using the short notation $\delta=(d-1)/2$,
\[
F_t(y,y')=\int_{\R^d}
\Big(\frac{1}{|z|^\delta}-\frac{1}{|z+y-t|^\delta}
-\frac{1}{|z+t-y'|^\delta}+\frac{1}{|z+y-y'|^\delta}\Big)
\frac{dz}{|z|^\delta}.
\]
For any $t\in \R^d$, the function $F_t$ is bounded on $\partial
D\times\partial D$. Hence,
\[
\E X^2_t \to F_x(x,x)=0, \quad t\to x\in\partial D.
\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Gaussian membranes by hard boundary thinning}
In this section we consider another way to construct membranes on
domains in $\R^d$. Again, let $D \subset \R^d$ be a bounded domain,
and let $\beta < d$ be a real number. We modify the
basic model~\eqref{defrandomballs} and consider
\[
X(\mu)=\int_{\R^d\times \R_+} \mu(B(x,u)) M^D_\beta(dx, du),
\]
where $M^D$ is the Gaussian random measure on $\R^d \times \R_+$ with
control measure \linebreak $\nu^D(dx,du) = u^{-\beta-1} \Ind(B(x,u) \subset
D)\,dxdu$. Hence in the random balls interpretation, the intensity
measure is modified such that balls which do not fall entirely inside
the domain $D$ are discarded. This model is well-defined for any
$\mu\in \Mc$ and $\beta<d$. Here, we will apply the extraction
principle $t\mapsto X(\delta_t)$ and consider
\equ[E:2]{
W_\beta(t) =
\int_{\R^d\times \R_+} \delta_t(B(x,u)) M^D_\beta(dx, du), \quad
t\in \R^d.
}
Since $D$ is bounded there is an $N > 0$ such that $\Id(B(x,u)
\subset D) = 0$ for all $u > N$ and $x \in D$. Hence,
$W_\beta$ is a Gaussian random field with finite covariance function
\begin{align} \label{covdomain}
\E W_\beta(s) W_\beta(t) &= \int_{\R^d\times \R_+} \Id(s,t \in B(x,u)
\subset D) u^{-\beta-1} \, dx du\\
&\le \int_0^N |B(s,u)\cap D| u^{-\beta-1}\, du<\infty,\nonumber
\end{align}
for all $s,t \in \R^d$.
In particular, $W_\beta(s)$ and $W_\beta(t)$ are
independent if and only if there is no $x \in \R^d$ and $u>0$
such that $B(x,u)$ is a subset of $D$ and covers both points $s \in
\R^d$ and $t \in \R^d$. By the Lebesgue dominated convergence
theorem, $\E(W_\beta(t)^2)\to 0$ as $t\to t_0\in \partial D$, which
again justifies the notion of a membrane.
The random fields $W_\beta$ are not selfsimilar in the sense that
$W(cs)\stackrel{d}{=} c^H W(s)$ for some $H$. But we will see that
they are selfsimilar in the following local sense (see \cite{Fal02}
for more details and background): A zero mean random field
$W=(W(t))_{t \in E}$, $E \subset \R^d$ open, is said to be
locally asymptotically selfsimilar with index $H$ in the point
$z \in E$, if $H$ is the supremum of all $\gamma \geq 0$ such that
\equ[E:30]{ \eps^{-\gamma} ( W(z + \eps s) - W(z) ) \longrightarrow 0
} as $\eps \rightarrow 0$ in the sense of finite dimensional
distributions. Then the random field $T^z=(T^z(s))_{s \in \R^d}$ with
\equ[E:31]{ T^z(s) = \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps) ( W(z + \eps
s) - W(z) ) } is called the tangent field at $z \in \R^d$, if
$\tau$ is a suitable scaling function such that the limit exists in
the sense of finite dimensional distributions and $T^z \not\equiv
0$. The tangent field is selfsimilar with index $H$ and uniquely
determined modulo constants. By ~(\ref{E:30}), $\tau(\eps) \eps^\gamma
\rightarrow \infty$ as $\eps \rightarrow 0$ for all $\gamma < H$ and
$\tau(\eps) \eps^\gamma \rightarrow 0$ as $\eps \rightarrow 0$ for all
$\gamma > H$. It is not necessarily the case, however, that
$\tau(\eps) \sim c \eps^{-H}$, some $c > 0$.
\begin{theorem}\label{T:LASS}
The Gaussian membrane $W_\beta$ is in every point $z \in D$
locally asymptotically selfsimilar with index
\[
H =
\begin{cases}
(d-\beta)/2,& d-1<\beta<d, \\
1/2,& \beta \leq d-1.
\end{cases}
\]
Moreover, the tangent field $T^z$ in $z$ is a multiple of fractional
Brownian motion with Hurst index $H$. The scaling function $\tau$ is
given by
\equ[E:33]{ \tau(\eps) = \begin{cases} \eps^{(\beta-d)/2},
&\text{$d-1 < \beta < d$,} \\ ( - \eps \ln(\eps)
)^{-1/2}, &\text{$\beta = d-1$,} \\ \eps^{-1/2},
&\text{$\beta < d-1$.} \end{cases} }
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma}
Let $\tau(\eps)$ and $H$ be as in Theorem~\ref{T:LASS}. For $M \geq
0$ and $t\in\R^d$, define
\equ[E:PsiTilde]{
\widetilde \Psi(M,t) = \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0}
\tau(\eps)^2 \int_{\R^d} \int_0^M |\delta_{\eps
t}(B(x,u)) - \delta_0(B(x,u))| u^{-\beta-1} \,du dx. }
Then
$\widetilde \Psi(M, t) = c \ |t|^{2H}$, where $0 \leq c < \infty$
is a constant depending on $M$ and $\beta$ but independent of $t$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By a change of the order of integration in~\eqref{E:PsiTilde} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\widetilde \Psi(M,t)
&= \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)^2 \int_0^M u^{-\beta-1}
|B(\eps t, u) \setDiff B(0,u)| \,du \\
&= \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)^2 \int_0^M u^{d-\beta-1}
|B(\eps t/u,1) \setDiff B(0, 1)| \,du.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\[
\widetilde \Psi(M,t) = \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)^2\eps^{d-\beta}
|t|^{d-\beta} \int_0^{\frac{M}{\eps |t|}} u^{d-\beta-1} |B(e / u, 1)) \setDiff B(0, 1)| \,du
\]
for some $e \in \S^{d-1}$. Using the function
$V(u)$ in (\ref{defvolfunction}) for the volume of the intersection of
two balls of radius $1$ and center distance $u$,
\[
|B(e/ u, 1) \setDiff B(0, 1)| = \begin{cases}
2 V(0),& u \leq 1/2,\\
2 (V(0) - V(1/u)), & u > 1/2.
\end{cases}
\]
By L'Hospital's rule
\al{
\lim_{u \rightarrow \infty} u \,|B(e / u, 1) \setDiff
B(0, 1)|
= \lim_{u \rightarrow \infty} 4 \nu_{d-1}u \int_0^{1/(2u)} (1-s^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\,ds
= 2 v_{d-1}
}
and so
\[
\widetilde \Psi(M,t) = \mathrm{const}
\lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)^2 \eps^{d-\beta} |t|^{d-\beta}
\int_0^{M/(\eps |t|)} u^{d-\beta-1} \min\{1, u^{-1} \}\, du.
\]
By evaluating this integral expression separately for the three
different intervals of $\beta$ and the corresponding scaling functions
$\tau(\eps)$, we obtain
\[
\widetilde \Psi(M,t) = \mathrm{const}\ |t|^{2H}
\]
for the choice the of Hurst index stated in Theorem \ref{T:LASS}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:LASS}]
We note that the limit of a sequence of Gaussian processes is
Gaussian and that Gaussian processes are determined by their
two-dimensional distributions. Fix an element $z \in D$. We define
formally
\begin{align}
T'(t) &= \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)
( W_\beta(z + \eps t) - W_\beta(z) ) \label{E:34} \\
&= \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \int_{\R^d\times\R_+}
\tau(\eps) (\delta_{z + \eps t} - \delta_z)(B(x,u)) \,M_\beta(dx, du). \notag
\end{align}
Then the covariance of $T'$ is given by
\al{
&\E T'(s) T'(t) = \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)^2
\int_{\R^d\times \R_+} (\delta_{z+\eps s} - \delta_z)(\delta_{z + \eps t} -
\delta_z)(B(x,u))\, \nu^D(dx,du).
}
We have
\al{
(\delta_{z+\eps s} - \delta_z)&(\delta_{z+\eps t} - \delta_z) =
\frac{1}{2} (
(\delta_{z+\eps s} - \delta_z)^2 + (\delta_{z+\eps t} -
\delta_z)^2 - (\delta_{z+\eps s} - \delta_{z+\eps t})^2 ).
}
Moreover,
\[
(\delta_{z+\eps s} - \delta_{z+\eps t})(B(x,u)) =
(\delta_{z + \eps s - \eps t} - \delta_z)(B(x - \eps t, u)),
\]
and thus
\al{ & \int_{\R^d\times\R_+} (\delta_{z+\eps s} - \delta_{z+\eps t})^2(B(x,u))
u^{-\beta-1} \Id(B(x,u) \subset D) \,du dx \\
&\qquad \qquad = \int_{\R^d\times\R_+} (\delta_{z + \eps (s - t)} - \delta_z)^2(B(x, u))
u^{-\beta-1} \Id(B(x,u) \subset D- \eps t)\, dx du.
}
We obtain
\equ[E:35] { \E T'(s) T'(t) = \frac{1}{2} \left( \Psi(s,D) +
\Psi(t,D) - \Psi(s-t , D-\eps t) \right) }
with
\begin{align*}
\Psi(t,D) &= \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)^2
\int_{\R^d\times\R_+} (\delta_{z+\eps t} - \delta_z)^2(B(x,u))
u^{-\beta-1} \Id(B(x,u) \subset D) \,du dx \\
&= \lim_{\eps \rightarrow 0} \tau(\eps)^2 \int_{\R^d\times\R_+}
(\delta_{\eps t} - \delta_0)^2(B(x,u)) u^{-\beta-1} \Id(B(x,u) \subset D - z)\ dudx.
\end{align*}
We evaluate $\Psi(t,D)$. The third term in (\ref{E:35}) then requires
only small modifications because we have to work with $D-\eps t$
instead of $D$. Recalling the definition of $\widetilde \Psi(M,t)$
in~\eqref{E:PsiTilde}, $\widetilde \Psi(\cdot,t)$ is a continuous,
monotone increasing function with $\widetilde \Psi(0,t) = 0$. Since
$D$ is bounded there is an $N > 0$ which only depends on $D$ such that
$\Id(B(x, u) \subset D) = 0$ for all $u > N$ and $x \in \R^d$. Hence,
$\Psi(t,D) \leq \widetilde \Psi(N,t)$. A careful reading of the proof
of Lemma \ref{lemma} shows that, for any $v \in \R$, we may replace
$M$ by $M + \eps v$ in the right hand side of~\eqref{E:PsiTilde}
without changing the constant in $\widetilde \Psi(M, t) =
\mathrm{const} \ |t|^{2H}$. Therefore we can find an $M$, $0 \leq M
\leq N$, depending on $D$, $\beta$, and $z$, but independent of $t$,
such that $\widetilde \Psi(M,t) = \Psi(t,D)$. Hence by Lemma
\ref{lemma}, $\Psi(t,D) = c \ |t|^{2H}$, with a constant $c$
independent of $t$. It follows immediately that $\Psi(s,D) = c \,
|s|^{2H}$ and $\Psi(s-t,D-\eps t) = c \,|s-t|^{2H}$, and hence
\[
\E T'(s) T'(t) = c \ ( |s|^{2H} + |t|^{2H} - |s-t|^{2H} ). \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection*{The hard boundary thinning bridge on $[0,T]$}
We consider the Gaussian membrane $W_\beta$ for the special case
$d=1$ and $D = (0,T)$, some $T > 0$. By~\eqref{covdomain},
\begin{align*}
\E W_\beta(s) W_\beta(t)&=\int_0^T \int_0^\infty
\Id(0<x-u<s,t<x+u<T)\, u^{-\beta-1} du dx\\
&=f_\beta(s \vee t) + f_\beta(T-s \wedge t) - f_\beta(|s - t|) -
f_\beta(T),
\end{align*}
where
\[
f_\beta(x) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{2^\beta}{\beta(1-\beta)} x^{1-\beta},& \beta<d, \beta\not=0,\\
- x \ln x, & \beta=0.
\end{cases}
\]
We point out that the case $\beta = -1$ is the classical Brownian bridge on $[0,T]$ with covariance function
\[
\E W_{-1}(s) W_{-1}(t) = \frac{1}{2} \,s \wedge t\,(T- s\vee t).
\]
For any other value of the parameter $\beta$, however, the hard
boundary Gaussian bridge is different from the fractional Brownian
bridge on $[0,T]$ obtained as fractional Brownian
motion pinned to zero at time $T$.
To conclude we provide an additional result on the relation between the hard
boundary bridge and fractional Brownian motion.
\begin{proposition}
Let $B=(B_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ be standard linear Brownian motion independent from $W_\beta$ and define the Gaussian martingale $Y_\beta=(Y_\beta(t))_{t \in [0,T]}$ by
\equ[E:Y]{
Y_\beta(t) = \sqrt{\frac{2^\beta}{\beta}} \int_0^t \sqrt{x^{-\beta} +
(T-x)^{-\beta}} dB_x.
}
Then, for $0 < \beta < 1$, $W_\beta + Y_\beta$ is (up to constant) a fractional Brownian motion with Hurst index $H = (1-\beta)/2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Put $Z_\beta = W_\beta + Y_\beta$. As the sum of two independent
Gaussian processes, $Z_\beta$ is a Gaussian process as well. Thus, it
is enough to show that the covariance $\E
Z_\beta(s) Z_\beta(t)$ is given by a multiple of $C_\beta(s,t)$, with
\[
C_\beta(s,t) = s^{1-\beta} + t^{1-\beta} - |s-t|^{1-\beta}.
\]
It is easily seen that
\[
\E W_\beta(s) W_\beta(t) = \frac{2^\beta}{\beta(1-\beta)} (
C_\beta(s,t) - C_\beta(s \wedge t,T) ).
\]
Since $\E Z_\beta(s) Z_\beta(t) = \E W_\beta(s) W_\beta(t) + \E Y_\beta(s) Y_\beta(t)$ for all $s,t \in [0,T]$, it is enough to show that $\E Y_\beta(s) Y_\beta(t) = 2^\beta C_\beta(s \wedge t,T) / (\beta(1-\beta))$. In fact,
\al{
\E Y_\beta(s) Y_\beta(t) &= \frac{2^\beta}{\beta} \int_0^{s \wedge t} x^{-\beta} + (T-x)^{-\beta} dx \\
&= \frac{2^\beta}{\beta(1-\beta)} \left( (s \wedge t)^{1-\beta} - (T - s \wedge t)^{1-\beta} + T^{1-\beta} \right) \\
&= \frac{2^\beta}{\beta(1-\beta)} C_\beta(s \wedge t,T). \qedhere }
\end{proof}
We may extend the definition of $Y_\beta$ in~\eqref{E:Y} to $-1 <
\beta < 0$. Then $Y_\beta$ becomes a purely imaginary Gaussian
process. Setting $Z_\beta = W_\beta + Y_\beta$ as before yields a
complex (centered) Gaussian process with
\[ \E Z_\beta(s) Z_\beta(t) = \E Z_\beta(s) \overline{Z_\beta(t)} = \frac{2^\beta}{\beta(1-\beta)} C_\beta(s, t). \]
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Computational systems biology is concerned with the development of dynamic simulation models for complex biological processes \citep{kitano2002computational}. Such models are useful for contributing to the quantitative understanding of the underlying process through in-silico experimentation that would be otherwise difficult, time consuming or expensive to undertake in a laboratory. Stochastic kinetic models describe the probabilistic evolution of a dynamical system made up of a network of reactions. Models of this type are increasingly used to describe the evolution of biological systems \citep{golightly2005bayesian,proctor2007modelling,boys2008bayesian,wilkinson2009stochastic}. Motivated by the need to incorporate intrinsic stochasticity in the underlying mechanics of the systems these models are naturally represented by a Markov jump process.
Such systems are governed by a reaction network, each of which changes the state by a discrete amount and are hence naturally represented by a continuous time Markov process on a discrete state space. State transition densities for models of this type are analytically intractable but forward simulation is available through use of, for example, the Direct method described by \cite{gillespie1977exact}. Models typically have a number of rate parameters which are important and of interest, but inference for these is an extremely challenging problem.
Parameter inference for Markov process models is often a computationally demanding problem due in part to the intractable likelihood function. Exact inference is possible through particle Markov chain Monte Carlo (pMCMC) \citep{andrieu2009pseudo,andrieu2010particle}, computationally intensive methods that make use of sequential Monte Carlo sampling techniques, embedded in a MCMC scheme.
PMCMC in this context requires running a sequential Monte Carlo filter, such as a bootstrap particle filter at each MCMC iteration, to provide an estimate to the likelihood.
The bootstrap filter is dependent on multiple forward simulations from the model for reliable estimation, leading to an expensive algorithm.
Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) techniques have also shown to be a useful development when tackling problems with intractable likelihood functions. They allow inference in this scenario via an approximation to the posterior distribution. As in pMCMC, the ABC framework depends on a large number of model realisations given proposed parameter vectors, retaining samples which yield simulated data that is deemed to be sufficiently close to the observed data set, see \cite{tavare1997inferring,pritchard1999population,beaumont2002approximate}. Using a simple rejection sampling approach often leads to poor acceptance rates for tolerance thresholds that give an accurate approximation to the posterior, \citep{pritchard1999population}, meaning that a potentially very high number of data simulations must be made in order to obtain a good sample. Advancements within this framework have led to MCMC schemes and sequential Monte Carlo schemes, which typically return better acceptance rates than the simple rejection sampler, \citep{marjoram2003markov,del2006sequential,sisson2007sequential,toni2009approximate}.
Both particle MCMC, as in \cite{golightly2011bayesian} and \cite{wilkinson2011stochastic}, and ABC methods, \citep{drovandi2011estimation,fearnhead2012constructing}, have been successfully applied in the context of stochastic kinetics, but it is unclear as to which approach is favorable. If exact posterior inference is desired we are limited to particle MCMC. However, if exact inference is not the primary concern and there are computational constraints, perhaps available CPU time, it is not obvious which approach should be employed. Is it the case that increased computational efficiency is an adequate trade--off for the reduction in accuracy? In this article we explore both approaches under a range of situations in an attempt to draw some preliminary conclusions on which inference scheme may perform most efficiently in the context of parameter inference for Markov processes. Efficiency will be considered under the restriction that we apply the notion of a computational budget on the allowed number of model realisations in order to make like for like comparisons. This is under the assumption that given infinite time, as well as other conditions to guarantee convergence, each of these approaches would yield the same target. The budget is set on the number of model realisations since it is often the case that the forward simulation constitutes the bulk of computational cost of algorithms of this type.
\section{Stochastic kinetic models}
\label{sec:skm}
Consider a network of reactions which involves a set of $u$ species ${\cal X}_{1},
\ldots, {\cal X}_{u}$ and $v$ reactions $\mathbf{R}_{1}, \ldots, \mathbf{R}_{v}$
where each reaction $\mathbf{R}_{i}$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:reaction}
\mathbf{R}_{i}: \quad p_{i,1}{\cal X}_{1} + \ldots + p_{i,u}{\cal X}_{u} \rightarrow q_{i,1}{\cal X}_{1} + \ldots + q_{i,u}{\cal X}_{u}.
\end{equation}
$p_{i,j}$ denotes the number of molecules of species ${\cal X}_{j}$ that will be consumed in reaction $\mathbf{R}_{i}$. Similarly $q_{i,j}$ are the number of molecules of ${\cal X}_{j}$ produced in the reaction. Letting $P$ be the $v \times u$ matrix of $p_{i,j}$'s and $Q$ the corresponding matrix of coefficients of products the reaction network can be summarised as
\begin{equation}
P{\cal X} \longrightarrow Q{\cal X}.
\end{equation}
The stoichiometry matrix, defined
\begin{equation}
S = (Q - P)^{\prime},
\end{equation}
is a useful way to encode the information of the network as its columns represent the change of state caused by the different reaction events. Define $X_{t} = (X_{1,t}, \ldots, X_{u,t})$ as the vector denoting the number of species ${\cal X}$ present at time $t$.
Each reaction $\mathbf{R}_{i}$ is assumed to have an associated constant $\theta_{i}$ and hazard function $h_{i}(X_{t},\theta_{i})$ which gives the propensity for a reaction event of type $i$ at time $t$ to occur. We can consider the hazard function as arising due to interactions between species in a well mixed population.
If $\theta = (\theta_{1}, \ldots. \theta_{v})$ and $h(X_{t},\theta) = (h_{1}(X_{t},\theta_{1}), \ldots, h_{v}(X_{t},\theta_{v}))$ then full specification of the Markov process is complete given values for $\theta$ and $X_{0}$.
Exact trajectories of the evolution of species counts of such a system can be obtained via the Direct method, \cite{gillespie1977exact}. Algorithm~\ref{alg:gillespie} describes the procedure for forward simulation of a stochastic kinetic model given its stoichiometry matrix, $S$, reaction rates $\theta$, associated hazard function $h(X_{t}, \theta)$ and initial state $X_{0}$. Reactions simulated to occur in this way incorporate the stochastic nature and discrete state space of the system as reactions are chosen probabilistically and modify the state by discrete amounts. Whilst the Direct method allows exact simulation of the time and type of each reaction event that occurs, observed data $\mathcal{D} = (d_{0},d_{1}, \ldots, d_{T})$ are typically noisy, possibly partial, observations at discrete time intervals,
\begin{equation}
d_{t} \sim \pi(\cdot|X_{t},\sigma),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ are parameters associated with the measurement error that may also need to be inferred.
Less computationally expensive simulation algorithms such as the chemical Langevin equation (CLE) relax the restriction imposed by the discrete state space, \cite{gillespie2000chemical}. The stochasticity of the underlying mechanics of the system is retained but realisations of the evolution of species levels are approximate. However \cite{gillespie2014diagnostics} show that such approximate simulators are not necessarily appropriate in all cases and that ensuring that they yield good approximations over the parameter space can be a problem. We therefore restrict ourselves to using the Direct method for the purposes of this article. For a comprehensive introduction into stochastic kinetic modelling see \cite{wilkinson2011stochastic}.
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\caption{The Direct method \citep{gillespie1977exact}}
\label{alg:gillespie}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Set $t=0$. Initialise the rate constants $\theta$ and initial states $X_{0}$.
\item Calculate the hazard function $h(X_{t},\theta)$ and $h_{0}(X_{t},\theta)
= \sum_{i}^{v} h_{i}(X_{t},\theta_{i})$.
\item Set $t = t + \delta t$ where
\[
\delta t \sim \operatorname{Exp}(h_{0}(X_{t},\theta)).
\]
\item Simulate the reaction index $j \in (1,\ldots,v)$ with probabilities
\[
p_{j} = \frac{h_{j}(X_{t},\theta)}{h_{0}(X_{t},\theta)} \;.
\]
\item Set $X_{t+\delta t} = X_{t} + S[j]$ where $S[j]$ is the
$j^\text{th}$ column of the stoichiometry matrix $S$.
\item If $t < T$ return to 2.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Bayesian inference for models with intractable likelihoods}
\label{sec:bayesinf}
\subsection{Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo}
\label{sec:pmcmc}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Pseudo-marginal MCMC \citep{andrieu2009pseudo}} \label{alg:pmcmc}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialise with a random starting value $\theta \sim \pi(\theta)$.
\item Propose a move to a new candidate $\theta^{\ast} \sim q(\theta^{\ast}|\theta)$.
\item Based on $\theta^{\ast}$, compute an unbiased estimate of $\pi(\mathcal{D}|\theta^{\ast})$, $\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{D}|\theta^{\ast})$,
\item Accept the move with probability
\begin{equation}
\min\left\{1, \frac{\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{D}|\theta^{\ast})\pi(\theta^{\ast})q(\theta|\theta^{\ast})}
{\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{D}|\theta)\pi(\theta)q(\theta^{\ast}|\theta)} \right\},
\end{equation}
else remain at $\theta$.
\item Return to 2.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
Suppose we are interested in $\pi(\theta|\mathcal{D})$ and that we wish to construct an MCMC algorithm whose invariant distribution is exactly this posterior. Using an appropriate proposal distribution we can construct a Metropolis Hastings algorithm to do this. However this is often impractical due to the likelihood term, $\pi(\mathcal{D}|\theta)$, being unavailable. \cite{andrieu2009pseudo} proposed a pseudo marginal approach to this issue. In order to overcome this problem of the intractable likelihood function, we replace this evaluation in the Metropolis Hastings acceptance ratio with a Monte Carlo estimate $\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{D}|\theta)$ leading to the algorithm as described in algorithm~\ref{alg:pmcmc}. Provided that $E[\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{D}|\theta)] =
\pi(\mathcal{D}|\theta)$ the resulting stationary distribution is exactly the desired target. Within the context of Markov processes it is natural to make use of sequential Monte Carlo techniques through use of a bootstrap particle filter, \cite{doucet2001sequential}, described for this context in algorithm~\ref{alg:bpf}. The bootstrap filter gives unbiased estimates and hence the resultant MCMC scheme is ``exact approximate''.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Bootstrap particle filter} \label{alg:bpf}
At time $t$ we have
a set of $N$ particles $\mathbf{X}_{t}^{\ast} = \{(x_{t}^{i}, \pi_{t}^{i}) i
= 1, \ldots, N\}$. The filter assumes fixed parameters and so we drop the
$\theta$ from our notation. $t \in (0,1,\ldots,T)$ for observed data with $T$
discrete time-point observations.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialise at $\mathbf{X}_{0}^{\ast}$, a set of $N$ independent draws from our prior distribution on the state.
\item At time $t$, suppose we have a sample $\mathbf{X}_{t}^{\ast} \sim \pi(\mathbf{X}_{t}|D_{1:t})$.
\item Sample a set of indices for candidates for forward simulation, $I_{t}^{i}$ according to the weights $\pi_{t}$.
\item Simulate forward from the model the chosen paths, $x_{t+1}^{i} \sim \pi(x_{t+1}^{i}|x_{t}^{I^{i}_{t}})$.
\item Calculate weights, $w_{t+1}^{i} = \pi(d_{t+1}|x_{t+1}^{i})$, and normalise to set $\pi_{t+1}^{i} = \frac{w_{t+1}^{i}}{\sum_{j=1}^{N} w_{t+1}^{j}}$.
\end{enumerate}
Define $\hat{\pi}(d_{t}|D_{1:t-1}) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i = 1}^{N} w_{t}^{i}$, then $\hat{\pi}(D_{1:t}) = \prod_{t=1}^{T} \hat{p}(d_{t},D_{1:t-1})$.
\end{algorithm}
The scheme as described here is a special case of the particle marginal Metropolis Hastings (PMMH) algorithm described in \cite{andrieu2010particle} which can also be used to target the full joint posterior $\pi(\theta,\mathbf{X}|\mathcal{D})$. It was noted in \cite{andrieu2009pseudo} that the efficiency of this scheme was dependent on the variance of the estimated likelihoods. Increasing the number of particles $N$ yields estimates with a smaller variance at the expense of increased computation time. Optimal choices for $N$ were subject to interest in \cite{pitt2012some} and \cite{doucet2012efficient}. The former suggest that the variance of the log--likelihood estimates should be around 1 in order to be optimal, however the latter argue that the efficiency penalty is small for values between 0.25 and 2.25.
\subsection{Approximate Bayesian computation}
\label{sec:abc}
Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) techniques have increased in use in recent years due to their applicability to inference for a posterior distribution, $\pi(\theta|\mathcal{D})$, for problems in which evaluation of the likelihood function, $\pi(\mathcal{D}|\theta)$, due to cost or analytical intractability, is unavailable. Such methods are typically computationally intensive due to their reliance on the ability to simulate realisations from the model.
Ideally, given a collection of parameter vectors, $\theta$, we would keep all vectors that gave rise to simulated data which is equivalent to our observed data set. In practice however, the probability that a candidate data set $\mathcal{D}^{\ast} = \mathcal{D}$ is almost 0. Hence an approximation to the target distribution is made through a collection of samples of parameters that lead to data simulation which is deemed to be sufficiently close to the observations. Simulated data, $\mathcal{D}^{\ast}$, is considered to be close if, for a given metric $\rho(\cdot)$, the distance between simulated and observed data is smaller than some threshold $\epsilon$. The simple rejection sampler is described in algorithm~\ref{alg:abcrs}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{ABC rejection sampler}
\label{alg:abcrs}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Generate a candidate parameter vector $\theta^{\ast} \sim \pi(\theta)$.
\item Simulate a candidate data set $\mathcal{D}^{\ast} \sim
\pi(\mathcal{D}|\theta^{\ast})$.
\item Calculate a measure of distance between the candidate data,
$\mathcal{D}^{\ast}$, and the observed data $\mathcal{D}$,
$\rho(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}^{\ast})$.
\item Accept $\theta^{\ast}$ if $\rho(\cdot) < \epsilon$ for some predetermined, fixed, $\epsilon$.
\item Go to 1.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
Instead of yielding the true posterior distribution, samples have the
approximate distribution $\nobreak{\pi(\theta\,\vert
\,\rho(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}^{\ast}) < \epsilon)}$. Acceptance rates of ABC
algorithms are often improved by employing dimension reduction techniques on the
data. This approximation tends to the true target as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$
when $\rho(\cdot)$ is a properly defined metric on sufficient statistics.
Further approximations are made when, as is often the case, sufficient
statistics are unavailable. In this situation one would choose a set of summary
statistics that it is hoped is informative about the data.
\cite{blum2013comparative} give a review of current techniques for choosing
summary statistics. Over the past decade numerous proposals to improve the
efficiency of ABC have been made. Favored schemes include the use of a
sequential Monte Carlo sampler, which seeks to address the issue of poor
acceptance rates through first allowing a high acceptance threshold and then
gradually reducing the tolerance to improve the approximation to the target
distribution. This algorithm is sequential in the sense that populations of
simulated points (particles) are generated at each stage. The sample $\pi(\theta
\,\vert\, \rho(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}^{\ast}) < \epsilon_{t-1})$ is then
exploited as the basis for a proposal distribution used to target $\pi(\theta \,
\vert\, \rho(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}^{\ast}) < \epsilon_{t})$.
\cite{douc2007convergence} showed that from the perspective of importance
sampling this reliance on previous populations to improve proposals is entirely
legitimate. Early approaches often used a geometric rate of decline for the
tolerances, however adaptive schemes based on the distribution of the distances
have been shown to work well \citep{drovandi2011estimation}. It is of note
however that consideration must be given to the criteria by which we choose the
new tolerance, as \cite{silk2013optimizing} showed that convergence is not
guaranteed in all cases. A sequential approach to inference within the ABC
framework based on importance sampling is described in
algorithm~\ref{alg:abcsmc}.
In practice there are a number of factors which contribute to the efficiency of the sequential scheme described here. A perturbation kernel $K_{t}(\cdot)$, typically some Gaussian distribution, with a small variance usually leads to good acceptance rates but slow exploration of the parameter space. Conversely larger moves will explore the space more quickly but at the cost of reduced acceptance probability. \cite{beaumont2009adaptive} consider use of an adaptive Gaussian proposal distribution, with variance equivalent to twice the empirical variance of the samples, $\theta^{(t)}$. This was built on in an article by \cite{filippi2013optimality} who derived an optimal proposal variance, optimal in terms of jointly minimising the Kullback-Liebler divergence between proposal and target and maximising the acceptance rate, dependent on the current sample and the tolerance for the target. The sequence of tolerances and number of bridging distributions in the sequence also contribute to the overall effectiveness of the scheme. Intuitively, a slow decline in the threshold will lead to high acceptance rates for newly proposed parameter vectors, but posterior learning will be slow.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Sequential ABC} \label{alg:abcsmc}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialise $\epsilon_{0} > \epsilon_{1} > \ldots\ > \epsilon_{T} > 0$ and set the population indicator, $t=0$.
\item Set particle indicator, $i=1$.
\item If t = 0, sample $\theta^{\ast \ast} \sim \pi(\theta)$ \\*
Else sample $\theta^{\ast}$ from the previous population $\{\theta^{(i)}_{t-1}\}$ with weights $w_{t-1}$ and perturb to obtain $\theta^{\ast \ast} \sim K_{t}(\theta|\theta^{\ast})$ \\*
If $\pi(\theta^{\ast \ast}) = 0$, return to 3. \\*
Simulate a candidate dataset $x^{\ast} \sim f(x|\theta^{\ast \ast})$ \\*
If $d(x_{0},x^{\ast}) \ge \epsilon_{t}$, return to 3.
\item Set $\theta_{t}^{(i)} = \theta^{\ast \ast}$ and calculate weight for particle $\theta_{t}^{(i)}$, $w_{t}^{(i)}$
\[
w_{t}^{(i)} = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1, & \text{if } t = 0 \\
\frac{\pi(\theta_{t}^{(i)})}{\sum^{N}_{j=1} w_{t-1}^{(j)} K_{t}(\theta^{(j)}_{t-1},\theta^{(i)}_{t})}, & \text{if } t > 0
\end{array}
\right\}.
\]
If $i < N$ set $i = i+1$, go to 3
\item Normalise the weights, if $t<T$, set $t=t+1$ and go to 2.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Basis for comparison}
\label{sec:mfc}
In order to create a framework in which we can make meaningful comparisons between these approaches to inference it is important to consider what makes a fair test, as well as some measure of efficiency of each sampler. In addition to this we are interested in the discrepancy between the resultant posterior and the true posterior. One of the primary motivations for the comparison is to determine which method is most appropriate with particular consideration to the notion of a restricted computational budget.
In order to maintain as much consistency as possible over the various runs we use the Direct method, \cite{gillespie1977exact}, for all realisations from a given model. We shall compare a pseudo-marginal Metropolis Hastings implementation of pMCMC with ABC approximations that use a Euclidean metric function over the full set of data points,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:metric}
\rho(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}^{\ast}) = \sum_{t = 0}^{T} \sum_{i = 0}^{U} (d^{\ast}_{i,t} - d_{i,t})^{2}.
\end{equation}
We make this choice to ensure that, in the limit, we are targeting the same posterior. Additionally, we have found that this metric performs competitively with other choices for the sample sizes considered in our simulations study.
We repeat runs of each algorithm for a range of observation schemes on a number of data sets for each model, each using the same computational budget, comparing the results from each. We also include for each a long run of a pMCMC scheme which will provide us with the `true' posterior of interest in each case.
\subsection{Computational budget}
\label{ssec:cb}
We define our computational budget by considering each model realisation via the Direct method as 1 computational unit. We ignore the contribution to computation time of all other aspects of each algorithm as typically it is the path simulation that takes up the majority of computation time. In addition this choice ensures that the comparisons made are unaffected by certain computational optimisations, and coding tricks, which may distort the results in favor of one algorithm over another. For example ABC typically parallelises trivially and often yields almost perfect scaling between number of processors used and the speed factor gained, whereas particle MCMC does not benefit from parallel hardware in the same way, but can still be parallelised.
\subsection{Initialisation}
Each of the approaches to inference described above exhibit aspects which need to be chosen in some way, each of which has a bearing on the efficiency of the sampler. To make comparison as fair as possible we want each algorithm to be in some sense optimised using standard published methods. We now explain, for clarity, the way in which we have chosen various tuning parameters for each of the algorithms above. The cost of obtaining such parameters is collected and is deducted from our computational budget.
\subsubsection{Particle MCMC}
It has been well documented that the efficiency of random walk Metropolis algorithms is highly dependent on the choice of proposal kernel. A distribution which yields small deviations from the current state will ensure that a large number of moves are accepted but samples will be highly correlated. Large moves around the space on the other hand will often be rejected leading to the chain spending large amounts of time stuck at the same value. Under various assumptions about the target it has been shown that the optimal scaling for a Gaussian proposal kernel is
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{q} = \frac{2.38^{2}}{\sqrt{d}}\Sigma
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma$ is the covariance of the posterior distribution and $d$ is the number of parameters being estimated, \citep{roberts1997weak, roberts2001optimal}.
The starting parameter vector, $\theta_{0}$, of the chain also has an effect on the efficiency of the sampler. A choice of $\theta_{0}$ which is far from a region of non--negligible posterior density will lead to a chain which takes a long time to move toward the target distribution, whereas a chain initialised close to stationarity will yield useful samples sooner. This burn--in period can sometimes consume a sizeable fraction of the computational budget.
Particle MCMC as described in section~\ref{sec:pmcmc} also relies on a sequential Monte Carlo algorithm for approximation of the likelihood, $\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{D}|\theta)$. The bootstrap filter requires multiple model realisations, via a set of ``particles'' in order to achieve this approximation. In addition the approximation has to be calculated at every iteration of the MCMC algorithm, hence clearly the number of particles in the filter will greatly affect the runtime of the resultant algorithm. A small number of particles will result in a shorter computation time for the likelihood approximation but leads to larger variability in the estimated likelihood. This increased variability leads to decreased efficiency of the inference scheme, as noted by \cite{andrieu2009pseudo}. A large number of particles, useful for consistent estimates of $\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{D}|\theta)$ will lead to slower posterior sampling in the chain.
An optimal choice for the number of particles has been explored by \cite{pitt2012some} who suggest that the number of particles should be chosen such that the variance of the log--likelihood estimates is around 1. However \cite{doucet2012efficient} show that the efficiency of the scheme is good for variances between 0.25 and 2.25.
In practice, for the purpose of this comparison we choose an initial parameter vector, $\theta_{0}$, as a random sample from the posterior distribution. The number of particles used in the particle filter, $N$ is then chosen by repeated runs of a particle filter with increasing $N$ until $1.5 < \operatorname{Var}(\hat{l}(\theta_{0}|\mathcal{D})) < 1.8$. We then use the covariance matrix of the posterior, $\Sigma_{p}$ to inform our choice for $\Sigma_{q}$, the Gaussian random walk proposal variance,
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{q} = \frac{2.38^{2}}{\sqrt{d}}\Sigma_{p}.
\end{equation}
During our first experiments with the pMCMC algorithm for these models we approached initialisation and tuning of the algorithm under the assumption of no knowledge of the posterior distribution of interest. However, this proved to be problematic as finding a sensible choice of $\theta_{0}$, number of particles, $N$, and proposal variance, $\Sigma_{q}$, often used a large proportion of the allocated computational budget. Under the computational restrictions imposed by our budget choice this made pMCMC look completely uncompetitve. This problem itself is interesting as it highlights a potential drawback of using pMCMC in practice. We discuss this issue further in section~\ref{sssec:tuningproblem}.
\subsubsection{ABC SMC}
Initialisation of a sequential ABC algorithm as described in section~\ref{sec:abc} is somewhat less involved. This is due to the fact that optimal Gaussian proposal kernels for advancement to subsequent targets can be calculated during execution. In addition the sequence of tolerances is chosen adaptively throughout the algorithm. It remains that there is need to specify an initial tolerance value, $\epsilon_{0}$. One could argue that tuning the choice of metric and summary statistics to be used is also of interest. Discussion of how one might do this is beyond the scope of this article however, since we are limiting ourselves to the choice in equation~\ref{eq:metric} so as to ensure that as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ the resultant posterior approximation tends toward the true posterior distribution of interest, $\pi(\theta|\rho(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}^{\ast}) < \epsilon) \rightarrow \pi(\theta|\mathcal{D})$. For an in depth discussion of methods in which to choose summary statistics see \cite{blum2013comparative}.
In order to choose a suitable $\epsilon_{0}$ for the scheme we simply calculate $\rho(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{D}^{\ast}|\theta)$ using a number of samples from $\pi(\theta)$. From this we take $\epsilon_{0}$ to be the value equivalent to the $1\%$-ile of the resultant distribution of distances.
\section{Case study}
\label{sec:cs}
\subsection{Lotka--Volterra predator prey model}
\label{ssec:lvppm}
\subsubsection{Model description}
The Lotka--Volterra predator prey system, \cite{lotka1925elements,volterra1926fluctuations} is an example of a stochastic kinetic model that provides an ample starting point for investigation of parameter inference in models of this type. Although it is
relatively simple, characterised by a set of 3 reactions on two species, it encompasses many of the difficulties associated with larger, more complex systems. Denoting the two species, prey, $X_{1}$ and predators, $X_{2}$, evolution of the system is governed by the following three reactions:
\begin{align}
\centering
\begin{array}{rccc}
\mathbf{R}_{1}: & {\cal X}_{1} & \rightarrow & 2{\cal X}_{1} \\
\mathbf{R}_{2}: & {\cal X}_{1} + {\cal X}_{2} & \rightarrow & 2{\cal X}_{2} \\
\mathbf{R}_{3}: & {\cal X}_{2} & \rightarrow & \emptyset.
\end{array}
\label{eq:lvmodel}
\end{align}
These reactions can be thought of as prey birth, a predator prey interaction resulting in the death of a prey and a predator birth, and predator death respectively. Reaction events are dependent on the current state of the system as well as the reaction rate parameters. Hence the trajectory of the evolution of species counts presents a Markov process on a discrete state space. This reaction network is summarised by its stoichiometry matrix , $S$ and hazard function $h(\mathbf{X},\theta)$:
\begin{align}
S &= \left(
\begin{array}{rrr}
1 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & -1
\end{array} \right), &
h(\mathbf{X},\theta) &= (\theta_{1}X_{1}, \theta_{2}X_{1}X_{2}, \theta_{3}X_{2}).
\end{align}
Realisations from the model conditional on a vector of rate parameters, $\theta$, can be obtained exactly via algorithm~\ref{alg:gillespie}, or approximated via a number of fast simulation algorithms.
\subsubsection{Synthetic data}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{LVdata}
\caption{Synthetic data sets for the Lotka--Volterra predator prey model given $\log(\theta) = (0,-5.30,-0.51)$, $\log(\sigma) = 2.3$ and $X_{0} = (50,100)$. (a) are 25 realisations from the model using the Direct method, showing the oscillatory behavior and increasing volatility of the system. (b), dataset $\mathcal{D}^{1}$ is a short time series with observations at 6 time points at integer frequency. (c), $\mathcal{D}^{2}$: A time series observed at even time points with 16 time point measurements. (d), $\mathcal{D}^{3}$ we have a long time series of 101 time point measurements observed every 0.5 time units. We consider time series of differing lengths to determine whether the amount of data available has an influence on which inference method may be most appropriate. In each case we also consider a partial observation regime where predator observations are unavailable by discarding these measurements.}
\label{fig:lvdata}
\end{figure}
For the purpose of making comparison we use a number of data sets over different observation regimes simulated using reaction rate vector $\theta = (1.0,0.005,0.6)$. In each case we corrupt the $X_{t}$ with a Gaussian error with mean 0 and variance $\sigma^{2}$, $\pi(d_{t}|X_{t}, \sigma) \sim \mathcal{N}(X_{t},\sigma^{2})$. $X_{0} = (50,100)$ is used throughout. Plots of each of the data sets considered are in figure~\ref{fig:lvdata}. Given this set of parameter values the model exhibits relatively stable oscillatory behavior for both species and provides an interesting starting point for our investigation. We shall use this model to explore posterior sampling efficiency given data sets of a range of sizes, under full and partial observation regimes, whilst also giving consideration to the effect of assuming known measurement or including this parameter in the set to be inferred. Data sets shown in figures~\ref{fig:lvdata}b--d are denoted $\mathcal{D}^{1}$, $\mathcal{D}^{2}$ and $\mathcal{D}^{3}$ respectively. We introduce extra subscript notation such that $\mathcal{D}^{1}_{p}$ implies the data set $\mathcal{D}^{1}$ where predator observations have been discarded and $\mathcal{D}^{1}_{u}$ symbolises treatment of $\mathcal{D}^{1}$ under the assumption of unknown measurement error. In addition $\mathcal{D}^{1}_{\ast}$ will be used as a reference to the collection of data sets $\mathcal{D}^{1}, \mathcal{D}^{1}_{u}, \mathcal{D}^{1}_{p}$ and $\mathcal{D}^{1}_{u,p}$.
\subsubsection{Inference set up}
We now create a scenario in which prior parameter information is poor. We place uniform prior information on $\log(\theta)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lvprior}
\log(\theta_{i}) \sim \mathcal{U}(-6,2), \quad i = 1,2,3,
\end{equation}
and we place a Poisson prior distribution on the initial state
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lvprior3}
X_{1} \sim \operatorname{Pois}(50), \quad X_{2} \sim \operatorname{Pois}(100).
\end{equation}
Where $\sigma^{2}$ is not assumed to be known we use
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lvprior2}
\log(\sigma) \sim \mathcal{U}(\log(0.5),\log(50)).
\end{equation}
For each repeat we allow a computational budget of $10^8$ model realisations from the Direct method, algorithm~\ref{alg:gillespie}. We choose this budget based on the fact that given the $\theta = (1.0,0.005,0.6)$ our simulator achieves $10^4$ simulations of length equivalent to $\mathcal{D}^{2}$ every 45-50 secs on our relatively fast Intel core i7-2600 clocked at 3.4 GHz. This yields an approximate total time spent simulating from the model of 14 hours plus some other comparably negligible computation costs for each individual inference run.
Clearly improvement on simulation time can be made by parallelising the simulation of independent realisations from the direct method as well as other computational savings being made by clever optimisations in each algorithm. We have tried to disclude the effect of such algorithmic optimisation in our comparison as discussed in section~\ref{sec:mfc}. We include the information on approximate time here as a rough guide to practical implementation of inference for these types of models as well as the reasoning behind our particular budget choice.
\subsubsection{Discussion of results}
\label{sssec:lvresults}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{LVnoise10Posterior}
\caption{Posterior distributions given 5 repeats for each of the observation regimes using the $\mathcal{D}^{2}_{\ast}$ collection of data sets. True values are marked on the x-axis and a long pMCMC run with high number of particles to be used as a reference to the truth are in black.}
\label{fig:lvinference}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{LVnoise10Summary}
\caption{Box plots, (a), showing the posterior learning for each of the algorithms broken down by computational units. Each posterior sample through the sequence using ABC SMC is shown, with corresponding pMCMC inferences. This gives insight into how the two algorithms compare throughout the experiment. (b) shows the effective sample size of the pMCMC sample when broken into these computational groups, (c-d) are posterior estimates of the mean and variance respectively given the two algorithms. These results are for $\theta_{1}$ given one run of each of the algorithms. It is clear the ABC posterior distribution is tending toward the pMCMC posterior. The shape of the posterior distribution inferred using pMCMC does not change much throughout computation.}
\label{fig:lvsummary}
\end{figure}
Results for data sets $\mathcal{D}^{1}_{\ast}$ and $\mathcal{D}^{3}_{\ast}$ are contained as supplementary material. We report results for data set $\mathcal{D}^{2}_{\ast}$ , figure~\ref{fig:lvdata}(c), shown in figure~\ref{fig:lvinference}.
Results in the supplementary material support those reported here, discrepancies between the two algorithms are reduced for $\mathcal{D}^{1}_{\ast}$ and exacerbated given the longer time series of $\mathcal{D}^{3}_{\ast}$. The plots in figure~\ref{fig:lvinference} show that for $\mathcal{D}^{2}$ there is a clear difference in the tails of the distribution. This feature is mirrored for $\mathcal{D}^{2}_{u}$. Additionally we see that, under the assumption of unknown measurement error ABC fails to identify the noise parameter, $\sigma$. Treatment of $\mathcal{D}^{2}_{p}$ yields a much smaller difference in the resultant posteriors between the two schemes however $\mathcal{D}^{2}_{u,p}$ reinforces the inability to infer $\sigma$ using the ABC SMC scheme. Each density plotted is the result of $10^4$ samples being collected. In the case of the ABC SMC this was ensured by retaining $10^4$ samples at each population, giving rise to a sequence of between 12 and 14 populations in the fully observed runs and 12 populations in each partially observed run, the decreasing choice of $\epsilon$ chosen as described in section~\ref{sec:abc}. For pMCMC we ran the sampler for the full budget and then thinned the resultant collection of vectors such that the final sample contained 10000. In the case of $\mathcal{D}^{2}$ the average number of particles required was 132 which led to a chain that ran for approximately $7.5 \times 10^{5}$ unthinned iterations which was then thinned by a factor of 75 to give the final sample.
From these results it would appear that given the use of the full budget pMCMC provides the better choice. Figure~\ref{fig:lvsummary}(a) shows the posterior learning experienced by the sequential ABC algorithm. The matching box plots for pMCMC is the posterior distribution using the pMCMC algorithm where we use only information gained under the same budget use as with ABC. i.e The budget used to obtain the first population of samples under ABC was $2.1 \times 10^{6}$. The corresponding box-plot for population 1 under pMCMC is a snapshot of the chain having used up the same budget of $2.1 \times 10^{6}$. It is interesting to note that the shape of the posterior distribution under pMCMC changes little over the sequence of populations leading one to believe that even with little computational expense the posterior distribution inferred by pMCMC is good. However this plot does not tell the whole story. Figure~\ref{fig:lvsummary}(b) shows estimates of the effective sample size of the posterior distributions for pMCMC in this sequence. Effective sample size is small for the populations with the lower computational expense showing that to obtain a good posterior sample from pMCMC, despite the fact that the overall shape of the distribution doesn't change very much, we must still run for a long time, which is unsurprising. However, if we are only interested in obtaining posterior summaries, it would appear that the budget is less important. Figure~\ref{fig:lvsummary}(c-d) show posterior estimates of the mean and variance factored into the same computational expense groups as with figure~\ref{fig:lvsummary}(a) and figure~\ref{fig:lvsummary}(b). It is clear to see that for pMCMC the estimates are stable and remain reasonably constant. This is in stark contrast to estimates using the ABC approximations which appear less certain before tending toward those estimates gained using pMCMC.
The overall trend here then seems to suggest that in this instance pMCMC is the favorable choice. The posterior estimates of mean and variance are stable even given a relatively short run time, and the shape of the distribution is also maintained. To obtain a large uncorrelated sample the chain must be run for a long time, although it is noted that running the ABC sampler for the same length of time does not yield better results. Posterior summaries appear consistent irrespective of the additional runtime. ABC here however is not so good. It could be argued that the posterior distributions are close given the full budget in some circumstances, notably $\mathcal{D}^{2}_{p}$, however with shorter runtime the approximation is much greater and hence inference is poorer as a result.
\subsubsection{The tuning problem}
\label{sssec:tuningproblem}
The results presented here have ignored the issue of tuning the pMCMC algorithm. The posterior inference suggest that pMCMC is the better choice for learning about model parameters but we have tuned the pMCMC at the start, relying on knowledge of the posterior. This knowledge comes with its own expense and is in some sense self-defeating, something that is not so much of an issue for the ABC SMC. The true cost of the pMCMC inference then is somewhat higher than shown here. The ABC SMC proposal variance and tolerance sequence are chosen adaptively and so the initialisation and tuning cost is small. We made the choice to tune pMCMC using information from the posterior earlier due to the fact that in our initial experiments for this model we found that in a number of cases the computational budget used in initialising the pMCMC was large, often larger than our allocated budget. Choosing a sensible $\theta_{0}$, $N$ and $\Sigma_{q}$ with little prior knowledge is difficult.
Our initial attempts to find a $\theta_{0}$ involved sampling from the prior distribution, estimating the likelihoods and choosing the parameter vector which maximises the likelihood estimates. Due to the variability in the particle filter estimates away from the true parameter values this step typically involves a large number of particles and hence large expense. Conditional on this hopefully informative choice of $\theta_{0}$ we can then tune $N$, the number of particles in the bootstrap filter, such that each estimate has less expense, by running a number of filters starting with a small number of particles and steadily increasing $N$ until the $\operatorname{Var}(\hat{l})$ is suitably small. Again this has non-negligible expense. We want to try to find as small a value of $N$ as we can get away with for the main inference run and so this iterative procedure can be time consuming. On top of these two tuning steps we typically want to ensure that we choose a good $\Sigma_{q}$. This often involves a pilot MCMC run using a very small proposal variance and then using the variance of the resulting distribution to inform the choice of $\Sigma_{q}$.
We found that, in practice, employing these steps to tune pMCMC was itself very expensive. Using 1000 particles in a particle filter to estimate likelihoods for 2000 parameter vectors drawn from the prior for $\mathcal{D}^{2}$ and repeating each 10 times and maximising over the average to choose $\theta_{0}$ was not enough to guarantee that the resulting draw had posterior support. This alone uses 20\% of the allocated budget without then tuning the number of particles. The number of particles needed to satisfy the log--likelihood estimate variance criteria is often much larger in the tails of the posterior than at the true values. Add to this estimating $\Sigma_{q}$ and then the appropriate burn--in period and it is easy to see that this operation becomes very expensive.
\cite{owen2014scalable} showed that initialising pMCMC with a random draw from an uninformative prior does not guarantee convergence to the stationary distribution. This was due to the large variability in log-likelihood estimates given by the particle filter in regions of negligible posterior support, rather than any flaw in the theory. It is suggested that a good thing to do in situations in which prior knowledge is poor is to run an ABC SMC algorithm as an aid to tuning and initialising a pMCMC algorithm. This approach is amenable to parallelisation and exploits relative strengths of the two approaches.
\subsection{Schl\"{o}gl system}
\label{ssec:schlogl}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{SchloglSimulations}
\caption{100 realisations from the Schl\"{o}gl system given highlight the bimodal stability shown for species $X_{1}$.}
\label{fig:schloglsimulations}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{SchloglData}
\caption{A pseudo data set to be used for inference where observations are made under Gaussian error, $\sigma^{2} = 1$}
\label{fig:schlogldata}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Simulating traces of the species present in the Schl\"{o}gl system using the Direct method with $\theta = (3\times10^{-7}, 10^{-4}, 0.000773, 3.276)$ and $X_{0} = (250,10^{5},2\times 10^5)$ recorded for 21 observations at regular intervals of 0.2 time units.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Model description}
\label{sssec:smd}
The Schl\"{o}gl model is a well known test model which exhibits bimodal stability at certain parameter values. The system is characterised by a set of 4 reactions involving 3 species:
\begin{align}
\centering
\begin{array}{rccc}
\mathbf{R}_{1}: & 2{\cal X}_{1} + {\cal X}_{2} & \rightarrow & 3{\cal X}_{1} \\
\mathbf{R}_{2}: & 3{\cal X}_{1} & \rightarrow & 2{\cal X}_{1} + {\cal X}_{2} \\
\mathbf{R}_{3}: & {\cal X}_{3} & \rightarrow & {\cal X}_{1} \\
\mathbf{R}_{4}: & {\cal X}_{1} & \rightarrow & {\cal X}_{3}.
\end{array}
\label{eq:schloglmodel}
\end{align}
We can summarise this reaction network via its stoichiometry matrix $S$ and hazard function $h(\mathbf{X},\theta)$:
\begin{align}
& \quad S = \left(
\begin{array}{rrrr}
1 & -1 & 1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1
\end{array} \right), \nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
h(\mathbf{X},\theta) &= (\frac{\theta_{1}X_{1}(X_{1} - 1)X_{2}}{2}, \frac{\theta_{2}X_{1}(X_{1} - 1)(X_{1} - 2)}{6}, \theta_{3}X_{3}, \theta_{4}x_{1}).
\end{align}
This system provides an interesting case for which to investigate how influential the measurement error is on the efficiency of posterior sampling for each algorithm.
\subsubsection{Synthetic data}
\label{sssec:schlogldata}
Figure~\ref{fig:schloglsimulations} shows 100 realisations from the model given $\theta = (3\times 10^{-7}, 1\times 10^{-4}, 0.000773, 3.276)$ and $X_{0} = (250,10^5,2 \times 10^5)$ highlighting the bimodal characteristics given this set of parameter values. This poses an interesting challenge when it comes to parameter inference since it is not necessarily the case that all parameter vectors in a region of space closely surrounding this give the same behaviour. For our investigation of the inference methods being discussed we choose one of these data traces at random and corrupt with Gaussian error, $d_{t} \sim \mathcal{N}(X_{t},\sigma^{2})$, $\sigma^{2} = 1$. A second copy of the same underlying trace is then corrupted with the same error distribution but with $\sigma^{2} = 10$. We denote these data set $\mathcal{D}^{S}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{D}^{S}_{10}$ respectively. The chosen observed data set is shown in figure~\ref{fig:schlogldata}.
\subsubsection{Inference set up}
\label{sssec:schloglsetup}
In contrast to the simulation study for the Lotka--Volterra model we make use of a set of more informative prior distributions,
that is a Gaussian distribution on the log scale, centered at the true values with relatively small standard deviation, $0.5$. In addition we assume knowledge of the initial count $\mathbf{X}_{0}$. For inference in this case we now restrict our focus to assuming known measurement error, and availability of observations of all 3 species in the model, these factors having been explored well in the previous example. The focus of this example is to determine whether the size of the measurement error informs our choice as to which algorithm is better.
\subsubsection{Discussion of results}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{SchloglLargeNoisePosterior}
\caption{Posterior distributions for each of the 4 rate parameters over the the replications for the two algorithms given data set $\mathcal{D}^{S}_{10}$. ABC SMC over estimates the variance.}
\label{fig:schlogllarge}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{SchloglSmallNoisePosterior}
\caption{Posterior distributions for each of the 4 rate parameters over the replications for the two algorithms given data set $\mathcal{D}^{S}_{1}$. PMCMC performs poorly when measurement error is small whereas inference using ABC appears to be good.}
\label{fig:schloglsmall}
\end{figure}
Consistent with the results in section~\ref{sssec:lvresults} ABC SMC yields posterior distribution with a larger mass in the tails. The plots in figure~\ref{fig:schlogllarge} show that under the larger measurement error, data set $\mathcal{D}^{S}_{10}$, comparative performance is similar to that seen in the previous example. However under small measurement error pMCMC struggles with this computational budget. The chain spends a large amount of time stuck at given parameter values. It is known that for likelihood free pMCMC to be efficient in this context the measurement error must be substantial. Development of pMCMC algorithms for informative observations are subject to ongoing research and typically involve bridging of the latent state conditional on the endpoints. \cite{golightly2014bayesian} propose an approach to the problem of inference for a Markov jump process with informative observations on a discrete state space by conditioning the hazard function on the end points of the data observations.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:cr}
The results in this article suggest that in most cases, for parameter inference for stochastic kinetic models with intractable likelihoods, particle MCMC is a better choice than ABC SMC provided that it can be well initialised. This distinction is less clear when applied to small data sets as seen in appendix~\ref{sec:supplementary} where posterior inference for the rate parameters are well matched. A longer time series highlights the benefit of using a particle filter whose re-sampling step ensures forward simulations are guided by the observations. ABC SMC seems to be poor at inferring the measurement error present in the model but proves to be a reasonable approach under informative observations, favorable to the likelihood free pMCMC implementation explored here.
PMCMC, whilst being the better choice in most cases for inference is substantially more difficult to tune. Given that ABC methods parallelise easily and performs comparably when inferring rate parameters it poses a strong approach when measurement error is known or small, particularly for lower dimensional data and may yield good posterior distributions at a lower real time cost than pMCMC. The biggest trade-off here is finding an appropriate starting point for pMCMC, something that can be approached by using ABC SMC, as described in \cite{owen2014scalable}.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we study sheaves of logarithmic arithmetic differential operators on a particular semistable model ${\mathbb X}_1$ of the projective line ${\mathbb X} = {\mathbb X}_0 = {\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb Z_p}$ over ${\mathbb Z_p}$. This model is obtained by blowing up the reduced closed subscheme given by the set of ${\mathbb F_p}$-valued points of ${\mathbb X}$. We denote the corresponding formal schemes, the completions along the special fiber, by ${\mathfrak X}$ and ${\mathfrak X}_1$, respectively. The sheaf of logarithmic differential operators of level $m$, as defined in \cite[sec. 5]{PSS2}, will be denoted by ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$, and its $p$-adic completion by ${\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$. The formal scheme ${\mathfrak X}_1$ is the first member of a family of formal semistable models ${\mathfrak X}_n$ which we studied in \cite{PSS2}. In that paper,
we obtained some results about the global sections of the sheaf of logarithmic arithmetic differential operators ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n}$. One question that had not been treated there was the relation between $H^0({\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})$ and $H^0({\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})$. More precisely, one may ask if the natural inclusion
$$\widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n}) \longrightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})$$
\vskip8pt
is an isomorphism. On the left hand side $\widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})$ denotes the $p$-adic completion of $H^0({\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})$. It is straightforward to see that there is a canonical exact sequence
$$0 \rightarrow \widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_n, {\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n}) \rightarrow T_p\left(H^1({\mathfrak X}_n, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})\right) \rightarrow 0 \;,$$
\vskip8pt
where the group on the right is the $p$-adic Tate module
$$T_p\left(H^1({\mathfrak X}_n, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})\right) = \varprojlim_k H^1({\mathfrak X}_n, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})[p^k] \;,$$
\vskip8pt
of $H^1({\mathfrak X}_n, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_n})$. In this paper we only consider the case when $n=1$, and the main results are summarized in the following theorem.
\vskip8pt
{\bf Theorem.} {\it (i) $T_p\Big(H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\Big) = 0$, and the map
$$\widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \longrightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$$
\vskip8pt
is therefore an isomorphism.
\vskip5pt
(ii) There is a canonical surjective homomorphism
$$H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \longrightarrow \widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and cohomology group on the right contains non-torsion elements. In particular, \linebreak $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}})$ does not vanish.
\vskip8pt
(iii) The cohomology group $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathscr D}^\dagger_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}})$ does not vanish.}
\vskip8pt
The sheaf ${\mathscr D}^\dagger_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}}$ in (iii) is the inductive limit of the sheaves ${\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}}$.
\vskip8pt
The investigations here and in \cite{PSS2} were motivated by the question if the formal models ${\mathfrak X}_n$ mentioned above are ${\mathscr D}^\dagger_{{\mathfrak X}_n,{\mathbb Q}}$-affine, and the non-vanishing of $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathscr D}^\dagger_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}})$ gives therefore a negative answer when $n=1$. This has led us to consider in \cite{PSS4} a different family of sheaves $\widetilde{{\mathscr D}}^{(m)}_{n,k,{\mathbb Q}}$ of $p$-adically complete differential operators on ${\mathfrak X}_n$, and as it is shown there, ${\mathfrak X}_n$ turns out to be $\widetilde{{\mathscr D}}^{(m)}_{n,k,{\mathbb Q}}$-affine.
\vskip12pt
\section{Global sections and cohomology of ${\mathscr D}^{(0)}$ on ${\mathfrak X}_1$}\label{level_zero}
Let ${\mathbb X}_1$ be the blow-up of the projective line ${\mathbb X} = {\mathbb X}_0 = {\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb Z_p}$ in the reduced closed subscheme given by the set of ${\mathbb F_p}$-valued points. We denote the corresponding formal schemes, the completions along the special fiber, by ${\mathfrak X}$ and ${\mathfrak X}_1$, respectively. For a more detailed discussion of this (formal) scheme we refer to \cite[sec. 4]{PSS2}.
\vskip8pt
\subsection{Cohomology groups and their completions}\label{completion_zero}
Let ${\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} = {\mathscr D}^{(0)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ be the $p$-adic completion of the sheaf of logarithmic differential operators ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1} = {\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1}^{(0)}$, cf. \cite[sec. 5]{PSS2}. We write ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ for the ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$-module generated by the restriction of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1}$ to ${\mathfrak X}_1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{reduction} The canonical homomorphism
$$H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \longrightarrow \varprojlim_k H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$$
\vskip8pt
is an isomorphism when $i=0$ and surjective if $i=1$. For $i>1$ source and target of this map vanish.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof. } For an inverse system of sheaves $({\mathcal F}_k)_k$, the presheaf $U \mapsto \varprojlim_k {\mathcal F}_k(U)$ is actually a sheaf. This gives the statement for $i=0$. For $i>1$ the source and target of the map vanish because ${\mathfrak X}_1$ is a noetherian topological space of dimension one. In order to treat the case $i=1$ we are going to use \cite[ch. 0, Prop. 13.3.1]{EGA_III}. The third condition of this proposition is fulfilled because the transition maps on the system of sheaves are obviously surjective. Let $U$ be an affine open subset of ${\mathfrak X}_1$. Denote by ${\mathfrak X}_{1,k}$ the reduction of ${\mathfrak X}_1$ modulo $p^k$, and let $U_k = U \times_{{\mathfrak X}_1} {\mathfrak X}_{1,k}$ be the open affine subset of ${\mathfrak X}_{1,k}$. Then we have for all $i>0$
$$H^i(U,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = H^i(U_k,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = 0 \;,$$
\vskip8pt
because ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ is a quasi-coherent sheaf on ${\mathfrak X}_{1,k}$. This shows that the second condition of loc.cit. is satisfied, and, for $i>0$, also the first condition. Consider the exact sequence of quasi-coherent sheaves on ${\mathfrak X}_{1,k+1}$
$$0 \longrightarrow p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^{k+1}{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} \longrightarrow {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^{k+1}{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} \longrightarrow {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} \longrightarrow 0 \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Because $p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^{k+1}{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ has vanishing first cohomology on $U_k$, this sequence stays exact after applying $H^0(U_k, - )$, and this shows that
the first condition of loc.cit. is fulfilled in the case $i=0$. Hence we can conclude that the map in question is surjective for $i=1$. \qed
\vskip8pt
Next we consider the tautological exact sequence of sheaves on ${\mathfrak X}_1$
$$0 \rightarrow {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} \stackrel{p^k}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} \rightarrow {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} /p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} \rightarrow 0 \;.$$
\vskip8pt
The long exact cohomology sequence to this sequence gives the exact sequence
$$H^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \stackrel{p^k}{\longrightarrow} H^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} /p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^{i+1}({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \stackrel{p^k}{\longrightarrow} H^{i+1}({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
We thus get an exact sequence
\begin{numequation}\label{fund_exact_seq_k}
0 \rightarrow H^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\Big/p^kH^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1} /p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^{i+1}({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\left[p^k\right] \rightarrow 0 \;,
\end{numequation}
where $H^{i+1}({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\left[p^k\right]$ denotes the subgroup of elements annihilated by multiplication by $p^k$. Put
$$\widehat{H}^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = \varprojlim_k \left(H^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\Big/p^kH^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\right) \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and
$$T_p\left(H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\right) = \varprojlim_k H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})[p^k] \;,$$
\vskip8pt
where the transition map $H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})[p^k] \rightarrow H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})[p^{k-1}]$ is the multiplication by $p$. We then have the
\vskip8pt
\begin{prop}\label{fundexseq} (a) For all $i \ge 0$ there is a natural exact sequence
\begin{numequation}\label{fund_exact_seq}
0 \rightarrow \widehat{H}^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow \varprojlim_k H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow T_p\left(H^{i+1}({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\right) \rightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
(b) For $i=0$ the exact sequence in (a) becomes
\begin{numequation}\label{fund_exact_seq_H0}
0 \rightarrow \widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow T_p\left(H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\right) \rightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
(c) The cohomology group $H^2({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1})$ vanishes and the exact sequence in (a) gives therefore a canonical isomorphism
\begin{numequation}\label{fund_iso_H1}
\widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \simeq \varprojlim_k H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \;.
\end{numequation}
\end{prop}
{\it Proof. } (a) For varying $k$ the projective system
$$H^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\Big/p^kH^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$$
\vskip8pt
has obviously surjective transition maps (hence satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition). We can thus pass to the limit over $k$ and using \ref{reduction} we obtain the exact sequence \ref{fund_exact_seq}.
\vskip8pt
(b) We use (a) in the case $i=0$ and \ref{reduction}.
\vskip8pt
(c) $H^2({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1})$ vanishes because ${\mathfrak X}_1$ is a noetherian space of dimension one. The stated isomorphism follows then directly from (a). \qed
\subsection{Vanishing of ${\rm R}^1{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$}
We use the Leray spectral sequence for the blow-up morphism
$${\rm pr}: {\mathfrak X}_1 \longrightarrow {\mathfrak X} = {\mathfrak X}_0 \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Applied to the sheaf ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ we get an exact sequence
\begin{numequation}\label{second_ex_seq}
0 \rightarrow H^1({\mathfrak X}, {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) \rightarrow H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) \rightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
Denote by ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}$ and ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}$ the sheaves of differential operators of degree less or equal to $d$.
\vskip8pt
\begin{lemma}\label{vanishing_R1} (a) For all $d \ge 0$ one has ${\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(b) ${\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(c) $H^1({\mathfrak X}, {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) = H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$.
\vskip8pt
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof. } (a) {\it Reduction: passage to the graded sheaves.} We have
$${\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d} = {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}/{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1} \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and we consider the tautological exact sequence
\begin{numequation}\label{filtration}
0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1} \longrightarrow {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d} \longrightarrow {\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d} \longrightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
For $d=0$ we have ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,0} = {\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes 0} = {\mathcal O}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$. Therefore, if we show
$${\rm R}^1{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}) = 0$$
\vskip8pt
for all $d \ge 0$, then we can argue by induction and get
${\rm R}^1{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}) = 0$ for all d. Using that taking higher direct images commutes with inductive limits we get
$${\rm R}^1{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = 0 \;.$$
\vskip8pt
{\it Working with local coordinates.} Over the complement of $pr^{-1}({\mathbb X}({\mathbb F_p}))$ the blow-up morphism is an isomorphism, and the stalk of the sheaf ${\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ vanishes thus outside ${\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})$. Consider a point $P \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})$. We may assume that $P$ corresponds to the point given by the ideal $(x,p)$ of the ring
$$R = {\mathbb Z_p}\langle x \rangle\left[\frac{1}{x^{p-1}-1}\right] \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Then ${\rm Spf}(R)$ is an open neighborhood of $P$ in ${\mathfrak X}$. Put
$$R' = {\mathbb Z_p}\langle x,z \rangle\left[\frac{1}{x^{p-1}-1},\frac{1}{z^{p-1}-1}\right]\Big/(xz-p) \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and $R'' = {\mathbb Z_p}\langle t \rangle$, and identify the open subsets ${\rm Spf}(R')\left[\frac{1}{z}\right] \subset {\rm Spf}(R')$ and ${\rm Spf}(R'')\left[\frac{1}{t}\right] \subset {\rm Spf}(R'')$ via the relation $zt=1$. Then
$$pr^{-1}({\rm Spf}(R)) = {\rm Spf}(R') \cup {\rm Spf}(R'')$$
\vskip8pt
is an open neighborhood of the fiber $pr^{-1}(P)$. To show that the stalk of ${\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})$ at $P$ vanishes it suffices to show that
$$H^1(pr^{-1}(U), {\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}) = 0$$
\vskip8pt
for all affine open subsets $U \subset {\rm Spf}(R) \subset {\mathfrak X}$ containing $P$. Identify ${\rm Spf}(R)$ with a closed subset of ${\rm Spf}(R')$. Then we have $pr^{-1}(U) = U \cup {\rm Spf}(R'')$. Hence it suffices to show that
$$H^1(V \cup {\rm Spf}(R''), {\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}) = 0$$
\vskip8pt
for all affine open subsets $V \subset {\rm Spf}(R') \subset {\mathfrak X}_1$ containing $P$ (which we also consider as a point of ${\mathfrak X}_1$).
\vskip8pt
{\it Using \v Cech cohomology.} For such a $V$ the open subset
$V \cup {\rm Spf}(R'')$ always contains ${\rm Spf}(R')\left[\frac{1}{z}\right] = {\rm Spf}(R'')\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]$ and we may thus assume ${\rm Spf}(R')\left[\frac{1}{z}\right] \subset V$. Then we have
$$V \cap {\rm Spf}(R'') = {\rm Spf}(R')\left[\frac{1}{z}\right] = {\rm Spf}(R'')\left[\frac{1}{t}\right] \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Then $H^1(V \cup {\rm Spf}(R''), {\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})$ is equal to
the cokernel of the map
$$H^0\left(V,{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}\right) \oplus H^0\left({\rm Spf}(R''),{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}\right) \longrightarrow H^0\left({\rm Spf}(R'')\left[\frac{1}{t}\right],{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}\right) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
which sends $(s_1,s_2)$ to the difference of these sections when restricted to ${\rm Spf}(R'')\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]$. Any element in
$$H^0\left({\rm Spf}(R'')\left[\frac{1}{t}\right],{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}\right)$$
\vskip8pt
has the form $\left(\sum_{i \in {\mathbb Z}} a_it^i\right)\partial_t^{\otimes d}$. The sum $\left(\sum_{i \ge 0} a_it^i\right)\partial_t^{\otimes d}$
clearly extends to a section over ${\rm Spf}(R'')$. Note that we have in ${\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}$
$$\partial_t^{\otimes d} = (-z^2\partial_z)^{\otimes d} = (-1)^d z^{2d} \partial_z^{\otimes d}$$
\vskip8pt
and therefore
$$\left(\sum_{i < 0} a_it^i\right)\partial_t^{\otimes d} = (-1)^d \left(\sum_{i < 0} a_i z^{-i+d}\right) z^d\partial_z^{\otimes d} \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and this extends to a section over $V$.
\vskip8pt
(b) This follows from (a) and the fact that the higher direct image functor commutes with inductive limits.
\vskip8pt
(c) This is an immediate consequence of (b) and \ref{second_ex_seq}. \qed
\vskip8pt
\subsection{The cohomology group $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}))$}
Consider the exact sequence \ref{filtration} and the corresponding sequence of direct images on ${\mathfrak X}$
\begin{numequation}\label{fil_direct_im}
0 \longrightarrow {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}\Big) \longrightarrow {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}\Big) \longrightarrow {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}\Big) \longrightarrow {\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}\Big) = 0 \;,
\end{numequation}
where we have used \ref{vanishing_R1} (a). We have
$$H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) = \varinjlim_d H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Because ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}$ is coherent and ${\rm pr}$ is projective, the sheaf ${\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})$ is coherent and \linebreak $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$ is thus a finitely generated ${\mathbb Z_p}$-module. Since the corresponding cohomology group on the generic fiber (in the sense of rigid geometry) vanishes (by GAGA and \cite{BB81}), we see that $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$ is annihilated by a finite power of $p$. (We will give below a more precise description of $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$ which shows directly that it is annihilated by a finite power of $p$.) In the proof of theorem \ref{H1_direct_sum} we will need the following elementary
\begin{lemma}\label{transformation} Let $x$, $y$ be the standard coordinates on ${\mathbb P}^1$ satisfying $xy=1$. Then we have $\partial_y = -x^2\partial_x$ and, more generally, for any $s \in {\mathbb Z}_{\ge 1}$
$$\partial_y^s = (-1)^s \sum_{t=1}^s a_{s,t}x^{s+t}\partial_x^t \;,$$
\vskip8pt
where for all $s \ge 1$ and $1 \le t \le s$
\begin{numequation}\label{coeffs_formula}
a_{s,t} = {s \choose t}\frac{(s-1)!}{(t-1)!} \;, \hskip10pt \mbox{in particular}\,, \hskip6pt a_{s,1} = s! \hskip6pt \mbox{ and } \hskip6pt a_{s,s} = 1 \;.
\end{numequation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof. } We prove this by induction on $s$. The formula holds obviously in the case $s=1$. Assuming the formula to be correct for a given $s$, we have
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
\partial_y^{s+1} & = & (-x^2\partial_x)(-1)^s \left(\sum_{t=1}^s a_{s,t}x^{s+t}\partial_x^t\right) \\
&&\\
& = & (-1)^{s+1}\sum_{t=1}^s \left(a_{s,t}x^2(x^{s+t}\partial_x + (s+t)x^{s+t-1})\partial_x^t\right)\\
&&\\
& = & (-1)^{s+1}\sum_{t=1}^s \left(a_{s,t}x^{s+t+2}\partial_x^{t+1} + a_{s,t}(s+t)x^{s+t+1}\partial_x^t\right)\\
&&\\
& = & (-1)^{s+1} \left(a_{s,1}(s+1)x^{s+2}\partial_x\right. \\
&&\\
&& \hfill + \left.[\sum_{t=2}^s \left(a_{s,t-1} + a_{s,t}(s+t)\right)x^{s+1+t}\partial_x^{t+1}] + a_{s,s}x^{2s+2}\partial_x^{s+1}\right)
\end{array}$$
\vskip8pt
Using \ref{coeffs_formula} we then get for $2 \le t \le s$:
$$\begin{array}{lcl}
a_{s,t-1} + a_{s,t}(s+t) & = & {s \choose t-1}\frac{(s-1)!}{(t-2)!} + {s \choose t}\frac{(s-1)!}{(t-1)!}(s+t) \\
&&\\
&=& \frac{s!}{(s-t+1)!(t-1)!}\frac{(s-1)!}{(t-2)!} + \frac{s!}{(s-t)!t!}\frac{(s-1)!(s+t)}{(t-1)!}\\
&&\\
&=& \frac{s!(s-1)!}{(t-1)!} \left[\frac{1}{(t-2)!(s-t+1)} + \frac{s+t}{(s-t)!t!}\right]\\
&&\\
&=& \frac{s!(s-1)!}{(t-1)!}\left[\frac{(t-1)t+(s-t+1)(s+t)}{t!(s-t+1)!}\right]\\
&&\\
&=& \frac{s!(s-1)!}{(t-1)!}\frac{s(s+1)}{t!(s+1-t)!} = {s+1 \choose t}\frac{s!}{(t-1)!} = a_{s+1,t}
\end{array}$$
\vskip8pt
And finally $a_{s,1}(s+1) = s!(s+1) = (s+1)! = a_{s+1,1}$. \qed
\vskip8pt
\begin{thm}\label{H1_direct_sum} For all $d \ge 1$ the canonical map
\begin{numequation}\label{H1_inj}
H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1})) \rightarrow H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))
\end{numequation}
coming from the long exact cohomology sequence associated to
\ref{fil_direct_im} is injective and embeds $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}))$ as a direct summand of $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$. Therefore, there is a splitting:
\begin{numequation}\label{H1_split}
H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})) = H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1})) \oplus H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})) \;.
\end{numequation}
\end{thm}
{\it Proof. } (i) We start with some preliminary considerations. The sheaf ${\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})$ (resp. ${\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})$) is naturally a subsheaf of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}$ (resp. ${\mathcal T}_{\mathfrak X}^{\otimes d}$), cf. \cite[5.2]{PSS2}, and we denote by $Q_{\le d}$ (resp. $Q_d$) the quotient sheaf. Consider the commutative diagram:
$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
0 & \rightarrow & {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}) & \rightarrow & {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d-1} & \rightarrow & Q_{\le d-1} & \rightarrow & 0\\
&& \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow &&\\
0 & \rightarrow & {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}) & \rightarrow & {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d} & \rightarrow & Q_{\le d} & \rightarrow & 0\\
&& \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow &&\\
0 & \rightarrow & {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}) & \rightarrow & {\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}}^{\otimes d} & \rightarrow & Q_d & \rightarrow & 0
\end{array}$$
\vskip8pt
where the horizontal sequences are the tautological exact sequences.
The corresponding long exact sequences give rise to the commutative diagram
\begin{numequation}\label{comm_dia}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
&&&&&&\\
H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1})) & \hookrightarrow & H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d-1}) & \rightarrow & H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_{\le d-1}) & \twoheadrightarrow & H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}))\\
\downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow \\
H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})) & \hookrightarrow & H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}) & \rightarrow & H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_{\le d}) & \twoheadrightarrow & H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})) \\
\downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow \\
H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})) & \hookrightarrow & H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}}^{\otimes d}) & \rightarrow & H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_d) & \twoheadrightarrow & H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))
\end{array}
\end{numequation}
The sheaves $Q_{\le d-1}$, $Q_{\le d}$ and $Q_d$ are skyscraper sheaves with support in ${\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})$. Let $x_a$ be a local coordinate at $a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})$. Then, cf. \cite[5.2 (c)]{PSS2},
\begin{numequation}\label{Q_le_d}
Q_{\le d} = \bigoplus_{a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})} \bigoplus_{k=1}^{d} \bigoplus_{i=0}^{k-1} \left({\mathbb Z}/p^{k-i}\right) \cdot x_a^i \partial_{x_a}^k \;,
\end{numequation}
\begin{numequation}\label{Q_le_d_minus_1}
Q_{\le d-1} = \bigoplus_{a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})} \bigoplus_{k=1}^{d-1} \bigoplus_{i=0}^{k-1} \left({\mathbb Z}/p^{k-i}\right) \cdot x_a^i \partial_{x_a}^k \;,
\end{numequation}
and
\begin{numequation}\label{Qd}
Q_d = \bigoplus_{a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})} \bigoplus_{i=0}^{d-1} \left({\mathbb Z}/p^{d-i}\right) \cdot x_a^i \partial_{x_a}^d \;.
\end{numequation}
Hence there is a splitting
\begin{numequation}\label{Q_split}
Q_{\le d} = Q_{\le d-1} \oplus Q_d \;.
\end{numequation}
\vskip8pt
We introduce the following notation and terminology. For a global section $\delta \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d})$ we denote its image in $Q_{\le d}$ by $Q_{\le d}(\delta)$. The component of this element in $Q_d$, according to the splitting \ref{Q_split}, will be denoted by $Q_d(\delta)$, and we denote the components in $\bigoplus_{i=0}^{d-1} \left({\mathbb Z}/p^{d-i}\right) \cdot x_a^i \partial_{x_a}^d$ corresponding to $a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})$ by $Q_{d,a}(\delta)$. We call $Q_d(\delta)$ (resp. $Q_{\le d}(\delta)$) the {\it local data in degree $d$} (resp. {\it in degree less or equal to $d$}) of $\delta$. Similarly we call $Q_{d,a}(\delta)$ the {\it local data in degree $d$ at $a$} of $\delta$.
\vskip8pt
(ii) Now we prove the injectivity of the map \ref{H1_inj}.
The injectivity of this map is equivalent, by the long exact cohomology sequence attached to \ref{fil_direct_im}, to the surjectivity of the map
\begin{numequation}\label{H0_surj}
H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))
\end{numequation}
which appears on the right hand side of \ref{comm_dia}. We are going to prove that \ref{H0_surj} is surjective as follows: consider $\delta_1 \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))$ and let $\delta \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}}^{\otimes d})$ be its image. Then $Q_d(\delta) = 0$. The crucial step is to lift $\delta$ to an element $\widetilde{\delta} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d})$ in such a way that $Q_{\le d}(\widetilde{\delta}) = 0$. This implies that $\widetilde{\delta}$ does in fact come from an element (necessarily unique) $\widetilde{\delta}_1 \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}))$ which is a preimage of $\delta_1$ under the map \ref{H0_surj}.
\vskip8pt
We let $x = x_0$ and $y = x_\infty$. Then $\delta \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal T}_{\mathfrak X}^{\otimes d})$ can be written as
$$\delta = \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^{\otimes d} + \sum_{s'=0}^{d} B_{s'}x^{s'}\partial_x^{\otimes d} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}}^{\otimes d}) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Let us consider in detail what it means that $Q_d(\delta) = 0$. For instance, if we write $\delta$ in terms of $\partial_y$, we have to use the transformation formula (in $H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}}^{\otimes d})$): $x^{s'}\partial_x^{\otimes d} = \pm y^{2d-s'}\partial_y^{\otimes d}$, and
$$\delta = \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^{\otimes d} + \sum_{s'=0}^{d} (\pm B_{s'})y^{2d-s'}\partial_y^{\otimes d} \;.$$
Since $s' \le d$ we have $2d-s' \ge d$, we see that the vanishing of the local data of $\delta$ in degree $d$ at $\infty$ imposes the condition that $p^{d-s} | A_s$ for $0 \le s \le d-1$. Similarly we find $p^{d-s'} | B_{s'}$ for $0 \le s' \le d$.
\vskip8pt
We are looking for a preimage $\widetilde{\delta} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d})$ of $\delta$
whose image in $H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_{\le d})$ vanishes. We start by taking as a candidate the element $\widetilde{\delta}_d$ which is given by the same formula as $\delta$, but now the summands are considered to be global sections of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}$, i.e.,
$$\widetilde{\delta}_d = \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^d + \sum_{s'=0}^{d} B_{s'}x^{s'}\partial_x^d \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
(We write $\partial_x^{\otimes d}$ when we consider it as a section of ${\mathcal T}_{\mathfrak X}^{\otimes d}$, and we write $\partial_x^d$ when we consider it as a section of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}, d}$.) By \ref{transformation} this is indeed a global section of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}$.
\vskip8pt
The problem that we are facing now is this: while the local data of $\widetilde{\delta}_d$ in degree $d$ vanish (by assumption), it will in general not be the case that the local data of $\widetilde{\delta}_d$ in degree $<d$ vanish as well. Our aim is to modify $\widetilde{\delta}_d$ by adding a global section of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d-1}$ to it, such that the difference has vanishing local data in all degrees, hence comes from an element in ${\rm pr}_*{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1, d}$.
\vskip8pt
In order to do so, we determine the local data of $\widetilde{\delta}_d$ at infinity in all degrees. Using \ref{transformation} we write
$$\begin{array}{rl}
\widetilde{\delta}_d = & \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^d + \sum_{s'=0}^{d} B_{s'}x^{s'}\partial_x^d \\
&\\
= & \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^d + \sum_{s'=0}^{d} B_{s'}(-1)^d \left(\sum_{e=1}^d a_{d,e}y^{d+e-s'}\partial_y^e\right)\\
&\\
= & \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^d a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s'=0}^{d} B_{s'}y^{d+e-s'}\right) \partial_y^e \;.\\
&\\
\end{array}$$
\vskip8pt
Because $d+e-s' \ge e$ the term $y^{d+e-s'}\partial_y^e$ does not contribute to local data at infinity. So, in fact, $\widetilde{\delta}_d$ has vanishing local data at infinity in all degrees less or equal to $d$.
\vskip8pt
Now we analyze the local data at points $a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p}) \setminus \{\infty\} = {\mathbb F_p}$. Let $\xi_a \in {\mathbb Z_p}$ be a lift of $a$. We use \ref{transformation} again and write
\begin{alignat*}{1}
\widetilde{\delta}_d = & \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^d + \sum_{s'=0}^{d} B_{s'}x^{s'}\partial_x^d \\
&\\
= & \sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}\partial_x^d + \sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s(-1)^d \left(\sum_{e=1}^d a_{d,e}x^{d+e-s}\partial_x^e\right)\\
&\\
= & \sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^d a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e\\
&\\
= & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e\\
&\\
= & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d \\
&\\
& \hfill + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s (x_a+\xi_a)^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_{x_a}^e\\
&\\
= & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d \\
&\\
& \hfill + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} \sum_{k=0}^{d+e-s} {d+e-s \choose k} \xi_a^k A_s x_a^{d+e-s-k}\partial_{x_a}^e \right) \;. \\
&\\
\end{alignat*}
\vskip8pt
The term ${d+e-s \choose k} \xi_a^k A_s x_a^{d+e-s-k}\partial_{x_a}^e$ gives a non-zero contribution to the local data at $a$ in degree $e$ only if $d+e-s-k < e$, i.e., $d < s+k$, and in this case the contribution is modulo $p^{e-(d+e-s-k)} = p^{s+k-d}$. Since $s+k-d \le s+(d+e-s)-d = e$ and because $p^{d-s} | A_s$ we find that the contribution of ${d+e-s \choose k} \xi_a^k A_s x_a^{d+e-s-k}\partial_{x_a}^e$ vanishes if $d-s \ge e$. So we only need to pay attention to those terms for which $d-s<e$ or, equivalently, $d-e <s$. Going back to the fourth line of the display above, we write
\begin{alignat*}{1}
\widetilde{\delta}_d = & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e\\
&\\
= & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e \\
&\\
& \hfill + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{d-e < s < d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e \;.\\
&\\
\end{alignat*}
\vskip8pt
As mentioned above, the terms in $\sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e$ do not contribute to the local data in degrees less than $d$. Note that $\sum_{1 < s < d}A_sy^{s-1}\partial_y^{d-1}$ is a global section of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d-1}$. Now consider
$$\widetilde{\delta}_{d,d-1} \;\stackrel{\text{\tiny def}}{=}\; \widetilde{\delta}_d + a_{d,d-1}\left(\sum_{1 < s < d}A_sy^{s-1}\right)\partial_y^{d-1} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Because $d-1-(s-1) = d-s$ and because $p^{d-s} | A_s$ this differential operator has vanishing local data at infinity in degree $d-1$ (and in degree $d$). We write $\widetilde{\delta}_{d,d-1}$ in terms of powers of $\partial_x$ and find:
\begin{alignat*}{1}
\widetilde{\delta}_{d,d-1} = & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e\\
&\\
& + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{d-e < s < d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e \\
&\\
& \hfill + (-1)^{d-1} a_{d,d-1}\sum_{1<s<d} A_s \left(\sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d-1,e} x^{d-1+e-(s-1)}\partial_x^e\right)\\
&\\
= & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e\\
&\\
& + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-2} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{d-e < s < d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e + (-1)^d a_{d,d-1}\left(\sum_{1 < s < d} A_s x^{2d-1-s}\right) \partial_x^{d-1} \\
&\\
& \hfill + (-1)^{d-1} a_{d,d-1}\sum_{1<s<d} A_s \left(\sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d-1,e} x^{d+e-s}\partial_x^e\right)\\
&\\
= & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e\\
&\\
& + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-2} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{d-e < s < d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e + (-1)^d a_{d,d-1}\left(\sum_{1 < s < d} A_s x^{2d-1-s}\right) \partial_x^{d-1} \\
&\\
& + (-1)^{d-1} a_{d,d-1}\sum_{1<s<d} A_s \left(\sum_{e=1}^{d-2} a_{d-1,e} x^{d+e-s}\partial_x^e\right)\\
&\\
& \hfill + (-1)^{d-1} a_{d,d-1}\sum_{1<s<d}A_s a_{d-1,d-1} x^{2d-1-s}\partial_x^{d-1}\\
&\\
= & \left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e\\
&\\
& + (-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-2} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{d-e < s < d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e \\
&\\
& + (-1)^{d-1} a_{d,d-1}\sum_{e=1}^{d-2} a_{d-1,e} \left(\sum_{1<s<d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right)\partial_x^e \;.\\
\end{alignat*}
\vskip8pt
We therefore see that $\widetilde{\delta}_{d,d-1}$ has vanishing local data in degrees $d$ and $d-1$. As above, in the last sum $\sum_{e=1}^{d-2} a_{d-1,e} \left(\sum_{1<s<d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right)\partial_x^e$ all those terms with $d-s \ge e$ do not contribute local data, so we write $\widetilde{\delta}_{d,d-1}$ as the sum of
$$\left(\sum_{s'=0}^d B_{s'}x^{s'}+(-1)^d\sum_{s=0}^{d-1} A_s x^{2d-s}\right)\partial_x^d$$
\vskip8pt
and
$$(-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-1} a_{d,e}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e + (-1)^{d-1} a_{d,d-1}\sum_{e=1}^{d-2} a_{d-1,e}\left(\sum_{s=2}^{d-e} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e$$
\vskip8pt
and
$$(-1)^d \sum_{e=1}^{d-2} (a_{d,e}-a_{d,d-1}a_{d-1,e})\left(\sum_{d-e < s < d} A_s x^{d+e-s}\right) \partial_x^e$$\
\vskip8pt
Now we define
$$\widetilde{\delta}_{d,d-1,d-2} = \widetilde{\delta}_{d,d-1} - (-1)^d (a_{d,d-2}-a_{d,d-1}a_{d-1,d-2})\left( \sum_{2 < s < d} A_sy^{s-2}\right)\partial_y^{d-2} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Continuing in this manner shows that we eventually find $\widetilde{\delta} \;\stackrel{\text{\tiny def}}{=}\; \widetilde{\delta}_{d,\ldots,1} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d})$ which has vanishing local data in all degrees less or equal to $d$, and its projection to $H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal T}_{\mathfrak X}^{\otimes d})$ is equal to $\delta$. This finishes the proof of the injectivity of the map \ref{H1_inj}.
\vskip8pt
(iii) Now we prove the splitting \ref{H1_split}. We start by making the following general remark: if $H_1$ is a subgroup of a finite abelian $p$-group $H$, then $H_1$ is a direct summand of $H$ if (and only if) $pH \cap H_1 = pH_1$.
\vskip8pt
Now let $c_{\le d} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_{\le d})$ be any element and let $[c_{\le d}] \in H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d})$ be its image. Suppose $p[c_{\le d}] = [pc_{\le d}]$ lies in $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d-1})$, and write $[pc_{\le d}] = [c_{\le d-1}]$ for some element $c_{\le d-1} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_{\le d-1})$. Then there is $\delta_{\le d} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d})$ such that $Q_{\le d}(\delta_{\le d}) = pc_{\le d}-c_{\le d-1}$. This is implies that
$$Q_d(\delta_{\le d}) \in H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_d) = \bigoplus_{a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})} \bigoplus_{i=0}^{d-1} \left({\mathbb Z}/p^{d-i}\right) \cdot x_a^i \partial_{x_a}^d$$
\vskip8pt
is such that all its local data in the various groups ${\mathbb Z}/p^{d-i}$ are divisible by $p$. Write $\delta_{\le d} = \delta_d + \delta_{\le d-1}$ with
$$\delta_d = \sum_{s=0}^{d-1}A_sy^s\partial_y^d + \sum_{s'=0}^{d} B_{s'}x^{s'}\partial_x^d \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and with $\delta_{\le d-1} \in H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d-1})$. The local data in degree $d$ of $\delta_{\le d}$ (or, equivalently, $\delta_d$) at $a=\infty$ and $a=0$ can be read off immediately from this expression for $\delta_d$ and it follows that all coefficients $A_s$, $0 \le s \le d-1$, and $B_{s'}$, $0 \le s' \le d$, are divisible by $p$. So we can write $\delta_d = p\delta_d'$, and hence $\delta_{\le d} = p \delta_d' + \delta_{\le d-1}$. We then have $Q_{\le d}(\delta_{\le d}) = pQ_{\le d}(\delta_d')+ Q_{\le d-1}(\delta_{\le d-1})$. From $Q_{\le d}(\delta_{\le d}) = pc_{\le d}-c_{\le d-1}$ we thus get
$$p(Q_{\le d}(\delta_d')-c_{\le d}) = -Q_{\le d-1}(\delta_{\le d-1}) - c_{\le d-1} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Write $Q_{\le d}(\delta_d')-c_{\le d} = c_d+c'_{\le d-1}$ with $c'_d \in Q_d$ and $c'_{\le d-1} \in Q_{\le d-1}$ and we find:
$$pc'_{\le d-1} = -Q_{\le d-1}(\delta_{\le d-1}) - c_{\le d-1} \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and thus $[c_{\le d-1}] = p[c'_{\le d-1}]$. \qed
\vskip12pt
In order to estimate the exponent of $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$ we need the following elementary lemma.
\vskip12pt
\begin{lemma}\label{torsion_gp_quotient} Let $A = {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_r}$ be an abelian torsion group with $0 < n_1 \le n_2 \le \ldots \le n_r$. Let $a \in A$ be an arbitrary element. Then $A/\langle a \rangle$ surjects onto $ {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_{r-1}}$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof. } Write $a = (a_1, \ldots, a_r)$, and choose $i \in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ such that
$${\rm ord}(a_i) = \max\{{\rm ord}(a_j) {\; | \;} j=1, \ldots,r\} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
If now $b = (b_1, \ldots,b_r) \in \langle a \rangle$ is such that $b_i = 0$, then $b=0$. Therefore, the map
$${\mathbb Z}/p^{n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_{i-1}} \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_{i+1}} \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_r} \hookrightarrow {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_r} = A \twoheadrightarrow A/\langle a \rangle$$
\vskip8pt
is injective. Because finite-abelian groups are self-dual (non-canonically), we see that there is a surjection
$$A/\langle a \rangle \twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_{i-1}} \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_{i+1}} \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_r} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
But the group on the right clearly surjects onto ${\mathbb Z}/p^{n_1} \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathbb Z}/p^{n_{r-1}}$. \qed
\vskip12pt
\begin{prop}\label{exist_of_torsion} For any $d \ge 1$ the cohomology group $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))$ contains elements of order $p^e$ where $e = \lfloor \frac{p-1}{p+1}(d+1) \rfloor$. In particular, as $d$ tends to infinity, the exponents of $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))$ and of $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$ tend to infinity.
\end{prop}
{\it Proof. } By \ref{H1_split} we have
$$H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})) = H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1})) \oplus H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Furthermore, $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))$ is the quotient of
$$Q_d = \bigoplus_{a \in {\mathfrak X}({\mathbb F_p})} \bigoplus_{i=0}^{d-1} \left({\mathbb Z}/p^{d-i}\right) \cdot x_a^i \partial_{x_a}^d \simeq \left(\bigoplus_{i=0}^{d-1} \left({\mathbb Z}/p^{d-i}\right)\right)^{\oplus (p+1)}\;,$$
\vskip8pt
cf. \ref{Qd}, by the image of $H^0({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}}^{\otimes d})$ which is a free ${\mathbb Z_p}$-module of rank $2d+1$. Write $2d+1 = k(p+1)+r$ with $0 \le r \le p$, so that $k = \frac{2d+1}{p+1}-\frac{r}{p+1}$. Then, by applying \ref{torsion_gp_quotient} repeatedly we see that $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))$ must be of exponent at least $p^e$ where
$$e = d-k = \frac{p-1}{p+1}d+\frac{r-1}{p+1} = \frac{p-1}{p+1}(d+1)-\frac{p-r}{p+1} = \left\lfloor \frac{p-1}{p+1}(d+1) \right\rfloor \;.$$
\qed
\vskip10pt
\begin{rem} With some more work it should also be possible to explicitly determine the structure of $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$. The filtration techniques in sec. \ref{sec_noetherian} might be helpful in doing so. The appendix \ref{H1_examples} contains some information on the structure of this cohomology group for small $p$ and $d$.
\end{rem}
\vskip12pt
\subsection{$\widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = H^0({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ and $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ is non-torsion}
\begin{thm}\label{main_I_zero} (a) $T_p H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(b) $T_p H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(c) $\widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = H^0({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$.
\vskip8pt
(d) $\widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ contains non-torsion elements.
\vskip8pt
(e) $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ contains non-torsion elements.
\vskip8pt
\end{thm}
{\it Proof. } (a) We have $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) = \varinjlim_d H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$. Using \ref{H1_split} we see that
\begin{numequation}\label{inf_direct_sum}
H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) \simeq \bigoplus_{d=1}^\infty H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})) \;.
\end{numequation}
Because each group $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))$ is a finite $p$-group, the $p$-adic Tate module
$$T_p H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}))$$
\vskip8pt
must vanish.
\vskip8pt
(b) This follows from (a) and \ref{vanishing_R1}.
\vskip8pt
(c) This follows from (b) and \ref{fund_exact_seq_H0}.
\vskip8pt
(d) For $d \ge 1$ put $e_d = \lfloor \frac{p-1}{p+1}(d+1) \rfloor$. Let $c_d \in H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))$ be an element of order $e_d$, cf. \ref{exist_of_torsion}. It follows from \ref{inf_direct_sum} that $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}))$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to $\bigoplus_{d \ge 1} \langle c_d \rangle$. Let $(n_d)_{d \ge 1}$ be an increasing sequence of non-negative integers $n_d \le e_d$ such that $\lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} n_d = \infty$ and $\lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} (e_d-n_d) = \infty$. Then $c = \sum_{d \ge 1} p^{n_d}c_d$ converges in the $p$-adic completion $\widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ of $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$. Moreover, $c$ is clearly not a torsion element.
\vskip8pt
(e) This follows from the fact that the map
$$H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \longrightarrow \varprojlim_k H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = \widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \;,$$
\vskip8pt
cf. \ref{reduction}, is surjective. (The equality sign on the right is \ref{fund_iso_H1}.) \qed
\vskip12pt
\section{Global sections and cohomology of ${\mathscr D}^{(m)}$ on ${\mathfrak X}_1$}\label{level_m}
In this section we consider the sheaves of differential operators ${\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(m)}$ on ${\mathfrak X}_1$ of level $m \ge 0$. For their definition we refer to \cite{PSS2}. The discussion is along the same lines as in section \ref{level_zero}, with a few modifications which we are going to point out as we proceed.
\vskip8pt
\subsection{Comparing the cohomology of ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}$ and ${\mathscr D}^{(m)}$}\label{completion_m}
Let ${\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ be the $p$-adic completion of the sheaf of logarithmic differential operators ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1}^{(m)}$, considered as a sheaf on ${\mathfrak X}_1$. We write ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ for the ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$-module generated by the restriction of ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathbb X}_1}$ to ${\mathfrak X}_1$. The first lemma is exactly as \ref{reduction}.
\begin{lemma}\label{reduction_m} The canonical homomorphism
$$H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \longrightarrow \varprojlim_k H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \;.$$ \qed
\vskip8pt
is an isomorphism for $i=0$ and is surjective for $i=1$. For $i>1$ source and target of this map vanish.
\end{lemma}
And also the next result goes over without any changes.
\begin{prop}\label{fundexseq_m} (a) For all $i \ge 0$ there is a canonical exact sequence
\begin{numequation}\label{fund_exact_seq_m}
0 \rightarrow \widehat{H}^i({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow \varprojlim_k H^i({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow T_p\left(H^{i+1}({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\right) \rightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
(b) For $i=0$ the exact sequence in (a) is
\begin{numequation}\label{fund_exact_seq_H0_m}
0 \rightarrow \widehat{H}^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow T_p\left(H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\right) \rightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
(c) The cohomology group $H^2\left({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}\right)$ vanishes and the exact sequence in (a) gives therefore a canonical isomorphism
\begin{numequation}\label{fund_iso_H1_m}
\widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \simeq \varprojlim_k H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \;.
\end{numequation} \qed
\end{prop}
\vskip12pt
\subsection{Vanishing of ${\rm R}^1{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$}
As above we use the Leray spectral sequence for the blow-up morphism
$${\rm pr}: {\mathfrak X}_1 \longrightarrow {\mathfrak X} = {\mathfrak X}_0 \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Applied to the sheaf ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}$ we get an exact sequence
\begin{numequation}\label{second_ex_seq_m}
0 \rightarrow H^1({\mathfrak X}, {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) \rightarrow H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X},{\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) \rightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
Denote by ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X},d}$ and ${\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}$ the sheaves of differential operators of degree less or equal to $d$. Similar to \ref{filtration} we have an exact sequence
\begin{numequation}\label{filtration_m}
0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1} \longrightarrow {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d} \longrightarrow ({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})^{(m)} \longrightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
For $m,d \ge 0$ we let $q^{(m)}_d$ be defined by $d = q^{(m)}_d p^m +r $ with $0 \le r < p^m$. In the proof of the lemma below we will use
\begin{numequation}\label{divided_power_m}
({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})^{(m)} = \frac{q^{(m)}_d!}{d!} {\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d} \subset
{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d} \otimes_{\mathbb Z_p} {\mathbb Q_p} \;,
\end{numequation}
cf. \cite[3.2]{PSS2}.
\begin{lemma}\label{vanishing_R1_m} (a) For all $d \ge 0$ one has ${\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(b) ${\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(c) $H^1({\mathfrak X}, {\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) = H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$.
\vskip8pt
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof. } (a) This follows as in \ref{vanishing_R1} (a) using \ref{divided_power_m} in the Cech cohomology argument.
\vskip8pt
(b) Follows from (a) by passing to the limit.
\vskip8pt
(c) Follows from (b) and \ref{second_ex_seq_m}. \qed
\vskip12pt
\subsection{The cohomology group $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}))$}
Consider the exact sequence \ref{filtration_m} and the corresponding sequence of direct images on ${\mathfrak X}$
\begin{numequation}\label{fil_direct_im_m}
0 \longrightarrow {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}\Big) \longrightarrow {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}\Big) \longrightarrow {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}\Big) \longrightarrow {\rm R}^1 {\rm pr}_*\Big({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}\Big) = 0 \;,
\end{numequation}
where we have used \ref{vanishing_R1_m} (a). We have
$$H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) = \varinjlim_d H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
We put $\partial_x^{\langle d \rangle_{(m)}} = \frac{q^{(m)}_d!}{d!} \partial_x^d$, and similarly for $\partial_{y}^d$ (and also for $\partial_{x_a}^d$). With this notation we deduce from \ref{transformation} the following
\begin{lemma}\label{transformation_m} Let $x$, $y$ be the standard coordinates on ${\mathbb P}^1$ satisfying $xy=1$. Then we have for any $s \in {\mathbb Z}_{\ge 1}$
$$\partial_y^{\langle s \rangle_{(m)}} = (-1)^s \sum_{t=1}^s a_{s,t}^{(m)} x^{s+t}\partial_x^{\langle t \rangle_{(m)}} \;,$$
\vskip8pt
where for all $s \ge 1$ and $1 \le t \le s$
\begin{numequation}\label{coeffs_formula_m}
a_{s,t}^{(m)} = {s \choose t}\frac{(s-1)!}{(t-1)!}\frac{q^{(m)}_s!}{s!}\left(\frac{q^{(m)}_t!}{t!}\right)^{-1} = {s-1 \choose t-1} \frac{q^{(m)}_s!}{q^{(m)}_t!} \;.
\end{numequation}
These numbers are always integers, and we have, in particular,
$$a_{s,1} = q^{(m)}_s! \hskip6pt \mbox{ and } \hskip6pt a_{s,s} = 1 \;.$$ \qed
\end{lemma}
\vskip8pt
\begin{thm}\label{H1_direct_sum_m} For all $d \ge 1$ the canonical map
\begin{numequation}\label{H1_inj_m}
H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1})) \rightarrow H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))
\end{numequation}
coming from the long exact cohomology sequence associated to
\ref{fil_direct_im_m} is injective and embeds $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}))$ as a direct summand of $H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}))$. Therefore, there is a splitting:
\begin{numequation}\label{H1_split_m}
H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})\right) = H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1})\right) \oplus H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*(({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})^{(m)})\right) \;.
\end{numequation} \qed
\end{thm}
{\it Proof. } The proof proceeds along the lines of \ref{H1_direct_sum} taking into account the following points.
\vskip8pt
(i) The skyscraper sheaf $Q_d^{(m)})$ (resp. $Q_{\le d}^{(m)}$)
is defined, similar as before, as the quotient of $({\mathcal T}_{\mathfrak X}^{\otimes d})^{(m)}$ (resp. ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}^{(m)}$) by ${\rm pr}_*(({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})^{(m)})$ (resp. ${\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}^{(m)})$). By \ref{divided_power_m}, the sheaf $Q_{\le d}^{(m)}$ (resp. $Q_d^{(m)}$) is actually isomorphic to the sheaf $Q_{\le d}$ (resp. $Q_d$).
\vskip8pt
(ii) The subtle part is the proof of the injectivity. As in the proof of \ref{H1_direct_sum} consider an element $\delta$ of $H^0\left({\mathfrak X},({\mathcal T}_{\mathfrak X}^{\otimes d})^{(m)}\right)$ whose image in the group $H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_d^{(m)})$ vanishes. Then we want to lift it to an element $\widetilde{\delta} \in H^0\left({\mathfrak X},{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X},d}^{(m)}\right)$ such that the image of $\widetilde{\delta}$ in $H^0({\mathfrak X},Q_{\le d}^{(m)})$ vanishes. The discussion now proceeds along exactly the same lines as before. The difference is that one has to use the transformation formula in \ref{transformation_m}. This does not affect the arguments because the coefficients $a^{(m)}_{s,t}$ are integral. \qed
\vskip12pt
\begin{prop}\label{exist_of_torsion_m} For any $d \ge 1$ the cohomology group $H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*(({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})^{(m)})\right)$ contains elements of order $p^e$ where $e = \lfloor \frac{p-1}{p+1}(d+1) \rfloor$. In particular, as $d$ tends to infinity, the exponents of $H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*(({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})^{(m)})\right)$ and of $H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}^{(m)})\right)$ tend to infinity.
\end{prop}
{\it Proof. } The proof of \ref{exist_of_torsion} carries over to the case $m>0$. \qed
\vskip12pt
\begin{thm}\label{main_I_m} (a) $T_p H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(b) $T_p H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = 0$.
\vskip8pt
(c) $H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})^\wedge = H^0({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$.
\vskip8pt
(d) $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ contains non-torsion elements.
\vskip8pt
\end{thm}
{\it Proof. } The proof of \ref{main_I_zero} carries over to the case when $m>0$. \qed
\vskip12pt
\subsection{$H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})$ is noetherian}\label{sec_noetherian}
In this section we continue our study of the ring of global sections of ${\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)}$. Similar results should also hold for $H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(m)})$.
\vskip8pt
We first consider the graded ring with regard to the filtration given by the degree, or order, of the differential operators, i.e.,
$$F_d^{\deg}\left(H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})\right) = H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}^{(0)}) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
We denote by ${\rm gr}^{\deg}\left(H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})\right)$ the corresponding graded ring.
\begin{prop}\label{graded_degree_fil} (i) The sequence
$$0 \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(0)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d-1}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(0)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}) \rightarrow 0$$
\vskip8pt
is exact.
\vskip8pt
(ii) There is a canonical isomorphism
$${\rm gr}^{\deg}\left(H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})\right) = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}) = H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})) \;.$$
\end{prop}
{\it Proof. } (i) This follows from the exact sequence \ref{fil_direct_im} and the injectivity of the map
in \ref{H1_inj}, cf. \ref{H1_direct_sum}.
\vskip8pt
(ii) This is an immediate consequence of (i). \qed
\vskip12pt
\begin{para}\label{filtration_on_Sym} We now consider the sheaf of algebras ${\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ on ${\mathfrak X}_1$, and similarly the sheaf of algebras ${\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1})$ on ${\mathbb X}_1$. We have obviously
$$H^0\left({\mathfrak X}_1, {\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})\right) = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}) \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and
$$H^0\left({\mathbb X}_1, {\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1})\right) = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} H^0({\mathbb X}_1,{\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}^{\otimes d}) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
We will be analyzing these sheaves of algebras by considering their direct images on ${\mathfrak X} = {\mathfrak X}_0$ and ${\mathbb X} = {\mathbb X}_0$, respectively. For the moment we will consider the algebraic case and then deduce the corresponding results for the sheaves on the formal schemes.
\vskip8pt
To this end we recall the ideal sheaf ${\mathcal I}_d = {\mathcal I}_{1,d}$ on ${\mathbb X}_1 = {\mathbb P}^1_{{\mathbb Z_p}}$ from \cite{PSS2}. It is locally defined by the ideal $(x_a,p)^d \subset {\mathbb Z_p}[x_a]$, and one has
$${\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}^{\otimes d}) = {\mathcal I}_d {\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_0}^{\otimes d} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
We filter this latter sheaf as follows:
$$p^d{\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_0}^{\otimes d} \subset \ldots \subset
p^{d-i}{\mathcal I}_i {\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_0}^{\otimes d} \subset \ldots \subset
{\mathcal I}_d {\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_0}^{\otimes d} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Next we consider the following filtration $({\mathcal F}_i)_{i \ge 0}$, concentrated in non-negative degrees, on
$${\rm pr}_*\left({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1})\right) = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} {\mathcal I}_d {\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} \;.$$
We put
$${\mathcal F}_0 = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} p^d{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}$$
and for $i >0$ we set
$${\mathcal F}_i = {\mathcal F}_{i-1} + \bigoplus_{d \ge i} p^{d-i}{\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} = \bigoplus_{0 \le d < i} {\mathcal I}_d{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} \oplus \bigoplus_{d \ge i} p^{d-i}{\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} \;.$$
\vskip8pt
\end{para}
\begin{prop}\label{quot_sheaf} For $0 < i \le d$, the quotient of $p^{d-i}{\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}$ by $p^{d-(i-1)}{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}$ is canonically isomorphic to ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb F_p}}(2d-i(p+1))$, considered as a sheaf on ${\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb Z_p} = {\mathbb X}$.
\end{prop}
{\it Proof. } Because ${\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}$ and ${\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}$ are $p$-torsion free, we can write
\begin{numequation}\label{quot} p^{d-i}{\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} / p^{d-(i-1)}{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} \; = \; p^{d-i}\left[{\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} / p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}\right]
\; \simeq \; {\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} / p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} \;.
\end{numequation}
Denote by ${\mathcal Q}$ the quotient on the right of \ref{quot}. Because ${\mathcal I}_i \subset {\mathcal I}_{i-1}$ we get $p{\mathcal I}_i \subset p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}$, and this shows that ${\mathcal Q}$ is $p$-torsion. Furthermore, locally the ideal sheaf ${\mathcal I}_i$ (resp. $p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}$) is defined by the ideal $(x_a,p)^i$ (resp. $p(x_a,p)^{i-1}$). Now consider $(x_a,p)^i/p(x_a,p)^{i-1}$ as an ideal in the quotient ring ${\mathbb Z_p}[x_a]/(p(x_a,p)^{i-1})$. As an ${\mathbb F_p}[x_a]$-module it is naturally isomorphic to the ideal $(x_a^i) \subset {\mathbb F_p}[x_a]$:
$$(x_a,p)^i/p(x_a,p)^{i-1} \stackrel{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} (x_a^i) \subset {\mathbb F_p}[x_a] \;, \;\; (f \mbox{ mod } p(x_a,p)^{i-1}) \mapsto (f \mbox{ mod } p) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
Thus we find that ${\mathcal Q}$ is isomorphic to the product of ${\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb P}^1_{{\mathbb F_p}}}^{\otimes d}$ and the ideal sheaf on ${\mathbb P}^1_{{\mathbb F_p}}$ whose divisor is $\sum_{a \in {\mathbb P}^1({\mathbb F_p})} i \cdot a$. This proves the claim. \qed
\vskip8pt
\begin{para}\label{graded_Sym_sheaf} It follows from \ref{quot_sheaf} that the graded sheaf of algebras on ${\mathbb X}$
$${\rm gr}^{{\mathcal F}}\left({\rm pr}_*\left({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1})\right)\right)$$
\vskip8pt
is isomorphic to
\begin{numequation}\label{graded_Sym} \left[\bigoplus_{d \ge 0} p^d{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}\right] \oplus \bigoplus_{i>0} \left[\bigoplus_{d \ge i} \mbox{ ''}p^{d-i}\mbox{''} \cdot {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb F_p}}(2d-i(p+1)) \right] \;.
\end{numequation}
Here the factor ''$p^{d-i}$'' in front of ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb F_p}}(2d-i(p+1))$ is only a 'formal factor' which has its origin in \ref{quot}. We find it convenient to keep track of it.
\end{para}
\begin{para}\label{fil_H0_Sym} We now consider the induced filtration $(H^0({\mathcal F}_i))_i$ on
$$H^0\left({\rm pr}_*({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}))\right) = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} H^0({\mathbb X},{\mathcal I}_d {\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}) \;.$$
We thus have for $i \ge 0$
$$H^0\left({\mathbb X},{\mathcal F}_i\right) = \bigoplus_{0 \le d < i} H^0\left({\mathbb X},{\mathcal I}_d{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}\right) \oplus \bigoplus_{d \ge i} H^0\left({\mathbb X},p^{d-i}{\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}\right) \;.$$
\vskip8pt
\end{para}
\begin{prop}\label{H0_graded_Sym} (i) The canonical map
$${\rm gr}^{H^0({\mathcal F})}\Big(H^0\Big({\mathbb X}, {\rm pr}_*({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}))\Big)\Big) \longrightarrow H^0\Big({\mathbb X},{\rm gr}^{{\mathcal F}}\Big({\rm pr}_*\left({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1})\right)\Big)\Big)$$
\vskip8pt
is an isomorphism.
\vskip8pt
(ii) The rings
$${\rm gr}^{H^0({\mathcal F})}\Big(H^0\Big({\mathbb X},{\rm pr}_*({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}))\Big)\Big)$$
and
$$\left[\bigoplus_{d \ge 0} H^0({\mathbb X},p^d{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d})\right] \oplus \bigoplus_{i>0} \left[\bigoplus_{2d \ge i(p+1)} \mbox{ ''}p^{d-i}\mbox{''} \cdot H^0({\mathbb X}_{\mathbb F_p}, {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb F_p}}(2d-i(p+1))) \right]$$
\vskip8pt
are canonically isomorphic as graded rings.
\vskip8pt
(iii) The ring
$${\rm gr}^{H^0({\mathcal F})}\Big(H^0\Big({\mathbb X}, {\rm pr}_*({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}))\Big)\Big)$$
\vskip8pt
is noetherian.
\vskip8pt
(iv) The ring
$$H^0\Big({\mathbb X}, {\rm pr}_*({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}))\Big) = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} H^0({\mathbb X},{\mathcal I}_d{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}) = \bigoplus_{d \ge 0} H^0({\mathbb X}_1,{\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1}^{\otimes d}) = H^0\Big({\mathbb X}_1,{\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb X}_1})\Big)$$
\vskip8pt
is noetherian.
\vskip8pt
(v) $H^0({\mathbb X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1}^{(0)})$ and $H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})$ are noetherian rings.
\vskip8pt
(vi) $H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})$ and $H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathscr D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}}^{(0)})$ are noetherian rings.
\end{prop}
{\it Proof. } (i) For $0 < i \le d$ we put ${\mathcal Q} = {\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} / p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}$ and consider the tautological exact sequence of sheaves
\begin{numequation}\label{quot_seq} 0 \rightarrow p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d} \rightarrow {\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d} \rightarrow {\mathcal Q} \rightarrow 0 \;.
\end{numequation}
The assertion in (i) is equivalent to saying that the corresponding sequence of global sections
\begin{numequation}\label{ex_H0}
0 \rightarrow H^0({\mathbb X},p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathbb X},{\mathcal I}_i{\mathcal T}_{\mathbb X}^{\otimes d}) \rightarrow H^0({\mathbb X},{\mathcal Q}) \rightarrow 0
\end{numequation}
is exact too, cf. \ref{quot}.
By \ref{quot_sheaf} we have ${\mathcal Q} \simeq {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb F_p}}(2d-i(p+1))$. Therefore, if $2d -i(p+1) <0$ the sequence \ref{ex_H0} is trivially exact. Now suppose that $2d - i(p+1) \ge 0$. Under this assumption we will show that $H^1({\mathbb X},p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d})$ vanishes. As the sheaves $p{\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}$ and ${\mathcal I}_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}$ are isomorphic, we will work with the latter. Let ${\mathcal I}_{i-1}'$ be the ideal sheaf defined locally by $(x_a^{i-1}) \subset {\mathbb Z_p}[x_a]$. (We recall that the coordinate function $x_a$ vanishes at some lift of $a \in {\mathbb P}^1({\mathbb F_p})$ in ${\mathbb P}^1({\mathbb Z_p})$). This is a subsheaf of ${\mathcal I}_{i-1}$. Let ${\mathcal Q}' = {\mathcal I}_{i-1} {\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}/{\mathcal I}_{i-1}'{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}$ be the quotient. Away from divisor ${\rm div}({\mathcal I}'_1)$ this sheaf vanishes, and it is thus supported on ${\rm div}({\mathcal I}'_1)$, which is affine (it is isomorphic to a disjoint union of $p+1$ copies of ${\rm Spec}({\mathbb Z_p})$). Because the cohomology of ${\mathcal Q}'$ is the same as that on its support (cf. \cite[ch. III, 2.10
]{HartshorneA}), we conclude that $H^1({\mathbb X},{\mathcal Q}') = 0$, as quasi-coherent sheaves on affine schemes have vanishing higher cohomology. Furthermore, we have $H^1({\mathbb X},{\mathcal I}'_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}) = 0$, because ${\mathcal I}'_{i-1}{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d} \simeq {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb X}(2d-(i-1)(p+1))$ and $2d-(i-1)(p+1) >0$. By the long exact cohomology sequence associated to
$$0 \rightarrow {\mathcal I}_{i-1}'{\mathcal T}^{\otimes d} \rightarrow {\mathcal I}_{i-1} {\mathcal T}^{\otimes d} \rightarrow {\mathcal Q}' \rightarrow 0$$
\vskip8pt
we can conclude that $H^1({\mathbb X},{\mathcal I}_{i-1} {\mathcal T}^{\otimes d}) = 0$. This shows that \ref{ex_H0} is also exact when $2d-i(p+1) \ge 0$, and this is what we had to show.
\vskip8pt
(ii) This follows immediately from (i), and \ref{graded_Sym}, and the observation that the sheaf ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1_{\mathbb F_p}}(2d-i(p+1))$ has vanishing global sections when $2d-i(p+1)<0$.
\vskip8pt
(iii) We will assume for simplicity that $p>2$. (Simple variants of the following arguments should also cover the case $p=2$.) By (ii) the ring in question is isomorphic to
\begin{numequation}\label{explicit} \left[\bigoplus_{k \ge 0} p^k H^0({\mathbb X},{\mathcal O}_{\mathbb X}(2k))\right] \oplus \bigoplus_{i>0} \left[\bigoplus_{k \ge 0} \mbox{ ''}p^{i\frac{p-1}{2}+k}\mbox{''} \cdot H^0({\mathbb X}_{\mathbb F_p}, {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb X}_{\mathbb F_p}}(2k)) \right] \;.
\end{numequation}
(Here we have set $d = i\frac{p+1}{2}+k$.) Let $T$ be a generator of the direct summand in degree $(i,k) = (1,0)$. (This summand is a one-dimensional ${\mathbb F_p}$-space.) Furthermore, denote the summand
$$\bigoplus_{k \ge 0} p^k H^0({\mathbb X},{\mathcal O}_{\mathbb X}(2k))$$
\vskip8pt
in degree $i=0$ by $R_0$, which is known to be a noetherian ring. Then it is a simple matter to check that the ring in \ref{explicit} is isomorphic to
$R_0[T]/(pT)$ and is thus a noetherian ring.
\vskip8pt
(iv) This follows from the fact that the filtration $(H^0({\mathcal F}_i))_{i \ge 0}$ is in non-negative degrees, and because, by (iii), the corresponding graded ring is noetherian, cf. \cite[1.6.9]{MCR}.
\vskip8pt
(v) This follows from the fact that the degree filtration $(H^0({\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1,d}^{(0)}))_{d \ge 0}$ is in non-negative degrees, and that by \ref{graded_degree_fil} the corresponding graded ring is the one appearing in (iv), which is noetherian, cf. \cite[1.6.9]{MCR}. We also remark that the two rings in (v) are actually the same.
\vskip8pt
(vi) This follows from (v) and \ref{main_I_zero} (c), cf. \cite[3.2.3, 3.4.0.1]{BerthelotDI}. \qed
\vskip8pt
\begin{rem} The filtration $(H^0({\mathcal F}_i))_i$ on
$${\rm gr}^{\deg}\left(H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})\right) = H^0({\rm Sym}({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}))$$
\vskip8pt
gives rise to a filtration $\tilde{{\mathcal F}}$ on $H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})$ which is a refinement of the filtration by degree, and which has the property that
$${\rm gr}^{\tilde{{\mathcal F}}}\Big(H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{(0)})\Big) = \left[\bigoplus_{k \ge 0} p^k H^0({\mathbb X},{\mathcal O}_{\mathbb X}(2k))\right] \oplus \bigoplus_{i>0} \left[\bigoplus_{k \ge 0} \mbox{ ''}p^{i\frac{p-1}{2}+k}\mbox{''} \cdot H^0({\mathbb X}_{\mathbb F_p}, {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb X}_{\mathbb F_p}}(2k)) \right] \;.$$
\vskip8pt
As we have shown in the proof of \ref{H0_graded_Sym} (iii), this ring is isomorphic to $R_0[T]/(pT)$ with a generator $T$ which is in degree $(i,k) = (1,0)$, cf. the proof of \ref{H0_graded_Sym} (iii) for the notation. The ''$d$-degree'' of $T$ is thus $d^* := \frac{p+1}{2}$. This gives rise to the following vague question. Is there an element $\delta \in H^0({\mathbb X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathbb X}_1,d^*})$ such that $H^0({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathscr D}^\dagger_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ is some kind of completion of ${\mathcal D}^{an}({\mathbb G}(1)^\circ)_{\theta_0}[\delta]$? (Cf. \cite{PSS2} for the relation of this distribution algebra to the global sections of the sheaf of differential operators.)
\end{rem}
\vskip12pt
\subsection{$H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^\dagger_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}})$ does not vanish for $p>2$}
\begin{thm}\label{H1_dagger_not_vanishing} (i) The inductive limit
$$\varinjlim_m \widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \otimes_{\mathbb Z} {\mathbb Q}$$
\vskip8pt
does not vanish when $p>2$.
\vskip8pt
(ii) $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^\dagger_{{\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathbb Q}})$ does not vanish when $p > 2$.
\vskip8pt
\end{thm}
{\it Proof. } (i) Let us consider the transition map
\begin{numequation}\label{transition}\widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(0)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \longrightarrow \widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \;.
\end{numequation}
Using \ref{inf_direct_sum} and its analogues in level $m$, together with \ref{vanishing_R1_m} and \ref{fund_iso_H1_m}, we rewrite
\ref{transition} as
\begin{numequation}\label{transition_explicit}
\left[\bigoplus_{d=1}^\infty H^1({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d}))\right]^\wedge \longrightarrow \left[\bigoplus_{d=1}^\infty H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*(({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})^{(m)})\right)\right]^\wedge \;,
\end{numequation}
where $[-]^\wedge$ denotes the $p$-adic completion of $[-]$. Because of \ref{divided_power_m} we can formally write the right hand side of \ref{transition_explicit} as
$$\left[\bigoplus_{d=1}^\infty \frac{q^{(m)}_d!}{d!} H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})\right)\right]^\wedge \;,$$
\vskip8pt
and the map in \ref{transition_explicit} assumes the following explicit form
$$(c_d)_{d \ge 1} \mapsto \left(\frac{d!}{q^{(m)}_d!} \cdot c_d\right)_{d \ge 1} \;,$$
\vskip8pt
where $c_d \in H^1\left({\mathfrak X},{\rm pr}_*({\mathcal T}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}^{\otimes d})\right)$.
Now let $c_d$ be a cohomology class of order $p^{e_d}$ where $e_d =
\lfloor \frac{p-1}{p+1}(d+1) \rfloor$, cf. \ref{exist_of_torsion_m}.
Denote by $v_p$ the (logarithmic) normalized $p$-adic valuation. Then we have
$$v_p\left(\frac{d!}{q^{(m)}_d!}\right) \le \frac{d}{p-1} - \left(\frac{\lfloor \frac{d}{p^m}\rfloor}{p-1} - \log_p\left(\left\lfloor \frac{d}{p^m}\right\rfloor\right)\right) \le \frac{d}{p-1} - \frac{d}{(p-1)p^m} + \log_p(d)+1\;.$$
\vskip8pt
Let $n_d$ be a non-negative integer, and denote by ${\rm ord}$ the order of an element. Then
$$\begin{array}{rcl} v_p\left({\rm ord}\left(\frac{d!}{q^{(m)}_d!} \cdot p^{n_d} c_d\right)\right) & \ge & \frac{p-1}{p+1}(d+1) - 1 - n_d - (\frac{d}{p-1} - \frac{d}{(p-1)p^m}+\log_p(d)+1) \\
&&\\
& = & \left(\frac{p-1}{p+1} - \frac{1}{p-1} + \frac{1}{(p-1)p^m}\right)d - n_d -\log_p(d)-2\\
&&\\
& = & \left(\frac{p^2-3p}{p^2-1} + \frac{1}{(p-1)p^m}\right)d - n_d-\log_p(d)-2 \;.
\end{array}$$
\vskip8pt
If $p\ge 3$ and if we put, for instance, $n_d = \lfloor \sqrt{d} \rfloor$, $d \ge 1$, then we have, for any $m$,
$$\lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} \left[\left(\frac{p^2-3p}{p^2-1} + \frac{1}{(p-1)p^m}\right)d - n_d -\log_p(d)-2 \right] = \infty \;.$$
\vskip8pt
This means that the sequence of elements $(p^{n_d}c_d)$ defines an element $c$ of $\widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(0)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$, and this element $c$ has the property that its image in any group $\widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$ is non-torsion. The image of $c$ in
$$\varinjlim_m \widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$$
\vskip8pt
will also not be a torsion element.
\vskip8pt
(ii) Because the maps
$$H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathscr D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) \longrightarrow \varprojlim_k H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}/p^k{\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1}) = \widehat{H}^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}^{(m)}_{{\mathfrak X}_1})$$
are surjective, cf. \ref{reduction_m}, the same is true after tensoring with ${\mathbb Q}$ and taking the limit for $m \rightarrow \infty$. \qed
\section{Appendix: computer calculations of $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1, {\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})$}\label{H1_examples}
In the following tables the entry ''$m \times p^n$'' signifies
a direct summand of $H^1({\mathfrak X}_1,{\mathcal D}_{{\mathfrak X}_1,d})$ isomorphic to $({\mathbb Z}/p^n)^{\oplus m}$. These tables were calculated using MAGMA.
\vskip12pt
{\it $p=2$.}
\vskip8pt
$\begin{array}{r|rrrr}
d & \\
1 & 0 &&&\\
2 & 1 \times 2 &&&\\
3 & 3 \times 2 &&&\\
4 & 6 \times 2 &&&\\
5 & 9 \times 2 & 1 \times 2^2 &&\\
6 & 12 \times 2 & 3 \times 2^2 &&\\
7 & 15 \times 2 & 6 \times 2^2 &&\\
8 & 18 \times 2 & 9 \times 2^2 & 1 \times 2^3 & \\
9 & 21 \times 2 & 12 \times 2^2 & 3 \times 2^3 & \\
10 & 24 \times 2 & 15 \times 2^2 & 6 \times 2^3 & \\
11 & 27 \times 2 & 18 \times 2^2 & 9 \times 2^3 & 1 \times 2^4\\
\end{array}$
\vskip12pt
{\it $p=3$.}
\vskip8pt
$\begin{array}{r|rrrrr}
d & \\
1 & 1 \times 3 &&&&\\
2 & 4 \times 3 &&&&\\
3 & 8 \times 3 & 1 \times 3^2 &&&\\
4 & 12 \times 3 & 4 \times 3^2 &&&\\
5 & 16 \times 3 & 8 \times 3^2 & 1 \times 3^3&&\\
6 & 20 \times 3 & 12 \times 3^2 &4 \times 3^3&&\\
7 & 24 \times 3 & 16 \times 3^2 &8 \times 3^3& 1 \times 3^4&\\
8 & 28 \times 3 & 10 \times 3^2 & 12 \times 3^3 & 4 \times 3^4&\\
9 & 32 \times 3 & 24 \times 3^2 & 16 \times 3^3 & 8 \times 3^4& 1 \times 3^5\\
\end{array}$
\vskip12pt
{\it $p=5$.}
\vskip8pt
$\begin{array}{r|rrrrrr}
d & \\
1 & 3 \times 5 &&&&&\\
2 & 9 \times 5 & 1 \times 5^2 &&&&\\
3 & 15 \times 5 & 6 \times 5^2 &&&&\\
4 & 21 \times 5 & 12 \times 5^2 & 3 \times 5^3 &&&\\
5 & 27 \times 5 & 18 \times 5^2 & 9 \times 5^3 & 1 \times 5^4&&\\
6 & 33 \times 5 & 24 \times 5^2 & 15 \times 5^3 & 6 \times 5^4&&\\
7 & 39 \times 5 & 30 \times 5^2 & 21 \times 5^3 & 12 \times 5^4&3 \times 5^5&\\
8 & 45 \times 5 & 36 \times 5^2 & 27 \times 5^3 & 18 \times 5^4&9 \times 5^5& 1 \times 5^6\\
\end{array}$
\vskip12pt
{\it $p=7$.}
\vskip8pt
$\begin{array}{r|rrrrr}
d & \\
1 & 5 \times 7 &&&&\\
2 & 13 \times 7 & 3 \times 7^2 &&&\\
3 & 21 \times 7 & 11 \times 7^2 & 1 \times 7^3&&\\
4 & 29 \times 7 & 19 \times 7^2 & 8 \times 7^3 &&\\
5 & 37 \times 7 & 27 \times 7^2 & 16 \times 7^3 & 5 \times 7^4&\\
6 & 45 \times 7 & 35 \times 7^2 & 24 \times 7^3 & 13 \times 7^4& 3 \times 7^5\\
\end{array}$
\vskip12pt
{\it $p=11$.}
\vskip8pt
$\begin{array}{r|rrrrr}
d & \\
1 & 9 \times 11 &&&&\\
2 & 21 \times 11 & 7 \times 11^2 &&&\\
3 & 33 \times 11 & 19 \times 11^2 & 5 \times 11^3&&\\
4 & 45 \times 11 & 31 \times 11^2 & 17 \times 11^3 & 3 \times 11^4&\\
5 & 57 \times 11 & 43 \times 11^2 & 29 \times 11^3 & 15 \times 11^4& 1 \times 11^5\\
\end{array}$
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Recently, there has been a lot of renewed interest in the structure of $^{12}$C \cite{FreerFynbo}.
The experimental identification of new rotational states of the ground state band \cite{Fourminus,C12}
and the Hoyle band \cite{Twoplus,Fourplus} (see Fig.~\ref{bands}) has stimulated a large theoretical
effort to understand the underlying geometric structure of $^{12}$C. Among others there are studies based
on antisymmetrized molecular dynamics \cite{AMD}, fermionic molecular dynamics (FMD) \cite{FMD},
BEC-like cluster model \cite{BEC}, {\it ab initio} no-core shell model \cite{NCSM}, lattice EFT \cite{EFT},
no-core symplectic model \cite{Draayer} and the Algebraic Cluster Model (ACM) \cite{BI,C12}.
Earlier work on $\alpha$-cluster models includes studies by Wheeler \cite{Wheeler}, Brink \cite{Brink}
and Robson \cite{Robson}. For a recent review on the structure of $^{12}$C, see \cite{FreerFynbo}.
In this contribution, the spectroscopy of $\alpha$-cluster states in $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O is analyzed
in the framework of the Algebraic Cluster Model. It is discussed how the structure of rotational bands
can be used to determine the underlying geometric arrangement of the $\alpha$-clusters and hence to
distinguish between different theoretical approaches of $\alpha$-cluster nuclei.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Bijker_Fig1.eps}
\caption{Rotational $\alpha$-cluster states of the ground-state band, the Hoyle band and
the bending vibration in $^{12}$C \cite{C12}.}
\label{bands}
\end{figure}
\section{Algebraic Cluster Model}
\label{sec-1}
The Algebraic Cluster Model (ACM) is an interacting boson model to describe the relative
motion of the $n$ clusters based on the spectrum generating algebra of $U(\nu+1)$ where
$\nu=3(n-1)$ represents the number of relative spatial degrees of freedom.
For the two-body problem the ACM reduces to the $U(4)$ vibron model
\cite{vibron}, while for three-body clusters it leads to the $U(7)$ model \cite{BI,C12,BIL}.
and for four-body clusters to the $U(10)$ model \cite{RB,O16}.
The spatial degrees of freedom for $n$-body systems are taken as the relative Jacobi
coordinates $\vec{\rho}_k$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\vec{\rho}_{k} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{k(k+1)}}
\left( \sum_{i=1}^{k} \vec{r}_{i} - k \vec{r}_{k+1} \right) ~,
\end{eqnarray*}
with $k=1,\ldots,n-1$, and their conjugate momenta.
Here $\vec{r}_i$ are the coordinates of the $i$-th cluster
($i=1,\ldots,n$). Instead of a formulation in terms of coordinates and momenta the method of
bosonic quantization is used which consists of introducing a dipole boson
($b^{\dagger}_{k}$) for each independent relative Jacobi vector,
and an auxiliary scalar boson ($s^{\dagger}$). The scalar boson does not
represent an independent degree of freedom, but is added under the restriction that the total
number of bosons $N=n_s+\sum_k n_k$ is conserved. This procedure leads to a compact
spectrum generating algebra of $U(3n-2)$ whose model space is spanned by the symmetric
irreducible representation $[N]$ which contains the oscillator shells with
$n_b=\sum_k n_{k}=0,1,2,\ldots, N$. The introduction of the scalar boson makes it possible
to investigate the dynamics of $n-1$ vector degrees of freedom including situations in which
there is a mixing of oscillator shells.
In the application to $\alpha$-cluster nuclei the Hamiltonian has to be invariant under the
permuation group $S_n$ for $n$ identical clusters. For the case of the harmonic oscillator
the construction of states with good permutation symmetry was studied by Kramer and
Moshinsky \cite{KM}. However, since in the ACM the number of oscillator shells can be large
and oscillator shells may be mixed, the wave functions with good permutation symmetry are
generated numerically, and their permutation symmetry is determined by considering their
properties under the interchange of the first two clusters $P(12)$ and the cyclic permutation
$P(12 \cdots n)$ \cite{QTS}.
As a result, the ACM wave functions are characterized by the total number of bosons $N$,
the angular momentum and parity $L^P$ and permutation symmetry $t$. In the case of (identical)
$\alpha$-particles, the wave functions have to be completely symmetric.
\subsection{The Nucleus $^{12}$C}
As a first application, the spectroscopic properties of $^{12}$C are analyzed in the oblate top
limit of the ACM for three-body clusters which corresponds to the geometric configuration of
three $\alpha$-particles located at the vertices of an equilateral triangle \cite{BI,C12}
with ${\cal D}_{3h}$ symmetry. The energy spectrum consists of a series of rotational
bands labeled by $(v_1,v_2^{\ell_2})$, where $v_1$ corresponds to the breathing vibration with
$A$ symmetry and $v_2$ to the doubly degenerate bending vibration with $E$ symmetry;
$\ell_2$ denotes the vibrational angular momentum of the doubly degenerate vibration,
The states are further labeled by the angular momentum $L$, its projection on the symmetry axis $K$,
and the parity $P$.
The structure of rotational bands depends on the discrete symmetry of the vibrations.
For vibrational bands with $(v_1,0^{0})$ and $A$ symmetry, the allowed values of the angular
momenta and parity are $L^P=0^+$, $2^+$, $4^+$, $\ldots$, with $K=0$ and $L^P=3^-$, $4^-$,
$5^-$, $\ldots$, with $K=3$. The three-fold symmetry excludes states with $K=1$ and $K=2$
and leads to the prediction of the existence of a $L^P = 4^\pm$ parity doublet in the
$(v_1,0^{0})$ vibrational band both for the ground band ($v_1=0$) and the Hoyle band ($v_1=1$).
For the bending vibration with $(0,1^{1})$ and $E$ symmetry, the rotational
sequence is given by $L^{P}=1^-$, $2^-$, $3^-$, $4^-$, $\ldots$, with $K=1$,
$L^{P}=2^+$, $3^+$, $4^+$, $\ldots$, with $K=2$ and $L^{P}=4^{+}$, $\ldots$, with $K=4$.
Since in the application to the cluster states of $^{12}$C, the vibrational and rotational
energies are of the same order, one expects large rotation-vibration couplings and
anharmonicities. The large anharmonicities lead to an increase of the rms radius of the
vibrational excitations relative to that of the ground state.
The energy eigenvalues of the oblate top, up to
terms quadratic in the rotation-vibration interaction, are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
E = E_0 + \omega_{1}(v_{1}+\frac{1}{2}) \left( 1-\frac{v_1+1/2}{N} \right) \hspace{1.5cm}
\nonumber\\
+ \omega_{2}(v_{2}+1) \left( 1-\frac{v_2+1}{N+1/2} \right)
+ \kappa_{2} \, (K \mp 2\ell_{2})^{2}
\nonumber\\
+ \left[\kappa_1 + \lambda_{1} \, (v_{1}+\frac{1}{2}) + \lambda_{2} \, (v_{2}+1) \right] L(L+1) ~.
\end{eqnarray*}
This formula includes both the anharmonicities which depend on $N$ and the vibrational
dependence of the moments of inertia \cite{C12}. In Fig.~\ref{carbon} we show a comparison of the
cluster states of $^{12}$C with the spectrum of the oblate top.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm,clip]{Bijker_Fig2.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the low-lying experimental spectrum of $^{12}$C and the energies
of the oblate top \cite{C12}. The levels are organized in columns corresponding to the ground state band
and the vibrational bands with $A$ and $E$ symmetry of an oblate top with triangular symmetry.
The last column on the left-hand side, shows the lowest observed non-cluster ($1^+$) levels.}
\label{carbon}
\end{figure}
For the ground state band of $^{12}$C both the positive and negative parity states have been
observed, including a nearly degenerate doublet of states with $L^P=4^{\pm}$, whereas for the
Hoyle band only those with positive parity have been identified. An interesting open question
concerns the geometric structure of the Hoyle band in $^{12}$C. In order to distinguish between
a bent-arm configuration as suggested in lattice EFT calculations \cite{EFT}, and an equilateral
triangular configuration as in the ACM \cite{C12}, the identification of the negative parity
$3^-$ and $4^-$ states of the Hoyle band is crucial. The selectivity of $\gamma$-ray beams
as well as electron beams could help to populate the states of
interest and resolve the broad interfering states.
The $4^-$ Hoyle state which is predicted to be nearly degenerate with the $4^+$ Hoyle state,
can be measured for example in 180$^\circ$ electron scattering off $^{12}$C \cite{Darmstadt}.
We note that a (broad) $3^-$ state was suggested to lie between 11 and 14 MeV \cite{Fourminus}
which is close to the predicted energy shown in Fig.~\ref{carbon}.
\subsection{The Nucleus $^{16}$O}
A similar analysis of $^{16}$O in the ACM for four identical alpha-particles gives rises to the
rotation-vibration spectrum of a spherical top with tetrahedral symmetry which corresponds to a
geometric configuration of four alpha-particles located at the vertices of a regular tetrahedron.
The vibrational spectrum is labeled by $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$, where $v_1$ corresponds to the breathing
vibration with $A$ symmetry, $v_2$ represents a two-dimensional bending vibration with $E$ symmetry
and $v_3$ a three-dimensional bending vibration with $F$ symmetry. The ground state band and the
breathing vibration consist of states with angular momentum and parity $L^P=0^+$, $3^-$, $4^+$,
$6^{\pm}$, $\ldots$, while vibrational excitations with $E$ symmetry have
$L^P=2^{\pm}$, $4^{\pm}$, $5^{\pm}$, $\ldots$, and those with $F$ symmetry
$L^P=1^-$, $2^+$, $3^{\pm}$, $4^{\pm}$, $\ldots$ \cite{O16}.
Fig.~\ref{oxygen} shows that these rotational sequences are indeed observed in the experimental
spectrum of $^{16}$O.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm,clip]{Bijker_Fig3.eps}
\caption{The observed spectrum of $^{16}$O. The levels are organized in columns
corresponding to the ground state band and the three vibrational bands with $A$, $E$ and $F$
symmetry of a spherical top with tetrahedral symmetry \cite{O16}. The last column shows
the lowest non-cluster levels.}
\label{oxygen}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In conclusion, I discussed the ACM to describe the dynamics of $\alpha$-cluster nuclei with $A=4n$
nucleons. In an application to $^{12}$C, the alpha-particles are located at the vertices of an
equilateral triangle with ${\cal D}_{3h}$ symmetry \cite{BI,C12}, and in $^{16}$O at the vertices
of a regular tetrahedron with ${\cal T}_d$ symmetry \cite{O16}. The rotational sequences consist of both
positive and negative parity states, just as observed experimentally in $^{12}$C \cite{C12} and
$^{16}$O \cite{O16}, and can be considered fingerprints of the underlying discrete symmetry of the
geometric configuration of the alpha-particles. Even though the present contribution is based on a
study of the energy spectrum of $\alpha$-cluster nuclei, it is important to note that an analyisis of
electromagnetic transition rates, form factors and $B(EL)$ values supports the evidence for triangular
symmetry in $^{12}$C \cite{BI,C12} and tetrahedral symmetry in $^{16}$O \cite{O16}.
Other signatures of $\alpha$-cluster configurations may be found in relativistic nuclear collisions
\cite{rnc} and giant dipole resonances \cite{gdr}.
It is hoped that the results of Refs.~\cite{C12} and \cite{O16}, reviewed here, will stimulate
a dedicated experimental research program on the structure of $\alpha$-cluster nuclei in order to shed
new light on the clustering phenomena in light nuclei, in particular on the structure of the Hoyle band.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author wishes to thank Franco Iachello and Moshe Gai for interesting discussions.
This work was supported in part by PAPIIT project IN 107314.
|
\section{Introduction and results}
According to the classical theorem of Helly \cite{DGK}, if every $d+1$-element subfamily
of a finite family of convex sets in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ has nonempty intersection,
then the entire family has nonempty intersection. Although the
number $d+1$ in Helly's theorem cannot be lowered in general,
it can be reduced for some special families of convex sets. For example,
if any two elements in a finite family of axis-parallel boxes in ${\mathbb R}^d$
intersect, then all members of the family intersect, cf. \cite{DG}.
Katchalski and Liu \cite{KL1979} proved the following generalization
of Helly's theorem for the case when not all
but only a fraction of $d+1$-element subfamilies have a nonempty intersection in a family
of convex sets.
\begin{fht}\label{th:fracH}{\rm (Katchalski and Liu~\cite{KL1979})}
Assume that $\alpha \in (0,1]$ is a real number and ${\mathcal F}$ is a family of $n$ convex
sets in ${\mathbb R}^d$.
If at least $\alpha\binom n{d+1}$ of the $(d+1)$-tuples of ${\mathcal F}$ intersect,
then ${\mathcal F}$ contains an intersecting subfamily of size $\frac {\alpha}{d+1} n$.
\end{fht}
The bound on the size of the intersecting subfamily was later improved by Kalai \cite{K}
from $\frac {\alpha}{d+1} n$ to $(1-(1-\alpha)^{1/(d+1)})n$, and this bound is best possible.
In this paper, we study the fractional behaviour of finite
families of axis-parallel boxes, or boxes for short.
We note that the boxes can be either open or closed, our statements
hold for both cases.
Our aim is to prove a statement similar to the
Fractional Helly Theorem.
The intersection graph ${\mathcal G}_{{\mathcal F}}$ of a finite family ${\mathcal F}$ of boxes
is a graph whose vertex set is the set of elements of ${\mathcal F}$, and
two vertices are connected by an edge in ${\mathcal G}_{{\mathcal F}}$ precisely when the
corresponding boxes in ${\mathcal F}$ have nonempty intersection.
Recall that for two integers $n\geq m\geq 1$, the Tur\'an-graph ${\mathcal T}(n,m)$ is a complete
$m$-partite graph on $n$ vertices in which the cardinalities of the
$m$ vertex classes are as close to each other as possible. Let
$t(n,m)$ denote the number of edges of the Tur\'an graph ${\mathcal T}(n,m)$.
It is known that $t(n,m)\leq (1-\frac{1}{m})\frac{n^2}{2}$, and
equality holds if $m$ divides $n$. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{turangraph}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{t(n,m)}{\frac{n^2}{2}}=1-\frac{1}{m}.
\end{equation}
For more information on the properties of Tur\'an graphs see, for example,
the book of Diestel \cite{Diestel2010}.
The following example shows that we cannot hope for a
statement for boxes that is completely analogous to the
Fractional Helly Theorem.
\begin{example}\label{example}
Let $n\geq d+1$ and $m, k\geq 0$ be integers such that
$n=md+k$ and $0\leq k\leq d-1$. Let $n_1,\ldots, n_d$ be positive integers with
$n=n_1+\cdots +n_d$ and $n_i=\lceil\frac{n}{d}\rceil$ for $1\leq i\leq k$ and
$n_i=\lfloor\frac{n}{d}\rfloor$ for $k+1\leq i\leq d$.
For $1\leq i\leq d$, consider $n_i-1$
hyperplanes orthogonal to the $i$th coordinate direction.
These hyperplanes cut ${\mathbb R}^d$ into $n_i$ pairwise disjoint open slabs
$B'_{ij}, j=1,\ldots, n_i$.
Let $C$ be a large open axis-parallel box that
intersects each slab and let ${\mathcal F}_i$ consist of the open boxes
$B_{ij}=C\cap B'_{ij}$.
Define ${\mathcal F}$ as the union of the ${\mathcal F}_i$.
This way we have obtained a family ${\mathcal F}$ of $n$ boxes with the property
that two elements of ${\mathcal F}$ intersect exactly if they belong to different ${\mathcal F}_i$.
The intersection graph of ${\mathcal F}$ is ${\mathcal T}(n,d)$ and thus the number of
intersecting pairs in ${\mathcal F}$ is $t(n,d)$. However, there is no point
of ${\mathbb R}^d$ that belongs to any $d+1$-element subfamily of ${\mathcal F}$. Thus,
\eqref{turangraph} shows that in a fractional Helly-type statement for
boxes, the percentage $\alpha$ has to be greater than $1-\frac{1}{d}$.
\end{example}
Let $n\geq k\geq d$ and let $T(n,k,d)$ denote the maximal
number of intersecting pairs in a family $\mathcal{F}$ of $n$ boxes in
${\mathbb R}^d$ with the property that no $k+1$ boxes in ${\mathcal F}$ have a point in common.
\begin{theorem}\label{turanindex}
With the above notation,
\begin{equation*}
T(n,k,d)<\frac{d-1}{2d}n^{2}+\frac{2k+d}{2d}n.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
It is quite easy to precisely determine $T(n,k,d)$ when $d=1$:
\begin{prop}\label{intervals} $T(n,k,1)=(k-1)n-{k \choose 2}$.
\end{prop}
Theorem~\ref{turanindex} directly implies the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:frac-boxes}
Assume that $\varepsilon>0$ is a real number and ${\mathcal F}$ is
a family of $n$ boxes in ${\mathbb R}^{d}$. If at least
$\left (\frac{d-1}{2d}+\varepsilon \right )n^{2}$ pairs of ${\mathcal F}$ intersect,
then ${\mathcal F}$ contains an intersecting subfamily of
size $dn\varepsilon -\frac{d}{2}+1$.
\end{corollary}
The proof of Corollary~\ref{thm:frac-boxes} is given in Subsection~2.2.
Corollary~\ref{thm:frac-boxes} yields the next theorem, which is our main result.
\begin{fhtb}
For every $\alpha\in (1-\frac{1}{d},1]$ there exists a real number $\beta(\alpha)>0$
such that, for every family ${\mathcal F}$ of $n$ boxes in ${\mathbb R}^d$, if an $\alpha$
fraction of pairs are intersecting in ${\mathcal F}$,
then ${\mathcal F}$ has an intersecting subfamily of cardinality at least $\beta n$.
\end{fhtb}
Kalai's lower bound $\beta(\alpha)=1-(1-\alpha)^{1/(d+1)}$
for the size of the intersecting subfamily in
the fractional Helly theorem yields that if $\alpha\to 1$, then
$\beta(\alpha)\to 1$ as well. The same holds for families of
parallel boxes as stated in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:limit}
Let ${\mathcal F}$ be a family of $n$ boxes in ${\mathbb R}^d$,
and let $\alpha \in (1-\frac{1}{d^2},1]$ be a real number.
If at least $\alpha{n\choose 2}$ pairs of boxes in ${\mathcal F}$ intersect,
then there exists a point that belongs to at least
$(1-d\sqrt{1-\alpha})n$ elements of ${\mathcal F}$.
\end{theorem}
Simple calculations show that Corollary~\ref{thm:frac-boxes} does not
imply Theorem~\ref{thm:limit} so we provide a separate proof for it
in Section~2.
\section{Proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{turanindex}}
It is enough to prove that if no $k+1$ elements of $\mathcal{F}$
have a point in common, then there are at least $\frac{n^{2}-2(k+d)n}{2d}$
non-intersecting pairs. We may assume by standard
arguments that the boxes in $\mathcal{F}$ are all open, so $B\in \mathcal{F}$ is of the form
$B=(a_{1}(B),b_{1}(B))\times \dots \times (a_{d}(B),b_{d}(B))$. We assume
without loss of generality that all numbers $a_{i}(B),b_{i}(B)$ ($B\in \mathcal{F}$)
are distinct. For $B\in \mathcal{F}$ we define $\deg B$ to be the number of boxes in
$\mathcal{F} $ that intersect $B$.
We prove Theorem~\ref{turanindex} by induction on $n$. The starting case $n=k$ is simple
since then $\frac{n^2-2(k+d)n}{2d}<0$. In the induction step $n-1 \to n$ we
consider two cases.
\begin{case} {\em When there is a box $B$ with
$\deg B\leq (1-\frac{1}{d})n+\frac{2k+1}{2d}$.}
By induction, we have at least
$\frac{(n-1)^{2}-2(k+d)(n-1)}{2d}$ non-intersecting pairs after removing $B$ from
$\mathcal{F} $. Since $B$ is involved in at least $(n-1)-\left( 1-\frac{1}{d}\right) n-
\frac{2k+1}{2d}$ non-intersecting pairs, there are at least
\[
\frac{(n-1)^{2}-2(k+d)(n-1)}{2d}-1+\frac{n}{d}-\frac{2k+1}{2d}=\frac{
n^{2}-2(k+d)n}{2d}
\]
non-intersecting pairs in $\mathcal{F}$, indeed.
\end{case}
\begin{case} {\em For every
$B\in \mathcal{F}$ $\deg B\geq (1-\frac{1}{d})n+\frac{2k+1}{2d}$.}
We show by contradiction that this cannot happen which finishes the
proof.
We define $d$ distinct boxes $B_1,\ldots,B_d \in \mathcal{F}$ the following way. Set
$$c_1=\min \{b_1(B): B \in \mathcal{F}\}$$
and define $B_1$ via $c_1=b_1(B_1)$. The box
$B_1$ is uniquely determined as all $b_1(B)$ are distinct numbers. Assume now
that $i<d$ and that the numbers $c_1,\ldots,c_{i-1}$, and boxes
$B_1,\ldots,B_{i-1}$ have been defined. Set
$$c_i=\min \{b_i(B): B \in \mathcal{F}
\setminus\{B_1,\ldots,B_{i-1}\}\}$$
and define $B_i$ via $c_i=b_i(B_i)$ which
is unique, again.
Let $\mathcal{F}^{\prime }= \mathcal{F} \setminus \{ B_1, \dots, B_d\}$. We partition $\mathcal{F}^{\prime
}$ into $d+2$ parts. Let $\mathcal{F}_0$ be the set of all boxes of $\mathcal{F}^{\prime }$ that
intersect every $B_i$. For $i=1, \dots, d$ let $\mathcal{F}_i$ be the set of all boxes
in $\mathcal{F}^{\prime }$ that intersect every $B_j$ for $j \neq i$ but do not
intersect $B_i$. Let $\mathcal{F}^*$ be the set of all boxes of $\mathcal{F}^{\prime }$ that
intersect at most $d-2$ of the $B_i$ boxes. As this is a partition of $\mathcal{F}^{\prime }$ we have
\[
|\mathcal{F}_0| + \sum_{i=1}^{d} |\mathcal{F}_i| + |\mathcal{F}^*| = |\mathcal{F}^{\prime }| = n-d.
\]
Note that $|\mathcal{F}_0| \leq k$ since every box in $\mathcal{F}_0$ contains the point $(c_1,
\dots, c_d)$.
Let $N$ be the number of intersecting pairs between $\{B_1,\ldots,B_d\}$ and
$\mathcal{F}^{\prime }$. Each $B_i$ intersects at least $\deg B_i -(d-1)$ boxes from $\mathcal{F}^{\prime }$ as
$B_i$ may intersect $B_j$ for all $j\in [d], j\ne i$. Since
every $\deg B_i\ge (1-\frac{1}{d})n +\frac{2k+1}{2d}$ we have
\[
d \left ((1-\frac{1}{d})n+\frac{2k+1}{2d} - (d-1)\right ) \le N
\]
Every box in $\mathcal{F}_{0}$ intersects every $B_{i}$, $i\in \lbrack d]$, every box
in $\mathcal{F}_{i}$ intersects every $B_{j}$ except for $B_{i}$ and every box in
$\mathcal{F}^{\ast }$ intersects at most $(d-2)$ of the $B_{i}$. Consequently
\[
N\leq d|\mathcal{F}_{0}|+(d-1)\sum_{i=1}^{d}|\mathcal{F}_{i}|+(d-2)|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }|.
\]%
So we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
d\left( (1-\frac{1}{d})n+\frac{2k+1}{2d}-(d-1)\right) &\leq
&d|\mathcal{F}_{0}|+(d-1)\sum_{i=1}^{d}|\mathcal{F}_{i}|+(d-2)|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }| \\
&=&|\mathcal{F}_{0}|+(d-1)\left( |\mathcal{F}_{0}|+\sum_{1}^{d}|\mathcal{F}_{i}|+|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }|\right)
-|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }| \\
&=&|\mathcal{F}_{0}|+(d-1)(n-d)-|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }|.
\end{eqnarray*}%
Simplifying the inequality and using $|\mathcal{F}_{0}|\leq k$ give
\[
k+\frac{1}{2}\leq |\mathcal{F}_{0}|-|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }|\leq k-|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }|
\]%
implying $|\mathcal{F}^{\ast }|\leq -\frac{1}{2}$, which is a contradiction.
\end{case}
\subsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{thm:frac-boxes}}
If no point of ${\mathbb R}^d$ belongs to $dn\varepsilon-\frac{d}{2}+1$ elements of ${\mathcal F}$, then
by Theorem~\ref{turanindex} the number of intersecting pairs of $\mathcal{F}$ is smaller than
$$\frac{d-1}{2d}n^{2}+\frac{2(dn\varepsilon -\frac{d}{2})+d}{2d}n=\left (\frac{d-1}{2d}+\varepsilon \right )n^{2},$$
which yields a contradiction.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:limit}}
Let $\pi _{i}$ denote the orthogonal projection to the $i$th dimension in ${\mathbb R}^d$, that is,
$\pi _{i}(B)=(a_{i}(B),b_{i}(B))$ for $B\in{\mathcal F}$. Set $\varepsilon
=1-\alpha $. Define $T_{i}=\{\pi _{i}(B):B\in {\mathcal F}\}$; this is a family of $n$
intervals, and all but at most $\varepsilon \binom{n}{2}$ of the pairs in
$T_{i}$ intersect. According to the sharp version of the fractional
Helly theorem (cf. \cite{K}), $T_{i}$ contains an intersecting subfamily $T_{i}^{\prime
}$ of size $(1-\sqrt{\varepsilon })n$, let $c_{i}$ be a common point of all
the intervals in $T_{i}^{\prime }$. Define $D_{i}=\{B\in {\mathcal F}:c_{i}\notin \pi
_{i}(B)\}$. Then $\mathcal{F}\setminus \bigcup_{1}^{d}D_{i}$ consists of at least
$(1-d\sqrt{\varepsilon })n=(1-d\sqrt{1-\alpha })n$ boxes and all of them contain
the point $(c_{1},\ldots ,c_{d})$.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{intervals}}
Let $k\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ be an integer, and let ${\mathcal F}$ be the family of open intervals $(i,i+k)$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,n$. Thus ${\mathcal F}$ consists of $n$ intervals, no $k+1$ of them have a point in common, and there are $(k-1)n-{k \choose 2}$ intersecting pairs in ${\mathcal F}$. Consequently $T(n,k,1)\geq (k-1)n-{k \choose 2}$.
Next we show, by induction on $n$ that $T(n,k,1)\leq (k-1)n-{k \choose 2}$.
Let ${\mathcal F}$ be a family of $n$ intervals such that no $k+1$ of them have a common point. We assume that these intervals are closed which is no loss of generality. The statement is clearly true when $n=k$.
Let $[a,b] \in F$ be the interval where $b$ is minimal.
Since any interval intersecting $[a,b]$ contains $b$, there are at most $k-1$ intervals intersecting
$[a,b]$. Removing $[a,b]$ from ${\mathcal F}$ and applying induction, we find there are at most $(k-1)(n-1)-{k \choose 2}$ intersecting pairs in ${\mathcal F}\setminus \{[a,b]\}$. That is, there are at most $k-1+(k-1)(n-1)-{k\choose 2} = (k-1)n-{k\choose 2}$ intersecting pairs in ${\mathcal F}$.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of this research by the Hungarian-Mexican
Intergovernmental S\&T Cooperation Programme grant T\'ET\_10-1-2011-0471 and NIH
B330/479/11 ``Discrete and Convex Geometry''.
The first and the last authors were partially supported by ERC
Advanced Research Grant no. 267165 (DISCONV), and the first author by
Hungarian National Research Grant K 83767, as well.
The second author was supported by the J\'anos Bolyai
Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
The third author was partially supported by MTM 2012-30719.
The fourth and fifth authors acknowledge partial support form CONACyT under
project 166306 and PAPIIT IN101912.
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{DGK}{article}{
author={Danzer, Ludwig},
author={Gr{\"u}nbaum, Branko},
author={Klee, Victor},
title={Helly's theorem and its relatives},
conference={
title={Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. VII},
},
book={
publisher={Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I.},
},
date={1963},
pages={101--180},
}
\bib{DG}{article}{
author={Danzer, Ludwig},
author={Gr{\"u}nbaum, Branko},
title={Intersection properties of boxes in ${\bf R}^{d}$},
journal={Combinatorica},
volume={2},
date={1982},
number={3},
pages={237--246},
issn={0209-9683},
}
\bib{Diestel2010}{book}{
author={Diestel, Reinhard},
title={Graph theory},
series={Graduate Texts in Mathematics},
volume={173},
edition={4},
publisher={Springer, Heidelberg},
date={2010},
pages={xviii+437},
isbn={978-3-642-14278-9},
}
\bib{EE}{article}{
author={Eckhoff, J{\"u}rgen},
title={A survey of the Hadwiger-Debrunner $(p,q)$-problem},
conference={
title={Discrete and computational geometry},
},
book={
series={Algorithms Combin.},
volume={25},
publisher={Springer, Berlin},
},
date={2003},
pages={347--377},
}
\bib{E}{article}{
author={Eckhoff, J{\"u}rgen},
title={Helly, Radon, and Carath\'eodory type theorems},
conference={
title={Handbook of convex geometry, Vol.\ A, B},
},
book={
publisher={North-Holland, Amsterdam},
},
date={1993},
pages={389--448},
}
\bib{K}{article}{
author={Kalai, Gil},
title={Intersection patterns of convex sets},
journal={Israel J. Math.},
volume={48},
date={1984},
number={2-3},
pages={161--174},
issn={0021-2172},
}
\bib{KL1979}{article}{
author={Katchalski, M.},
author={Liu, A.},
title={A problem of geometry in ${\bf R}^{n}$},
journal={Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.},
volume={75},
date={1979},
number={2},
pages={284--288},
issn={0002-9939},
}
\bib{M}{book}{
author={Matou{\v{s}}ek, Ji{\v{r}}{\'{\i}}},
title={Lectures on discrete geometry},
series={Graduate Texts in Mathematics},
volume={212},
publisher={Springer-Verlag, New York},
date={2002},
pages={xvi+481},
isbn={0-387-95373-6},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The AdS/CFT correspondence between type IIB superstring
on the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ background and the ${\cal N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory \cite{M}
has a rich integrable structure.
On the string-theory side, the Green-Schwarz action on AdS$_5\times$S$^5$
is described as a sigma model on a supercoset $PSU(2,2|4)/[SO(4,1)\times SO(5)]$ \cite{MT}.
Based on the ${\mathbb Z}_4$-grading of the superconformal group $PSU(2,2|4)$\,,
a novel one-parameter flat connection has been constructed \cite{BPR}
(For an argument in the Roiban-Siegel formulation \cite{RS} see \cite{Hatsuda}).
On the gauge-theory side, one-loop dilation operator can be mapped to
the hamiltonian of an integrable spin chain \cite{MZ}. For a comprehensive review, see \cite{review}.
However, the fundamental mechanism underlying the duality is still unclear.
To understand the duality much deeper,
it would be of significance to argue its deformations which preserve the integrability.
The deformations allow us to take various limits by adjusting deformation
parameters and make our understanding much deeper.
A novel prescription to deform principal chiral models was proposed by Klimcik,
which is the so-called {\it the Yang-Baxter sigma models} \cite{Klimcik}.
The key ingredient in this prescription is {\it classical $r$-matrices}
satisfying the {\it modified classical Yang-Baxter equation (mCYBE)}.
Here it is assumed that the $r$-matrices are constant and do not depend on
spectral parameters. If the $r$-matrices are skew-symmetric,
the integrability of the sigma models is preserved.
Then this prescription was generalized to symmetric coset cases by Delduc-Magro-Vicedo \cite{DMV}.
Just after that, they succeeded to construct a $q$-deformed action of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ superstring \cite{DMV2}.
Although in the original formulation, the mCYBE was utilized,
the usual CYBE is also available to describe integrable deformations along a similar line \cite{KMY-Jor}.
Thus one may consider two kinds of integrable deformations of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ superstring\footnote
For another approach to integrable deformations, see \cite{HMS1,S}.
};
\begin{enumerate}
\item integrable deformations from the mCYBE,
\item integrable deformations from the CYBE.
\end{enumerate}
As we will explain later, the difference between them should not be confused.
In the case (i), a typical skew-symmetric constant $r$-matrix
is of the Drinfeld-Jimbo type \cite{Drinfeld1,Jimbo}.
The deformed string action \cite{DMV2} exhibits the quantum group symmetry
${\cal U}_q(\alg{psu}(2,2|4))$ \cite{DMV3}\footnote{For earlier arguments on a $q$-deformed $\mathfrak{su}(2)$
in squashed sigma models, see \cite{KYhybrid,KMY-QAA,KOY}.}.
Thus, this type of deformation might be regarded as a $q$-deformation of
the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ string action.
The metric and NS-NS two-form of the deformed background has been explicitly obtained by \cite{ABF}.
However, completing the full supergravity solutions is still open problem.
There are several related works in this direction.
Some specific limits of the deformation parameter are investigated in \cite{HRT} and \cite{AvT,AdLvT}.
Especially, the relation to the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ mirror models was found in \cite{AvT,AdLvT}.
A fast-moving string limit and its relation to anisotropic Landau-Lifshitz sigma models have been
studied by \cite{Kame}.
A deformed Neumann model was presented by \cite{AM} with a rotating string ansatz
on the deformed AdS$_5\times$S$^5$\,.
Classical string solutions, called giant magnons,
on the deformed background are constructed in \cite{AdLvT,Magnon}.
A new coordinate system is proposed in \cite{Kame2} and minimal surface solutions
have been discussed. Interestingly, it exhibits a BPS-like behavior, while supersymmetries
are $q$-deformed and these are not realized in the usual sense any more.
In the case (ii), on the other hand,
an application for the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ superstring is proposed in \cite{KMY-Jor}.
This case contains Jordanian type deformations \cite{Jordanian,KLM} and
often called Jordanian deformations of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ superstring.
This short article is devoted to give a review of integrable deformations of this type.
As a remarkable feature of the deformations based on the CYBE,
there are several types of $r$-matrices such as
{\it abelian, Jordanian} and {\it abelian-Jordanian} types.
In addition to varieties of the $r$-matrices,
one can consider partial deformations of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ background.
An important question is what the physical meaning of the CYBE-type deformation is.
Our conjecture for this question is that there exists a duality chain which gives the
identical supergravity background defined by the CYBE-type deformation.
In other words, we might interpret the solutions of the CYBE as a moduli space of the
deformations of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ string background.
In fact, based on a series of our works \cite{MY-LM,MY-MR,KMY-SUGRA,MY-TsT,CMY-T11},
we will present some non-trivial examples including the Lunin-Maldacena
backgrounds \cite{LM,Frolov} and the gravity duals of the non-commutative gauge theories \cite{HI,MR}.
More generally, we expect that there exists a correspondence between the classical $r$-matrices satisfying
the CYBE and the deformed type IIB supergravity backgrounds.
We refer to this relation as {\it the gravity/CYBE correspondence} \cite{MY-LM}.
This article is organized as follows.
After recalling the CYBE and classical $r$-matrix in Section \ref{Sec:classical-R},
we introduce a deformed AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ superstring action in Section \ref{Sec:action}.
In Section \ref{Sec:twist}, as a generic property of the CYBE-type deformation,
we will show that CYBE-type deformations may be interpreted as non-local gauge transformations
of the left-invariant one-form.
In Section \ref{Sec:CYBEtograv}, we explicitly derive the deformed metric and
the NS-NS two-form, and present some concrete examples of the
gravity/CYBE correspondence.
We also demonstrate that our deformation technique works beyond the integrability.
As an example, in Section \ref{Sec:T11},
we consider deformations of the AdS$_5\times T^{1,1}$ background.
Section \ref{Sec:concl} is devoted to conclusion and discussion.
\section{Classical $r$-matrix \label{Sec:classical-R} }
In this section, we will give a short review on some properties of the CYBE
and classical $r$-matrices as solutions of the CYBE.
\subsection{Classical Yang-Baxter equation (CYBE)}
Let $\alg{g}$ be a Lie algebra. A {\it classical $r$-matrix} (in tensorial notation)
\[
r=\sum_i a_i\otimes b_i \quad\in\quad \alg{g}\otimes \alg{g}
\]
is defined as a solution of {\it the classical Yang-Baxter equation (CYBE)};
\begin{align}
[r_{12},r_{23}]+[r_{12},r_{13}]+[r_{13},r_{23}]=0\,,
\label{CYBE-ten}
\end{align}
where $r_{12}=r\otimes 1, r_{23}=1\otimes r$ and $r_{13}=\sum_i a_i\otimes 1 \otimes b_i$
with a schematic notation.
The CYBE is regarded as a classical analogue of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (YBE);
\begin{align}
\cR_{12}\cR_{13}\cR_{23}=\cR_{23}\cR_{13}\cR_{12}\,.
\end{align}
Indeed, plugging an expansion \[
\cR_{ij}=1+\hbar r_{ij}+{\cal O}(\hbar^2)
\]
with the YBE, it is easy to derive the CYBE \eqref{CYBE-ten} at ${\cal O}(\hbar^2)$\,.
When there exists a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear two-from
$\langle~,~ \rangle:\alg{g}\otimes\alg{g}\to\mathbb{C}$\,, one can introduce
a linear operator denoted by $R\in {\rm End}(\alg{g})$ by
\begin{align}
R(x) = \langle r,x\rangle_2=\sum_i a_i \langle b_i,x\rangle
\qquad \text{for}\qquad {}^\forall x\in \alg{g}\,.
\label{linear-R}
\end{align}
Here the subscript of $\langle r,x\rangle_2$ stands for the inner product
over the second entry of the tensor.
If the classical $r$-matrix is skew-symmetric $r_{12}=-r_{21}$\,,
the CYBE \eqref{CYBE-ten} is equivalently written as
\begin{align}
[R(x),R(y)]-R([R(x),y]+[x,R(y)])=0 \qquad \text{for}\qquad {}^\forall x,y\in \alg{g}
\label{CYBE}
\end{align}
in terms of the linear $R$-operator.
An important generalization of the CYBE is the
{\it modified classical Yang-Baxter equation (mCYBE)}, that is
\begin{align}
[R(x),R(y)]-R([R(x),y]+[x,R(y)])=-c^2[x,y] \qquad \text{for}\qquad {}^\forall x,y\in \alg{g}\,.
\label{mCYBE}
\end{align}
with a parameter $c\in \mathbb{C}$\,.
The mCYBE is reduced to the CYBE by taking the $c\to0$ limit.
When $\alg{g}$ is a real Lie algebra, the possible non-zero parameters are $c=1$ or $i$
up to rescaling of the $R$-operator; $R\to |c|R$\,.
Depending on these values, the associated $R$-operators are classified into
{\it split} ($c=1$) and {\it non-split} ($c=i$) type, respectively.
The $r$-matrices discussed in \cite{DMV2,DMV3} are of non-split type.
\subsection{Solutions of the Classical Yang-Baxter equation}
In the following, we will introduce some solutions of the (m)CYBE.
In this subsection, we work with $\alg{g}=\alg{gl}(N)$ generated by
$E_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,\cdots,N$ which satisfy the relations;
\begin{align}
[E_{ij},E_{kl}]=\de_{kj}E_{il}-\de_{il}E_{kj}\,.
\end{align}
For $\alg{gl}(N)$\,, the bilinear form used in \eqref{linear-R} is simply given by
the trace of the fundamental representations,
\begin{align}
\langle E_{ij}, E_{kl}\rangle = \Tr(e_{ij}e_{kl}) =\de_{kj}\de_{il}\,,
\end{align}
where $(e_{ij})_{kl}=\de_{ik}\de_{jl}$\,.
\subsubsection{Solutions of mCYBE}
Let us first look at a solution of the mCYBE.
\paragraph{\rm \bf Drinfeld-Jimbo $r$-matrix}
A typical solution of the {\it modified} CYBE is the Drinfeld-Jimbo type solution,
\begin{align}
r_{\rm DJ}=c\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N} E_{ij}\wedge E_{ji}
\label{DJ-ten}
\end{align}
with $c\in \mathbb{C}\backslash \{0\}$ and the notation $A\wedge B=A\otimes B-B\otimes A$\,.
The associated linear $R$-operator is
\begin{align}
R_{\rm DJ}(E_{ij})=\begin{cases} +c E_{ij} & i<j \\ 0 & i=j \\ -c E_{ij} & i>j \end{cases}\,.
\end{align}
The $r$-matrix (\ref{DJ-ten}) with $c=i$ (non-split type) is used for a
$q$-deformation of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ string action \cite{DMV2,DMV3}.
More generally, the Drinfeld-Jimbo $r$-matrix is determined by fixing a borel
subalgebra of $\alg{g}$\,. For instance, the other choices of $r$-matrices
for $\alg{psu}(2,2|4)$ are discussed in \cite{DMV3}.
\subsubsection{Solutions of CYBE}
The next is to consider solutions of the CYBE \eqref{CYBE-ten}.
For linear $R$-operators, see \eqref{CYBE}.
As a remarkable feature, it is possible to restrict $r$-matrices to
a subalgebra $\alg{gl}(M)\subset \alg{gl}(N)$ with $M< N$\,.
For the $r$-matrix of Drinfeld-Jimbo type, such restrictions
are not allowed due to non-vanishing $c^2$-terms on the RHS in \eqref{mCYBE}.
\paragraph{\rm \bf Trivial $r$-matrix}
It is trivial that $r=0$ is a solution of the CYBE \eqref{CYBE-ten}
and it does not deform the original AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ string action, which will be
introduced in next section. However, this fact is a very important
feature of the CYBE-type deformations since it allows us to partially deform AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ background.
Indeed, $R=0$ does {\it not} satisfy the mCYBE \eqref{mCYBE}.
It seems quite difficult to discuss the partial deformations
based on the $r$-matrices satisfying the mCYBE.
\paragraph{\rm \bf Abelian $r$-matrix}
The simplest non-trivial examples are {\it abelian} $r$-matrices,
which are composed of Cartan generators like
\begin{align}
r_{\rm Abe}= E_{ii}\wedge E_{jj} \qquad\text{with}\qquad i\neq j\,.
\end{align}
Any linear combinations of them also satisfy the CYBE.
In terms of the associated linear $R$-operator, it only acts on the Cartan generators;
\begin{align}
R_{\rm Abe}(E_{ii})=-E_{jj}\,, \qquad R_{\rm Abe}(E_{jj})=E_{ii}\,.
\end{align}
\paragraph{\rm \bf Jordanian $r$-matrix}
Slightly non-trivial solutions are the so-called {\it Jordanian} $r$-matrices.
They have non-zero Cartan charges and thus are nilpotent.
The generic expression of them is
\begin{align}
r_{\rm Jor}=E_{ij}\wedge (\al E_{ii}-\be E_{jj})-\ga \sum_{i<k<j} E_{ik}\wedge E_{kj}
\quad \text{with} \quad \begin{cases} \ga=\al+\be & \text{or} \\ \ga=0 \end{cases}
\label{jor-para}
\end{align}
for $1\leq i<j\leq N$\,.
The parameter relations are required to satisfy the CYBE.
Eventually it contains an extra deformation parameter in addition to the overall scaling.
The non-trivial action of the linear $R$-operator is written down,
\begin{align}
R_{\rm Jor}(E_{ji})&=-\al E_{ii} +\be E_{jj}\,, &
R_{\rm Jor}(E_{jk})&= -\ga E_{ik}\,, \\
R_{\rm Jor}(E_{kk})&=(\al\de_{ki}-\be\de_{kj})E_{ij}\,, &
R_{\rm Jor}(E_{ki})&= +\ga E_{kj} \,,
\end{align}
where $i<k<j$\,. Indeed, it is easy to see the nilpotency;
$(R_{\rm Jor})^n=0$ for $n\geq3$\,.
When the parameters in \eqref{jor-para} take special values
$\al=\be=c$ and $\ga=2c$\,, the Jordanian $r$-matrix is obtained
from the Drinfeld-Jimbo $r$-matrix \eqref{DJ-ten} through the
{\it twisting} given by
\begin{align}
[\Delta(E_{ij}),r_{\rm DJ}] = r_{\rm Jor}\qquad \text{with} \qquad
\Delta(E_{ij})=E_{ij}\otimes 1 +1\otimes E_{ij}\,.
\end{align}
\paragraph{\rm \bf Abelian-Jordanian $r$-matrix}
One may also consider $r$-matrices commuting each other and nilpotent.
Such $r$-matrices can be constructed from commuting positive (or negative) generators and
they may be referred as to {\it Abelian-Jordanian type}.
A typical example takes the form
\begin{align}
r_{\rm AJ}=E_{ij}\wedge E_{kl}\qquad \text{with} \qquad
i<j\,, ~k<l\,,~ j\neq k\,,~ i\neq l \,.
\end{align}
The associated linear $R$-operator is given by
\begin{align}
R_{\rm AJ}(E_{lk})=E_{ij}\,, \qquad R_{\rm AJ}(E_{ji})=-E_{kl}\,,
\end{align}
and acts trivially on the other generators.
In this case, the nilpotency is $(R_{\rm AJ})^n=0$ for $n\geq2$\,.
\section{Deformed AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ string action \label{Sec:action}}
In the previous section, we have seen some typical solutions of the CYBE.
Then, let us utilize them to construct deformed string actions on AdS$_5\times$S$^5$\,.
\subsection{Definition of deformed string action}
A method to deform principal chiral models with classical
$r$-matrices was introduced by Klimcik, which is called
{\it the Yang-Baxter sigma models} \cite{Klimcik}.
This technique has been generalized by Delduc-Magro-Vicedo
not only for the bosonic cosets \cite{DMV}
but also the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ string action \cite{DMV2,DMV3}.
The point is that these deformations are based on the Drinfeld-Jimbo
type $r$-matrix satisfying the mCYBE.
In this section, we will give a short review of the models deformed by
classical $r$-matrices satisfying the CYBE \cite{KMY-Jor}.
The deformed action of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ superstring is given by
\begin{align}
S=-\frac{1}{4}(\ga^{\al\be}-\ep^{\al\be})\int^\infty_{-\infty}\!\!\!d\tau\int^{2\pi}_0\!\!\!d\sigma~
\str\left(A_\al d_+\frac{1}{1-\eta R_g\circ d_+} A_\be\right)
\label{action}
\end{align}
where the left-invariant one-form $A_\alpha$ is defined as
\begin{align}
A_\al\equiv g^{-1}\partial_\alpha g\,, \qquad g\in SU(2,2|4)\,.
\label{def-current}
\end{align}
Here we work in the conformal gauge. $\ga^{\al\be}$ and $\ep^{\al\be}$ are the flat metric
and the anti-symmetric tensor on the string world-sheet
normalized by $\ga^{\al\be}={\rm diag}(-1,+1)$ and $\ep^{\tau\sigma}=1$\,.
The dressed operator $R_g$ is defined as
\begin{align}
R_g(X)\equiv g^{-1}R(gXg^{-1})g\,.
\label{Rg}
\end{align}
Noting that both $R$- and $R_g$-operators satisfy the CYBE.
The $R$-operator is related to the tensorial representation of a classical $r$-matrix through
\begin{align}
&R(X)=\str_2[r(1\otimes X)]=\sum_i \bigl(a_i \str (b_iX)-b_i \str (a_iX)\bigr)
\label{linearR} \\
&\text{with}\quad r=\sum_i a_i\wedge b_i\equiv \sum_i (a_i\otimes b_i-b_i\otimes a_i)\,. \el
\end{align}
Since $a_i, b_i$ are $\alg{su}(2,2|4)$-valued, the supertrace $\str$
is needed for $(4|4)\times (4|4)$ supermatrix.
The operators $d_\pm$ are given by the following,
\begin{align}
d_\pm=\pm P_1+2P_2\mp P_3\,,
\label{d}
\end{align}
where $P_i$ ($i=0,1,2,3$) are the projections to the $\mathbb{Z}_4$-graded
components of $\alg{su}(2,2|4)$\,.
$P_0\,,P_2$ and $P_1\,,P_3$ are the projectors to the bosonic and
fermionic generators, respectively.
In particular, $P_0(\alg{su}(2,2|4))$ is nothing but $\alg{so}(1,4)\oplus\alg{so}(5)$\,,
which is a local symmetry of the action \eqref{action}.
It is noted that the kappa-symmetry of this model is also proved
without specifying the form of classical $r$-matrix \cite{KMY-Jor}
and its derivation is similar to the $q$-deformed case \cite{DMV2}.
\medskip
\subsection{The light-cone expression}
For later arguments, we will rewrite the action \eqref{action}
in terms of the light-cone coordinates; $x^\pm=(\tau\pm \sigma)/2$\,.
Then, the light-cone currents are given by
\begin{align}
A_\pm = A_\tau \pm A_\sigma\,.
\end{align}
It is also convenient to introduce the deformed light-cone currents
as follows;
\begin{align}
J_\pm\equiv \frac{1}{1\mp \eta R_g\circ d_\pm} A_\pm\,.
\label{Jpm}
\end{align}
With these notations, the Lagrangian \eqref{action} is now simply written as
\begin{align}
L=\tfrac{1}{4}\str\left(A_-d_+(J_+)\right)=\tfrac{1}{4}\str\left(A_+d_-(J_-)\right)\,.
\label{action-lc}
\end{align}
It is also noted that, by solving the relation \eqref{Jpm} with respect to $A_\pm$\,,
the Lagrangian has {\it dipole-like} expressions as follows;
\begin{align}
L&=\tfrac{1}{4}\str\left[J_+d_-(J_-)\right] -\tfrac{\eta}{4} \str\left[d_+(J_+)R_g (d_-(J_-))\right] \\
&=\tfrac{1}{4}\str\left[J_-d_+(J_+)\right] +\tfrac{\eta}{4} \str\left[d_+(J_+)R_g (d_-(J_-))\right] \,.
\end{align}
\subsection{On-shell flat current}
The equation of motion of Lagrangian \eqref{action-lc} is given by
\begin{align}
{\cal E}\equiv \partial_-d_+(J_+)+\partial_+d_-(J_-) +[J_-,d_+(J_+)]+[J_+,d_-(J_-)]=0\,.
\label{eom}
\end{align}
By the definition of the current $A_\pm$ in \eqref{def-current}\,,
it satisfies the zero-curvature condition,
\begin{align}
{\cal Z}\equiv \partial_+A_- - \partial_-A_+ +[A_+,A_-]=0\,.
\label{zero-curv}
\end{align}
Rewriting ${\cal Z}$ in terms of the deformed current \eqref{Jpm}\,,
we obtain the following expression,
\begin{align}
{\cal Z}&=\partial_+J_- - \partial_-J_+ +[J_+,J_-] +\eta R_g({\cal E}) +\eta^2 {\rm CYBE}(d_+(J_+),d_-(J_-))\,,
\end{align}
where we have denoted the LHS of the CYBE \eqref{CYBE} with the dressed $R_g$-operator by
\begin{align}
{\rm CYBE}(X,Y)\equiv [R_g(X),R_g(X)]-R_g\bigl([R_g(X),Y]+[X,R_g(Y)]\bigr)\,,
\end{align}
which vanishes when $R$ satisfies the CYBE\footnote
If the $R$-operator satisfies the mCYBE rather than the CYBE,
the condition \eqref{zero-curv} is modified as \cite{DMV2}
\begin{align}
{\cal Z}=\partial_+J_- - \partial_-J_+ +[J_+,J_-] +\eta R_g({\cal E})+\eta^2[d_+(J_+),d_-(J_-)]\,.
\end{align}
Thus, the deformed current $J_\mu$ is no longer flat even if the equation of motion is satisfied.
}.
This relation implies that the deformed current $J_\pm$ is also
flat current if the equation of motion is satisfied ${\cal E}=0$\,.
In this sense, $J_\pm$ is an {\it on-shell} flat current.
\subsection{Lax pairs}
We are ready to introduce the Lax pair for the deformed string action \eqref{action-lc}\,.
They are given by\footnote
If the case of the Drinfeld-Jimbo type deformation, the Lax pair is given by \cite{DMV2}
\begin{align}
\cL_\pm\equiv J_\pm^{(0)}+\la\sqrt{1+\eta^2} J_\pm^{(1)}
+\la^{\pm2}\frac{1+\eta^2}{1-\eta^2}J_\pm^{(2)}+\la^{-1}\sqrt{1+\eta^2}J_\pm^{(3)}\,.
\end{align}
}
\begin{align}
\cL_\pm\equiv J_\pm^{(0)}+\la J_\pm^{(1)}+\la^{\pm2}J_\pm^{(2)}+\la^{-1}J_\pm^{(3)}\,,
\label{Lax}
\end{align}
with a spectral parameter $\la\in \mathbb{C}$\,,
where the $\mathbb{Z}_4$-grading is denoted by
$J_\pm^{(k)}\equiv P_k(J_\pm)$ for $k=0,1,2,3$\,.
Then, the equation of motion \eqref{eom} and flatness condition \eqref{zero-curv}
are equivalent with the zero-curvature condition of the Lax pair;
\begin{align}
\partial_+\cL_- - \partial_-\cL_+ +[\cL_+,\cL_-] =0\,.
\end{align}
Thus, the deformed string action \eqref{action-lc} is classically integrable in the sense that
the Lax pair exists.
\section{CYBE deformation as non-local gauge transformation \label{Sec:twist}}
As a remarkable feature of the CYBE-type deformation,
we will show that the deformed current $J_\pm$ in \eqref{Jpm} is obtained as a consequence
of a non-local gauge transformation from the undeformed current $A_\pm=g^{-1}\partial_\pm g$\,.
More precisely, the deformed current can be expressed as
\begin{align}
J_\pm=\tilde g^{-1} \partial_\pm \tilde g\,,
\label{ren-J}
\end{align}
where a group element $\tilde g$ is related to the undeformed one $g$
by a {\it twist operator} $\cF$ like
\begin{align}
\tilde g = \cF^{-1} g \,.
\end{align}
As we will see here, such an operator $\cF$ does exist when
the $R$-operator satisfies the CYBE.
\subsection{Twist operator }
To construct the operator $\cF$\,, let us consider the following gauge transformation of $J_\pm$\,:
\begin{align}
J_\pm^g\equiv g J_\pm g^{-1}-\partial_\pm g g^{-1}
\qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad
\partial_\pm+ J_\pm^g =g (\partial_\pm+ J_\pm)g^{-1}\,.
\label{GT1}
\end{align}
The current $J_\pm$ is also flat when equation of motion
is satisfied. Hence the resulting current $J_\pm^g$ is obviously flat
and explicitly computed as
\begin{align}
J_\pm^g=g (J_\pm -A_\pm )g^{-1}
=g\left(\frac{\pm\eta R_g\circ d_\pm }{1\mp \eta R_g\circ d_\pm}A_\pm\right)g^{-1}
=\pm\eta R\left(gd_\pm(J_\pm)g^{-1}\right)\,.
\end{align}
The flatness of $J_\pm^g$ can be seen as a consistency condition of auxiliary linear problem;
\begin{align}
\partial_\tau \cF &= -J_\tau^g \cF\,, \el \\
\partial_\sigma \cF &= -J_\sigma^g \cF \,,
\label{lin-pro}
\end{align}
where $\cF\equiv \cF(\sigma,\tau)$ is a $(4|4)\times (4|4)$ matrix.
This problem is formally solved up to world-sheet boundary term $\cF(0,\tau)$ as follows;
\begin{align}
\cF(\sigma,\tau) = \pexp \left[-\int_0^\sigma \!\! d\sigma \, J_\sigma^g \right] \cF(0,\tau)\,.
\end{align}
The equations \eqref{lin-pro} allow us to express the current $J_\pm^g$ as
\begin{align}
J_\pm^g=-\partial_\pm \cF \cF^{-1}\,.
\end{align}
Combining the gauge transformation \eqref{GT1} and the above relation,
we notice that the deformed current $J_\pm$ could be casted into the following nice form,
\begin{align}
J_\pm =g^{-1} J_\pm^g g +A_\pm
=-g^{-1} \partial_\pm \cF \cF^{-1} g +g^{-1}\partial_\pm g
=(\cF^{-1}g)^{-1}\partial_\pm(\cF^{-1}g) \,.
\end{align}
This expression is nothing but the desired form \eqref{ren-J} with
$\tilde g\equiv \cF^{-1}g$\,.
Furthermore, by introducing the difference between $g$ and $\tilde g$ as
\begin{align}
\cG\equiv \tilde{g}^{-1} g= g^{-1} \cF g \,,
\end{align}
we notice that the deformed current $J_\pm$ is directly obtained
from $A_\pm$ by the following non-local gauge transformation;
\begin{align}
J_\pm= \cG A_\pm \cG^{-1}-\partial_\pm \cG \cG^{-1}
\qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad
\partial_\pm+J_\pm=\cG (\partial_\pm+A_\pm)\cG^{-1}\,.
\end{align}
\subsection{Conserved current}
The conserved current for the deformed model is easily
obtained by the equation of motion \eqref{eom}\,.
To find out the conserved current, we introduce
\begin{align}
\Lambda^\al\equiv 2\ga^{\al\be} J_\be^{(2)}+\ep^{\al\be}(J_\be^{(1)}-J_\be^{(3)})\,.
\end{align}
Then, by using this quantity, the projected current is expressed as
\begin{align}
d_\pm(J_\pm)=\Lambda^\tau\pm \Lambda^\sigma\,.
\end{align}
The equation of motion \eqref{eom} is now written as
\begin{align}
{\cal E}=-2\left(\partial_\al\Lambda^\al+[J_\al,\Lambda^\al] \right)=0\,.
\end{align}
This relation leads us to define the following conserved current
\begin{align}
k^\al\equiv \tilde g \Lambda^\al \tilde g^{-1}\,.
\end{align}
In fact, the conservation law $\partial_\al k^{\al}=0$ immediately follows from
the expression \eqref{ren-J}.
Here it is worth giving some comments on the symmetry algebra of the conserved charges.
Firstly, we should note that the quantities $\oint k^\al$ are not conserved
in general due to the twisted boundary condition.
Thus, to construct the conserved charges, it would be necessary to suppose the
infinitely extended world-sheet with boundary conditions;
\begin{align}
g\to {\rm const.} \qquad \text{when} \qquad \sigma\to \pm \infty\,.
\end{align}
With these asymptotic boundary conditions, the conserved charges can be defined as
\begin{align}
Q^\al\equiv \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \!\! d\sigma k^{\al} \,.
\label{charge}
\end{align}
One may expect that the resulting symmetry algebra would be the undeformed $\alg{psu}(2,2|4)$\,.
It is, however, quite sensitive to the choice of the constant matrix $K$ which appears in
\begin{align}
\cF(\sigma,\tau) = \pexp \left[-\int_{-\infty}^\sigma \!\! d\sigma \, J_\sigma^g \right] K\,.
\end{align}
Indeed, we have a degree of freedom to multiplying such a constant matrix in the linear
problem \eqref{lin-pro}. This matrix corresponds to boundary conditions of the string world-sheet.
The conserved current is transformed as
\begin{align}
k^\al\to K k^\al K^{-1} \qquad \text{under} \qquad \cF\to\cF K \,.
\end{align}
Then, it triggers the mixing of the conserved charges defined in \eqref{charge}.
In fact, in the case of three-dimensional Schr\"odinger spacetimes,
a suitable choice of the $K$-matrix brings a $q$-deformed Poincar\'e
algebra \cite{Ohn, KY-Sch} and the associated infinite dimensional algebra (called
an {\it exotic symmetry} \cite{KY-exotic}) into a standard ${\cal U}(\alg{sl}(2))$ and
a Yangian symmetry ${\cal Y}(\alg{sl}(2))$ \cite{KMY-Jor3d}.
\section{From CYBE to deformations of AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ \label{Sec:CYBEtograv}}
The deformed action \eqref{action} is rather algebraic
and hence it is not so obvious to deduce the background metric.
We demonstrate here how to read off the metric
and the NS-NS two-form from the deformed action.
Then we present some examples of the gravity/CYBE correspondence.
To read off the metric and NS-NS two-form, it is sufficient to see the bosonic part of the deformed action.
Firstly, we need to introduce the coordinate system $x^i$ of AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ via a parameterization
of the group element;
\begin{align}
g=\exp\bigl(\textstyle{\sum_i} x^i T_i\bigr) \quad \in \quad SU(2,2)\otimes SU(4)\,,
\end{align}
where $T^i$ belong to the fundamental representation of $\alg{su}(2,2)\oplus\alg{su}(4)$\,.
The coordinate system $x^i$ may be the Poincar\'e coordinates or
the global coordinates, depending on the purpose.
In the practical computation, it is often useful to utilize gamma-matrices as the generators $T_i$\,.
Secondary, plugging the projector \eqref{d} with \eqref{action},
the bosonic part of the Lagrangian reads
\begin{align}
L=-\frac{1}{2}(\ga^{\al\be}-\ep^{\al\be}) \Tr[A_\al P_2(J_\be)]
\qquad \text{with} \qquad
J_\be=\frac{1}{1-2\eta R_g\circ P_2}A_\be \,.
\label{bosL}
\end{align}
The metric and NS-NS two-forms are obtained as the symmetric and
skew-symmetric part with respect to the world-sheet
coordinates in the above expression, respectively.
Then, the remaining is to evaluate the projected deformed bosonic current $P_2(J_\be)$
in \eqref{bosL} explicitly.
This is easily done by multiplying $P_2\circ (1-2\eta R_g\circ P_2)$ on $J_\be$ and
the following form is obtained,
\begin{align}
(1-2\eta P_2\circ R_g )P_2(J_\be) = P_2(A_\be) \,.
\end{align}
The above relation may be regarded as the definition of $P_2(J_\be)$\,.
This relation takes the value on
$\alg{su}(2,2)\oplus\alg{su}(4)$\,, but the
projector $P_2$ reduces the number of the linearly independent relations
just to $10=5+5=\dim$(AdS$_5\times$S$^5$)\,.
In particular, when a deformation of either AdS$_5$ or
S$^5$ is considered, only five linear relations are concerned with the analysis.
\subsection{Examples \label{Subsec:exam}}
We will present some examples of deformed backgrounds, which are obtained from
typical solutions of the CYBE (explained in Section \ref{Sec:classical-R})\footnote{
We set that $\eta=1$ in \eqref{bosL} here.}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\label{table} A catalog of the gravity/CYBE correspondence.
Here we list some typical examples of classical $r$-matrices and
the associated gravity backgrounds, which are
explained in the Subsection \ref{Subsec:exam} and Section \ref{Sec:T11}. }
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcl}
\br
Classical $r$-matrices & $\to$\quad & Deformed gravity solutions \\
\mr
Trivial: $r=0$ && AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ \cite{MT} \\
Jordanian: $r_{\rm Jor}=E_{24}\wedge (E_{22}-E_{44})$ & & Melvin twists \cite{HRR} \\
Abelian: $r_{\rm Abe}=h_1\wedge h_2$ with $h_i\in \alg{su}(4)$ & & $\gamma_i$-deformations of S$^5$ \cite{LM,Frolov} \\
Abelian: $r_{\rm Abe}=h_1\wedge h_2$ with $h_i\in \alg{su}(2,2)$& & $\gamma_i$-deformations of AdS$_5$
\cite{MS,DHH,STV,Kul} \\
Abelian Jordanian: $r_{\rm AJ} = p_1\wedge p_2$ & & Gravity duals for NC Yang-Mills \cite{HI,MR} \\
\mr
Abelian: $r_{\rm Abe}=K_3\wedge L_3$ & & $\gamma_i$-deformations of $T^{1,1}$ \cite{LM,CO} \\
\br
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Three parameter $\hat\ga_i$-deformation of S$^5$}
Firstly, let us consider an abelian classical $r$-matrix with $\alg{su}(4)$\,,
which consists of the three Cartan generators $h_1,h_2,h_3$\,;
\begin{align}
r_{\rm Abe}=\frac{1}{8}(\hat\ga_3 h_1\wedge h_2+\hat\ga_1 h_2\wedge h_3+\hat\ga_2 h_3\wedge h_1 )\,,
\label{abe-S5}
\end{align}
where $\hat\ga_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are deformation parameters.
This $r$-matrix deforms only the S$^5$ part.
The resulting metric and NS-NS two-forms turn out to be \cite{MY-LM}
\begin{align}
ds^2 &= ds^2_{\rm AdS_5} + \sum_{i=1}^3(d\rho_i^2+G \rho_i^2d\phi_i^2)
+ G \rho_1^2\rho_2^2\rho_3^2 \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^3\hat{\ga}_i d\phi_i\Bigr)^2 \,,
\\
B_2 &= G \left(
\hat{\ga}_3\rho_1^2\rho_2^2\,d\phi_1\wedge d\phi_2 + \hat{\ga}_1\rho_2^2\rho_3^2\,d\phi_2\wedge d\phi_3
+ \hat{\ga}_2\rho_3^2\rho_1^2\,d\phi_3\wedge d\phi_1 \right) \,,
\end{align}
where $\rho_i$ satisfy the following constraints and the scalar function
$G$ is defined by
\begin{align}
\rho_1^2+\rho_2^2+\rho_3^2 =1\,, \qquad
G^{-1} \equiv 1 + \hat{\ga}_3^2\rho_1^2\rho_2^2 + \hat{\ga}_1^2\rho_2^2\rho_3^2 + \hat{\ga}_2^2\rho_3^2\rho_1^2\,.
\end{align}
These backgrounds agree with the well-known three-parameter $\hat\ga_i$-deformations of S$^5$ \cite{LM,Frolov}.
In particular, it reduces to the Lunin-Maldacena case \cite{LM} when $\hat\ga_1=\hat\ga_2=\hat\ga_3$\,.
As pointed out in \cite{Frolov}, these deformed backgrounds are reproduced by performing TsT transformations
(which is a sequence of two T-dualities and a shift).
\subsubsection{Gravity duals for noncommutative gauge theories}
The next example is an abelian Jordanian classical $r$-matrix with $\alg{su}(2,2)=\alg{so}(2,4)$\,;
\begin{align}
r_{\rm AJ}=\frac{1}{2}\bigl(a^2 p_2\wedge p_3+a'^2 p_0\wedge p_1 \bigr)\,.
\end{align}
Here $p_\mu$ are translation generators of the conformal algebra
and commute each other $[p_\mu,p_\nu]=0$\,.
Thus, it trivially satisfies the CYBE.
The explicit matrix representations of $p_\mu$ are given in \cite{MY-MR}.
It is noted that this $r$-matrix only deforms the AdS$_5$ part.
The resulting metric and NS-NS two-form in the Poincar\'e coordinates are \cite{MY-MR}
\begin{align}
ds^2 &= \frac{z^2 }{z^4-4a'^4}(-(dx^0)^2 + (dx^1)^2)+\frac{z^2 }{z^4+4a^4}((dx^2)^2 + (dx^3)^2)
+\frac{dz^2}{z^2}+ds_{{\rm S}^5}^2\,, \\
B_2&=-\frac{a'^2}{z^4 - a'^4 }dx^0\wedge dx^1 +\frac{a^2}{z^4 + a^4}dx^2\wedge dx^3\,.
\end{align}
These completely agree with the gravity duals for non-commutative gauge theories \cite{HI, MR}.
It is worth mentioning that the classical integrability of this background
automatically follows from our formulation as a byproduct. It is because the Lax pair has already been
constructed in a generic form \eqref{Lax}.
One may also consider abelian twists of AdS$_5$ rather than S$^5$\,.
For this purpose, one can simply adopt the abelian $r$-matrix consisting of
the Cartan generators in $\alg{su}(2,2)$ instead of \eqref{abe-S5}.
The resulting metric and NS-NS two-form agree with \cite{MS} and also
include \cite{DHH} as a particular case, which is obtained by means of a Melvin twist.
\subsubsection{New backgrounds from Jordanian $r$-matrix}
We can also consider new integrable backgrounds which are obtained by
Jordanian $r$-matrices such as \eqref{jor-para}.
For instance, it is easy to see that the following $r$-matrix satisfies the CYBE,
\begin{align}
r_{\rm Jor}=E_{24}\wedge (\ga E_{22}-\ga^* E_{44})
\qquad \text{with} \qquad \ga\in \mathbb{C}\,,
\label{jor-r}
\end{align}
where $(E_{ij})_{kl}=\de_{ik}\de_{jl}$ are the fundamental representations of $\alg{su}(2,2)$
and $\ga^*$ denotes the complex conjugate of $\ga\in \mathbb{C}$\,.
The resulting metric of AdS$_5$ and NS-NS two-form turn out to be \cite{MY-TsT,KMY-Jor}\,,
\begin{align}
ds^2&=\frac{-2dx^+dx^- +(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+dz^2}{2 z^2}
-\frac{|\ga|^2 \bigl((x^1)^2 +(x^2)^2\bigr)+({\rm Re}\ga)^2z^2 }{2 z^6}(dx^+)^2\,, \el \\
B_2&=-{\rm Re}\ga \frac{ \bigl(x^1dx^1+x^2dx^2+zdz\bigr)\wedge dx^+}{2z^4}
+{\rm Im}\ga\frac{\bigl(x^2 dx^1-x^1 dx^2\bigr)\wedge dx^+}{2z^4}\,.
\label{Jor-bg}
\end{align}
It is noted that both the metric and the NS-NS two-form are real even though
the Jordanian $r$-matrix itself \eqref{jor-r} does depend on a complex deformation parameter $\ga$\,.
When the parameter $\ga$ is real, the deformed background was computed in \cite{KMY-Jor}
and the complete type IIB supergravity solutions are constructed in \cite{KMY-SUGRA}.
In the case that $\ga$ is a pure imaginary, the above backgrounds reduce to
the one obtained by means of a {\it null Melvin twist} \cite{HRR}.
Furthermore, for a generic complex parameter $\ga$\,,
the deformed backgrounds \eqref{Jor-bg} are obtained from the undeformed
AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ by a chain of T-dualities and S-duality \cite{MY-TsT}.
This strongly suggests that the Yang-Baxter sigma model with the Jordanian
$r$-matrix \eqref{jor-r} gives rise to a consistent string background.
\section{An application to a non-integrable background \label{Sec:T11}}
So far, we have concentrated on deformations of the AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ case.
The AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ background is known as an integrable background
because the metric can be represented by a supercoset with the $\mathbb{Z}_4$-grading \cite{BPR}.
An interesting question is whether or not our deformation technique is applicable to
non-integrable backgrounds. In the recent progress,
many examples of non-integrable backgrounds have been discovered.
Among them, we will consider type IIB string theory on the AdS$_5\times T^{1,1}$ background.
This theory is known to be dual for the ${\cal N}=1$ superconformal field theory
in four dimensions \cite{KW}.
The non-integrability of this background is shown in \cite{BZ} by presenting the existence of chaotic string solutions.
The next issue that we would like to consider is deformations of this background
by utilizing the Yang-Baxter sigma model approach.
Interestingly, it turns out that it successfully works even for this non-integrable background \cite{CMY-T11}.
The point is that, to apply the Yang-Baxter sigma model description,
the parent background needs to be represented by a coset, although it is not necessary to be symmetric.
\subsection{A coset construction of $T^{1,1}$}
Let us consider the $T^{1,1}$ part of the AdS$_5\times T^{1,1}$ background.
The first step to consider CYBE-type deformations of $T^{1,1}$ is to find out a coset construction.
A five-dimensional Sasaki-Einstein manifold $T^{1,1}$ is represented by a $U(1)$-fibration
over $S^2\times S^2$ and it has a coset structure like $[SU(2)\times SU(2)]/U(1)$ as denoted in
\cite{CD, Gauntlett:2004yd}.
This coset description, however, does not leads the correct metric of $T^{1,1}$
without suitable rescalings of vierbeins \cite{R,Castellani:1983tb}.
For our purpose, we would like to avoid the rescaling because the dressed $R$-operator
\eqref{Rg} depends on a group element $g$ itself.
In order to overcome this difficulty, we found another coset description of $T^{1,1}$\,.
With this coset, it is not necessary to perform any rescaling so as to obtain the $T^{1,1}$ metric.
The coset description we found in \cite{CMY-T11} is given by
\begin{align}
T^{1,1}=\frac{SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_R}{U(1)_1\times U(1)_2}\,.
\label{T11-coset}
\end{align}
With this description, the manifold obviously has the $SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_R$
symmetry, where $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ and
$U(1)_R$ correspond to a flavor symmetry and
an R-symmetry in the dual gauge theory, respectively.
Let $T_i$ ($i=1,2$) be the generators of two $U(1)_i$'s in the denominator.
Then, the two $U(1)_i$'s are embedded into the numerator as
\begin{align}
T_1=K_3+L_3\,, \qquad T_2=K_3-L_3+4M \,,
\end{align}
where $K_i$ and $L_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are the generators of the two $\alg{su}(2)$'s, respectively.
In particular, $K_3$ and $L_3$ are the Cartan generators, and $M$ is the $\alg{u}(1)_R$ generator.
By introducing a parameterization of the group element $g\in SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_R$
and defining the left-invariant one-form $A=g^{-1}dg$\,,
the metric of $T^{1,1}$ can be reproduced as
\cite{CMY-T11}
\begin{align}
ds^2_{T^{1,1}} &=-\frac{1}{3}\str[AP(A)] \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{6}\sum_{i=1,2}(d\theta_i^2+\sin^2\theta_id\phi_i^2)
+\frac{1}{9}(d\psi+\cos\theta_1d\phi_1+\cos\theta_2d\phi_2)^2\,,
\label{T11metric}
\end{align}
where the coset projector $P$ is defined by
\begin{align}
P(A)& \equiv A-\frac{\str[T_1A]}{\str[T_1T_1]}T_1 - \frac{\str[T_2A]}{\str[T_2T_2]} T_2\,.
\label{proj}
\end{align}
One may wonder why the supertrace $\str$ is adopted here rather than the usual trace.
Indeed, the superstrace in \eqref{T11metric} is assumed to be taken over the
$(4|1)\times (4|1)$ supermatrices, which is the fundamental representation of $SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_R$\,.
This may be justified by interpreting the matrix as a part of a bigger
$(8|1)\times (8|1)$ supermatrix including an ${\cal N}=1$ superconformal algebra as follows;
\begin{align}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc|c}
SU(2) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & SU(2) & 0 \\ \hline
0 & 0 & U(1)_R
\end{array}
\right)
\quad \hookrightarrow \quad
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc|c}
SU(2,2) & 0 & 0 & \overline{F}{}^A \\
0 & SU(2) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & SU(2) & 0 \\ \hline
F_A & 0 & 0 & U(1)_R
\end{array}
\right)\,.
\end{align}
The lines in the matrices distinguish the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-grading.
In the right big supermatrix, an ${\cal N}=1$ superconformal algebra
$PSU(2,2|1)$ sitting at the four corners together with the supercharges
$F_A, \overline{F}{}^A$ ($A=1,\cdots,4$).
The point is that the $U(1)_R$ symmetry is originated in
the superconformal symmetry $PSU(2,2|1)$\,.
In other words, the coset \eqref{T11-coset} should be regarded as a subsector of the supercoset;
\begin{align}
\frac{PSU(2,2|1)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)}{SO(1,4)\times U(1)_1\times U(1)_2}\,.
\end{align}
\subsection{Deformations of $T^{1,1}$ as Yang-Baxter sigma models}
We have already revealed the coset structure of $T^{1,1}$\,. We are now ready to apply the
deformation technique based on classical $r$-matrices.
The Lagrangian of the Yang-Baxter sigma model on $T^{1,1}$ is given by
\begin{align}
L \equiv \frac{1}{3}(\ga^{\al\be}-\ep^{\al\be})\str \left[A_\al P\frac{1}{1-2R_g\circ P} A_\be\right] \,,
\end{align}
with the projector $P$ defined in \eqref{proj}.
As a natural generalization of the S$^5$ case \eqref{abe-S5},
let us consider an abelian $r$-matrix which is composed of the three Cartan generators
of $\alg{su}(2)\oplus\alg{su}(2)\oplus\alg{u}(1)_R$\,,
\begin{align}
r_{\rm Abe} =\frac{1}{3} \hat\ga_1 L_3\wedge M+\frac{1}{3} \hat\ga_2 M\wedge K_3
-\frac{1}{6} \hat\ga_3 K_3\wedge L_3\,,
\label{abe-3para}
\end{align}
with deformation parameters $\hat\ga_i$ ($i=1,2,3$).
After some computations, the resulting metric and NS-NS two-from
turn out to be \cite{CMY-T11}
\begin{align}
ds^2 &= G(\hat\ga_1,\hat\ga_2,\hat\ga_3)\Bigl[
\frac{1}{6}\sum_{i=1,2}(G(\hat\ga_1,\hat\ga_2,\hat\ga_3)^{-1}d\theta_i^2+\sin^2\theta_i d\phi_i^2) \el \\
&\quad
+\frac{1}{9}(d\psi+\cos\theta_1d\phi_1+\cos\theta_2d\phi_2)^2
+\frac{\sin^2\theta_1\sin^2\theta_2}{324}(\hat\ga_3 d\psi+\hat\ga_1 d\phi_1+\hat\ga_2 d\phi_2)^2 \Bigr]\,,
\\
B_2 &=G(\hat\ga_1,\hat\ga_2,\hat\ga_3)\Bigl[
\Bigl\{\hat\ga_3 \Bigl(\frac{\sin^2\theta_1\sin^2\theta_2}{36}
+\frac{\cos^2\theta_1\sin^2\theta_2+\cos^2\theta_2\sin^2\theta_1}{54}\Bigr)\el \\
&\hspace{33mm}
-\hat\ga_2 \frac{\cos\theta_2\sin^2\theta_1}{54}
-\hat\ga_1 \frac{\cos\theta_1\sin^2\theta_2}{54}
\Bigr\}d\phi_1\wedge d\phi_2 \el\\
&\quad
+\frac{(\hat\ga_3\cos\theta_2-\hat\ga_2)\sin^2\theta_1}{54}d\phi_1\wedge d\psi
-\frac{(\hat\ga_3\cos\theta_1-\hat\ga_1)\sin^2\theta_2}{54}d\phi_2\wedge d\psi
\Bigr]\,,
\end{align}
where the scalar function is defined as
\begin{align}
G(\hat\ga_1,\hat\ga_2,\hat\ga_3)^{-1}&\equiv1
+\hat\ga_3^2 \Bigl(\frac{\sin^2\theta_1\sin^2\theta_2}{36}
+\frac{\cos^2\theta_1\sin^2\theta_2+\cos^2\theta_2\sin^2\theta_1}{54}\Bigr)
+\hat\ga_2^2 \frac{\sin^2\theta_1}{54} \el \\
&\qquad
+\hat\ga_1^2 \frac{\sin^2\theta_2}{54}
-\hat\ga_2\hat\ga_3 \frac{\sin^2\theta_1\cos\theta_2}{27}
-\hat\ga_3\hat\ga_1 \frac{\sin^2\theta_2\cos\theta_1}{27} \,.
\end{align}
Indeed, these expressions agree with the ones obtained in \cite{CO} via TsT-transformations.
In particular, when $\hat\ga_1=\hat\ga_2=0$ and $\hat\ga_3$ is non-zero,
the above deformed backgrounds reduce to the Lunin-Maldacena case \cite{LM}.
\section{Conclusion and discussion \label{Sec:concl}}
In this article, we have given a short review of the recent progresses on
novel relations between classical $r$-matrices satisfying the CYBE
and deformed string backgrounds \cite{KMY-Jor,KMY-SUGRA,MY-LM,MY-MR,CMY-T11}.
The relations are worthy of being called the {\it gravity/CYBE correspondence} \cite{MY-LM,MY-MR}.
According to them, the solution space of the CYBE may be regarded as a moduli space of
a certain class of deformed gravitational backgrounds.
In particular, we have presented several important examples including
three parameter $\hat\ga_i$-deformations of the S$^5$ part \cite{LM,Frolov} and
the gravity duals of non-commutative ${\cal N}=4$ super Yang-Mills
theories \cite{HI,MR} in Section \ref{Sec:CYBEtograv}.
We have also discussed an application of the deformation technique
to a non-integrable background, AdS$_5\times T^{1,1}$ \cite{CMY-T11} in Section \ref{Sec:T11}.
There remain, however, several open questions to be answered.
Let us list some of them in the following;
\begin{itemize}
\item Firstly, we are not sure whether or not any deformed backgrounds obtained by classical $r$-matrices
are consistent with the equations of motion of type IIB supergravity.
Even though we proved that the deformed models have kappa-symmetry in general \cite{KMY-Jor}
and some important deformed supergravity backgrounds are successfully obtained
as demonstrated in Section \ref{Sec:CYBEtograv},
it is not straightforward to conclude that the resulting backgrounds always satisfy the equations of motion
of type IIB supergravity.
\item It is not obvious that mutually different $r$-matrices
label pair-wise different backgrounds.
It is observed in \cite{KMY-SUGRA} that two non-equivalent $r$-matrices lead to
the identical metric, up to coordinate transformations. Thus, to establish the one to one correspondence
between $r$-matrices and deformed backgrounds, it would be necessary to
take into account an appropriate quotient by algebra automorphisms.
\item Can we find the corresponding $r$-matrix for a given deformed background?
More generally, does there alway exist an $r$-matrix for any analytically deformed AdS$_5\times$S$^5$ background?
Even though we know how to compute the deformed back metric and the NS-NS two-forms from the $r$-matrices,
the inverse direction should also be clarified.
\item Finally, it is desirable to figure out the composite rule of the $r$-matrices.
On the gravity theory side, some deformed backgrounds are obtained by string dualities such as
TsT-transformations and we could think of a chain of them to construct more complicated backgrounds.
In this sense, we have a structure of product of the dualities.
The question is how it works for the classical $r$-matrices if the gravity/CYBE correspondence holds.
We expect that the twist operator discussed in Section \ref{Sec:twist} might be a clue to solve
this problem.
\end{itemize}
Even though there are still many issues to establish the gravity/CYBE correspondence,
we believe that classical $r$-matrices are very fascinating objects to characterize
deformed gravity solutions. As a final remark, the deformation technique presented here preserves
the classical integrability of the undeformed background,
but it can describe a non-integrable deformation of a non-integrable background, AdS$_5\times T^{1,1}$
\cite{CMY-T11}. This result indicates that the gravity/CYBE correspondence is not restricted to
a class of integrable backgrounds and capture a wider class of gravity solutions.
It is an important task to ascertain the limitation of this scenario.
We hope to report on some new results along this direction in the near future.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We are grateful to Gleb Arutyunov, Riccardo Borsato, Takashi Kameyama
and Stefan Vandoren for valuable comments and discussions.
We also thank Io Kawaguchi for his collaboration at the beginning of this project.
Especially, we would like to appreciate P. Marcos Crichigno for the collaboration
concerning with \cite{CMY-T11} and comments on this manuscript.
T.M.\ is supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
Research (NWO) under the VICI grant 680-47-602.
This work is also part of the ERC Advanced grant research programme
No.~246974, ``Supersymmetry: a window to non-perturbative physics"
and of the D-ITP consortium, a program of the NWO that is funded by the
Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW).
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, performance of various communication tasks over an optical channel---when limited only by the fundamental noise of quantum mechanical origin---have been extensively studied. A few examples are: finding the communication capacities of the lossy optical channel for transmitting classical information~\cite{Gio04}, quantum information~\cite{Wol98}, and that for transmitting both classical and quantum information simultaneously in the presence of a limited amount of pre-shared entanglement~\cite{Wil12}. One of the biggest breakthroughs in optical communication using quantum effects was the invention of quantum key distribution (QKD), which is a suite of protocols that can generate information-theoretically-secure shared secret keys~\cite{Scarani_Renner_2008} between two distant parties Alice and Bob over a lossy-noisy optical channel, with the assistance of a two-way authenticated public classical channel. Security of QKD leverages quantum properties of light to ensure the generated shared keys are secure from the most powerful adversary that is physically consistent with the channel noise collectively estimated by Alice and Bob (despite the fact that much of that noise may actually be caused by non-adversarial or natural causes). Various QKD protocols have been proposed in the last three decades~\cite{SBCDLP09}, some of which have been transitioning to practice~\cite{DARPA02,SECOQC09,TOKYO_QKD}.
For all the communication protocols discussed above, the rates decrease rapidly with channel loss. For the task of classical communication over an ideal pure-loss channel (modeled by a beamsplitter of transmittance $\eta$), at any given value of the channel transmittance $\eta$, no matter how small, the data rate can in principle be increased without bound by increasing the input power~\cite{footnote1}. For QKD, this is not the case. For several well-known QKD protocols (such as BB84~\cite{BB84} with single photons and BB84 with weak laser light encoding and decoy states, E91~\cite{E91} with an ideal entanglement source, and CV-QKD with Gaussian modulation~\cite{Sil02, Gro03}), the secret key rate $R$ decays linearly with channel transmittance $\eta$ in the high-loss ($\eta \ll 1$) regime~\cite{footnote}. Recently, it was shown that this linear rate-transmittance scaling over the lossy bosonic channel---for secure-key generation with two-way public classical communication assistance---is impossible to improve upon, no matter how one may design a QKD protocol, or how much input power is used~\cite{Tak13}. To be specific, the secret key rate of any QKD protocol must be upper bounded by $R_{\rm UB}$ measured in bits/mode and given by
\begin{equation}
\label{TGWbound}
R_{\rm UB} = \log_2\frac{1+\eta}{1-\eta} ,
\end{equation} which equals $R_{\rm UB} \approx 2.88\eta$, for $\eta \ll 1$. This fundamental rate-loss upper bound also applies to the following related tasks: quantum communication (sending qubits noiselessly over a lossy channel), direct secure communication~\cite{footnote3}, and entanglement generation (where each task may also use assistance of a separate authenticated two-way classical communication channel, in addition to transmissions over the quantum lossy bosonic channel itself)~\cite{Tak13}.
As we discussed above, for classical communication over an ideal lossy channel, one could in principle increase the input power without bound as the loss increases, to maintain a required data rate. However, an unbounded input power is impractical both from the point of view of the availability of a laser that is powerful enough, and also to avoid hitting up against the fiber's non-linearity-driven peak power constraint. This is why traditionally, electrical regenerators have been used to compensate for loss in long-haul optical fiber communications, which help restore the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the digitally-modulated signals by periodically detecting and regenerating clean optical pulses. Over the last few decades, all-optical amplifiers, such as erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs), have become popular in lieu of electrical regenerators, both due to their greater speeds as well as the low noise of modern EDFAs. Caves analyzed the fundamental quantum limits on the noise performance of optical amplifiers~\cite{Cav82}, for both phase-insensitive (PIA) and phase-sensitive amplifiers (PSA). Loudon analyzed the fundamental limitations on the overall SNR to `chains' of loss segments and optical amplifiers, both in the context of phase-sensitive (coherent detection) receivers, as well as direct detection receivers~\cite{Lou85}.
For QKD, one way to beat the linear rate-transmittance scaling is to break up the channel into low-loss segments by introducing physically-secured center stations; in this approach the overall key rate is still upper bounded by $R \le \log_2[(1+\eta^\prime)/(1-\eta^\prime)]$ bits/mode, but $\eta^\prime$ is the transmittance of the longest (lossiest) segment. Quantum repeaters are conceptual devices~\cite{SST_2011, LST_2009}, which if supplied at these intermediate stations, can beat the linear rate-transmission scaling without having to physically secure them. There is an approach to build a quantum repeater using one-way communication only~\cite{Mur14}, so they can act as passive untended devices. However, such structured implementations of those devices require quantum error correction codes operating on blocks of multiple qubits. A recently-proposed repeater protocol~\cite{Azu13} even eliminates the requirement of a quantum memory, but utilizes photonic cluster states. Building a functional quantum repeater is subject to intensive fundamental research, but is currently far from being a deployable technology. The natural question that thus arises---in analogy to Loudon's setup for classical optical communication~\cite{Lou85}---is whether all-optical amplifiers (PIAs or PSAs), left untended and inserted at regular intervals, might act to some degree as quantum repeaters and thereby help boost the distances over which QKD can be performed over a lossy channel.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, in Section~\ref{sec:MainResults} we summarize the main results derived in this article to put it into perspective. A central finding is a decomposition of a lossy quantum channel with intermediate bosonic Gaussian channel stations into another form without any insertion of middle stations as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}. We then continue into the technical part.
In Section~\ref{sec:Gaussian}, we give an overview of bosonic Gaussian states and channels. In Section~\ref{sec:GaussianStations}, we analyze the scenario when a general multi-mode Gaussian channel is inserted between two pure-loss segments, and show how one can collect the entire pure loss in the center of the channel by appropriate modifications to the transmitter and the receiver. In Section~\ref{sec:EBconditions}, we consider single-mode Gaussian stations, and delineate the conditions for when the Gaussian center station renders the concatenation with the losses on its two sides, an entanglement-breaking channel. The quantum limited stations, the PSA and the PIA, are addressed as special cases. We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions} with a summary of the main results, and thoughts for future work.
}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.png}
\caption{(a) Any $n$-mode Gaussian channel ${\cal N}_G$ sandwiched between two pure-loss channel segments ${\cal A}_{\eta_1}^{\otimes n}$ and ${\cal A}_{\eta_2}^{\otimes n}$, respectively, can be decomposed into a single lossy channel ${\cal A}_{\eta}^{\otimes n}$ sandwiched by a pair of Gaussian channels, ${\cal N}_G^1$ and ${\cal N}_G^2$. The net loss in the channel is the sum (in dB) of the losses of the two individual lossy segments, i.e., $\eta = \eta_1\eta_2$ and the Gaussian channel at the receiver end ${\cal N}_G^2$ is a Gaussian unitary map. (b) Using this transformation recursively, one can `push' a collection of general Gaussian center stations interspersed through a lossy channel (b.1) to a single Gaussian operation at the input, and a single Gaussian operation at the output (b.2) of the entire loss accumulated in the center.}
\label{fig:summary}
\end{figure}
\section{Outline of main results} \label{sec:MainResults}
In this paper, we show that such is not possible when those all-optical amplifiers are limited to
Gaussian channels. Note that by using the word ``channel'' we automatically imply the action to be trace-preserving. Examples of such channels involve beamsplitters, phase-shifters and squeezers~\cite{Bra05}. We prove our claim by transforming a concatenation of two lossy channel segments with a Gaussian channel in the middle, as a pair of Gaussian channels at the two ends, with the total loss collected in the middle (see Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}). The implication of our no-go result is that if Gaussian channels are employed in center station(s) placed along a lossy channel, the overall QKD key rate, for any QKD protocol, must be upper bounded by $R_{\rm UB} = \log_2[(1+\eta)/(1-\eta)]$ bits/mode, with $\eta$ being the total end-to-end channel transmittance.
{Simple protocols such as laser-decoy-based BB84, or Gaussian-modulated laser-based CV protocols, with no repeaters, can already attain key rates that have the optimal (linear) rate-transmittance scaling and are only a small constant factor below the general upper bound~\cite{SBCDLP09}.}
For any optical communication protocol over a lossy channel interspersed with Gaussian stations, our result shows there exists {\em another} protocol with the same performance that does not use any intermediate station, which can be derived from the original protocol by suitably amending the transmitted signals and the receiver measurement. Our result does {\em not} preclude a Gaussian channel in the middle of the lossy channel to improve the performance of a {\em given} protocol, {\em if} the transmitter and receiver are held to be the same. Nor does it preclude the existence of scenarios where it might be technologically easier to implement a protocol with such intermediate stations, as opposed to modifying the transmitter and the receiver per the prescription generated by our analysis. An example of such improvement is the increased range of a QKD protocol with a given level of detector noise (although, any increase in range must be consistent with the $R \sim \eta$ rate-transmission scaling).
Given that the overall rate-transmission scaling can not be changed, the question remains whether there might be other implementation advantages of Gaussian center stations. It turns out that there are strict conditions on such a scenario. To demonstrate this, }we delineate the conditions under which a Gaussian center station causes a lossy channel to become entanglement breaking (EB) \cite{Horo03,Hol07,Hol08}. It is well known that QKD is not possible on an EB channel, since the output of an EB channel can be simulated quantitatively correctly using a measure-and-prepare scheme~\cite{Cur04}. The pure lossy channel is not EB by itself for any non-zero transmittance, $\eta >0$.
Let us illustrate our reasoning for the better known case of classical communication over pure-loss bosonic channels. The channel capacity of the lossy bosonic channel (described by single photon transmittance $\eta$) using signals with mean photon number $\bar{n}$ per mode, is given by $g(\eta \; {\bar n}) = (1+\eta \; {\bar n})\log_2(1+\eta\; {\bar n}) - \eta \; {\bar n}\log_2 \eta \;{\bar n}$ bits per mode~\cite{Gio04}. We see, that increasing the mean photon number increases the classical communication rate. In practice, it is impractical to keep increasing the mean photon number due to non-linear effects in the fiber that limit the input power and can distort the signals. For these reasons, one limits the input power and builds optical amplifiers (phase sensitive or phase insensitive) into the fiber. According to our theorems, for the ideal loss-only bosonic channel, the setup of lossy segments with intermediate amplifiers is equivalent to a new transmitter consisting of the old transmitter combined with a very strong amplifier, followed by a transfer through the full distance of the lossy bosonic channel, and then a receiver consisting of a combination of another amplifier and
on the original
receiver.
This replacement protocol corresponds to the situation of using a large input mean photon number, and realizes the classical capacity of the lossy bosonic channel. What we learn is that the intermediate amplifiers do not increase the channel capacity of the lossy bosonic channel, but realize an equivalent protocol that keeps the optical signals---throughout the communication channel---within a peak power level that is sufficiently below the level where non-linear effects would be encountered.
In QKD, the secrecy capacity of the lossy bosonic channel does not increase unboundedly with the input power of the signals, thus using strong signal pulses pushing into the non-linear domain of fibers is not important for QKD protocols: the use of equivalent replacement schemes utilizing optical amplifiers would not give any advantage. To the contrary, amplifiers will add additional noise which will eventually be detrimental to the performance of the QKD protocol, with the exception of effects of noisy pre-processing that can increase the secret key rate compared to protocols not using this approach~\cite{renner05b}. Note however that noisy pre-processing cannot improve on the fundamental secrecy capacity of the lossy bosonic channel, which is solely a function of the channel's end-to-end loss.
Our main result adds to the list of no-go results for Gaussian operations in quantum information protocols, i.e., those that cannot be performed with Gaussian operations and classical processing alone. Some examples are universal quantum computing~\cite{Bartlett2002}, entanglement distillation of Gaussian states~\cite{Eisert2002,Fiurasek2002,Giedke2002}, optimal cloning of coherent states~\cite{Cerf2005}, optimal discrimination of coherent states~\cite{Takeoka2008,Tsujino2011,Wittmann2010-1,Wittmann2010-2}, Gaussian quantum error correction~\cite{Niset2009}, and building a joint-detection receiver for classical communication~\cite{Tak14}.
\section{Gaussian states and channels}
\label{sec:Gaussian}
In this section, we will provide a basic introduction to the mathematics of Gaussian states and channels, sufficient to develop the results in this paper. For a more detailed account, see Ref.~\cite{Giedke2002}. A quantum state $\rho$ of an $n$-mode bosonic system is uniquely described by its characteristic function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:characteristic_function}
\chi (\mu) = {\rm Tr} \left[ \rho \mathcal{W} (\mu) \right] ,
\end{equation}
where the Weyl operator, $\mathcal{W} (\mu) = \exp \left[ - i \mu^T R \right]$, with $R=[ \hat{x}_1, \cdots , \hat{x}_n , \hat{p}_1, \cdots , \hat{p}_n]^T$ consisting of field quadrature operators of the $n$ modes satisfying the commutation relations $[\hat{x}_k, \hat{p}_l]=i \delta_{kl}$, with $\mu =[ \mu_1, \cdots , \mu_{2n} ]$ a $2n$-length real vector. The characteristic function of a Gaussian state $\rho$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:chi_gaussian}
\chi_\rho (\mu) = \exp\left[ - \frac{1}{4} \mu^T \gamma \mu + i d^T \mu \right] ,
\end{equation}
where the $2n \times 2n$ matrix $\gamma$ is the covariance matrix (CM) and the $2n$-length vector $d:= (\ave{\hat x} , \ave{\hat p} )^T$ is the mean, or the displacement vector (DV), of $\rho$. The Gaussian state $\rho$ can thus be described uniquely by the pair $(\gamma, d)$.
Due to the canonical uncertainty relation, any CM of physical states has to satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma \ge \frac{i}{2} \sigma , \label{PhysConState}
\end{eqnarray} where \begin{equation}
\label{eq:S_decomposition}
\sigma : = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \openone _ n \\
-\openone _ n & 0
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
A Gaussian unitary operation $U_G$ transforms a Gaussian state $(\gamma, d)$ to a Gaussian state $(\gamma^\prime, d^\prime)$ as
\begin{equation}
\gamma^\prime = M^T \gamma M, \quad d^\prime = M^T d,
\label{eq:symplectic}
\end{equation}
where $M$ is a symplectic matrix that satisfies \begin{eqnarray}
M ^T \sigma M = \sigma . \label{Guni}
\end{eqnarray}
A Gaussian channel ${\cal E}$ can be described by a triplet $(K,m,\alpha)$~\cite{Hol08}. It transforms a state $(\gamma, d)$ to the state $(\gamma^\prime, d^\prime)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma^\prime = K^T \gamma K + \alpha, \quad d^\prime = K^T d +m.
\end{eqnarray}
From the regularity of CMs in Eq.~\eqref{PhysConState} the physical condition for the pair $(K,\alpha)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha \ge \frac{i}{2}(\sigma - K^T \sigma K ) \label{PhysCon}.
\end{eqnarray}
Composition of two Gaussian channels $\mathcal E_1$ and $\mathcal E_2$ yields another Gaussian channel $\mathcal E_{12} = \mathcal E_2 \circ \mathcal E_1$, where
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{12} &=& K_1 K_2 \nonumber, \\
m_{12} &=& K_2^T m_1 + m_2, \,{\text{and}}\nonumber \\
\alpha_{12} &=& K_2^T \alpha _1 K_2 + \alpha_2. \label{CompoRule}
\end{eqnarray}
In this paper, we will focus on Gaussian channels with $m=0$.
In Appendix~\ref{app:displacement} we show an explicit calculation demonstrating how mean displacement terms can be separated out in any concatenation of Gaussian channels.
In the following subsections, we will delve a little deeper into properties of single-mode Gaussian channels that we use later on.
\subsection{Decomposing a Gaussian unitary operation}
The symplectic matrix $M$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:symplectic} of a Gaussian unitary can always be decomposed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S_decomposition}
M = B \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Lambda & 0 \\
0 & \Lambda^{-1}
\end{array}
\right) B' ,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is a positive diagonal matrix, and $B$, $B'$ are orthogonal symplectic matrices ($B^T = B^{-1}$)~\cite{Bra05}. This implies that any $n$-mode Gaussian unitary operation $U_G$ can be realized by a passive linear optic circuit $B$ (a circuit involving only beamsplitters and phase-shifters~\cite{Rec94}), followed by $n$ parallel (tensor-product) single-mode squeezers, followed by another $n$-mode passive linear optic circuit $B'$~\cite{Bra05}. Therefore a general Gaussian unitary operation can always be decomposed into passive linear optics (beamsplitters and phase shifters), single-mode squeezing and single-mode displacement operations.
Therefore, up to a displacement, a single-mode Gaussian unitary (described by its symplectic matrix $M$) can be decomposed as
\begin{eqnarray}
M = R_\theta S_{G} R_\phi,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
R_\theta &=& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
-\sin\theta & \cos \theta \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
is the symplectic matrix of a single-mode phase rotation, and
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{G} &=& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt G +\sqrt{G -1} & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt G -\sqrt{G -1} \\
\end{array}
\right) \end{eqnarray}
is the symplectic matrix of a single-mode (phase-quadrature) squeezer. Note that it is sufficient to restrict the above decomposition to a phase-quadrature squeezer, is because one can absorb any additional phase in the squeezing operation into $R_\theta$ and $R_\phi$. This is because the symplectic matrix of a single-mode squeezer with gain $G$ and squeezing angle $\theta'$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{G, \theta'} = R_{\theta'} S_{G} R_{\theta'} ^\dagger.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Entanglement breaking channels}
An {\em entanglement breaking} (EB) channel is one whose action on one half of an entangled state (with an identity map on the other half) always yields a {\em separable} state. An EB channel can always be written in a {\em measure-and-prepare} form~\cite{Horo03, Hol08}. (See also Eq.~(\ref{eq:measureprepare}) below.) Any concatenation of $n$ (not necessarily Gaussian) channels, ${\cal E}_n \circ \ldots \circ {\cal E}_2 \circ {\cal E}_1$ is EB if one of channels ${\cal E}_i$ is EB. It is instructive to see the argument explicitly for $n= 3$. Consider the serially-concatenated channel, ${\cal E}_t= {\cal E}_3 \circ {\cal E}_2 \circ {\cal E}_1$, where the center station ${\cal E}_2 $ is EB. Supposing its measure-and-prepare form is given by ${\cal E}_2 (\rho ) = \sum_k {\textrm {Tr}}(M_k \rho )\sigma_k$, with $M_k \ge 0$ and $\sigma_k \ge 0 $, we can write ${\cal E}_t$ in a measure-and-prepare form,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:measureprepare}
{\cal E}_t (\rho) = \sum_k {\textrm {Tr}}[M_k {\mathcal E}_1 (\rho) ] {\mathcal E}_3(\sigma_k) = \sum_k {\textrm {Tr}}[M'_k \rho ] \sigma_k '
\end{equation}
where $ \sigma_k '= {\mathcal E}_3(\sigma_k) \ge 0 $, and it is straightforward to show that $M'_k = \sum_i A_i^\dagger M _k A_i \ge 0$, where $\{A_i\}$ represent Kraus operators of $\mathcal E_1$, i.e., ${\mathcal E}_1(\rho) = \sum_i A_i \rho A_i^\dagger$.
The measure-and-prepare representation of an EB channel implies that the channel's quantum transmission can be seen as transmission of the (probabilistic) classical information obtained as a result of a hard quantum measurement made on the channel's input. This is the intuition behind why such a channel has zero secret-key capacity, and thus cannot be useful for QKD~\cite{Cur04}. Because of this reason, when we analyze concatenations of several Gaussian center stations for potential use as repeaters, we will limit our discussion to the case when all the channels $\mathcal E_i$ in the concatenation are non EB (since this is a necessary condition for QKD). Note however that when interspersed with loss segments, even when all center stations are non-EB, the overall input-output map can become EB---a topic that we will discuss in more detail later in Section~\ref{sec:EBconditions}.
\subsection{Unitary-equivalence classification for single-mode Gaussian channels}\label{sec:classification}
Our analysis of general one-mode Gaussian operations will be based on the standard forms of such operations obtained from the unitary equivalence classification of quantum channels developed by Holevo~\cite{Hol07, Hol08}. We say that two quantum channels $\Phi$ and $\Phi_S$ are \textit{unitary equivalent} if there exist unitary operators $U_V, U_W$ such that,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_S (\rho) = U_W \Phi (U_V \rho U_V ^\dagger) U_W^\dagger.
\label{eq:unitary_equivalence}
\end{eqnarray}
If $U_V$ and $U_W$ above are Gaussian, we say $\Phi$ and $\Phi_S$ are {\em Gaussian unitary equivalent}. If a single-mode Gaussian channel ${\cal E} \triangleq (K, m, \alpha)$ is not an EB channel, it must be Gaussian unitary equivalent to a channel belonging to one of the following two classes: \\
\noindent {\bf (i) Phase insensitive channel (PIC)}: This class of channels is described by the triplet $(K, 0, \alpha)$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
K &=& \sqrt \kappa \openone_2, \,{\text{and}}\nonumber \\
\alpha &=&(|1-\kappa|/2 + N )\openone_2 , \label{i}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N \ge 0$ is the excess noise parameter and $\kappa \ge 0$ is a gain parameter. We will denote
this channel as ${\cal A}_\kappa^N$. It acts on the canonical quadratures phase-insensitively. When the gain $\kappa \ge 1$, we call it the {\em phase-insensitive amplifier} (PIA). When $\kappa < 1$, we call it the lossy bosonic channel (with excess thermal noise $N$). In this case, $\kappa$ is the channel's transmittance, the fraction of the input photons that appear at the channel's output. We will use the shorthand notation, ${\cal A}_\kappa \equiv {\cal A}_\kappa^0$ for a quantum-limited phase-insensitive amplifier, or a pure-loss channel, for $\kappa \ge 1$ and $\kappa < 1$, respectively.
It is known that the PIC is EB if and only if~\cite{Hol08},
\begin{eqnarray}
N \ge \min (1, \kappa).
\label{38}
\end{eqnarray}
In our analysis we will assume that the PIC is not EB, i.e., $N \in [0, \min(1, \kappa))$. Furthermore, using the composition rule of Eq. (\ref{CompoRule}), it is easy to see that any single-mode rotation (unitary) ${\cal R}$ commutes with a PIC, i.e.,
${\cal R} \circ {\cal A}_\kappa^N = {\cal A}_\kappa^N \circ {\cal R}$.
\\
\noindent {\bf (ii) Additive noise channel (ANC)}: This is a class of {\em phase-sensitive} Gaussian channels that adds rank-1 noise to the input state, and is described by the triplet $(K, 0, \alpha)$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
K &=& \openone_2, \,{\text{and}} \nonumber \\
\alpha&= & \frac{1}{2}\textrm{diag} (0,\epsilon), \label{ii}
\end{eqnarray}
where the noise parameter $\epsilon > 0$. We will denote this channel as $\mathcal I^{\epsilon}$, and will call it the additive noise channel (ANC).
\section{Gaussian regenerative stations in a lossy channel}\label{sec:GaussianStations}
In this section we investigate lossy bosonic channels that have
intermediate Gaussian channels
inserted at some intervals. We will show that such an arrangement is still equivalent (up to Gaussian operations at the entrance and the exit) to a lossy bosonic channel with the total loss of the original loss segments. As a consequence, insertion of Gaussian channels
cannot increase the secrecy capacity of the lossy bosonic channel.
The setup for the main result of this paper is schematically depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}. Consider a pure-loss optical channel ${\cal A}_\eta$ with a given amount of total end-to-end ($A$ to $B$) transmittance $\eta \in (0, 1]$. Let us place a Gaussian center station---a quantum channel, or a trace-preserving completely positive map, ${\cal N}_G^{C_1 \to C_2}$---somewhere in the middle, thereby splitting ${\cal A}_\eta$ into two pure-loss segments: a pure-loss channel with transmittance $\eta_1$, ${\cal A}_{\eta_1}$ ($A$ to $C_1$), and a pure-loss channel with transmittance $\eta_2$, ${\cal A}_{\eta_2}$ ($C_2$ to $B$), such that $\eta_1\eta_2 = \eta$. We show that the overall channel action from $A$ to $B$ is unaffected by the transformation shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}(a), which replaces the Gaussian center station ${\cal N}_G^{C_1 \to C_2}$ by a Gaussian operation ${{\cal N}_G^1}^{A \to A_1}$ at the input of the channel and a Gaussian operation ${{\cal N}_G^2}^{B_1 \to B}$ at the output of the channel. By applying this transformation recursively, it is easy to see that one can replace any number of Gaussian center stations interspersed through the lossy channel ${\cal A}_\eta$ into two Gaussian operations, at the input and the output, respectively.
\eat{
Consider an $n$-mode lossy bosonic channel ${\cal A}_\eta ^{\otimes n } \triangleq (K_0, 0,\alpha_0)$ with $K_0 = \sqrt{\eta } \openone_{2n}$ and $\alpha_0 = \frac{1- \eta}{2} \openone_{2n}$. Let an $n$-mode Gaussian channel ${\cal N}_G \triangleq (K, 0, \alpha)$ be the candidate center station, which could act collectively on $n$ spatial and/or temporal modes of the field. The loss-sandwiched composition $\Phi_0 := {\cal A}_{\eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1} ^{\otimes n}$ is therefore given by $(K_t, 0, \alpha_t)$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
K_t &=& \sqrt{\eta_1 \eta_2}K \nonumber, \,{\text{and}} \\
\alpha_t &=& \eta_2\left(\frac{1- \eta_1}{2} K^T K + \alpha \right)+ \frac{1- \eta_2}{2} \openone_{2n} \label{DefAlpha_main}.
\end{eqnarray}
Next we construct two Gaussian channels ${\cal N}_G^1$ and ${\cal N}_G^2$ (the latter suffices to be a unitary), such that ${\cal A}_{\eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1} ^{\otimes n } = {\cal N}_G^2 \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1 \eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G^1$. The first step is to argue that there must exist a symplectic matrix $M$ that satisfies $M^T \alpha_t M \ge \frac{1- \eta_1 \eta_2}{2} \openone_{2n} + \eta_1 \eta _2 M^T \alpha M$ (see Appendix~\ref{app:mainresult} for detailed proof). Then we consider the channel ${\cal N}_G^1 \triangleq (\tilde K, 0, \tilde \alpha)$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde K &=& K M \nonumber, \,{\text{and}} \\
\tilde \alpha &=& \frac{1}{\eta_1 \eta_2 } \left(M^T \alpha _t M - \frac{1- \eta_1 \eta_2}{2} \openone_{2n}\right).
\end{eqnarray}
It is simple to then show that $K_t M = \sqrt{ \eta_1 \eta _2} \tilde K$, and $M^T \alpha_t M = \eta_1 \eta _2 \tilde \alpha + \frac{1- \eta_1 \eta_2}{2} \openone_{2n}$, which in turn implies that the compositions ${\cal A}_{\eta_1 \eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G ^1$, and $U_G(M) \circ \Phi_0$ are identical. Therefore, $\Phi _0 = {\cal N}_G ^2 \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1 \eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G ^1 $, where ${\cal N}_G^2 \triangleq (M^{-1},0,0)$ is a Gaussian unitary.
}
Let us consider an $n$-mode lossy bosonic channel ${\cal A}_\eta ^{\otimes n } \triangleq (K_0, 0,\alpha_0) $ with
\begin{eqnarray}
K_0 &=& \sqrt{\eta } \openone_{2n} \nonumber, \\
\alpha_0 &=& \frac{1- \eta}{2} \openone_{2n}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let ${\cal N}_G \triangleq (K, 0, \alpha)$ denote an $n$-mode Gaussian channel, which we consider as the candidate for a center station. Note that this Gaussian center station could act collectively on $n$ spatial and/or temporal modes of the propagating field. The main result of this section is the proof of the following proposition, also depicted schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:n-mode}
For any $n$-mode Gaussian channel ${\cal N}_G$ there exists a Gaussian channel ${\cal N}_G^1$ and a Gaussian unitary channel ${\cal N}_G^2$ that satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}_{\eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1} ^{\otimes n } = {\cal N}_G^2 \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1 \eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G^1.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Our goal is to find a pair of Gaussian channels ${\cal N}_G^1$ and ${\cal N}_G^2$ that satisfies the physical condition Eq. (\ref{PhysCon}).
From the composition rule of Eq.~\eqref{CompoRule} we find the total channel action $\Phi_t := {\cal A}_{\eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1} ^{\otimes n}$ can be described by $\Phi_t \triangleq (K_t, 0, \alpha_t)$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
K_t &=& \sqrt{\eta_1 \eta_2}K \nonumber, \\
\alpha_t &=& \eta_2\left(\frac{1- \eta_1}{2} K^T K + \alpha \right)+ \frac{1- \eta_2}{2} \openone_{2n} \label{DefAlpha}.
\end{eqnarray}
We will prove the proposition by constructing the required Gaussian channels using a symplectic matrix denoted by $M$. The properties of this matrix and its existence
are the subject of the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
For a given $\alpha_t$ in Eq.~\eqref{DefAlpha}, there exists a CM matrix $\gamma^\prime$ and a symplectic matrix $M$ such that
\begin{equation}
\alpha_t = \eta_1 \eta_2 \alpha + (1-\eta_1 \eta_2) \gamma^\prime
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M^T \gamma ^\prime M \ge \frac{1}{2} \openone_{2n}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the physical condition of a Gaussian channel in Eq.~\eqref{PhysCon}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{i \sigma }{2}& \le& \frac{i \sigma}{2} + \frac{1}{2} K^T \left( \openone_{2n} - i \sigma \right) K \\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \left( K^T K + i (\sigma - K^T \sigma K )\right) \\
& \le& \frac{1}{2} ( K^T K + 2 \alpha )
\end{eqnarray}
where we used in the first line that the matrix $ \openone_{2n} - i \sigma$ is positive semi-definite and in the last line that ${\cal N}_G$ is a physical channel. Our calculation implies $ \gamma := \frac{1}{2} ( K^T K + 2 \alpha ) $ is a CM of an $n$-mode Gaussian state due to Eq.~\eqref{PhysConState}.
Consider now the convex combination of this CM with the CM of the $n$-mode vacuum state $\gamma^\prime := p \; \gamma + (1- p)\; \frac{1}{2} \openone_{2n}$with mixing probability $p = \eta_2(1-\eta_1 ) /(1-\eta_1 \eta_2 ) \in [0,1]$. A straightforward calculation verifies that $\alpha_t = \eta_1 \eta_2 \alpha + (1-\eta_1 \eta_2) \gamma^\prime $. As $\gamma^\prime$ is a valid CM, there exists a symplectic matrix $M$ such that one obtains a diagonal form $M^T \gamma ^\prime M \ge \frac{1}{2} \openone_{2n}$, which corresponds to a product of thermal states.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to define the Gaussian channels ${\cal N}_G^1\triangleq (\tilde K, 0, \tilde \alpha)$ and ${\cal N}_G^2\triangleq (M^{-1}, 0, 0)$ with the help of
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde K & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{\eta_1 \eta_2}} K_t M \;\;\;\left( \equiv K M\right) \; ,\\
\tilde \alpha &=& \frac{1}{\eta_1 \eta_2 } \left(M^T \alpha _t M - \frac{1- \eta_1 \eta_2}{2} \openone_{2n}\right). \label{13siki}
\end{eqnarray}
To show that the channels are proper physical channels, we can concentrate on ${\cal N}_G^1$ since ${\cal N}_G^2$ corresponds to a unitary Gaussian channel. To prove that ${\cal N}_G^1$ is physical, we use in a first step the results of theorem \ref{thm1}, and then the physicality constraints on the channel ${\cal N}_G$, followed by a rewriting of the variables. These steps allow us to obtain
\begin{equation}
\tilde \alpha \ge M^T \alpha M \ge M^T \frac{i}{2}(\sigma - K^T \sigma K) M = \frac{i}{2}(\sigma - {\tilde K}^T \sigma \tilde K),
\end{equation}
Hence, ${\cal N}_G^1 \triangleq (\tilde K, 0, \tilde \alpha) $ is a valid Gaussian channel. It is again straightforward to verify that $\Phi _t = {\cal N}_G ^2 \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1 \eta_2} ^{\otimes n } \circ{\cal N}_G ^1 $. This proves proposition \ref{prop:n-mode}.
\end{proof}
Overall, we showed the equivalence of a
bosonic Gaussian channel sandwiched between two lossy bosonic channels to a single lossy bosonic channel, bearing the total loss of the the original bosonic channels, and now sandwiched between two Gaussian channels.
This corresponds to the conversion of $(a.1)$ into $(a.2)$ of Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}. A simple iteration of this result shows that any pattern of Gaussian channels interspersed
between loss segments can be rearranged into a lossy bosonic channel sandwiched between Gaussian channels [See Fig.~\ref{fig:summary}(b)].
As the initial Gaussian channel can be combined with the state preparation, and the final Gaussian channel can be combined with the detection setup, it is evident that the total secret key rate of this arrangement is still bound by $R_{\textrm{UB}}$ of Eq.~(\ref{TGWbound}).
\section{Entanglement-breaking conditions for single-mode center stations}\label{sec:EBconditions}
As discussed in the introduction, there might be practical reasons
one want to use interspersed intermediate stations, even if the resulting key rate is still limited by the bound of Eq.~(\ref{TGWbound}). In this sections we will demonstrate severe restrictions on the situations where such an advantage may exist. To do so, we will investigate when such a sequence of lossy channels and Gaussian center stations becomes entanglement breaking (EB) so that its secrecy capacity goes to zero \cite{Cur04}.
In the following part of this article we execute the central first step of such an investigation and focus on
single-mode Gaussian channels.
A pure-loss channel is not EB by itself, but increasing loss could make the channel progressively more fragile and susceptible to being EB when concatenated with other Gaussian operations, such as amplifiers. In the following subsections, we show the explicit conditions on the parameters of a Gaussian non-EB center station ${\cal N}_G$, such that the composition $\Phi_0 \equiv {\cal A}_{\eta_2} \circ {\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1}$ is EB, and specialize the conditions to the cases when ${\cal N}_G$ is either a PSA or a PIA.
\subsection{General non-EB center stations}\label{sec:general_nonEB}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{fig2.png
\caption{(Color online) A general single-mode non-EB Gaussian channel ${\cal N}_G$ is unitary-equivalent to a Gaussian channel ${\cal N}$, which can be one of two forms, a {\em phase-insensitive channel} (PIC), ${\cal A}_g^N$ , or a phase-sensitive {\em additive noise channel} (ANC), ${\cal I}^\epsilon$. For both cases of the center stations sandwiched between two lossy segmenets ${\cal A}_{\eta_1}$ and ${\cal A}_{\eta_2}$, the total channel action $\Phi_0 \equiv {\cal A}_{\eta_2} \circ {\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1}$ is shown to be unitary-equivalent to a PIC channel ${\cal A}_{\eta_s}^{N_s}$ as in (b)1.c and (c)2.c.
Green-shaded boxes denote single-mode unitary (reversible) operations, whereas red-shaded boxes denote (in-general irreversible) actions of a single-mode quantum channel---a trace-preserving completely-positive map.}
\label{fig:onemodechannel_main}
\end{figure*}
There is no point in considering EB center stations ${\cal N}_G$
as they would trivially render $\Phi_0$ EB. Any single-mode Gaussian non-EB station ${\cal N}_G$ is
unitary-equivalent to either a phase insensitive channel (PIC) or an additive noise channel (ANC) (See Sec.~\ref{sec:classification}). In order to evaluate EB conditions, we go deeper into decomposing $\Phi_0$, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:onemodechannel_main}. The two branches of Fig.~\ref{fig:onemodechannel_main} consider decompositions when ${\cal N}_G$ is unitary-equivalent to a PIC or an ANC, respectively.
\noindent {\em 1. ${\cal N}_G$ unitary equivalent to a PIC ${\cal A}_g^N$}---Since phase-rotations commute with PICs, it is straightforward to see that the concatenated channel $\Phi_0 \equiv {\cal A}_{\eta_2} \circ {\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1}$ is unitary-equivalent to a channel $\Phi \equiv \mathcal A_{\eta_2} \circ \mathcal S_{ G_2, \theta }\circ \mathcal A_{g}^{N} \circ \mathcal S_{G_1} \circ \mathcal A_{\eta_1}$ [see Fig.~\ref{fig:onemodechannel_main}(b), lines~1.a~and~1.b], where $\mathcal S_{G_1}$ denotes a phase-quadrature squeezer (PSA) with gain $G_1$, and $\mathcal S_{G_2}$ is another PSA with gain $G_2$ and squeezing angle $\theta$. It is easy to deduce the parameters for the channel $\Phi$ as
\begin{align}
K_{\rm PIC} =& \sqrt{g\eta _1 \eta_2} S_1 {R_\theta S_2 R_\theta^\dagger} \; ,\\
\alpha_{\rm PIC} =& \frac{1}{2}\left[\eta_2(1-\eta_1) g K_\theta^T S_1 ^2 K_\theta + \right. \nonumber\\
&\left. \eta_2(|g-1|+2N) K_\theta^T K_\theta + (1-\eta_2) \openone_2\right], \label{eq3333}
\end{align}
respectively, where $K_\theta = R_\theta S_2 R_\theta^\dagger$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
S_i &=& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt G_i +\sqrt{G_i-1} & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt G_i -\sqrt{G_i-1} \\
\end{array} \label{Gainnnnn}
\right) , \\
R_\theta &=& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
-\sin\theta & \cos \theta \\
\end{array}
\right).
\end{eqnarray}
The following theorem shows that the total unitary equivalent channel $\Phi$ is further unitary-equivalent to a PIC $\Phi_s$, as shown in line 1.c of Fig.~\ref{fig:onemodechannel_main}(b).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:phi_phis}
$\Phi$ is unitary-equivalent to a channel $\Phi_s$ that is a PIC ${\cal A}_{\eta_s}^{N_s}$, whose descriptive parameters $(K_s,\alpha_s)$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K_s&=& V K W = \sqrt{g \eta_1 \eta_2 } \openone_2, \, {\text{and}}\nonumber \\
\alpha _s &=& W^T \alpha_{\rm PIC} W = \sqrt{\det(\alpha_{\rm PIC})} \openone_2, \label{st0_main}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V$ and $W$ are Gaussian unitaries.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix~\ref{app:proof_thm:phi_phis}.
\end{proof}
Comparing Eq.~\eqref{st0_main} with Eq.~\eqref{i}, it is easy to see that $\Phi_s$ is in fact a PIC, ${\cal A}_{\eta_s}^{N_s}$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_s &=& g \eta_1 \eta_2, \,{\text{and}} \nonumber \\
N_s &=& \sqrt{ \det (\alpha_{\rm PIC})} - \frac{|1- \eta_s|}{ 2}. \label{DefEff}
\end{eqnarray}
The condition under which the Gaussian center station ${\cal N}_G $ causes the lossy channel to be an EB channel is determined by applying Eq.~(\ref{38}) to the parameters of $\Phi_s$ in Eq.~\eqref{DefEff} since it is unitary equivalent to a PIC. Therefore, the channel $\Phi_0$ is EB if
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{\det(\alpha_{\rm PIC} )} \ge \frac{1}{2}(1+ g\eta_1\eta_2). \label{ebpic38}
\end{eqnarray}
\\
\noindent {\em 2. ${\cal N}_G$ unitary equivalent to an ANC ${\cal I}^\epsilon$}--- it is straightforward to deduce [see line 2.b in Fig.~\ref{fig:onemodechannel_main}(c)] that, $\Phi_0 \equiv {\cal A}_{\eta_2} \circ {\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1}$ is unitary-equivalent to a channel $\Phi = \mathcal A_{\eta_2} \circ \mathcal S_{ G_2, \theta }\circ (\mathcal R_{-\phi} \circ \mathcal I ^{\epsilon } \circ \mathcal R_\phi) \circ \mathcal S_{G_1} \circ \mathcal A_{\eta_1}$, whose parameters are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{\rm ANC} &=& \sqrt{ \eta _1 \eta_2} S_1 K_\theta, \,{\text{and}}\\
\alpha_{\rm ANC} &=& \frac{1}{2}\left[ \eta_2(1-\eta_1) K_\theta^T S_1 ^2 K_\theta + \eta_2 K_\theta^T \epsilon^\prime K_\theta \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. + (1-\eta_2) \openone_2\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal R}_\phi$ is a phase rotation, $K_\theta = R_\theta S_2 R_\theta^\dagger$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon ':= \frac{1}{2}R_{\phi} \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
0 & \epsilon \\
\end{array}
\right)
R_{-\phi}^\dagger.
\end{eqnarray}
Next we prove that $\Phi$ is unitary-equivalent to a PIC $\Phi_s$ [see line 2.c of Fig.~\ref{fig:onemodechannel_main}(b)].
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:phi_anc}
$\Phi$ is unitary-equivalent to a PIC $\Phi_s$ described by,
\begin{eqnarray}
K_s&=& \sqrt{\eta_1 \eta_2 } \openone_2 , {\text{and}}\nonumber \\
\alpha _s &=& \sqrt{\det(\alpha_{\rm ANC})} \openone_2. \label{st1}
\end{eqnarray}
The excess noise parameter is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
N_s &=& \sqrt{ \det (\alpha_{\rm ANC})} - \frac{|1- \eta_1\eta_2 |}{ 2}. \label{ancns1}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:phi_phis} (see Appendix~\ref{app:proof_thm:phi_phis}), we can simultaneously diagonalize $K$ and $\alpha$. This follows Eq.~\eqref{st1}. Comparing Eqs.~\eqref{st1} and~\eqref{i}, we can determine the parameter $N_s$ in Eq.~\eqref{ancns1}.
\end{proof}
The condition under which the Gaussian center channel ${\cal N}_G $ causes the lossy channel to be an EB channel
is determined by applying Eq. (\ref{38}) to the parameters of $\Phi_s$ in Eqs.~\eqref{st1} and~\eqref{ancns1} since it is unitary equivalent to a PIC. The condition for $\Phi_0$ to be EB, translates to
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\det(\alpha_{\rm ANC} )} \ge \frac{1}{2}(1+ \eta_1\eta_2).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Explicit examples of a Gaussian center station: optical amplifiers}\label{sec:PIAPSA}
In this subsection we illustrate our results in Section~\ref{sec:general_nonEB} with the important example of optical amplifiers used as center stations. We will consider the cases of a phase-sensitive amplifier (PSA) and phase-insensitive amplifier (PIA). Detailed proofs of the results will be deferred to Appendix~\ref{sec:PSAPIA}. If the center station ${\cal N}_G$ is a PSA of gain $G_{\rm PSA}$, then the composition $\Phi_0 \equiv {\cal A}_{\eta_2} \circ {\cal N}_G \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1}$ becomes EB if the gain $G_{\rm PSA} $ exceeds a threshold $G^{\rm thres}_{\rm PSA}$ as
\begin{equation}
G_{\rm PSA} \ge G^{\rm thres}_{\rm PSA} := 1 + \frac{\eta_1}{(1-\eta_1)(1-\eta_2)}.
\end{equation}
(See Appendix~\ref{sec:PSA_app} for proof.) If ${\cal N}_G$ is a PIA of gain $G_{\rm PIA}$, then $\Phi_0$ becomes EB if the Gain $G_{\rm PIA}$ exceeds a threshold value $G^{\rm thres}_{\rm PIA}$ (see Appendix~\ref{sec:PIA_app} for proof):
\begin{equation}
G_{\rm PIA} \ge G^{\rm thres}_{\rm PIA} := \frac{1}{1-\eta_1}.
\end{equation}
Note that the transmittance $\eta_2$ of the loss segment {\em after} the PIA does not play a role in determining when $\Phi_0$ becomes EB. The expression for the threshold shows that when the channel transmittance $\eta_1$ of a the initial is low, an amplifier with even a small amount of gain can render the lossy channel EB. Finally, the concatenation of a chain of PSA center stations, $\eta_1 \to {\rm PSA}(G_1) \to \eta_2 \to {\rm PSA}(G_2) \to \ldots \to {\rm PSA}(G_k) \to \eta_{k+1}$, can be decompose
as ${\cal N}_G^2 \circ {\cal A}_{\eta_1 \eta_2 \ldots \eta_{k+1}} \circ {\cal N}_G^1$, where ${\cal N}_G^1$ is a PSA at the channel input (of an appropriate gain and squeezing angle) followed by classical thermal noise addition, ${\cal A}_{\eta_1\eta_2\ldots\eta_{k+1}}$ is the entire channel loss collected in the middle, and ${\cal N}_G^2$ is a PSA at the channel output. For expressions of the gain and phase parameters of the PSAs at the transmitter and the receiver, see Appendix~\ref{sec:PSAchain}.
We note here that PIAs can improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a sub-unity-efficiency optical heterodyne detection receiver, albeit up to 3 dB of the quantum limited SNR, when preceding the receiver. PSAs on the other hand have been proposed for use in optical imaging~\cite{Dut10} and secure-key generation~\cite{Zha14}, to boost the effective detection efficiency of homodyne detection receivers, in principle pushing the receiver's performance all the way to the quantum limited SNR, by preceding the receiver with a PSA whose gain quadrature is phase-matched to the homodyne detector's local oscillator. Despite these practical uses of optical amplifiers,
our results in the earlier sections show that these amplifiers cannot increase the secret key capacity, and the results in the current section show that it is unlikely that they will help to realize the given secret key capacity in a practical implementation.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
It was recently shown \cite{Tak13} that for QKD (secure key generation), along with a few other optical quantum communication tasks such as quantum (qubit) communication, entanglement generation, and direct-secure communication (each with two-way authenticated classical communication assistance), the rates are upper bounded by $R_{\rm UB} = \log_2[(1+\eta)/(1-\eta)]$ bits per mode over a pure-loss optical channel of transmittance $\eta$. This upper bound reads $R_{\rm UB} \approx 2.88\eta$ when $\eta \ll 1$ (high loss), which translates to an exponential decay of rate with distance $L$ in fiber ($\eta \propto e^{-\alpha L}$), and an inverse-square decay with $L$ in free-space ($\eta \propto 1/L^2$). Quantum repeaters are conceptual devices that, when inserted along the lossy channel, can help circumvent this rate-loss trade-off.
In this paper, we have proven the inefficacy of bosonic Gaussian channels---optical processes that can be assembled using passive linear optics (beamsplitters and phase-shifters) and squeezers (phase-sensitive amplifiers, and the interaction of parametric downconversion)---to be used as quantum repeaters. We prove this by showing that any concatenation of such untended Gaussian operations along a lossy channel can be simulated by one Gaussian operation at the channel input and one at the channel output, where the entire loss in the channel is collected in the middle. We thereby argue that any communication protocol that uses such a chain of Gaussian center stations can be replaced by another protocol of the same performance without those stations, the transmitter and receiver of which are slightly modified versions of those used by the original protocol. As a consequence, the upper bound $R_{\rm UB}$, as shown above, still applies.
Note, however, that our formulation is entirely based on the property of Gaussian channels and does not preclude the possibility that a trace-decreasing Gaussian operation \cite{Giedke2002} could serve as a quantum repeater.
It would be possible that intermediate trace-preserving Gaussian operations could be of practical advantage, while the same performance of any protocol working with such middle stations is in principle achievable {\it without} middle stations.
In order to demonstrate practical restrictions for use of conventional Gaussian stations, we separately analyzed the case of a general single-mode Gaussian channel sandwiched between lossy channels. We derived the conditions that the center station renders the end to end lossy channel entanglement breaking, and hence useless for QKD. From special cases for quantum-limited optical amplifiers as center stations, we found that in a high-loss regime, even modest amplification gains will render the overall channel entanglement breaking.
\acknowledgments
RN, OG, and NL were supported by the DARPA Quiness program under prime contract number W31P4Q-12-1-0017. SG was supported by the DARPA Quiness program subaward contract number SP0020412-PROJ0005188, under prime contract number W31P4Q-13-1-0004.
|
\section{Introduction}
Multiscale estimators have well known advantages, including the ability to characterize abrupt local changes and to provide a compressed estimate to a desired level of resolution. Such advantages have lead to enormous popularity of wavelets, which are routinely used in signal and image processing, and have had attention in the literature on density estimation. \citet{dono:etal:1996} developed a wavelet thresholding approach for density estimation, which has minimax optimality properties, and there is a literature developing modifications for deconvolution problems \citep{pens:vida:1999}, censored data \citep{niu:2012}, time series \citep{garc:barr:2012} and other settings. \citet{lock:pete:2013} proposed an approach, which can better characterize local symmetry and other features commonly observed in practice, using multiwavelets. \citet{chen:etal:2012} instead use geometric multiresolution analysis methods related to wavelets to obtain estimates of high-dimensional distributions having low-dimensional support.
Although there is a rich Bayesian literature on multiscale function estimation \citep{abra:etal:1998, clyd:etal:1998, clyd:geor:2000, wang:etal:2007}, there has been limited consideration of Bayesian multiscale density estimation. Popular methods for Bayes density estimation rely on kernel mixtures. For example, Dirichlet process mixtures are applied routinely. By using location-scale mixtures, one can accommodate varying smoothness, with the density being flat in certain regions and concentrated in others. However, Dirichlet processes lack the appealing multiscale structure. Polya trees provide a multiscale alternative \citep{maul:etal:1992,lavi:1992a,lavi:1992b}, but have practical disadvantages. They tend to produce highly spiky density estimates even when the true density is smooth, and have sensitivity to a pre-specified partition sequence. This sensitivity can be ameliorated by mixing Polya trees \citep{hans:2002}, but at the expense of more difficult computation.
Our focus is on developing a new approach for Bayesian multiscale density estimation, which inherits many of the advantages of Dirichlet process mixtures while avoiding the key disadvantages of Polya trees. We want a framework that is easily computable, has desirable multiscale approximation properties, allows centering on an initial guess at the density, and can be extended in a straightforward manner to include covariates and allow embedding within larger models. We accomplish this using a multiscale extension of mixtures of Bernstein polynomials \citep{petr:1999a, petr:1999b}, which have been shown to have appealing asymptotic properties in the single scale case \citep{petr:wass:2002,ghos:2001}.
In the next section, our multiscale prior for densities is introduced and properties are discussed. Section 3 introduces posterior computation via a slice sampling algorithm. In Section 4 the performance of the method in terms of density estimation is evaluated via a simulation study. Section 5 discusses generalizations, with particular emphasis on Bayesian multiscale inferences on differences between groups. Section 6 applies the method to a DNA methylation array dataset on breast cancer, and Section 7 concludes. Proofs and computational details are reported in the Appendix.
\section{Multiscale priors for densities}
\subsection{Proposed model}
\label{sec:model}
Let $x \in \mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}$ be a random variable having density $g$ with respect to Lebesgue measure. Assume that $g_0$ is a prior guess for $g$, with $G_0$ and $G_0^{-1}$ the corresponding cumulative distribution function (CDF) and inverse CDF, respectively. We induce a prior $g \sim \Pi$ centered on $g_0$ through a prior for the density $f$ of $y = G_0( x ) \in (0,1)$. The CDFs $F$ and $G$ corresponding to the densities $f$ and $g$, respectively, have the following relationship
\begin{eqnarray}
G(x) = F\{ G_0(x) \}, x \in \mathcal{X},\quad
F(y) = G\{ G_0^{-1}(y) \}, y \in (0,1). \label{eq:map}
\end{eqnarray}
We assume that $f$ follows a multiscale mixture of Bernstein polynomials,
\begin{equation}
f(y) = \sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \pi_{s,h} \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1),
\label{eq:mix1}
\end{equation}
where Be($a$, $b$) denotes the beta density with mean $a/(a+b)$, and $\{ \pi_{s,h} \}$ are random weights drawn from a suitable stochastic process.
We introduce an infinite sequence of scales $s=0,1,\ldots,\infty$. At scale $s$, we include $2^s$ Bernstein polynomial basis densities. The framework can be represented as a binary tree in which each layer is indexed by a scale and each node is a suitable beta density.
For example, at the root node, we have the Be(1,1) density which generates two daughters Be(1,2) and Be(2,1) and so on. In general, let $s$ denote the scale and $h$ the polynomial within the scale. The node $(s,h)$ in the tree is related to the Be($h, 2^s - h +1$) density. A cartoon of the binary tree is reported in Figure~\ref{tree1}.
\begin{figure}
\label{tree1}
\Tree [.Be(1,1)\\(0,1)
[.Be(1,2)\\(1,1)
[.Be(1,4)\\(2,1)
[.Be(1,8)\\(3,1) ] [.Be(2,7)\\(3,2) ] ]
[.Be(2,3)\\(2,2)
[.Be(3,6)\\(3,3) ] [.Be(4,5)\\(3,4) ] ] ]
[.Be(2,1)\\(1,2)
[.Be(3,2)\\(2,3)
[.Be(5,4)\\(3,5) ] [.Be(6,3)\\(3,6) ] ]
[.Be(4,1)\\(2,4)
[.Be(7,2)\\(3,7) ] [.Be(8,1)\\(3,8) ] ] ]
]
\caption{Binary tree with beta kernels at each node $(s, h)$, where $s$ is the scale level and $h$ is the index within the scale}
\end{figure}
A prior measure for the multiscale mixture \eqref{eq:mix1} is obtained by specifying a stochastic process for the infinite dimensional set of weights $\{\pi_{s,h}\}$. To this end we introduce, for each scale $s$ and node $h$ within the scale, independent random variables
\begin{equation}
S_{s,h} \sim \Be{1}{a},\quad R_{s,h} \sim \Be{b}{b},
\label{eq:SR}
\end{equation}
corresponding to the probability of stopping and taking the right path conditionally on not stopping, respectively. Define the weights as
\begin{equation}
\pi_{s,h} = S_{s,h} \prod_{r<s} (1-S_{r,g_{shr}}) T_{shr}
\label{eq:weights}
\end{equation}
where $g_{shr} = \lceil h/2^{s-r} \rceil$ is the node traveled through at scale $r$ on the way to node $h$ at scale $s$, $T_{shr} = R_{r,g_{shr}}$ if $(r+1,g_{shr+1})$ is the right daughter of node $(r,g_{shr})$, and $T_{shr} = 1-R_{r,g_{shr}}$ if $(r+1,g_{shr+1})$ is the left daughter of $(r,g_{shr})$. For binary trees, there is a unique path leading from the root node to node $(s,h)$, and $\cal T$ denotes the infinite deep binary tree of the weights \eqref{eq:weights}. We refer to the prior resulting from \eqref{eq:mix1}--\eqref{eq:weights} as a multiscale Bernstein polynomial (msBP) prior and we write $f \sim \mbox{msBP}(a,b)$. The choice for the hyperparameters are discussed in the next section.
The infinite tree of probability weights is generated from a generalization of the stick-breaking process representation of the Dirichlet process \citep{art:seth:1994}. Each time the stick is broken, it is consequently randomly divided in two parts (one for the probability of going right, the remainder for the probability of going left) before the next break.
An alternative treed stick-breaking process is proposed by \citet{adam:etal:2010} where a first stick-breaking process defines the vertical growth of an infinitely wide tree and a second puts weights on the infinite number of descendant nodes.
Sampling a random variable $y$ from a random density, which is generated from a msBP prior, can be described as follows. At node $(s,h)$, generate a random probability $S_{s,h} \sim \Be{1}{a}$ corresponding to the probability of stopping at that node given you passed through that node, and $R_{s,h} \sim \Be{b}{b}$ corresponding to the probability of taking the right path in the tree in moving to the next finer scale given you did not stop at node $(s,h)$. Conditionally on being at the node $(s,h)$ we assume that $y \sim \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s-h+1)$. Algorithm~1 describes how to generate $y$ from an msBP density.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Generating a draw from a random density having an msBP prior}
\begin{algorithmic}
\footnotesize
\STATE \texttt{loop} = TRUE;
\STATE $s = 0$, $h=1$;
\WHILE{\texttt{loop}}
\STATE let \texttt{loop} = FALSE with probability $S_{s,h}$.
\IF{\texttt{loop}}
\STATE with probability $R_{s,h}$, let $h = 2h$
\STATE with probability $1-R_{s,h}$, let $h = 2h-1$
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\STATE generate $y \sim \mbox{Be}(h, 2^{s} - h +1)$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Basic properties}
\label{sec:properties}
In this section we study basic properties of the proposed prior. A first requirement is that the construction leads to a meaningful sequence of weights. The next lemma shows that the random weights on each node of the infinitely deep tree sum to one almost surely.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:sumtoone}
Let $\pi_{s,h}$ be an infinite sequence of weights defined as in \eqref{eq:SR}--\eqref{eq:weights}. Then,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \pi_{s,h} = 1
\label{eq:sumtoone}
\end{equation}
almost surely for any $a,b>0$.
\end{lemma}
The total weight placed on a scale $s$ is controlled by the prior for $S_{s,h}$. The expected probability allocated to node $h$ at scale $s$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{E}(\pi_{s,h}) & = & \mbox{E}\bigg\{ S_s \prod_{l=0}^{s-1} (1-S_l) \prod_{l=1}^s T_l \bigg\} \nonumber \\
& = & \bigg( \frac{1}{1 + a} \bigg) \bigg( \frac{a}{1+a} \bigg)^s \bigg( \frac{1}{2} \bigg)^s = \frac{1}{1+a} \bigg( \frac{a}{2 + 2a} \bigg)^s,
\label{eq:mean}
\end{eqnarray}
where we discard the $h$ subscript on $S_l \sim \mbox{Be}(1,a)$ and $T_l \sim \mbox{Be}(b,b)$ for ease in notation. This does not impact the calculation because any path taken up to scale $s$ has the same probability {\em a priori} and the random variables in \eqref{eq:SR} have the same distribution regardless of the path that is taken. Similarly
\[
\mbox{E}(\pi_{s,h}^2) = \mbox{E}\bigg\{ S_s^2 \prod_{l=0}^{s-1} (1-S_l)^2 \prod_{l=1}^s T_l^2 \bigg\},
= \frac{2}{(1 + a)(2+a)} \bigg( \frac{a}{2+a} \bigg)^s \bigg\{ \frac{b+1}{2(2b+1)} \bigg\}^s.
\]
Hence at scale $s=0$ the variance is
$\mbox{Var}(\pi_{0,1}) = a/\{(2+a)(1 + a)^2\}$,
while for $s>0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{Var}(\pi_{s,h}) & = & \frac{2}{(1 + a)(2+a)} \bigg( \frac{a}{2+a} \bigg)^s \bigg\{ \frac{b+1}{2(2b+1)} \bigg\}^s -
\left\{\frac{1}{1+a} \bigg( \frac{a}{2 + 2a} \bigg)^s \right\}^2.
\label{eq:variance}
\end{eqnarray}
We can additionally verify that our prior for the CDF $G$ is centered on the chosen $G_0$. Letting $F(A) = \int_A f$, we obtain $E\{F(A)\} = \lambda(A)$, where $\lambda(A)$ is the Lebesgue measure over the set $A$. Details are reported in the Appendix. Hence, the prior for the density of $y$ is automatically centered on a uniform density on $[0,1]$.
This is the desired behavior as $y \sim \mbox{Unif}(0,1)$ with $x = G_0^{-1}( y )$ implies that $x \sim g_0$, which is our prior guess for the observed data density. In addition, from (\ref{eq:map}), $\mbox{E}\{ F(y) \} = y$ implies
\[
\mbox{E}[ G\{ G_0^{-1}(y) \}] = y = \mbox{E}\{ G( x ) \} = G_0(x),
\]
so that the prior expectation for the CDF $G$ is $G_0$ as desired.
From equation \eqref{eq:mean} and \eqref{eq:variance}, the hyperparameter $a$ controls the decline in probabilities over scales. In general, letting $S^{(i)}$ denote the scale at which the $i$th observation falls, we have
\[
E(S^{(i)}) = \sum_{s=0}^\infty s \frac{1}{1+a} \bigg( \frac{a}{2 + 2a} \bigg)^s = a.
\]
Hence, the value of $a$ is the expected scale from which observations are drawn. For small $a$, high probability is placed on coarse scales, leading to smoother densities, with $a \to 0$ inducing $\pi_{0,1}=1$ and hence $f(y)$ uniform. As $a$ increases, finer scale densities will be weighted higher, leading to spiker realizations. To illustrate this, Figure~\ref{fig:realizations1} shows realizations from the prior for different $a$ values. To better isolate the contribution of the $a$ hyperparameter, we fixed the realizations of $R_{s,h} \sim \Be{1}{1}$ for all subplots.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.8]{realizations5}
\end{center}
\caption{Five realizations from an msBP prior with $b=1$ and (a) $a=1$, (b) $a=2$, (c) $a=5$, and (d) $a=10$.}
\label{fig:realizations1}
\end{figure}
An appealing aspect of the proposed formulation is that individuals sampled from a distribution that is assigned an msBP prior are allocated to clusters in a multiscale fashion. In particular, two individuals having similar observations may have the same cluster allocation up to some scale $s$, but perhaps are not clustered on finer scales. Clustering is intrinsically a scale dependent notion, and our model is the first to our knowledge to formalize multiscale clustering in a model based probabilistic manner. Under the above structure, the probability that two individuals $i$ and $i'$ are assigned to the same scale $s$ cluster is one for $s=0$ and for $s>0$, is equal to
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ 2^s \mbox{E}\bigg\{ \prod_{l=0}^{s-1} (1-S_l)^2 T_l^2 \bigg\} } \nonumber \\
& & = 2^s \prod_{l=0}^{s-1} \mbox{E}( \overline{S}_l^2 ) \mbox{E}( T_l^2 ) = 2^s \bigg( \frac{a}{ a+ 2} \bigg)^s \bigg( \frac{1}{2} \bigg)^s \bigg( \frac{b+1}{2b + 1} \bigg)^s
= \bigg\{ \bigg( \frac{a}{a+2} \bigg) \bigg( \frac{b+1}{2b+1}\bigg) \bigg\}^s. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This is derived by calculating the expected probability that two individuals travel though node $h$ at scale $s$ and multiplying by the number of nodes in scale $s$. This form is intuitive. As $b \to 0$, the Be($b,b$) density degenerates to $0.5\delta_0 + 0.5\delta_1$, so that variability among subjects in the chosen paths through the tree decreases and all subjects take a common path chosen completely at random via unbiased coin flips at each node. In such a limiting case, $(b+1)/(2b+1) \to 1$ and the probability of clustering subjects at scale $s$ is simply the probability of surviving to that scale and not being allocated to a coarser scale component. At the other extreme, as $b \to \infty$ each subject independently flips an unbiased coin in deciding to go right or left at each node of the tree, and $(b+1)/(2b+1) \to 1/2$. Hyperpriors can be chosen for $a$ and $b$ to allow the data to inform about these tuning parameters; we find that choosing a hyperprior for $a$ is particularly important, with
$b=1$ as a default.
Approximations of the msBP process can be obtained fixing an upper bound $s$ for the depth of the tree. The truncation is applied by pruning $\mathcal T$ at scale $s$, setting $S_{s,h} = 1$ for each $h = 1, \dots, 2^s$ as done in \citet{art:ishw:jame:2001} and related works in the single scale case.
We denote the scale $s$ approximation as
\begin{eqnarray}
f^s(y) = \sum_{l=0}^s \sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \tilde{\pi}_{l,h} \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^l - h + 1), \label{eq:fs}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tilde{\pi}_{l,h}$ identical to $\pi_{l,h}$ except that we set all the stopping probabilities at scale $s$ equal to one to ensure that the weights sum to one and that $f^s(y)$ is a valid probability density on $\mathcal{Y} = [0,1]$. Let $\mathcal{T}^s$ denote the pruned binary tree of weights. It is interesting to study the accuracy of the approximation of $f^s(y)$ to $f(y)$ as the scale $s$ changes under different metrics. For example, using the total variation distance, \begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ d_{TV}(P_s, P) = \sup_{B \in \mathcal{B}} | P^s(B) - P(B) | } \nonumber \\
& & = \sup_{B \in \mathcal{B}} \bigg| \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \tilde{\pi}_{s,h} \mbox{Be}( B; h, 2^s - h + 1) -
\sum_{l=s}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \pi_{l,h} \mbox{Be}( B; h, 2^l-h+1) \bigg|,
\label{eq:dTV}
\end{eqnarray}
where $P^s( B ) = \int_B f^s(y)dy$ and $P(B) = \int_B f(y)dy$, for all $B \in \mathcal{B}$, denote the probability measures corresponding to densities $f^s(y)$ and $f(y)$, respectively, with $\mathcal{B}$ the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of subsets of $\mathcal{Y} = [0,1]$. The next lemma shows that {\em a priori} the expected deviation of the truncation approximation $P^s$ from $P$ is zero and the variance is decreasing exponentially with $s$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:tvd}
The expectation of the total variation distance between $P^s(B)$ and $P(B)$ is zero and its variance is
\[
\mbox{Var}\left\{d_{TV}(P_s, P)\right\} = 2\left(\frac{a}{a+1}\right)^s.
\]
\end{lemma}
\section{Posterior computation}
In this section we demonstrate that a straightforward Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
algorithm can be constructed to perform posterior inference under the msBP prior.
The algorithm consists of two primary steps: (i) allocate each observation
to a multiscale cluster, conditionally on the current values of the probabilities $\{ \pi_{s,h} \}$;
(ii) conditionally on the cluster allocations, update the probabilities.
Suppose subject $i$ is assigned to node $(s_i,h_i)$, with $s_i$ the scale and $h_i$ the node within scale.
Conditionally on $\{ \pi_{s,h} \}$, the posterior probability of subject $i$ belonging to node ($s,h$) is simply
\begin{align*}
\mbox{pr}(s_i = s, h_i=h | y_i, \pi_{s,h}) & \propto \pi_{s,h} \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1).
\end{align*}
Consider the total mass assigned at scale $s$, defined as $\pi_s = \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \pi_{s,h}$, and let $\bar{\pi}_{s,h} = \pi_{s,h}/\pi_{s}$. Under this notation, we can rewrite \eqref{eq:mix1} as
\begin{align*}
f(y) = \sum_{s=0}^\infty \pi_{s} \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \bar{\pi}_{s,h} \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1).
\end{align*}
To allocate each subject to a multiscale cluster, we rely on a multiscale modification of the slice sampler of \citet{kall:etal:2011}. Consider the joint density
\[
f(y_i,u_i,s_i) \propto 1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I} (u_i<\pi_{s_i}) \sum_{h=1}^{2^{s_i}} \bar{\pi}_{s_i,h} \mbox{Be}(y_i; h, 2^{s_i} - h +1 ).
\]
The full conditional posterior distributions are
\begin{align}
& u_i | y_i, s_i \sim U(0, \pi_{s_i}), \label{eq:step1slice} \\
& \mbox{pr}(s_i=s | u_i,y_i) \propto 1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I} (s: \pi_{s}> u_i)\sum_{h=1}^{2^{s}} \bar{\pi}_{s,h} \mbox{Be}(y_i; h, 2^{s} - h +1 ),\label{eq:step1bmultinom}\\
& \mbox{pr}(h_i=h | u_i,y_i,s_i) \propto \bar{\pi}_{s_i,h} \mbox{Be}(y_i; h, 2^{s_i} - h +1 ).
\label{eq:step1bmultinom2}
\end{align}
Even with an infinite resolution level, equation \eqref{eq:step1bmultinom} implies that observations are assigned to a finite number of scales and there are a finite number of probabilities to evaluate. Conditionally on the scale, equation \eqref{eq:step1bmultinom2} induces a simple multinomial sampling, which allocates a subject to a particular node within that scale. Algorithm 2 summarizes the posterior cluster allocation step.
An alternative version of this slice sampler considers the joint density
\[
f(y_i,u_i,s_i,h_i) \propto 1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I} (u_i<\pi_{s_i,h_i}) \mbox{Be}(y_i; h_i, 2^{s_i} - h_i +1 ),
\]
leading to conditional posteriors
\[
u_i | y_i, s_i, h_i \sim U(0, \pi_{s_i,h_i}), \quad
\mbox{pr}(s_i=s,h_i=h |u_i,y_i) \propto 1{\hskip -2.5 pt}\hbox{I} (\pi_{s,h}> u_i)\mbox{Be}(y_i; h, 2^{s} - h +1 ).
\]
In the second version a greater number of probabilities need to be evaluated for each subject. Our experience suggests that the sampler obtained using \eqref{eq:step1slice}--\eqref{eq:step1bmultinom2}, summarized in Algorithm~2, is more efficient and converges faster.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Multiscale cluster posterior allocation for $i$th subject
}
\begin{algorithmic}
\footnotesize
\FOR{each scale $s$}
\STATE calculate $\pi_s = \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \pi_{s,h}$:
\ENDFOR
\STATE simulate $u_i | y_i, s_i \sim U(0, \pi_{s_i})$;
\FOR{each scale $s$}
\IF{$\pi_{s}> u_i$}
\FOR{$h=1, \dots 2^s$}
\STATE compute $\bar{\pi}_{s,h} = \pi_{s,h}/\pi_{s}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE compute $ \mbox{pr}(s_i=s | u_i,y_i) \propto \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \bar{\pi}_{s,h} \mbox{Be}(y_i; h, 2^{s} - h +1 )$
\ELSE
\STATE $\mbox{pr}(s_i=s | u_i,y_i) = 0$;
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE sample $s_i$ with probability $\mbox{pr}(s_i=s | u_i,y_i)$;
\STATE sample $h_i$ with probability $\mbox{pr}(h_i=h | y_i,s_i) \propto \bar{\pi}_{s_i,h} \mbox{Be}(y_i; h, 2^{s_i} - h +1 )$;
\end{algorithmic}
\label{algo:postcluster}
\end{algorithm}
Conditionally on cluster allocations, we sample all the stopping and descending-right probabilities from their full conditional posterior distributions:
\begin{equation}
S_{s,h} \sim \Be{1+n_{s,h}}{a + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h}},\quad
R_{s,h} \sim \Be{b+r_{s,h}}{b + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h} - r_{s,h} }, \label{eq:postSR}
\end{equation}
where $v_{s,h}$ is the number of subjects passing through node $(s,h)$, $n_{s,h}$ is the number of subjects stopping at node $(s,h)$, and $r_{s,h}$ is the number of subjects that continue to the right after passing through node $(s, h)$. Calculation of $v_{s,h}$ and $r_{s,h}$ can be performed via parallel computing due to the binary tree structure, improving efficiency.
If hyperpriors for $a$ and $b$ are assumed, additional sampling steps are required. Assuming $a \sim \mbox{Ga}(\beta,\gamma)$, its full conditional posterior is
\begin{equation}
a | - \sim \mbox{Ga}\left(\beta + 2^{s'+1} - 1, \gamma - \sum_{s=0}^{s'} \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \log(1-S_{s,h}) \right),
\label{eq:posterio_a}
\end{equation}
while if $b \sim \mbox{Ga}(\delta, \lambda)$ its full conditional posterior is proportional to
\begin{equation}
b^\delta \prod_{s=0}^{s'} \prod_{h=1}^{2^s} \frac{1}{B(b,b)} \exp \left\{-b \left(
\lambda \sum_{s=0}^{s'} \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \log\{R_{s,h} (1 - R_{s,h} )\} \right) \right\},
\label{eq:posterio_b}
\end{equation}
where $s'$ is the maximum occupied scale and $B(p, q)$ is the Beta function. To sample
from the latter distribution, a Metropolis-Hastings step
is required. The Gibbs sampler iterates the steps outlined in Algorithm ~\ref{algo:gibbs}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Gibbs sampler steps for posterior computation under msBP prior}
\begin{algorithmic}
\footnotesize
\FOR{ $i = 1, \dots, n$}
\STATE assign observation $i$ to a cluster $(s_i, h_i)$ as in Algorithm~\ref{algo:postcluster}.
\ENDFOR
\STATE compute $n_{s,h}$ the number of subjects in cluster $(h,s)$ for all occupied clusters;
\STATE compute $v_{s,h}$ the number of subjects that pass through node $(h,s)$;
\STATE compute $r_{s,h}$ the number of subjects that proceed down to the right at node $(h,s)$;
\STATE let $s_{\text{MAX}}$ be the maximum occupied scale;
\FOR{ $s = 0, \dots, s_{\text{MAX}}$}
\FOR{ $h = 1, \dots, 2^s$}
\STATE update $S_{s,h} \sim \Be{1+n_{s,h}}{a + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h}}$
\STATE update $R_{s,h} \sim \Be{b+r_{s,h}}{b + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h} - r_{s,h} }$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE update $a$ from \eqref{eq:posterio_a};
\STATE update $b$ from \eqref{eq:posterio_b}.
\end{algorithmic}
\label{algo:gibbs}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Simulation study}
\label{sec:simulation}
We compared our msBP method to standard Bayesian nonparametric techniques including DP location-scale mixtures of Gaussians, DP mixtures of Bernstein polynomials, and mixtures of Polya trees, all using the R package \texttt{DPpackage}. In addition, we implemented a frequentist wavelet density estimator using the package \texttt{WaveThresh}, and a simple frequentist kernel estimator. Several simulations have been run under different simulation settings leading to qualitatively similar results.
We report the results for four scenarios. Scenario 1 simulated data from a mixture of betas, 0.6Be(3, 3) + 0.4Be(21, 5); Scenario 2 used a mixture of Gaussians, $0.5N (0, 4) + 0.3N (2, 1) + 0.2N (1.5, 0.25)$; Scenario 3 generated data from a density supported on the positive real line, a mixture of a gamma and a left truncated normal, $0.9\mbox{Ga}(2, 2) + 0.1N_{\mbox{\tiny LT}} (4, 0.4)$; finally, Scenario 4 generated data from a symmetric density with two spiky modes, $0.7N (0, 4) + 0.1N (0.5, 0.01) + 0.2N (1.5, 0.4)$.
For each case, we generated sample sizes of $n = 25, 50, 100$. Each of the approaches were applied to $200$ replicated data sets under each scenario. The methods were compared based on a Monte Carlo approximation to the mean Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance (KS), $L_1$ and $L_2$ distances.
To implement Algorithm 3, we exploit the binary tree structure of our modelling framework using efficient {\small C}\texttt{++} code embedded into R functions. In implementing the Gibbs sampler, the first 1{,}000 iterations were discarded as a burn-in
and the next 2{,}000 samples were used to calculate the posterior mean of the density on a fine grid of points. To center our prior, using a default empirical Bayes approach, we set $g_0$ equal to a kernel estimate. For the hyperparameters we fixed $b = 1$ and let $a \sim \mbox{Ga}(5, 0.5)$. We truncated the depth of the binary tree to the sixth scale. The values of the density for a wide variety of points in the domain were monitored to gauge rates of apparent convergence and mixing. The trace plots showed excellent mixing, and the \citet{gewe:1992} diagnostic suggested rapid convergence.
\input{tab_simulation1}
The results of the simulation are reported in Table 1 and Figure \ref{fig:siml1}.
The proposed method performs better or equally to the best competitor in almost all scenarios and sample sizes. The worst performance in each case is obtained for mixtures of Polya trees, with overly-spiky density estimates leading to higher distances from the truth.
In Scenario 1 the msBP approach beats all the competitors, except in large sample sizes when single-scale DP mixtures of Bernstein polynomials are comparable. In Scenario 2 the msBP approach is comparable to the frequentist kernel smoother estimator. In scenario 3 the msBP approach is comparable to DP location-scale mixtures and finally, in Scenario 4 our multiscale approach is clearly performing better than any other method.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[page=1, scale=.8]{L1_2}
\end{center}
\caption{Mean $L_1$ distance between the true densities and the posterior msBP estimate (continuous line, circle dots), posterior DP mixture of Gaussians estimate (dashed line, circle dots), posterior DP mixture of Bernstein polynomials estimate (dotted line, circle dots), frequentist wavelet estimate (dashed line, ``$\times$'' dots), and frequentist kernel smoothing estimate (dotted line, ``$\times$'' dots) under the four scenarios. The posterior mixture of Polya trees estimate is far away and it is not reported for graphical reasons.}
\label{fig:siml1}
\end{figure}
\section{Extensions}
An appealing aspect of the proposed method is ease of generalization to include predictors, hierarchical dependence, time series, spatial structure and so on. To incorporate additional structure, one can replace model \eqref{eq:mix1} for the stopping and right path probabilities with an appropriate variant. Similar extensions have been proposed for single resolution mixture models by replacing the beta random variables in a stick-breaking construction with probit regressions \citep{chun:duns:2009, rodr:duns:2011}, logistic regressions \citep{ren:etal:2011} or broader stochastic processes \citep{pati:etal:2013}. We focus here on one interesting extension to the under-studied problem of Bayesian multiscale inferences on differences between groups.
\subsection{Multiscale testing of group differences}
Motivated by epigenetic data, we propose Bayesian multiscale hypothesis tests of group differences using multiscale Bernstein polynomials. DNA methylation arrays collect data on epigenetic modifications at a large number of CpG sites. Let $y_i = (y_{i1},\ldots,y_{ip})^T$ denote the DNA methylation data for patient $i$ at $p$ different sites, with $d_i \in \{0,1\}$ denoting the patient's disease status, either $d_i=0$ for controls or $d_i=1$ for cases. Current standard analyses rely on independent screening using $t$-tests to assess differences between cases and control at each site. However, DNA methylation data are constrained to $y_{ij} \in (0,1)$ and tend to have a complex distribution having local spikes and varying smoothness.
As illustration we focus on nonparametric independent screening; the approach is easily adapted to accommodate dependence across sites. We center our prior on the uniform as a default. The density of $y_{ij}$ given $d_i=0$ is modeled as in previous sections. Let $H_{0}: f_{0} = f_{1}$ denote the {\em global} null hypothesis of no difference between groups, with $H_{1}: f_{0} \neq f_{1}$ denoting the alternative.
Using an msBP representation, $f_0 = f_1$ if the groups share weights over the dictionary of beta densities. If $f_0 \neq f_1$, we may have the same weights on the dictionary elements up to a given scale, so that the densities are equivalent up to that scale but not at finer scales. With this in mind, let $H_0^s: f^s_{0} = f^s_{1}$ denote the null hypothesis of no differences between groups at scale $s$, and $H_{1}^s: f_{0}^s \neq f_{1}^s$ the alternative. As $H_0^0$ is true with probability one, we set $S_{0,1}=0$ and concentrate on $H_0^s$ for $s \ge 1$.
Each of the $n$ subjects in the sample takes a path through the binary tree, stopping at a finite depth. Let $\mathcal{I}^s = \{ i: s_i \ge s \}$ index the subjects {\em surviving} up to scale $s$ and let $\mathcal{N}^s$ denote the actions of these subjects at scale $s$, including stopping or progressing downward to the left or right for each of the nodes. Subscripts $(d)$ on $\mathcal{I}^s$ and $\mathcal{N}^s$ denote the restriction to subjects having $d_i=d$. Conditionally on $H_0^s$, the probabilities for each scale $s$ action are the same in the two groups and the likelihood of actions $\mathcal{N}^s$ is
\begin{align}
\mbox{pr} & (\mathcal{N}^s | H_0^s)
= \int_{\mathcal{T}^{}} \mbox{pr}(\mathcal{N}^{s} | \mathcal{T}^{}) \mbox{pr}(\mathcal{T}^{}|a,b) d \mathcal{T}^{} \notag \\
& = \left\{\frac{\Gamma(a+1)}{\Gamma(a)} \frac{\Gamma(2b)}{\Gamma(b)^2} \right\}^{2^{s}}
\int_{\mathcal{T}^{}} \prod_{h = 1}^{2^{s}}
S_{s,h}^{n_{s,h}} (1-S_{s,h})^{\hat{a}_{s,h}-1}
R_{s,h}^{\hat{b}_{s,h}-1} (1 - R_{s,h})^{\hat{c}_{s,h} -1} d \mathcal{T}^{} \notag \\
& = \left\{\frac{\Gamma(a+1)\Gamma(2b)}{\Gamma(a) \Gamma(b)^2} \right\}^{2^{s}}
\prod_{h = 1}^{2^{s}}
\frac{\Gamma(1 + n_{s,h}) \Gamma(\hat{a}) }{\Gamma(a + v_{s,h} + 1)}
\frac{\Gamma(\hat{b}) \Gamma(\hat{c}) }{\Gamma(2b + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h})}, \label{pnest0}
\end{align}
where $\hat{a}_{s,h} = a + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h}$, $\hat{b}_{s,h} = b + r_{s,h}$, and $\hat{c}_{s,h} = b + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h} - r_{s,h}$.
Similarly under $H_1$ we have
\begin{align}
\mbox{pr}(\mathcal{N}^{s} | H_1^{s}) = &\, \mbox{pr}(\mathcal{N}_{(0)}^{s}| H_1^{s})
\times \mbox{pr}(\mathcal{N}_{(1)}^{s}| H_1^{s}) \notag\\
= & \left\{\frac{\Gamma(a+1)\Gamma(2b)}{\Gamma(a) \Gamma(b)^2} \right\}^{2^{2s}}
\prod_{h = 1}^{2^{s}}
\frac{\Gamma(1 + n_{s,h}^{(0)}) \Gamma(\hat{a}^{(0)}) }{\Gamma(a + v_{s,h}^{(0)} + 1)}
\frac{\Gamma(\hat{b}^{(0)}) \Gamma(\hat{c}^{(0)}) }{\Gamma(2b + v_{s,h}^{(0)} - n_{s,h}^{(0)})}\times \notag\\
&
\prod_{h = 1}^{2^s}
\frac{\Gamma(1 + n_{s,h}^{(1)}) \Gamma(\hat{a}^{(1)}) }{\Gamma(a + v_{s,h}^{(1)} + 1)}
\frac{\Gamma(\hat{b}^{(1)}) \Gamma(\hat{c}^{(1)}) }{\Gamma(2b + v_{s,h}^{(1)} - n_{s,h}^{(1)})}, \label{pnest1}
\end{align}
where $v_{s,h}^{(d)}$ is the number of subjects passing through node $(s,h)$ in group $d$, $n_{s,h}^{(d)}$ is the number of subjects stopping at node $(s,h)$ in group $d$, and $r_{s,h}^{(d)}$ is the number of subjects that continue to the right after passing through node $(s, h)$ in group $d$, with $d=0,1$.
Combining \eqref{pnest0}--\eqref{pnest1} we can obtain a closed form for the posterior probability of $H_0$ being true at scale $s$, given $\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}$ and $\mathcal{N}^s_{(1)}$:
\begin{align}
\mbox{pr}(H_0^s|\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)})
& = \frac{P_0^s\mbox{pr}(\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)} | H_0^s) }{ P_0^s\mbox{pr}(\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)} | H_0^s) + (1-P_0^s)\mbox{pr}(\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)} | H_1^s)},\label{eq:postH0}
\end{align}
where $P_0^s$ is our prior guess for the null being true at scale $s$. The global null will be the cumulative product of the $\mbox{pr}(H_0^s|\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)}) $ for each scale. An interesting feature of this formulation is to have a multiscale hypothesis testing setup. Indeed the posterior probability of $H_0$ up to scale $\tilde{s}$ will be $\prod_{s\leq\tilde{s}} \mbox{pr}(H_0^s|\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)})$ and hence the hypothesis that two groups have the same distribution may have high posterior probability for coarse scales, but can be rejected for a finer scale.
\subsection{Posterior computation}
The conditional posterior probability for $H_0^s$ in \eqref{eq:postH0} is simple, but not directly useful due to the dependence on the unknown $\mathcal{N}^s$ allocations. To marginalize out these allocations, we modify Algorithm~\ref{algo:gibbs}. For node $h$ at scale $s$, let $\pi_{s,h}^{(0)}$ denote the weight under $H_0^s$ and $\pi_{s,h}^{(1,d)}$ for $d=0,1$ denote the group-specific weights under $H_1^s$. At each iteration, the allocation of subject $i$ of group $d$ will be made according to the tree of weights given by
\begin{equation}
\pi_{s,h}^{(d)} = P(H_0^s|\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)}) \pi_{s,h}^{(0)} +
\{1 - P(H_0^s|\mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)})\} \pi_{s,h}^{(1,d)}.
\label{eq:treetest}
\end{equation}
Given the allocation one can calculate all the quantities in \eqref{pnest0}--\eqref{pnest1} and then update the stopping and descending probabilities under $H_0$ and $H_1$ following \eqref{eq:postSR} and the posterior of the null following \eqref{eq:postH0} up to a desired upper scale.
\section{Application}
We illustrate our approach on a methylation array dataset for $n$ = 597 breast cancer samples registered at $p = 21{,}986$ CpG sites \citep{tcga:2012}. We test for differences between tumors that are identified as basal-like ($n_0$ = 112) against those that are not ($n_1$ = 485) at each CpG site. This same problem was considered in a single scale manner by \citet{lock:duns:2014} using finite mixtures of truncated Gaussians.
We run the Gibbs sampler reported in Algorithm~\ref{algo:test} in the Appendix, assuming a uniform prior for $P_0^s$ for each scale $s$. We fixed the maximum scale to 4 as an upper bound, as finer scale tests were not thought to be interpretable. The sampler is run for 2{,}000 iterations after 1{,}000 burn-in iterations. The chains mix well and converge quickly for all sites and all scales.
The posterior distribution of $1-P_0^s$ for each scale provides a summary of the overall proportion of CpG sites for which there was a difference between the two groups. The estimated posterior means for these probabilities were 0.04, 0.07, 0.05 and 0.03, respectively, for scales $1,\ldots,4$. This suggests that DNA methylation levels were different for a small minority of the CpG sites, which is as expected.
Examining the posterior probabilites of $H_1^s$ across the 21,986 CpG sites, consistently with the estimates for $1-P_0^s$, we find that scale-specific estimated posterior probabilities are close to zero for most sites.
Focusing on the 1{,}696 sites for which the overall posterior probability of $H_1$ is greater than $0.5$, we calculated the minimal scale showing evidence of a difference, $\min\{ s: \hat{Pr}(H_1^s|-)>0.5 \}$, with $\hat{Pr}(H_1^s|-)$ denoting the estimated posterior probability. The proportions of sites having minimal scale equal to $1,2,3,4$ were $47\%, 43\%, 7\%, 3\%$ respectively.
Figure~\ref{fig:fourgroups} shows $\hat{Pr}(H_1^s|-)$ for these 1{,}696 sites. In the top right quadrant we report those sites having minimal scale equal to $1$. Two different patterns are evident: (1) consistently high
$\hat{Pr}(H_1^s|-)$, with differences evident at the coarse scale. Site \emph{cg00117172} is among those and its sample distribution is reported in panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:examples}. (2) moderate $\hat{Pr}(H_1^s|-)$ for $s=1$, with clear evidence at $s=2$. Averages of the sites in these two groups are shown with thick dashed lines.
The top right panel, representing sites having minimal scale equal to $2$, presents two patterns: (1) no differences at scale one but clear evidence of $H_1$ at scale two. Site \emph{cg00186954} in panel (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:examples} has this behavior. (2) moderately growing evidence for $H_1$ for increasing scale level. The bottom two panels show results for sites having minimal scale equal to 3 and 4, showing again two different patterns: (1) A group with mild or no evidence for $H_1$ up to scale 3 and 4, respectively (e.g. site \emph{cg20603888} reported in panel (c) of Figure~\ref{fig:examples}), and (2) another group with increasing evidence for increasing scale. These scale-specific significant tests are interesting in that coarser scale differences are more likely to be biologically significant, while very fine scale differences may represent local changes with minor impact.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.95]{fourgroups_clus}
\end{center}
\caption{Posterior mean probabilities of $H_1$ depending on scale for the 1{,}696 sites, with some evidence of differences in the two groups, grouped in subplots by minimal scale showing $\hat{Pr}(H_1^s|-)>0.5$ for $s=1, \dots 4.$ Within each panel, the thick dashed lines represents the average between the sites in two clusters showing different patterns.}
\label{fig:fourgroups}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=.6, page=1]{other4}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=.6, page=2]{other4}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=.6, page=1]{differenceslock}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[scale=.6, page=2]{differenceslock}}
\end{center}
\caption{Histogram of the methylation for the basal (decreasing 45 degree angle shading) and non-basal (increasing 45 degree angle shading) samples for four CpG sites and posterior mean probabilities of $H_1$ in function of scale.}
\label{fig:examples}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{Discussion}
Existing Bayesian nonparametric multiscale tools for density estimation have unappealing characteristics, such as favoring overly-spiky densities. Our framework overcomes such limitations. We have demonstrated some practically appealing properties, including simplicity of formulation and ease of computation, and proposed an extension for Bayesian multiscale hypothesis testing of group differences. Multiscale hypothesis testing is of considerable interest in itself, and provides a new view on the topic of nonparametric testing of group differences, with many interesting facets. For example, it can be argued that in large samples there will always be small local differences in the distributions between groups, which may not be scientifically relevant. By allowing scale-specific tests, we accommodate the possibility of focusing inference on the range of relevant scales in an application, providing additional insight into the nature of the differences. We also accommodate scale-specific adaptive borrowing of information across groups in density estimation; extensions to include covariates and hierarchical structure are straightforward.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors thanks Eric Lock for helpful comments on Section 5 and Roberto Vigo for comments on the code implementation.
\section*{Appendix}
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ordstat}
Let $X_1, \dots, X_n \stackrel{iid}{\sim} \mbox{Be}(a,b)$ and $X_{(1)}$ the first order statistic. Then
\[
E\{X_{(1)}\} \geq\frac{nab^{b(n-1)}}{(a+b) (a+b+1)^{b(n-1)}} .
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First note that
\[
\frac{1}{B(a,b)} \int_x^1 t^{a-1} (1-t)^{b-1} dt \geq \frac{1}{B(1,b)} \int_x^1 (1-t)^{b-1} dt = (1-x)^b.
\]
Hence the expectation of $X_{(1)}$ is
\begin{align*}
E\{X_{(1)}\} & = \frac{n}{B(a,b)} \int_0^1 \left[ 1 - \left(B(a.b)^{-1} \int_0^x t^{a-1} (1-t)^{b-1} dt\right)\right]^{n-1} x^{a} (1-x)^{b-1} dx \\
& \geq \frac{n}{B(a,b)} \int_0^1 \left( 1-x \right)^{b(n-1)} x^{a} (1-x)^{b-1} dx \\
& = \frac{na}{a+b} E\left\{ \left( 1-\tilde{X} \right)^{b(n-1)}\right\},
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{X} \sim \mbox{Be}(a+1,b)$. Now using Jensen's inequality we have
\begin{align*}
E\left\{ \left( 1-\tilde{X} \right)^{b(n-1)}\right\} \geq \left( 1- E\left\{ \tilde{X}\right\} \right)^{b(n-1)} = \left(\frac{b}{a+b+1} \right) ^{b(n-1)},
\end{align*}
and hence
\[
E\{X_{(1)}\} \geq\frac{nab^{b(n-1)}}{(a+b) (a+b+1)^{b(n-1)}} .
\]
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma 1]
For finite $N$ define $\Delta_N = 1 - \sum_{s=0}^N \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \pi_{s,h}$, for which the following inequality holds:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_N = \sum_{h=1}^{2^N} \prod_{r\leq N} (1-S_{r,g_{Nhr}})T_{r-1,g_{Nhr}} \leq 2^N \max_{h=1, \dots, 2^N} \prod_{r\leq N} (1-S_{r,g_{Nhr}})T_{r-1,g_{Nhr}}.
\label{eq:delta}
\end{equation}
To establish \eqref{eq:sumtoone}, it is sufficient to take the limit of $\Delta_N$ for $N\to\infty$ and show that it converges to 0 a.s. To this end, take the logarithm of the right hand side of \eqref{eq:delta},
\begin{equation}
\log(\Delta_N) \leq \max_{h=1, \dots, 2^N} \sum_{r\leq N} \log \left\{ 2^N (1-S_{r,g_{Nhr}})T_{r-1,g_{Nhr}} \right\},
\label{eq:logdelta}
\end{equation}
and notice that for each $h = 1, \dots, 2^N$ we have
\begin{equation}
E \left\{ 2^N (1-S_{r,g_{Nhr}})T_{r-1,g_{Nhr}} \right\} = 2^N \left(\frac{a}{a+1}\right) \frac{1}{2^N} = \frac{a}{a+1}.
\label{eq:explogdelta}
\end{equation}
Therefore taking $N \to \infty$, by Kolmogorov's three series theorem and Jensen's inequality, the argument of the maximum of \eqref{eq:logdelta}, converges to $-\infty$ a.s. for each $h$. Thus $\Delta_N$ converges to 0 a.s. which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Detail on moments of $F(A)$.]
The expectation of $F(A)$ is simply
\begin{align*}
E[F(A)] & = E\left[\sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \pi_{s,h} \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1) \right]\\
& = \sum_{s=0}^\infty \frac{1}{1+a} \left(\frac{a}{1+a} \right)^{s} \frac{1}{2^{s}} \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1) \\
& = \sum_{s=0}^\infty \frac{1}{1+a} \left(\frac{a}{1+a} \right)^{s} \lambda(A) \\
& = \lambda(A) \sum_{s=0}^\infty \frac{1}{1+a} \left(\frac{a}{1+a} \right)^{s} = \lambda(A),
\end{align*}
where the third equality follows from the fact that the average measure over scale $s$ beta dictionary densities of any region $A$ equals the Lebesgue measure of $A$.
\begin{comment}
The second moment can be computed similarly but the latter results does not hold, which complicates all the expressions. Indeed we have
\begin{align}
E[F(A)^2] = & E\left[\left(\sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \pi_{s,h} \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1) \right)^2\right] \notag\\
= & \sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \sum_{r=0}^\infty \sum_{l=1}^{2^r} E\left[ \pi_{s,h}\pi_{r,l}\right] \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1) \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; l, 2^r - l +1) \notag \\
= & \sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{r=0}^s \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \sum_{l=1}^{2^r} E\left[ \pi_{s,h}\pi_{r,l}\right] \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1) \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; l, 2^r - l +1) + \label{eq:sum1}\\
& \sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \sum_{l=1}^{2^s} E\left[ \pi_{s,h}\pi_{s,l}\right] \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1) \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; l, 2^s - l +1) + \label{eq:sum2}\\
& \sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{r=s+1}^s \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \sum_{l=1}^{2^r} E\left[ \pi_{s,h}\pi_{r,l}\right] \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; h, 2^s - h +1) \int_A \mbox{Be}(y; l, 2^r - l +1), \label{eq:sum3}
\end{align}
which unfortunately is not easy to handle. Consider, for example, the expectation for the general summand over the sum of \eqref{eq:sum1}, assuming that node $(s,h)$ and node $(r,l)$ share the path for $K(s,h,r,l)$ nodes ($K$ for brevity). Hence
\[
E\left[ \pi_{s,h}\pi_{r,l}\right] = \left(\frac{1}{a+1}\right)^2 \left(\frac{a}{a+2}\right)^K \left(\frac{a}{a+1}\right)^{s+r -2K}
\left(\frac{b+1}{2(2b+1)}\right)^K \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{s+r -2K}.
\]
Consider now the expectation for the general summand over the sum of \eqref{eq:sum2}, clearly
\[
E\left[ \pi_{s,h}\pi_{s,l}\right] = \left(\frac{1}{a+1}\right)^2 \left(\frac{a}{a+2}\right)^K \left(\frac{a}{a+1}\right)^{2(s-K)}
\left(\frac{b+1}{2(2b+1)}\right)^K \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2(s-K)}.
\]
In this case we can work on the expression and see, for example, that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s=0}^\infty \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} & \sum_{l=1}^{2^s} E\left[ \pi_{s,h}\pi_{s,l}\right] = \\
\sum_{s=0}^\infty & \bigg( \frac{1}{(a+1)(a+2)} \left(\frac{a}{a+1}\right)^{2s}
\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2s} + \\
& \left.+ \sum_{K=0}^{s} \left(\frac{1}{a+1}\right)^2 \left(\frac{a}{a+2}\right)^K \left(\frac{a}{a+1}\right)^{2(s-K)}
\left(\frac{b+1}{2(2b+1)}\right)^K \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{2(s-K)} \right).
\end{align*}
Clearly we can go ahead and obtain monsters like the one above. In fact, I believe that this is useless since we have to consider also the squared integral of all the dictionary beta densities, which (at my knowledge) cannot be simplified as in the first moment.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:tvd}]
First note that twice the total variation distance between two measures $P^s$ and $P$ equals the $L_1$ distance between the densities $f^s$ and $f$. For the expectation, the following holds
\[
E \bigg[ \int \bigg| f^s( y) - f(y) \bigg| dy \bigg] = \int E \bigg[ \bigg| f^s( y) - f(y) \bigg| \bigg] dy
\]
by Fubini's theorem. Now since
\[
\bigg| f^s( y) - f(y) \bigg| = f^s( y) - f(y) + 2 \max\{ f( y) - f^s(y), 0 \},
\]
it is sufficient to prove that the expectation of $f^s( y) - f(y)$ is null. This can be done, noting that for each $y \in [0,1]$ and for each scale $s$, the quantity $2^{-s} \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) = 1$. Hence
\begin{align*}
\sum_{h=1}^{2^s} & E[\tilde{\pi}_{s,h}] \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) -
\sum_{l=s}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} E[\pi_{l,h}] \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^l-h+1) = \\
& = \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} E[\tilde{\pi}_{s,h} - \pi_{s,h}] \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) -
\sum_{l=s+1}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} E[\pi_{l,h}] \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^l-h+1) \\
& = \left(\frac{a}{1+a}\right)^{s+1} \frac{1}{2^s}\sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) -
\sum_{l=s+1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{1+a} \left(\frac{a}{1+a}\right)^{l} \frac{1}{2^l} \sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^l-h+1) \\
& = \left(\frac{a}{1+a}\right)^{s+1} -
\sum_{l=s+1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{1+a} \left(\frac{a}{1+a}\right)^{l}
= \left(\frac{a}{1+a}\right)^{s+1} - \left(\frac{a}{1+a}\right)^{s+1} = 0,
\end{align*}
which concludes the first part of proof.
Now consider
\begin{align*}
& \int \left|
\sum_{l=0}^s \sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \tilde{\pi}_{l,h} \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) -
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \pi_{l,h} \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^l-h+1) \right| d y \\
=& \int \left|
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \left(\tilde{\pi}_{l,h} - \pi_{l,h}\right) \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) \right| d y \\
\leq& \int
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \left| \left(\tilde{\pi}_{l,h} - \pi_{l,h}\right) \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) \right| d y \\
=&
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \left| \left(\tilde{\pi}_{l,h} - \pi_{l,h}\right)\right| \int \mbox{Be}( y; h, 2^s - h + 1) d y
=
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \left| \left(\tilde{\pi}_{l,h} - \pi_{l,h}\right)\right|,
\end{align*}
where the inequality holds since for each $y$ the absolute values of the sum is less than the sum of the absolute values. Since the first moment is null the variance is
\begin{align*}
E \left[ \left\{ \int \left| f^s( y) - f(y) \right| dy \right\}^2 \right] & =
E \left[ \left( \sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \left|\tilde{\pi}_{l,h} - \pi_{l,h}\right|\right)^2 \right] \\ & =
E \left[ \left( \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \left| \tilde{\pi}_{s,h} - \pi_{s,h}\right| + \sum_{l=s+1}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \pi_{s,h} \right)^2 \right] \\ & \leq
2 E \left[ \left( \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \left| \tilde{\pi}_{s,h} - \pi_{s,h}\right|\right)^2 + \left(\sum_{l=s+1}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \pi_{s,h} \right)^2 \right].
\end{align*}
We study separately the expecations of the two summands above. For each $h=1\dots,2^s$, $ \tilde{\pi}_{s,h} \geq \pi_{s,h}$, thus the fist expectation is
\begin{align*}
E \left\{ \left( \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \tilde{\pi}_{s,h} - \pi_{s,h}\right)^2 \right\} & \leq E \left\{ \left( \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \tilde{\pi}_{s,h}\right)^2 + \left( \sum_{h=1}^{2^s}\pi_{s,h}\right)^2 \right\} \\
& \leq E \left( \sum_{h=1}^{2^s} \tilde{\pi}_{s,h} + \sum_{h=1}^{2^s}\pi_{s,h}\right)\\
& = \left( \frac{a}{1+a}\right)^s + \frac{1}{1+a} \left( \frac{a}{1+a}\right)^s,
\end{align*}
where the first inequality holds removing twice the cross product, and the second since the quantities are strictly less than one.
The second expectation is simply
\begin{align*}
E\left\{\left(\sum_{l=s+1}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \pi_{s,h} \right)^2\right\}
\leq E\left(\sum_{l=s+1}^{\infty}\sum_{h=1}^{2^l} \pi_{s,h} \right) = \left( \frac{a}{1+a}\right)^{s+1}.
\end{align*}
It follows that the variance is less than $2\{a/(1+a)\}^s$, that concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Gibbs sampler steps for posterior computation for multiscale hypothesis testing of group differences using msBP prior}
\begin{algorithmic}
\footnotesize
\FOR{ $j = 1, \dots, p$}
\STATE Compute the threes for the node allocation according to \eqref{eq:treetest}.
\FOR{ $i = 1, \dots, n$}
\STATE assign observation $i$ at site $j$ to a cluster $(s_i, h_i)$ as in Algorithm~\ref{algo:postcluster} using the tree of weights of last step
\ENDFOR
\STATE compute $n_{s,h}$, $v_{s,h}$, and $r_{s,h}$;
\STATE compute $n^{(j)}_{s,h}$, $v^{(j)}_{s,h}$, and $r^{(j)}_{s,h}$ for $j=0,1$;
\STATE let $s_{\text{MAX}}$ the maximum occupied scale;
\FOR{ $s = 0, \dots, s_{\text{MAX}}$}
\FOR{ $h = 1, \dots, 2^s$}
\STATE update $S_{s,h} \sim \Be{1+n_{s,h}}{a + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h}}$, $R_{s,h} \sim \Be{b+r_{s,h}}{b + v_{s,h} - n_{s,h} - r_{s,h} }$
\STATE update $S^{(0)}_{s,h} \sim \Be{1+n^{(0)}_{s,h}}{a + v^{(0)}_{s,h} - n^{(0)}_{s,h}}$, $R^{(0)}_{s,h} \sim \Be{b+r^{(0)}_{s,h}}{b + v^{(0)}_{s,h} - n^{(0)}_{s,h} - r^{(0)}_{s,h} }$
\STATE update $S^{(1)}_{s,h} \sim \Be{1+n^{(1)}_{s,h}}{a + v^{(1)}_{s,h} - n^{(1)}_{s,h}}$, $R^{(1)}_{s,h} \sim \Be{b+r^{(1)}_{s,h}}{b + v^{(1)}_{s,h} - n^{(1)}_{s,h} - r^{(1)}_{s,h} }$
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE compute the trees of weights under $H_0$ and $H_1$ for the two groups
\FOR{ $s = 0, \dots, s_{\text{MAX}}$}
\STATE compute $P_m^s = \mbox{pr}(H_0^s| \mathcal{N}^s_{(0)}, \mathcal{N}^s_{(1)})$ as in \eqref{eq:postH0}.
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE Draw $P_0^s \sim \mbox{Be}(1 + \sum_{m=1}^M P_m^s, 1+M- \sum_{m=1}^M P_m^s)$
\end{algorithmic}
\label{algo:test}
\end{algorithm}
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The GERmanium Detector Array
(\gerda)~\cite{bib:GER13,bib:GER13-0nbb,bib:GER13-bckg,bib:GER13-psd} is an
experiment at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (LNGS) of INFN searching
for the neutrinoless double beta (\onbb) decay of $^{76}$Ge. It uses
high-purity germanium (HPGe) detectors that are enriched in $^{76}$Ge to
(86-88)\% as sources and as detection media. The detectors are mounted in
low-mass holders and are embedded in liquid argon (LAr), which serves as a
cryogenic coolant and absorber against external radiation. A tank filled with
ultrapure water provides a 3\,m thick water buffer around the cryostat and
serves as an additional absorber and as a Cherenkov muon veto.
The experimental signature of \onbb\ decay is a peak in the spectrum of the
summed energies of the two electrons released in the nuclear process. The peak
should arise at the \qbb\ value which in the case of $^{76}$Ge is at
(2039.061$\pm$0.007)\,keV~\cite{bib:qvalue}. The expected number of signal
events $\lambda_S$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_S = \frac{\ln\,2 \cdot t}{T_{1/2}^{0\nu}} \cdot
\frac{N_A \cdot M} {m_{enr}} \cdot
\fgesix \cdot \factvol \cdot \varepsilon_{fep}\cdot \varepsilon_{psd}
\label{eq:sensitivity}
\end{equation}
where $T_{1/2}^{0\nu}$ is the half life of the \onbb\ decay, $t$ the live
time of the measurement, $N_A$ the Avogadro constant, $m_{enr}$ the molar
mass of the enriched material and $M$ the total detector mass. The parameters
$\factvol$ and $\fgesix$ correspond to the fraction of the detector volume
that is active, and to the $^{76}$Ge isotopic fraction, respectively. The
efficiency $\varepsilon_{fep}$ corresponds to the fraction of events that
deposit their entire energy at \qbb\ inside the active volume without
bremsstrahlung loss. Finally, $\varepsilon_{psd}$ represents
the efficiency of the signal acceptance by pulse shape discrimination (PSD).
The number of background events $\lambda_B$ in the region of interest (ROI)
around \qbb\ scales in a first approximation with the detector mass. It can be
expressed as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sensitivity2}
\lambda_B = M \cdot t \cdot BI \cdot \Delta{E} \ \ .
\end{equation}
$BI$ is the background index for the ROI around \qbb\ in units of \ctsper\ and
$\Delta{E}$ is the width of the search window which depends on the energy
resolution at \qbb.
If the experiment can be carried out background-free, the sensitivity on the
half life scales with $M \cdot t$. In case of a sizable background
contribution ($\lambda_B>>1$), its statistical fluctuation can be assumed to
be Gaussian and the sensitivity would scale approximately with $\sqrt{(M \cdot
t)/(\Delta{E}\cdot BI)}$.
\gerda\ has been conceived to proceed in different phases in order to fulfill
a quasi background-free condition in each of them. A sensitivity scaling
almost linearly with the exposure of the experiment is aimed for.
In Phase~I semi-coaxial Ge detectors from the Heidel\-berg-Moscow
(\hdm)~\cite{bib:HdM01} experiment and the International Germanium Experiment
(IGEX)~\cite{bib:IGEX02} were deployed after their
refurbishment. A background level of an order of magnitude lower than in those
former experiments was achieved within Phase~I~\cite{bib:GER13-0nbb}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:Ge_isotop}
Measured isotopic composition and calculated density of the
$^{76}$Ge enriched germanium for \gerda\ Phase~II BEGe detectors. The reported
measurements were performed via electron ionization and thermal ionization
mass spectrometry (EI-MS, TI-MS) at ECP in Zelenogorsk, Russia, via neutron
activation (k0NAAA) at IRMM in Geel, Belgium, and by means of inductively
coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) at LNGS in Assergi, Italy. For
comparison, the isotopic composition and density of natural germanium and of
the \gerda\ $^{76}$Ge depleted BEGe detectors were added.
}
\begin{tabular}{ccllllll}
\hline
technique & Ref. & ~$^{70}$Ge & ~$^{72}$Ge & ~$^{73}$Ge & ~$^{74}$Ge & ~$^{76}$Ge & calculated density \\
& & & & & & & [g/cm$^{3}$] \\
\hline
EI-MS, TI-MS&~$^\star)$ & 0.0002(1) & 0.0007(2) & 0.0016(1) & 0.1234(33) & 0.8742(36) & 5.540(5)\\
k0NAAA & ~\cite{bib:enrGe_k0naaa} & 0.001(1) & 0.001(1) & 0.001(1) & 0.130(2) & 0.867(11) & 5.539(11)\\
ICP-MS & ~$^\star)$ & 0.0014(1) & 0.0003(5) & 0.0011(10) & 0.1065(141) & 0.8921(141) & 5.550(20)\\
{\bf average}& &0.001(1) & 0.001(1) & 0.001(1) & 0.120(12) & 0.877(13) & 5.540(18)\\
\hline
\genat & ~\cite{bib:natGe-composition} & 0.204(2) & 0.273(3) & 0.078(1) & 0.367(2) & 0.078(1) & 5.323(4) \\
\gedep\ BEGe & ~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13} &0.223(8)&0.300(4)&0.083(2)&0.388(6)&0.006(2)&5.303(11)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
$^\star)$ measured by \gerda\ and/or ECP
\end{table*}
For \gerda\ Phase~II another factor of ten in background reduction is
envisioned. This can only be achieved with an optimized experimental design
with particular care for the detectors. After several years of R$\&$D, a
customized version of the broad energy germanium (BEGe)
detector~\cite{bib:bege_pulse_shape} from Canberra with a thick entrance
window has been selected. The key to the superior rejection of background of
these detectors lies in the simple and powerful analysis of the digitized
waveform of the detector signals. In addition, external background events are
either fully absorbed in LAr or can be largely rejected on an event-by-event
basis by detecting scintillation light produced via interactions in
LAr~\cite{bib:tipp}.
This paper documents the entire production process from
the enrichment (section~\ref{sec:enrichment}),
the purification (section~\ref{sec:purification}),
the crystal growth (section~\ref{sec:crystal_pulling})
to the diode fabrication (section~\ref{sec:diode_production}).
The precautions applied during the BEGe detector production in order to
reduce cosmogenic-induced radioisotopes are described in
section~\ref{sec:exposure}.
In total, 30 BEGe detectors were produced from newly acquired enriched
material with a $^{76}$Ge fraction of about 88\%. The detectors were produced
in two bat\-ches. The first one comprises seven detectors which were named
GD32(A-D) and GD35(A-C). After their fabrication and characterization in
vacuum cryostats (section~\ref{sec:performance_vacuum}) five of them were
deployed in \gerda\ during the data acquisition period of Phase~I. Their
performance in LAr is discussed in section~\ref{sec:performance_lar}.
The performance of all 30 BEGe detectors operated in vacuum cryostats
including an intercomparison and Monte Carlo (MC) studies will be presented in
an upcoming publication.
\section{Production of BEGe detectors for {\mbox{{\textsc GERDA}}} Phase~II}
\label{sec:production-intro}
\gerda\ is a \onbb\ experiment aiming for a quasi back\-ground-free ROI.
Therefore, highest resolution of the detectors and radiopurity of the entire
setup are of paramount importance. Within the germanium detector types, the
BEGe family combines advantageously high resolution and pulse shape
discrimination possibilities (see section~\ref{sec:bege-design}). The costs
for enrichment of germanium in $^{76}$Ge from its natural abundance of 7.8\%
to about 88\% are compensated for by those for the reduced number of detectors
needed inclusive associated electronics. For full depletion of BEGe detectors
of height of a few cm, adequate impurity levels of $\lesssim10^{11}$ are
needed to keep reverse bias voltages below 4\,kV. This requires a proper
purification before germanium crystals can be grown and converted into
operational diodes.
\subsection{Enrichment of $^{76}$Ge}
\label{sec:enrichment}
The enrichment in $^{76}$Ge for \gerda\ Phase~II detectors was performed at
the Svetlana Department of the Joint Stock Company ``Production Association
Electrochemical Plant" (ECP) in Zelenogorsk, Russia~\cite{bib:ecp_ru}. Since
it is possible to bind Ge in gaseous GeF$_4$ compounds which possess a
relatively low vapor pressure at room temperature, the gas centrifuge
technique can be applied. The overall procedure is the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \genat\ fluorination: \genat\ $\rightarrow$ \genat F$_4$,
\item centrifugation process: \genat F$_4$ $\rightarrow$ \geenr F$_4$,
\item hydrolysis
within balloons: \geenr F$_4$ $\rightarrow$ \geenr
O$_2$,
\item drying and calcination of \geenr O$_2$.
\end{enumerate}
Herein, \genat\ corresponds to natural germanium; \geenr\ stands for $^{76}$Ge
enriched germanium, which in the following will also be referred to as
`enriched'. The gas centrifuge processing at ECP involves a large number of
centrifuges in series and parallel formations. A photo of one cascade of the
gas centrifuge assembly is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ECP-centrifuges}.
The annual productivity of the Svetlana Department facility is about
(80-100)\,kg of germanium at $\sim$88\% enrichment in $^{76}$Ge. The
production of the enriched germanium for the \gerda\ Phase~II BEGe detectors
started at the end of February 2005 and finished at the beginning of September
2005. In total, 53.4\,kg of GeO$_2$ powder was produced, which corresponds to
37.5\,kg of germanium enriched in
$^{76}$Ge~\cite{bib:enrGe-isotopic-comp}. After enrichment several subsamples
were measured for their isotopic abundances with different techniques. A
summary of the results is given in Table~\ref{tab:Ge_isotop}. The table also
includes the expected density of the final Ge crystals resulting from the
isotopic compositions under the assumption of a pure face-centered cubic
lattice. The density of enriched germanium remnants after crystal growth was
measured by \gerda\ and resulted in an average value of (5.552
$\pm$0.003(stat.) $\pm$0.007(syst.))\,g$\cdot$cm$^{-3}$ at room
temperature. This result is in very good agreement with expectations.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig01_ECP-centrifuges.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:ECP-centrifuges}
Photo of a small part of the gas centrifuge system at Svetlana
department of ECP. Photo courtesy of ECP.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In addition to the enriched material, ECP provided 49.2\,kg of GeO$_2$
depleted in \gesix\ (\gedep ; short form: `depleted'). Its isotopic
composition and calculated density are reported in
Table~\ref{tab:Ge_isotop}. The depleted germanium was a by-product of the
enrichment process and thus underwent the same chemical processing. For that
reason it was purchased for testing the following purification via
zone-refinement. Moreover, 34\,kg of additional depleted material was
purchased to test the full detector production chain including crystal growth
and diode production and to develop characterization procedures. For further
details see Ref.~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13}.
\subsection{Reduction and purification of germanium}
\label{sec:purification}
The ECP plant typically delivers $^{76}$GeO$_2$ powder of technical grade
quality which corresponds to 99.8\% purity level~\cite{bib:ecp_ru}. The
quality depends on the purity of the initial samples of \genat\ and \genat
F$_4$, as well as on the purity during the chemical transformation of \geenr
F$_4$ to \geenr O$_2$. For the construction of germanium diodes, however,
germanium of electronic grade; i.e., 99.9999\% purity (6N), has to be
available before the start of crystal growth.
A first step in increasing the purity of the germanium was accomplished
directly by ECP: improvements of clean conditions at work places, use of
de-ionized water for hydrolysis etc. led to a 99.99\% purity level (4N). This
was certified by three different Russian laboratories: the Central Laboratory
of ECP, the Analytic Certification Testing Center of the Institute of
Microelectronics Technology \& High Purity
Materials~\cite{bib:certCenterIMTHPM}, and the Certification Center of
Giredmet~\cite{bib:giredmet}.
For the transportation from Russia to Central Europe, the produced portions of
enriched and depleted GeO$_2$ were filled into plastic bags of about 1\,kg
each. Before the start of the purification process of the \geenr O$_2$, the
material was stored in the HADES underground laboratory in Mol, Belgium, from
April 2006 until March 2010.
For further purification, the company PPM Pure Metals
GmbH~\cite{bib:langelsheim} in Langelsheim, Germany, was selected. The overall
procedure at PPM was the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item GeO$_2$ reduction: the GeO$_2$ powder was reduced in H$_2$ atmosphere to
metallic Ge. The resulting metal ingots were cleaned and etched.
\item The Ge metal ingots underwent zone-refinement (ZR). The zone-refined
bars were etched before they were packed in plastic bags (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:ZR_Ge}) and delivered for the next production steps.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig02_zr_ingots_all_smx.png}
\caption{ \label{fig:ZR_Ge}
Final inventory after the zone-refinement of the enriched germanium used
for the production of the \gerda\ Phase~II detectors.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.99\columnwidth]{fig03a_P2461BB.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{fig03b_P2491AA.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:2461BB-2491AA}
Examples of a cylindrical (GD61B, left) and a conical (GD91A, right)
crystal slice that were used for the production of \gerda\ Phase~II
BEGe detectors.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
The achievable purification level, the mass yield and the potential change in
the isotopic composition were first tested with \gedep O$_2$. After reduction
and during ZR, measurements on extracted germanium subsamples were performed
by means of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), spark
source mass spectrometry (SS-MS) and resistivity measurements. 6N purity
electronic grade germanium has an intrinsic resistivity of about
50\,$\Omega\cdot$cm. The low resistivity tails ($<$50\,$\Omega\cdot$cm) of the
ingots were cut off and returned into the ZR furnace for 1-2 additional zone
refining steps. The last remaining tail is typically too small to be
reprocessed. The main conclusions from the experiences~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13}
with the {\gedep}O$_2$ were:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The purity of the Ge metal after reduction is the same as for the
initial \gedep O$_2$. There was no sign that impurities were introduced.
\item No isotopic change was observed at the level of the measurement accuracy
of $\pm$0.01\%.
\item The mass of the tail amounted to $<$1\,kg which translates in
this case to a mass yield of $>$90\% for 6N material.
\end{enumerate}
The following purification of the \geenr O$_2$ in spring 2010 went
smoothly. The purity of the \geenr O$_2$ material was the same as for the
\gedep O$_2$. An overall mass yield of 6N germanium of 94.5\% was
obtained. Combined with the residual low resistivity tail, 97.7\% of the
original 37.5\,kg of enriched germanium was finally available.
\subsection{Crystal growth}
\label{sec:crystal_pulling}
For further zone refinement and crystal growth the 35.5\,kg of 6N purified
enriched germanium was sent to Canberra Industries
Inc.~\cite{bib:canberra_usa}, Oak Ridge (TN), USA.
The enriched germanium was further zone-refined to 11N material. Then crystal
ingots with net carrier concentrations corresponding to 12N purity and with
specified dimensions and crystal dislocation densities \cite{bib:pureGeXtal}
were grown.
The crystal ingots were produced and delivered in two batches. The first two
crystal ingots were grown in autumn 2011. Out of these seven crystal slices
were cut according to an optimized production scheme which was developed by
\gerda\ and Canberra during the depleted BEGe
production~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13}. After diode conversion (see
section~\ref{sec:diode_production}) and testing of the reliability of these
first prototypes in spring 2012, seven more ingots were grown. In total, 23
additional crystal slices were obtained. Optimizing the mass yield was the
main goal when selecting the actual cut; however, in general \gerda\ and
Canberra aimed for specifications amongst them a diameter of 75\,mm with a
tolerance of $\pm$5\,mm, and a height of 30\,mm with a tolerance of
$^{+10}_{-5}$\,mm. All but three crystal slices met these specifications. In
two cases the diameters were 68.9 and 66.4\,mm, and in one other case the
height was 23.3\,mm. The average diameter and height of all crystal slices was
73.3 and 29.7\,mm, respectively, with ranges of about $\pm$3\,mm.
In optimizing the crystal slicing, conical tails and seed ends of ingots were
also considered. As a result, 21 crystal slices are cylindrical, whereas nine
are conical. Examples of a cylindrical and a conical crystal slice are
depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:2461BB-2491AA}. The combined mass of all crystal
slices amounts to 20.8\,kg. Approximately 8.8\,kg of the loss was attributed
to seed-end and tail-end crystal parts and crystal remainders, whereas 5.5\,kg
of kerf; i.e., a mixture of germanium shavings, water and lubricant, was
collected in the process of grinding and lapping. All materials will be
prepared for recycling, i.e. a further cycle of chemical purification and zone
refinement before a new crystal growth.
All crystal slices for detector production and the crystal remainders were
shipped back to Belgium and stored in the HADES underground laboratory (see
section~\ref{sec:counteractions-exposure}) until the beginning of diode
conversion.
\subsection{Diode production}
\label{sec:diode_production}
The conversion of the germanium crystal slices into operational BEGe detectors
was performed at Canberra Semiconductors N.V.~\cite{bib:canberra_olen}, Olen,
Belgium, since detailed procedures had been developed in collaboration
before. The functionality and properties of BEGe detectors will be discussed
in sections~\ref{sec:bege-design} and~\ref{sec:bege-general-description}.
Three diodes were usually produced per week. In the case of 29 diodes 13\,g of
the original crystal mass was lost on average due to the groove
fabrication. In the case of detector GD76B, however, a larger crystal fraction
of about 370\,g (groove included) had to be removed to cure a micro-rupture
situated a few mm under the surface.
Prior to the delivery of the detectors, Canberra tested the diodes for their
basic parameters such as energy resolution, depletion voltage and leakage
current as a function of the applied high voltage. The following requirements
had to be met:
\begin{enumerate}
\item energy resolution: $<$\,2.3\,keV full width at half maximum (FWHM)
of the 1333\,keV $^{60}$Co $\gamma$-line,
\item operational (stable) voltage: $\le$\,4\,kV,
\item leakage current: $<$\,50\,pA at depletion voltage.
\end{enumerate}
Canberra was able to convert 29 out of 30 crystal slices into working
detectors fulfilling all three criteria. The energy resolution for all 30
detectors is illustrated as a function of the detector mass in
Fig.~\ref{fig:eneres-vs-mass}. The mean value of the energy resolution is
(1.74$\pm$0.07)\,keV at 1333\,keV. More details about the energy resolution,
depletion voltage, active volume and other spectroscopic properties of a
detector subset will be presented in section~\ref{sec:test-vacuum_results}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.95\columnwidth]{fig04_eneres-vs-mass.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:eneres-vs-mass}
Energy resolution of all 30 \gerda\ Phase II BEGe detectors as a
function of their masses. The energy resolutions are expressed as full
widths at half maximum of the $^{60}$Co peak at 1333\,keV. The
error bars shown include only the uncertainties from the fit of the
peaks. These were fitted with a step-like background and a Gaussian peak
function.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
One crystal slice (GD02D) turned out to have a non satisfactory impurity
distribution. This detector does not reach full depletion and the
corresponding voltage plateau; therefore it has a deteriorated charge
collection efficiency in some parts of the crystal. Nonetheless, this detector
will be deployed in \gerda\ Phase~II; its full or partial inclusion into the
analysis can be decided later.
The production of \gerda\ Phase~II BEGe detectors was optimized to achieve the
highest possible mass transfer from the original enriched germanium to the
final detector configuration. Out of 53.4\,kg of GeO$_2$, containing 37.5\,kg
of elemental enriched germanium, 30 detectors with a total mass of 20.0\,kg were
fabricated. This corresponds to a mass yield of 53.3\%. As shown in
Table~\ref{tab:mass-yield} the largest loss of germanium material occurred by
cutting the crystal ingots and while grinding and lapping the crystal
slices. The remainder are planned to be reprocessed.
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:mass-yield}
Mass yield from enriched germanium to the final 30 BEGe detectors for
\gerda\ Phase~II. The mass transfer fractions are given relative to the
original enriched GeO$_2$ material (3rd column) and to the purified
metallic Ge used for crystal growth (4th column).
}
\begin{tabular}{lcrr}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{~~~~~~~~germanium} & mass
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{rel. fraction} \\
{operation} & [kg]
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{
[\%]} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{ [\%]}\\
\hline
Ge in GeO$_2$ after enrichment & 37.5 & 100.0 & --\textcolor{white}{....}\\
purified Ge for crystal growth & 35.5 & 94.1\ & 100.0\\
cut crystal slices & 25.2 & 67.2\ & 71.0\\
grinded and lapped crystal slices & 20.8 & 55.5\ & 58.6\\
operational detectors & 20.0 & 53.3\ & 56.3\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Cosmic-ray activation of {\mbox{\textsc{GERDA}}} Phase~II germanium}
\label{sec:exposure}
\subsection{Cosmogenic production of radioisotopes in germanium}
\label{sec:intro-cosmogenics}
At sea level, secondary cosmic-rays consisting of fast nucleons (98\%) as well
as muons and muon-induced secondary neutrons (2\%) produce long-lived
radionuclides in materials via spallation
reactions~\cite{hayakawa1969,Ziegler1996}. The subsequent decays of these
radioisotopes generated inside the materials represent a serious source of
background in rare-event physics experiments.
In germanium long-lived radioisotopes such as $^{68}$Ge ($T_{1/2}$=270.8\,d)
and $^{60}$Co ($T_{1/2}$=5.27\,yr) are of main concern. The estimation of
their production rate depends on the isotopic composition of the germanium,
but also on varying neutron and proton fluxes at given locations and given
times~\cite{Ziegler1996}. Even though the proton flux at sea level is only
about 3\% of the neutron flux, its contribution to the radioisotope production
is about 10\% due to the more efficient stopping of protons by ionizing
interactions. The interpolated cross sections and semi-empirical models add
further uncertainties. In literature the activation rates at sea level for the
two most prominent radioisotopes $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co in enriched germanium
(assuming 86\% $^{76}$Ge and 14\% $^{74}$Ge) vary between (1.0-13) and
(1.6-6.7)\,nuclei/(d$\cdot$kg), respectively~\cite{cebrian2010}. For the
following considerations the production rates of $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co
reported in Table~\ref{tab:cosmic-production-rate-in-different-Ge-isotopes}
are applied. They are based on the excitation functions generated with the
SHIELD code~\cite{barabanov2006}. Regarding the enriched germanium used in
\gerda\ Phase~II detectors, the respective $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co activation
rates at sea level are 5.8 and 3.3\,nuclei/(d$\cdot$kg). In these cases,
saturation at sea level is reached at $\sim$2300 $^{68}$Ge and $\sim$9200
$^{60}$Co nuclei/kg.
The contribution of the decays of $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co radioisotopes to the
$BI$ of \gerda\ Phase~II detectors has been evaluated by means of MC
simulations~\cite{bib:GER13-bckg,thesis_matteo}. The exponentially decreasing
background was averaged over the first three years of data collection in
\gerda\ Phase~II. The $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co radioisotopes would contribute
with 3.7$\times$10$^{-3}$ and 8.4$\times$10$^{-4}$\,\ctsper\, to the $BI$
around \qbb\ assuming 100 nuclei per kg detector mass for each of them. A PSD
analysis (see sec\-tion~\ref{sec:vacuum_psa}) by itself can further reduce
this to 1.8$\times$10$^{-4}$ and 8.4$\times$10$^{-6}$\,\ctsper, respectively.
Without pulse shape analysis, however, $\sim$30 nuclei of $^{68}$Ge or
$\sim$120 nuclei of $^{60}$Co per kg germanium would already account for the
allowed background budget of 10${^{-3}}$\,\ctsper. Such concentrations in
$^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co are already reached after $\sim$5 and $\sim$36\,d of
exposure of unshielded enriched germanium at sea level, respectively. This
makes it mandatory to restrict the overall exposure to sea level cosmic
radiation during detector processing to a few days. As a consequence, large
efforts were made to minimize activation of the enriched germanium during the
entire production and characterization chain of the \gerda\ Phase~II BEGe
detectors.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:cosmic-production-rate-in-different-Ge-isotopes}
Activation rates in nuclei/(d$\cdot$kg) of cosmogenic-induced
radionuclides $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co in Ge isotopes,
in natural and in enriched germanium according to
Ref.~\cite{barabanov2006}. In the case of the Ge isotopes the
statistical standard deviations are in the range of (0.5-11)\%.
}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
Ge isotope/ &\multicolumn{2}{c}{neutron-induced}
&\multicolumn{2}{c}{proton-induced}\\
isotopic composition&$^{68}$Ge &$^{60}$Co &$^{68}$Ge &$^{60}$Co \\
\hline
$^{70}$Ge & 264.22& 1.56 & 17.17 & 0.17 \\
$^{72}$Ge & 50.56 & 2.6 & 4.78 & 0.29 \\
$^{73}$Ge & 25.44 & 2.8 & 2.54 & 0.34 \\
$^{74}$Ge & 13.05 & 2.97 & 1.48 & 0.38 \\
$^{76}$Ge & 3.68 & 2.85 & 0.54 & 0.46 \\
\hline
\genat & 74.84 & 2.56 & 5.60 & 0.32 \\
\geenr & 5.13 & 2.86 & 0.68 & 0.45 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Actions to minimize activation of germanium}
\label{sec:counteractions-exposure}
\paragraph{Active removal of $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co during germanium
processing:} During the enrichment process the centrifugation of the germanium
fluoride compounds separates light nuclides from the heavy fraction containing
$^{76}$Ge. The lighter stable Ge isotopes, which have larger activation cross
sections for $^{68}$Ge compared to heavier Ge isotopes, are suppressed. As a
consequence, the $^{70}$Ge abundance was reduced by more than three orders of
magnitude from 20.54 to 0.01\% (see Table~\ref{tab:Ge_isotop}). Since
$^{70}$Ge has a $\sim$70 times higher $^{68}$Ge production rate at sea level
than $^{76}$Ge, a reduction of $^{70}$Ge during the enrichment of $^{76}$Ge
considerably reduces the $^{68}$Ge activation rate. In total, the production
rate of $^{68}$Ge in enriched germanium is decreased by a factor of $\sim$14
compared to natural germanium. The activation rate for $^{60}$Co in enriched
germanium is similar to the one of natural germanium, as there is no
significant dependence of the activation rate on the mass number of the
germanium nucleus.
During chemical purification, zone refinement, and during growth of germanium
monocrystals impurities of U and Th as well as $^{60}$Co are efficiently
removed. Note, however, that during these refinement steps $^{68}$Ge cannot be
separated.
\paragraph{Optimization of germanium processing steps:}
A significant exposure to cosmic radiation occurs during unshielded processing
at the manufacturer sites. \gerda\ cooperated with all the manufacturers to
optimize their standard procedures in terms of speeding up their processing
steps. In case of the enrichment process, a notable improvement was
achieved. After the successful centrifugation and separation of light from
heavy isotopes, the production of new $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co nuclides starts
right away as portions of gaseous GeF$_4$ flow from the last stages of the
cascade to the receiving balloons. According to ECP standard technology, the
collection of a \gerda -sized batch of GeF$_4$ into balloons, the chemical
conversion of this compound to germanium dioxide and the drying and
calcination process would last 40\,d on average. Following an upgrade of the
production plant the average time of production of the \gerda\ portion of
enriched germanium above ground was reduced to 74\,h (3.1\,d).
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:sites}
Underground locations close to the manufacturer sites that were
selected for the production of \gerda\ Phase~II BEGe detectors. The
shielding power is expressed in terms of meters of water equivalent (m
w.e.).
}
\begin{tabular}{lllrr}
\hline
processing step &location &UG site & shield & distance\\
& & & [m w.e.] & [km] \\
\hline
enrichment &ECP, Zelenogorsk, RU &concrete bunker & 5 &$<$1 \\
purification to 6N &Langelsheim, GER &Rammelsberg mine & 80 &10 \\
crystal growth &Oak Ridge, TN, USA &Cherokee cavern & 50 &7 \\
diode production &Olen, BE &HADES & 500 &30 \\
detector characterization &Mol, BE &HADES & 500 &30 \\
operation in \gerda &Assergi, IT &\gerda\ at LNGS & 3500 &-- \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\paragraph{Storage on-site:}
As stated before, the germanium material was processed at different sites
throughout above ground. At these processing sites the germanium was stored in
nearby shallow or deep underground (UG) locations whenever it was not needed
for processing. Table~\ref{tab:sites} summarizes the processing steps applied
during the production of the \gerda\ Phase~II BEGe detectors, the sites where
these steps were performed, and the respective UG sites. Moreover, the
approximate shielding powers in terms of meters of water-equivalent (m w.e.)
of the UG sites and their distances to the manufacturers' sites are also
given. The processing was planned in close cooperation between the
manufacturers and the on-site \gerda\ collaborators that were responsible for
almost daily transportation of the material between the UG and processing
sites.
\paragraph{Transport:}
The transport of the enriched germanium from one processing site to another
was arranged in containers by truck and ship. Transport by aircraft was
excluded {\it a priori} since the cosmic-ray exposure in the higher atmosphere
is larger by orders of magnitude compared to sea
level~\cite{cosmic_rays_atm}. Since the transportation times were substantial,
which would lead to an unacceptable $BI$ contribution in \gerda\ Phase~II, a
shielded transport container was designed and built.
For the transport of GeO$_2$ powder from Zelenogorsk to Munich in February and
March 2006 a protective cylindric steel container was
used~\cite{barabanov2006}. Its dimensions are 140\,cm(D)$\times$126.5\,cm(H)
with a total weight of 14.5\,t. Inside the container a cavity of
54\,cm(D)$\times$40\,cm(H) can accommodate all the germanium. The expected
reduction factor of germanium activation due to nuclear as well as muon
components from cosmic rays was in the range of 10 for $^{68}$Ge and 15 for
$^{60}$Co~\cite{barabanov2006}. To demonstrate the possibility of
transportation, a conveyance from Zelenogorsk to Munich was accomplished in
2005. The journey lasted 20\,d. Taking the effect of shielding into account
this corresponds to $\sim$2\,d of exposure at sea level.
For further transports (including the return shipment from Europe to USA for
crystal growth) the container was upgraded. As shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:shielding-container} the empty cavities between the container
roof and the steel shield were filled with jerry cans containing water with
30\,g salt per liter. The overall thickness of the water shield is 70\,cm
increasing the tare weight of the shielded container to 26\,t. According to
simulations~\cite{diplom_aaron}, both the $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co production
rates are further reduced by about a factor of two.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig05_container-shield.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:shielding-container}
Sketch of the shielded container used for the transport of the
\gerda\ germanium material enriched in $^{76}$Ge. The shield
has an inner iron container. This is surrounded by jerry cans
filled with salt water and has a cavity to accommodate the germanium
material. For visibility of the steel shield the front wall of the
water jerry cans has been omitted.
}%
\end{center}%
\end{figure}%
\subsection{Tracking the exposure history and achieved activation levels}
\label{sec:full-tracking-exposure-history}
Starting from the enrichment phase, all periods between each processing and
transportation step above ground were documented in detail in a
database. Assuming a given production rate at sea level~\cite{barabanov2006}
and taking the transport container~\cite{barabanov2006,diplom_aaron} the
expected number of $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co nuclei in each individual germanium
piece can be estimated for any given time.
Figure~\ref{fig:activation_history} depicts the history of the estimated
number of $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co nuclei produced in one enriched BEGe detector
(GD32A). The activation history starting with the enrichment is shown up to
September 1, 2014. The individual processing steps and transport periods can
be clearly identified by the increase of the number of nuclei during the
unshielded times. Periods in which the germanium was shielded deep underground
become visible from the exponential decay of the shorter-lived $^{68}$Ge. The
exposure histories of the other enriched BEGe detectors are similar to that of
GD32A.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig06_GD32A_1september2014.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:activation_history}
Left: Full history of the estimated number of cosmogenic-induced
$^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co atoms in \geenr\ used for the manufacturing of
detector GD32A. Major activation occurred during enrichment (I),
purification (II), crystal growth (III) and diode conversion
(IV). $^{60}$Co was removed completely at the time of crystal growth.
Right: Zoom of the exposure history of detector GD32A during its
crystal growth and diode conversion.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[b]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:activation_detectors}
Number of $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co nuclei in the seven enriched BEGe
detectors as of September 1, 2014, according to their exposure
histories and the production rates in Ref.~\cite{barabanov2006}. Due
to the wide range of predicted production rates the reported numbers
are quoted without uncertainties.
}
\begin{tabular}{lcccrc}
\hline
detector & mass &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$^{68}$Ge} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$^{60}$Co}\\
&[kg] & \# & \#/kg & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\#} & \#/kg \\
\hline
GD32A & 0.459 & 2.3 & 5.0 & 9.8 & 21.4 \\
GD35B & 0.717 & 4.1 & 5.8 & 18.6 & 26.0 \\
GD32C & 0.743 & 3.5 & 4.8 & 15.9 & 21.4 \\
GD32B & 0.723 & 3.6 & 4.9 & 15.3 & 21.1 \\
GD32D & 0.768 & 3.4 & 4.4 & 16.2 & 21.1 \\
GD35C & 0.812 & 3.1 & 3.9 & 13.6 & 16.8 \\
GD35A & 0.635 & 3.9 & 6.1 & 14.3 & 22.5 \\
\hline
Total & 4.857 & 23.9 & 4.9 &103.7& 21.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:activation_detectors} summarizes the estimated amount of
$^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co, respectively, by September 1, 2014, for the
subset of detectors delivered first. On average, $\sim$5 $^{68}$Ge and $\sim$21
$^{60}$Co atoms/kg are expected. According to background studies by
\gerda\ the decays of these radionuclides $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co over a
period of three years of non interrupted data collection will lead in both
cases to a background rate of 1.8$\times$10$^{-4}$\,\ctsper\, at
\qbb~\cite{bib:GER13-bckg}. Taking advantage of the background rejection via
pulse shape analysis (see section~\ref{sec:bege-general-description}) the $BI$
contribution from the two radionuclides can be lowered to
9.1$\times$10$^{-6}$\,\ctsper\, and 1.8$\times$10$^{-6}$\,\ctsper,
respectively~\cite{thesis_matteo}. As a consequence, the background
contribution from $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co decays should be at least 50 times
lower than the total $BI$ envisioned for \gerda\ Phase~II, even if the
production rates at sea level used in the current calculation were
underestimated by factor of two.
\section{Detector characterization in vacuum}
\label{sec:performance_vacuum}
After confirmation of proper functionality, stable operation and detector
parameters by the manufacturer, the \gerda\ collaboration performed
cross-checks (`acceptance tests') of the manufacturer specifications and
characterization tests. The goal was to characterize detector properties that
cannot be easily accessed by the manufacturer or by \gerda\ after integration
into the experiment.
Before discussing the measurements by \gerda\ and the results obtained for the
first seven enriched BEGe detectors in section~\ref{sec:test-vacuum_results},
some basic concepts of BEGe-type detectors are introduced in
sections~\ref{sec:bege-design} and~\ref{sec:bege-general-description}.
\subsection{Design of BEGe detectors}
\label{sec:bege-design}
\gerda\ has chosen a modified thick window Broad Energy Germanium (BEGe)
detector manufactured by Canberra as the detector type for Phase~II.
Compared to the semi-coaxial detectors used in \GERDA\ Phase~I, the BEGe
detector design shows smaller dimensions and thus smaller mass. Due to a
different layout of the electrodes (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bege-profile}) the
electric field profile in BEGe detectors differs strongly from the one in
semi-coaxial detectors.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{fig07_bege-profile.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:bege-profile}
Generic view of a BEGe diode. The p+ read-out electrode (center,
bottom) is separated from the n+ electrode by a groove covered
by an insulating passivation layer. The n+ electrode consisting
of an inactive dead (DL) and transition (TL) layer with reduced
charge collection surrounds the active volume (AV). The
dimensionless weighting potential is color-coded and strongest
close to the p+ electrode. Examples of a single-site event (SSE)
and of a multi-site event (MSE) are illustrated by means of the
hole trajectories of the individual energy depositions.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The selected BEGe detectors are made of p-type germanium; they comprise a
`wrap around' n+ electrode known as `lithium dead layer', a p+ electrode
acting as electron blocking contact, and an intercontact insulating
surface. The first two items are achieved by lithium diffusion and boron
implantation. For the third item a small annular concentric groove between the
p+ and n+ electrodes is produced and covered by an insulating silicon monoxide
layer which is known as `passivation layer'. This layer helps to keep
steady-state currents (so-called `leakage currents') stable over time. The
currents are induced on the detector surface and in the bulk by some finite
conductivity in the reverse direction and should be kept at a few tens of pA.
In p-type BEGe detectors the dimensionless `weighting potential' $\Phi$ shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:bege-profile} peaks strongly close to the central p+
electrode. Ionization will create electrons and holes which drift due to
the applied potential and the field created by the space charge of the
depleted diode. The time dependent induced current $I(t)$ on the p+ electrode
is given by the Ramo-Shockley theorem~\cite{bib:shockley-ramo-theorem} as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:shockley-ramo_theorem}
I(t) = q\cdot \vec{v}(\vec{r}(t)) \cdot \nabla \Phi(\vec{r}(t))
\end{equation}
where $q$ stands for the drifting charge and $\vec{v}(\vec{r}(t))$ for the drift
velocity at position $\vec{r}(t)$. Holes drift to the p+ electrode along the
region around the central axis, irrespective of the starting point (`funnel'
effect); $I(t)$ peaks at the end of the drift where $\nabla\Phi$ is
largest. Hence, the maximum $A$ of $I(t)$ is directly proportional to the
deposited energy $E$. Electrons drift through volumes with low $\nabla \Phi$
and hardly contribute to $A$. That means that $A/E$ is constant for all
single-site events (SSE) except for ionizations in a small volume close to the
p+
electrode~\cite{bib:bege_pulse_shape,bib:deplBEGe13,bib:bege_pulse_simulation}.
In contrast, for multi-site events (MSE) the drift times of holes from several
simultaneous energy depositions are in general different and hence $A/E$ of
the summed signal is reduced. For ionizations in the n+ transition layer (like
from surface $\beta$-events) the diffusion time is comparable to the drift
time and hence $A/E$ is also reduced. For p+ surface events electrons drift
through the volume with largest $\nabla\Phi$, and hence $A/E$ is larger than
for SSE due to the increased displacement current. The latter is also the
case for events close to the groove.
The layout imposes tighter constraints on the impurity and defect
concentrations in the starting crystal material that are more demanding to
achieve. These requirements arise due to the non-coaxial electrode arrangement
in BEGe detectors and the resulting electric field profile in order to achieve
complete charge collection within the detector volume.
\subsection{General properties of BEGe detectors}
\label{sec:bege-general-description}
\paragraph{Depletion voltage:}
The depletion voltage of a Ge detector is defined as the reverse bias voltage
that electrically fully depletes the diode of free charge carriers. It
strongly depends on the net impurity concentration and its gradient, on the
detector dimensions and on the read-out electrode sizes. The best performance
in terms of energy resolution is achieved at full depletion but it is
necessary to keep the leakage currents small. The depletion voltage is usually
determined via an irradiation of the detector with a $\gamma$-ray calibration
source and a stepwise increase of the voltage up to the value recommended by
the manufacturer. During this high voltage (HV) scan, detector operational
parameters such as the energy resolution $\Delta E$, the peak position and the
peak integral of prominent $\gamma$-lines are monitored. As soon as the
detector is electrically fully depleted, these parameters reach almost
constant plateaus. The measured curves are fitted. Then, the depletion
voltages are defined as those fit points, at which 99\% of the optimal $\Delta
E$ and maximum peak count rate as well as 99.9\% of the highest peak position
is obtained. Note that a $\sim$1\,${}^{0\!}\!/\!_{00}$ drift of the peak
position corresponds to a $\sim$1\,keV shift in energy, a $\sim$1\% reduced
peak integral to a $\sim$1\% reduced active volume, and a $\sim$1\% lower
energy resolution to a $\sim$0.02 keV broader $\gamma$ peak -- all at
$\sim$1\,MeV $\gamma$s detected by a BEGe detector.
\paragraph{Active volume:}
The p-type BEGe detectors (Fig.~\ref{fig:bege-profile}) have an internal
active volume (AV) in which the charge collection efficiency (CCE) is maximal
($\epsilon=1$). Gamma-rays fully absorbed in this volume contribute to the
full-energy peaks (FEP). The AV is surrounded by a transition layer (TL) with
reduced CCE ($0<\epsilon<1$) and a low electric
field~\cite{majorana2013}. Charges released in this region diffuse into the AV
only in part. Finally, the TL is covered by a thin conductive lithium-doped
layer in which the CCE is entirely suppressed ($\epsilon=0$) (see
section~\ref{sec:bege-design}) and is therefore called dead layer (DL). This
notation is more detailed because of the specific dependence of \gerda\ on the
\onbb\ signal and possible partial energy losses. Previously, in standard
$\gamma$-ray spectroscopy DL and TL were lumped together as a single totally
inactive `dead layer'.
A precise knowledge of the
de\-tec\-tor-specific active volume (AV) and its uncertainty is of great
importance for \gerda. There are two possibilities to determine it. Firstly,
high energy calibration sources can be used to irradiate directly the
AV. Secondly, low energy probes are used to measure the full-charge collection
depth (FCCD); i.e., the sum of TL and DL thicknesses. In this case, the AV
fraction $\factvol$ is deduced via a subtraction of the FCCD volume from the
detector volume which was calculated from the measured geometrical
dimensions. Complementary measurements are needed in order to reduce
systematic uncertainties. A difficulty in scanning is present since detectors
are housed in cryostats with thick end caps. This was overcome via a surface
scan with low energy $\gamma$-ray sources able to penetrate the cryostat
endcaps.
\paragraph{Pulse shapes:}
Efficient
background suppression is of pa\-ra\-mount importance for \gerda. \onbb\
events in germanium are characterized by the absorption of two emitted
$\beta$-particles within a small volume of few mm$^3$ which is interpreted as
a SSE. On the contrary, $\gamma$-rays of similar energy can undergo multiple
Compton scattering leading to MSE. Based on these pulse shape differences
background events can be identified and suppressed.
In order to study the pulse shape discrimination (PSD) power, high energetic
$\gamma$-ray calibration sources are often used. Further, fine-grained surface
scans with collimated low energy $\gamma$-ray probes help in understanding local
differences in the pulse shape response and deduce detector intrinsic
properties such as the crystal lattice and electron and hole mobilities in
germanium.
\subsection{Tests in vacuum cryostats}
\label{sec:test-vacuum_results}
All 30 \gerda\ Phase~II BEGe detectors were delivered in a Canberra dip stick
vacuum cryostat of type 7500SL with a 4'' endcap
diameter~\cite{bib:pst_7500_SL}. Characterization tests were performed in the
HADES underground research laboratory in Mol, Belgium, at 30\,km distance from
the diode manufacturer. Inside HADES an area of $\sim$14\,m$^2$ was equipped
with several static measurement tables and automatized movable scanning
setups, 33 radioactive sources, and two types of data acquisition systems:
Multi-Channel Analyzers (MCA) and 100\,MHz Struck Flash Analog Digital
Converters (FADC). The signals were read out with a charge sensitive
preamplifier provided by Canberra (model 2002CSL) and -- in case of the FADC
systems -- digitized. Then, the energy $E$ and the maximum of the current
pulse $A$ were reconstructed by digital signal processing using a
semi-Gaussian shaping. This offline analysis was performed with the software
tool \gelatio~\cite{bib:gelatio1} following the procedure described in
Ref.~\cite{bib:gelatio2}. Data storage systems and a network for remote
control and data transfer were installed. This infrastructure, called HEROICA,
had a screening capacity of two detectors per week in case only standard
measurements were performed. A more detailed description of the screening
facility can be found in Ref.~\cite{bib:Heroica}.
Most of the tests applied to the new enriched BEGe detectors are based on
campaigns and protocols of natural and depleted BEGe
detectors~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13} which served as prototypes to verify the
production chain and the detector performance compared to former detector
designs. In addition, several non-standard tests were applied on particular
detectors. In the case of the active volume (AV) determination, for instance,
many systematic effects were investigated. These included a remea\-surement of
the diode masses and dimensions, a cross-check of the diode position inside
the cryostat endcap, dead time uncertainty estimations, germanium density
measurements, and intercomparisons of source activities and of MC code
versions.
\subsubsection{Depletion voltage and energy resolution}
\label{sec:hv_scans}
The depletion voltage of the first seven enriched BEGe detectors was measured
by using pointlike $^{60}$Co sources and performing high voltage (HV) scans in
steps of (50-100)\,V typically from 500\,V up to the voltage $V_r^{C}$ of
several kV which was recommended by Canberra. At each intermediate voltage
point the energy spectrum was measured and three parameters were monitored:
the peak position (PP), the peak integral (PI) and the energy resolution
$\Delta E$ of the two $^{60}$Co $\gamma$-lines. $\Delta E$ is expressed in
terms of FWHM and was calculated via a fit function consisting of a Gaussian
distribution for the peaks and a step-like function describing the background
and Compton continua.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:ene-res-depl-volt}
Voltage parameters and energy resolutions of the first seven enriched
BEGe detectors for \gerda . Measurements performed
by the manufacturer Canberra and by \gerda\ are marked by `C' and
`G', respectively. All other abbreviations are explained in the
text. The manufacturer results were provided without an uncertainty
quotation. The \gerda\ voltage values have uncertainties of around
$\pm$200\,V. Due to the systematic uncertainties the values for the
energy resolution are
rounded to the significant digits.
}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
detector &\multicolumn{2}{c}{voltage} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{energy resolution} \\
&$V_{r}^{C}$; $V_{d,PP}^{C}$ &$V_{d,PI}^{G}$;$V_{d,PP}^{G}$;$V_{d,\Delta E}^{G}$ &$\Delta E^{C}$ [keV] &$\Delta E^{G}$ [keV] &$\Delta E^{G}$[keV] \\
&[kV] &[kV] &at 1333\,keV&at 1333\,keV &at 2615\,keV\\
\hline
GD32A &3.0; 2.5 &2.1; 2.4; 2.6 &1.695 &1.73 &2.46 \\
GD32B &4.0; 3.5 &2.1; 2.7; 3.0 &1.747 &1.77 &2.49 \\
GD32C &4.0; 3.5 &2.9; 3.2; 3.7 &1.658 &1.70 &2.41 \\
GD32D &4.0; 3.5 &2.2; 2.7; 2.8 &1.757 &1.65 &2.45 \\
GD35A &4.0; 3.0 &2.6; 2.6; 2.7 &1.785 &1.71 &2.40 \\
GD35B &4.0; 3.5 &2.5; 2.9; 3.5 &1.748 &1.80 &2.57 \\
GD35C &3.5; 3.0 &2.3; 3.0; 3.3 &1.643 &1.78 &2.50 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The HV scan curves of the detectors GD32A and GD35B are depicted exemplarily
in Fig.~\ref{fig:GD32A-HVscan} and~\ref{fig:GD35B-HVscan}. The three curves of
a single detector converge to an almost constant value at approximately the
same voltage. Within this study the depletion voltages $V_{d,\Delta E}$,
$V_{d,PP}$, $V_{d,PI}$ were deduced, at which the single parameters reach an
almost constant value as described in
section~\ref{sec:bege-general-description}. Table~\ref{tab:ene-res-depl-volt}
summarizes the results obtained for the seven enriched BEGe detectors. In
particular, the following observations are made:
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig08_archimedes_hv-scan_plot.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:GD32A-HVscan}
$^{60}$Co HV scan of detector GD32A: energy resolution
$\Delta E$ (as FWHM at 1333\,keV), peak position (PP) and peak
integral (PI) as functions of the applied voltage.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig09_achilles_hv-scan_plot.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:GD35B-HVscan}
Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:GD32A-HVscan} for GD35B.
A discontinuity around 2.7\,kV is visible which originates from the
so-called `bubble/pinch-off' effect.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
$(i)$ The measured reference voltages typically fulfill the relation
$V_{d,PI}\lesssim V_{d,PP}\lesssim V_{d,\Delta E}$. The values $V_{d,PI}$,
$V_{d,\Delta E}$ and $V_{d,PP}$ are compatible for both 1173\,keV and
1333\,keV $\gamma$-lines. The detectors are usually operated at the voltage
$V_{r}^{C}$ recommended by the manufacturer, who measures typically only the
peak position $V_{d,PP}^C$ vs. voltage. The value of $V_r^C$ is usually
500\,V above the measured $V_{d,PP}^C$ value. Canberra's $V_{d,PP}^C$ values
are slightly higher than the voltage region defined by \gerda\ in which the
PP is above 99.9\% of its maximum value. This guarantees that the three
detector parameters will always be in an optimum region for operation.
$(ii)$ The reference energy resolution $\Delta E$ of the seven BEGe detectors
was deduced from a measurement in which they were operated at the
recommended voltage $V_{r}^{C}$.
The peaks were fitted with a Gaussian function and a step-like plus a
constant background term. The uncertainties due to the fit are at the 10 eV
level. The systematic uncertainty is estimated in this case to 0.03\,keV.
All detectors have a similar $\Delta E$. For the $\gamma$-lines from
$^{60}$Co and $^{208}$Tl decays at 1333 and 2615\,keV the averaged values are
(1.73$\pm$0.05) and (2.47$\pm$0.05)\,keV, respectively. All the $\Delta E$
values are $\sim$30\% better than those of the \gerda\ semi-coaxial detectors
operated in vacuum cryostats (see Ref.~\cite{bib:Marik-thesis}). In general,
the \gerda\ $\Delta E$ values are in good agreement with the manufacturer's
specifications.
$(iii)$ The parameter dependencies of all detectors follow expectations from the
known impurity densities and geometries of the detectors. For detectors
GD35A and GD35B (Fig.~\ref{fig:GD35B-HVscan}) the curves of all three
parameters were found to be very similar. The diode and read-out electrode
geometries of the two detectors are comparable, and the impurity
concentrations -- as confirmed by the manufacturer -- are similar. Moreover,
both detectors exhibit the so-called `bubble'~\cite{bib:bubble-effect} or
`pinch-off' effect~\cite{bib:pinch-off-effect}: In a voltage interval of a
few tens of volts just below the depletion voltage, an island in the central
region forms in which the total electric field becomes zero. Depending on
their starting position almost all charge clouds drifting to the read-out
electrode might cross this island and get affected. This gives rise to the
observed broader energy resolution and a peak position instability, which
leads in the above two cases to a discontinuity around (2.3-2.7)\,kV.
\subsubsection{Active volume determination}
\label{sec:dl_av_determination}
The active volume fractions $\factvol$ of the seven enriched BEGe detectors
were determined by an intercomparison of ca\-li\-bra\-tion data with simulated
calibrations of the same experimental setup~\cite{bib:corrado}. Calibration
spectra were taken for two complementary types of $\gamma$-ray
sources. Firstly, uncollimated low-energy $\gamma$-ray emitting $^{241}$Am
sources were deployed 19.8\,cm away from the cryostat endcap to probe the FCCD
and thus the combined TL and DL thickness. The $\factvol$ fractions are
deduced indirectly by subtraction of the summed TL and DL volume from the
overall detector volume. Secondly, higher energy $^{60}$Co sources with an
activity of $\sim$(6-14)\,kBq were positioned at the same distance from the
cryostat endcaps as in the case of the $^{241}$Am sources. $^{60}$Co sources
with activities calibrated at a $\pm$1\% level were used to probe directly the
AV by irradiating the entire bulk of the detector diode.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig10_archimedes_peakcountrate-method.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:peakcountrate-method}
Extraction of the FCCD value of detector GD32A from a comparison of
the measured vs. simulated absolute count rate of the 1173\,keV
$\gamma$-line of $^{60}$Co: MC simulated value as a function of FCCD
(red), measured observable (blue), intersection (black).
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
MC simulations were performed in the \mage~\cite{bib:MAGE} software framework
based on \geant~\cite{bib:GEANT4_1,bib:GEANT4_2} version 9.4.p04. Simulations
of both source measurement types were performed for all detectors. Afterwards
the peak counts of a subset of $\gamma$-ray peaks in the experimental and MC
simulated energy spectra were evaluated by both a fitting and a counting
method. Then, two types of observables; i.e., either count rates or count rate
ratios, were extracted and plotted as a function of the FCCD. As a working
hypothesis an equal FCCD thickness on the top, lateral and bottom sides of the
detector surface was assumed. In the case of $^{60}$Co, the MC peak count
rates were plotted as a function of the FCCD. An example is given in
Fig.~\ref{fig:peakcountrate-method}. The intersection of the experimental
result and the simulated curve gives the FCCD of the detector. This method
depends strongly on the precise knowledge of the detector dimensions, source
activity and distance of source to detector. In case of $^{241}$Am, the ratio
of the count rates in the 60\,keV peak and the summed count rates from the
neighboring peaks at 99 and 103\,keV in the measured spectrum were compared
with the corresponding ratios of MC spectra for different FCCD values. An
example is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratio-method}. By using the peak count
ratio, uncertainties emerging from the source-to-detector distance and the
source activity cancel out. The intersection of the measured ratio and the MC
ratios as a function of the FCCD thickness defines the average upper surface
FCCD thickness and in consequence the AV of the detector.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig11_archimedes_ratio-method.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:ratio-method}
Extraction of the FCCD value of detector GD32A from a comparison of the
measured vs. simulated ratio of two $\gamma$-line intensities for
$^{241}$Am. Lines are color-coded as in
Fig.~\ref{fig:peakcountrate-method}.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:all_comb_only_1173_only}
Active volume fractions ($\factvol$) of the first seven enriched BEGe
detectors for \gerda . The systematic uncertainties are split in
detector correlated and uncorrelated contributions. The 6th column
presents $\factvol^\star$ where the uncertainties are added in
quadrature. For comparison, the manufacturer specifications, which were
provided without uncertainty, are reported in the last column.
}
\begin{tabular}{llrrrrr}
\hline
detector & $\gamma$-peak/nuclide & $\factvol$ $^{+stat +ucorr +corr}_{-stat -ucorr -corr}$ & $\factvol^\star$& Canberra\\
\hline
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
GD32A & $1173$\,keV & $ 0.8962 ^{+0.0006+0.0066+0.0250}_{-0.0006-0.0060-0.0237} $ &$ 0.896 ^{+0.026}_{-0.024}$& \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
& $^{241}$Am & $ 0.9229 ^{+0.0015+0.0009+0.0043}_{-0.0015-0.0009-0.0041} $ & $ 0.923 ^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ & $ 0.922 $ \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
GD32B & $1173$\,keV & $ 0.8887 ^{+0.0010+0.0062+0.0258}_{-0.0010-0.0056-0.0244} $ & $ 0.889 ^{+0.027}_{-0.025}$& \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
& $^{241}$Am & $ 0.9059 ^{+0.0012+0.0013+0.0037}_{-0.0012-0.0013-0.0036} $ & $ 0.906 ^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$& $ 0.899 $\\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
GD32C & $1173$\,keV & $ 0.9069 ^{+0.0030+0.0064+0.0262}_{-0.0030-0.0058-0.0248} $ & $ 0.907 ^{+0.027}_{-0.026}$&\\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
& $^{241}$Am & n/a & n/a & $ 0.923 $ \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
GD32D & $1173$\,keV & $ 0.9129 ^{+0.0039+0.0062+0.0262}_{-0.0039-0.0056-0.0247} $ & $ 0.913 ^{+0.027}_{-0.026}$& \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
& $^{241}$Am & $ 0.9316 ^{+0.0030+0.0006+0.0038}_{-0.0030-0.0006-0.0037} $ & $ 0.932 ^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$& $ 0.921 $\\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
GD35A & $1173$\,keV & $ 0.9262 ^{+0.0005+0.0063+0.0261}_{-0.0005-0.0057-0.0246} $ & $ 0.926 ^{+0.027}_{-0.025}$& \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
& $^{241}$Am & $ 0.9369 ^{+0.0006+0.0012+0.0031}_{-0.0006-0.0012-0.0030} $ & $ 0.937 ^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$& $ 0.927 $\\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
GD35B & $1173$\,keV & $ 0.9236 ^{+0.0013+0.0075+0.0264}_{-0.0013-0.0070-0.0249} $ & $ 0.924 ^{+0.027}_{-0.026}$&\\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
& $^{241}$Am & $ 0.9406 ^{+0.0054+0.0016+0.0038}_{-0.0056-0.0015-0.0036} $ & $ 0.941 ^{+0.007}_{-0.007}$& $ 0.923 $ \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
\hline
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
GD35C & $1173$\,keV & $ 0.9036 ^{+0.0025+0.0079+0.0251}_{-0.0025-0.0073-0.0238} $ & $ 0.904 ^{+0.026}_{-0.025}$&\\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
& $^{241}$Am & $ 0.9288 ^{+0.0013+0.0010+0.0042}_{-0.0014-0.0010-0.0040} $ & $ 0.929 ^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$& $ 0.926 $ \\
\noalign{\vskip 1.0mm}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The determined $\factvol$ values based on $^{241}$Am and the $1173\,$keV
$^{60}$Co $\gamma$-line are reported in
Table~\ref{tab:all_comb_only_1173_only}. In summary:
$(i)$ reported central values and uncertainty budgets are slightly improved
compared to a previous evaluation used in
Refs.~\cite{bib:GER13-0nbb,bib:GER13-bckg}.
$(ii)$ The manufacturer used an $^{241}$Am surface probe to estimate the
FCCD thicknesses. Translating these results into $\factvol$ fractions, they
are in good agreement at a 1\% level with the $^{241}$Am results of the
current analysis.
$(iii)$ The $\factvol$ central values deduced from the $^{60}$Co
measurements are systematically lower than the ones obtained via the
$^{241}$Am surface tests. For two detectors the difference is at the 1\%
level, in the other five cases it is between 2 and 3\%. On average, the
difference is 1.9\%. 28 potential sources of systematic uncertainties were
evaluated. The most prominent contributions are reported in
Table~\ref{tab:systematics_both}. For each detector the total systematic
uncertainty was divided into a detector correlated and non-correlated
part. An example for the first category is the usage of the same calibration
source for all detectors, which -- in case of an offset -- would cause an
asymmetric shift in one direction for all $\factvol$ mean values. As shown
in Table~\ref{tab:all_comb_only_1173_only}, the correlated systematic
uncertainty of the $^{60}$Co measurements can explain the observed shift.
\subsubsection{Background rejection via pulse shape analysis}
\label{sec:vacuum_psa}
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:systematics_both}
Main systematic uncertainties considered in the determination of the
$\factvol$ fractions. All systematic contributions are given in \%
with respect to the count rate of $^{60}$Co or to the ratio for
$^{241}$Am except for the dead time uncertainties (*) which are first
translated into a live time uncertainty. This depends on the
respective live time of the single measurement, which was typically
$>$97\%. In the case of $^{241}$Am, two sources with different
uncertainties were used. Thus, both numbers are reported.
}
\begin{tabular}{llrr}
\hline
category & systematics & uncert. [\%] ($^{60}$Co) & uncert. [\%] ($^{241}$Am)\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{MC physics processes} & \geant\ physics~\cite{bib:Geant4sys} & $\pm 4$ & $\pm 2$ \\
& $\gamma$-line intensity $1173\,$keV & $\pm 0.03$ & -\\
& $\gamma$-line intensity $1333\,$keV & $\pm 0.0006$ & -\\
& $\gamma$-line intensity $^{241}$Am & - & $\pm 1.5$ \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{$\gamma$-ray source} & source activity & $\pm 1$ & 0\\
& source material & $\pm 0.01$ & $\pm 0/\pm 0.014$\\
& source geometry & $\pm 0.02$ & $\pm 0.013/\pm 0.016$\\
\hline
\multirow{6}{*}{detector and cryostat}& detector dimension & $\pm 2.5$ & -\\
& dist. source to endcap& $\pm 1.2$ & -\\
& endcap geometry & $\pm 0.15$ & $\pm 0.31$\\
& dist. detector to endcap& $\pm 1.0$ & -\\
& detector cup geometry & $\pm 0.06$ & $\pm 0.03$\\
& detector cup material & $\pm 0.03$ & $\pm 0.01$\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{dead time} & MCA dead time (*) & $\pm 10$ & -\\
& FADC dead time (*) & $\pm 5$ & -\\
\hline
\multirow{1}{*}{shaping time} & shaping time & $\pm 0.2$ & -\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig12_ae-vs-e_GD32DII.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:ae-vs-e_gd32dII}
The $A/E$ ratio vs. energy $E$ from events of a $^{228}$Th
calibration of detector GD32D-II.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For the determination of the background rejection efficiency of the new BEGe
detectors via pulse shape analysis, uncollimated $^{228}$Th calibration
sources were deployed on the outer surface of the vacuum cryostat endcaps. The
double escape peak (DEP) of the 2615\,keV photons appears at 1593\,keV. Most
DEP events are like $0\nu\beta\beta$ decays -- they are SSE unless
bremsstrahlung leads to energy losses. Contrarily, the full energy peak (FEP),
the single escape peak (SEP) and Compton continua events correspond mainly to
MSE. The obtained $A/E$ vs. $E$ plot for detector GD32D is shown exemplarily
in Fig.~\ref{fig:ae-vs-e_gd32dII}. Herein, the $A/E$ values of the events were
computed after a 10\,ns differentiation and threefold 50\,ns integration of
the charge signal.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{fig13_ae_dep-sep-fep-cr_GD32DII.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:ae_single-reg_gd32dII}
The $A/E$ distributions for selected energy
intervals obtained from a $^{228}$Th calibration of detector
GD32D: full energy peak (FEP), single escape peak (SEP) and
double escape peak (DEP) events belonging to the 2615\,keV
$^{208}$Tl $\gamma$-line (Compton-subtracted). The $A/E$
distribution of
Compton-scattered events in the 70\,keV interval around \qbb\ is
also shown.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As a standard, a low side $A/E$ cut was set, which keeps 90\% of the events in
the Compton-background subtracted DEP. Then the survival fractions of FEP, SEP
and Compton events in the energy region between (1-2.6)\,MeV were studied (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:ae_single-reg_gd32dII}). A high side $A/E$ cut is only needed to
reject surface events occurring close to the p+ electrode.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{ \label{tab:psa-vacuum-efficiencies}
Gamma-ray background survival fractions (in percentages) of the first
seven enriched BEGe detectors operated in vacuum cryostats. For
comparison, the performance of the prototype BEGe detector denoted with
2/B~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13} is reported as well. In the case of the
detector GD32D, the pulse shape performance was measured before (I) and
after (II) a rework of the groove. The $A/E$ widths $b_{A/E}$ are by trend
correlated with the obtained PSD efficiencies. For the DEP
the uncertainty is statistical only, while for the others the total
uncertainty is quoted. The relative uncertainty of
the $b_{A/E}$ fit calculation is in the range of few percent.
}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
detector&DEP &SEP &FEP &ROI &$b_{A/E}$\\
&at 1593\,keV &at 2104\,keV &at 2615\,keV &(2004-2074)\,keV&[\%]\\
\hline
2/B &90.0$\pm$0.9 &4.7$\pm$0.5 &7.0$\pm$0.4 &31.0$\pm$1.0 &0.6\\
GD32A &90.0$\pm$0.5 &12.2$\pm$0.4 &16.3$\pm$0.7 &42.8$\pm$0.7 &1.3\\
GD32B &90.0$\pm$0.9 &5.3$\pm$0.5 &8.8$\pm$0.5 &33.0$\pm$0.8 &0.8\\
GD32C &90.0$\pm$1.1 &8.3$\pm$0.7 &11.3$\pm$0.4 &40.0$\pm$0.9 &1.5\\
GD32D-I &90.0$\pm$1.1 &14.7$\pm$1.2 &22.1$\pm$1.6 &47.0$\pm$1.3 &1.5\\
GD32D-II&90.0$\pm$0.5 &5.7$\pm$0.3 &7.4$\pm$0.3 &38.3$\pm$0.8 &0.7\\
GD35A &90.0$\pm$1.0 &7.8$\pm$0.5 &13.1$\pm$0.6 &39.5$\pm$0.7 &2.4\\
GD35B &90.0$\pm$0.8 &5.7$\pm$0.4 &7.1$\pm$0.4 &33.0$\pm$0.8 &0.9\\
GD35C &90.0$\pm$0.7 &10.0$\pm$0.8 &15.1$\pm$0.9 &40.3$\pm$1.2 &2.8\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
$A/E$ distributions of DEP events must exhibit a narrow Gaussian peak in order
to obtain a reasonable PSD efficiency. To satisfy the needs of the
\gerda\ experiment a FWHM of $\lesssim$1\% is required. However, a small tail
component of MSE with lower $A/E$ from underlying bremsstrahlung background is
allowed. SSE populating the peak can then be disentangled from the tail
region. The PSD results are reported in
Table~\ref{tab:psa-vacuum-efficiencies}.
~\\It was found that:
$(i)$ A single $A/E$ peak was observed in GD32B, GD35B
and in most of the prototype BEGe detectors. However, multi\-ple-peak
structures and/or an unusual broad peak were observed in five of the enriched
BEGe detectors (GD32(A,C,D), GD35(A,C)).
Fig.~\ref{fig:AE-resolution-of-7-BEGes} shows one well-performing detector and
two detectors with a deteriorated $A/E$ performance.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig14_AE-distributions-of-7-BEGes.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:AE-resolution-of-7-BEGes}
$A/E$ distributions of DEP events from $^{208}$Tl decays measured
for three enriched BEGe detectors. For comparison the distributions
were normalized. GD35B can be described by one single Gaussian with
$\lesssim$1\% resolution plus a tail on its left side. GD32A and
GD35C have a resolution of $\gtrsim$1\%. In addition, GD35C has a
multiple structure.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Setup-related artifacts were excluded by remeasuring the PSD behavior of the
prototype depleted BEGe detector denoted with 2/B. This detector was
previously measured in other laboratories and led to very similar results
(compare Table~\ref{tab:psa-vacuum-efficiencies} reported here with Table~4 in
Ref.~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13}). Malfunctioning electronic components inside the
cryostat endcaps were excluded by reusing them for different BEGe
detectors. No notable noise effects and time instabilities were
identified. Correlations among the $A/E$ distribution shape and macroscopic
properties such as impurity concentrations or gradients, operational voltages,
crystal slice types and crystal shapes were not found. However, positive
charged compounds can be deposited in the groove on the passivation layer
between the p+ and n+ electrodes after diode production. This can deform the
electric field configuration leading to distorted drift paths. This assumption
has been substantiated by dedicated measurements with collimated $^{241}$Am
and $^{228}$Th sources. Moreover, the grooves of the detectors GD32C and GD32D
underwent chemical treatment by the manufacturer followed by heating. The
first detector was affected by operational instabilities after reprocessing,
but the second one clearly improved its PSD behavior.
The $A/E$ anomaly was further investigated with two enriched BEGe detectors
without passivation layer and operated in liquid argon, as described in
section~\ref{sec:bege_gdl-tests}.
$(ii)$ The detectors GD32B and GD35B have PSD efficiencies similar to the
prototype natural and depleted BEGe detectors~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13}. As shown
in Table~\ref{tab:psa-vacuum-efficiencies} the survival fractions of MSE lying
in the SEP and FEP are around (6-9)\%, while Compton events in the region of
interest (ROI) around \qbb\ survive at a $\sim$33\% level. The uncertainties
reported include statistical and systematic contributions. For all five other
cases the PSD efficiency is deteriorated due to the $A/E$ anomaly. In the
extreme case of GD32D, the survival probability for the $\gamma$-lines and
intervals increases to (15-22)\% and 47\%, respectively.
\subsubsection{Surface scans with $^{241}$Am sources}
\label{sec:Am-surface-scans}
Six out of the first seven \gerda\, Phase~ II BEGe detectors were scanned at
several hundred position on the top and lateral site (nomenclature referring
to Fig.~\ref{fig:bege-profile}) with a novel automatized setup consisting of a
motorized mechanical arm. The arm is equipped with a collimated 5\,MBq
$^{241}$Am source. The diameter of the collimator hole is 1\,mm. Further
details are reported in Ref.~\cite{bib:Heroica}.
The 60\,keV $\gamma$-rays emitted by the $^{241}$Am source have a typical
penetration depth of 1\,mm in germanium. This leads to an energy deposition
near the detector surface in form of a single charge cloud.
\paragraph{FCCD homogeneity and diode position:}
For this purpose, the count rates of the 60\,keV $\gamma$-rays in single
positions along linear axes were measured.
The observed count rate drops at the edges and allowed the comparison of the
diode positions inside the cryostat endcaps with the callout in the technical
drawings of the manufacturer. No misalignment was found within $\pm$1\,mm.
Along the bulk of the diodes most of the seven detectors showed a stable count
rate. GD32C, for instance, has an almost constant count rate profile (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:Am-scan_CCE}). A few detectors like GD35B, however, fluctuate up
to $\pm$30\% translating into a $\sim$0.1\,mm~\cite{bib:NIST} FCCD
difference. The count rate profile on the front side area of these detectors
is characterized by higher count rates at the center and at the outermost
borders. The origin of the observed fluctuation has not yet been understood.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig15_plot_anubis-andromeda_am-topscan.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:Am-scan_CCE}
Count rate profile from a linear scan along the top side
surface of the detectors GD32C and GD35B.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Spatial dependence of the pulse shape response:}
The pulse shapes of events in a $\pm$4.5\,$\sigma$ region around the 60\,keV
$\gamma$-peak were investigated for every scanned point. Especially the
variation of the $A/E$ peak positions over the entire surface was
studied. Detectors not affected by the $A/E$ anomaly; i.e., the detectors
GD32B and GD35B were measured to have a rather good $A/E$ peak stability with
variations of 1\%. The other enriched BEGe detectors showed stronger
deviations up to 4.5\% going from the exterior towards the center. This
observation is consistent with the working hypothesis that the origin of the
$A/E$ anomaly is due to non homogeneously distributed charge carriers on the
passivation layer (see section~\ref{sec:vacuum_psa}).
A similar behavior was observed for the mean (5-35)\% rise time interval of
the registered pulses, which represents the main drift path through the
crystal from the interaction point to the p+ electrode. Detectors GD35B (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:Am-scan_AE-RT-oscillation}), GD32B and 2/B indicated a
90$^\circ$ oscillation due to the different drift mobilities for holes along
the axes of the faced-centered cubic crystal lattice of
germanium~\cite{bib:Xtal-structure}. However, for the other enriched BEGe
detectors such as GD35A (Fig.~\ref{fig:Am-scan_AE-RT-oscillation}) the
90$^\circ$ oscillation was overwhelmed by a much larger 180$^\circ$
oscillation most likely caused by a one-sided concentration of charges in the
groove.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig16_Am-scan-Vert-AE-RT.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:Am-scan_AE-RT-oscillation}
Mean value of the (5-35)\% interval of the rise time slope of the
pulses registered along a lateral side scan of GD35A and GD35B.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Detector performance in liquid argon}
\label{sec:performance_lar}
Since the beginning, \gerda\ has foreseen the parallel usage of different Ge
detector designs. The long-term stability and the pulse shape performance of
BEGe detectors have been studied with prototype natural and depleted BEGe
detectors for vacuum cryostat
operation~\cite{bib:deplBEGe13,bib:bege_pulse_shape} and in
LAr~\cite{bib:BEGe-LAr_2010}. It was also desirable to confirm the low
intrinsic background of the new detectors -- in particular for possible
surface $\alpha$-contamination potentially introduced during manufacture. For
this check an ultra-low background environment, such as inside the
\gerda\ set-up, was necessary. Therefore, the \gerda\ collaboration decided
to operate five of the new enriched BEGe detectors already during Phase~I of
the experiment. This also allowed the study of their operational stability
over a period of $\sim$320\,d as well as their PSD {\it in situ}. The results
are presented in section~\ref{sec:bege-gerda-phaseI}. The positive performance
permitted to add 3~kg to the total mass in \gerda\ Phase~I.
The two remaining enriched BEGe detectors which were affected by the $A/E$
anomaly (section~\ref{sec:vacuum_psa}) under vacuum conditions were reworked
in order to investigate possibilities to improve the PSD performance. For this
purpose, the passivation layer of these detectors was removed. The results are
discussed in section~\ref{sec:bege_gdl-tests}.
\subsection{Operation of enriched BEGe detectors in \gerda\ Phase~I}
\label{sec:bege-gerda-phaseI}
Detectors GD32B, GD32C, GD32D, GD35B and GD35C, were mounted into the
\gerda\,cryostat without prior removal of the passivation layer surrounding
the read-out electrode. Their configuration is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:bege-string} prior to their insertion into the \gerda\ cryostat.
Data taking relevant for the Phase~I analysis started on July~8, 2012, and
stopped on May 21, 2013.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig17_bege-string.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:bege-string}
The string of five enriched BEGe detectors before deployment
into \gerda\ (July 6, 2012).
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.64\columnwidth]{fig18a_lc_bege_phaseI_narrow.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.64\columnwidth]{fig18b_eneres_bege_phaseI_narrow.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.62\columnwidth]{fig18c_peakpos_bege_phaseI_narrow.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:performance_bege_phaseII}
Operational stability of the four enriched BEGe detectors operated
in LAr during \gerda\ Phase~I: (left) Stability of leakage current
$I_{l}$. The systematic uncertainty of $\pm$4\,pA is not
shown. (middle) Time dependency of the energy resolution $\Delta E$
expressed in terms of FWHM of the $^{208}$Tl $\gamma$-line at
2615\,keV. (right) Peak position variability of the $^{208}$Tl
$\gamma$-line at 2615\,keV.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
All five enriched BEGe detectors were operated at the same voltage of
3500\,V. According to Table~\ref{tab:ene-res-depl-volt} this voltage is equal
or even larger than the voltages recommended by the manufacturer. According to
the \gerda\ characterization measurements in section~\ref{sec:hv_scans} this
voltage guarantees a maximum active volume and an optimal energy resolution
for all detectors. Two detectors, GD35B and GD35C, were connected to the same
HV line. Both detectors showed problems during operation: GD35B had
microphonic noise leading to poor energy resolution, while detector GD35C
experienced larger gain instabilities, which prevented useful data
collection. This was possibly caused by an improper contact of the signal
cable to the p+ electrode. Ignoring GD35C, the performance of the remaining
four enriched BEGe detectors operated in \gerda\ Phase~I is summarized in the
following sections.
\subsubsection{Stability of operational and spectroscopic parameters}
\label{sec:bege-gerda_ene-res_peak-stab_leak-cur}
\paragraph{Leakage current:}
The leakage current $I_{l}$ was calculated from the voltage drop across the
feedback resistor. It was monitored continuously for the four operational
enriched BEGe detectors. Initially, $I_{l}$ was measured via the test point
voltage of the detectors. During the long-term operation $I_{l}$ was extracted
from the baseline of recorded events. As demonstrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig:performance_bege_phaseII}(left), $I_{l}$ of all detectors was
acceptably low. The systematic uncertainty of $\pm$4\,pA is not
shown. Additionally, $I_{l}$ was almost constant during the entire data
collection time.
Almost weekly $^{228}$Th source calibration tests did not increase $I_{l}$. In
the past, source measurements of several days duration conducted on prototype
semi-coaxial detectors with a passivation layer led to a significant increase
of $I_{l}$~\cite{bib:Marik2008}. For the passivated BEGe detectors in
\gerda\ Phase~I this was probably avoided by collecting enough statistics
within only few hours.
\paragraph{Energy resolution:}
The energy resolution $\Delta E$ was determined by irradiating the four
enriched BEGe detectors with $^{228}$Th sources in LAr, and by recording and
processing data according to Ref.~\cite{bib:GER13}. In total, 25 different
calibration data sets for all detectors were available. The corresponding FWHM
of the $^{208}$Tl $\gamma$-line at 2615\,keV are depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:performance_bege_phaseII}(middle). All detectors had a good and
stable $\Delta E$ over the entire period except GD35B. The averaged $\Delta E$
of the other three detectors ranged between 2.8 and 3.0\,keV. The averaged
$\Delta E$ of GD35B was at 3.6\,keV, and there was an increase of 0.4 keV over
this time period.
The $\Delta E$ values of the four enriched BEGe detectors operated in LAr were
30\% worse than the values obtained for the same detectors operated in vacuum
cryostats (see Table~\ref{tab:ene-res-depl-volt}). This was expected, since
the signal cable length in LAr between the read-out electrode and the first
stage of the preamplifier, the field-effect transistor (FET), was longer by
$\sim$30\,cm. For \gerda\ Phase~II, however, it is planned to place the FET
closer to the read-out electrode. In addition, new offline energy
reconstruction algorithms are under development that should further improve
the energy resolution.
Finally, compared to the semi-coaxial Ge detectors operated in LAr with almost
identical read-out electronics, the four BEGe detectors had a $\sim$30\%
better energy resolution~\cite{bib:GER13-bckg}.
\paragraph{Peak position stability:} The energy scale stability of the four
enriched BEGe detectors was measured by means of the $^{208}$Tl $\gamma$-peak
at 2615\,keV. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:performance_bege_phaseII}(right) the
peak position was relatively stable with deviations mostly within
$\pm$0.05\%. Temporary instabilities in the energy scale of individual
detectors were identified by analyzing the response to regularly injected
charge pulses into the input of the amplifiers. Possibly, the signal and/or
the HV contact was not stable. Data affected by the instabilities were
excluded in the data analysis.
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:psa-LAr-efficiencies}
Gamma-ray background survival fraction (in percentages) of the four
enriched BEGe detectors operated in LAr during
\gerda\ Phase~I. The relative uncertainty from the $A/E$ width
$b_{A/E}$ fit calculation is in the range of few percent. For the DEP
the uncertainty is statistical only, while for the others the total
uncertainty is quoted. For a direct comparison of the FEP and SEP
efficiencies with Table~\ref{tab:psa-vacuum-efficiencies} one should
consider a systematic contribution of 1\% due to geometric effects from
different detector-source configurations in LAr and vacuum.
}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
detector&DEP &SEP &FEP &ROI & $b_{A/E}$\\
&at 1593\,keV &at 2104\,keV &at 2615\,keV &(2004-2074)\,keV &[\%]\\
\hline
GD32B &90.0$\pm$0.9 &11.4$\pm$0.7 &15.1$\pm$1.0 &44.3$\pm$1.0 &1.5 \\
GD32C &90.0$\pm$0.8 &11.3$\pm$0.7 &14.7$\pm$0.9 &45.9$\pm$1.0 &1.7 \\
GD32D &90.0$\pm$1.1 &10.2$\pm$0.7 &14.2$\pm$0.9 &45.2$\pm$1.2 &1.6 \\
GD35B &90.0$\pm$1.5 &9.9$\pm$1.3 &16.2$\pm$1.5 &46.4$\pm$2.0 &1.9 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Pulse shape performance}
\label{sec:bege-gerda_psa}
The pulse shape behavior of the four enriched BEGe detectors has already been
discussed in the context of the pulse shape methods developed for
\gerda\ Phase~I data analysis~\cite{bib:GER13-psd}. It has been pointed out,
that the mean value $\mu_{A/E}$ of the Gaussian components describing the
$A/E$ distributions was affected by two time variations. Firstly, an
exponentially decreasing $\mu_{A/E}$ with a time period of $\sim$1 month was
observed. The size of the total drift depended on the detector and varied from
1 to 5\% (largest for GD32B). Secondly, a $\mu_{A/E}$ shift of 1\% to higher
values during $^{228}$Th source calibrations was observed. These instabilities
were quantified and time-corrections were applied to the $A/E$ distributions
of calibration and physics data. The origin of the dynamic processes is still
under investigation. The observed dynamic $A/E$ drift might originate from
charges present on the passivated groove, which neutralize or dissolve into
the LAr over several months of operation.
The width $b_{A/E}$ of the $A/E$ distributions obtained from all calibration
data turned out to be $\gtrsim$1.5\% for the four BEGe detectors. This was
sufficient for Phase~I, however, a value $\le$1\% is aimed for Phase~II. It
was demonstrated that a $b_{A/E}$ of 1\% can be achieved with BEGes in LAr
(section~\ref{sec:bege_gdl-tests}).
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig19_PLOT_Th228-GD32B.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Gerda_BEGe_psa-gamma-rejection}
Application of the $A/E$ pulse shape method on \gerda\ $^{228}$Th
calibration data collected with detector GD32B. SSE in the DEP at
1593\,keV were retained at a fixed 90\% level. The resulting
survival fraction of other $\gamma$-lines and Compton regions are
reported in Table~\ref{tab:psa-LAr-efficiencies}.
}
\end{figure}
In contrast to the Phase~I analysis the acceptance of SSE-like DEP events at
1593\,keV was fixed at 90\%, in order to compare the performance of different
detectors and set-ups, in particular with the vacuum tests. The resulting
$\gamma$-ray background survival fractions are reported in
Table~\ref{tab:psa-LAr-efficiencies}. The energy spectrum before and after the
application of the PSD cut is shown exemplarily for detector GD32B in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Gerda_BEGe_psa-gamma-rejection}. After Compton subtraction of
the SEP and the FEP peaks, 89\% and 85\% of the $\gamma$-ray events are
rejected in LAr. The values obtained from the same detectors operated in
vacuum (see Table~\ref{tab:psa-vacuum-efficiencies}) are slightly higher, even
considering an additional $\sim$1\% uncertainty due to different
source-detector distances in the two configurations. This was expected due to
the less favorable electronics setup in \gerda\ Phase~I compared to the
operation in vacuum cryostats. Concerning the Compton-scattered $\gamma$-rays
with energies around \qbb\, the events are rejected at $\sim$55\% in
LAr. Since the Compton continuum is dependent on the source distance and
position, this value cannot be directly compared with the vacuum test results.
Finally, the PSD method was applied to the physics data of \gerda\ Phase~I
~\cite{bib:GER13-0nbb}. Herein, the $A/E$ acceptance cut on SSE-like events at
\qbb\ was optimized differently than the one used for the $^{228}$Th
calibration data collected in vacuum and in LAr. Firstly, events below and
above the SSE band were cut. Secondly, the cut was relaxed to keep more SSE-like
events. Thirdly, the cut was at a fixed normalized $A/E$ value instead of a
fixed DEP acceptance; i.e. 0.965$<A/E<$1.07. The final $A/E$ rejection
efficiency of all background events in the ROI around \qbb\ was $\sim$82\%,
while (92$\pm$2)\% of \onbb\ events would survive the $A/E$
cut~\cite{bib:GER13-0nbb,bib:GER13-psd}.
\subsubsection{Background examination}
\label{sec:detector-contamination}
The background sources affecting the enriched BEGe detectors in \gerda\ Phase~I
have already been discussed in Ref.~\cite{bib:GER13-bckg}.
Gamma-rays induced by $^{214}$Bi and $^{228}$Th decays occuring in assembly
materials close to the detectors were found to be the prevailing contaminants.
The predicted background induced by detector-in\-trin\-sic decays of the two
dominant cosmogenic radioisotopes, $^{68}$Ge and $^{60}$Co, was presented in
section~\ref{sec:intro-cosmogenics}. The spectral fit of the \gerda\ Phase~I
data revealed a good agreement with the expectations. The outcome reinforced
the confidence that -- with the knowledge of the exposure history of a
detector to cosmic radiation -- this background contribution can be reliably
controlled.
The following paragraphs review some aspects of two other important
contaminants which are not induced by gamma-rays and therefore their
suppression relies on detector PSD instead of LAr scintillation
anti-coincidence.
\paragraph{Cosmogenic $^{42}$Ar in LAr:}
The most critical external background for BEGe detectors in \gerda\ originates
from $\beta^-$-emission of the $^{42}$Ar daughter nuclide $^{42}$K. The
$\beta$-particles with energies up to 3525\,keV have a total stopping power of
up to 1.5\,MeV$\cdot$cm$^2$/g in natural germanium ~\cite{bib:NISTbeta} and
depending on distance are able to penetrate the n+ FCCD. According to
Ref.~\cite{bib:GER13-bckg}, $^{42}$K $\beta$-events are expected to contribute
at a $\sim$55\% level to the total $BI$ of
(4.2$\pm$0.7)$\times$10$^{-2}$\,\ctsper\, of the four BEGe detectors in
\gerda\ Phase~I~\cite{bib:GER13-psd}. Thus, the $^{42}$Ar concentration should
be either reduced or the induced background signals suppressed by PSD
techniques.
Since the $^{42}$K $\beta$-surface events have typically long rise times it is
possible to suppress them efficiently via PSD (see also Fig.~12 in
Ref.~\cite{bib:GER13-psd}). The $A/E$ method led to a $^{42}$K survival
fraction of few per cent, as expected from experimental investigations in
Ref.~\cite{bib:2012lazzaro}. The total $BI$ of the BEGe detectors operated in
\gerda\ Phase~I was reduced to (5$^{+4}_{-3}$)$\times$10$^{-3}$\,\ctsper\,by
the PSD cut~\cite{bib:GER13-0nbb}. In Phase~II the BI can be further reduced
using a transparent nylon cylinder around the detector strings.
\paragraph{Surface $\alpha$ contamination:}
A second detector-intrinsic background is given by a potential
$\alpha$-contamination of $^{226}$Ra daughter nuclides on the detector
surface. Alpha-particles have a short range in germanium of the order of tens
of \mum, but are able to penetrate the 140\,nm passivation layer in the
detector groove and the 400\,nm thick p+ electrode, respectively.
During the detector production at Canberra no special precautions were adopted
such as handling under radon-free atmosphere. The four enriched BEGe detectors
operated in the low background environment of the \gerda\ cryostat allowed to
quantify the grade of the surface $\alpha$-contamination. In the data set used
for \gerda\ Phase~I data analysis~\cite{bib:GER13-0nbb} approximately 40
$\alpha$-like events with energies above 3\,MeV were collected with the
enriched BEGe detectors.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig20_AEbckAlphas.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:BEGe_alpha-contamination}
$A/E$ representation of the 43 events with energies above 3.0\,MeV,
which were registered with the four enriched BEGe detectors during
\gerda\ Phase~I. Events inside the gray area lie within the SSE band
and are accepted by the PSD cut.
}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:BEGe_alpha-contamination} depicts the events from Fig.~10 in
Ref.~\cite{bib:GER13-psd}, which have energies above 3\,MeV and were projected
on the $A/E$ axis. Out of 43 candidates 39 were found with high $A/E$ values
well beyond the threshold for \onbb-like SSE. These are mostly due to
$\alpha$-events in agreement with the $A/E$ expectation from an
$\alpha$-source irradiation of a p+ electrode of a BEGe detector inside a
custom-made vacuum cryostat~\cite{thesis_matteo}. Out of these, 14 events with
$A/E$$>$1 show strong pairwise time correlations. Since each pair or triple
occurs in the same detector with a very similar $A/E$, it is suggestive that
consecutive decays in $\alpha$ chains were observed which has caused some of
the spikes in Fig.~\ref{fig:BEGe_alpha-contamination}. A small fraction might
also be due to $^{42}$K $\beta$-surface events. Moreover, one candidate
populating the SSE band has a SSE like pulse shape, while three other events
with $A/E$ $<$0.965 are identified in one case as a MSE and in two cases as
surface background events with long rise times. Despite these few
contaminating events from non-alpha sources,
Fig.~\ref{fig:BEGe_alpha-contamination} clearly demonstrates that surface
$\alpha$ events are efficiently rejected by the A/E cut.
\subsection{Performance of BEGe detectors without passivation layer}
\label{sec:bege_gdl-tests}
As discussed in sections~\ref{sec:vacuum_psa} and~\ref{sec:bege-gerda_psa},
the observed pulse shape degradation can be caused by charge carriers present
or collected over time on the surface of the passivation layer between the
anode and cathode of the diodes.
To examine if the effect is related to environmental conditions and can be
improved for the operation in LAr, the detectors GD32A and GD35A were tested
in the \gerda\ Detector Laboratory (GDL)~\cite{bib:Marik-thesis} at LNGS.
Both detectors were deployed in the same LAr test cryostat that has already
been used for a long-term test with a prototype depleted BEGe detector which
was not passivated~\cite{bib:BEGe-LAr_2010}. The two enriched BEGe detectors
were operated in the standard configuration used in \gerda; i.e., bare
detectors in LAr without passivation on the groove surface. According to
Ref.~\cite{bib:Marik-thesis,bib:Marik2008} this is necessary in order to
guarantee stable operation in LAr and a negligible increase of the leakage
current.
The GDL LAr tests of the two detectors revealed a slightly increased energy
resolution compared to the vacuum tests: in the case of detector GD32A it
increased from 2.5 to 2.8\,keV at 2615\,keV, while in the case of GD35A it
deteriorated from 2.4 to 3.0\,keV. This was expected, since the distance of
the first amplifying signal stage to the read-out electrodes was $\sim$60\,cm
in LAr and thus larger than in the vacuum setup.
The widths $b_{A/E}$ of the $A/E$ distributions of the two detectors GD32A and
GD35A improved from 1.3 and 2.4\% to 1.1 and 1.0\%, respectively. The residual
$A/E$ resolution was dominated by the noise of the GDL test set-up, and was
similar to past measurements with prototype BEGe detectors. The strong
non-Gaussian features observed in the HADES vacuum tests disappeared. As an
example, both $A/E$ distributions for detector GD35A are depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:GD35A_w-wo-PL}. The $A/E$ distribution measured in GDL is
consistent with a homogeneous pulse-shape response of the detector -- a
Gaussian SSE peak with a slight low $A/E$ tail due to bremsstrahlung.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig21_noPL-LAr.pdf}
\caption{ \label{fig:GD35A_w-wo-PL}
$A/E$ distributions of DEP events measured with detector GD35A under
different conditions. Left: With passivation layer in vacuum. Right:
Without passivation layer in LAr.
}
\end{figure}
The PSD survival efficiencies of $\gamma$-peaks and Comp\-ton-continua in
$^{228}$Th source spectra were determined for detector GD32A: The SEP, FEP and
Compton events at \qbb\ survive at 8.2, 11.5 and 38\%, respectively. It should
also be noted that for contaminants such as events from the detector n+
surface an improvement in $A/E$ resolution would have a greater effect on
reducing the survival efficiency than for MSE dominated background
contaminants such as $^{228}$Th.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
This paper presents a detailed review of the production chain of the new
\gerda\ Phase~II broad energy germanium detectors. It discusses the
performance of the first seven delivered detectors which were operated in
vacuum and in liquid argon.
The detector production included an efficient isotopic enrichment of $^{76}$Ge
from $\sim$8\% in natural germanium to $\sim$88\%, a successful purification
and crystal growth. 30 crystal slices were obtained and converted into
operational diodes. Only one diode did not fulfill all required performance
specifications by showing charge collection deficiencies in the AV. In total,
the 30 detectors have a mass of 20.0\,kg which corresponds to a mass yield of
53\%. The obtained impurity concentrations allowed for an operation of the
detectors at relatively low voltages of (3-4)\,kV. During all production
steps, the activation of the enriched germanium by cosmic radiation was kept
at a minimum in order to meet the background specifications of
\gerda\ Phase~II. This was pursued by storing the germanium in underground
sites near to the manufacturers and by using a shielded container for
transportation. According to the tracked exposure histories and the predicted
production rates of cosmogenic isotopes, the production of detectors
underground -- potentially needed in a future upgrade of the experiment for
further background reduction~\cite{bib:Hult2008} -- was not necessary at this
stage. Finally, more than 25\% of the original germanium material was
recovered for future crystal growth.
In order to characterize the detectors, an underground facility with the
capability of screening two detectors per week was installed. For the tests
the detectors were mounted in standard vacuum cryostats. As demonstrated by
means of the first seven detectors, they all turned out to have excellent
energy re\-solutions of 0.13\% in terms of full widths at half maximum of the
1333\,keV $^{60}$Co $\gamma$-line. This is an improvement of $\sim$30\%
compared to the \gerda\ detectors based on a semi-coaxial design. The active
volume fraction was measured with a precision of a few percent. The pulse
shape discrimination power was quantified. A previously unknown anomaly
originating probably from surface charges deposited in the groove around the
read-out electrode was identified. As a consequence, the PSD performance
notably deteriorated for some detectors. Nonetheless, possibilities for
improvement were found -- either by chemical and thermal treatment of the
passivation layer, or by removing the passivation entirely and handling the
detector under clean nitrogen atmosphere.
Five out of the seven enriched BEGe detectors were deployed in the LAr
cryostat of \gerda\ during Phase~I of the experiment. It was the first time
that this detector type was used in a \onbb\ decay experiment. All but one
were operated over almost 320\,d. The leakage current and the energy scale
were stable, while the energy resolution was $\sim$30\% worse compared to
their operation in vacuum. This was expected due to an increased distance of
the first signal amplifying stages from the detectors. The pulse shape
behavior experienced drifts in time which, however, could be corrected
offline. A similar, but dynamic mechanism as observed in vacuum could be the
reason for the effect. An appropriate modification of the passivation layer of
the detectors is expected to keep leakage currents low and to cure the
observed pulse shape degradations in LAr for \gerda\ Phase~II.
Beta-decays of the $^{42}$Ar daughter nuclide $^{42}$K, and gamma-rays induced
by $^{214}$Bi and $^{228}$Th decays were found to be the major contaminants
affecting the background region at \qbb\ for the BEGe detectors in \gerda. The
contribution from surface $\alpha$-events was of secondary order in the range
of 5\%. Moreover, the spectral fit of \gerda\ Phase~I data confirmed agreement
between the predicted and the fit-constrained contribution from cosmogenic
isotope decays. Signals induced by most types of backgrounds can be
efficiently removed by PSD cuts. Further background rejection will be
possible by combining PSD with a veto by anti-coincidences between detectors
or by scintillation light in LAr induced by contaminants. In addition, a
transparent nylon cylinder around the detectors to stop mechanically the
attracted $^{42}$K ions is in preparation. \gerda\ Phase~II is expected to
reduce its background by one order of magnitude compared to Phase~I. The
resulting background index of 10${^{-3}}$\,\ctsper\ in the region of interest,
the new additional detector mass and the improved energy resolution will allow
for the exploration of half life values above 10$^{26}$\,yr for the
\onbb\ decay of $^{76}$Ge after a few years of data collection.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to JSC PA Electrochemical Plant in Zelenogorsk, PPM
Pure Metals GmbH in Langelsheim, Canberra Industries Inc. in Oak Ridge, and
Canberra Semiconductor N.V. in Olen for the prolific cooperation and enduring
assistance.
The \gerda\ experiment is supported financially by
the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF),
the German Research Foundation (DFG) via the Excellence Cluster Universe,
the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN),
the Max Planck Society (MPG),
the Polish National Science Centre (NCN),
the Foundation for Polish Science (MPD programme),
the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and
the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF).
The institutions acknowledge also internal financial support.
The \gerda\ collaboration thanks the \majorana\ collaboration for sharing the
underground site at Oak Ridge. Furthermore, we express our gratitude to the
team of EIG EURIDICE on the premises of the Belgian Nuclear Research Center
SCK$\bullet$CEN, Mol. We thank the directors and the staff of the LNGS
for their continuous strong support of the \gerda\ experiment.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sect1}
In Bielecki and Rutkowski \cite{BR-2014}, the authors introduced a generic nonlinear trading model for bilateral collateralized contracts, which includes several risky assets, multiple funding accounts, as well as the margin account. For related recent studies by other authors, see also \cite{BCPP11,BK09,BK11,SC12a,SC12b,PPB12,P10}. Using a suitable version of the no-arbitrage argument, they first discussed the hedger's fair price for a contract in the market model without collateralization (see Section 3.2 in \cite{BR-2014}). Subsequently, for a collateralized contract that can be replicated, they defined the hedger's ex-dividend price (see Section 5 in \cite{BR-2014}). It was also shown in \cite{BR-2014} that the theory of backward stochastic differential equations (BSDEs) is an important tool to compute the ex-dividend price (see, e.g., Propositions 5.2 and 5.4 in \cite{BR-2014}). It is worth mentioning that all the pricing and hedging arguments in \cite{BR-2014} are given from the viewpoint of the hedger and no attempt was made there to derive no-arbitrage bounds for unilateral prices and to examine the existence of fair bilateral prices.
In the present work, we consistently examine the issue of pricing and hedging of an OTC derivative contract from the perspective of the hedger and his counterparty. Since we work within a nonlinear trading set-up, where the nonlinearity may stem from the different cash interest rates, funding costs for risky assets and collateralization, the hedger's and counterparty's price do not necessarily coincide. Therefore, our goal is to compare the hedger's and counterparty's prices and to derive the range for no-arbitrage prices. In the case of different lending and borrowing rates, which is a relatively simple instance of a nonlinear market model, the no-arbitrage price of any contingent claims must belong to an arbitrage band with the lower (resp., upper) bound given by the counterparty's (resp., the hedger's) price of the contract (see Bergman \cite{B-1995}). In a recent paper by Mercurio \cite{M-2013}, the author extended the results from \cite{B-1995} by examining the pricing of European options in a model with different lending and borrowing interest rates and under collateralization.
As emphasized in \cite{BR-2014}, in the nonlinear setup (for instance, in a market model with different borrowing and lending interest rates), the initial endowments of the hedger and the counterparty play an important role in pricing considerations.
Unlike in the classic options pricing model, which enjoys the linearity of the no-arbitrage pricing rule, it is no longer true
that it suffices to consider the case where the initial endowments are null. This is due to the fact that, for instance, the hedger's ex-dividend price may depend on his initial endowment, in general (see Proposition 5.2 in \cite{BR-2014}).
Note in this regard that the results established in \cite{B-1995} and \cite{M-2013} only cover the case when the initial endowments of the hedger and the counterparty are null. In this paper, one of our main goals is to examine how the initial endowment of each party affects his unilateral price. For the sake of concreteness, we consider the model with partial netting and collateralization which was introduced in \cite{BR-2014}. A similar analysis was also done for the model previously studied by Bergman \cite{B-1995}, but with non-zero initial endowments of counterparties (see Nie and Rutkowski \cite{NR4}). It is clear that the method developed in these papers can be applied to other set-ups.
This work is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sect2}, we give a brief overview the set-up studied in
\cite{BR-2014} and we describe the main model considered in the foregoing sections, dubbed the market model with partial netting.
In Section \ref{sect3}, we present definitions of no-arbitrage and fair prices, as introduced in \cite{BR-2014}. Some preliminary results from \cite{BR-2014} are extended to the case of a collateralized contract with an exogenous margin account and we introduce and discuss the concepts of {\it fair bilateral prices} and {\it bilaterally profitable prices}.
In Section \ref{sect4}, we show that the pricing and hedging problems for both parties can be represented
by solutions of some BSDEs and we establish the existence and uniqueness results for these BSDEs. Although
the BSDEs are well known to be a convenient tool to deal with prices and hedging strategies (see, e.g.,
\cite{SC12a,SC12b,EPQ-1997}), we stress that the BSDEs studied in this work are formally derived using no-arbitrage
arguments under a judiciously chosen martingale measure, whereas in some other papers on funding costs the existence of
a `risk-neutral probability' is postulated a priori, rather than formally justified.
Section \ref{sect5}, which is the main part of this work, deals with the properties of unilateral prices.
Under alternative assumptions on initial endowments of both parties, we establish several inequalities for unilateral prices,
which in turn allow us to obtain the ranges for fair bilateral prices or bilaterally profitable prices. We also examine the monotonicity of prices with respect to initial endowment and we present the PDE approach within a Markovian framework.
Lengthy proofs of some results are gathered in the appendix.
\newpage
\section{Trading under Funding Costs and Collateralization} \label{sect2}
Let us first recall the following setting of \cite{BR-2014} for the market models.
Throughout the paper, we fix a finite trading horizon date $T>0$ for our model of the financial market.
Let $(\Omega, \G, \gg , \P)$ be a filtered probability space satisfying the usual conditions of right-continuity and completeness, where the filtration $\gg = (\G_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ models the flow of information available to all traders. For convenience, we assume that the initial $\sigma$-field ${\cal G}_0$ is trivial. Moreover, all processes introduced in what follows are implicitly assumed to be $\gg$-adapted and any semimartingale is assumed to be c\`adl\`ag.
\noindent {\bf Risky assets.} For $i=1,2, \dots, d$, we denote by $S^i$ the {\it ex-dividend price} of the $i$th risky asset with the {\it cumulative dividend stream} $\pA^i$. $S^i$ is aimed to represent the price of any traded security, such as, stock, stock option, interest rate swap, currency option, cross-currency swap, CDS, CDO, etc.
\noindent {\bf Cash accounts.} The riskless {\it lending} (resp., {\it borrowing}) {\it cash account} $B^l$ (resp., $B^b$) is used for unsecured lending (resp., borrowing) of cash. When the borrowing and lending cash rates are equal, we denote the {\it cash account} simply by $B^{0}$.
\noindent {\bf Funding accounts.} We denote by $\Bilr$ (resp., $\Bibr$) the {\it lending} (resp., {\it borrowing}) {\it funding account} associated with the $i$th risky asset. In case when borrowing and lending rates are equal, we simply denote by $B^i$ the {\it funding account} for the $i$th risky asset. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, we work under the assumption:
long and short funding rates for each risky asset $S^i$ are identical, that is, $\Bilr=\Bibr=B^i$ for
$i=1, 2, \dots, d$.
\bhyp \lab{assumption for primary assets}
The price processes of {\it primary assets} are assumed to satisfy: \hfill \break
(i) For each $i=1,2,\dots , d$, the price $S^i$ is semimartingale and the cumulative dividend stream $\pA^i$ is finite variation process with $\pA^i_{0}=0$.\hfill \break
(ii) The riskless account $B^{l}$, $B^{b}$ and $B^{i}$ are strictly positive and continuous finite variation processes with $B^l_0=B^b_0=B^{i}_0=1$, for $i=1,2\dots , d$.
\ehyp
For a {\it bilateral financial contract}, or simply a {\it contract}, we mean an arbitrary c\`adl\`ag process $\pA$ of finite variation. The process $A$ is aimed to represent the {\it cumulative cash flows} of a given contract from time 0 till its maturity date $T$. By convention, we set $\pA_{0-}=0$.
The process $\pA$ is assumed to model all cash flows of a given contract, which are either paid out from the wealth or added to the wealth, as seen from the perspective of the {\it hedger} (recall that the other party is referred to as the {\it counterparty}).
Note that the process $A$ includes the initial cash flow $A_0$ of a contract at its inception date $t_0=0$.
For instance, if a contract has the initial {\it price} $p$ and stipulates that the hedger will receive cash flows $\bar{\pA}_1,
\bar{\pA}_2, \dots , \bar{\pA}_k$ at times $t_1, t_2, \dots , t_k \in (0,T]$, then we set $A_0=p$ so that
\bde
\pA_t = p + \sum_{l=1}^k \I_{[t_l,T]}(t) \bar{\pA}_l .
\ede
The symbol $p$ is frequently used to emphasize that all future cash flows $\bar{\pA}_l$ for $l=1,2, \dots, k$ are explicitly specified by the contract's covenants, but the initial cash flow $A_0$ is yet to be formally defined and evaluated.
Valuation of a contract $A$ means, in particular, searching for the range of {\it fair values} $p$ at time $0$ from the viewpoint of either the hedger or the counterparty. Although the valuation paradigm will be the same for the two parties, due either to the asymmetry in their trading costs and opportunities, or the non-linearity of the wealth dynamics, they will typically obtain different sets of fair prices for~$A$. This is the main objective of our current work.
\subsection{Collateralization} \label{sect2.1}
In this paper, we examine the situation when the hedger and the counterparty enter a contract and either receive or post collateral with the value formally represented by a stochastic process~$\pC $, which is assumed to be a semimartingale (or, at least, a c\`adl\`ag process). The process $C$ is called the {\it margin account} or the {\it collateral amount}. Let
\be \lab{collss}
\pC_t = \pC_t \I_{\{ \pC_t \geq 0\}} + \pC_t \I_{\{ \pC_t < 0\}} = \pC^+_t - \pC^-_t.
\ee
By convention, $\pC^+_t$ is the cash value of collateral received at time $t$ by the hedger, whereas $\pC^-_t$ represents the cash value of collateral posted by him. For simplicity of presentation, it is postulated throughout that only cash collateral may be delivered or received (for other conventions, see \cite{BR-2014}). We also make the following natural assumption regarding the
state of the margin account at the contract's maturity date.
\bhyp \lab{assumption for margin account on maturity date}
The $\gg$-adapted collateral amount process $C$ satisfies $C_T=0$.
\ehyp
The equality $C_T=0$ is a convenient way of ensuring that any collateral amount posted is returned in full to its owner when a contract matures, provided that the default event does not occur at $T$. Of course, if the default event is also modeled,
then one needs to specify the closeout payoff.
Let us first make some comments from the perspective of the hedger regarding the crucial features of the margin accounts.
The current financial practice typically requires the collateral amounts to be held in {\it segregated} margin accounts,
so that the hedger, when he is a collateral taker, cannot make use of the collateral amount for trading.
Another collateral convention encountered in practice is {\it rehypothecation}, which refers to the situation where a bank is allowed to reuse the collateral pledged by its counterparties as collateral for its own borrowing.
Note that if the hedger is a collateral giver, then a particular convention regarding segregation or rehypothecation is immaterial for the wealth dynamics of his portfolio.
We are in a position to introduce trading strategies based on a finite family of primary assets.
\brem \label{how to discuss counterparty}
For simplicity, we discuss from the point view of hedger, unless explicitly stated. The similar discussions hold for the counterparty by changing $(A,C)$ to $(-A,-C)$.
\erem
\bd \lab{tsx2}
A {\it collateralized hedger's trading strategy} is a quadruplet $(x,\phi , \pA , \pC )$ where a portfolio $\phi $, given by
\be \lab{vty}
\phi = \big( \xi^1,\dots , \xi^{d},\psi^{l},\psi^{b},\psi^1,\dots ,\psi^{d+1}, \etab, \etal,\eta^{d+2} \big)
\ee
is composed of the {\it risky assets} $S^i,\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$, the {\it unsecured lending cash account} $B^l$ the {\it unsecured borrowing cash account} $B^b$, the {\it funding accounts} $B^i,\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$, the {\it borrowing account} $B^{d+1}$ for the posted cash collateral, the {\it collateral accounts} $B^{\pCc,b}$ and $B^{\pCc,l}$, and the {\it lending account} $B^{d+2}$ associated with the received cash collateral.
\ed
If $B^{\pCc,b}\neq B^{\pCc,l}$, for example if the hedger post the collateral, he will receives interest from the counterparty determined by $B^{\pCc,l}$, i.e., the counterparty pays the hedger the interest determined by $B^{\pCc,l}$ not $B^{\pCc,b}$. This creates the non-identical financial environment between the hedger and counterparty.
We make the following standing assumption.
\bhyp \lab{assumption for collateral account}
The collateral accounts $B^{c,l}$, $B^{c,b}$, $B^{d+1}$, $B^{d+2}$ are strictly positive, continuous processes
of finite variation with $B^{c,l}_0=B^{c,b}_0=B^{d+1}_0=B^{d+2}_0=1$.
\ehyp
\brem \label{remark for cash collateral}
The {\it cash collateral} is described by the following postulates: \hfill \break
(i) If the hedger receives at time $t$ the amount $\pC^+_t$ as cash collateral, then he pays
to the counterparty interest determined by the amount $\pC^+_t$ and the account $B^{\pCc,b}$.
Under segregation, he receives interest determined by the amount $\pC^+_t$ and the account $B^{d+2}$ and thus $\eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t = C^+_t$. When rehypothecation is considered, the hedger may temporarily (that is, before the contract's maturity date or the default time, whichever comes first) utilize the cash amount $\pC^+_t$ for his trading purposes, then $\eta^{d+2}= 0$.
\hfill \break (ii) If the hedger posts a cash collateral at time $t$, then the collateral amount is borrowed from
the dedicated {\it collateral borrowing account} $B^{d+1}$. He receives interest determined by the amount $\pC^-_t$ and the collateral account $B^{\pCc,l}$. We postulate that
\be \lab{565656}
\psi^{d+1}_t B^{d+1}_t = - C^-_t .
\ee
\erem
\subsection{Self-Financing Trading Strategies} \label{sect2.2}
In the context of a collateralized contract, we find it convenient to introduce the following three processes:
\hfill \break (i) the process $V_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ representing the hedger's wealth at time $t$,
\hfill \break (ii) the process $V_t^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ representing the value of hedger's portfolio at time $t$,
\hfill \break (iii) the {\it adjustment process} $\VCc_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) := V_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) - V^p_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, which is aimed to quantify the impact of the margin account on trading strategy.
\bd \lab{ts2x}
The hedger's {\it portfolio's value} $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ is given by
\be \lab{poutf1}
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \sum_{i=1}^{d} \xi^i_t S^i_t + \sum_{j=1}^{d+1} \psi^j_t B^j_t+\psi^l_t B^l_t+\psi^b_t B^b_t.
\ee
The hedger's {\it wealth} $V(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ equals
\be \lab{portf1}
V_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \sum_{i=1}^{d} \xi^i_t S^i_t + \sum_{j=1}^{d+1} \psi^j_t B^j_t+\psi^l_t B^l_t+\psi^b_t B^b_t
+ \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t + \eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t .
\ee
\ed
It is clear that the adjustment process $\VCc(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ equals
\be \lab{portf1b}
\VCc_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t + \eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t
= - C_t + \eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t
\ee
where $\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+$ and $\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-$.
The self-financing property of the hedger's strategy is defined in terms of the dynamics of the value process.
Note that we use here the process $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, and not $V(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$,
to emphasize the role of $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ as the value of the hedger's portfolio of traded assets.
Observe also that the equality $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = V(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ holds when the process $\pC$ vanishes, that is, $C=0$, since then $\eta^{d+2}=0$ as well. Let $x$ stand for the {\it initial endowment} of the hedger.
\bd \label{definition for self financing}
A collateralized hedger's trading strategy $(x,\phi , \pA , \pC )$ with $\phi $ given by \eqref{vty} is {\it self-financing} whenever
the {\it portfolio's value} $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, which is given by \eqref{poutf1}, satisfies, for every $t \in [0,T]$,
\begin{align} \lab{porfx}
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \, \, &x + \sum_{i=1}^{d} \int_{(0,t]} \xi^i_u \, d(S^i_u + \pA^i_u )
+ \sum_{j=1}^{d+1} \int_0^t \psi^j_u \, dB^j_u+\int_0^t \psi^l_u \, dB^l_u+\int_0^t \psi^b_u \, dB^b_u + \pA_t \\
&+ \int_0^t \etab_u\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u + \int_0^t \etal_u \, dB^{\pCc,l}_u + \int_0^t \eta^{d+2}_u\, dB^{d+2}_u
- \VCc_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC). \nonumber
\end{align}
\ed
The terms $\int_0^t \etab_u\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u$, $ \int_0^t \etal_u \, dB^{\pCc,l}_u$ and $\int_0^t \eta^{d+2}_u\, dB^{d+2}_u$ represent the accrued interest generated by the margin account. The first two processes are given uniquely in terms
of $C$ since $\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+$ and $\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-$, whereas the last one depends on the collateral convention.
\subsection{Market Model with Partial Netting} \label{sect2.3}
In this section, we consider a specific model with partial netting and collateralization with rehypothecation, which was previously studied in \cite{BR-2014}. Besides postulating that the accounts $\Blr$ and $\Bbr$ may differ, we also allow for the inequality $B^{i,l}\ne B^{i,b},\, i=1,2 \dots , d$ to hold, in general. We also make the following simplifying assumption.
\bhyp \lab{assumption for collateral borrowing account}
The collateral borrowing account $B^{d+1}$ coincides with $B^{b}$.
\ehyp
We follow here the offsetting/netting terminology adopted in \cite{BR-2014}.
Hence by {\it offsetting} we mean the compensation of long and short positions either for a given risky asset or for the non-risky asset. This compensation is not relevant, unless the borrowing and lending rates are different for at least one risky asset or for the cash account. By {\it netting}, we mean the aggregation of long or short cash positions across various risky assets, which share some funding accounts. Obviously, several alternative models with netting can be studied, for more details, see \cite{BR-2014}.
In this paper, we focus on the case of partial netting positions across risky assets, which means that the offsetting of long/short positions for every risky asset combined with some form of netting of long/short cash positions
for all risky assets that are funded from common funding accounts. More precisely, we postulate
that all short cash positions in risky assets $S^1, S^2, \dots , S^d$ are aggregated and invested in the
common lending account $B^{l}$, which means that we assume that $B^{i,l}=B^{l}$ for $i=1,\ldots, d$. This means
that all positive cash flows, inclusive of proceeds from short-selling of risky assets,
are transferred to the cash account $\Blr$. By contrast, long cash positions in risky assets $S^i$ are assumed to be funded
from their respective funding accounts $\Bibr$. For brevity, the trading framework described in this subsection
will be henceforth referred to as the {\it market model with partial netting.}
Accordingly, we consider a trading portfolio (note that $\eta^{d+2}=0$ in case of rehypothecation,
as was explained in Remark \ref{remark for cash collateral})
\[
\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big)
\]
and the corresponding wealth process for the hedger
\bde
V_t(x, \phi , \pA, C ) = \psi^{l}_t \Blr_t+\psi^{b}_t\Bbr_t+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_tS^i_t+\psi^{i,b}_t B^{i,b}_t)+ \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t.
\ede
It follows that, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\begin{equation}\label{portfolio choose}
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+, \quad \etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^- , \quad \psi^{i,b}_t = -(\Bibr_t)^{-1} (\xi^i_t S^i_t)^+.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In the present set-up, the hedger's trading strategy $(x, \phi , \pA, C )$ is self-financing whenever
the process $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, which is given by
\be \label{value of strategy 1}
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \psi^l_t B^l_t+\psi^b_t B^b_t+\sum_{i=1}^{d} \big(\xi^i_t S^i_t + \psi^{i,b}_t B^{i,b}_t \big),
\ee
satisfies
\begin{align} \label{value of strategy 2}
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \, \, &x + \sum_{i=1}^{d} \int_{(0,t]} \xi^i_u \, d(S^i_u + \pA^i_u )
+ \sum_{j=1}^{d} \int_0^t \psi^{i,b}_u \, dB^{i,b}_u+\int_0^t \psi^l_u \, dB^l_u+\int_0^t \psi^b_u \, dB^b_u \nonumber\\
&+ \int_0^t \etab_u\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u + \int_0^t \etal_u \, dB^{\pCc,l}_u
- \VCc_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) + \pA_t
\end{align}
where in turn
\bde
\VCc_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t=-C_{t}.
\ede
From equations (\ref{portfolio choose}) and (\ref{value of strategy 1}), we get
\bde
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \psi^{l}_t \Blr_t + \psi^{b}_t \Bbr_t - \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^-.
\ede
Since we postulate that $ \psi^{l}_t\ge 0$, $\psi^{b}_t\leq0$ and $\psi^{l}_t\psi^{b}_t=0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, we also obtain
\bde
\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) + \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+
\ede
and
\bde
\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big( V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) + \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\ede
Finally, the self-financing condition for the trading strategy $(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ can be represented as follows
\begin{align} \label{value of strategy 3}
dV^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \, \, & \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, (dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t)
- \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^+ (\Bibr_t)^{-1} \, d\Bibr_t + d\pA_t^{C} \\
&+ \Big(V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) + \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+ (\Blr_t)^{-1} \, d\Blr_t\nonumber\\
&- \Big( V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^- (\Bbr_t)^{-1}\, d\Bbr_t \nonumber
\end{align}
where $A^{C}:=A+C+F^{C}$ and, in view of Assumption \ref{additional assumption for collateral account},
\begin{align} \label{definition for FC}
F^{C}_t&:=\int_0^t \etab_u\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u + \int_0^t \etal_u \, dB^{\pCc,l}_u \nonumber \\
&=-\int_0^t \pC_u^+ (B^{\pCc,b}_u)^{-1}\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u + \int_0^t \pC_u^- (B^{\pCc,l}_u)^{-1}\, dB^{\pCc,l}_u \\
&=-\int_0^t \pC_u (B^{\pCc}_u)^{-1} \, dB^{\pCc}_u. \nonumber
\end{align}
In general, one may consider the situation where the hedger and the counterparty are exposed to a different financial environment, which means that their respective hedging strategies for the same contract are based on different risky assets, cash accounts, funding accounts and collateral accounts. To make the analysis less cumbersome, we henceforth assume that the hedger and counterparty face exactly the same market conditions, but they may have different initial endowments. In particular, we make the following
standing assumption.
\bhyp \label{additional assumption for collateral account}
The collateral accounts $B^{c,l}$ and $B^{c,b}$ satisfy $B^{\pCc,l}=B^{\pCc,b}=B^{c}$.
\ehyp
\brem
Suppose that Assumption \ref{additional assumption for collateral account} is not postulated, so that the accounts
$B^{c,b}$ and $B^{c,l}$ may be different and thus the hedger and the counterparty
may be subject to different financial conditions with respect to the margin account.
Then we define the process $\Theta $ by setting
\bde
\Theta_{t} := (-A)_t^{-C}+A_t^{C}=-\int_0^t |\pC_u| (B^{\pCc,b}_u)^{-1}\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u
+ \int_0^t |\pC_u| (B^{\pCc,l}_u)^{-1}\, dB^{\pCc,l}_u.
\ede
Let us postulate, in addition, that the processes $B^{\pCc,b}$ and $B^{\pCc,l}$ are absolutely
continuous, so that
\begin{align*}
dB^{\pCc,b}_t = r^{\pCc,b}_t B^{\pCc,b}_t \, dt, \quad dB^{\pCc,l}_t = r^{\pCc,l}_t B^{\pCc,l}_t \, dt,
\end{align*}
for some non-negative processes $r^{\pCc,b}$ and $r^{\pCc,l}$ satisfying $r^{\pCc,l}\leq r^{\pCc,b}$. The additional assumption that $r^{\pCc,l}\leq r^{\pCc,b}$ means that the counterparty has the advantage over the hedger in regard to the margin account.
Indeed, when posting (resp., receiving) the collateral, the counterparty obtains a higher (resp., lower) interest than the hedger.
Under the assumption that $r^{\pCc,l}\leq r^{\pCc,b}$, the process $\Theta$ is decreasing and thus $\Theta_{t}\leq0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Then, in all foregoing considerations in the paper, the process $A^{C}$ should be replaced by $A^{C}-\Theta$. For example, in Lemma \ref{nettled wealth formula} or in Section \ref{sect4} when we consider the counterparty's BSDE of the contract $(A,C)$, we should replace $A^{C}$ by $A^{C}-\Theta$ or, equivalently, replace $F^{C}$ by $F^{C}-\Theta$. Since $\Theta $ is a decreasing process, we claim that all the results will still hold, except for Theorem \ref{stability property of price}.
Let us finally mention that if $r^{\pCc,l}\ge r^{\pCc,b}$, which means that the hedger has the advantage over
the counterparty in regard to the margin account, then the process $\Theta$ is increasing and thus most results
established in what follows will no longer be valid.
\erem
The following commonly standard assumption will allow us to derive more explicit formulae for the wealth dynamics
and thus also to compute the so-called {\it generator} (or {\it driver}) for the associated BSDEs.
\bhyp \label{assumption for absolutely continuous}
The riskless accounts are absolutely continuous, so that they can be represented as follows:
\be \label{absol}
dB^{l}_{t}=r^{l}_{t}B^{l}_{t}\, dt, \quad dB^{b}_{t}=r^{b}_{t}B^{b}_{t}\, dt, \quad dB^{i,b}_{t}=r^{i,b}_{t}B^{i,b}_{t}\, dt,
\ee
for some $\mathbb{G}$-adapted processes $r^{l}$, $r^{b}$ and $r^{i,b}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$. Moreover, we assume $0 \leq \rll \leq \rbb$ and $\rll \leq \ribb$ for $i=1,2, \dots , d$.
\ehyp
Let the processes $\wt S^{i,l,\textrm{cld}}$ and $\wt S^{i,b,\textrm{cld}}$ for $i=1,2, \dots , d$ be given by the following expressions
\bde
\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t := (\Blr_t)^{-1}S^i_t + \int_{(0,t]} (\Blr_u)^{-1} \, d\pA^i_u
\ede
and
\bde
\wt
S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t := (\Bbr_t)^{-1}S^i_t + \int_{(0,t]} (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \, d\pA^i_u
\ede
so that
\be \label{cumulative dividend risk asset price1}
d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t=(\Blr_t)^{-1}\left(dS^i_t - \rll_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right)
\ee
and
\be \label{cumulative dividend risk asset price2}
d\wt S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t=(\Bbr_t)^{-1}\left(dS^i_t - \rbb_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right).
\ee
We also denote
\bde
A^{C,l}_t := \int_{(0,t]}(\Blr_{u})^{-1}\, dA^C_{u}, \quad A^{C,b}_t := \int_{(0,t]}(\Bbr_{u})^{-1}\, dA^C_{u}.
\ede
In view (\ref{value of strategy 3}), the following lemmas are straightforward (see also Lemma 5.1 and Remark 5.3 in \cite{BR-2014}).
\bl \label{discounted wealth of strategy lending}
The discounted wealth $Y^{l} := \wt V^{p,l}(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)= (\Blr)^{-1} V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ satisfies
\bde
dY^{l}_t =\sum_{i=1}^{d} \xi^{i}_t \, d \wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+ \wt{f}_l(t, Y ^{l}_t, \xi_t )\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t
\ede
where the mapping $\wt{f}_l : \Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}$ is given by
\be \label{drift function lending}
\wt{f}_l( t, y ,z ): = (\Blr_t)^{-1} f_l(t,\Blr_t y ,z ) - \rll_t y
\ee
and $f_l : \Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}$ equals
\bde
f_l(t, y,z) := \sum_{i=1}^d \rll_t z^i S^i_t
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( z^i S^i_t )^+
+ \rll_t \Big( y + \sum_{i=1}^d ( z^i S^i_t )^- \Big)^+
- \rbb_t \Big( y + \sum_{i=1}^d ( z^i S^i_t )^- \Big)^- .
\ede
\el
\bl \label{discounted wealth of strategy borrowing}
The discounted wealth $Y^{b} := \wt V^{p,b}(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)= (\Bbr)^{-1} V^p (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ satisfies
\bde
dY^{b}_t =\sum_{i=1}^{d} \xi^{i}_t \, d \wt S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+ \wt{f}_b(t, Y^{b}_t, \xi_t )\, dt + dA^{C,b}_t
\ede
where the mapping $\wt{f}_b : \Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}$ is given by
\be \label{drift function borrowing}
\wt{f}_b( t, y ,z ): = (\Bbr_t)^{-1} f_b(t,\Bbr_t y ,z ) - \rbb_t y
\ee
and $f_b : \Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}$ equals
\bde
f_b(t, y,z) := \sum_{i=1}^d \rbb_t z^i S^i_t
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( z^i S^i_t )^+
+ \rll_t \Big( y + \sum_{i=1}^d ( z^i S^i_t )^- \Big)^+
- \rbb_t \Big( y + \sum_{i=1}^d ( z^i S^i_t )^- \Big)^- .
\ede
\el
\newpage
\section{Arbitrage Opportunities and Ex-Dividend Prices} \label{sect3}
We consider throughout the hedger's self-financing trading strategies $(x, \phi , \pA , \pC )$, as specified by Definition \ref{definition for self financing}, where $x$ is the hedger's initial endowment. We set $V_{T}^{0}(x):=x\Blr_T\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+x\Bbr_T\I_{\{x<0\}}$ and we
define the {\it discounted wealth process} $\wh V(x, \phi, A, C )$ by the following expression, for all $t \in [0,T]$,
\[
\wh V_t(x, \phi, A, C ):=(\Blr_t)^{-1} V_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+(\Bbr_t)^{-1} V_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)\I_{\{x<0\}}.
\]
\subsection{Netted Wealth and Arbitrage Opportunities} \label{sect3.1}
We first extend the results obtained in Section 3 of \cite{BR-2014} to the case of a collateralized contract.
For the financial interpretation of the {\it netted wealth}, the reader is referred to \cite{BR-2014}.
Let us only mention that $A_0= p^{A,C} \in \mathbb{R}$ stands here for a generic price of a contract at time 0,
as seen from the perspective of the hedger.
\bd \label{nettled wealth}
The {\it netted wealth} $\Vnet(x, \phi , \pA, C)$ of a trading strategy $(x, \phi, \pA, C)$ is given by
$\Vnet(x, \phi , \pA, C):= V(x, \phi , \pA, C) + V(0, \wt \phi , -\pA, -C)$ where $(0, \wt \phi ,-A, -C)$
is the unique self-financing strategy satisfying the following conditions: \hfill \break
(i) $V_0(0, \wt \phi , -\pA ) = - A_0 $, \hfill \break
(ii) $\widetilde{\xi}^i_t=0$ (hence $\widetilde{\psi}^{i,b}_t = 0$ in view of (\ref{portfolio choose}))
for all $i=1,2,\dots ,d$ and $t \in [0,T]$, \hfill \break
(iii) $\wt{\psi}^l_t \geq 0 ,\, \wt{\psi}^b_t \leq 0$ and $\wt{\psi}^l_t \wt{\psi}^b_t =0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
\ed
We note that
\bde
\Vnet_0 (x, \phi , \pA, C) = V_0(x, \phi , \pA, C) + V_0(0, \wt \phi , -\pA, -C)= x+ A_0+C_{0} - A_0-C_{0}=x ,
\ede
so that the initial netted wealth $\Vnet_0 (x, \phi , \pA, C)$ is independent of $(A_{0},C_{0})$ and it simply equals
the hedger's initial endowment.
\bd \label{admissible strategy}
A self-financing trading strategy $(x,\phi ,A,C)$ is {\it admissible for the hedger} whenever the discounted netted wealth process $\whVnet (x, \phi ,A,C)$ is bounded from below by a constant.
\ed
\bd \label{arbitrage using nettled wealth}
An admissible trading strategy $(x, \phi ,A,C)$ is an {\it arbitrage opportunity for the hedger} with respect to $(A,C)$ whenever
\be
\P ( \Vnet_T(x, \phi , A, C) \geq \VLL_T (x))=1\quad \text{ and }\quad \P ( \Vnet_T (x, \phi , A, C) > \VLL_T (x) ) > 0. \nonumber
\ee
A market model is {\it arbitrage-free} for the hedger if no arbitrage opportunities for the hedger exist in regard to
any contract $(A,C)$.
\ed
The condition that the discounted netted wealth process $\whVnet (x, \phi , A, C)$ is bounded
from below by a constant is a commonly used criterion of {\it admissibility}, which ensures that, if
the process $\whVnet (x, \phi , A, C)$ a local martingale under some equivalent probability measure, then it is also
a supermartingale. It is well known that some technical assumption of this nature cannot be avoided even in the classic case of
the Black and Scholes model.
\bl \label{nettled wealth formula}
We have $\Vnet (x, \phi , \pA, C) = V(x, \phi , \pA, C) + U(A,C)$,
where the $\gg$-adapted process of finite variation $U(A,C)=U$ is the unique solution to the following equation
\be \lab{pyy2}
U_t = \int_0^t (\Blr_u)^{-1} ( U_u-C_{u})^+\, d\Blr_u - \int_0^t (\Bbr_u)^{-1} ( U_u-C_{u})^-\, d\Bbr_u - \pA_t-F^{C}_{t}
\ee
where $F^{C}$ is defined by (\ref{definition for FC}).
\el
\proof
We set $\widetilde{\xi}^i=\widetilde{\psi}^{i,b}=0$ in (\ref{value of strategy 1}) and (\ref{value of strategy 2}). Then the process $V^{p} := V^{p}(0, \wt{\psi}^l, \wt{\psi}^b ,\etab, \etal, -\pA,-C)$ satisfies $V_t^{p} = \wt{\psi}^{l}_t \Blr_t + \wt{\psi}^{b}_t \Bbr_t$ for every $t \in [0,T]$. Noting that $V^{c}:=V^{c}(0, \wt{\psi}^l, \wt{\psi}^b ,\etab, \etal, -\pA,-C)=C$ and recalling the definition of $F^{C}$ and $A^{C}$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
V_t^{p}&=\int_0^t (\Blr_u)^{-1} ( V_u^{p})^+\, d\Blr_u - \int_0^t (\Bbr_u)^{-1} ( V_u^{p})^- \, d\Bbr_u - \pA_t+F^{-C}_{t}
-V_t^{c}(0, \wt{\psi}^l, \wt{\psi}^b ,\etab, \etal, -\pA,-C)\\
&=\int_0^t (\Blr_u)^{-1} ( V_u^{p})^+\, d\Blr_u - \int_0^t (\Bbr_u)^{-1} ( V_u^{p})^- \, d\Bbr_u - \pA_t-F^{C}_{t}-C_{t}\\
&=\int_0^t (\Blr_u)^{-1} ( V_u^{p})^+\, d\Blr_u - \int_0^t (\Bbr_u)^{-1} ( V_u^{p})^- \, d\Bbr_u -\pA_t^{C}.
\end{align*}
Consequently, the process $V:=V(0, \wt{\psi}^l, \wt{\psi}^b ,\etab, \etal, -\pA,-C)=V^{p}+V^{c}$ satisfies
\bde
V_t=\int_0^t (\Blr_u)^{-1} ( V_u-C_{u})^+\, d\Blr_u - \int_0^t (\Bbr_u)^{-1} ( V_u-C_{u})^- \, d\Bbr_u - \pA_t-F^{C}_{t}
\ede
and thus the assertion of the lemma follows.
\endproof
\bhyp \label{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}
There exists a probability measure $\PT^l $ equivalent to $\P $ such that the
processes $\wt S^{i,l,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are $(\PT^l , \gg)$-local martingales.
\ehyp
\bp \label{proposition for arbitrage free}
Under Assumptions \ref{assumption for absolutely continuous} and \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}, if $x \geq 0$, then the market model of Section \ref{sect2.3} is arbitrage-free for the hedger in regard to
any contract $(A,C)$.
\ep
\proof
In view of (\ref{value of strategy 3}) and the postulated inequalities: $\rll \leq \rbb$ and $\rll \leq \ribb$ for all $i$, the process $V^{p}:=V^{p}(x, \phi , \pA, C )$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
dV_t^{p}= \, \, & \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + d \pA_t^{C}
\\ &+ \rll_t \Big( V_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+ \, dt
- \rbb_t \Big( V_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^- \, dt \\
\leq \, \, & \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + d\pA_t^{C}
\\ &+ \rll_t \Big( V_t^{p} + \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+ \, dt
- \rll_t \Big( V_t^{p} + \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^- \, dt \\
= \, \, &\rll_t V_t^{p} \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big) + d\pA_t^{C}
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + \rll_t \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \, dt
\\ \leq \, \, &\rll_t V_t^{p} \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \big(dS^i_t - \rll_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t \big)
+ d\pA_t^{C}.
\end{align*}
Consequently, the discounted wealth $V^{l,p} := (\Blr)^{-1} V^{p}$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
d V^{l,p}_t \leq \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t (\Blr_t)^{-1} \big( dS^i_t - \rll_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t \big) + (\Blr_t)^{-1} \, d\pA_t^{C}
=\sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t + dA^{C,l}_t.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, the netted wealth is given by the following expression (see Lemma \ref{nettled wealth formula})
\bde
\Vnet_t (x,\phi , \pA, C) = V_t (x,\phi , \pA, C) + U_t(A,C)=V_{t}^{p}-C_{t}+ U_t(A,C)
\ede
where the $\gg$-adapted process of finite variation $U(A,C)$ is given by \eqref{pyy2}.
Hence the discounted netted wealth, which is given by
$$
\Vnettl_t:= (\Blr_t)^{-1}\Vnet_{t}(x,\phi , \pA, C)=V^{l,p}_t-(\Blr_t)^{-1}C_{t}+ (\Blr_t)^{-1}U_t(A,C),
$$
satisfies (for brevity, we write $U(A,C)=U$)
\begin{align*}
&d\Vnettl_t= dV^{l,p}_t-d((\Blr_t)^{-1}C_{t})+ d( (\Blr_t)^{-1} U_t) \\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+ (\Blr_t)^{-2} ( U_t-C_{t})^+\, d\Blr_t - (\Blr_t)^{-1} (\Bbr_t)^{-1} ( U_t-C_{t})^- \, d\Bbr_t \medskip\\
&\qquad + U_t \, d(\Blr_t)^{-1} +(\Blr_t)^{-1}\, dA_{t}^{C}-(\Blr_t)^{-1}\, dA_{t}-(\Blr_t)^{-1}\, dF^{C}_{t}-d((\Blr_t)^{-1}C_{t})\medskip\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t + (r^l_t - r^b_t )(\Blr_t)^{-1} ( U_t-C_{t})^- \, dt
\end{align*}
and thus
\be \label{inequality for proving arbitrage free}
\Vnettl_t- \Vnettl_0\leq \sum_{i=1}^d \int_{(0,t]} \xi^i_u \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_u .
\ee
First, the assumption that the process $\Vnettl$ is bounded from below, implies that the right-hand side in \eqref{inequality for proving arbitrage free} is a $(\PT^l,\gg)$-supermartingale, which is null at $t=0$. Next, $\VLL_T(x) = \Blr_T x$ (since $x\ge0$). From \eqref{inequality for proving arbitrage free}, we thus obtain
\bde
(\Blr_T)^{-1} \big( \Vnet_T (x,\phi , A ) - \VLL_T (x) \big) \leq \sum_{i=1}^d \int_{(0,T]} \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t.
\ede
Since $\PT^l $ is equivalent to $\P$, we conclude that either $\Vnet_T (x,\phi , A,C) = \VLL_T(x)$
or $\P ( \Vnet_T (x,\phi , A,C) < \VLL_T(x))>0$. This means that an arbitrage opportunity may not arise and thus the market model with partial netting is arbitrage-free for the hedger in regard to any contract $(A,C)$.
\endproof
\bhyp \label{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price}
There exists a probability measure $\PT^b $ equivalent to $\P $ such that the
processes $\wt S^{i,b,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are $(\PT^b , \gg)$-local martingales.
\ehyp
\brem \label{rates assumption for negative wealth}
Similarly as in Remark 3.2 of \cite{BR-2014}, we observe that the statement of Proposition \ref{proposition for arbitrage free} is also true for $x\leq 0$, provided that Assumption \ref{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price} is valid and $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$. For the hedger, one can then show that
\bde
d\Vnettb_t \leq \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t + (r^l_t - r^b_t )(\Bbr_t)^{-1} ( U_t(A,C)-C_{t})^+ \, dt
\ede
and thus, using similar arguments as above, we conclude that there is no arbitrage for the hedger in regard to any
contract $(A,C)$.
\erem
\brem
Let Assumption \ref{additional assumption for collateral account} be valid. Then Definition \ref{arbitrage using nettled wealth}, Proposition \ref{proposition for arbitrage free} and Remark \ref{rates assumption for negative wealth} apply not only to the hedger, but also to the counterparty. Therefore, if both parties have non-negative initial endowments (resp., both have non-positive initial endowments), Assumption \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} (resp., Assumption \ref{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price}) holds, and $r^l \leq r^{i,b}$ (resp., $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$) for all $i$, then the model is arbitrage-free for both parties. When the initial endowments have opposite signs then if Assumptions \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} and \ref{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price} are valid and $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$) for all $i$, then the model is arbitrage-free for both parties.
\erem
\subsection{Extended Arbitrage Opportunities} \label{sect3.1b}
Results of Section \ref{sect3.1} give only a partial answer to the question whether a market model
with partial netting is arbitrage-free. We will now attempt to give a deeper analysis of the arbitrage-free
property for all contracts under specific assumptions on prices of risky assets.
To this end, we introduce the following definition (see Remark 3.1 in \cite{BR-2014}).
\bd {\rm An {\it extended arbitrage opportunity} with respect to the contract $(A,C)$ for the hedger
with the initial endowment $x$ is a pair $(\Xhat, \Fhat , A)$ and $(\Xtil , \Ftil , -A )$ of admissible strategies
such that $x = \Xhat+\Xtil $ and
\bde
\P ( \Vnet_T \geq \VLL_T (x))=1\quad \text{ and }\quad \P ( \Vnet_T > \VLL_T (x) ) > 0
\ede
where the {\it netted wealth} $\Vnet = \Vnet ( \Xhat , \Xtil , \Fhat , \Ftil , A ,C)$ is given by}
\bde
\Vnet:= V(\Xhat,\Fhat , \pA, C) + V(\Xtil,\Ftil , -\pA, -C).
\ede
\ed
The next result gives sufficient conditions for non-existence of extended arbitrage opportunities for the hedger.
\bp \label{remark for non-arbitrage model}
Assume that there exist some $\gg$-adapted processes $\beta^{i}$ satisfying $r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$
and a probability measure $\PTb $ equivalent to $\P$ such that the auxiliary processes $\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}},\,
i=1,2, \dots ,d$, which are given by
\be \label{frrt}
d\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}}_t = dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t - \beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}\,dt ,
\ee
are continuous, square-integrable, $(\PTb , \gg)$-martingales. Then no extended arbitrage opportunity exists
for the hedger in respect of any contract $(A,C)$ and any initial endowment $x\in\mathbb{R}$.
\ep
\proof
Note that the process $\widehat{V}^{p}:=V^{p}(\Xhat, \Fhat , \pA, C )$ is governed by
\begin{align*}
d\widehat{V}_t^{p}= \, \, & \sum_{i=1}^d \widehat{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + d \pA_t^{C}
\\ &+ \rll_t \Big( \widehat{V}_t^p+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+ \, dt
- \rbb_t \Big( \widehat{V}_t^p+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^- \, dt.
\end{align*}
and $\widetilde{V}^{p}:=V^{p}(\Xtil, \Ftil , -\pA, -C )$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
d\widetilde{V}_t^{p}= \, \, & \sum_{i=1}^d \widetilde{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt -d \pA_t^{C}
\\ &+ \rll_t \Big( \widetilde{V}_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+ \, dt
- \rbb_t \Big( \widetilde{V}_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^- \, dt.
\end{align*}
We observe that the netted wealth satisfies
\bde
\Vnet:= V(\Xhat,\Fhat , \pA, C) + V(\Xtil,\Ftil , -\pA, -C)=\widehat{V}^{p}-C+ \widetilde{V}^{p}+C=\widehat{V}^{p}+\widetilde{V}^{p}
\ede
and thus
\begin{align*}
d\Vnet_t= \, \, & \sum_{i=1}^d (\widehat{\xi}^i_t+\widetilde{\xi}^i_t)\big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt - \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(\widetilde{ \xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt
\\ &+ \rll_t \Big( \widehat{V}_t^p+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+ \, dt
- \rbb_t \Big( \widehat{V}_t^p+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^- \, dt
\\ &+ \rll_t \Big( \widetilde{V}_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+ \, dt
- \rbb_t \Big( \widetilde{V}_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^- \, dt.
\end{align*}
Since $r^{l}\leq r^{b}$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{1 netted weath inequality}
d\Vnet_t\leq & \sum_{i=1}^d (\widehat{\xi}^i_t+\widetilde{\xi}^i_t) \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt - \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(\widetilde{ \xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt \nonumber
\\ &\mbox{}+ \rll_t \Big( \widehat{V}_t^p+\widetilde{V}_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big) \, dt
\end{align}
and
\begin{align} \label{2 netted weath inequality}
d\Vnet_t\leq & \sum_{i=1}^d (\widehat{\xi}^i_t+\widetilde{\xi}^i_t) \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt - \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(\widetilde{ \xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt \nonumber
\\ &\mbox{}+ \rbb_t \Big( \widehat{V}_t^p+\widetilde{V}_t^{p}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big) \, dt .
\end{align}
Using \eqref{1 netted weath inequality} and the equality $\Vnet=\widehat{V}^{p}+\widetilde{V}^{p}$, we obtain
for the process $\Vnettl:= (\Blr)^{-1}\Vnet$
\begin{align*}
&d\Vnettl_t= (\Blr_t)^{-1}d\Vnet_{t}-r^{l}_{t}(\Blr_t)^{-1}\Vnet_{t}\, dt\\
&\leq (\Blr_t)^{-1}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^d \widehat{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d r^{l}_{t}( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-\, dt\bigg)\\
&\quad + (\Blr_t)^{-1}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^d \widetilde{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d r^{l}_{t}( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-\, dt\bigg)\\
&=(\Blr_t)^{-1}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^d \widehat{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t-\beta_{t}^{i}S_{t}^{i}\, dt \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d r^{l}_{t}( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-\, dt+\sum_{i=1}^d \beta_{t}^{i}\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i} \, dt\bigg)\\
&\quad +(\Blr_t)^{-1}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^d \widetilde{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t-\beta_{t}^{i}S_{t}^{i}\, dt \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d r^{l}_{t}( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-\, dt+\sum_{i=1}^d \beta_{t}^{i}\widetilde{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i} \, dt\bigg).
\end{align*}
Similarly, in view \eqref{2 netted weath inequality}, the process $\Vnettb := (\Bbr)^{-1}\Vnet $ satisfies
\begin{align*}
&d\Vnettb_t= (\Bbr_t)^{-1}d\Vnet_{t}-r^{b}_{t}(\Bbr_t)^{-1}\Vnet_{t}\, dt\\
&=(\Bbr_t)^{-1}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^d \widehat{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t-\beta_{t}^{i}S_{t}^{i}\, dt \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d r^{b}_{t}( \widehat{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-\, dt+\sum_{i=1}^d \beta_{t}^{i}\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i}\, dt\bigg)\\
&\quad +(\Blr_t)^{-1}\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^d \widetilde{\xi}^i_t \big(dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t-\beta_{t}^{i}S_{t}^{i}\, dt \big)
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^+ \, dt + \sum_{i=1}^d r^{b}_{t}( \widetilde{\xi}^i_t S^i_t )^-\, dt+\sum_{i=1}^d \beta_{t}^{i}\widetilde{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i} \, dt\bigg).
\end{align*}
Since the process $\beta^i$ satisfies $r^{l}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$ for every $i=1,2,\dots ,d$, we obtain
\bde
\sum_{i=1}^d \beta_{t}^{i}\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i}\leq \sum_{i=1}^d r_{t}^{i,b}(\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i})^{+}-\sum_{i=1}^d r_{t}^{l}(\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i})^{-}.
\ede
Under the stronger condition that $r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$ is satisfied for every $i=1,2,\dots ,d$, we also have that
\bde
\sum_{i=1}^d \beta_{t}^{i}\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i}\leq \sum_{i=1}^d r_{t}^{i,b}(\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i})^{+}-\sum_{i=1}^d r_{t}^{b}(\widehat{\xi}^i_tS_{t}^{i})^{-}.
\ede
By assumption, there exists a probability measure $\PTb $ equivalent to $\P$ such that the
processes $\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are continuous, square-integrable, $(\PTb , \gg)$-martingales, where
$\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}}$ is given by \eqref{frrt} for some $\gg$-adapted processes $\beta^{i}$ satisfying
$r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$. Then
\be \label{inequality for proving arbitrage freex}
\Vnettl_t- \Vnettl_0\leq \sum_{i=1}^d \int_{(0,t]} (\widehat{\xi}^i_u+\widetilde{\xi}^i_u) \, d\wt S^{i,{\textrm{cld}}}_u
\ee
and
\be\label{2 inequality for proving arbitrage free}
\Vnettb_t- \Vnettb_0\leq \sum_{i=1}^d \int_{(0,t]} (\widehat{\xi}^i_u+\widetilde{\xi}^i_u) \, d\wt S^{i,{\textrm{cld}}}_u .
\ee
Using standard arguments (see the proof of Proposition \ref{proposition for arbitrage free}), we deduce that the market model with partial netting is arbitrage-free for the hedger in respect of any contract $(A,C)$ and any initial endowment $x\in\mathbb{R}$.
\endproof
Let us now discuss various alternative martingale conditions, which were introduced to analyze the non-existence of (extended) arbitrage
opportunities in the present set-up. First, is easy to see that Proposition \ref{remark for non-arbitrage model} furnishes sufficient conditions ensuring that the market model with partial netting is arbitrage-free with respect to any contract for both parties with arbitrary initial endowments $x_{1},x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$. This motivates the introduction of Assumptions \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} and \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} in Section \ref{sect5.3}. It is fair to acknowledge that the condition $r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$ is restrictive and thus this result is not fully satisfactory. However, we argue below that the condition $r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$ is needed in the abstract set-up where `risky' assets are left
unspecified, so their prices may in fact be modeled through continuous processes of finite variation.
It is also worth noting that the condition $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$ in Remark \ref{rates assumption for negative wealth} was not due to the fact that we considered there the case when $x \leq 0$, but rather to the choice of $\Bbr$ as a discount factor. Specifically, we decided to search
for a sufficient condition for arbitrage-free property in terms of a martingale measure for processes
$\wt S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}$. Since we do not make any a priori assumptions about the price processes for risky assets,
it may happen that, for instance, $S^1= S^1_0 \Bbr$ and $A^1=0$. Of course, a martingale measure for the process
$\wt S^{1,b,{\textrm{cld}}}$ exists, but the sub-model $(\Blr ,\Bbr , B^{1,b}, S^1)$ is not arbitrage-free unless
$r^b \leq r^{1,b}$. Indeed, in the present set-up, the rate $r^{1,b}$ (resp. $r^b$) can be seen as a borrowing (resp.,
lending) rate, since the non-risky return $r^b$ can be generated by the hedger by purchasing the stock $S^1$.
This argument shows that the inequality $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$ is necessary to avoid arbitrage if we do not make any other assumptions
about risky asset except for postulating the existence of a martingale measure for $\wt S^{1,b,{\textrm{cld}}}$ (by contrast,
if the stock price $S^1$ is given, say, by the Black and Scholes model then there is no need to
postulate that $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$ since any investment in $S^1$ is risky).
The condition that a martingale measure for $\wt S^{1,b,{\textrm{cld}}}$ exists is, in some sense,
weaker that the postulate that a martingale measure for $\wt S^{1,l,{\textrm{cld}}}$ exists. Indeed, in the
latter case, when the asset price is of finite variation, it equals to $S_0 \Blr$ (rather than $S_0 \Bbr$)
and thus one could conjecture that the condition $r^l \leq r^{1,b}$ is sufficient to preclude arbitrage in
the sub-model $(\Blr ,\Bbr , B^{1,b}, S^1)$. This is indeed true when $x \geq 0$, but when $x <0$ and
$r^l < r^b$, there still exists an arbitrage opportunity, since the hedger may sell stock and reduce
interest payments on his debt.
Finally, one could postulate that the process $B^{i,b}$ could be chosen as a discount factor for the $i$th risky
asset. In that case, to preclude an arbitrage opportunity of the same kind as above when $x<0$, one would need to postulate
that $r^{i,b} \geq r^b$.
In our opinion, the condition that a martingale measure for $\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}$ exists is more natural but,
as was explained above, it is not a sufficient condition for no-arbitrage if a `risky' asset may in fact by non-risky.
Of course, in a non-trivial model where the prices of risky assets have non-vanishing volatilities, the above-mentioned
martingale conditions will be equivalent, under mild technical assumptions, and conditions $r^l \leq r^b$
and $r^l \leq r^{i,b}$ that underpin Proposition \ref{proposition for arbitrage free} should suffice to ensure that a model is arbitrage-free for both parties with arbitrary initial endowments.
\subsection{Fair and Profitable Bilateral Prices} \label{sect3.2}
Our next goal is to describe the range of arbitrage prices of a contract with cash flows $A$ and collateral $C$. It is rather clear from the next definition that a {\it hedger's fair price} may depend on the hedger's initial endowment $x$ and it may fail to be unique, in general.
\bd \label{definition for hedger's fair price}
We say that a real number $p^{A,C} = A_0$ is a {\it hedger's fair price} for $(A,C)$ at time 0 whenever for any self-financing trading strategy $(x, \phi ,A, C)$, such that the discounted wealth process $\wh V(x , \phi , A, C)$ is bounded from below, we have that
\be \label{non arbitrage condition}
\P \big( V_T (x, \phi, A, C) = \VLL_T (x) \big) = 1\quad \text{ or }\quad \P \big( V_T (x, \phi , A, C) < \VLL_T (x) \big) > 0 .
\ee
\ed
One may observe that the two conditions in Definition \ref{definition for hedger's fair price} are analogous to conditions of Definition \ref{arbitrage using nettled wealth}, although they have different financial meaning. Recall that Definition \ref{arbitrage using nettled wealth} deals with a possibility of offsetting a dynamically hedged contract $(A,C)$ with an
arbitrary market price by an unhedged contract $(-A,-C)$, whereas Definition \ref{definition for hedger's fair price} is concerned with finding a unilateral fair price for $(A,C)$ from the perspective of the hedger. For a more detailed discussion, the interested reader may consult \cite{BR-2014}.
Let us recall the generic definition of replication of a contract on $[t,T]$ (see Definition 5.1 in \cite{BR-2014}).
\bd \lab{def:replicate}
For a fixed $t \in [0,T]$, a self-financing trading strategy $(\VLL_{t}(x)+p_t^{A,C}, \phi , A- A_t , \pC )$,
where $p_t^{A,C}$ is a ${\cal G}_{t}$-measurable random variable, is said to {\it replicate the collateralized
contract} $(A,C)$ on $[t,T]$ whenever $V_T(\VLL_{t}(x)+p_t^{A,C}, \phi , A-A_t, C) = \VLL_T (x)$.
\ed
We henceforth assume that the initial endowment of the hedger (resp., the counterparty) is $x_{1}$ (resp., $x_{2}$)
where $x_{1},x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$. We consider the situation when the hedger with the initial endowment $x_1$ at
time 0 enters the contract $A$ at time $t$ and the contract can be replicated by the hedger.
\bd \label{definition of ex-dividend price}
Any ${\cal G}_{t}$-measurable random variable for which a replicating strategy for $A$ over $[t,T]$ exists is called the {\it hedger's ex-dividend price} at time $t$ for the contract $(A,C)$ and it is denoted by $P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C)$, so that for some
$\phi $ replicating $(A,C)$
\bde
V_T(\VLL_{t}(x_1)+P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C), \phi , A -A_t, C) = \VLL_T (x_1).
\ede
\ed
\bd \label{remark for counterparty's ex-dividend price}
For an arbitrary level $x_2$ of the counterparty's initial endowment and a strategy $\phi$ replicating $(-A,-C)$,
the {\it counterparty's ex-dividend price} $P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C)$ at time $t$ for the contract $(-A,-C)$ is given by the equality
\bde
V_T(\VLL_{t}(x_2)-P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C), \phi , -A+A_t, -C) = \VLL_T (x_2).
\ede
\ed
It is clear that in Definitions \ref{definition of ex-dividend price} and \ref{remark for counterparty's ex-dividend price},
we deal with unilateral prices, as evaluated by the hedger and the counterparty, respectively.
Note that if $x_1=x_2=x$, then $P^{h}_t(x, A, C)=p_{t}^{A,C}$ and $P^{c}_t(x, -A, -C)=-p_{t}^{-A,-C}$. Due to this convention,
the equality $P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) = P^{c}_t(x_1, -A, -C)$ will be satisfied when Definitions \ref{definition of ex-dividend price} and \ref{remark for counterparty's ex-dividend price} applied to a standard market model with a single cash account in which the
prices are known to be independent of initial endowments $x_1$ and $x_2$. The next definition is consistent with this convention.
Note that Definition \ref{defbbg} is based on an implicit assumption that prices are uniquely defined; we address this important issue in the foregoing section.
\bd \label{defbbg}
The hedger is willing to {\it sell} (resp., to {\it buy}) a contract $(A,C)$ if $P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) \geq 0 $
(resp., $P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) \leq 0 $). The counterparty is willing to {\it sell} (resp., to {\it buy}) a contract
$(-A,-C)$ if $P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C) \leq 0$ (resp., $P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C)\geq 0$).
\ed
Since we place ourselves in a nonlinear framework, a natural asymmetry arises between the hedger and his counterparty, so that the price discrepancy may occur, meaning that it may happen that $P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) \ne P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C)$. However, it is expected that the two prices will typically yield a no-arbitrage range determined by the (higher) seller's price and the (lower) buyer's price, though it may also happen that both parties are willing to be sellers (or both are willing to be buyers) of a given contract. In addition, since a positive excess cash generated by one contract may be offset (partly or totally) by a negative excess cash associated with another contract, we expect that the seller's (resp., buyer's) price
for the combination of two contracts should be lower (resp., higher) than the sum of the seller's (resp., buyer's)
prices of individual contracts.
\bex \label{European call option}
Let us consider a contract $(A,C)$ with $C=0$ and $A_t = p \, \I_{[0,T]}(t) + X \I_{[T]}(t).$
If $X = - (S^i_T-K)^+$, then we deal with a European call option written by the hedger.
A natural guess is that the prices $P^{h}_0(x_{1},A,C)$ and $P^{c}_0 (x_{2},-A,-C)$ should be positive. Similarly,
if $X = (S^i_T-K)^+$, that the counterparty is the option's writer, it is natural to expect that $P^{h}_0 (x_{1},A,C)$
and $P^{c}_0 (x_{2},-A,-C)$ should be negative. Furthermore, if $C=0$ and
$A_t = p \, \I_{[0,T]}(t) - (S^i_T-K)^+\I_{[T]}(t)$,
then we guess that the price $P^{h}_0(x_{1},A,C)$ should be independent of $x_{1}$, provided that $x_1 \ge 0$.
Indeed, as a consequence of the last constraint in (\ref{portfolio choose}), the hedger cannot use his initial endowment to buy shares for the purpose of hedging. In view of this constraint, the postulated model does not cover the standard case of different borrowing and lending rates when $r^{i,b}=r^b > r^l$ and trading is assumed to be unrestricted, so that the hedger's initial endowment can be used for hedging.
In the standard case, it is natural to expect that the hedger's price of the call option will depend on the hedger's initial endowment $x_1$. To sum up, for each particular market circumstances, the properties of ex-dividend prices may be quite different.
Nevertheless, we will argue that most of their properties can be analyzed using general results on BSDEs as a convenient tool.
\eex
Recall that $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ stand for the initial endowments of the hedger and the counterparty, respectively.
Due to a generic nature of a contract $(A,C)$, it is impossible to make any plausible a priori conjectures about
relative sizes and/or signs of prices. The equality $P^{h}_t(x, A, C) = P^{c}_t(x, -A, -C)$ means that both parties
agree on a common price for the contract. Otherwise, that is, if the equality $P^{h}_t(x, A, C) = P^{c}_t(x, -A, -C)$
fails to hold, then the following situations may arise:
\noindent {\bf (H.1)} $\ 0 \le P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C) < P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C)$,
\noindent {\bf (H.2)} $\ P^{c}_t(x_1, A, C) \le 0 < P^{h}_t(x_2, -A, -C)$,
\noindent {\bf (H.3)} $\ P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C) < P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) \le 0$,
\noindent and, symmetrically,
\noindent {\bf (C.1)} $\ 0 \le P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) < P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C)$,
\noindent {\bf (C.2)} $\ P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) \le 0 < P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C)$,
\noindent {\bf (C.3)} $\ P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) < P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C) \le 0$.
Before analyzing each situation, let us recall that the cash flows of a contract $(A,C)$ are invariably considered
from the perspective of the hedger, so it makes sense to observe that the counterparty faces the cash flows given by
$(-A,-C)$. Consequently, in case (H.1), we may say that the hedger is the seller of $(A,C)$ and the counterparty is the buyer of
$(-A,-C)$, but the counterparty is not willing to pay the amount demanded by the hedger.
In case (H.2), both parties are willing to be sellers of the contract, meaning in practice that the hedger is ready to sell $(A,C)$
and the counterparty is willing to sell $(-A,-C)$.
Finally, case (H.3) refers to the situation the counterparty is willing to be the seller of $(-A,-C)$, whereas the hedger can now be seen as a buyer of $(A,C)$, but he is not willing to pay the price that is needed by the counterparty to replicate the contract.
Assume that the market model is arbitrage-free for both parties in the sense of Definition \ref{arbitrage using nettled wealth}.
Then in all three cases, (H.1)--(H.3), any $\G_t$-measurable random variable $P^f_t$ satisfying
\be
P^f_t \in \big[ P^{c}_t(x_{2},-A,-C), P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C) \big]
\ee
can be considered to be a {\it fair price} for both the hedger and his counterparty, in the sense that
a bilateral transaction done at the price $P^f_t$ will not generate an arbitrage opportunity for neither of them.
Hence the interval $[P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C),P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)]$ represents the range of fair prices of the
contract $(A,C)$ for both parties, as seen from the perspective of the hedger (a special case of this interval was dubbed the {\it arbitrage-band} by Bergman \cite{B-1995}).
\bd
The $\G_t$-measurable interval ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2) := \big[ P^{c}_t(x_{2},-A,-C), P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C) \big]$
is called the {\it range of fair bilateral prices} at time $t$ of an OTC contract $(A,C)$ between the hedger and the counterparty.
\ed
Although the analysis for the cases (C.1)--(C.3) can be done analogously, the financial interpretation and conclusions are quite different. In case (C.1), the hedger is willing to be the seller of $(A,C)$ and the counterparty is willing to be the buyer
and he is ready to pay even more than it is requested by the hedger. In case (C.2), both parties are disposed to be buyers
at their respective prices, meaning that each party is ready to pay a positive premium to another. Finally, in case (C.3), the counterparty is willing to be the seller, whereas the hedger can now be seen as a buyer of $(A,C)$
and he is ready to pay more than it is demanded by the counterparty. Hence for any $\G_t$-measurable random variable $P^p_t$ satisfying
\be \label{inequality to prove}
P^p_t \in \big[ P^{h}_t(x_{1},A,C), P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C) \big]
\ee
can be seen as a price at which both parties would be disposed to make the deal with each other. Note that, unless $P^{h}_t(x_{1},A,C)=P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)$, the price $P^p_t$ is not a fair bilateral price, in the sense explained above, since an arbitrage opportunity arises for at least one party involved when an OTC contract $(A,C)$ is traded between them at the price $P^p_t$. This simple observation motivates the following definition.
\bd \label{defarba}
Assume that the inequality $P^{h}_t(x_{1},A,C) \ne P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)$ holds. Then the $\G_t$-measurable interval
${\cal R}^p_t (x_1,x_2) := \big[ P^{h}_t(x_{1},A,C), P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C) \big]$
is called the {\it range of bilaterally profitable prices} at time $t$ of an OTC contract $(A,C)$ between the hedger
and the counterparty.
\ed
Note that in our discussion, we dealt in fact with at least three different concepts of arbitrage:
\noindent {\bf (A.1)} the classic definition of an arbitrage opportunity that may arise by trading in primary assets,
\noindent {\bf (A.2)} an arbitrage opportunity associated with a long hedged position in some contract combined with
a short unhedged position in the same contract; in that case, the contract's price at time 0 is considered
to be exogenously given by the market, that is, it is driven by the law of demand and supply (see Definition \ref{arbitrage using nettled wealth} of an arbitrage in regard to a given contract),
\noindent {\bf (A.3)} an arbitrage opportunity related to the fact that the hedger and the counterparty may require different
premia to implement their respective replicating strategies; if this kind of an arbitrage opportunity arises, then
it is simultaneously available to both parties involved in an OTC contract with a price negotiated between them (as in Definition \ref{defarba}).
Note that in case (C.2) an immediate {\it reselling arbitrage opportunity} arises for a third party, that is, a trader who could simultaneously `purchase' a contract from one party and `resell' to the other. Specifically, if $P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C) \leq 0$ and $P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)> 0$, then a third party can make a deal with the hedger to face $(-A,-C)$ and receive $-P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)\ge 0$ and, at the same time, enter the contract with the counterparty to face $(A,C)$ and get $P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C) > 0$. This offsetting strategy produces an immediate profit of $P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)-P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)>0$ for the third party.
\section{Pricing BSDEs and Replicating Strategies} \label{sect4}
Our next aim is to show that the hedger's and counterparty's prices and their replicating strategies can be found
by solving suitable BSDEs. For this purpose, we will use some auxiliary
results on BSDEs driven by multi-dimensional continuous martingales (see \cite{NR3} and the references therein).
In Propositions \ref{hedger ex-dividend price} and \ref{counterparty ex-dividend price}, we will show that
if $x_{1}x_{2}\ge0$, then the prices $P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)$ and $P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)$ are given by the
solutions of two BSDEs that are driven by either the common $(\PT^l , \gg)$-local martingale $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$
(when $x_1 \geq 0,\, x_2 \geq 0$) or the common $(\PT^b , \gg)$-local martingale $\wt S^{b,\textrm{cld}}$
(when $x_1 \leq 0,\, x_2 \leq 0$).
By contrast, when the inequality $x_{1}x_{2}<0$ holds, say $x_1>0$ and $x_2<0$,
then the prices are associated with solutions to the two BSDEs driven by $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$ and $\wt S^{b,\textrm{cld}}$, respectively. Therefore, to find the range of fair (or profitable) bilateral prices using the comparison theorem for BSDEs, we will first need to find a suitable variant of the pricing BSDE for both parties, which will be driven by a common continuous local martingale (see Section \ref{sect5.3}).
\subsection{Modeling of Risky Assets} \label{sect4.1}
To show the existence of a solution to the pricing BSDE, we need to complement Assumptions \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} and \ref{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price} by imposing specific conditions on the underlying market model. For any $d\times d$ matrix $m$, the norm of $m$ is given by $\norm m \norm^2 :=\text{Tr}(m m^{\ast})$.
In the next assumption, the superscript $k$ stands for either $l$ or $b$.
\bhyp \label{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) the process $\wt S^{,\textrm{cld}}$ is a continuous, square-integrable, $(\PT^k , \gg)$-martingale and has the predictable representation property (PRP) with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under~$\PT^k$, \hfill \break
(ii) there exists an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m^{k}$ such that
\be \label{vfvf1}
\langle \wt S^{k,\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m^{k}_{u}(m_{u}^{k})^{\ast}\,du
\ee
where $m^{k}(m^{k})^{\ast}$ is invertible and there exists a constant $K_m>0$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{mmc2}
\norm m^k_{t}\norm+\norm(m^k_{t}(m^k_{t})^{\ast})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\norm\leq K_m,
\ee
(iii) the price processes $S^{i},\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$ of risky assets are bounded.
\ehyp
Note that condition \eqref{mmc2} means that the process $m^l$ satisfies Assumption 5.2 in \cite{NR3}.
Although the postulate that the prices $S^{i},\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$ are bounded can be seen as a quite reasonable real-world requirement, it is rarely satisfied in commonly used financial models, including the classic Black and Scholes model. It is also worth noting that condition \eqref{mmc2} could appear to be too restrictive. In order to relax this condition, we will need to impose stronger conditions on the process $\langle \wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}\rangle$. Specifically, we define the matrix-valued process
$\mathbb{S}$
\[
\mathbb{S}_{t}:=
\begin{pmatrix}
S^{1}_{t} & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
0 & S^{2}_{t} & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \ldots & S^{d}_{t}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
\bd \label{ellipticity}
We say that $\gamma $ satisfies the {\it ellipticity} condition if there exists a constant $\Lambda>0$
\be \label{elli}
\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\left(\gamma_{t}\gamma^{\ast}_{t}\right)_{ij}a_{i}a_{j}\ge \Lambda|a|^{2}=\Lambda a^{\ast}a,\ \text{ for all } a\in\mathbb{R}^{d} \text{ and } t\in[0,T].
\ee
\ed
We consider the following assumption, which should be seen as an alternative to Assumption
\ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}. Once again, the superscript $k$
is equal either to $l$ or $b$.
\bhyp \label{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) the process $\wt S^{k,\textrm{cld}}$ is a continuous, square-integrable, $(\PT^k , \gg)$-martingale
and has the PRP with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under~$\PT^k$, \hfill \break
(ii) equality \eqref{vfvf1} holds with the $\gg$-adapted process $m^{k}$ such that $m^{k}(m^{k})^{\ast}$ is invertible and satisfies $m^{k}(m^{k})^{\ast}=\mathbb{S}\gamma\gamma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}$ where a $d$-dimensional square matrix $\gamma$ of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfies the ellipticity condition~\eqref{elli}.
\ehyp
\brem \label{remark for diffusion type market model 1}
We will show that Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} can be easily met when the prices of risky assets are given by the diffusion-type model.
For example, we may assume that each risky asset $S^i,\, i=1, 2, \dots ,d$ has the ex-dividend price dynamics under $\P$ given by
\[
dS^i_t = S^i_t \bigg( \mu^i_t \, dt + \sum_{j=1}^d \sigma^{ij}_t \, dW^j_t \bigg), \quad S^i_0>0 ,
\]
or, equivalently, the $d$-dimensional process $S=(S^{1},\ldots,S^{d})^{\ast}$ satisfies
\[
dS_{t}=\mathbb{S}_{t}(\mu_{t} \, dt+\sigma_{t} \, dW_{t})
\]
where $W = (W^1, \dots , W^d)^{\ast}$ is the $d$-dimensional Brownian motion, $\mu = (\mu^1, \dots , \mu^d)^{\ast}$ is an $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued, $\ff^W$-adapted process, $\sigma = [\sigma^{ij}]$ is a $d$-dimensional square matrix of $\ff^W$-adapted processes satisfying the {\it ellipticity} condition.
We now set $\gg = \ff^W$ and we recall that the $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $W$ enjoys the predictable representation
property with respect to its natural filtration $\ff^W$; this property is shared by the process $\wt{W}$ defined
\eqref{wtw2}.
Assuming that the corresponding dividend processes are given by $\pA^i_t = \int_0^t \kappa^i_{u} S^i_{u} \, du $,
we obtain
\bde
d\wt S_t^{i,l,\textrm{cld}}=(B_{t}^{l})^{-1}\big(dS^i_t+ d\pA^i_t-r_{t}^{l}S_{t}^{i}\, dt\big)
=(B_{t}^{l})^{-1}S^{i}_{t}\bigg( \big(\mu^i_t+\kappa^i_t-r_{t}^{l}\big)\,dt+ \sum_{j=1}^d \sigma^{ij}_t \, dW^j_t \bigg).
\ede
If we denote $S^{l,\textrm{cld}}=(S^{1,l,\textrm{cld}},\ldots,S^{d,l,\textrm{cld}})^{\ast}$ and
$\mu+\kappa-r^{l}= (\mu^1+\kappa^{1}-r^{l}, \dots , \mu^d+\kappa^{d}-r^{l})^{\ast}$, then
\bde
d\wt S_t^{l,\textrm{cld}}=(B_{t}^{l})^{-1}\mathbb{S}_{t}\Big( \big(\mu_t+\kappa_t-r_{t}^{l}\big)\,dt+ \sigma_t \, dW_t \Big).
\ede
We set $a_{t}:=\sigma_t^{-1}(\mu_t+\kappa_t-r^{l}_{t})$ for all $t \in [0,T]$ and we define the probability
measure $\PT^{l}$ on $(\Omega , {\cal F}^W_T)$ by
\be
\frac{d\PT^{l}}{d\P}=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{0}^{T}a_{t}\, dW_{t}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T}|a_{t}|^{2}\, dt\bigg\}.
\ee
Then $\PT^{l}$ is equivalent to $\P$ and, from the Girsanov theorem, the process $\widetilde{W}:=(\widetilde{W}^{1},\widetilde{W}^{2},\ldots,\widetilde{W}^{d})^{\ast}$ is a Brownian motion under $\PT^{l}$, where
\be \lab{wtw2}
d\widetilde{W}_{t} := dW_{t}+a_{t}\, dt = dW_{t}+\sigma_t^{-1}(\mu_t+\kappa_t-r^{l}_{t})\,dt.
\ee
It is clear that under $\PT^{l}$
\bde
d\wt S_t^{l,\textrm{cld}} = (B_{t}^{l})^{-1}\mathbb{S}_{t} \sigma_t \, d\wt{W}_t .
\ede
Therefore, if the processes $\mu,\, \sigma$ and $\kappa$ are bounded, then the processes
$\wt S^{i,l,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are continuous, square-integrable, $(\PT^{l}, \gg)$-martingales. Furthermore,
the quadratic variation of $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$ equals
\bde
\langle \wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m^{l}_{u}(m_{u}^{l})^{\ast}\,du
\ede
where $m^{l}(m^{l})^{\ast}=\mathbb{S} \gamma \gamma \mathbb{S}$ and $\gamma :=(B^{l})^{-1}\sigma$. Obviously, $m^{l}(m^{l})^{\ast}$ is invertible and thus Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} is satisfied.
Moreover, if the processes $S^{i}$, $i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are bounded, then the process $m^{l}$ satisfies condition \eqref{mmc2}
and thus Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} is valid with $k=l$.
\erem
\subsection{Hedgers's Prices and Replicating Strategies} \label{sect4.3}
From now on, we work under the standing assumption that $Q_t = t$ for every $t \in [0,T]$ in Assumption 3.1 in \cite{NR3}
and thus also in all results in Sections 3--5 of \cite{NR3} (in particular, in the definition
of the norm for the space $\wHlamd$). Note that this postulate is consistent with either of Assumptions \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} and \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}.
Moreover, we henceforth postulate that the processes $r^{l},\,r^{b}$ and $r^{i,b}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
are nonnegative and bounded.
The following result describes the prices and hedging strategies for the hedger.
Recall that $A^{C}:=A+C+F^{C}$ and
\bde
F^{C}_t =-\int_0^t (B^{\pCc,b}_{u})^{-1}\pC_{u}^+\, dB^{\pCc,b}_{u} + \int_0^t (B^{\pCc,l}_{u})^{-1} \pC_{u}^- \, dB^{\pCc,l}_{u}.
\ede
Following \cite{NR3}, but with $Q_t=t$, we denote by $\wHzerd $ the subspace of all $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted processes $X$ with
\be \label{defhh}
|X|_{\wHzerd}^{2}:=\EP \bigg[ \int_{0}^{T}\|X_{t}\|^{2}\,dt \bigg] <\infty .
\ee
Also, let $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ stand for the space of all real-valued, $\mathcal{G}_{T}$-measurable
random variables $\eta$ such that $|\eta|_{\widehat{L}^2_{0}}^{2}=\EP (\eta^{2})<\infty $.
\bd
A contract $(A,C)$ is {\it admissible under} $\PT^l$ if the process $A^{C,l}$ belongs to $\wHzero$
and the random variable $A^{C,l}_{T}$ belongs to $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under~$\PT^l$.
A contract $(A,C)$ is {\it admissible under} $\PT^b$ if the process $A^{C,b}$ belongs to $\wHzero$
and the random variable $A^{C,b}_{T}$ belongs to $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under~$\PT^b$.
\ed
\bp \label{hedger ex-dividend price}
(i) Let either Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} with $k=l$ be satisfied. Then for any real number $x \geq 0$ and any
contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^l$, the hedger's ex-dividend price satisfies $P^{h}(x,A,C) = \Blr (Y^{h,l,x} - x) - C$ where $(Y^{h,l,x}, Z^{h,l,x})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE
\begin{equation}\label{BSDE with positive x for hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{h,l,x}_t = Z^{h,l,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_l \big(t, Y^{h,l,x}_t, Z^{h,l,x}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{h,l,x}_T=x.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The unique replicating strategy equals
$\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big)$
where, for every $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d,$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= Z^{h,l,x,i}_{t}, \quad
\psi^{i,b}_t = -(\Bibr_t)^{-1} (\xi^i_t S^i_t)^+, \quad
\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+, \quad
\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-,
\ede
and
\begin{align*}
&\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \Blr_tY^{h,l,x}_{t} + \sumik_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+, \\
&\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big(\Blr_tY^{h,l,x}_{t}+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\end{align*}
(ii) Let either Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} with $k=b$ be satisfied. Then for any real number $x\leq0$ and any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^b$, the hedger's ex-dividend price satisfies $P^{h}(x,A,C) = \Bbr (Y^{h,b,x} - x)- C$ where $(Y^{h,b,x}, Z^{h,b,x})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE
\begin{equation}\label{BSDE with negative x for hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{h,b,x}_t = Z^{h,b,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_b \big(t, Y^{h,b,x}_t, Z^{h,b,x}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,b}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{h,b,x}_T=x.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The unique replicating strategy equals $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l},
\psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big)$ where, for every $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d,$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= Z^{h,b,x,i}_{t}, \quad
\psi^{i,b}_t = -(\Bibr_t)^{-1} (\xi^i_t S^i_t)^+, \quad
\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+, \quad
\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-,
\ede
and
\begin{align*}
&\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \Bbr_tY^{h,b,x}_{t} + \sumik_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+, \\
&\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big(\Bbr_tY^{h,b,x}_{t}+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\end{align*}
\ep
\begin{proof}
Assume first that $x\ge0$. Then, from Theorems 4.1 and 5.1 in \cite{NR3}, we know that if either Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} with
$k=l$ is satisfied and $A^{C,l}\in\wHzero $ and $A^{C,l}_{T}\in \widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under $\PT^l$, then BSDE (\ref{BSDE with positive x for hedger}) has a unique solution $(Y^{h,l,x}, Z^{h,l,x})$. Thus, from Proposition 5.2 in \cite{BR-2014} we obtain $P^{h}(x,A,C) = \Blr(Y^{h,l,x} - x) - C$. Moreover, the replicating strategy $\varphi$ can be constructed uniquely, as was explained in Section \ref{sect2.3}. In view of Remark 5.3 in \cite{BR-2014}, an analogous analysis can be done when the initial endowment satisfies $x\leq0$ .
\end{proof}
\brem
Let us give some comments on the uniqueness of a replicating strategy in Proposition \ref{hedger ex-dividend price}. We only consider the case when $x\ge0$, since similar arguments apply to the case $x\leq0$. The uniqueness of the solution of BSDE (\ref{BSDE with positive x for hedger}) means that if $(Y^{1},Z^{1})$ and $(Y^{2},Z^{2})$ are two solutions of BSDE (\ref{BSDE with positive x for hedger}), then
\be \label{lol}
\mathbb{E}_{\wt{\mathbb{P}}_{l}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}|Y^{1}_{t}-Y^{2}_{t}|^{2}\, dt
+\int_{0}^{T}\|(m^{l}_{t})^{\ast}Z^{1}_{t}-(m^{l}_{t})^{\ast}Z^{2}_{t}\|^{2}\, dt\bigg]=0.
\ee
Under Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}, there exists a constant $k_m$ such that $\norm (m^{l}_{t})^{\ast}\norm \ge k_m$
and a constant $K$ such that $\norm \mathbb{S}_{t}\norm\leq K$. Therefore, from \eqref{lol} we deduce that
\be \label{lol1}
\mathbb{E}_{\wt{\mathbb{P}}_{l}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\|\mathbb{S}_{t}Z^{1}_{t}-\mathbb{S}_{t}Z^{2}_{t}\|^{2}\, dt\bigg]=0.
\ee
Under Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} with $k=l$, we have that $m^{l}(m^{l})^{\ast}=\mathbb{S}\gamma\gamma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}$ and thus
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\wt{\mathbb{P}}_{l}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\|(m^{l}_{t})^{\ast}(Z^{1}_{t}-Z^{2}_{t}) \|^{2}\, dt\bigg]=
\mathbb{E}_{\wt{\mathbb{P}}_{l}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}(Z^{1}_{t}
-Z^{2}_{t})^{\ast}\mathbb{S}\gamma\gamma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}(Z^{1}_{t}-Z^{2}_{t})\, dt\bigg].
\]
Since $\gamma$ satisfies the ellipticity condition, there exists a constant $\Lambda>0$ such that
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\wt{\mathbb{P}}_{l}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}(Z^{1}_{t}-Z^{2}_{t})^{\ast}\mathbb{S}_{t}\gamma
\gamma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}_{t}(Z^{1}_{t}-Z^{2}_{t})\, dt\bigg]
\ge \Lambda \, \mathbb{E}_{\wt{\mathbb{P}}_{l}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\|\mathbb{S}_{t}Z^{1}_{t}-\mathbb{S}_{t}Z^{2}_{t}\|^{2}\, dt\bigg].
\]
We conclude that under either of Assumptions \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} and
\ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} with $k=l$, equality \eqref{lol1} is satisfied by any two
solutions of BSDE (\ref{BSDE with positive x for hedger}).
From the above arguments and the structure of the replicating strategy (see Proposition \ref{hedger ex-dividend price})
\[
\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big),
\]
we know that the uniqueness is in the sense of equivalence with respect to $\P_{l}\otimes \Leb$.
Moreover, for $\xi=(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d)^{\ast}$, $\psi^{l}$, $\psi^{b}$ and $\psi=(\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b})^{\ast}$ the uniqueness holds in the following norm
\[
\|\varphi\|:=\mathbb{E}_{\wt{\mathbb{P}}_{l}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\|\mathbb{S}_{t}\xi_{t}\|^{2}dt+\int_{0}^{T}(|\psi^{l}_{t}|^{2}+|\psi^{b}_{t}|^{2})dt
+\int_{0}^{T}\|\psi_{t}\|^{2}dt\bigg].
\]
\erem
\subsection{Counterparty's Prices and Replicating Strategies} \label{sect4.4}
Let us first observe that, in view of Assumption \ref{additional assumption for collateral account}, we have $(-A)^{-C}=-A^{C}$.
Using Definition \ref{remark for counterparty's ex-dividend price}, one can prove the following result for the counterparty.
\bp \label{counterparty ex-dividend price}
Let the assumptions of part (i) or (ii) in Proposition \ref{hedger ex-dividend price} be satisfied for $x \ge 0$
and $x \le 0$, respectively.
Then the counterparty's ex-dividend price satisfies, for every $t \in [0,T)$,
\bde
P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C) =-\left(\Blr_t (Y^{c,l,x}_t - x)+C_t\right)\I_{\{x\ge0\}}-\left(\Bbr_t (Y^{c,b,x}_t - x)+C_t\right)\I_{\{x\leq0\}}
\ede
where $(Y^{c,l,x}, Z^{c,l,x})$ and $(Y^{c,b,x}, Z^{c,b,x})$ is respectively the unique solution to the BSDE
\begin{equation}\label{BSDE with positive x for counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{c,l,x}_t = Z^{c,l,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_l \big(t, Y^{c,l,x}_t, Z^{c,l,x}_t \big)\, dt - dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{c,l,x}_T=x,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{BSDE with negative x for counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{c,b,x}_t = Z^{c,b,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_b \big(t, Y^{c,b,x}_t, Z^{c,b,x}_t \big)\, dt - dA^{C,b}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{c,b,x}_T=x.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The unique replicating strategy equals
$\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big)$
where, for every $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d,$
\bde
\xi_{t}= Z^{c,l,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+Z^{c,b,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\leq0\}},\
\psi^{i,b}_t = -(\Bibr_t)^{-1} (\xi^i_t S^i_t)^+, \
\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^-, \
\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^+ ,
\ede
and
\begin{align*}
&\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \Blr_tY^{c,l,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+\Bbr_tY^{c,b,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\leq0\}}+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+, \\
&\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big(\Blr_tY^{c,l,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+\Bbr_tY^{c,b,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\leq0\}}+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\end{align*}
\ep
\section{Properties of Arbitrage Prices} \label{sect5}
Recall that we consider the special case of an exogenous margin account with rehypothecated cash collateral.
The exogenous property implies that $C$ does not depend on a strategy $\varphi$ and the value of the strategy.
We denote the initial endowment of the hedger (resp., counterparty) by $x_{1}$ (resp., $x_{2}$). We will examine
the pricing and hedging problems for both parties in the following situations:
\noindent -- the initial endowments satisfy $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$,
\noindent -- the initial endowments satisfy $x_{1}\leq0$ and $x_{2}\leq0$,
\noindent -- the initial endowments satisfy $x_{1} x_{2}\leq 0$.
Our goal is to establish inequalities for unilateral prices for each of the three above-mentioned cases
(see Propositions \ref{inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth}, \ref{inequality proposition for both negative initial wealth} and \ref{inequality proposition for positive negative initial wealth}, respectively) and thus also to derive the ranges of fair bilateral prices. In the last case, that is, when $x_{1} x_{2}\leq 0$ we also examine the properties of the class of {\it monotone} contracts (see Section \ref{sect5.3.2}). Finally, we study the monotonicity of unilateral prices with respect to the initial endowment and we derive the pricing PDE in the Markovian framework.
\subsection{Initial Endowments of Equal Signs} \label{sect5.1}
We first assume that both parties have positive initial endowments, that is,
$x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$. The proof of Proposition \ref{inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth}
is provided in Nie and Rutkowski \cite{NR3} (see Theorem 5.2 in \cite{NR3}), where a suitable comparison
theorem for BSDEs driven by a multi-dimensional martingale is also proven.
\bp \label{inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth}
Let either Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} with $k=l$ hold. If $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$, then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^l$ we have, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{eqq1}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PT^l-\aass ,
\ee
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely.
\ep
In the second step, we postulate that both parties have positive initial endowments, that is,
$x_{1}\leq0$ and $x_{2}\leq0$. As was explained in Remark \ref{rates assumption for negative wealth}, we now need assume that $\rbb_t\leq\ribb_t$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$. The proof of Proposition \ref{inequality proposition for both negative initial wealth} is postponed to the appendix.
\bp \label{inequality proposition for both negative initial wealth}
Let either Assumption \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} or Assumption
\ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} with $k=b$ hold.
If $x_{1}\leq 0,\, x_{2}\leq 0$ and $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$,
then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^b$ we have, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{eqq2}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C),\quad \PT^b-\aass ,
\ee
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely.
\ep
\subsection{Initial Endowments of Opposite Signs} \label{sect5.3}
We now consider the case when the initial endowments of the two parties have opposite signs, specifically, we postulate that $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\leq0$. From Propositions \ref{hedger ex-dividend price} and \ref{counterparty ex-dividend price}, it follows that $P^{h} (x_{1},A,C) = \Blr (Y^{h,l,x_{1}}- x_{1}) - C$ where $(Y^{h,l,x_{1}}, Z^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of the BSDE
\be
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t = Z^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_l \big(t, Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t, Z^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_T=x_{1},\nonumber
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
and $P^{c} (x_{2},-A,-C) =-(\Bbr (Y^{c,b,x_{2}}- x_{2})+C)$ where $(Y^{c,b,x_{2}}, Z^{c,b,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution of the BSDE
\be
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{c,b,x_{2}}_t = Z^{c,b,x_{2},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\wt{f}_b \big(t, Y^{c,b,x_{2}}_t, Z^{c,b,x_{2}}_t \big)\, dt - dA^{C,b}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{c,b,x_{2}}_T=x_{2}.\nonumber
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Note that the BSDE for $Y^{h,l,x_{1}}$ is driven by the $(\PT^l , \gg)$-local martingale $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$, but the BSDE for $Y^{c,b,x_{2}}$ is driven by the $(\PT^b , \gg)$-local martingale $\wt S^{b,\textrm{cld}}$. We will now attempt to find another probability measure $\PT $ equivalent to $\mathbb{P}$ and a $(\PT , \gg)$-local martingale $\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}$ such that the BSDEs related to $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)$ and $P^{c}(x_{2},A,C)$ are both driven by a common $(\PT^b , \gg)$-local martingale $\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}$.
If we denote $\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}= \Blr (Y^{h,l,x_{1}} - x_{1})$, then $P^{h} (x_{1},A,C) = \widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}-C$. In view of (\ref{cumulative dividend risk asset price1}) and (\ref{drift function lending}),
we obtain
\be
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
&d\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t=-x_{1}\,d\Blr_t+Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t\,d\Blr_t+\Blr_t\,dY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t\medskip\\
&=\mbox{} -x_{1}\rll_t\Blr_t\,dt+\rll_t\Blr_tY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t\,dt+\Blr_tZ^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_t\,d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+\Blr_t\wt{f}_l \big(t, Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t, Z^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big)\,dt +dA^C_t\medskip\\
&=\mbox{} -x_{1}\rll_t\Blr_t\,dt+\rll_t\Blr_tY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t\,dt+\sum_{i=1}^dZ^{h,l,x_{1},i}_t\left(dS^i_t - \rll_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right)
+f_l \big(t, \Blr_tY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t, Z^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big)\,dt\medskip\\
&\quad \mbox{} -\rll_t\Blr_tY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t\,dt +dA^C_t\medskip\\
&=\mbox{} -x_{1}\rll_t\Blr_t\,dt+\sum_{i=1}^dZ^{h,l,x_{1},i}_t\left(dS^i_t - \rll_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right)\medskip\\
&\quad \mbox{} + \sum_{i=1}^d \rll_t Z^{h,l,x_{1},i}_{t} S^i_t\,dt
- \sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(Z^{h,l,x_{1},i}_{t}S^i_t )^+\, dt +\rll_t \Big( \Blr_t Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t + \sum_{i=1}^d ( Z^{h,l,x_{1},i}_{t} S^i_t )^- \Big)^+dt\medskip\\
&\quad \mbox{} - \rbb_t \Big( \Blr_t Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( Z^{h,l,x_{1},i}_{t} S^i_t )^- \Big)^-dt+dA^C_t \medskip\\
&= \mbox{} - x_{1}\rll_t\Blr_t\,dt+\sum_{i=1}^dZ^{h,l,x_{1},i}_t\left(dS^i_t+ d\pA^i_t\right)+g(t,\Blr_t Y^{h,l,x_{1}}_t,Z^{h,l,x_{1}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t
\nonumber
\end{array}
\ee
where
\be\label{drift driver for positive and negative initial wealth}
g(t,y,z)=-\sumik_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(z^{i}S^i_t )^++\rll_t \Big(y+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( z^{i}S^i_t )^- \Big)^+
- \rbb_t \Big( y+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( z^{i}S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\ee
Upon denoting $\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}= Z^{h,l,x_{1}}$, we obtain
\bde
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t =\sumik_{i=1}^d\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1},i}_t\left(dS^i_t+ d\pA^i_t\right)-x_{1}\rll_t\Blr_tdt+g\big(t, \widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t+x_{1}\Blr_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t\big)\,dt+dA^C_t .
\ede
Similarly, if we denote $\widetilde{Y}^{c,b,x_{2}}= -\Bbr (Y^{c,b,x_{2}} - x_{2})$ and $\widetilde{Z}^{c,b,x_{2}}= -Z^{c,b,x_{2}} $, then the counterparty's price equals $P^{c}(x_{2},A,C) = \widetilde{Y}^{c,b,x_{2}}-C$. In view of (\ref{cumulative dividend risk asset price2}), (\ref{drift function borrowing}) and (\ref{drift driver for positive and negative initial wealth}), we obtain
\be
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
&d\widetilde{Y}^{c,b,x_{2}}_t=x_{2}\, d\Bbr_t-Y^{c,b,x_{2}}_t\,d\Bbr_t-\Bbr_t\, dY^{c,b,x_{2}}_t\medskip\\
&=x_{2}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\,dt-\rbb_t\Bbr_tY^{c,b,x_{2}}_t\,dt-\Bbr_tZ^{c,b,x_{2},\ast}_t\,d \wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
-\Blr_t\wt{f}_b \big(t, Y^{c,b,x_{2}}_t, Z^{c,b,x_{2}}_t \big)\,dt +dA^C_t\medskip\\
&=x_{2}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\,dt-\rbb_t\Bbr_tY^{c,b,x_{2}}_t\,dt-\sum_{i=1}^dZ^{c,b,x_{2},i}_t\left(dS^i_t - \rbb_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right)
-f_b \big(t, \Bbr_tY^{c,b,x_{2}}_t, Z^{c,b,x_{2}}_t \big)\,dt\medskip\\
&\quad\mbox{} +\rbb_t\Bbr_tY^{h,l,x_{1}}_t\,dt+dA^C_t\medskip\\
&=x_{2}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\,dt-\sum_{i=1}^dZ^{c,b,x_{2},i}_t\left(dS^i_t+ d\pA^i_t\right)-g(t,\Blr_t Y^{c,b,x_{2}}_t,Z^{c,b,x_{2}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t\medskip\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^d\widetilde{Z}^{c,b,x_{2},i}_t\left(dS^i_t+ d\pA^i_t\right)+x_{2}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\,dt-g\big(t, -\widetilde{Y}^{c,b,x_{2}}_t+x_{2}\Bbr_t,-\widetilde{Z}^{c,b,x_{2}}_t\big)\,dt+dA^C_t.\nonumber
\nonumber
\end{array}
\ee
The following assumptions are motivated by Assumptions \ref{additional assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}
and \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}, respectively.
\bhyp \label{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) there exists a probability measure $\PTb $ equivalent to $\P$ such that the
processes $\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$
given by \be\label{auxiliary processes}
d\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}}_t = dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t - \beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}\,dt
\ee
for some $\gg$-adapted processes $\beta^{i}$ satisfying $r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$,
are continuous, square-integrable $(\PTb , \gg)$-martingales, and have the PRP with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under $\PTb$,\hfill \break
(ii) there exists an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m$ such that
\be\label{auxiliary processes quadratic variation}
\langle \wt S^{\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast}\,du,
\ee
where $m(m)^{\ast}$ is invertible and there exists a constant $K_m>0$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{mmc2x}
\norm m_{t}\norm+\norm(m_{t}(m_{t})^{\ast})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\norm\leq K_m,
\ee
(iii) the price processes $S^{i},\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$ of risky assets are bounded.
\ehyp
\bhyp \label{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) there exists a probability measure $\PTb $ equivalent to $\P$ such that the processes $\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ given by (\ref{auxiliary processes}) are $(\PTb , \gg)$-continuous square integrable martingales, and have the PRP with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under $\PTb$,\hfill \break
(ii) condition (\ref{auxiliary processes quadratic variation}) holds with the $\gg$-adapted process $m$ such that $mm^{\ast}$ is invertible and given by $mm^{\ast}= \mathbb{S}\gamma\gamma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}$
where a $d$-dimensional square matrix $\gamma$ of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfies the ellipticity condition~\eqref{elli}.
\ehyp
\brem \label{remark for different assumptions for cumulative dividend price}
Recall that
\bde
d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t=(\Blr_t)^{-1}\left(dS^i_t - \rll_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right), \quad
d\wt S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t=(\Bbr_t)^{-1}\left(dS^i_t - \rbb_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right).
\ede
Since $r^l$ is non-negative and bounded, we obtain $C_{0}<(\Blr)^{-1}<1$ for some constant $C_{0}$.
Then Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} with $\beta^{i}=\rll$ is equivalent to Assumption \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}. Similar comments apply to other assumptions. We mention that, from
Proposition \ref{remark for non-arbitrage model} and $r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}\leq r^{i,b}$, we know that under Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}, our partial netting model is arbitrage-free with respect to any contract for both the hedger and counterparty with $x_{1},x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$.
\erem
\brem
The above assumptions can be easily satisfied for the diffusion-type market model similarly to the one in Remark \ref{remark for diffusion type market model 1}; the details are left to the reader.
\erem
\bd
We say that $(A,C)$ is {\it admissible under} $\PTb$ when $A^C \in\wHzero $ and $A^C_T\in \widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under $\PTb$.
\ed
For $g$ given by (\ref{drift driver for positive and negative initial wealth}), let us define
\bde
g^{h}(t,x,y,z):=\sum_{i=1}^dz^{i}_t\beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}+(-x\rll_t\Blr_t+g(t,y+x\Blr_t,z))\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+(-x\rbb_t\Bbr_t+g(t, y+x\Bbr_t,z))\I_{\{x\leq0\}}
\ede
and
\bde
g^{c}(t,x,y,z):=\sum_{i=1}^dz^{i}_t\beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}+(x\rll_t\Blr_t-g(t,-y+x\Blr_t,-z))\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+(x\rbb_t\Bbr_t-g(t, -y+x\Bbr_t,-z))\I_{\{x\leq0\}}.
\ede
The next result is a counterpart of Propositions \ref{hedger ex-dividend price} and \ref{counterparty ex-dividend price}.
In view of the discussion at the beginning of this subsection, Proposition \ref{general pricing proposition} is a rather
straightforward consequence of Theorem 4.1 in \cite{NR3} and thus its proof is omitted.
\bp \label{general pricing proposition}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid. Consider an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible
under $\PTb$. Then $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}-C$ and $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C)=\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}-C$
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of the BSDE
\be\label{artifical BSDE for hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{h}(t,x_{1}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
and $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}},\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution of the BSDE
\be\label{artifical BSDE for counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_t=\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2},\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{c}(t, x_{2}, \widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Moreover, the unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals
$\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big)$ where for every $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= \widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},i}_{t}, \quad \psi^{i,b}_t = -(\Bibr_t)^{-1} (\xi^i_t S^i_t)^+, \quad \etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+, \quad \etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-,
\ede
and
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
&\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{t}+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+, \medskip\\
&\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{t}+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
The unique replicating strategy for the counterparty equals
$\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big)$ where for every $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}=-\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2},i}_{t}, \quad \psi^{i,b}_t = -(\Bibr_t)^{-1} (\xi^i_t S^i_t)^+, \quad \etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^-, \quad \etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^+.
\ede
and
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
&\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big(-\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_{t}+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^+, \medskip\\
&\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big( -\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_{t}+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( \xi^i_t S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
\ep
One can check that $g^{h}(t,x,0,0)=g^{c}(t,x,0,0)=0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$.
Consider any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$. If, in addition, $A^{C}$ is a decreasing process, then for any $x_{1}, x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$, $\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}\ge0$ and $\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}\ge0$, where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of BSDE (\ref{artifical BSDE for hedger}) and $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}},\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution of BSDE
(\ref{artifical BSDE for counterparty}). Consequently, $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C) \ge -C$ and $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C) \ge -C$.
If the process $A^{C}$ is increasing, then for any $x_{1}, x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$ we have $\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}\leq0$ and $\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}\leq0$, so that $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C) \leq -C$ and $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C) \leq -C$.
\bex
In Example \ref{European call option}, we considered a contract $(A,C)$ with $A_t = p \, \I_{[0,T]}(t) + X \I_{[T]}(t)$ and $C=0$. Let us first assume that $X\leq0$; for instance, for a European call option $X = - (S^i_T-K)^+$ and for a European put option $X = - (K-S^i_T)^+$. Then, obviously, the process $A^{C}-A_0 =A - A_0$ is decreasing. Then, for any $x\in\mathbb{R}$, both $P^{h}_t (x,A,C)$ and $P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C)$ are positive, meaning that the hedger is the seller and the counterparty is the buyer.
Similarly, if $X\ge0$, for instance, for a European call option $X = (S^i_T-K)^+$ and for European put option $X = (K-S^i_T)^+$,
then, for any $x\in\mathbb{R}$, both $P^{h}_t (x,A,C)$ and $P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C)$ are negative, meaning that the counterparty
is the seller and the hedger is the buyer. Needless to say that such properties of unilateral options prices were expected.
\eex
\subsubsection{General Contracts} \label{sect5.3.1}
Since $\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are $(\PTb , \gg)$-local martingales under Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}, we can apply the comparison theorem to BSDEs (\ref{artifical BSDE for hedger}) and (\ref{artifical BSDE for counterparty}) in order to establish the following proposition (for the proof, see Section \ref{sect7}).
\bp \label{inequality proposition for positive negative initial wealth}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid. Assume that $x_{1}\ge0,\, x_{2}\leq0$ and $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$.
Then the following statement are valid. \hfill \break
(i) If $x_{1}x_{2}=0$, then for an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and all $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{eqnew2x}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass ,
\ee
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely. \hfill \break
(ii) Let $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ be deterministic and satisfy $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
Then inequality \eqref{eqnew2x} holds for all contracts $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and all $t\in[0,T]$
if and only if $x_{1}x_{2}=0$.
\ep
Notice that if $x_{1}x_{2}=0$ then, from Propositions \ref{inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth} and \ref{inequality proposition for both negative initial wealth}, we know that the desired inequality holds under respective assumptions. However, in the current proposition, we are working under Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}, so that it is not clear whether the pricing inequality still holds.
Finally, for the case $x_{1}\leq0,\, x_{2}\ge0$, one can show show that the following
result is valid. The proof of Proposition \ref{inequality proposition for negative positive initial wealth}
is similar to that of Proposition \ref{inequality proposition for positive negative initial wealth}
and thus it is omitted.
\bp \label{inequality proposition for negative positive initial wealth}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or
Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid.
Assume that $x_{1}\leq0,\, x_{2}\ge0$ and $r^b \leq r^{i,b}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$. Then the following statements
are valid. \hfill \break
(i) If $x_{1}x_{2}=0$, then for an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible
under $\PTb$ and all $t\in[0,T]$
\be \label{eqnne1}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass ,
\ee
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely. \hfill \break
(ii) Let $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ be deterministic and satisfy $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
Then inequality \eqref{eqnne1} holds for all contracts $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and all $t\in[0,T]$
if and only if $x_{1}x_{2}=0$.
\ep
\brem \label{remark for the proof under different assumptions for cumulative dividend price}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{inequality proposition for positive negative initial wealth}, one can prove that Propositions \ref{inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth} and \ref{inequality proposition for both negative initial wealth} hold under $\PTb$, that is, if $x_{1}x_{2}\ge0$, then for any $t\in[0,T]$,
\be \label{desew}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass
\ee
Indeed, using similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{inequality proposition for positive negative initial wealth},
one can show that
\bde
g^{h}(t,x_{1},y,z)-g^{c}(t,x_{2},y,z)
\leq \sumik_{i=1}^{d} |z^{i}S_{t}^{i}| \big( (r^{l}_{t}-r^{i,b}_{t})\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0,x_{2}\ge0\}}+
(r^{b}_{t}-r^{i,b}_{t})\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0,x_{2}\leq0\}} \big)
\leq 0.
\ede
Consequently, using Proposition \ref{general pricing proposition} and the comparison theorem for BSDEs, we obtain the desired
inequality \eqref{desew}.
\erem
\subsubsection{Contracts with Monotone Cash Flows} \label{sect5.3.2}
If $x_{1}x_{2}< 0$ then, from the proof of Proposition \ref{inequality proposition for positive negative initial wealth}, we know that for some contracts $(A,C)$ we have $P^{c}_{\wh{t}} (x_{2},-A,-C)\ge P^{h}_{\wh{t}} (x_{1},A,C)$ for some $\wh{t}\in[0,T]$. The next theorem show that, for some special classes of contracts $(A,C)$, the inequality $P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)$ is satisfied for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\begin{theorem} \label{special contract pricing}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or
Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid.
If $x_{1}\ge0,\, x_{2}\leq0$, then for an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and such that the process $A^{C}$ is decreasing on $(0,T]$ we have, for every $t\in[0,T]$,
\bde
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass ,
\ede
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Proposition \ref{general pricing proposition} and the inequalities $x_{1}\ge0,\, x_{2}\leq0$, we know
that for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ we have $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}-C$
and $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C)=\widetilde{Y}^{c,b,x_{2}}-C$
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of BSDE (\ref{artifical BSDE for positive hedger}) and $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,b,x_{2}},\widetilde{Z}^{c,b,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution of BSDE (\ref{artifical BSDE for negative counterparty}). Since
\bde
g^{h,l}(t,x_{1},0,0)=g^{c,b}(t,x_{2},0,0)=0,
\ede
and $A^{C}$ is a decreasing process then, from the comparison theorem for BSDEs, we have $\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}\ge 0$ and $\widetilde{Y}^{c,b,x_{2}}\ge0$. Since $x_{1}\ge0$, BSDE (\ref{artifical BSDE for hedger}) becomes
\be\label{artifical BSDE 1 for positive hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_td\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+\widetilde{g}^{h,l}(t, x_{1}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where the generator $\tilde{g}^{h,l}(t,x,y,z)$ does not depend on $x$ and it is given by (recall that $\zzb = z^i S^i_t$)
\bde
\tilde{g}^{h,l}(t,x,y,z):=\sumik_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
-\sumik_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \zzb )^++\rll_ty+ \rll_t\sumik_{i=1}^d ( \zzb )^- .
\ede
Since
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
g^{c,b}(t,x,y,z)&=\sum_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
+\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(- \zzb )^++xr^{b}_{t}B_{t}^{b}\medskip\\
&\quad-\rll_t \Big(-y+xB_{t}^{b}+\sum_{i=1}^d (- \zzb )^-\Big)^{+}+\rbb_t \Big(-y+xB_{t}^{b}+\sum_{i=1}^d (-\zzb )^- \Big)^{-}\medskip\\
&\ge \sum_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
+\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(- \zzb )^++xr^{b}_{t}B_{t}^{b}-\rbb_t \Big(-y+xB_{t}^{b}+\sum_{i=1}^d (-\zzb )^- \Big)\medskip\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
+\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(- \zzb )^++\rbb_ty-\rbb_t\sum_{i=1}^d (- \zzb )^-,
\end{array}
\ede
we obtain
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
&\tilde{g}^{h,l}(t,x,\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,l,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,l,x_{1}})
-g^{c,b}(t,x,\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,l,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,l,x_{1}})\medskip\\
&\leq(r_t^{l}-r_t^{b})\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,l,x_{1}}-\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t|\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,l,x_{1},i}S^i_t|
+\rll_t \sum_{i=1}^d (\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,l,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^- +\rbb_t \sum_{i=1}^d (-\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,l,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^-\medskip\\
&=(r_t^{l}-r_t^{b})\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,l,x_{1}}
+ \sum_{i=1}^d(\rll_t-\ribb_t)(\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,l,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^-
+\sum_{i=1}^d (\rbb_t-\ribb_t)(-\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,l,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^-\leq 0.
\end{array}
\ede
The comparison theorem for BSDEs gives $\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,l,x_{1}}\ge\widetilde{Y}_t^{c,b,x_{2}}$ and thus $P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C),$ $\PTb$-a.s. for every $t\in[0,T]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{special contract pricing 1}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or
Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid.
If $x_{1}\le 0,\, x_{2}\ge 0$, then for an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and such that the process $A^{C}$ is increasing on $(0,T]$ we have, for every $t\in[0,T]$,
\bde
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass ,
\ede
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Proposition \ref{general pricing proposition} and $x_{1}\leq0,\, x_{2}\ge0$, we know that
$P^{h} (x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,b,x_{1}}-C$ and $P^{c} (x_{2},-A,-C)=\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}-C$
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,b,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,b,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\be\label{artifical BSDE for negative hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,b,x_{1}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,b,x_{1},\ast}_td\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{h,b}(t, x_{1}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,b,x_{1}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,b,x_{1}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,b,x_{1}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where
\bde
g^{h,b}(t,x,y,z):=\sumik_{i=1}^dz^{i}_t\beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}
-xr^{b}_{t}B_{t}^{b}+g(t,y+xB_{t}^{b},z).
\ede
and $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}},\widetilde{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\be\label{artifical BSDE for positive counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{c,l,x_{2},\ast}_td\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{c,l}(t, x_{2}, \widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where
\bde
g^{c,l}(t,x,y,z):=\sumik_{i=1}^dz^{i}_t\beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}
+xr^{l}_{t}B_{t}^{l}-g(t,-y+xB_{t}^{l},-z).
\ede
Since
\bde
g^{h,b}(t,x_{1},0,0)=g^{c,l}(t,x_{2},0,0)=0,
\ede
and the process $A^{C}$ is assumed to be increasing, from Theorem 3.3 in \cite{NR3},
we obtain $\widetilde{Y}^{h,b,x_{1}}\leq 0$ and $\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}\leq0$. Therefore, since $x_{2}\ge0$, we see that $g^{c,l}(t,x,y,z)$ does not depend on $x$ and
\bde
g^{c,l}(t,x,y,z)=\tilde{g}^{c,l}(t,x,y,z):=\sumik_{i=1}^d\beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
+\sumik_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(- \zzb )^++\rll_t y-\rll_t \sumik_{i=1}^d (- \zzb )^-
\ede
where, as usual, we denote $\zzb = z^i S^i_t$. Furthermore, the function $g^{h,b}(t,x,y,z)$ satisfies
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
g^{h,b}(t,x,y,z)&=\sum_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
-\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \zzb )^+-xr^{b}_{t}B_{t}^{b}\medskip\\
&\quad \mbox{}+\rll_t \Big(y+xB_{t}^{b}+\sum_{i=1}^d (\zzb )^-\Big)^{+}-\rbb_t \Big(y+xB_{t}^{b}+\sum_{i=1}^d (\zzb )^- \Big)^{-}\medskip\\
&\leq \sum_{i=1}^dz^{i}_t\beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}
-\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \zzb )^+-xr^{b}_{t}B_{t}^{b}+\rbb_t \Big(y+xB_{t}^{b}+\sum_{i=1}^d (\zzb )^- \Big)\medskip\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
-\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \zzb )^++\rbb_t y + \rbb_t \sum_{i=1}^d (- \zzb )^-
\end{array}
\ede
and thus
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
&g^{h,b}(t,x,\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,b,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,b,x_{1}})
-\widetilde{g}^{c,l}(t,x,\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,b,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,b,x_{1}})\medskip\\
&\leq(r_t^{b}-r_t^{l})\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,b,x_{1}}-\sum_{i=1}^d \ribb_t|\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,b,x_{1},i}S^i_t|
+\rll_t \sum_{i=1}^d (-\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,b,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^- +\rbb_t \sum_{i=1}^d (\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,b,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^-\medskip\\
&=(r_t^{b}-r_t^{l})\widetilde{Y}_t^{h,b,x_{1}}
+ \sum_{i=1}^d(\rll_t-\ribb_t)(-\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,b,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^-
+\sum_{i=1}^d (\rbb_t-\ribb_t)(\widetilde{Z}_t^{h,b,x_{1},i}S^i_t )^- \leq 0.
\end{array}
\ede
The comparison theorem for BSDEs gives $\widetilde{Y}^{h,b,x_{1}}\ge\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}$ and thus $P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)$ $ \PTb$-a.s., for every $t\in[0,T]$.
\end{proof}
\brem \label{remark for specail contract pricing}
Consider a contract $(A,C)$ such that $A^{C}$ is a decreasing process on $(0,T]$. If $x_{1}\ge0$ then, from the proof
of the proposition, we see that $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)$ does not depend on the initial wealth $x_{1}$, that is, for every $x,y\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$ we have $P^{h}(x,A,C)=P^{h}(y,A,C)$.
This follows from the equality $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}-C$,
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of BSDE (\ref{artifical BSDE 1 for positive hedger}), which is independent of $x_{1}$. Note that the above relation hinges on the condition $x_{1}\ge0$. Indeed, when $x_{1}\leq0$, then $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)$ does not enjoy the independence property. Furthermore, for any $x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$,
the price $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C)$ does not have such property. Finally, for a contract $(A,C)$ such that $A^{C}$ is an increasing process on $(0,T]$, if $x_{2}\ge0$, then $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C)$ does not depend on the initial wealth $x_{2}$, but $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)$ does not have this property.
The above-mentioned property is intuitively clear from its financial interpretation. In essence, the independence of the hedger's price of his non-negative positive wealth is a consequence of the last constraint in equation (\ref{portfolio choose}), which states that the hedger cannot use his initial endowment to buy shares for the purpose of hedging. Of course, when he sells shares
to replicate an option, as is the case for the put option, then, obviously, the fact that his initial endowment is positive
is also irrelevant.
\erem
\brem\label{remark for increasing contract}
Assume that $x_{1}> 0$ and $x_{2}< 0$. We claim that if $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic and satisfy $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, then we can find a date $\widehat{t}\in[0,T]$ and a contract $(A,C)$ with an increasing process $A^{C}$ such that
\bde
P^{c}_{\widehat{t}} (x_{2},-A,-C)>P^{h}_{\widehat{t}} (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass
\ede
To this end, it suffices consider a contract $(A,C)$ with $C=0$ and $A_t = p \, \I_{[0,T]}(t)+\alpha\I_{[t_{0},T]}(t)$
where $t_{0}\in(0,T)$, $r_{t}\in(r^{l}_{t},r^{b}_{t})$ for every $t\in[0,T]$ and $\alpha$ satisfies
\bde
0 < \alpha\leq\min\left\{ x_{1}\Blr_{t_0}, -x_{2}\Bbr_{t_0}\right\}.
\ede
We set $x=x_{1}-\alpha (\Blr_{t_0})^{-1} \ge0$ and we define the strategy $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b},\dots ,\psi^{d,b}, \etab, \etal\big)$ where $\xi^i=\psi^{i,b}=\psi^{b}=\etab=\etal=0$
for all $i=1,2,\ldots,d$ and
\bde
\psi^l_t = x \I_{[0,t_0)} + (\Blr_{t_0})^{-1} \big(x \Blr_{t_0}+\cac\big) \I_{[t_0,T]}.
\ede
Then we have
\bde
V_T (x, \varphi , A,C)= x \Blr_{T} + \cac e^{\int_{t_{0}}^{T}r^l_{u}\,du}
=\big(x_{1} - \alpha (\Blr_{t_0})^{-1}\big) \Blr_{T}
+\cac e^{\int_{t_{0}}^{T}r^l_{u}\,du} =x_{1} (\Blr_{T})=V_{T}^{0}(x_{1}).
\ede
Hence the hedger's self-financing strategy $(x, \phi , A, \pC )$ replicates the contract $(A,C)$ on $[0,T]$
and, in fact, this is the unique replicating strategy.
From Definition \ref{definition of ex-dividend price}, it follows that $P^{h}_{0} (x_{1},A,C)=x-x_{1}=-\alpha (\Blr_{t_0})^{-1}$.
Let us now consider the contract from the perspective of the counterparty. For $\tilde{x}=x_{2}+\alpha (\Bbr_{t_0})^{-1} \leq 0$,
we define the strategy $\tilde{\phi} = \big(\tilde{\xi}^1,\dots ,\tilde{\xi}^d, \tilde{\psi}^{l}, \tilde{\psi}^{b},\tilde{\psi}^{1,b},\dots ,\tilde{\psi}^{d,b}, \tilde{\eta}^{b}, \tilde{\eta}^{l}\big)$
where $\tilde{\xi}^i=\tilde{\psi}^{i,b}=\tilde{\psi}^{l}=\tilde{\eta}^b=\tilde{\eta}^l=0$
for all $i=1,2,\ldots,d$ and
\bde
\tilde{\psi}^b_t = \tilde{x} \I_{[0,t_0)} +(\Bbr_{t_0})^{-1}\big(\tilde{x} \Bbr_{t_0} +\cac \big) \I_{[t_0,T]}.
\ede
Then we have
\bde
V_T (\tilde{x}, \tilde{\varphi} , A,C)
= \tilde{x} \Bbr_{T} +\cac e^{\int_{t_{0}}^{T}r^b_{u}\,du}
=x_{2} \Bbr_{T} =V_{T}^{0}(x_{2}).
\ede
Therefore, the self-financing strategy $(\tilde{x},\tilde{ \phi} , -A, -\pC )$ is the unique replicating strategy for the contract $(-A,-C)$ on $[0,T]$ and, from Definition \ref{remark for counterparty's ex-dividend price}, it follows that
$P^{c}_{0} (x_{2},-A,-C)=x_{2}-\tilde{x}=-\alpha (\Bbr_{t_0})^{-1}$. Moreover, since $r^l <r^{b}$ and $\alpha>0$, we have that
\bde
P^{h}_{0} (x_{1},A,C) = -\alpha (\Blr_{t_0})^{-1} <-\alpha (\Bbr_{t_0})^{-1} = P^{c}_{0} (x_{2},-A,-C).
\ede
Consequently, under the assumption that $r^{l}<r^{b}$ we have found a contract $(A,C)$ and a date
$\widehat{t}=0$ such that $P^{c}_{0} (x_{2},-A,-C)> P^{h}_{0} (x_{1},A,C)$. This means that the range of bilaterally
profitable prices ${\cal R}^p_0(x_1,x_2)$ for $(A,C)$ is non-empty.
\erem
\subsection{Monotonicity of Prices with Respect to the Initial Endowment} \label{sect5.4}
As shown in the preceding subsection, the initial endowment plays an important role in the pricing inequality.
In the following, we examine in more details the impact of the initial endowment on the ex-dividend price. In view of Remark \ref{remark for the proof under different assumptions for cumulative dividend price}, we only need to work under Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}.
\bp \label{monotonicity proposition}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or
Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid and
let a contract $(A,C)$ be admissible under $\PTb$. Then the hedger's price satisfies: \hfill \break
(i) if $\bar{x}\ge x\ge0$, then
\be \label{increasing of hedger ex-dividend price for positive wealth}
P^{h}_t (\bar{x},A,C)\leq P^{h}_t (x,A,C),
\ee
(ii) if $0\ge\bar{x}\ge x$, then
\be \label{increasing of hedger ex-dividend price for negative wealth}
P^{h}_t (\bar{x},A,C)\ge P^{h}_t (x,A,C),
\ee
and the counterparty's price satisfies: \hfill \break
(i) if $\bar{x}\ge x\ge0$, then
\be \label{increasing of counterparty ex-dividend price for positive wealth}
P^{c}_t (\bar{x},-A,-C)\ge P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C),
\ee
(ii) if $0\ge\bar{x}\ge x$, then
\be \label{increasing of counterparty ex-dividend price for negative wealth}
P^{c}_t (\bar{x},-A,-C)\leq P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C).
\ee
\ep
\begin{proof}
Let us denote
\bde
g^{l,h}(x):=-x\rll_t\Blr_t+g(t, y+x\Blr_t,z), \quad g^{b,h}(x):=-x\rbb_t\Bbr_t+g(t, y+x\Bbr_t,z),
\ede
and
\bde
g^{l,c}(x):= x\rll_t\Blr_t-g(t, -y+x\Blr_t,-z), \quad g^{b,c}(x):=x\rbb_t\Bbr_t-g(t, -y+x\Bbr_t,-z),
\ede
where (see (\ref{drift driver for positive and negative initial wealth}))
\bde
g(t,y,z)=-\sumik_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(z^{i}S^i_t )^++\rll_t \Big(y+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( z^{i}S^i_t )^- \Big)^+
- \rbb_t \Big( y+ \sumik_{i=1}^d ( z^{i}S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\ede
If we denote $K:=y+ \sum_{i=1}^d ( z^{i}S^i_t)^{-}$ and $\tilde{K}:=-y+ \sum_{i=1}^d (-z^{i}S^i_t)^{-}$, then
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
g^{l,h}(x)&=-x\rll_t\Blr_t+\rll_t(x\Blr_t +K)^+- \rbb_t(x\Blr_t +K)^-\medskip\\
&=-\rll_t(x\Blr_t+K)+\rll_t(x\Blr_t +K)^+- \rbb_t(x\Blr_t +K)^-+\rll_{t}K\medskip\\
&=\rll_t(x\Blr_t +K)^-- \rbb_t(x\Blr_t +K)^-+\rll_{t}K\medskip\\\
&=(\rll_t- \rbb_t)(x\Blr_t +K)^-+\rll_{t}K
\end{array}
\ede
and
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
g^{b,h}(x)&=-x\rbb_t\Blr_t+\rll_t(x\Bbr_t +K)^+- \rbb_t(x\Bbr_t +K)^-\medskip\\
&=-\rbb_t(x\Bbr_t+K)+\rll_t(x\Bbr_t +K)^+- \rbb_t(x\Bbr_t +K)^-+\rbb_{t}K\medskip\\
&=(\rll_t- \rbb_t)(x\Blr_t +K)^++\rbb_{t}K.
\end{array}
\ede
Similarly, \bde
g^{l,c}(x)
=(\rbb_t- \rll_t)(x\Blr_t +\tilde{K})^--\rll_{t}\tilde{K}
\ede
and
\bde
g^{b,c}(x)
=(\rbb_t- \rll_t)(x\Blr_t +K)^+-\rbb_{t}K.
\ede
Therefore, the functions $\widetilde{g}^{l,h}(x)$ and $\widetilde{g}^{b,c}(x)$ are increasing with respect to $x$, whereas
the functions $\widetilde{g}^{b,h}(x)$ and $\widetilde{g}^{l,c}(x)$ are decreasing with respect to $x$.
Consequently, from the comparison theorem for BSDEs, if $\bar{x}\ge x\ge0$, then $\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x}\leq\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,\bar{x}}$ where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x},\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x})$ is the unique solution of BSDE (\ref{artifical BSDE for positive hedger}). Moreover, $\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x}\ge\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,\bar{x}}$ where $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,l,x},\widetilde{Z}^{c,l,x})$ is the unique solution of BSDE
(\ref{artifical BSDE for positive counterparty}). Then from Remark \ref{remark for the proof under different assumptions for cumulative dividend price}, we deduce that (\ref{increasing of hedger ex-dividend price for positive wealth}) and (\ref{increasing of counterparty ex-dividend price for positive wealth}) hold.
For $0\ge\bar{x}\ge x$ one can show, using similar arguments, that (\ref{increasing of hedger ex-dividend price for negative wealth}) and (\ref{increasing of counterparty ex-dividend price for negative wealth}) are valid.
\end{proof}
By combining Propositions \ref{inequality proposition for both negative initial wealth}--\ref{monotonicity proposition}, we
obtain the following result, which summarizes the properties of unilateral prices.
\begin{theorem} \label{main theorem}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or
Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid.
Then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ the following statements are valid: \hfill \break
(i) if $\bar{x}\ge x\ge0$, then for all $t\in[0,T]$
\be\label{monotonicity ex-dividend price for positive wealth}
P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C)\leq P^{c}_t (\bar{x},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (\bar{x},A,C)\leq P^{h}_t (x,A,C).
\ee
(ii) if $0\ge\bar{x}\ge x$, then for all $t\in[0,T]$
\be\label{monotonicity ex-dividend price for negative wealth}
P^{h}_t (\bar{x},A,C)\ge P^{h}_t (x,A,C)\ge P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C)\ge P^{c}_t (\bar{x},-A,-C).
\ee
Moreover, if $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic and satisfy $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, then for $\bar{x}>0>x$, there exists $(\wh{t},A,C)$ such that
\bde
P^{c}_{\wh{t}} (x,-A,-C)>P^{h}_{\wh{t}} (\bar{x},A,C)\ge P^{c}_{\wh{t}} (\bar{x},-A,-C)
\ede
and there also exists $(\wh{t},A,C)$ such that
\bde
P^{h}_{\wh{t}} (\bar{x},A,C)\ge P^{c}_{\wh{t}} (\bar{x},-A,-C)> P^{h}_{\wh{t}} (x,A,C).
\ede
\end{theorem}
\bcor \label{corollary of price bound}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{monotonicity proposition}, for any contract $(A,C)$ and any date $t\in[0,T]$
\be\label{price bound}
P^{c}_t (0,-A,-C)\leq P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x,A,C)\leq P^{h}_t (0,A,C),
\ee
so that ${\cal R}^f_t (x,x) \subset {\cal R}^f_t (0,0)$.
\ecor
The above corollary shows that an investor with either a positive or a negative initial endowment
has a potential advantage over an investor with null initial wealth to enter any contract $(A,C)$ at any time $t$.
This conclusion is plausible, since the borrowing rate is higher than the lending rate.
Indeed, for the same strategy, when an
investor who has zero initial endowment needs to borrow money in order to hedge a contract, an investor with a positive initial endowment may use money from his initial wealth for the same purpose. Similarly, when an investor with null initial endowment
needs to lend money in order to implement his hedging strategy, an investor with a negative initial
endowment can use instead a surplus of cash to repay his debt. These features create a comparative advantage.
Using Corollary \ref{corollary of price bound} and Proposition \ref{monotonicity proposition},
we can examine the asymptotic properties of $P^{h}_{t}(x,A,C)$ and $P^{c}_{t}(x,-A,-C)$ when the initial
endowment $x$ tends to either $\infty $ or $-\infty$.
\bp
Let the assumptions of Proposition \ref{monotonicity proposition} be valid. For any contract $(A,C)$ and any date $t\in[0,T]$,
there exist $\gg$-adapted processes, denoted by $P^{h,A,C,+}_{t}$, $P^{h,A,C,-}_{t}$, $P^{c,-A,-C,+}_{t}$ and $P^{c,-A,-C,-}_{t}$,
such that
\bde
P^{h,A,C,+}_{t},\, P^{h,A,C,-}_{t},\, P^{c,-A,-C,+}_{t},\, P^{c,-A,-C,-}_{t} \in [P^{c}_t (0,-A,-C) , P^{h}_t (0,A,C)]
= {\cal R}^f_0 (0,0)
\ede
and
\bde
\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow +\infty}P^{h}_t (x,A,C)=P^{h,A,C,+}_{t}\ge P^{c,-A,-C,+}_{t}=\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow +\infty}P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C),
\ede
\bde
\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow -\infty}P^{h}_t (x,A,C)=P^{h,A,C,-}_{t}\ge P^{c,-A,-C,-}_{t}=\lim\limits_{x\rightarrow -\infty}P^{c}_t (x,-A,-C).
\ede
\ep
\begin{proof}
The statement easily follows from Proposition \ref{monotonicity proposition} and Corollary \ref{corollary of price bound}.
\end{proof}
We can only have $P^{h,A,C,+}_{t}\ge P^{c,A,C,+}_{t}$ and $P^{h,A,C,-}_{t}\ge P^{c,A,C,-}_{t}$. Other comparison results between these four processes are still unclear. Indeed, if $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic and such that $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for every $t\in[0,T]$, then there exists $(\wh{t},A,C)$ such that
\bde
P^{h,A,C,+}_{\wh{t}}\ge P^{c,A,C,+}_{\wh{t}}>P^{h,A,C,-}_{\wh{t}}\ge P^{c,A,C,-}_{\wh{t}},
\ede
as well as there exists $(\wh{t},A,C)$ such that
\bde
P^{h,A,C,-}_{\wh{t}}\ge P^{c,A,C,-}_{\wh{t}}>P^{h,A,C,+}_{\wh{t}}\ge P^{c,A,C,+}_{\wh{t}}.
\ede
Now, we consider a special case of a contract $(A,C)$ and $t\in[0,T]$ such that
\bde
P^{h,A,C}_{t}:=\min\left\{P^{h,A,C,+}_{t},P^{h,A,C,-}_{t}\right\}
\ge\max\left\{P^{c,-A,-C,+}_{t},P^{c,-A,-C,-}_{t}\right\} =: P^{c,-A,-C}_{t}.
\ede
Then $\big[P_t^{c,-A,-C},P_t^{h,A,C}\big]$ is the bilateral fair pricing range for all investors with identical, but otherwise
arbitrary, initial endowment, meaning that
\bde
\big[P^{c,-A,-C}_{t},P^{h,A,C}_{t}\big]=\bigcap_{x\in\mathbb{R}}[P^{c}_{t}(x,-A,-C),P^{h}_{t}(x,A,C)]
= \bigcap_{x\in\mathbb{R}} {\cal R}^f_t (x,x).
\ede
The following stability of unilateral ex-dividend prices with respect to the initial endowment can also be
established using Proposition 3.1 in \cite{NR3}.
For the reader's convenience, we recall two alternative versions of the Lipschitz condition, which were employed in \cite{NR3}
(see Definitions 2.1 and 3.1 in \cite{NR3}).
Let $h:\Omega \times[0,T] \times \rr \times \rr^{d} \rightarrow \rr$ be a ${\cal G}\otimes\mathcal{B}([0,T])\otimes\mathcal{B}(\rr)\otimes\mathcal{B}(\rr^d)$-measurable function such that $h(\cdot,\cdot,y,z)$ is a $\gg$-adapted process for any fixed $(y,z)\in\rr \times \rr^d$,
and let $m$ be the process introduced in either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}
or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}.
\bd \label{definition uniformly Lipschitz}
We say that $h$ satisfies the {\it uniform Lipschitz condition} if there exists a constant $L$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $y_{1},y_{2}\in\mathbb{R},\, z_{1},z_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^d$,
\be \label{uniformly Lipschitz for the driver}
|h(t,y_{1},z_{1})-h(t,y_{2},z_{2})|\leq L\left(|y_{1}-y_{2}|+\|z_{1}-z_{2}\|\right), \quad \P-\aass
\ee
We say that $h$ satisfies the {\it $m$-Lipschitz condition} if there exist two strictly positive and $\gg$-adapted processes $\rho $ and $\theta$ such that, for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $y_{1},y_{2}\in\mathbb{R},\, z_{1},z_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^d$,
\be \label{Lipschitz for the driver}
|h(t,y_{1},z_{1})-h(t,y_{2},z_{2})|\leq \rho_{t}|y_{1}-y_{2}|+\theta_{t}\| m_{t}^{\ast}(z_{1}-z_{2})\|.
\ee
\ed
\begin{theorem}\label{stability property of price}
Let either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or
Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid.
Then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$, there exists a constant $K_{0}$ such that
\bde
\EP \left[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|P^{h}_{t} (x_{1},A,C)-P^{h}_{t} (x_{2},A,C)|+\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|P^{c}_{t} (x_{1},-A,-C)-P^{c}_{t} (x_{2},-A,-C)|\right]\leq K_{0}|x_{1}-x_{2}|.
\ede
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Remark \ref{remark for the proof under different assumptions for cumulative dividend price}, we have
$P^{h}_t (x_{i},A,C) =\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{i}}_t-C_t$ for every $t \in [0,T)$,
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{i}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{i}})$ is the solution of the following BSDE
\be\label{additional BSDE for hedger with positive wealth}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{i}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{i},\ast}_td\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{h}(t,x_{i},\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{i}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{i},\ast}_t)\, dt +dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{i}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where
\bde
g^{h}(t,x,y,z):=\sumik_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} z^{i}_t S_{t}^{i}+\big( g(t,y+x\Blr_t,z)-x\rll_t\Blr_t \big)\I_{\{x\ge0\}}
+\big( g(t, y+x\Bbr_t,z)-x\rbb_t\Bbr_t \big) \I_{\{x\leq0\}}.
\ede
It is not hard to check that if $x_{1}x_{2}\ge0$, then there exists a constant $K$, which only depends on
the bound for $\rll$ and $\rbb$, such that
\bde
|g^{h}(t,x_{1},y,z)-g^{h}(t,x_{2},y,z)|\leq K|x_{1}-x_{2}|.
\ede
Consequently, if $x_{1}x_{2}<0$, then
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
|g^{h}(t,x_{1},y,z)-g^{h}(t,x_{2},y,z)|&\leq |g^{h}(t,x_{1},y,z)-g^{h}(t,0,y,z)|+|g^{h}(t,0,y,z)-g^{h}(t,x_{2},y,z)|\medskip\\
&\leq K|x_{1}|+K|x_{2}|=K|x_{1}-x_{2}|.
\end{array}
\ede
We conclude that there exists a constant $K$, which depends only on the bound for $\rll$ and $\rbb$, such that
\bde
|g^{h}(t,x_{1},y,z)-g^{h}(t,x_{2},y,z)|\leq K|x_{1}-x_{2}|, \text{ for all } x_{1},x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}.
\ede
Under Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}
(resp., Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}), for a fixed $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $g^{h}(t,x,y,z)$ satisfies (\ref{Lipschitz for the driver}) with $\rho=\theta= \wh{L}$, where a constant $\wh{L}$ depends on the bound for $r^{l},r^{b},r^{i,b}$ and $S^{i}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,d$, as well as the lower bound for $|m|$ (resp., a constant $\wh{L}$ depends on the bound $r^{l},r^{b}$ and $r^{i,b}$). Consequently, there always exists a constant $\wh{L}$, such that the driver satisfies
the Lipschitz condition (\ref{Lipschitz for the driver}) with processes $\rho=\theta= \wh{L}$.
Consequently, as in Section 3.2 in \cite{NR3}, we deduce that the spaces $\wHlamo$ and $ \wHzero$, (resp., the spaces $\widehat{L}^{2}_{\lambda}$ and $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$) may be identified, since the related norms are equivalent.
Moreover, one can check $\alpha^{-1}g^{h}(t,x,0,0)\in\wHzero$.
By an application of Proposition 3.2 in \cite{NR3}, there exists a constant $K_{0}$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|P^{h}_{t}(x_{1},A,C)-P^{h}_{t}(x_{2},A,C)|^{2}\bigg] = \EP \bigg[\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{t}-\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{2}}_{t}|^{2}\bigg]\\
& \leq K_{0}\left|\alpha^{-1}g^{h}(t,x_{1},\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{2}}_{t}-A_{t}^{C},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{2}}_{t})
-\alpha^{-1}g^{h}(t,x_{2},\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{2}}_{t}-A_{t}^{C},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{2}}_{t})
\right|_{\wHzero}^{2}\\
&\leq K_{0}|x_{1}-x_{2}|^{2}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, one can check that the same inequality holds for the counterparty's price. \end{proof}
\subsection{Price Independence of the Initial Endowment}
We will now show that for a certain class of contracts the price is independent of the initial endowment.
It is worth noting that an analogous result does not hold in Bergman's model studied in \cite{NR4}.
\bp \lab{pro_new1}
Let $x_{1}\ge0$ and either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid. Consider an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$. If the process $A^{C}-A^C_0$ is decreasing, then the price $P^{h}_{t} (x_{1},A,C)$ is independent of $x_1$, so that
$P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C)=P^{h}_t (0,A,C)$ for all $x_1 \ge0$.
\ep
\begin{proof}
Since $x_{1}\ge0$, it follows from Proposition \ref{general pricing proposition} that the hedger's price
of any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ satisfies $P^{h}_{t}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_{t}-C_{t}$
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\be \label{aifical BSDE for positive hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{h,l}(t, x_{1}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{rl}
g^{h,l}(t,x_1,y,z):=&\sumik_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} z^iS_{t}^{i}-x_1\rll_t\Blr_t-\sumik_{i=1}^d \ribb_t(z^{i}S^i_t )^+\medskip\\
&\mbox{}+\rll_t \Big(y+x_1B_t^l+\sumik_{i=1}^d ( z^{i}S^i_t )^- \Big)^+
- \rbb_t \Big( y+ x_1B_t^l+\sumik_{i=1}^d ( z^{i}S^i_t )^- \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
Since $g^{h,l}(t,x_{1},0,0)=0$ and the process $A^{C}-A^C_{0}$ is decreasing, we deduce from the comparison theorem for BSDEs
(see, for instance, Theorem 3.3 in \cite{NR3} with $U^1=A^{C}-A^C_{0}$ and $U^2=0$) that $\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}\ge 0$. Since $x_{1}\ge0$, BSDE \eqref{aifical BSDE for positive hedger} can thus be represented as follows
\be\label{aifical BSDE 1 for positive hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_td\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+\widetilde{g}^{h,l}(t, x_{1}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_T=0,
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where the generator $\tilde{g}^{h,l}(t,x_1,y,z)$ is independent of $x_1$ and equals (recall that $\zzb = z^i S^i_t$)
\bde
\tilde{g}^{h,l}(t,x,y,z):=\sumik_{i=1}^d \beta^{i}_{t} \zzb
-\sumik_{i=1}^d \ribb_t( \zzb )^++\rll_ty+ \rll_t\sumik_{i=1}^d ( \zzb )^- .
\ede
Obviously, the unique solution to BSDE (\ref{aifical BSDE 1 for positive hedger}) is independent of $x_1$ and thus the price $P^{h}_{t}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_{t}-C_{t}$ enjoys the same property.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Positive Homogeneity of the Hedger's Price}
We consider once again the hedger's price and we show that it is positively homogeneous with respect to
the size of the contract and the non-negative initial endowment. Observe that this property is no longer true if only
the size of the contract (but not the initial endowment) is scaled by a non-negative number $\lambda $ (of course, unless
the price is independent of the initial endowment, as in Proposition \ref{pro_new1}).
\bp \lab{pro_new2}
Let $x_{1}\ge0$ and either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid. Consider an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$. If the process $C\in\widehat{\mathcal{H}}_0^2$, then for all $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}_+$
\be\label{homogeneous 1}
P^{h}_t (\lambda x_{1},\lambda A,\lambda C)=\lambda P^{h}_t (x_1,A,C).
\ee
\ep
\begin{proof}
It is obvious that (\ref{homogeneous 1}) holds for $\lambda=0$. Suppose that $\lambda > 0$.
Once again, from Proposition \ref{general pricing proposition}, we know that $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}-C$ where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution to \eqref{aifical BSDE for positive hedger}. Moreover, $P^{h}(\lambda x_{1},\lambda A,\lambda C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,l, \lambda x_{1}}-\lambda C$ where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,\lambda x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,\lambda x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\bde
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,\lambda x_{1}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,\lambda x_{1},\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{h,l}(t, \lambda x_{1}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,l,\lambda x_{1}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,l,\lambda x_{1}}_t)\,dt+\lambda \, dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,l,\lambda x_{1}}_T=0 .
\end{array}
\right.
\ede
Recall that $A^C=A+C+F^C$ where $F^{C}_t := -\int_{0}^t r^c_u \pC_u \, du$. Then $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=Y^1$
where $(Y^1,Z^1)$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE (since $(A,C)$ is admissible and $C\in\widehat{\mathcal{H}}_0^2$, the well-posedness of this BSDE is easy to check)
\bde
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY^1_t =Z^{1,\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{h,l}(t, x_{1}, Y^{1}_t+C_t,Z^{1}_t)\,dt+d(A_t+F_t^C),\medskip\\
Y^{1}_T=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\ede
Similarly, $P^{h}(\lambda x_{1},\lambda A,\lambda C)=Y^{2}$ where $(Y^{2},Z^{2})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\be \label{BSDE 1}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY^{2}_t =Z^{2,\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+g^{h,l}(t, \lambda x_{1},Y^{2}_t+\lambda C_t,Z^{2}_t)\,dt+\lambda \, d(A_t+F_t^C),\medskip\\
Y^{2}_T=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
For $Y:=\lambda Y^1$ and $Z=\lambda Z^1$, we have
\be \label{BSDE 2}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY_t =Z^{\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+\lambda g^{h,l}(t, x_{1}, \lambda^{-1}Y_t+C_t,\lambda^{-1}Z_t)\,dt+\lambda \, d(A_t+F_t^C),\medskip\\
Y_T=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Hence to complete the proof, it suffices to observe that the equality
\[
\lambda g^{h,l}(t, x_{1}, \lambda^{-1}y+C_t,\lambda^{-1}z)=g^{h,l}(t, \lambda x_{1},y+\lambda C_t,z)
\]
is satisfied for all $\lambda >0$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{European Claims and Related Pricing PDEs} \label{sect5.5}
For simplicity of presentation, we assume that $d=1$, so that there is only one risky asset $S=S^1$. It is clear,
however, that the results obtained in this subsection can be easily extended to a multi-asset case. Moreover, we postulate that the interest rates $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic. We examine valuation and hedging of an uncollateralized European contingent claim starting from a fixed time $t\in[0,T]$, that is, we set $C=0$. A generic path-independent claim of European style pays a single cash flow $H(S_{T})$ on the expiration date $T>0$, so that
\bde
A_t - A_0 = -H(S_{T})\I_{[T,T]}(t).
\ede
For any fixed $t <T$, the risky asset $S$ has the ex-dividend price dynamics under $\P$ given by the following expression, for $u \in [t,T]$,
\be\label{Partial netting model stock price}
dS_u = \mu(u,S_{u})\, du +\sigma(u,S_{u})\, dW_u , \quad S_t=\ssx \in \mathcal{O},
\ee
where $W$ is a one-dimensional Brownian motion and $\mathcal{O}$ is the domain of real values that are attainable by the diffusion process $S$ (usually $\mathcal{O}=\mathbb{R}_{+}$). Moreover, the coefficients $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are such that SDE (\ref{Partial netting model stock price}) has a unique strong solution. We also assume that the volatility coefficient $\sigma$ is bounded and bounded away from zero. Finally, the dividend process equals $\pA^1_t = \int_0^t \kappa( u, S_u) \, du $.
Our first goal is to derive the hedger's pricing PDE for a path-independent European claim. We observe that
\bde
d\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}_u =dS_u + d\pA^1_u -\beta(u, S_{u})\, du=
\big( \mu(u, S_{u})+\kappa(u, S_{u})-\beta(u, S_{u}) \big) du + \sigma (u, S_{u})\, dW_u .
\ede
From the Girsanov theorem, if we denote
\bde
a_{u}:=(\sigma(u, S_{u}))^{-1}\big( \mu(u, S_{u})+\kappa(u, S_{u})-\beta(u, S_{u})\big)
\ede
and define the probability measure $\PT$ as
\bde
\frac{d\PT}{d\P}=\exp\bigg\{-\int_{t}^{T}a_{u}\, dW_{u}
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t}^{T}|a_{u}|^{2}\, du \bigg\},
\ede
then $\PT $ is equivalent to $\P$ and the process $\widetilde{W}$ is the Brownian motion under $\PT$, where
$d\widetilde{W}_{u}:=dW_{u}+a_{u}\, du$. It is easy to see that
\bde
d\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}_{u}=\sigma (u, S_{u})\, d\widetilde{W}_u
\ede
and thus we conclude that $\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}$ is a $(\PT , \gg)$-martingale and $\langle \wt S^{\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{u}=\int_{t}^{u}|\sigma(v, S_{v})|^{2}\, dv$. Therefore, either Assumption \ref{assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} or Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} holds, provided
that we assume that the Brownian motion $\widetilde{W}$ has the PRP under $(\gg,\PT)$. Of course, the latter assumption is not restrictive in the present set-up.
Since $A$ has only a single cash flow at time $T$ and $C=0$, we deduce from Proposition \ref{general pricing proposition} that,
for any initial endowment $x_{1}\in\mathbb{R}$, the hedger's prices satisfies $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}$,
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of following BSDE driven by the Brownian motion $\widetilde{W}$
\be\label{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE for hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_u =\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_u\sigma (u, S_{u})\, d\widetilde{W}_u+g^{h}(u,x_{1},S_{u}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_u,\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_u)\, du ,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_T=H(S_{T}),
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where for $x_{1}\ge0$
\bde
g^{h}(u,x_{1},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)-x_{1}\rll_u\Blr_t-r^{1,b}_{u}(z\ssy)^{+}+\rll_u \Big(y+x_{1}\Blr_u+(z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^+- \rbb_u \Big( y+x_{1}\Blr_u+(z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^-
\ede
and for $x_{1}\leq0$
\bde
g^{h}(u,x_{1},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)-x_{1}\rbb_u\Bbr_u-r^{1,b}_{u}(z\ssy)^{+}+\rll_u \Big(y+x_{1}\Bbr_u+(z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^+- \rbb_u \Big( y+x_{1}\Bbr_u+(z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^-.
\ede
The well-posedness of BSDE \eqref{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE for hedger} is well known under mild assumptions, since we assumed that $\widetilde{W}$ has the PRP under $(\gg,\PT)$. The unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b}\big)$ where $\xi_{u}= \widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_{u},\, \psi^{1,b}_{u}=-(B^{1,b}_{u})^{-1}(\xi_u S_u)^{+}$
and
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\psi^{l}_u &= (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{u}+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+(\xi_u S_u)^{-} \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u &= - (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{u}+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+(\xi_u S_u)^{-} \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
In the next step, we fix a date $t \in [0,T)$ and we assume that $\Sst_t=\ssx\in \mathcal{O}$. Note that under $\PT$, for
all $u \in [t,T]$,
\bde
d\Sst_u = ( \beta(u, \Sst_{u})-\kappa(u,\Sst_u))\, du+\sigma(u,\Sst_{u})\, d\widetilde{W}_u .
\ede
It is clear that the solution $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}})$ will now depend on the initial value $\ssx$ at time $t$ of the stock price; to emphasize this feature, we write $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1},\ssx},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},\ssx})$. Furthermore, if we set $(Y^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u},Z^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u}):=(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u}\sigma(u,\Sst_{u}))$ and
\bde
\overline{g}^{h}(u,x_{1},\ssx, y,z)=g^{h}(u,x_{1},\ssx, y,z\sigma^{-1}(u, \ssx)),
\ede
then BSDE (\ref{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE for hedger}) yields
\be\label{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE 2 for hedger}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u =Z^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u\, d\widetilde{W}_u+\overline{g}^{h}(u,x_{1},\Sst_{u}, Y^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u,Z^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u)\, du ,\medskip\\
Y^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_T=H(\Sst_{T}).
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Using the non-linear Feynman-Kac formula (see \cite{PP-1992,P-1991}), we argue that under suitable smoothness conditions imposed on the coefficients $\mu,\sigma,\kappa$ and $\beta$, the {\it hedger's pricing function} $v(t,\ssx):=Y_{t}^{h,x_{1},\ssx}$ belongs to the class $C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ and solves the following {\it pricing PDE}
\be\label{Partial netting model hedger PDE 1}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\mathcal{L}v(t,\ssx)=\overline{g}^{h}\big(t,x_{1},\ssx,v(t,\ssx),\sigma(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}\big),\quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O},
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where the differential operator $\mathcal{L}$ is given by the following expression
\bde
\mathcal{L}:=\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2} }{\partial \ssx^{2}}+(\beta-\kappa)(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial}{\partial \ssx}.
\ede
In view of the definition of $\overline{g}^{h}$, it is clear that PDE (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE 1}) is in turn equivalent to
\be\label{Partial netting model hedger PDE}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2}v}{\partial \ssx^{2}}(t,\ssx)=
\kappa(t,\ssx) \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)-x_{1}\rll_t\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}-x_{1}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}-r^{1,b}_{t}\big(\ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big)^{+}\medskip\\
\quad\mbox{} +\rll_t \Big(v(t,\ssx)+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+\big(\ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big)^{-}\Big)^+\medskip\\
\quad\mbox{}- \rbb_t \Big(v(t,\ssx)+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+\big(\ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big)^{-}\Big)^-, \quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
\brem
It is worth stressing that the coefficient $\beta$ does not appear in the pricing PDE (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE}). Therefore, in order to derive the PDE, $\beta$ can be chosen arbitrarily, except for constraint ensuring that the model is arbitrage-free (see Proposition \ref{remark for non-arbitrage model}). Consequently, without changing the probability measure (i.e., by choosing $\beta$ such $a_t =0$ for all $t \in[0,T]$), we can still derive PDE (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE}).
\erem
Conversely, if $v\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ solves PDE (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE}), then the pair $(v(u,S_{u}),\sigma(u,S_{u})\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ solves BSDE (\ref{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE 2 for hedger}) on $u\in[t,T]$ where, for brevity, we write $S = \Sst$. From the above discussions, $(v(u,S_{u}),\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ is also a solution to BSDE (\ref{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE for hedger}) on $u\in[t,T]$ for an arbitrary initial stock price $S_t=s$. Consequently, the unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b}\big)$ where, for all $u\in[t,T]$,
\be\label{Partial netting model replicating strategy for the hedger}
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\xi_{u} =\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}),\quad \psi^{1,b}_{t}=-(B^{1,b}_{u})^{-1}\big(S_u\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}) \big)^{+},\medskip\\
\psi^{l}_u = (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big(v(u,S_{u})+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+\big(S_u\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u})\big)^{-} \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u = - (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \Big(v( u,S_{u})+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}+\big(S_u\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u})\big)^{-} \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ee
Let us now focus on the pricing PDE for the counterparty. Recall that
$P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C)=\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}$, where $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}},\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}})$
is the unique solution to the following BSDE
\be\label{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE for counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_u =\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_u\sigma (u, S_{u})\, d\widetilde{W}_u
+g^{c}(u,x_{2}, S_{u}, \widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_u,\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_u)\, du,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_T=H( \Sst_{T}),
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where for $x_{1}\ge0$,
\bde
g^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)+x_{2}\rll_u\Blr_u+r^{1,b}_{u}(z\ssy)^{+}-\rll_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Blr_u+(-z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^++\rbb_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Blr_u+(-z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^-
\ede
and for $x_{1}\leq0$
\bde
g^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)+x_{2}\rbb_u\Bbr_u+r^{1,b}_{u}(z\ssy)^{+}-\rll_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Bbr_u+(-z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^++\rbb_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Bbr_u+(-z\ssy)^{-}\Big)^-.
\ede
The unique replicating strategy for the counterparty equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b}\big)$
where $\xi_{u}= -\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_{u}$, $\psi^{1,b}_{u}=-(B^{1,b}_{u})^{-1}(\xi_u S_u)^{+}$
and
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\psi^{l}_u = (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big( -\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{2}}_{u}+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+(\xi_u S_u)^{-} \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u = - (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \Big( -\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{2}}_{u}+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+(\xi_u S_u)^{-} \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
For a fixed $(t,s) \in [0,T) \times \mathcal{O}$, we denote $(Y^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_{u},Z^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_{u}):=(\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_{u},\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_{u}\sigma(u,\Sst_{u}))$ and
\bde
\overline{g}^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssx, y,z)=g^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssx, y,z\sigma^{-1}(u, \ssx)).
\ede
Then BSDE (\ref{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE for counterparty}) becomes
\be \label{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE 2 for counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_u =Z^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_u\, d\widetilde{W}_u +\overline{g}^{c}(u,x_{2}, \Sst_{u},Y^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_u ,Z^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_u)\, du ,\medskip\\
Y^{c,x_{2},\ssx}_T=H( \Sst_{T}).
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Using the same argument as for the hedger, we deduce that the pricing function $v(t,\ssx):=Y_{t}^{c,x_{2},\ssx}$ belongs to $C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ and solves the following PDE
\be \label{Partial netting model counterparty PDE 1}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\mathcal{L}v(t,\ssx)=\overline{g}^{c}\big(t,x_{2},\ssx,v(t,\ssx),\sigma(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}\big),\quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O},
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
or, more explicitly,
\be\label{Partial netting model counterparty PDE}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2}v}{\partial \ssx^{2}}(t,\ssx)=\kappa(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)+x_{2}\rll_t\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+r^{1,b}_{t}\big( \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big)^{+}\medskip\\
\quad\mbox{} -\rll_t \Big(-v(t,\ssx)+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+\big(- \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx) \big)^{-}\Big)^+\medskip\\
\quad\mbox{}+\rbb_t \Big(-v(t,\ssx)+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+\big(- \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big)^{-}\Big)^-,\quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Conversely, if a function $v\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ solves PDE (\ref{Partial netting model counterparty PDE}), then $(v(u,S_{u}),\sigma(u,S_{u})\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ solves BSDE (\ref{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE 2 for counterparty}) on $u\in[t,T]$ where we write $S = \Sst$. Consequently, the pair $(v(u,S_{u}),\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ solves BSDE (\ref{Partial netting model Brownian BSDE for counterparty}). Consequently, the unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b}\big)$ where, for every $u\in[t,T]$,
\be\label{Partial netting model replicating strategy for the counterparty}
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\xi_{u}=-\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}),\quad \psi^{1,b}_{u}=-(B^{1,b}_{u})^{-1}(- S_u \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))^{+},\medskip\\
\psi^{l}_u = (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big(-v(u,S_{u})+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+ \big(-S_u\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}) \big)^{-}\Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u = - (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \Big(-v(u,S_{u})+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+\big(-S_u\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u})\big)^{-}\Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ee
In summary, we are in a position to formulate the following proposition.
\bp \label{Partial netting model pricing using PDE}
Let $v(t,\ssx)\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ be the solution of quasi-linear PDE (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE}).
Then the hedger's ex-dividend price of the European contingent claim $H(S_T)$ is given by $v(t,S_{t})$ and the unique replicating strategy $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b}\big)$ for the hedger is given by (\ref{Partial netting model replicating strategy for the hedger}). Similarly, if $v(t,\ssx)\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ is the solution of quasi-linear PDE (\ref{Partial netting model counterparty PDE}), then the counterparty's ex-dividend price of the European contingent claim $H(S_T)$ is given by $v(t,S_{t})$ and the unique replicating strategy $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\psi^{1,b}\big)$ for the counterparty is given by (\ref{Partial netting model replicating strategy for the counterparty}).
\ep
If smoothness of model coefficients is not postulated then, from Theorem 4.3 in Peng \cite{PP-1992}, the function $v(t,\ssx):=Y_{t}^{h,x_{1},\ssx}$ (resp., $v(t,\ssx):=Y_{t}^{c,x_{2},\ssx}$) is known to be the unique viscosity solution of PDE (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE}) (resp., (\ref{Partial netting model counterparty PDE})).
We notice that PDE (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE}) depends on the initial endowment $x_{1}$. In the special case where $r^{l}=r^{b}=r$, equation (\ref{Partial netting model hedger PDE}) reduces to the following PDE independent of $x_{1}$
\be\label{classical Partial netting model hedger PDE}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2}v}{\partial \ssx^{2}}(t,\ssx)=\kappa(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)-r^{1,b}_{t}\big(\ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big)^{+}\medskip\\
\qquad\qquad \mbox{} +r_t \Big(v(t,\ssx)+\big(\ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big)^{-}\Big), \quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Note that PDE (\ref{classical Partial netting model hedger PDE}) can characterize the price and the strategy for the European contingent claim in the case where the borrowing rate and the lending rates are equal.
If we assume, in addition,
that $r^{i,b}=r$, then PDE (\ref{classical Partial netting model hedger PDE}) becomes
\be\label{classical model hedger PDE}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2}v}{\partial \ssx^{2}}(t,\ssx)=
\kappa(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\medskip\\
\qquad\qquad \mbox{}+r_t \Big(v(t,\ssx)- \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\Big),\quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
We observe that PDE (\ref{classical model hedger PDE}) is nothing else but the classic Black and Scholes PDE. We mentioned in Example \ref{European call option} that the market model partial netting does not cover the standard case of different borrowing and lending rates when $r^{i,b}=r^b > r^l$ and trading is assumed to be unrestricted. However, when the equalities $r^{i,b}=r^b=r^l$ are postulated, then the related PDEs for the European contingent claim are identical so, as expected, the prices and hedging strategies coincide as well.
Without using the BSDEs method, one can still obtain Proposition \ref{Partial netting model pricing using PDE} by applying the classical arguments, as was done, for instance, in \cite{B-1995}. Both methods essentially hinge on the same tool,
the non-linear Feynman-Kac formula. We mention that when the solution of the related PDE is not smooth, then
the BSDE approach gives a probabilistic representation for the viscosity solution of the PDE.
\brem
In the related paper \cite{NR4}, we also revisit the market model studied by Bergman \cite{B-1995} and we extend his analysis by considering a general contract $(A,C)$, rather than path-independent European claims, and investors with non-zero initial endowments. In this model, the funding accounts for risky assets are not introduced and thus the last constraint in (\ref{portfolio choose}) is relaxed. Hence the hedger can use his initial endowment to buy shares for the purpose of hedging. Consequently, for each particular set-up, the properties of prices will be quite different, but most of them can be deduced from the general results for the auxiliary BSDEs. We also derive the pricing PDE for path-independent European claims in a Markovian framework.
\erem
\vskip 10 pt
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgement.}
The research of Tianyang Nie and Marek Rutkowski was supported under Australian Research Council's
Discovery Projects funding scheme (DP120100895).
|
\section{Introduction}
Classical orthogonal polynomials can be introduced as the eigenfunctions of Sturm-Liouville operators and they also play a fundamental role in the construction of bound-state solutions to exactly solvable potentials in quantum mechanics. Moreover an equilibrium problem for the logarithmic interaction of positive unit charges under an external field leads to a nice electrostatic interpretation of their zeros. The following approach of generalization was investigated in the '90-s: let $w=e^{-Q}$ be a positive weight function supported on $(a,b)\subset \mathbb{R}$ with finite moments and $p_n=p_n(w)$ are the orthogonal polynomials on $(a,b)$ with respect to $w$. Assuming $Q$ is a twice differentiable and convex function, $p_n$ satisfies the following differential equation on $(a,b)$:
$$p_n^{''}(x)+M_n(x)p_n^{'}(x)+N_n(x)p_n(x)=0,$$
where $M_n(x)$ depends on $n$, actually on $p_n$ (cf. e.g. \cite{m} Th. 3.4. and \cite{iw}). Besides the classical properties of orthogonal polynomials, the electrostatic behavior of their zeros were also investigated (cf. \cite{i}). On the other hand these type of orthogonal polynomials are not the suitable ones for constructing solvable potentials. Recently some new families of orthogonal polynomials are investigated which are very useful to this purpose. At first $X_1$-Jacobi and $X_1$-Laguerre polynomials, as exceptional orthogonal polynomial families were introduced by D. G\'omez-Ullate, N. Kamran and R. Milson (cf. e.g. \cite{gukm2}). The relationship between exceptional orthogonal polynomials and the Darboux transform is observed by C. Quesne (cf. e.g. \cite{q}). Higher-codimensional families were introduced by S. Odake and R. Sasaki \cite{os}. The location of zeros of exceptional orthogonal polynomials are described by D. G\'omez-Ullate, F. Marcell\'an and R. Milson \cite{gumm}, and the electrostatic interpretation of zeros of $X_1$-Jacobi polynomials is given by D. Dimitrov and Yen Chi Lun \cite{dy}.
Below we will extend some results of \cite{dy} to $X_m$-Laguerre polynomials of the first kind, and we will show that the regular zeros of $X_m$-Jacobi and $X_m$-Laguerre polynomials behaves like the zeros of the classical orthogonal polynomials in point of energy. To this purpose we adapt some methods was developed to general orthogonal polynomials, to the exceptional ones. Since the regular zeros of exceptional polynomials form a minimal energy (or Fekete) system with respect to a suitable external field, similarly to \cite{ho} we will show that on these sets one can build up stable interpolatory operators which are the most economical as well. Finally the notion of Fekete sets and $n^{th}$ transfinite diameter allows to investigate the behavior of the energy function when the number of the points tends to infinity.
\medskip
\section{Notations, Preliminary Computations}
We will examine an energy problem with an external field on a finite or infinite interval of $\mathbb{R}$. To this end we introduce some notations.
Let $U_n:=\{u_1, \dots , u_n\}$ be any system of nodes on an interval $I$ and $0\leq w \in C^2(I)$ be a weight function on $I$. Let $\omega_{U_n}(x):=\prod_{k=1}^n(x-u_k)$.
\begin{defi} The energy function on $I$ with respect to $w$ is
$$T_w(u_1, \dots , u_{n})=\prod_{j=1}^{n}w(u_j) \prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(u_i-u_j)^2,$$
cf. e.g. \cite{st} p. $143.$ or \cite{i} $(2.5)$.\end{defi}
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Remark. }
\noindent (1) For $w\equiv 1$ the energy function was investigated by I. Schur \cite{sch}. He called it as "discriminant" and he found that the maximum with respect to the nodes is attained at the zeros of certain (orthogonal) polynomials.
\noindent (2) L. Fej\'er recognized that the solutions of the maximum problem are adequate systems of nodes for interpolation (normal and $\varrho$-normal point systems). For the weighted version cf. \cite{aho}.
\noindent (3) It's potential theoretic meaning allows us to call $T_w$ as energy function. Indeed $\inf_{U_n\subset H}-\log \left(T_w^{\frac{1}{n(n-1)}}(u_1, \dots , u_{n})\right)$ is the discrete minimal energy or the $n^{th}$ transfinite diameter of $H$ with respect to the weight $w^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}$ (cf. \cite{st}).
\noindent (4) If $w$ is a classical (Jacobi, Laguerre, Hermite) weight, then the solutions of the weighted energy problem are the $1(w)$-normal systems which are the zeros of the classical orthogonal polynomials, namely for $w=(1-x)^{\alpha}(1+x)^{\beta}$, $w=x^{\alpha}e^{-x}$, $w=e^{-x^2}$, the zeros of $p_n^{(\alpha-1,\beta-1)}$, $L_n^{(\alpha-1)}$, $H_n$ respectively (cf. \cite{aho}).
\medskip
As it was pointed out in \cite{ho}, the weighted Fej\'er constants play fundamental role in the energy problem and interpolation as well.
\begin{defi}
The weighted Fej\'er constants on $I$ with respect to $U_n$ and $w$ are:
\begin{equation}C_k:=C_{k,U_n,w}=\frac{\omega^{''}}{\omega^{'}}(u_k)+\frac{w^{'}}{w}(u_k).\end{equation}\end{defi}
\medskip
We will investigate the local extrema of the energy function (cf. \cite{i}, \cite{ho}). Our main tool will be the differential equation of orthogonal polynomials, and it's transformed version to a Schr\"odinger equation (cf. \cite{j} and \cite{m}). The next general lemma will be useful for the examinations below.
\medskip
\begin{lemma} Let $p_n(x)=\gamma_n\prod_{i=1}^n(x-\zeta_i)$, be a polynomial of degree $n$ with zeros $Z_n=\{\zeta_1, \dots , \zeta_n\}$, for which
\begin{equation} p_n^{''}(x)+ M_n(x)p_n^{'}(x)+N_n(x)p_n(x)=0.\end{equation}
Let us assume that $M_n$ is the logarithmic derivative of a function $w_n(x)$ which is smooth enough, that is
$$\left(\log w_n(x)\right)^{'}=M_n(x).$$
Let $T_{w_n}(u_1, \dots , u_{n})$ be the energy function with respect to $w_n$. Then
\begin{equation}\frac{\partial \log T_{w_n}(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_i}(\zeta_1,\dots ,\zeta_n)=C_{i,w_n,Z_{n}}=0,\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\frac{\partial^2 \log T_{w_n}(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_i\partial u_j}(\zeta_1,\dots ,\zeta_n)=\frac{2}{(\zeta_i-\zeta_j)^2},\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\frac{\partial^2 \log T_{w_n}(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_i^2}(\zeta_1,\dots ,\zeta_n)=-\frac{2}{3}\Phi(\zeta_i),\end{equation}
where $\Phi(x):=\Phi_{w_n}(x)$ is the coefficient of the transformed differential equation:
$$z_n^{''}(x)+\Phi(x)z_n(x)=0,$$
which is satisfied by
$$z_n(x)=p_n(x)\sqrt{w_n(x)}.$$\end{lemma}
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Remark. }
Equality (2) is valid on the domain of definition of the coefficients. $w_n(x)$ is smooth enough, usually means that it is twice differentiable on that domain.
\medskip
\proof
$$\frac{\partial \log T(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_i}(\zeta_1,\dots ,\zeta_n)=\frac{w_n^{'}}{w_n}(\zeta_i)+2\sum_{1\leq j \leq n\atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{\zeta_i-\zeta_j}$$ $$= \frac{w_n^{'}}{w_n}(\zeta_i)+\frac{p_n^{''}}{p_n^{'}}(\zeta_i)=C_{i,w_n,Z_{n}}=0,$$
where the last equality is ensured by the differential equation. (4) is obvious. To prove (5) at first we have to note that by standard arguments we have
\begin{equation}\Phi(x) = N_n(x)-\frac{1}{4}M_n^2(x)-\frac{1}{2}M_n^{'}(x),\end{equation}
cf. e.g. \cite{m} Th. 3.6. (The same appears in \cite{q} (5), with $g(x)=x$.)
$$\frac{\partial^2 \log T_{w_n}(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_i^2}=\left(\log w_n\right)^{''}(u_i)-2\sum_{1\leq j \leq n\atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(u_i-u_j)^2}.$$
Since denoting by $\omega(x)=\omega_{U_n}(x)$
$$\sum_{1\leq j \leq n\atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(u_i-u_j)^2}=\left(\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\omega^{''}}{\omega^{'}}\right)^2-\frac{1}{3}\frac{\omega^{'''}}{\omega^{'}}\right)(u_i),$$
$$\frac{\partial^2 \log T(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_i^2}(\zeta_1,\dots ,\zeta_n)=\left(\log w_n\right)^{''}(u_i)+\left(-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{p_n^{''}}{p_n^{'}}\right)^2+\frac{2}{3}\frac{p_n^{'''}}{p_n^{'}}\right)(\zeta_i).$$
By differentiation of (2) we have
$$\frac{p_n^{'''}}{p_n^{'}}(\zeta_i)=(-M_n^{'}-M_n\frac{p_n^{''}}{p_n^{'}}-N_n)(\zeta_i).$$
Recalling that
$$\frac{p_n^{''}}{p_n^{'}}(\zeta_i)=-M_n(\zeta_i),$$
we get
$$\frac{\partial^2 \log T}{\partial u_i^2}(\zeta_1,\dots ,\zeta_n)=\left(M_n^{'}-\frac{1}{2}M_n^2-\frac{2}{3}M_n^{'}+\frac{2}{3}M_n^2-\frac{2}{3}N_n\right)(\zeta_i)=-\frac{2}{3}\Phi(\zeta_i).$$
\medskip
In the following sections we will investigate the energy function at the zeros of $X_m$-exceptional polynomials. At first we will deal with $X_m$-Laguerre-(I) polynomials, because all the zeros of these polynomials are simple and real. Some of these results can be extended to other families of exceptional polynomials. These results are collected in the last section.
\medskip
\section{$X_m$-Laguerre-(I) Polynomials}
Let $w^{(\alpha)}(x)=x^{\alpha}e^{-x}$, $w^{(\alpha+1)}(x)$ the Laguerre weights on $(0,\infty)$. $L_k^{(\alpha)}(x)$ is the $k^{th}$ Laguerre polynomial of parameter $\alpha$. These classical Laguerre polynomials satisfy the differential equation:
\begin{equation}xy^{''}+(\alpha+1-x)y^{'}+ny=0,\end{equation}
cf. e.g. \cite{sz}, p. 90.
The zeros of $L_k^{(\alpha)}(x)$ are $0<\zeta_{k,1}^{\alpha}< \dots < \zeta_{k,k}^{\alpha}$.
The exceptional Laguerre polynomials of codimension $m\geq 1$ and of the first kind are $\{L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$. They are the orthogonal polynomials on $(0, \infty)$ with respect to the weight $\hat{w}^{(\alpha)}_m:=\frac{|x|^{\alpha}e^{-x}}{S^2(x)}$, where $S(x):=S^{(\alpha-1)}_m(x):=L_m^{(\alpha-1)}(-x)$. Furthermore we need the zeros of $L_m^{(\alpha-1)}$, which are $y_1, \dots , y_m$ for simplicity. $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$ satisfies the differential equation (cf. \cite{gukm}, (75))
\begin{equation}y^{''}(x)+\left(\frac{\alpha+1-x}{x}-\frac{2S^{'}(x)}{S(x)}\right)y^{'}(x)+\left(\frac{m+n}{x}-\frac{\alpha}{x}\frac{2S{'}(x)}{S(x)}\right)y(x)=0.\end{equation}
That is
\begin{equation}M_{m,n}(x)=M_m(x)=\frac{\alpha+1-x}{x}-2\frac{S^{'}(x)}{S(x)}, \hspace{4pt}\ws\hspace{4pt} N_{m,n}(x)=\frac{m+n}{x}-2\frac{S{'}(x)}{S(x)}\frac{\alpha}{x},\end{equation}
cf. (2) and \cite{m} (3.13),(3.14). (8) fulfils on $\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0, -y_1,\dots ,-y_m\}$.
\medskip
\begin{lemma}(\cite{gumm} Prop. 3.2, Cor. 3.1, Prop. 3.4. ) For $\alpha>0$ $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$ has $m$ simple exceptional zeros in $(-\infty,0)$: $z_{m,n,1}> \dots > z_{m,n,m}$, and $n$ simple regular zeros in $(0, \infty)$: $x_{m,n,1}< \dots < x_{m,n,n}$. The location of these zeros is the following: $0< x_{m,n,1}<\zeta_{n,1}^{\alpha}$, $\zeta_{n-1,j-1}^{\alpha}<x_{m,n,j}<\zeta_{n,j}^{\alpha}$, $ -\zeta_{m,1}^{\alpha}<z_{m,n,1}<0$ and $-\zeta_{m,j}^{\alpha}<z_{m,n,j}< -\zeta_{m-1,j}^{\alpha}$.
Futhermore
\begin{equation}\lim_{n\to \infty}nx_{m,n,j}=\frac{\left(j_j^{(\alpha)}\right)^2}{4},\end{equation}
where $\{j_j^{(\alpha)}\}_{j\geq 1}$ is the increasing sequence of the positive zeros of the Bessel function $J_{\alpha}(z)$, and the exceptional zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$ converge to the $m$ zeros of $L_m^{(\alpha-1)}(-x)$. \end{lemma}
\medskip
For simplicity let us denote by $z_i:=z_{m,n,i}$ and by $x_j:= x_{m,n,j}$. That is
\begin{equation} L_{m.m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}= \left(\frac{1}{m!}\prod_{i=1}^m(x-z_i)\right) \frac{(-1)^n}{n!}\prod_{j=1}^n(x-x_j)=P_{m,n}(x)q_{m,n}(x).\end{equation}
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Remark. }
By (21) of \cite{gumm} the leading coefficient of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$ is $\frac{(-1)^n}{m!n!}$. Also by (21) of \cite{gumm} $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}(0)\neq 0$.
\medskip
With the notations of Lemma 1 and by (8) $w_n=\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m$, which doesn't depend on $n$. So the energy function is
$$T_{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}\left(u_1, \dots ,u_{m+n}\right)=\prod_{i=1}^{m+n}\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m(u_i)\prod_{1\leq i < j \leq n+m}(u_i-u_j)^2.$$
The following statement is the extension of Th. 2 of \cite{dy} to $X_m$-Laguerre(I) polynomials.
\medskip
\begin{theorem} Let $\alpha \geq 1$ and $n \geq 0$. Then the logarithmic energy function, $ \log T_{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}(u_1, \dots , u_{m+n})$ has a saddle point at \\ $Z_{m,n}=\{z_{m,n,1}, \dots , z_{m,n,m}, x_{m,n,1}, \dots , x_{m,n,n}\}$, which are the zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$. More precisely
$\frac{\partial^2 \log T_{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_i^2}\left(Z_{m,n}\right)$ is positive if $u_i$ is one of the first $m$ variables, and it is negative if $u_i$ is one of the last $n$ variables.
\end{theorem}
\proof According to (3), the first partial derivatives of the logarithmic energy function are zero at the zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$.
Also by Lemma 1, the Hesse matrix of $\log T_{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}$ (denoted by $H$) is the folowing:
$$H_{i,j}=\frac{2}{(u_i-u_j)^2}, \hspace{4pt} \hspace{4pt} \mbox{and } \hspace{4pt}\ws H_{i,i}=-\frac{2}{3}\Phi(u_i).$$
If $u_i=x_i$ a positive zero of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$, then
$$H_{i,i}=-\frac{\alpha+1}{x_i^2}+2\sum_{l=1}^m\left(\frac{1}{(x_i+y_l)^2}-\frac{1}{(x_i+\xi_l)^2}\right)-2\sum_{1\leq j \leq n \atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(x_i-x_j)^2}.$$
where $\xi_j=|z_j|$. For $j=1, \dots , m$ we have
$$0<\xi_j<\zeta_{m,j}^{\alpha}<\zeta_{m+1,j+1}^{\alpha-1}<\zeta_{m,j+1}^{\alpha-1}=y_{j+1},$$
where the second inequality is ensured by Lemma 2, the third one fulfils because $L_m^{(\alpha)}=-\left(L_{m+1}^{(\alpha-1)}\right)^{'}$, and the last one by the interlacing property of the zeros of orthogonal polynomials. Rearranging the sum above we have
$$H_{i,i}=-\frac{\alpha+1}{x_i^2}+ \frac{2}{(x_i+y_1)^2}+2\sum_{l=1}^{m-1}\left(-\frac{1}{(x_i+\xi_l)^2}+\frac{1}{(x_i+y_{l+1})^2}\right)$$ $$-\frac{2}{(x_i+\xi_m)^2}-2\sum_{1\leq j \leq n \atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(x_i-x_j)^2},$$
which is negative if $\alpha\geq 1$ for all $n\geq 0$.
If $u_i=z_i$ is a negative zero, we will show that \\ $-\Phi(z_i)=\left(\frac{1}{2}M_n^{'}+\frac{1}{4}M_n^2-N_n\right)(z_i)>0$.
Since
$$M_n^{'}(x)=-\frac{\alpha+1}{x^2}-2\left(\frac{S^{''}}{S}-\left(\frac{S^{'}}{S}\right)^2\right)(x),$$
we have to compute $\frac{S^{''}}{S}$. Recalling that $S(x)=L_m^{(\alpha-1)}(-x)$, by (7)
$$\frac{S^{''}}{S}(x)=-\frac{\alpha+x}{x}\frac{S^{'}}{S}(x)+\frac{m}{x}.$$
Substituting this we have
$$-\Phi(x)=\left(-\frac{\alpha+1}{2x^2}+\frac{\alpha+x}{x}\frac{S^{'}}{S}(x)-\frac{m}{x}+\left(\frac{S^{'}}{S}\right)^2(x)\right)$$ $$+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\alpha+1}{x}-1-2\frac{S^{'}}{S}(x)\right)^2-\left(\frac{m+n}{x}-2\frac{\alpha}{x}\frac{S^{'}}{S}(x)\right)$$
$$=2\left(\frac{S^{'}}{S}(x)+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2\alpha-1}{4x}\right)^2-\frac{1}{4}-\frac{2\alpha^2-4\alpha+3}{8x^2}-\frac{4m+2n+3\alpha}{2x}.$$
So
$$-\Phi(-\xi_i)=2(\cdot)^2+f(\xi_i),$$
where
$$f(\xi_i)=\frac{-2\xi_i^2+ 4(4m+2n+3\alpha)\xi_i -(2\alpha^2-4\alpha+3)}{8\xi_i^2}.$$
That is $f(\xi_i)$ is positive if $\xi_i$ is between the two zeros of the numerator: $m_1\leq \xi_i\leq m_2$.
By Lemma 2 $\xi_m\leq\zeta_{m,m}^{\alpha}\leq 2m+\alpha+1+\sqrt{(2m+\alpha+1)^2+\frac{1}{4}-\alpha^2}$ (cf. \cite{sz}, Th. 6.31.2.). It can be seen that if $\alpha\geq 1$, for all $n\geq 0$
$$2m+\alpha+1+\sqrt{(2m+\alpha+1)^2+\frac{1}{4}-\alpha^2}$$ $$\leq 4m+2n+3\alpha+\sqrt{(4m+2n+3\alpha)^2-(\alpha-1)^2-\frac{1}{2}}=m_2.$$
Also by Lemma 2 and by \cite{sz} Th. 6.31.3
$$\xi_1>\zeta_{m,1}^{(\alpha)}>\frac{\left(\frac{j_1^{(\alpha)}}{2}\right)^2}{m+\frac{\alpha+1}{2}}>\frac{(2\alpha+2\pi-1)^2}{16m+8(\alpha+1)},$$
where $j_1^{(\alpha)}$ is the first positive zero of the Bessel function with parameter $\alpha$, and see e. g. \cite{e} for the last estimation.
As above, it can be seen that for all $n\geq 0$
$$m_1=\frac{(\alpha-1)^2+\frac{1}{2}}{4m+2n+3\alpha+\sqrt{(4m+2n+3\alpha)^2-(\alpha-1)^2-\frac{1}{2}}}\leq\frac{\left(\alpha+\pi-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}{4m+2(\alpha+1)},$$
that is
$$-\Phi(-\xi_i)>0, \hspace{4pt} \hspace{4pt} \hspace{4pt} i=1, \dots ,m \hspace{4pt} \hspace{4pt} \hspace{4pt} \forall n\geq 0.$$
Since the Hessian is diagonally dominant, the result is proved.
\medskip
Summarizing in the previous theorem we had $w_n(x)=\frac{|x|^{\alpha+1}}{\left(L_m^{(\alpha-1)}(-x)\right)^2}$ which depends on $m$ but independent of $n$, and it is positive on the interval of orthogonality $I=[0,\infty)$, but $S$ has $m$ zeros away of $I$. The solution of the differential equation is $P_{m,n}q_{m,n}$, where $P_{m,n}$ is a polynomial of degree $m$ with zeros $\{z_1, \dots ,z_m\}$ away of $I$, and $q_{m,n}$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ with zeros $\{x_1, \dots ,x_n\}$ in $I$. The logarithmic energy function with respect to $w_n$ with $n+m$ variables $\{u_1, \dots ,u_{n+m}\}$ has a saddle point at the zeros of $L_{m.m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$. We are looking for an energy function wich has a maximum at some zeros of $L_{m.m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$. To this purpose let us denote by
$$v:=v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}:=\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_mP_{m,n}^2
=\frac{w_1P^2}{S^2}.$$
That is $v$ is a new weight function on $(0,\infty)$, which depends on $n$.
and $T_v(u_1, \dots , u_n)=\prod_{j=1}^nv(u_j)\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(u_i-u_j)^2.$ With these notations
$$\frac{\partial \log T_{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}(u_1, \dots , u_{n+m})}{\partial u_{m+i}}(z_1,\dots ,x_n)=\frac{\left(\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m\right)^{'}}{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}(x_i)+2\frac{P^{'}}{P}(x_i)$$ $$+2\sum_{1\leq j\leq n \atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{x_i-x_j}=\frac{v^{'}}{v}(x_i)+2\sum_{1\leq j\leq n \atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{x_i-x_j}=\frac{\partial \log T_v(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_{i}}(x_1,\dots ,x_n),$$
and
$$\frac{\partial^2 \log T_{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}(u_1, \dots , u_{n+m})}{\partial u_{m+i}^2}(z_1,\dots ,x_n)=\left(\log v\right)^{''}(x_i)-2\sum_{1\leq j\leq n \atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(x_i-x_j)^2}$$ $$=\frac{\partial^2 \log T_v(u_1, \dots , u_{n})}{\partial u_{i}^2}(x_1,\dots ,x_n).$$
The computations above show that it is not a suprising idea taking into consideration only the regular zeros of the exceptional polynomials, and using the new weight. Now we have the following differential equation for $q_{m,n}=q$
$$q^{''}(x)+M_{1,n}(x)q^{'}(x)+N_{1,n}(x)q(x)=0,$$
where all the expressions depend on $m$ too, and
$$M_{1,n}(x)=M_n(x)+2\frac{P_{m,n}^{'}}{P_{m,n}}(x), \hspace{4pt}\ws N_{1,n}(x)=N_n(x)+\frac{P_{m,n}^{''}}{P_{m,n}}(x)+M_n(x)\frac{P_{m,n}^{'}}{P_{m,n}}(x).$$
Obviously $M_{1,n}(x)=\left(\log v\right)^{'}(x)$. Moreover $q_{m,n}(x)\sqrt{v(x)}$ fulfils the differential equation:
$$f^{''}(x)+\Phi_1(x)f(x)=0, \hspace{4pt} \hspace{4pt} \hspace{4pt} \mbox{where }\hspace{4pt}\ws \Phi_1(x)=N_{1,n}(x)-\frac{1}{4}M_{1,n}^2(x)-\frac{1}{2}M_{1,n}^{'}(x). $$
So as a corollary of the previous theorem we can state
\medskip
\begin{theorem} Let $\alpha \geq 1$. The positive zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$: \\$X_{m,n}=\{x_{m,n,1}, \dots , x_{m,n,n}\}$ is the unique set of minimal energy (or Fekete set) with respect to the external field represented by the weight $\left(v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}\right)^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}$.\end{theorem}
\proof Denoting by $v=v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}$ and by $P=P_{m,n}$, $q=q_{m,n}$, and the energy function is $T_v$ on $[0,\infty)^n$.
According to the computations above
$$\frac{\partial \log T_v(u_1, \dots , u_n)}{\partial u_i}(x_1, \dots , x_n)=C_{i,v,X}$$ $$=\frac{\left(\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m\right)^{'}}{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}(x_i)+\frac{\left(L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}\right)^{''}}{\left(L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}\right)^{'}}(x_i)=C_{m+i,\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m,Z}=0.$$
Similarly, the computations above entails that at $(x_1,\dots ,x_n)$ the energy funtion has a local maximum. Computing the Hesse matrix $H$ of $\log T$ at any point of $(0,\infty)^n$, we can investigate the global behavior of the energy function. By Lemma 1 we have
$$H_{i,j}=\frac{2}{(u_i-u_j)^2},$$
and
$$H_{i,i}=\left(\log v\right)^{''}(u_i)-2\sum_{1\leq j \leq n\atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(u_i-u_j)^2}.$$
$$\left(\log v\right)^{''}(u_i)=2\left(\frac{P^{'}}{P}-\frac{S^{'}}{S}\right)^{'}(u_i)-\frac{\alpha+1}{u_i^2}$$
$$= 2\sum_{j=1}^m\left(\frac{1}{(u_i+y_j)^2}-\frac{1}{(u_i+\xi_j)^2}\right)-\frac{\alpha+1}{u_i^2}.$$
Proceeding as above since $\alpha \geq 1$, it can be seen that for any $U_n \subset (0,\infty)$ $H_{i,i}<0$ for $i=1, \dots, n$, for all $n\geq 0$. So $-H$ is real, symmetric, strictly diagonally dominant and positive definite for all $U_n\subset (0,\infty)$. Furthermore since $\alpha>0$, $T$ tends to zero at the boundary of the domain, so it has a unique maximum at $X$.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Remark. }
\noindent (1) As it was pointed out in \cite{ho}, the assumption: $-\left(\log v\right)^{''}>0$ on $(0,\infty)$ ensures the uniqueness of the system of minimal energy. In Lemma 1 we have seen that this is exactly the opposite of the first term in $H_{i,i}$ that is
$$-\left(\log v\right)^{''}=-2\sum_{j=1}^{m-1}\left(-\frac{1}{(u_i+\xi_j)^2}+\frac{1}{(u_i+y_{j+1})^2}\right)$$
$$- \frac{2}{(u_i+y_1)^2}+\frac{2}{(u_i+\xi_m)^2}+\frac{\alpha+1}{u_i^2},$$
which is positive by the previous calculation.
\noindent (2) If $0<\alpha<1$ and $i\neq 1$, then $\frac{2}{(u_i+y_1)^2}-\frac{2}{(u_i-u_1)^2}<0$, so for $i > 1$, $H_{i.i}<0$ for all $U_n \subset (0,\infty)$, but we can choose a $U_n$ such that $H_{1,1}>0$.
\medskip
Now we turn to the Egerv\'ary-Tur\'an interpolatory problem, which is to find an interpolatory process of the lowest degree and of the smallest norm. A first solution can be found in \cite{jo}, a result to Markov-Sonin polynomials in \cite{b} and the generalization to any classical weights in \cite{rs}, to general weights in \cite{ho}.
Below we denote by $\hat{l}_k(x)$ any polynomials of arbitrary degree for which $\hat{l}_k(x_i)=\delta_{ki}, \hspace{4pt} i=1, \dots , n$.
\begin{defi} Let $w$ be a positive weight. The interpolatory system of polynomials $\hat{l}_k(x), \hspace{4pt} k=1, \dots , n$ is $w$-stable on $(a,b)$ if for all $y_1, \dots , y_n \geq 0$
$$ 0\leq w(x)\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\hat{l}_k(x)}{w(x_k)}y_k \leq \max_ky_k, \hspace{4pt}\ws x\in (a,b).$$
A $w$-stable interpolatory system on $(a,b)$ is most economical, if
$$ \sum_{k=1}^n \deg \left(\hat{l}_k(x)\right)$$
is minimal.\end{defi}
\medskip
With the notations of Lemma 1, the Hermite interpolatory operator on the zeros of $p_n$ of the function $\frac{1}{w_n}$ coincides with the Gr\"unwald operator of it:
with the usual notation $l_k(x)=\frac{p_n(x)}{p_n^{'}(\zeta_k)(x-\zeta_k)}$, by the differential equation (2),
$$H_n\left(\frac{1}{w_n},\left(\frac{1}{w_n}\right)^{'},x\right)=\sum_{k=1}^n\left(1-\frac{p_n^{''}}{p_n^{'}}(\zeta_k)(x-\zeta_k)\right)l_k^2(x)\frac{1}{w_n(\zeta_k)}$$
$$+\sum_{k=1}^n(x-\zeta_k)l_k^2(x)\left(\frac{1}{w_n}\right)^{'}(\zeta_k)=\sum_{k=1}^nl_k^2(x)\frac{1}{w_n(\zeta_k)}=:Y_n\left(\frac{1}{w_n},x\right),$$
and on the righthand-side there is exactly the Gr\"unwald operator with respect to $\frac{1}{w_n}$. So if $\left(\frac{1}{w_n}\right)^{(2n)}\geq 0$ for all $n\geq 0$, then the error formula of Hermite interpolation ensures that the Gr\"unwald operator is $w_n$-stable and it is the most economical as well. Unfortunately the assumption on the even derivatives does not fulfil when $w_n=\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m$ and $x\in (z_m, x_n)$. But we can state the following
\medskip
\begin{theorem} If $\alpha>1$, the Gr\"unwald operator on the positive zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$ is $v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}$-stable and it is also the most economical.\end{theorem}
\medskip
\begin{lemma} If $\alpha>1$,
$$\left(\frac{1}{v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}}\right)^{(2n)}(x)>0, \hspace{4pt}\ws\hspace{4pt} x \in (0,\infty), \hspace{4pt}\ws\hspace{4pt} n=0,1,2,\dots .$$\end{lemma}
\proof With the notations above,
$$\frac{1}{v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}}=\frac{S^2(x)e^x}{P^2(x)x^{\alpha+1}}=\frac{e^x}{x^{\alpha-1}}\left(1+\frac{y_1}{x}\right)^2\frac{1}{(x+\xi_m)^2}\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}\left(1+\frac{y_{i+1}-\xi_i}{x+\xi_i}\right)^2$$
$$=\left(1+2\frac{y_1}{x}+\frac{y_1^2}{x^2}\right)\frac{e^x}{x^{\alpha-1}}\sum_{k_1=0,1,2, \dots \atop k_{m-1}=0,1,2}\frac{c_{k_1, \dots ,k_{m-1}}}{(x+\xi_1)^{k_1}\dots(x+\xi_{m-1})^{k_{m-1}}(x+\xi_m)^2},$$
where all the coefficients $c_{k_1, \dots ,k_{m-1}}$ are positive. Expressing these products as products of Laplace transforms, let
$$g(\alpha-1)=\sum_{k_1=0,1,2, \dots \atop k_{m-1}=0,1,2}\frac{c_{k_1, \dots ,k_{m-1}}}{\Gamma(\alpha-1)(k_1-1)^{*}!\dots (k_{m-1}-1)^{*}!}$$
$$ \times\int_0^{\infty}\dots \int_0^{\infty}t_0^{\alpha-2}t_1^{k_1-1}\dots t_{m-1}^{k_{m-1}-1}t_me^{-(t_1\xi_1+ \dots +t_m\xi_m)^{*}}e^{-x(t_0-1+t_1+\dots +t_m)^{*}}dt_0^{*} \dots dt_{m}^{*},$$
where $(\cdot)^{*}$ means that if $k_i=0$ then the $k_i^{th}$ term is missing, and the integral against the $k_i^{th}$ variable is also missing.
So
$$\frac{1}{v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}}=g(\alpha-1)+2y_1g(\alpha)+y_1^2g(\alpha+1),$$
and this implies that the even derivatives of the reciprocal of the weight function are all positive.
\medskip
\proof ( of Th. 3)
First of all, let us observe that for $k=1, \dots ,n$
$$l_{m,k}(x):=\frac{(Pq)(x)}{(Pq)^{'}(x_k)(x-x_k)}=\frac{P(x)}{P(x_k)}\frac{q(x)}{q^{'}(x_k)(x-x_k)}=:\frac{P(x)}{P(x_k)}l_k(x),$$
where we used the notations of Th. 2. Thus as above
$$\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m(x)\left(\sum_{k=1}^n\left(1-\frac{\left(L_{m,m+n}^{I,(\alpha)}\right)^{''}}{\left(L_{m,m+n}^{I,(\alpha)}\right)^{'}}(x_k)(x-x_k)\right)l_{m,k}^2(x)\frac{1}{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m(x_k)}\right)$$ $$+\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m(x)\left(\sum_{k=1}^n(x-x_k)l_{m,k}^2(x)\left(\frac{1}{\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_m}\right)^{'}(x_k)\right)$$ $$=\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_mP^2(x)\sum_{k=1}^nl_k^2(x)\frac{1}{\left(\hat{w}^{(\alpha+1)}_mP^2\right)(x_k)}=v(x)\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{l_k^2(x)}{v(x_k)}.$$
Hence $\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{l_k^2(x)}{v(x_k)}$ is the Hermite interpolatory polynomial of $\frac{1}{v}$ on $x_1, \dots ,x_n$, and by the error formula and Lemma 3
$$1-v(x)\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{l_k^2(x)}{v(x_k)}>0 \hspace{4pt}\ws\hspace{4pt} x>0,$$
which ensures that norm of the Gr\"unwald operator is at most one, so it is $v$-stable, and by the construction it is the most economical.
\medskip
Recalling the notion of the energy function $T=T_v$ on $(0,\infty)^n$ with respect to $v=v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}$, we can write
$$-\log\left( (T_v)^{\frac{1}{n(n-1)}}\right)=\frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}k_n(u_i,u_j)=:d(u_1,\dots ,u_n),$$
where
$$k_n(x,y):=-\log \left(\frac{c}{n}|x-y|v^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}(x)v^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}(y)\right),$$
is the modified kernel (with $\frac{c}{n}$), which is symmetric, lower semicontinuous and positive. Here, taking into consideration that by Lemma 2 and by (11) $\frac{P^2(x)}{S^2(x)}$ can be estimated on $(0,\infty)$ by a constant, $c$ is an absolute constant.
If the kernel is independent of $n$ it is proved that the $n^{th}$ transfinite diameter,
$$\delta_n:=\inf_{u_1, \dots ,u_n \in H}\frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}k(u_i,u_j),$$
has a limit with $n \to \infty$, cf. \cite{fana}. This limit is called as the transfinite diameter of $H$ with respect to the kernel. It is also obvious, that the lower semicontinuity of the kernel ensures that on compact sets the infinum is a minimum. Although the positive axis is not compact, but the weight tends to zero quickly enough at the endpoints, so here we also have a minimum, as it was pointed out in Th. 2. Next we will prove that the $n^{th}$ transfinite diameter, has a limit in our case as well. When the kernel is independent of $n$, usually $\delta_n$ is an increasing sequence. Let us denote by
$$d_n=\inf_{u_1, \dots ,u_n \in (0,\infty)}d(u_1,\dots ,u_n).$$
In our case, by these standard arguments it can be shown only that $d_n\geq d_{n-1}-O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$, which is not enough. In Th. 2. we saw that $d_n=d(x_1, \dots ,x_n)$, where the extremal set is the set of the zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$. In order to prove that $d_n$ has a limit we will estimate the difference of two consecutive terms of the sequence.
We have to mention here that the existence of the limit can be proved by potential theoretic tools as well. As it was appeard at first in \cite{ms}, defining $\sigma_n(x):=v(a_nx)^{\frac{1}{2n}}$, where $a_n:=a_{m,n}$ is the Mhaskar-Rahmanov-Saff number with respect to $\sqrt{v}$, where $v=v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}$, $\{\sigma_n(x)\}_n$ is a sequence of weights on the common compact support $[0,1]$. Since $\|\sqrt{v(x)}p_n(x)\|_{\infty,[0,\infty)}=\|\sqrt{v(x)}p_n(x)\|_{\infty,[0,a_n)}$, one can find that if $\sigma_n$ converges well on $[0,1]$ to a weight $\sigma$, then the Chebyshev constant defined by $t_n(\sigma_n)^{\frac{1}{n}}:=\left(\inf_{p_n(x)=x^n+\dots}\|\sigma_n(x)^np_n(x)\|_{\infty,[0,1]}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}$ has similar asymptotic behavior as $t_n(\sigma)^{\frac{1}{n}}$ has. If $\sigma$ is nice (admissible) this limit exists and it coincides with $\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{\left(\inf_{p_n(x)=x^n+\dots}\|\sqrt{v(x)}p_n(x)\|_{\infty,[0,\infty)}\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}}{a_n}$. Let us obseve that $a_n\left(x^{\alpha+1}e^{-x}\right)\sim n$ and by Lemma 2, $a_n(\sqrt{v})\sim n$ (cf. the normalization above). So by the replacement $x=a_n\xi$, $y=a_n\eta$, $k_{n,v}(x,y)=-\log \left(\frac{|x-y|}{a_n}v^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}(x)v^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}(y)\right)=-\log \left(|\xi-\eta|v^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}(a_n\xi)v^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}(a_n\eta)\right)=-\log \left(|\xi-\eta|w_n(\xi)w_n(\eta)\right)+ e(\xi,\eta)$ is a kernel function on $[0,1]$ with varying weights (cf. \cite{t}), where $e(\xi,\eta)$ is an error term. Thus the corresponding expression is (cf.\cite{fana})\\ $M_n:=\sup_{U_n\subset(0,a_n)}\inf_{x\in (0,a_n)}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^nk_n(x,u_i)$\\$=-\log \left(\inf_{U_n\subset(0,a_n)}\sup_{x\in (0,a_n)}\frac{\left(\sqrt{v(x)}p_n(x)\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}}{a_n}v(x)^{\frac{1}{2n(n-1)}}\left(\prod_{i=1}^nv(u_i)\right)^{\frac{1}{n}}\right)$, where the $n^{th}$ Chebyshev constant appears, then a term which has to tend to zero, and a correction term from the integral of $-\log v$. (cf. \cite{st} p. 162.) Finally taking into consideration the connection between the Chebyshev constant and the transfinite diameter, one can get the fact of convergence by this way too. Here we give an estimation on the speed of convergence by classical methods.
\medskip
\begin{theorem} Let $\alpha \geq 1$. With the notations above $d_n=d_{n-1}+O\left(\frac{\log^2n}{n^2}\right)$.
\end{theorem}
\proof For simplicity, as above $x_1,\dots ,x_n$, $\nu_1,\dots ,\nu_{n-1}$ are the positive zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{I, (\alpha)}$ and $L_{m,m+n-1}^{I, (\alpha)}$; and $\zeta_{1,n}, \dots ,\zeta_{n,n}$, $\zeta_{1,n-1}, \dots ,\zeta_{n-1,n-1}$ are the zeros of $L^{\alpha}_n$ and $L^{\alpha}_{n-1}$ respectively. Now
$$d_n=\frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n}k_n(x_i,x_j)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n \atop i,j \neq l}k_n(x_i,x_j)$$
$$=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n \atop i,j \neq l}k_{n-1}(x_i,x_j)+\log\frac{n}{n-1}$$ $$+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)^2}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n \atop i,j \neq l}\log\left|\frac{P_{n-1}(x_i)P_{n-1}(x_j)}{P_{n}(x_i)P_{n}(x_j)}\right|$$ $$+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)^2(n-2)^2}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n \atop i,j \neq l}\log\left|\frac{P_{n}(x_i)P_{n}(x_j)}{S(x_i)S(x_j)}\right|$$ $$+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{1}{(n-1)^2(n-2)^2}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n \atop i,j \neq l}\left((\alpha+1)\log x_i-x_i+(\alpha+1)\log x_j-x_j\right).$$
Let us denote by
$$x_{i,l}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}x_i, \hspace{4pt}\ws 1\leq i\leq l-1\\
x_{i+1}, \hspace{4pt}\ws l\leq i \leq n-1\end{array}\right. .$$
Taking into account that
$$k_{n-1}(x_{i,l},x_{j,l})=k_{n-1}(\nu_i,\nu_j)-\log\left|\frac{x_{i,l}-x_{j,l}}{\nu_i-\nu_j}\right|-\frac{1}{n-2}\log\left|\frac{\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{i,l})\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{j,l})}{\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(\nu_{i})\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(\nu_{j})}\right|$$ $$-\frac{\alpha+1}{2(n-2)}\left(\log\frac{x_{i,l}}{\nu_i}+\log\frac{x_{j,l}}{\nu_j}\right)+\frac{1}{2(n-2)}\left(x_{i,l}+x_{j,l}-\nu_i-\nu_j\right),$$
and denoting by $\log V(U_n):=\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n}\log|u_j-u_i|$ we have
$$d_n=d_{n-1}$$
$$+\left(\log\frac{n}{n-1}+\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)}\log V(\Xi_{n-1})-\frac{2}{n(n-1)}\log V(\Xi_{n})\right)$$
$$+\left(\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)}\left(\log V(X_{n-1})-\log V(\Xi_{n-1})\right)\right.$$ $$\left.-\frac{2}{n(n-1)}\left(\log V(X_{n})-\log V(\Xi_{n})\right)\right)$$
$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)^2}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n \atop i,j \neq l}\log\left|\frac{P_{n-1}(x_i)P_{n-1}(x_j)}{P_{n}(x_i)P_{n}(x_j)}\right|$$
$$+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)^2}$$ $$\times\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n-1}\left(\log\left|\frac{\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(\nu_{i})\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(\nu_{j})}{\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{i,l})\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{j,l})}\right|+\frac{1}{n-1}\log\left|\frac{P_{n}}{S}(x_{i,l})\frac{P_{n}}{S}(x_{j,l})\right|\right)$$
$$+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{\alpha+1}{(n-1)(n-2)^2}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n-1}\left(\log\frac{\nu_i\nu_j}{x_{i,l}x_{j,l}}+\frac{1}{n-1}\log(x_{i,l}x_{j,l})\right)$$
$$+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)^2}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n-1}\left(x_{i,l} + x_{j,l}-\nu_i- \nu_j-\frac{1}{n-1}(x_{i,l} + x_{j,l})\right)$$
$$=d_{n-1}+M_1+M_2+M_3+M_4+M_5+M_6.$$
We estimate the error terms $M_i$ below.
\noindent $M_3=O\left(\frac{1}{n^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)$. Indeed, recalling that by (11) and the remark after it, the leading coefficient of $P_n$ is $\frac{1}{m!}$,
$$|M_3|\leq \frac{2}{n(n-2)}\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\log\left|\frac{P_{n-1}}{P_n}(x_i)\right|\right|$$ $$\leq \sum_{j=1}^m\frac{2}{n(n-2)}\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\log\left(1+\frac{z_{m,n,j}-z_{m,n-1,j}}{x_i-z_{m,n,j}}\right)\right|.$$
By Lemma 2, $\Delta:=|x_1-z_{m,n,j}|\geq\frac{c}{m}$, and $|z_{m,n,j}-z_{m,n-1,j}|\leq \varepsilon_n$, and $\Delta_l=x_{l+1}-x_l>\frac{1}{4}(\left(j_{l+1}^{(\alpha)}\right)^2-\left(j_l^{(\alpha)}\right)^2-\frac{2\varepsilon_n}{n}>c\frac{l}{n}$ (cf. \cite{e} (1.6) and 1.4). That is
$$|M_3|\leq \frac{\varepsilon_n}{n^2}c(m)\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\Delta+\sum_{l=1}^{i-1}\Delta_l}\leq \frac{c(m)}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\frac{n}{m}+i^2}=O\left(\frac{1}{n^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right).$$
\noindent $M_4=O\left(\frac{1}{n^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right)$. As previously
$$\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)^2}$$ $$\times\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n-1}\left|\log\left|\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(\nu_i)\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(\nu_j)\right|-\log\left|\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{i,l})\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{j,l})\right|\right|$$
$$+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{l=1}^n\frac{2}{(n-1)^2(n-2)^2}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n-1}\left|\log\left|\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{i,l})\frac{P_{n-1}}{S}(x_{j,l})\right|\right|$$
$$ \leq\frac{2}{(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{j=1}^m\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\left|\log\frac{\nu_i-z_{m,n-1,j}}{\nu_i+y_j}\right|+\frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{j=1}^m\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|\log\frac{x_{i}-z_{m,n-1,j}}{x_{i}+y_j}\right|$$ $$
+\frac{c(m)}{n^2}+\frac{2}{n(n-1)^2}\sum_{j=1}^m\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|\log\frac{x_{i}-z_{m,n-1,j}}{x_{i}+y_j}\right|,$$
and the computation can be finished as above.
\noindent $M_5=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2}}\right)$.
$$M_5=\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\log\nu_i-\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\log x_i=-\frac{\log x_n}{n(n-1)}$$ $$+\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\log\frac{\nu_i}{x_i}+\frac{2}{n(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\log x_i $$ $$=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2}}\right)+\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\log\left(1+\frac{\nu_i-x_i}{x_i}\right)=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2}}\right),$$
where the last estimation is ensured by Lemma 2, namely $\nu_i-x_i\leq c\Delta_i$.
\noindent $M_2=O\left(\frac{\log^2 n}{n^{2}}\right)$. Indeed let us compute for instance
$$\frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n}\log\frac{x_j-x_i}{\zeta_{j,n}-\zeta_{i,n}}\leq\frac{2\varepsilon_n}{n^2(n-1)}\sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n}\frac{1}{\zeta_{j,n}-\zeta_{i,n}}$$ $$\leq\frac{c}{n^2}\sum_{j=2}^{n}\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\frac{1}{j^2-i^2}=O\left(\frac{\log^2 n}{n^{2}}\right).$$
\noindent $M_6=O\left(\frac{1}{n^{2}}\right)$.
$$M_6=\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\sum_{i=1}^nx_i-\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\nu_i.$$
Since $r(x)=\prod_{i=1}^n(x-x_i)=(-1)^nn!q_{m,n}=x^n-a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\dots$, and $r(x)$ fulfils the differential equation $r^{''}+M_{1,n}r^{'}+N_{1,n}r=0$, we can compute
$$a_{n-1}=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i=\lim_{x\to \infty}\frac{x^n-r(x)}{x^{n-1}}=\lim_{x\to \infty}\frac{N_{1,n}(x)x^n+r^{''}(x)+M_{1,n}(x)r^{'}(x)}{N_{1,n}(x)x^{n-1}}.$$
Taking into consideration that $\frac{S^{'}}{S}=\frac{m}{x}$+smaller terms, $\frac{P^{'}}{P}=\frac{m}{x}$+smaller terms and $\frac{P^{''}}{P}=\frac{m(m-1)}{x^2}$+smaller terms, the numerator $N(x)=(n^2-m^2+\alpha(n-m)+(n-1)a_{n-1})x^{n-2}$+smaller terms, and the denominator $D(x)=nx^{n-2}$+smaller terms,
$$a_{n-1}=\lim_{x\to \infty}\frac{N(x)}{D(x)}=\frac{n^2-m^2+\alpha(n-m)+(n-1)a_{n-1}}{n},$$
that is
$$a_{n-1}=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i=(n-m)(n+m+\alpha).$$
Finally
$$M_6=\frac{(n-m)(n+m+\alpha)}{n(n-1)}-\frac{(n-1-m)(n-1+m+\alpha)}{(n-1)(n-2)}$$ $$=\frac{2m^2+2m\alpha-(\alpha+1)n}{n(n-1)(n-2)}.$$
\noindent $M_1=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2}}\right)$. To compute this let us recall that by \cite{sz} 6.71.12 and 6.71.6
$$\log\left(\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(\zeta_{j,n}-\zeta_{i,n})^2\right)^{\frac{1}{n(n-1)}}=\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\sum_{k=1}^n(k\log k+(k-1)\log(k+\alpha).$$
Let $f(x)=x\log x+(x-1)\log(x+\alpha)$. Since if $x\geq 1$, $f^{'}$ is increasingly tends to infinity at infinity, $0<\frac{f(1)}{2}+\sum_{k=2}^{n-1}f(k)+\frac{f(n)}{2}-\int_1^nf(x)dx<cf^{'}(n)=c\log n$. This entails
$$\sum_{k=1}^n(k\log k+(k-1)\log(k+\alpha)=O(\log n)+\frac{1}{2}n\log n+\frac{1}{2}(n-1)\log (n+\alpha)$$ $$-\frac{n^2}{4}-\frac{(n+\alpha)^2}{4}+\frac{n^2}{2}\log n+\frac{(n-1)^2}{2}\log(n+\alpha)+(1+\alpha)n.$$
So
$$M_1=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2}}\right)+\log\frac{n}{n-1}$$ $$+\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{n^2+(n+\alpha)^2}{n(n-1)}-\frac{(n-1)^2+(n-1+\alpha)^2}{(n-1)(n-2)}\right)+(1+\alpha)\left(\frac{1}{n-2}-\frac{1}{n-1}\right)$$ $$+\frac{1}{2}\left(\log\frac{n-1+\alpha}{n+\alpha}+\frac{n}{n-2}\log(n-1)-\frac{n+1}{n-1}\log n\right)$$
$$=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2}}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\log\frac{n-1+\alpha}{n+\alpha}+\log\frac{n-1}{n}\right)+\log\frac{n}{n-1}=O\left(\frac{\log n}{n^{2}}\right).$$
So the sum of the error terms is of $O\left(\frac{\log^2 n}{n^{2}}\right)$, and the proof is finished.
\medskip
\section{$X_m$-Laguerre-(II), and $X_m$-Jacobi Polynomials}
The exceptional zeros of exceptional Laguerre-(II) and Jacobi polynomials can be complex, but the asymptotics of these zeros are known. So by the previous methods we can prove asymptotical results and we can examine the regular zeros in these cases.
\subsection{Jacobi Case}
$P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(x)$ are the classical Jacobi polynomials, which are orthogonal with respect to the weight $w^{(\alpha,\beta)}(x)=(1-x)^{\alpha}(1+x)^{\beta}$ on the interval $(-1,1)$ ($\alpha, \beta >-1$). $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ satisfies the differential equation
$$(1-x^2)y^{''}+\left(\beta-\alpha-(\alpha+\beta+2)x\right)y^{'}+ n(n+\alpha+\beta+1)y=0.$$
$\left\{\hat{P}^{(\alpha,\beta)}_{m,m+n}\right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ are the exceptional Jacobi polynomials with codimension $m\geq 1$. Let us denote by $S(x):=P_m^{(-\alpha-1,\beta-1)}(x)$. The polynomials $\hat{P}_{m,m+n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are orthogonal with respect to the weight $\frac{w^{(\alpha,\beta)}(x)}{S^2(x)}$ on $(-1,1)$ and satisfy the differential equation
$$y^{''}+\left(\frac{\beta-\alpha-(\alpha+\beta+2)x}{1-x^2}-\frac{2S^{'}(x)}{S(x)}\right)y^{'}$$
\begin{equation}+\left(\frac{m(\alpha-\beta-m+1)+n(n+\alpha+\beta+1)}{1-x^2}-\frac{\beta}{1+x}\frac{2S^{'}(x)}{S(x)}\right)y=0,\end{equation}
(cf. \cite{gumm} (58) (69)). The location of zeros of classical Jacobi polynomials are more complicated then in the Laguerre case, so it is the situation with the exceptional case as well. Here we have
\medskip
\begin{lemma}(\cite{gumm} Prop. 5.3, 5.4, Cor. 5.1.) Let us suppose that $\alpha, \beta$ and $m$ satisfy the condition $\alpha+1-m-\beta \notin \{0,1,\dots ,m-1\}$, and one of the conditions below
\noindent (A) $\beta, \alpha+1-m\in (-1,0)$
\noindent (B) $\beta, \alpha+1-m\in (0,\infty)$.
Then $\hat{P}_{m,m+n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ has exactly $n$ regular zeros (i.e. zeros in $(-1,1)$) which are all simple, and $m$ exceptional zeros (i.e. zeros out of $[-1,1]$); furthermore the regular zeros of $\hat{P}_{m,m+n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ approach the zeros of the classical Jacobi polynomials $P_{n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$, the exceptional zeros of $\hat{P}_{m,m+n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ approach the zeros of $P_m^{(-\alpha-1,\beta-1)}$, as $n$ tends to infinity. \end{lemma}
\medskip
With the notation $\hat{w}_{m}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}:=\frac{w^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}(x)}{S^2(x)}$, it can be seen that $M_{m,n}(x)=\left(\log \hat{w}_{m}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}\right)^{'}(x)$, and so the first partial derivatives of the logarithm of the energy function with respect to the weight $\hat{w}_{m}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}$ at the zeros of $\hat{P}_{m,m+n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ must be zero. By Lemma 1, the diagonal elements of the Hessian can be expressed as
$$-\frac{2}{3}\Phi(\zeta_i)=\frac{1}{6(1-\zeta_i^2)^2}\left(2\left(2\frac{S^{'}}{S}(\zeta_i)(1-\zeta_i^2)+\alpha+\beta+(\alpha-\beta)\zeta_i\right)^2+g(\zeta_i)\right),$$
where
$$g(x)=\left(-(\alpha-\beta)^2-1+(1+2\alpha)(1+2\beta)+\varrho_{m,n}\right)x^2 $$
$$+2(\beta^2-\alpha^2)x-\left((\alpha+\beta)^2+3+(1+2\alpha)(1+2\beta)+\varrho_{m,n}\right),$$
where
$$\varrho_{m,n}=4n(n+\alpha+\beta+1)-8m(m+\beta-\alpha).$$
For $m=1$, $0<\alpha<\beta$ we have $S(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left((\beta-\alpha)x-(\beta+\alpha)\right)$, for which $y_1>1$ (cf. \cite{sz} 4. 21.2), and as it is pointed out in \cite{dy}, $z_1>1$, and $-\Phi(z_1)>0$, $-\Phi(x_i)<0$. Generally the exceptional zeros can be complex, so we concentrate onto the regular zeros.
\medskip
As in the Laguerre case, let $\hat{P}_{m,m+n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}=P_{m,n}q_{m,n}$, where $q:=q_{m,n}$ has the regular, $P:=P_{m,n}$ has the exceptional zeros. Let us define a new weight function again, which depends on $n$ too: let
$$v_{m,n}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}=P_{m,n}^2\hat{w}_{m}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}.$$ Let us consider the energy function $T_v(u_1,\dots ,u_n)$ on $(-1,1)^n$ with respect to $v:=v_{m,n}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}$. With these notations we have
\medskip
\begin{theorem} If $\alpha>m-1$, $\beta>0$ and if $n$ is large enough, then the set of the regular zeros of $\hat{P}_{m,m+n}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is the unique set of minimal energy with respect to the external field $\left(v_{m,n}^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}$.\end{theorem}
\medskip
\proof Repeting the first part of the proof of Theorem 2, we can see that the first partials of the logarithm of the energy function are zero at the regular zeros. The non-diagonal elements of the Hessian are the same as well. Denoting the zeros of $S,P,q$ by $y_1,..y_m$, $z_1,..z_m$ , $x_1,..x_n$ respectively ($z_i$ are not necessarily distinct and real), as in Th. 2,
$$H_{i,i}=2\left(\frac{P^{'}}{P}-\frac{S^{'}}{S}\right)^{'}(u_i)+\left(\log w ^{(\alpha+1,\beta+1)}\right)^{''}(u_i)-2\sum_{1\leq j\leq n \atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(u_i-u_j)^2} $$
$$=2\sum_{j=1}^m\left(\frac{1}{(u_i-y_j)^2}-\frac{1}{(u_i-z_j)^2}\right)$$ $$-\frac{\alpha+\beta+2}{(1-u_i^2)^2}\left(u_i^2+\frac{2(\alpha-\beta)}{\alpha+\beta+2}u_i+1\right)-2\sum_{1\leq j\leq n \atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(u_i-u_j)^2}. $$
Because $\frac{\alpha+\beta+2}{(1-x^2)^2}\left(x^2+\frac{2(\alpha-\beta)}{\alpha+\beta+2}x+1\right)\geq \frac{4(\alpha+1)^2}{\alpha+\beta+2}$ and both in the cases (A) and (B) $\alpha+\beta+2>0$, the second and third terms are negative and uniformly bounded for arbitrary sets of nodes. If $n$ is large enough, by Lemma 4 we can estimate the first sum as
$$2\sum_{j=1}^m\frac{\left|z_j-y_j\right|\left(\left|u_i-z_j\right|+\left|u_i-y_j\right|\right)}{\left|u_i-z_j\right|^2\left|u_i-y_j\right|^2}\leq \frac{4m\varepsilon_nc_1(m)}{c_2(m)^4}.$$
Here $\left|z_j-y_j\right|\leq \varepsilon_n$, which is small when $n$ is large enough (cf. Lemma 4.), $c_1(m):=2\max_jd(y_j,[-1,1])$, $c_2(m):=\frac{1}{2}\min_jd(y_j,[-1,1])$, where $d$ means distance. The computations above entails that if $n$ is large enough, then $H_{i,i}<0,$ and we can finish the proof as in Th. 3.
\subsection{Laguerre II Case}
The type II exceptional Laguerre polynomials (cf. \cite{gumm}) of codimension $m\geq 1$ are $\{L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$. Let us denote by $S(x):=L_m^{(-\alpha-1)}(x)$. Let us assume that $\alpha>m-1$. By the assumption (cf. \cite{gumm} Prop.4) $S$ has no zeros in $[0,\infty)$ and $L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}$-s are orthogonal on $(0,\infty)$ with respect to the weight $\hat{w}^{(\alpha)}:=\frac{x^{\alpha}e^{-x}}{s^2(x)}$ (\cite{gumm} (50)). $L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}$ satisfies the following differential equation (\cite{gumm} (40) (31)):
\begin{equation}y^{''}(x)+\left(\frac{\alpha+1-x}{x}-\frac{2S^{'}(x)}{S(x)}\right)y^{'}(x)+\left(\frac{n-m}{x}-\frac{\alpha}{x}\frac{2S{'}(x)}{S(x)}\right)y(x)=0.\end{equation}
\medskip
\begin{lemma}(\cite{gumm} Prop. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, Cor. 4.1) $L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}$ has $n+m$ simple zeros, $n$ regular zeros $x_{m,1}^{(\alpha)}, \dots ,x_{m,n}^{(\alpha)} \in (0,\infty)$ and $0$ or $1$ negative zero according to whether $m$ is even or odd. Furtheremore
$$\lim_{n\to \infty}nx_{m,i}^{(\alpha)}=\frac{\left(j^{(\alpha)}_i\right)^2}{4},$$
and as $n \to \infty$ the exceptionl zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}$ converge to the zeros of $S(x)=L_m^{(-\alpha-1)}(x)$.
\end{lemma}
\medskip
We can write $L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}=P(x)q(x)$ again, where $P(x)$ is a polynomial of degree $m$ and with $0$ or $1$ real zero. So as in the Jacobi case we can examine the properties of the regular zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}$, ie the zeros of $q$. As previously, the following if valid:
$$ q^{''}(x)+\left(M_n(x)+2\frac{P^{'}}{P}(x)\right)q^{'}(x)+\left(N_n(x)+\frac{P^{''}}{P}(x)+M_n(x)\frac{P^{'}}{P}(x)\right)q(x)=0,$$
where $M_n(x)$ and $N_n(x)$ are the coefficients in the equation (12). Let $v(x)=v^{(\alpha+1)}_{m,n}(x)=\frac{x^{\alpha}e^{-x}P^2(x)}{s^2(x)}$, as above. With the notations above we have
\medskip
\begin{theorem} If $\alpha>m-1$, and if $n$ is large enough, then the set of the regular zeros of $\hat{L}{m,m+n}^{(II,\alpha)}$ is the unique set of minimal energy with respect to the external field $\left(v_{m,n}^{(\alpha+1)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2(n-1)}}$.\end{theorem}
\medskip
\proof
As in Th.2 and Th.5 the first partial derivatives of $\log T_v$ are zero at the regular zeros of $L_{m,m+n}^{II, (\alpha)}$, and with the previous notations for any set $U_n\subset(0,\infty)$
$$H_{i,i}=2\left(\frac{P^{'}}{P}-\frac{S^{'}}{S}\right)^{'}(u_i)-\frac{\alpha+1}{u_i^2}-2\sum_{1\leq j \leq n\atop j\neq i}\frac{1}{(u_i-u_j)^2},$$
where by Lemma 5 the first term tends to zero as $n\to \infty$ and the last two terms are negative. Finally we can finish the proof as in Th. 2 again.
\medskip
|
\section{Introduction \label{sec:1}}
The simplest approximation for the $t$-behaviour of the high energy proton-proton differential elastic cross section is to assume that it is described by an exponent,
\be
d\sigma_{\rm el}/dt=d\sigma_{\rm el}/dt\big|_{t=0}\cdot\exp(Bt),
\ee
where $t$ is the square of the four-momentum transfer, and $B$ is called the $t$-slope. The value of $B$ increases with energy. However more precise data indicate that actually the elastic cross section has a more complicated $t$-behaviour. In particular, the recent
TOTEM data~\cite{Totem} demonstrate that the local slope
\be
B=d[\ln(d\sigma_{\rm el}/dt]/dt
\ee
varies with $t$. It is important to understand these variations, for example, when we extrapolate the data to $t=0$ in order to determine the value of total $pp$ cross section based on the optical theorem. The question was considered in~\cite{C18} 14 years ago\footnote{See also \cite{Dremin} for a recent review.}. Here we update the discussion of these variations based on the new LHC data and on the improved understanding of high energy diffractive processes.
The $|t|$ dependence of the local slope $B$ has several different components. In the present paper we use the formalism of Regge theory to discuss the main factors which affect the value of the local slope $B$ considering, in particular, the region of small $t$.
We shall proceed step-by-step so as to expose the influence of the different components.
In Sect.2 we consider a simplified model in which the proton-proton amplitude is described by single pomeron exchange. In this case the $t$ dependence of $B$ may be caused by the non-linearity of the pomeron trajectory or by a non-exponential $t$ dependence of the proton-pomeron coupling. In general, we have no reason to expect a linear form of the pomeron trajectory, $\alpha_P(t)=\alpha_P(0)+\alpha'_Pt$. This is an approximation. The nearest singularity at $t=4m^2_\pi\simeq 0.08$ GeV$^2$ corresponds to the production (in $t$-channel) of a pair of pions, and this threshold leads to a non-linear dependence of $\alpha_P(t)$ on $t$. Tuning the parameters in order to reproduce the experimental behaviour of the differential elastic cross section
(at least in the relatively low $|t|$ domain) we demonstrate numerically the possible role of this pion-loop insertion in the (linear in the first approximation) pomeron trajectory. Then in the next subsection we evaluate the effect caused by replacing the exponential pomeron-proton coupling by the electromagnetic proton form factor $F_1(t)$, as, for example, used in the Donnachie-Landshoff parametrization~\cite{DL1}. Both effects considered in this section lead to a decrease of $B$ with increasing $|t|$.
In Sect.3 we account for the `eikonal' rescattering generated by two-particle $s$-channel unitarity. At low $|t|$, before the first diffractive minimum, these absorptive corrections lead to a growth of the local slope $B$ with $|t|$. In order to be in agreement with the data for low-mass proton diffractive dissociation we consider not only the one-channel, but also the two-channel eikonal model. We use the Good-Walker formalism and show the expected $t$-dependence of $B$ for different collider energies. The final predictions for the $t$-dependence of $B$ at various collider energies are shown in Fig.8. Sect.4 contains a discussion and a comparison of the predictions of our model for $B(t)$ with preliminary TOTEM data at 8 TeV, as well as with data at CERN S$p\bar{p}$S and Tevatron energies.
\section{One-pomeron exchange}
The elastic proton-proton amplitude given by the one-pomeron exchange reads
\be
\label{one}
A(s,t)=\sigma_0s_0\beta_N^2(t)\left(\frac s{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_P(t)}[i+\tan(\pi(\alpha_P(t)-1)/2)]\ ,
\ee
where the expression in square brackets, $[...]$, is the signature factor. Following convention, we take the dimensionful scale $s_0=1$ GeV$^2$.
We use a normalization such that the differential elastic cross section is given by
\be
\label{norm}
\frac{d\sigma_{\rm el}}{dt}~=~\frac{|A(s,t)|^2}{16\pi s^2}\ .
\ee
We first consider the simplest case with a linear pomeron trajectory
\be
\label{traj-l}
\alpha_P(t)~=~1+\Delta+\alpha'_Pt
\ee
and a pure exponential form of the proton-pomeron coupling,
$\sqrt{\sigma_0}\beta(t)$; that is $\beta(t)=\exp(b_{\rm exp}t)$.
We tune the values of the parameters so as to describe the data in the low $|t|\lapproxeq 0.3$ GeV$^2$ domain. Explicitly, we find $\Delta=0.08,\ \sigma_0=23$ mb, $b_{\rm exp}=1.5$ GeV$^{-2}$ and $\alpha'_P=0.37$ GeV$^{-2}$. This gives a local $B$ slope which increases with energy (due to $\alpha'_P$), but which does not depend on $t$; see\footnote{Note that in Figs.1-7 we are only attempting to describe data in the small $t$ domain, $|t| \lapproxeq 0.3~\rm GeV^2$. Not until Fig.8 is the model tuned to describe data in a larger $|t|$ domain.} Fig.1.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l1010.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b1010.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ (right) described by a one pomeron amplitude with a pure exponential coupling and a linear pomeron trajectory; the data are from~\cite{ISR}-\cite{TOTEM}. The vertical line at $-t=0.3~\rm GeV^2$ is simply for ease of reference.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note that the `effective' value of $\alpha'_P$, observed experimentally as the shrinkage of the diffractive cone, increases with energy (see, e.g.~\cite{SR}). Thus, in order to be in approximate agreement with the LHC elastic data, in the present one pomeron model we have had to use a value of $\alpha'_P=0.37$ GeV$^{-2}$ larger than the canonical value $\alpha'_P=0.25$ GeV$^{-2}$ of the Donnachie-Landshoff~\cite{DL1} fit. In a more complicated eikonal model (considered in the next section), the increase of $\alpha'_{\rm eff}$ is provided by the screening effect described by multi-pomeron diagrams. The absorptive corrections suppress the contribution in centre of the disk and in this way enlarge the effective interaction radius.
\subsection{Insertion of the $\pi$-loop}
Now let us account for the nearest $t$-channel singularity in the pomeron trajectory. It is given by the inclusion of a pion loop. As was shown in ~\cite{AG}, the trajectory now takes the non-linear form
\be
\label{pi}
\alpha_P(t)~=~1+\Delta+\alpha'_Pt+\frac{\sigma_0(\pi\pi)m^2_\pi}{32\pi^3}~
\beta^2_\pi(t)~h(4m^2_\pi/|t|)\, ,
\ee
where the final factor in the new term
\be
\label{h-pi}
h(\tau)=-\frac{4\beta^2_\pi(t)}{\tau}\left[2\tau-(1+\tau)^{3/2}\ln\left(
\frac{\sqrt{1+\tau}+1}{\sqrt{1+\tau}-1}\right)+\ln\frac{m^2}{m^2_\pi}\right]
\ee
with $\tau=4m^2_\pi/|t|$ and $m=1$ GeV. The factor $\sigma_0(\pi\pi)$ in (\ref{pi}) specifies the
value of pion-pomeron coupling. For this we use the additive quark model result
\be
\sigma_0(\pi\pi)=(2/3)^2\sigma_0=(4/9)\sigma_0(pp).
\label{eq:8}
\ee
The factor $\beta_\pi(t)$ accounts for the $t$-dependence of this coupling, for which we take the pole expression
$\beta_\pi=1/(1-t/b_\pi)$ with $b_\pi=m^2_\rho$.
The cross sections and the local slope $B$ obtained in this case are shown in Fig.2. Some curvature in the $t$-dependence of the local slope is evident in the low $|t|<0.1$ GeV$^2$ region, especially at the larger energies. The effect is rather weak, due to the small numerical value of the factor $\sigma_0(\pi\pi)m^2_\pi/32\pi^3\sim 0.5\times 10^{-3}$
in the last term of (\ref{pi}). The parameters turn out to be practically the same as before, but with a bit smaller value of $\alpha'_P$; namely
$\Delta=0.08,\ \sigma_0=23$ mb, $b_{\rm exp}=1.5$ GeV$^{-2}$ and $\alpha'_P=0.36$ GeV$^{-2}$.
It is appropriate to ask how much flexibility exists in the pion-loop contribution. First, we discuss $\beta_{\pi}(t)$.
The pole expression form for $\beta_\pi$
is the standard choice. However, the results do not noticeably depend on the explicit
form of the $t$-dependence provided that this dependence reproduces a
reasonable value of the mean $t$-slope. Actually, the main assumption, concerning the value of the pion-loop contribution, is in (\ref{eq:8}), where
the additive quark model result (that is the factor $(2/3)^2$) was used. On the other
hand, this ratio $\sigma(\pi p)/\sigma(pp)\simeq 2/3$ is confirmed by the
data at lower energies. We can estimate the possible size of the effect looking at Fig.9
below, where we present the (dashed) curves calculated without the pion loop contribution
(that is by replacing the factor (2/3) by 0). This {\em extreme}
example leads to about a 1.5 GeV$^{-2}$
variation of the slope within the $0<-t<0.15$ GeV$^2$
interval, which corresponds to a value of the coefficient $c\sim 5$ GeV$^{-4}$ in the
parametrization $d\sigma_{\rm el}/dt=N\exp(bt+ct^2)$. Thus, making the conservative assumption that the
pion-pomeron coupling (the factor 2/3) is known with 25\% accuracy,
we expect less than a 0.05\% deviation in the extrapolation of the differential cross section from $t=-0.02$
GeV$^2$ to $t=0$, coming from the uncertainty in the pion-loop contribution.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l1110.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b1110.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ (right) described by a one pomeron amplitude with a pure exponential coupling and a pion loop included in the pomeron trajectory; the data are from~\cite{ISR}-\cite{TOTEM}.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Non-exponential coupling}
Another possible source of the curvature, or $t$-dependence of local slope $B(t)$, is the non-exponential form of the proton-pomeron coupling. Strictly speaking, there is no reason for a pure exponent. It is often used just for convenience. Another popular idea is to assume that this coupling looks like the electromagnetic form factor, $F_1(t)$, of proton~\cite{DL1}.
\be
\label{F1}
\beta(t)=F_1(t)=\frac{4m^2_N-\mu_pt}{4m^2_N-t}\cdot\frac 1{(1-t/b_N)^2}
\ee
with the proton magnetic moment $\mu_p=2.79$ and $b_N=0.71$ GeV$^2$; $m_N$ is the mass of nucleon.
Using a coupling of the form of (\ref{F1}) we find the results presented in Fig.3 (if the pion-loop is not inserted in the pomeron trajectory) and those in Fig.4 if the pion loop is included. The effect of non-exponential coupling is stronger than that of the pion loop. It reveals itself across the whole $t$ interval, but this effect does not depend on energy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l1020.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b1020.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ (right) described by the one pomeron amplitude with the coupling given by the proton form fasctor $F_1(t)$, but without pion loop in the pomeron trajectory; the data are from~\cite{ISR}-\cite{TOTEM}.The parameters are $\Delta=0.08,\ \sigma_0=23$ mb and $\alpha'_P=0.3 $ GeV$^{-2}$.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l1120.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b1120.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ (right) described by the one pomeron amplitude with the coupling given by the proton form factor $F_1(t)$, and with the pion loop included in the pomeron trajectory; the data are from~\cite{ISR}-\cite{TOTEM}. The parameters are $\Delta=0.085,\ \sigma_0=22$ mb and $\alpha'_P=0.3$ GeV$^{-2}$.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Eikonal rescattering}
The next step is to account for the non-enhanced multi-pomeron diagrams generated by two-particle $s$-channel unitarity
\be
\label{unit}
2~ {\rm Im}T_{\rm el}(s,b)~=~|T_{\rm el}(s,b)|^2+G_{\rm inel}(s,b)\ .
\ee
The unitarity relation (\ref{unit}) is written in the impact parameter, $b$, representation, since, at high energy, the value of $b$ is conserved (to good $\sim 1/s$ accuracy) and plays the role of the orbital angular momentum $l=b\sqrt s/2$.
$G_{\rm inel}$ is the contribution arising from the sum over all the inelastic intermediate
states.
\subsection{One-channel eikonal}
In this case, the solution of the unitarity equation reads
\be
\label{t-omega}
T_{\rm el}(b)~=~i(1-e^{-\Omega(b)/2})\ ,
\ee
where the opacity $\Omega(s,b)$ is described by one-pomeron exchange
\be
\label{opas}
\Omega(s,b)~=~\frac{-i}s\int\frac{d^2q_t}{4\pi^2}~e^{i\vec{q}_t\cdot \vec{b}}~A(s,t=-q^2_t)\ .
\ee
The one-pomeron amplitude $A(s,t)$ is given by (\ref{one}).
\subsubsection{Linear pomeron trajectory and exponential coupling}
The results for the case of a pure exponential proton-pomeron coupling and a linear trajectory (\ref{traj-l}) are shown in Fig.5. We see that eikonal rescattering
leads to a strong increase of the local slope $B$ with $|t|$ up to the first diffractive dip (contrary to the effects discussed in the previous section). This is caused by the fact that the absorptive corrections given by the higher $\Omega$ terms of (\ref{t-omega}) have a flatter $t$ behaviour but a negative sign in comparison with one-pomeron exchange.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l1011.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b1011.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ (right) described by the eikonal amplitude (\ref{t-omega}) with a pure exponential proton-pomeron coupling and with a linear pomeron trajectory; the data are from~\cite{ISR}-\cite{TOTEM}.The parameters are $\Delta=0.11,\ \sigma_0=21$ mb, $b_{exp}=1.2$ GeV$^{-2}$ and $\alpha'_P=0.25 $ GeV$^{-2}$.}
\label{fig:5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{$F_1$ form factor plus the pion loop}
Using a non-exponential coupling $\beta(t)=F_1(t)$ and accounting for the pion loop in pomeron trajectory we get the results shown in Fig.6.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l1121.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b1121.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ (right) described by the eikonal amplitude with the coupling given by the proton form factor $F_1(t)$ and with the pion loop included in the pomeron trajectory; the data are from~\cite{ISR}-\cite{TOTEM}. The parameters are $\Delta=0.1,\ \sigma_0=25$ mb and $\alpha'_P=0.12$ GeV$^{-2}$.}
\label{fig:6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-channel eikonal}
In the models considered above we have not accounted for the possibility of diffractive proton excitation into heavier mass states, such as $p\to N(1440)$, and so on.
It is convenient to include these processes using the Good-Walker formalism~\cite{GW}. This formalism diagonalizes the matrix which describes the
$p\to N_i$ and $N_i\to N_k$ transitions by introducing the eigenstates $\phi_i$
such that the pomeron coupling
$$\langle\phi_i|A|\phi_k\rangle =A_i\delta_{ik}\, .$$
The proton can then be decomposed into sum of these so-called diffractive eigenstates $\phi_i$, so that
\be \label{ai}
|p\rangle =\sum_i a_i|\phi_i\rangle\, .
\ee
For each state $\phi_i$ the one-channel eikonal formulae of the previous subsection is valid and the elastic scattering amplitude satisfies
\be
\langle p|T|p\rangle ~=~\sum_i|a_i|^2 T_i~=~\langle T\rangle \, .
\ee
The elastic cross section at fixed impact parameter $b$, that is the probability of elastic scattering in a fixed partial wave $l=b\sqrt s/2$, reads
\be
\frac{d\sigma_{el}}{d^2b}~=~\left(\sum_i|a_i|^2T_i \right)^2~=~\langle p|T|p\rangle ^2~=~\langle T\rangle ^2,
\ee
while the probability of diffractive scattering with all possible proton $p\to N^*$ excitations is given by
\be
\frac{d\sigma_{el}}{d^2b}~=~\sum_i|a_i|^2T_i^2~=~\langle p|T^2|p\rangle ~=~\langle T^2\rangle \, .
\ee
Thus the probability of proton (low-mass) dissociation at a given $b$ is given by the dispersion
\be
\label{SD}
\frac{d\sigma^{\rm SD}}{d^2b}~=~\langle T^2\rangle ~-~\langle T\rangle ^2\, .
\ee
To describe the available collider data, not only on elastic scattering, but including the data on low-mass proton excitations and to get non-zero $\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}$ we need at least two diffractive eigenstates $\phi_i$. We therefore consider a two-channel eikonal using the Good-Walker formalism. Each eigenstate $\phi_i$ may has its own $i$-pomeron coupling with its own form factor.
The data on diffractive low-mass proton dissociation at collider energies are rather poor. At the relatively low CERN-ISR energy, $\sqrt s=31\ -\ 62$ GeV, the cross section of dissociation of {\em both} protons (that is either of the beam or of the target proton) was evaluated \cite{ISR-SD} to be $\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}\sim 2\ -\ 3$ mb. At the LHC energy $\sqrt s=7$ TeV the TOTEM result~\cite{T-SD} is $2.6\pm 2.2$ mb, which includes also the probability of dissociation of both protons simultaneously ($\sigma^{\rm DD}$), and is integrated over the mass $M_X<3.4$ GeV of the outgoing system $X$.
Besides this there are UA4 data at $\sqrt s=546$ GeV~\cite{UA4SD} --
$\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}=3.0\pm 0.8$ mb for $M<4$ GeV.
The non-trivial fact is that
this cross section $\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}$ practically does not appear to increase with energy from the CERN-ISR to the LHC energy regions. On the other hand the elastic cross section, $\sigma_{\rm el}$, increases more than 3.5 times in the same energy interval. At first sight, for one pomeron-driven processes, we would expect both $\sigma_{\rm el}$ and $\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}$ to have a similar energy behaviour. This point was discussed in~\cite{KMR-E}, so below we will present the local slope calculated within this model. However, first, it is instructive consider a more simpler case.
\subsubsection{Example of a simple two-channel eikonal model}
In Fig.7 we show the results obtained, within the two-channel eikonal framework, with the coefficients $a_i$ in (\ref{ai}) fixed to be $a^2_1=a^2_2=1/2$, and the $\phi_i$-pomeron couplings taken to be $\sqrt{\sigma_0}\gamma_i\beta_i(t)$ (with $i=1,2$). Moreover, we assume that the $t$ dependence is driven by the same form factor $F_1$ of (\ref{F1}),
\be
\beta_i(t)=F_1(\gamma_it)\, ,
\ee
which means that for each eigenstate $i$, both the value of cross section, $\sigma_0\gamma_i$ and the slope of the couplings are proportional to area (size square) of the component, that is to the value of $\gamma_i$. This, physically reasonable assumption, allows us to decrease the number of free parameters in two-channel eikonal model.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l2121.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b2121.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ (right) described by the two-channel eikonal amplitude with the couplings $\sigma_{0,i}=\sigma_0\gamma_i$ and $\beta_i=F_1(t\gamma_i)$. The pion loop is included into the pomeron trajectory; the data are from~\cite{ISR}-\cite{TOTEM}. The parameters are $\Delta=0.11,\ \sigma_0=22$ mb and $\alpha'_P=0.1$ GeV$^{-2}$; $\gamma_1=1.38,\,\gamma_2=0.62$.}
\label{fig:7}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is seen in Fig.7 that the {\em two}-channel eikonal allows a better description of the elastic cross sections and that the eikonal induced growth of the local slope at small $|t|$ partly compensates for the decrease of $B$ caused by the non-exponential form of the form factor $F_1$ and the pion loop insertion.
The probability of low-mass proton excitations in this model is a bit too low at the CERN-ISR energies ($\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}\simeq 1.9$ mb) and a bit too high at
$\sqrt s=7$ TeV ($\sigma^{\rm D}_{{\rm low} M}\simeq 4.8$ mb), but within the error bars it does not contradict the data; at $\sqrt s=546$ GeV the model gives $\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}\simeq 3.05$ mb.
\subsubsection{Two-channel eikonal tuned to data out to $|t|\simeq0.6~\rm GeV^2$}
A better description was reached in~\cite{KMR-E} within the two-channel eikonal framework, but with a larger number of free parameters, now tuned to describe data in an extended $|t|$ domain going beyond the region of the LHC diffractive dip \footnote{The two-channel eikonal framework allows for low-mass dissociation. Besides this, also high-mass dissociation was considered in \cite{KMR-E}. However, it actually does not affect the $t$-slope of the
elastic cross section. The only role of high-mass dissociation here is
a `renormalization' of the effective pomeron trajectory, where the
parameters were anyway tuned to describe the elastic data.}. Interestingly, the form factors of both the diffractive eigenstates turn out to have a behaviour similar to the exp$(-b\sqrt{t})$ used long ago by Orear et al. \cite{Orear}. The results coming from this version of our model are presented in Fig.8. Recall that in this version the cross sections of low-mass dissociation are in a good agreement with the data: to be explicit the model predicts $\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}\simeq 2.6$ mb at $\sqrt s=62.5$ GeV, $\sigma^{\rm SD}_{{\rm low} M}\simeq 3.1$ mb at $\sqrt s=546$ GeV and $\sigma^{\rm D}_{{\rm low} M}\simeq 3.75$ mb
at $\sqrt s=7$ TeV.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{l2-e.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{b2-e.pdf}
\caption{\sf The differential proton-proton elastic cross section (left) and the local slope $B$ obtained in the two-channel eikonal model of~\cite{KMR-E} which includes the pion loop contribution to the pomeron trajectory. The local slope from the previous model of Fig.7 is shown by the dashed lines.}
\label{fig:8}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
For comparison in Fig.8 we show by the dashed lines also the local slope $B(t)$ corresponding to previous toy model of Fig.7.
Finally we evaluate the expected energy dependence of the local slope $B(t)$
using as example the simplified two channel eikonal described above (see Fig.7). The results are shown in Fig.9.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-6.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=15.0cm]{b2-epi.pdf}
\caption{\sf The local slope $B$ calculated at $\sqrt s=8$ and 14 TeV in the two-channel eikonal model corresponding to Fig.7. The local slope in the same model but without the pion loop in the pomeron trajectory is shown by the dashed lines; all other parameters were kept the same
except for the value of the slope of the pomeron trajectory $\alpha'_P$ which was enlarged by $0.04$
GeV$^{-2}$ in order to get the same `mean' slope $B$ and to more or less
satisfactorily describe the data without the pion loop contribution.}
\label{fig:9}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
.
\section{Discussion}
We have explored the different effects which contribute to the $t$ behaviour of the local slope, $B$, of the proton-proton elastic differential cross section. We proceeded step-by-step showing how the $t$-behaviours of the different effects lead up to the final overall behaviour shown in Fig.8. The `pion loop insertion' in the pomeron trajectory and the `pomeron-proton eigenstate couplings' both cause $B(t)$ to decrease with increasing $|t|$, while the `eikonal' effect compensates the decrease resulting in $B(t)$ being surprisingly approximately independent of $t$ out to $-t \simeq 0.3~ \rm GeV^2$, as required by the data. Indeed, on the logarithmic
plot the data appear to indicate that $B$ is essentially independent of $t$. However, in fact, a closer inspection reveals that a characteristic variation with $t$ is expected, as shown in the right-hand plot of Fig.8. Moreover, the predicted shape of the $t$ behaviour depends on the collider energy, $\sqrt{s}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-6.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=15.0cm]{pi-or.pdf}
\caption{\sf The deviation of $d\sigma_{\rm el}/dt$ at 8 TeV from a pure exponential. The data points are obtained from preliminary measurements by TOTEM and are taken from a presentation at the `Low $x$' meeting \cite{Totem}. The curve corresponds to the model of Fig.8 evaluated at 8 TeV. }
\label{fig:10}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We stress that we have primarily been concerned with the behaviour of $B(t)$ at small $t$, namely $-t \lapproxeq 0.3 ~\rm GeV^2$. Only in Fig.8 have the form factors been tuned to describe the larger $|t|$ data~\footnote{However, as it is seen from Fig.8 (right), this does not change the behaviour of the local slope $B(t)$ in the domain $|t|<0.2$ GeV$^2$ too much.}. Predictions in the region of the diffractive dip require the calculation of the real part of the elastic $pp$ amplitude. This we performed using dispersion relations.
There is already evidence of the expected $t$ dependence at the LHC. Fig.\ref{fig:10} shows the deviation of $d\sigma_{\rm el}/dt$ from a pure exponential form measured by TOTEM\footnote{The error bars in Fig.\ref{fig:10} do not include systematics which will be discussed in a forthcoming TOTEM publication \cite{TOTEM15}. However, to the best of our knowledge, the qualitative $t$-behaviour is unlikely to be affected by systematics in such a small $t$-interval.} at 8 TeV. These preliminary TOTEM data are compared with the model of Fig.8, recalculated for 8 TeV.
The plot indicates that the expected increase of the $t$-slope $B$ as $t \to 0$ is confirmed \footnote{Throughout this paper we do not consider Coulomb interference effects.}, which hints at, besides the form factor effect, evidence of the pion loop insertion in the pomeron trajectory.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace{-3.0cm}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{ua4.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=11.5cm]{e710.pdf}
\caption{\sf The deviation of $d\sigma_{\rm el}/dt$ from a pure exponential form with slope 14.5 and 16.3 GeV$^{-2}$ respectively. The data points are respectively from~\cite{UA4,UA42,UA1} and \cite{E710,CDFEL} and the curves correspond to the model of Fig.8 evaluated at 546 GeV and 1800 GeV. }
\label{fig:11}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The deviations of the differential elastic cross section measured at the collider energies of 546 GeV and 1800 GeV are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:11}. In comparison with the LHC case shown in Fig.\ref{fig:10} here the curvature produced by the competition of the pion loop and the unitarization (eikonal) effects is much smaller since both effects increase with energy; the pion-loop contribution to the pomeron exchange amplitude is multiplied by $\ln s$ while the screening corrections caused by the eikonalization increase due to the growth of the total cross section.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
MGR thanks the IPPP at the University of Durham for hospitality. This work was supported by the RSCF grant 14-22-00281. We thank Mirko Berretti and Kenneth Osterberg for valuable discussions.
\thebibliography{}
\bibitem{Totem} Fabrizio Ferro for the TOTEM Collaboration,
presentation at the low-$x$ meeting, Kyoto, Japan, 17-21 June, 2014.
\bibitem{C18}V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin,
Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 18}, 167 (2000).
\bibitem{Dremin} I.M.~Dremin,
Phys.\ Usp.\ {\bf 56}, 3 (2013)
[Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf 183}, 3 (2013)]
[arXiv:1206.5474].
\bibitem{DL1}
A.~Donnachie and P.V.~Landshoff,
Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 244}, 322 (1984);\\
Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 267} (1986) 690.
\bibitem{ISR} N. Kwak et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B58} (1975) 233; \\
U. Amaldi et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B66} (1977) 390; \\
L. Baksay et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B141} (1978) 1.
\bibitem{E710} E710 Collaboration: N.A. Amos et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B247} (1990) 127.
\bibitem{CDFEL} CDF Collaboration: F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D50} (1994) 5518.
\bibitem{UA4} UA4 Collaboration: R. Battiston et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B147} (1984) 385.
\bibitem{UA42} UA4/2 Collaboration: C. Augier et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B316} (1993) 448.
\bibitem{UA1} UA1 Collaboration: G. Arnison et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B128} (1982) 336.
\bibitem{TOTEM} TOTEM Collaboration: G. Antchev et al., Europhys. Lett, {\bf 95}, 41001 (2011),
{\bf 96},21002 (2011).
\bibitem{SR}V.A.~Schegelsky and M.G.~Ryskin,
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 85}, 094024 (2012).
\bibitem {AG} A.A. Anselm and V.N. Gribov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 40} (1972) 487.
\bibitem{GW}M.L.~Good and W.D.~Walker,
Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 120}, 1857 (1960).
\bibitem{ISR-SD}L.~Baksay, A.~Boehm, H.~Foeth, A.~Staude, W.S.~Lockman, M.~Medinnis, T.~Meyer and J.~Rander {\it et al.},
Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 53}, 484 (1975);\\
R.~Webb, G.~Trilling, V.~Telegdi, P.~E.~Strolin, B.~Shen, P.~Schlein, J.~Rander and B.~Naroska {\it et al.},
Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 55}, 331 (1975);\\
L.~Baksay, A.~Boehm, G.~K.~Chang, R.~Ellis, H.~Foeth, S.~Y.~Fung, A.~Kernan and J.~Layter {\it et al.},
Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 61}, 405 (1976);\\
H.~de Kerret, E.~Nagy, M.~Regler, W.~Schmidt-Parzefall, K.R.~Schubert, K.~Winter, A.~Brandt and H.~Dibon {\it et al.},
Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 63}, 477 (1976);\\
G.C.~Mantovani, M.~Cavalli-Sforza, C.~Conta, M.~Fraternali, G.~Goggi, F.~Pastore, A.~Rimoldi and B.~Rossini {\it et al.},
Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 64}, 471 (1976).
\bibitem{T-SD} G.~Antchev {\it et al.} [TOTEM Collaboration],
Europhys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 101}, 21003 (2013).
\bibitem{UA4SD} D.~Bernard et al, UA4 Collab., Phys. lett. {\bf B186} (1987) 227.
\bibitem{KMR-E} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin,
Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C74}, 2756 (2014).
\bibitem{Orear}J.~Orear, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 12}, 112 (1964).
\bibitem{TOTEM15} TOTEM Collaboration, in preparation.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction} For a stationary, real valued sequence $(Y_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$ of random variables with marginal distribution function $F$, the empirical distribution function $F_n$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
F_n(t)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\mathds{1}_{\{Y_i\leq t\}}.
\end{equation}
If the marginal distribution function $F$ is continuous, we can without loss of generality assume that $F(t)=t$ (otherwise replacing $Y_n$ by $F(Y_n)$). The sequential empirical process is a two-parameter stochastic process $\big(W_n(s,t)\big)_{s,t\in[0,1]}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
W_n(s,t)=\sum_{i=1}^{[ns]}\left(\mathds{1}_{\{Y_i\leq t\}}-t\right),
\end{equation}
where $[x]$ denotes the integer part of $x$. Note that we will have to rescale this process in order to obtain weak convergence, but as we need a different scaling for different kinds of stochastic processes, we have not included the scaling here. For iid (independent and identical distributed) random variables $(Y_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$, Donsker \cite{dons} showed the weak convergence of the (non-sequential) empirical process $\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}W_n(1,t)\big)_{t\in[0,1]}$ to a Brownian bridge. This was extended by M\"uller \cite{mull} to the sequential empirical process $\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}W_n(s,t)\big)_{s,t\in[0,1]}$. The limit Gaussian process is the so called Kiefer-M\"uller process $K$, which is self-similar with exponent $b=\frac{1}{2}$, that means for any $a>0$ the process $\big(K(as,t)\big)_{s,t\in[0,1]}$ has the same distribution as $\big(a^{\frac{1}{2}}K(s,t)\big)_{s,t\in[0,1]}$. For fixed $s\in[0,1]$, $\left(K(s,t)\right)_{t\in[0,1]}$ is a Brownian bridge, while for fixed $t\in[0,1]$ $\left(K(s,t)\right)_{s\in[0,1]}$ is a Brownian motion. This implies that there is an almost surely continuous modification of $K$, but the paths are not $\gamma$-H\"older continuous for any $\gamma>\frac{1}{2}$.
This limit theorem has been extended to different kinds of short range dependent processes $(Y_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$, where one still needs a $n^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ scaling and the limit process is still self-similar with exponent $\frac{1}{2}$. For example, Berkes and Philipp \cite{berk} studied approximating functionals of strongly mixing sequences and Berkes, H\"ormann, Schauer \cite{ber2} so called $S$-mixing random variables. In the short range dependent case, the limit process is for fixed $t\in[0,1]$ a Brownian motion as in the independent case, so the paths are not smoother.
For long range dependent processes, the limit behavior is different in many aspects. For Gaussian sequences with slowly decaying covariances, Dehling and Taqqu \cite{dehl} showed the convergence of sequential empirical process to a limit process that is self-similar with exponent $b>\frac{1}{2}$ and that is degenerate in the following sense: For fixed $s$, the process is not a Brownian bridge, but a deterministic function multiplied by a random variable. The paths for fixed $s$ might be differentiable. For fixed $t$, the limit process is a fractional Brownian motion which is $\gamma$-H\"older continuous with exponent $\gamma>\frac{1}{2}$. For long range dependent linear processes, analog results were proved by Ho and Hsing \cite{ho}.
In this paper, we will consider the random walk in random scenery, which is often considered to be another model for a long range dependent sequence of random variables. Let $(S_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$ with $S_{n}=\sum_{i=1}^nX_i$ be a random walk in the normal domain of attraction of an $\alpha$-stable L\'evy process (with iid, integer valued increments $(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$) and $(\xi_n)_{n\in{\mathds Z}}$ a sequence of iid random variables (called scenery). Then the stationary process $(Y_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$ with $Y_n=\xi_{S_n}$ is called random walk in random scenery and was first investigated by Kesten and Spitzer \cite{kest} and Borodin \cite{boro}.
The behavior of partial sum process $Z_n$ with $Z_n(s)=\sum_{i=1}^{[ns]} Y_i$ has been studied extensively. It converges weakly to a self-similar process with exponent $b>\frac{1}{2}$, which has smooth paths even if the random variables $(\xi_n)_{n\in{\mathds Z}}$ are in the domain of attraction of a L\'evy process with jumps, see \cite{kest}. Other results include the law of the iterated logarithm (Khoshnevisan and Lewis \cite{khos}), large deviations (Gantert, K\"onig, and Shi \cite{gant}), extremes (Franke and Saigo \cite{frank}) and $U$-statistics (Guillotin-Plantard and Ladret \cite{guil}, Franke, P\`ene, and Wendler \cite{fran2}). As far as we know, there are no results on the empirical process of a random walk in random scenery.
\section{Main Results}
We will now give a functional non-central limit theorem for the sequential empirical process of a random walk in random scenery, that means the two-parameter process $W_n$ with
\begin{equation}
W_n(s,t)=\sum_{i=1}^{[ns]}\left(\mathds{1}_{\{Y_i\leq t\}}-t\right),\ \ \text{where} \ \ Y_n=\xi_{S_n} \ \ \text{and} \ \ S_n:=\sum_{i=1}^nX_i.
\end{equation}
Let us first introduce the limit process $W$: Let $K=\left(K(x,t)\right)_{x\in{\mathds R}, t\in[0,1]}$ be a two-sided Kiefer-M\"uller process, which is defined as follows: $K_1=\left(K_1(x,t)\right)_{x\in[0,\infty), t\in[0,1]}$ and $K_{-1}$ be two independent, centered, continuous, two-parameter Gaussian process with covariance
\begin{equation}
E\left[K_i(x,t)K_i(x',t')\right]=\min\{x,x'\}\left(\min\{t,t'\}-tt'\right) \ \ \ \text{for}\ \ \ i=1,-1.
\end{equation}
Set $K(x,t)=K_{\sgn(x)}(|x|,t )$. Furthermore, let $(L_s(x))_{s\geq0}$ be the local time of the limit process $(S_s^\star)_{s\geq0}$ of the rescaled partial sum $(n^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{i=1}^{[ns]}X_i)_{s\geq0}$, that means
\begin{equation}
\int_0^t\mathds{1}_{[a,b)}(S_s^\star)ds=\int_a^bL_t(x)dx.
\end{equation}
For the existence of such a continuous time, see Getoor and Kesten \cite{geto}. Now the limit process $W$ can be described by the following stochastic integral with respect to the (two-sided) Brownian motion $(K(x,t))_{x\in{\mathds R}}$
\begin{equation}
W(s,t):=\int_{{\mathds R}} L_s(x)dK(x,t).
\end{equation}
We will investigate the properties of this process after our main Theorem.
\begin{theo}\label{theo1} Let $(\xi_n)_{n\in{\mathds Z}}$ be an iid sequence of random variables uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$. If $(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$ is another iid sequence, independent of $(\xi_n)_{n\in{\mathds Z}}$, integer valued and the law of $X_n$ is in the normal domain of attraction of an $\alpha$-stable law $F_\alpha$ with $1<\alpha\leq 2$, then we have the weak convergence
\begin{equation}
n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}W_n\Rightarrow W
\end{equation}
in the space $D\left([0,1]^2\right)$.
\end{theo}
The space $D\left([0,1]^2\right)$ is the space of functions from $[0,1]^2$ to ${\mathds R}$, for which the limit in each quadrant exists and which are continuous in each point coming from the upper right quadrant, equipped with the multidimensional Skorokhod distance (see Bickel and Wichura \cite{bick}). From the definition of $W$, we can see that for fixed $t$, the process $(W(s,t))_{s\in[0,1]}$ is the limit process of the random walk in random scenery as described by Kesten and Spitzer \cite{kest}. It is clear that the process $W$ is self-similar with the same exponent $b=1-\frac{1}{2\alpha}$, that means $(W(as,t))_{s,t\in[0,1]}$ has the same distribution as $(a^{1-\frac{1}{2\alpha}}W(s,t))_{s,t\in[0,1]}$.
On the other hand, for fixed $s$, the process $(W(s,t))_{t\in[0,1]}$ is a mixture of Brownian bridges (or a Brownian bridge with a random variance). So the process $(W(s,t))_{t\in[0,1]}$ has paths with the same properties as a Brownian bridge, and consequently they are $\gamma$-H\"older continuous for all $\gamma<\frac{1}{2}$, but not for any $\gamma>\frac{1}{2}$. In this sense, the limit process combines properties from the independent case (roughness of Kiefer-M\"uller process) and from the long range dependent case (self-similarity of the Dehling-Taqqu type limit process).
To give a deeper insight into the continuity properties of the process $W$, we need a generalization of the Kolmogorov-Chentsov theorem. There are several multidimensional versions of this theorem in the literature, see e.g. Mittmann and Steinwart \cite{mitt} and the references therein, but they deal with uniform continuity, while our theorem allows for H\"older continuity with different exponents in different directions. The proof is nevertheless completely analogous and is hence omitted.
\begin{prop}\label{prop1} Let $(Z_{t})_{t\in[0,1]^d}$ be a stochastic process such that for some $m\geq 1$, $c_1,\ldots,c_d,\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d$ and for all $t=(t_1,\ldots,t_d)$, $s=(s_1,\ldots,s_d)$ we have
\begin{equation}
E\left[\left|Z_t-Z_s\right|^m\right]\leq\sum_{i=1}^dc_i\left|t_i-s_i\right|^{d+\beta_i}.
\end{equation}
Then for all $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_d$ with $\gamma_i<\frac{\beta_i}{m}$, there exists a modification $\tilde{Z}$ of $Z$ and an almost surely finite random variable $C_{\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_d}$, such that for all $t=(t_1,\ldots,t_d)$, $s=(s_1,\ldots,s_d)$
\begin{equation}
\left|\tilde{Z}_t-\tilde{Z}_s\right|\leq C_{\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_d}\sum_{i=1}^d\left|t_i-s_i\right|^{\gamma_i}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
While for fixed $s$, the process $(W(s,t))_{t\in[0,1]}$ has the same modulus of continuity, no matter what the properties of the random walk $S_n$ are, it will turn out for higher $\alpha$, the limit process $(W(s,t))_{s\in[0,1]}$ for fixed $t$ is H\"older continuous with a higher exponent $\gamma$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop2} For any $\gamma<1-\frac{1}{2\alpha}$, $\gamma'<\frac{1}{2}$, there is a modification $\tilde{W}$ of $W$ and an almost surely finite random variable $C_{\gamma,\gamma'}$, such that for all $s,t,s',t'\in[0,1]$
\begin{equation}
\left|\tilde{W}(s,t)-\tilde{W}(s',t')\right|\leq C_{\gamma,\gamma'}\left(|s-s'|^\gamma+|t-t'|^{\gamma'}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
The exponent of H\"older continuity is linked to the exponent of self-similarity $b=1-\frac{1}{2\alpha}$. The same effect is known from fractional Brownian motion (see e.g. the book of Nourdin, \cite{nour}, p. 8).
\section{A Lemma on occupation times}
The occupation time $N_n(x)$ is defined as the number of visits of the random walk $(S_i)_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ to $x$:
\begin{equation}
N_n(x):=\sum_{i=1}^n\mathds{1}_{\{S_i=x\}}.
\end{equation}
The following Lemma gives a relation to the local time of the limiting process of the random walk, similar to Lemma 6 of Kesten and Spitzer \cite{kest}. In our proofs, $C$ denotes a generic constant which might have different values in different inequalities, but does not depend on $n$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem1} For any $k\in{\mathds N}$, $s_1,\ldots,s_k\in[0,1]$, the random vector
\begin{equation}
\left(n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(x)\right)_{i,j\in\{1,\ldots,k\}}
\end{equation}
converges as $n\rightarrow\infty$ in distribution to
\begin{equation}
\left(\int L_{s_i}(x)L_{s_j}(x)dx\right)_{i,j\in\{1,\ldots,k\}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} By the Cram\'er-Wold theorem, it suffices to show that for any $\theta_{ij}\in{\mathds R}$, $i,j=1,\ldots, k$, we have as $n\rightarrow\infty$ the weak convergence
\begin{equation}
n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(x)\Rightarrow \sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\int L_{s_i}(x)L_{s_j}(x)dx.
\end{equation}
In order to show this, we will split the sum on the left side into several parts. Let $\tau>0$, $M>0$, $a(l,n)=\tau ln^{1/\alpha}$ and define
\begin{align}
Q(l,n)&:=n^{-2}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x,y<a(l+1,n)}N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(y)\\
V(\tau,M,n)&:=\tau^{-1}\sum_{l=-M}^M Q(l,n)\\
U(\tau,M,n)&:=n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{|x|>M\tau n^{1/\alpha}}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(x).
\end{align}
We now can decompose the sum into four parts:
\begin{multline}
n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(x)\\
=V(\tau,M,n)+U(\tau,M,n)\displaybreak[0]\\
+\sum_{|l|\leq M}n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\bigg(\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(x)-\frac{n^2Q(l,n)}{[a(l+1,n)-a(l,n)]}\bigg)\displaybreak[0]\\
+\sum_{|l|\leq M}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}[a(l+1,n)-a(l,n)]^{-1}-\frac{1}{\tau}\right)Q(l,n)\\
=V(\tau,M,n)+U(\tau,M,n)+I(\tau,M,n)+I\!\!I(\tau,M,n).
\end{multline}
We will treat the four summands separately. First note by Lemma 6 of Kesten and Spitzer \cite{kest} and the continuous mapping theorem, we have for $n\rightarrow\infty$ the convergence in distribution
\begin{equation}\label{line6}
V(\tau,M,n)\Rightarrow \tau^{-1}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\sum_{|l|\leq M}\int_{\tau l}^{\tau (l+1)}L_{s_i}(x)dx\int_{\tau l}^{\tau (l+1)}L_{s_j}(x)dx=:V(\tau, M).
\end{equation}
For the summand $I(\tau,M,n)$, we introduce the mean occupation time of an interval $[a(l,n),a(l+1,n)]$:
\begin{equation}
\bar{N}_{s_i,l}:=\frac{1}{[a(l+1,n)-a(l,n)]}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}N_{[ns_i]}(x).
\end{equation}
Now we can rewrite $I(\tau,M,n)$ and apply the triangle inequality.
\begin{multline}
\left|I(\tau,M,n)\right|\\
=\sum_{|l|\leq M}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\left(N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(x)-\bar{N}_{s_i,l}\bar{N}_{s_j,l}\right)\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq \sum_{|l|\leq M}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\left|N_{[ns_i]}(x)-\bar{N}_{s_i,l}\right|N_{[ns_j]}(x)\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
+\sum_{|l|\leq M}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\left(\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\bar{N}_{s_i,l}\left|N_{[ns_j]}(x)-\bar{N}_{s_j,l}\right|\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq \theta^\star\sum_{|l|\leq M}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\left|N_{[ns_i]}(x)-\bar{N}_{s_i,l}\right|N_{[ns_j]}(x)\displaybreak[0]\\
+\theta^\star\sum_{|l|\leq M}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\bar{N}_{s_i,l}\left|N_{[ns_j]}(x)-\bar{N}_{s_j,l}\right|\displaybreak[0]\\
=:A_n+B_n
\end{multline}
with $\theta^\star:=\max\big\{|\theta_{i,j}|\big|\ 1\leq i,j\leq k\big\}$. By Lemma 1 of Kesten and Spitzer \cite{kest}, we have that
\begin{equation}
E\left(N^2_{[ns_i]}(x)\right)\leq Cn^{2-\frac{2}{\alpha}},
\end{equation}
and by Lemma 3 of \cite{kest} in combination with their formula (2.26)
\begin{equation}
E\left(N_{[ns_i]}(x)-N_{[ns_i]}(y)\right)^2\leq Cn^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}|x-y|^{\alpha-1}.
\end{equation}
Keep in mind that $a(l+1,n)-a(l.n)\leq C\tau n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}$. Let $\|\cdot\|_2:=\sqrt{E[(\cdot)^2]}$ denote the $L_2$-norm. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the definition of $\bar{N}_{s_i,l}$, we obtain
\begin{multline}
E\left|A_n\right|\leq \theta^\star\sum_{|l|\leq M}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\left\|N_{[ns_i]}(x)-\bar{N}_{s_i,l}\right\|_2\left\|N_{[ns_j]}(x)\right\|_2\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq \theta^\star\sum_{|l|\leq M}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x,y<a(l+1,n)}\frac{n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\left\|N_{[ns_j]}(x)\right\|_2}{[a(l+1,n)-a(l,n)]}\left\|N_{[ns_i]}(x)-N_{[ns_i]}(y)\right\|_2\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq C\theta^\star(2M+1)k^2\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x,y<a(l+1,n)}\frac{n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sqrt{n^{2-\frac{2}{\alpha}}}}{\tau n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}}\sqrt{n^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}(\alpha-1)}\tau^{\alpha-1}}\displaybreak[0]\\
=CM\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x,y<a(l+1,n)}n^{-\frac{2}{\alpha}}\tau^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\leq CM\tau^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}}.
\end{multline}
With the same arguments and using the fact that
\begin{equation}
\left\|\bar{N}_{s_i,l}\right\|_2\leq\frac{1}{[a(l+1,n)-a(l,n)]}\sum_{a(l,n)\leq x<a(l+1,n)}\left\|N_{[ns_i]}(x)\right\|_2,
\end{equation}
it follows that $E\left|B_n\right|\leq CM\tau^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{line7}
E\left[I(\tau,M,n)\right]\leq CM\tau^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}}.
\end{equation}
For the next summand $I\!\!I(\tau,M,n)$, note that $Q(l,n)$ converges in distribution to $\sum_{i,j=1}^k\int_{\tau l}^{\tau(l+1)}L_{s_i}(x)dx\int_{\tau l}^{\tau(l+1)}L_{s_j}(x)dx$. Furthermore, $n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}[a(l+1,n)-a(l,n)]^{-1}-1/\tau\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and consequently
\begin{equation}\label{line8}
I\!\!I(\tau,M,n)=\sum_{|l|\leq M}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}[a(l+1,n)-a(l,n)]^{-1}-\frac{1}{\tau}\right)Q(l,n)\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}0
\end{equation}
in probability. For the last summand, we have
\begin{equation}\label{line9}
P\left(U(\tau,M,n)\neq 0\right)\leq P\left(N_n(x)>0 \ \text{for an} \ x \ \text{with} |x|>M\tau n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}\right)\leq \epsilon(M\tau),
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon(z)\rightarrow0$ as $z\rightarrow\infty$, see Lemma 1 of Kesten and Spitzer \cite{kest}. Note that the local time $L$ has almost surely a compact support, since the paths of the process $(S_s^\star)_{s\in[0,1]}$ are almost surely bounded, so we have for $V(\tau, M)$ defined in (\ref{line6}) the following limit
\begin{equation}\label{line10}
V(\tau):=\lim_{M\rightarrow\infty}V(\tau, M)=\tau^{-1}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\sum_{l\in{\mathds Z}}\int_{\tau l}^{\tau (l+1)}L_{s_i}(x)dx\int_{\tau l}^{\tau (l+1)}L_{s_j}(x)dx
\end{equation}
almost surely. By the almost sure continuity of the local time $L$ additionally
\begin{multline}\label{line11}
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow0}V(\tau)=\lim_{\tau\rightarrow0}\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\sum_{l\in{\mathds Z}}\int_{\tau l}^{\tau (l+1)}L_{s_i}(x)\left(\tau^{-1}\int_{\tau l}^{\tau (l+1)}L_{s_j}(y)dy\right)dx\\
=\sum_{i,j=1}^k\theta_{ij}\int L_{s_i}(x)L_{s_j}(x)dx=:V.
\end{multline}
Finally, we combine the convergence of the different parts. Let $d(X,Y)$ denote the Prokhorov distance of the distributions of $X$ and $Y$ (so convergence with respect to $d$ is equivalent to weak convergence and $P\left(|X-Y|\geq\epsilon\right)\leq \epsilon$ implies $d(X,Y)\leq\epsilon$). For any $\epsilon>0$, choose $M,\tau>0$ in a way such that $M\tau$ is big enough and $\tau$, $M\tau^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha}}$ are small enough to guarantee the following: $P\left(|V(\tau)-V|\geq\epsilon/6\right)\leq \epsilon/6$ by formula (\ref{line11}), $P\left(|V(\tau,M)-V(\tau)|\geq\epsilon/6\right)\leq \epsilon/6$ by formula (\ref{line10}) and $E\left[I(\tau,M,n)\right]\leq \frac{\epsilon^2}{36}$ by formula (\ref{line7}). Now we can choose $n_0\in{\mathds N}$ with the help of (\ref{line6}) and (\ref{line8}), such that for all $n\geq n_0$ we have $d\left(V(\tau,M,n),V(\tau,M)\right)\leq \epsilon/6$ and $P\left(|I\!\!I(\tau,M,n)|\geq\epsilon/6\right)\leq \epsilon/6$ and arrive with the help of the triangle inequality at
\begin{multline}
d(V(\tau,M,n)+U(\tau,M,n)+I(\tau,M,n)+I\!\!I(\tau,M,n),V)\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq d(n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\sum_{i,j=1}^n\theta_{ij}\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{[ns_i]}(x)N_{[ns_j]}(x),V(\tau,M,n)+U(\tau,M,n)+I(\tau,M,n))\displaybreak[0]\\
+d(V(\tau,M,n)+U(\tau,M,n)+I(\tau,M,n),V(\tau,M,n)+U(\tau,M,n))\\
+d(V(\tau,M,n)+U(\tau,M,n),V(\tau,M,n))+d(V(\tau,M,n),V(\tau,M))\\
+d(V(\tau,M),V(\tau))+d(V(\tau),V)\leq\epsilon.
\end{multline}
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the Main Results}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theo1}] We will first prove the convergence of the finite dimensional distributions, tightness will be established later. We will make use of the Cram\'er-Wold theorem and show that for $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_k\in{\mathds R}$, $s_1,\ldots,s_k\in[0,1]$, $t_1,\ldots,t_k\in[0,1]$, we have as $n\rightarrow\infty$ the weak convergence
\begin{multline}
n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_j\sum_{i=1}^{[ns_j]}\left(\mathds{1}_{\{Y_i\leq t_j\}}-t_j\right)=n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_j\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{[ns_j]}(x)\zeta_j(x)\\
\Rightarrow \sum_{j=1}^k\theta_j\int L_{s_j}(x)dK(x,t_j),
\end{multline}
with $\zeta_j(x)=\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_x\leq t_j\}}-t_j$. For this, we will study the characteristic function and apply L\'evy's continuity theorem:
\begin{multline}
\varphi_n(\lambda):=E\left(\exp\bigg(i\lambda n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_j\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{[ns_j]}(x)\zeta_j(x)\bigg)\right)\\
=E\left(\prod_{x\in{\mathds Z}}\exp\bigg(i\lambda n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_jN_{[ns_j]}(x)\zeta_j(x)\bigg)\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
=E\left(E\left(\prod_{x\in{\mathds Z}}\exp\bigg(i\lambda n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_jN_{[ns_j]}(x)\zeta_j(x)\bigg)\Bigg|(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}\right)\right)\\
=E\left(\prod_{x\in{\mathds Z}}E\left(\exp\bigg(i\lambda n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_jN_{[ns_j]}(x)\zeta_j(x)\bigg)\Bigg|(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}\right)\right),
\end{multline}
where we used the fact that the random variables $(\xi_x)_{x\in{\mathds Z}}$ and thus also the random vectors $\big((\zeta_1(x),\ldots,\zeta_k(x))\big)_{x\in{\mathds Z}}$ are independent and that inside conditional expectation, $(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}$ and thus $N_{[ns_1]}(x),\ldots,N_{[ns_k]}(x)$ are fixed. With $\varphi_{\zeta_1(0),\ldots,\zeta_k(0)}$, we denote the characteristic function of the random vector $(\zeta_1(0),\ldots,\zeta_k(0))$, so that
\begin{equation}
\varphi_n(\lambda)=E\left(\prod_{x\in{\mathds Z}}\varphi_{\zeta_1(0),\ldots,\zeta_k(0)}\big(\lambda n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}N_{[ns_1]}(x),\ldots, \lambda n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}N_{[ns_k]}(x)\big)\right).
\end{equation}
The next step will be a Taylor expansion, so we have to gather some statements about the conditional moments. Keep in mind that $E\zeta_j(x)=0$ and thus
\begin{equation}
E\Big(\sum_{j=1}^k n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\theta_jN_{[ns_j]}(x)\zeta_j(x) \big|(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}\Big)=0.
\end{equation}
Furthermore
\begin{multline}
E\left(\bigg( n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_jN_{[ns_j]}(x)\zeta_j(x)\bigg)^2 \bigg|(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
=\sum_{j,l=1}^kn^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\theta_j\theta_lN_{[ns_j]}(x)N_{[ns_l]}(x)\sigma_{jl}
\end{multline}
with $\sigma_{jl}:=\operatorname{Cov}(\zeta_j(x),\zeta_l(x))$. Finally, by Lemma 4 of Kesten and Spitzer \cite{kest}
\begin{equation}
\sup_{x\in{\mathds Z},s\in[0,1]}n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}N_{[ns]}(x)\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}0
\end{equation}
in probability and by their Lemma 1 resepectively Lemma 2.1 of Guillotin-Plantard and Ladret \cite{guil}
\begin{align}
E\left(\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{[ns_j]}^2(x)\right)&\leq Cn^{2-\frac{1}{\alpha}},\\
E\left(\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_n^3(x)\right)&\leq Cn^{3-\frac{2}{\alpha}}.
\end{align}
So we can conclude that
\begin{multline}\label{line5}
\varphi_n(\lambda)\\
=E\Bigg(\prod_{x\in{\mathds Z}}\bigg(1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\sum_{j,l=1}^kn^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\theta_j\theta_lN_{[ns_j]}(x)N_{[ns_l]}(x)\sigma_{jl}+O\big(n^{-3+\frac{3}{2\alpha}}N
_n^3(x)\big)\bigg)\Bigg)\displaybreak[0]\\
\shoveleft=E\Bigg(\exp\bigg(\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}\Big(-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\sum_{j,l=1}^kn^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}\theta_j\theta_lN_{[ns_j]}(x)N_{[ns_l]}(x)\sigma_{jl}\\
\shoveright {+o\big(n^{-2+\frac{1}{\alpha}}N_n^2(x)\big)+O\big(n^{-3+\frac{3}{2\alpha}}N _n^3(x)\big)\Big)\bigg)\Bigg)}\displaybreak[0]\\
\xrightarrow{n\rightarrow\infty}E\bigg(\exp\Big(-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\sum_{j,l=1}^k\theta_j\theta_l\sigma_{jl}\int L_{s_j}(x)L_{s_l}(x)dx\Big)\bigg),
\end{multline}
where we used Lemma \ref{lem1} and the boundedness and continuity of the function $z\mapsto \exp(-z^2/2)$ to conclude that the expectation converges.
On the other hand, conditional on the L\'evy-process $S^\star$, the linear combination $\sum_{j=1}^k\theta_j\int L_{s_j}(x)dK(x,t_j)$ is Gaussian with variance
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j,l=1}^k\theta_j\theta_l\int L_{s_j}(x) L_{s_l}(x)\sigma_{jl}dx,
\end{equation}
as $\sigma_{jl}=\operatorname{Cov}(\zeta_j(x),\zeta_l(x))=\operatorname{Cov}(K(1,t_j),K(1,t_l))$ and the process $K$ is centered. This implies that
\begin{multline}
E\left(\exp\Big(i\lambda \sum_{j=1}^k\theta_j\int L_{s_j}(x)dK(x,t_j)\Big)\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
= E\left(E\left(\exp\Big(i\lambda \sum_{j=1}^k\theta_j\int L_{s_j}(x)dK(x,t_j)\Big)\Big|S^\star\right)\right)\\
=E\left(\exp\Big(-\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2\sum_{j,l=1}^k\theta_j\theta_l\int L_{s_j}(x) L_{s_l}(x)\sigma_{jl}dx\Big)\right),
\end{multline}
and by (\ref{line5}) and L\'evy's continuity theorem the finite dimensional convergence follows. In order to prove tightness, we will establish a moment bound. First note that for all $j\in{\mathds Z}$
\begin{align}
E\left(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_j\leq t_1\}}-t_1-\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_j\leq t_2\}}+t_2\right)^2&\leq |t_1-t_2|,\\
E\left(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_j\leq t_1\}}-t_1-\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_j\leq t_2\}}+t_2\right)^4&\leq |t_1-t_2|.
\end{align}
By Lemma 2.1 of Guillotin-Plantard and Ladret \cite{guil}, we have that
\begin{align}
E\left(\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_n^2(x)\right)^2&\leq Cn^{4-\frac{2}{\alpha}},\\
E\left(\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_n^4(x)\right)&\leq Cn^{4-\frac{3}{\alpha}}.
\end{align}
Now we obtain the following moment bound for all $n_1\leq n_2\leq n$ and $t_1,t_2\in[0,1]$ with $|t_1-t_2|\geq n^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}$:
\begin{multline}\label{line4}
E\left(\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_1\}}-t_1)-\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_2\}}-t_2)\right)^4\\
=E\left(E\bigg(\Big(\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_1\}}-t_1)-\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_2\}}-t_2)\Big)^4\bigg|(X_n)_{n\in{\mathds N}}\bigg)\right)\\
\leq E\Bigg(\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}N_{n_2-n_1}^4(x)|t_1-t_2|+\sum_{x\in{\mathds Z}}\sum_{y\in{\mathds Z}}N_{n_2-n_1}^2(x)N_{n_2-n_1}^2(y)|t_1-t_2|^2\Bigg)\\
\leq C\left((n_2-n_1)^{4-\frac{3}{\alpha}}|t_1-t_2|+C(n_2-n_1)^{4-\frac{2}{\alpha}}|t_1-t_2|^2\right)\\\leq C(n_2-n_1)^{4-\frac{2}{\alpha}}|t_1-t_2|^2.
\end{multline}
If $|t_1-t_2|\leq 2n^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}$, we have by monotonicity that for any $t\in(t_1,t_2)$
\begin{multline}\label{line2}
\left|\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t\}}-t)-\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_1\}}-t_1)\right|\\
\leq \left|\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t\}}-\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_1\}}\right|+(n_2-n_1)|t-t_1|\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq \left|\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_2\}}-\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_1\}}\right|+(n_2-n_1)|t_2-t_1|\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq \left|\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_2\}}-t_2)-\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_1\}}-t_1)\right|+2(n_2-n_1)|t_2-t_1|\\
\leq \left|\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_2\}}-t_2)-\sum_{i=n_1+1}^{n_2}(\mathds{1}_{\{\xi_i\leq t_1\}}-t_1)\right|+4n^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}.
\end{multline}
Following Bickel and Wichura \cite{bick}, we introduce for a two-parameter stochastic process $(V(s,t))_{s,t\in[0,1]}$ the notation
\begin{multline}\label{line3}
w''_{\delta}(V)=\max\Big\{\sup_{\substack{0\leq t_1\leq t\leq t_2\leq 1\\t_2-t_1\leq \delta}}\min\left\{\|V(\cdot,t_2)-V(\cdot,t)\|_\infty,\|V(\cdot,t)-V(\cdot,t_1)\|_\infty\right\},\\
\sup_{\substack{0\leq s_1\leq s\leq s_2\leq 1\\s_2-s_1\leq\delta}}\min\left\{\|V(s_2,\cdot)-V(s,\cdot)\|_\infty,\|V(s,\cdot)-V(s_1,\cdot)\|_\infty\right\}\Big\},
\end{multline}
where $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ denotes the supremum norm. Now define the index set $D_n:=\left\{0,\frac{1}{n},\frac{2}{n}\ldots,1\right\}\times\left\{0,[n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}]^{-1},2[n^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}]^{-1},\ldots,1\right\}$ and note that we have by (\ref{line2})
\begin{equation}\label{line1}
w''_{\delta}(n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}W_n)\leq w''_{\delta}(n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}W_{n|D_n})+4n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}n^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}},
\end{equation}
where $ w''_{\delta}(n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}W_{n|D_n})$ is calculated by restricting all suprema in (\ref{line3}) to the set $D_n$. Now by Theorem 3 (and the remarks following their theorem) of Bickel and Wichura \cite{bick} together with (\ref{line4}), we can conclude that for any $\epsilon>0$
\begin{equation}
P\left(\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}w''_{\delta}(n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}W_{n|D_n})>\epsilon\right)\xrightarrow{\delta\rightarrow 0}0.
\end{equation}
It follows by (\ref{line1}), that
\begin{equation}
P\left(\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}w''_{\delta}(n^{-1+\frac{1}{2\alpha}}W_{n})>\epsilon\right)\xrightarrow{\delta\rightarrow 0}0.
\end{equation}
and thus the process is tight by Corollary 1 of \cite{bick}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop2}] We will use Proposition \ref{prop1}, so we have to establish a moment inequality. Let be $m\in{\mathds N}$ even, $s,s',t\in[0,1]$ with $s\leq s'$. Note that conditional on the process $S^{\star}$, the process $W$ is given by an It{\={o}} integral, and so it is Gaussian and we can apply the It{\={o}} isometry. Furthermore, note that the difference of local times $L_{s'}-L_s$ has the same distribution as $L_{s'-s}$ shifted by $S^\star(s)$. We obtain
\begin{multline}\label{line12}
E\left(W(s',t)-W(s,t)\right)^m=E\Big(\int(L_{s'}(x)-L_s(x))dK(x,t)\Big)^m\\
=E\left(E\bigg(\Big(\int (L_{s'}(x)-L_s(x))dK(x,t)\Big)^m\bigg|S^\star\bigg)\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
=E\left(E\bigg(\Big(\int L_{s'-s}(x)dK(x,t)\Big)^m\bigg|S^\star\bigg)\right)\\
=E\left(M(m,t)\Big(\int L^2_{s'-s}(x)dx\Big)^{\frac{m}{2}}\right),
\end{multline}
where $M(m,t)$ is the $m$-th moment of $K(1,t)$ and thus $M(m,t)\leq M_m$ for the $m$-th moment $M_m$ of a standard normal random variable. Now we gather some facts about local time. Obviously
\begin{equation}
\int L_s(x)dx=s.
\end{equation}
By Theorem 1 of Davis \cite{davi}, we have that for $L^\star_s:=\sup_{x\in{\mathds R}}L_s(x)$
\begin{equation}
EL_s^{\star p}\leq C_ps^{p\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}}
\end{equation}
for a constant $C_p$ (we use the form of the inequality as stated by Lacey \cite{lace}, as there seems to be a misprint in \cite{davi}). Now we can proceed with the right side of (\ref{line12}):
\begin{multline}\label{line13}
E\left(M(m,t)\Big(\int L^2_{s'-s}(x)dx\Big)^{\frac{m}{2}}\right)\leq M_mE\left(\left(\int L_{s'-s}(x)dx\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}\left(L^\star_{s'-s}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}\right)\\
=M_m(s'-s)^{\frac{m}{2}}E\left(L^\star_{s'-s}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}\leq M_mC_{m/2}(s'-s)^{\frac{m}{2}}(s'-s)^{\frac{m}{2}\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}}\\
\leq M_mC_{m/2}(s'-s)^{m(1-\frac{1}{2\alpha})}.
\end{multline}
Now let be $t,t'\in[0,1]$ with $t\leq t'$. Note that the process $(K(x,t')-K(x,t))_{t\in{\mathds R}}$ is a (two-sided) Brownian motion with variance $\var(K(1,t')-K(1,t))\leq t'-t$. Now we proceed as above by conditioning on $S^\star$ and applying the It{\={o}}-isometry:
\begin{multline}\label{line14}
E\left(W(s,t')-W(s,t)\right)^m=E\left(\int L_s(x)d(K(x,t')-K(x,t))\right)^m\displaybreak[0]\\
=E\left(E\bigg(\Big(\int L_s(x)d(K(x,t')-K(x,t))\Big)^m\bigg|S^\star\bigg)\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq E\left(M_m\left((t'-t)\int L_s^2(x)dx\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq M_m(t'-t)^{\frac{m}{2}}E\left(L^{\star}(s)\int L_s(x)dx\right)^{\frac{m}{2}}\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq M_m(t'-t)^{\frac{m}{2}}EL^{\star\frac{m}{2}}(1)\leq M(m,t)C_{m/2}(t'-t)^{\frac{m}{2}}.
\end{multline}
Combining (\ref{line13}) and (\ref{line14}), we arrive at
\begin{multline}
E\left(W(s',t')-W(s,t)\right)^m\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq 2^{m-1}\left(E\left(W(s',t')-W(s,t')\right)^m+E\left(W(s,t')-W(s,t)\right)^m\right)\displaybreak[0]\\
\leq 2^{m-1}M_mC_{m/2}(s'-s)^{m(1-\frac{1}{2\alpha})}+2^{m-1}M_mC_{m/2}(t'-t)^{\frac{m}{2}}.
\end{multline}
Now for any $\gamma<1-\frac{1}{2\alpha}$, $\gamma'<\frac{1}{2}$, we can choose $m$ large enough such that
\begin{equation}
\gamma<\frac{{m(1-\frac{1}{2\alpha})}-2}{m}, \ \ \ \gamma'<\frac{\frac{m}{2}-2}{m},
\end{equation}
and the statement of this proposition follows from Proposition \ref{prop1}.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The research was supported by the DFG Sonderforschungsbereich 823 (Collaborative Research Center) {\em Statistik nichtlinearer dynamischer Prozesse}. I would like to thank Brice Franke and Norman Lambot for their careful reading of the article and their remarks. I am very grateful to the anonymous referee for his comments, which have helped to improve and clarify this manuscript.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
Collective social phenomena have been studied fruitfully in recent years with tools that have origin in statistical physics \cite{social_dynamics}. The subjects covered ranged from language, culture, opinion dynamics and spreading to crowd behavior or hierarchy formation.
Here we address issue of users activity dynamics on discussion mailing lists, forums and blogs. Various aspects of the subject have been of broad interest recently (\cite{Sobkowicz}, \cite{Slanina}, \cite{Vitanov}, \cite{Suvakov}). Some of the regularities presented here are now known among researchers (in particular the relationship describing the number of entries (answers to the mailing lists, or comments posted on blogs) on the rank of list member (its order in the list of the users that are most frequently writing there). We will argue that a stretched-exponential function fits better there than more commonly used Zipf's relation.
Another problem studied is about attempts to find out statistical dependencies of certain features common to different anonymous users, arising probably from the characteristics of their personalities. Some of these could possibly be used to identify users (for only the purely cognitive purpose, though wicked use of the method described is potentially possible).
We show that activity in forums can be described with great accuracy by using a function that resembles the Fermi-Dirac distribution. Although this observation was made for the first time back in 1999 and its description has long been available on the Internet, it seems that still this kind of analysis is not known. This circumstance has become the motivation to carry out new measurements on currently existing, active internet blog, \emph{Dziennik gajowego Maruchy} (\emph{Marucha's blog})\footnote{
\href{http://marucha.wordpress.com}{Marucha's blog} exists since 2006. Here are analyzed data from 6th September 2006 until July 30th, 2014. The blog is open for posting (comments) for all internet users. Daily a few new articles are added, and then commented by anonymous Internet users. Avoiding spam is automatically done with a high efficiency by the software of wordpress.com. Activity on the blog is constantly monitored by the administrator. Entries extremely controversial or vulgar tend to be rejected. Some of the users are virtually familiar with others, and that positively affects the quality of entries and helps in users social integration. Many of the regular users consider the blog as the most open and educative in the Polish language web space, in areas such as politics, history, sociology, international affairs.
}
For comparison also results of analyzes carried out previously for mailing lists \emph{IYP}\footnote{
\emph{IYP} (Internet Young Polonia Inc.) was a Polish-Canadian partisan organization, mainly of young Internet users from all over the world, especially students (albeit with participants of elderly age and a wide range of social background). \emph{IYP} was registered as a non-profit corporation in Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada) in 1997; informally existed from around 1996 to around 2005. The main activity of \emph{IYP} was creating thematic collection of websites aimed at positive promotion of Polish culture and history between Poles, and developing personal ties between the Polish immigrants. The studied here mailing list had on average about 150 participants, but through years several thousands of people participated in discussions. The list was not moderated, but participation in discussions required the authorization by list owner. List archives are preserved in private.
}, \emph{POLSKA}\footnote{
\emph{POLSKA} discussion mailing list was owned and administered by Mariusz Jacenty Wiechulski of Kolejarska Spółdzielnia Pracy "Zator". The list functioned actively for several years and was replaced later by the \href{http://marucha.wordpress.com}{Marucha's blog}.
}, \emph{TLUG}\footnote{
\emph{TLUG} (Toronto Linux Users Group) is one of the oldest, most influential and active community of users of Linux operating system. Talks are concentrated on technical aspects of using Linux, but are not limited to: there is no lack of topics on social nature and life in Canada. Among users the leaders are professionals of the highest class, from all corners of the world. The list is not moderated. Those who have had enough, they unsubscribe themselves.
} \emph{APAP}\footnote{
\emph{APAP} (Association of Polish American Professionals). A partisan organization / mailing list (with English as the language of discussion). The list was accessible to all Internet users, with participation in discussions under moderate control of administrator. The range of topics covered was wide, with mainly discussions focused on issues of Polish community in the United States.
} and \emph{POLAND-L}\footnote{
\emph{POLAND-L} was one of the most important Polonia mailing list, at the beginning of the wide use of the Internet. The server operated on computers of Buffalo University (USA). Among the list of participants could be found many now known personalities of political life in Poland.
} are presented here. Choosing \emph{Marucha's blog} to analyze, in terms of research methodology, is random but the most correct. For the author it was convenient, since he participates in discussions there for a long time, and virtual knowledge of some of its participants and knowledge of the language of communication are helpful in this case.
That third observation, the similarity of certain statistical distributions to the Fermi-Dirac distribution, begs for some mathematical or more physical-sociological explanation, which you will not find here except of a few basic ideas only given.
We go here a step farther in our analysis by searching for the dynamics of activity on the blog. That results in a phenomenological description that allows us contain that dynamics and predict the future of users activity by a few simple approximations.
\subsection{Zipf distribution}
\label{Zipf distribution}
Zipf's law arises naturally in structured, high-dimensional data \cite{Aitchison}. It states that the probability of an observation is inversely proportional to its rank. It has been observed in many different domains. It is characterized by
scale invariance and by lack of scale. Not surprisingly, it has been considered even as a model useful in studies of some physical phenomena, in particular in statistical physics \cite{Topolski}. It is known also as a 80-20 rule (Pareto law in economy): when income distribution is studied 80\% of social wealth is found to be owned by 20\% people. In a similar way, 80\% Web requests is made to access 20\% pages.
The ubiquitous Zipf's distribution,
\begin{equation}\label{zipf}
P(x) \sim x^{-\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is close to $1$, describes well a very broad range of phenomena:
\begin{itemize} \itemsep1pt \parskip0pt \parsep0pt
\item Internet traffic patterns;
\item The number of pages on the web portals;
\item The number of visits to web pages;
\item The terms searched most frequently by web users \cite{spy};
\item Results of some computer games \cite{glines};
\item The intensity distribution of light or radio waves emitted by the galaxy;
\item The distribution of citations of papers published by physicists;
\item The size distribution of the population in cities around the world, the USA, France, or the size distribution of the population in the countries of the world;
\item The distribution of the intensity and frequency of earthquakes;
\item The distribution of wealth in the population \cite{Jagielski}, \cite{Laherrere};
\item The size of files on disk;
\item Co-authorship popularity \cite{Ausloos1};
\item etc \ldots
\end{itemize}
It is argued \cite{Baek} that Zipfs law arises in situations where we deal with random group division. Baek et al. \cite{Baek} using the model of Random Group Formation predict the existence of a unique group distribution with a power-law index determining the number of group elements and that index is in the range between 1 and 2 and depends on the total size of the data set.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{150mm}{!}{\includegraphics{users_ranking02.eps}}
\caption{Number of postings vs. users ranking on mailing lists \emph{IYP}, \emph{POLSKA} and \emph{TLUG}. Fitting of power-law dependence on the tail side. The lines are drawn with function $a\cdot x^{-\mu}$, where exponent $\mu$ is $1.9$, $2.5$ and $1.9$, for \emph{IYP}, \emph{POLSKA} and \emph{TLUG}, respectively, and $a$ is a certain number.
}
\label{users_ranking02}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{150mm}{!}{\includegraphics{users_ranking03.eps}}
\caption{Fitting of stretched-exponential dependence of users ranking on mailing lists \emph{IYP}, \emph{POLSKA} and \emph{TLUG}, with the function $a\cdot exp(-b \cdot x^\beta)$, where exponent $\beta$ is $0.23$, $0.19$, and $0.17$, for \emph{IYP}, \emph{POLSKA} and \emph{TLUG}, respectively, and $a$ and $b$ are certain numbers.
}
\label{users_ranking03}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stretched-exponential distribution}
\label{Stretched-exponential distribution}
Alternatively, a stretched-exponential relation is used for studies of all these classes of phenomena, and in many cases it it is found to describe them better than Zipf's law or its modified versions:
\begin{equation}\label{stretched-exponential}
P(x) \sim exp(a \cdot x^\alpha),
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{stretched-exponential} origins from physics and it is most often used to describe relaxation effects in disordered materials, as dielectric relaxation \cite{Milovanov} or luminescence decays \cite{Santos}. An overview of broad range of stretched-exponential distributions in nature and economy is given by Laherrere and Sornette \cite{Laherrere}. We will show that Equation \ref{stretched-exponential} with exponent $\alpha$ close to unity and varying with time describes perfectly well the dynamics of users activity through many years of time span.
\section{Data mining and processing.}
\label{data}
Scripts written in Perl\footnote{
\href{http://www.perl.org}{Perl} (Practical Extraction and Reporting Language) - an interpreted programming language designed to work with text data, now used for many other applications.
} were used for automatic downloading and processing of all the articles posted to the blog or mailing list.
All the articles and discussions on Marucha's blog, since the blog's beginning (6th September 2006) until July 30, 2014 can be downloaded from \href{http://nanophysics.pl/marucha2014.tar.gz}{nanophysics.pl}. The file contains other materials as well (scripts, drawings, compiled statistical data, etc \ldots)
When it concerns users ranking, the data should be treated as an approximation for the description of the activity of individual users. There were many cases when the same person used different nickname. That though does not change the general character of the presented results.
\section{The winner takes all.}
\label{winner}
As an illustration of the 80-20 rule let us have results for mailing lists \emph{APAP} and \emph{POLAND-L}.
During the studied period (between the beginning of 1997 and June 2000) there were
28510 messages sent to \emph{POLAND-L}, and 25475 to the list \emph{APAP}. It turns out that for both of these mailing lists just a few people dominated the discussions. Here is a list of the most active users of the list Poland-L, with their number of postings (initials are given instead of real names):
\begin{itemize} \itemsep1pt \parskip0pt \parsep0pt
\item 1380 J.A.
\item 1339 W.G.
\item 1225 A.S.
\item 924 M.K.
\item 784 J.S.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{150mm}{!}{\includegraphics{users_ranking01.eps}}
\caption{Activity on the \emph{Marucha's blog} (points). Line B shows a simple power law relationship, $2300000 \cdot (x^{-1.67})$, and the line A a stretched-exponential dependence, $650000 \cdot exp (-3.4 \cdot x^{0.16})$. Numbers 1 to 4 refer to the firsts of the most active participants in the blog: 1 - Marucha, 2 - JO, 3 - Rysio, 4 - Bojkot166.
}
\label{users_ranking01}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The first two list users sent a total of about 10\% of letters. And the first 5 sent about 20\% of all letters. In contrast, 109 people sent a letter only once. During this time the number of participants exceeded slightly the number 300.
The results for the list \emph{APAP} are very similar, with the following first posters:
\begin{itemize} \itemsep1pt \parskip0pt \parsep0pt
\item 2063 J.S.
\item 1865 J.R.
\item 909 T.M.
\end{itemize}
These three are the authors of nearly 20 percent of all entries. And once only wrote to the list \emph{APAP} 110 users. List of \emph{APAP} had about 150 members and this number did not change significantly during the reporting period (that is another interesting property of mailing lists - each of them has its own characteristic number of subscribers, even though new are joining and some unsubscribe all the time).
Very similar is the nature of users activity on the mailing lists \emph{IYP}, \emph{POLSKA} and \emph{TLUG}, as shown in Figures \ref{users_ranking02} and \ref{users_ranking03}. It is evident that a stretched-exponential dependence is obeyed with a better accuracy than the Zipf's law.
Analysis of users activity on \emph{Marucha's blog} (Figure \ref{users_ranking01}) confirms that in the case of the blog we have to deal with dependencies like these for mailing lists. There is here the same pattern of activity, approximately described by power law relation (Zipf distribution), and more exactly with the stretched-exponential function \ref{stretched-exponential}.
The departure from Zipf's law is commonly observed in social networks \cite{Zhang} and it is treated as a signature
of non-stationary growth of the social universe. There is an open question to what an extend we can compare exponents that describe size distribution of social groups and rank in discussion on mailing lists. It appears though that exponents found by us are close to these supposed to be "exact" in reference \cite{Zhang} ($\mu=0.75 \pm 0.05$) while we have
$0.9$, $1.5$ and $0.9$, for \emph{IYP}, \emph{POLSKA} and \emph{TLUG}, respectively (Figure \ref{users_ranking02}), and (this one must be more accurate) a value of $0.67$ for the \emph{Marucha's blog} (Figure \ref{users_ranking01}).
\section{Can we determine the identity of an anonymous user?}
\label{anonymous}
"To determine" is said too much. One can sometime guess, based on their activity pattern, who is who. The issue is related to network security as well, identity attacks \cite{Kharaji}.
Dependencies discussed so far do not say anything about the dynamics of the process of discussion on mailing lists. It seems that the approach presented here, to study dynamics of entries on web blogs, has not been used broadly so far, though some analysis in similar direction are known \cite{Rybski}.
Graphs such as these in Figure \ref{integral00} give us some idea in this direction. They were obtained by measuring the time interval between each successive entries on a blog. Then a function of the number of entries as a time interval between successive entries was created, and next the number of entries made has been normalized to unity at time tending to infinity, a cumulative distribution function (CDF).
Intuitively, it is easy to interpret the meaning of CDF: the value of this function depending on the time is the probability of the next entry being posted. One has to bear in mind that the normalization factor to unity for large values of time, varies, with time. CDF describes to some extent the dynamics of blog posts / mailing list and as such is the characteristic function for a particular blog / mailing list.
An interesting question is therefore whether these functions will depend on the user, and will CDF depend on the discussed topic. Figure \ref{integral00} shows that indeed every user has his/her own pattern of activity. Moreover, some earlier observations suggest that users activity pattern is similar in case of different mailing lists / blogs \footnote{
See an older version of this article, based on data from 1999-2001, as available at \href{http://nanophysics.pl/internet/index-en.php}{nanophysics.pl}
}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{150mm}{!}{\includegraphics{integral00.eps}}
\caption{Comparison of the activity of several users of \emph{Marucha's blog}. The line described as \emph{All} represents the activity of all users of the blog.
}
\label{integral00}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{160mm}{!}{\includegraphics{postings_ranking00.eps}}
\caption{Number of comments to particular articles in the \emph{Marucha's blog} as a function of article popularity (rank). The data are well approximated by a sigmoidal function $16 \cdot (12200/x - 1)^{0.57}$ (the broken line).
}
\label{postings_ranking00}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is worth to have for comparison the number of comments in all discussion threads as a function of rank
(Figure \ref{postings_ranking00}). It is found that these data can be approximated well by another variant of a sigmoidal function \cite{Ausloos2}.
\section{Writing as a stochastic process: analogies with the dynamics of electrons in matter.}
\label{fermi}
Let's start with the analysis of "symmetry" of the function as shown in Figure \ref{fermi02}, which describes the probability of the blog entry as a function of time, $P(t)$: Nearly exactly the same curve is obtained when plot of the function $1-P(1/t)$ is made. A similar property was also observed previously for the data for mailing lists \emph{IYP} and \emph{POLSKA}, and other. This shows that the function $P(t)$ should have the form:
\begin{equation}\label{logistic}
P(t)=\frac{P_0(t)}{1.0+P_0(t)},
\end{equation}
where $P_0(t)$ is a monotonic function of $t$ increasing from zero for small values of $t$ to infinity at large values of $t$. Functions of this type are called sigmoid functions. Additionally, we observe here that a function must be used of the kind where $P_0(t)$ has the property: $P_0(t) \sim 1/P_0(1/t)$ (that is easy to show by simple algebra). Their simplest representation would be that, when $P_0(t)$ is assumed to be of power-law type. Additionally, we should carry out appropriate normalization of $t$: it turns out that in fact, such a relationship,
\begin{equation}\label{logistic2}
P_0(t) \sim (t/t_0)^a),
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $t_0$ are some fitting parameters, approximates the data in Figure \ref{fermi02}.
The function \ref{logistic2} is equivalent to the function in the form $exp(a \cdot log(t/t_0))$ - hence the analogy with the Fermi-Dirac distribution (FD), with the difference that in the case of FD exponent $a$ is equal to $1$. Here, the role of electrons (holes) energy in the solid state plays $log(t)$, and the Fermi potential role is played by the parameter $log(t_0)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{150mm}{!}{\includegraphics{fermi02.eps}}
\caption{Probability of posting $P(t)$ (Cumulative Distribution Function) as a function of time on the \emph{Marucha's blog}, marked with a red line. The green line represents a transform of $P(t)$ data in the form of function $1-P(58000/t)$. The blue line (between the red and yellow one) shows the function $f(t)=P_0(t) / (1.0+P_0(t)$, where $P_0(t)=exp(a \cdot log(t/t_0))$. The fitting parameters used were $t_0=244$ and $a=1.22$, while for the normalization of the total number of entries the number 330000 was used (the actual number of entries in a given period of observation was $329228$).
}
\label{fermi02}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Description of the data in Figure \ref{fermi03}.}
\label{table_1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\bf{Line} & \bf{Date} & \bf{Subject discussed} (in Polish) & \bf{$a$} & \bf{$t_0$ [s]}\\
\hline
A & all subjects & & 1.22 & 244 \\
B & 2006/09/09 & Neokatechumenat czyli kościół św. Kiko & 1.33 & 351 \\
C & 2011/08/23 & Pułapka na Rosje & 1.1 & 899 \\
D & 2011/09/29 & Wybory & 0.95 & 1320 \\
E & 2010/04/25 & Dariusz Kosiur polski kandydat na prezydenta & 0.88 & 5300 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{160mm}{!}{\includegraphics{fermi03.eps}}
\caption{Comparison of activity in a number of selected topics in the \emph{Marucha's blog}. Line $A$ represents the activity on the entire blog, and the remaining lines the activity in selected topics, as described in Table \ref{table_1}. For each data set a solid line is drawn described by the function $f(x)=f_0(x)/(1+f_0(x)$, where $f_0(x)=exp(a \cdot log(x/t_0))$, and parameters $a$ and $t_0$ are given in Table \ref{table_1}.
}
\label{fermi03}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{160mm}{!}{\includegraphics{number-of-postings02.eps}}
\caption{Number of postings as a function of time, measured in time intervals of $5\cdot 10^6$ s.
The solid lines fit well to activity on the blog, at the initial period of blog existence (line $A$) and the later, current time (line $B$). Both lines are drawn with the formula $f(x)=a \cdot x^b - c$, where $a=10^{-14}$, $b=2.3$ and $c=0$ for line $A$ and $a=2.15\cdot 10^{-9}$, $b=1.7$ and $c=80000$ for line $B$
}
\label{number-of-postings}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{160mm}{!}{\includegraphics{integral08.eps}}
\caption{Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) computed in time-span range of $5\cdot10^5$ s for every curve, and with the same time-step between curves. The most right curves correspond to the most left data points in Figure \ref{number-of-postings}, and vice-verse. For better clarity only every second curve is drawn.
}
\label{integral08}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to answer the question whether the sigmoidal description of Figure \ref{fermi02} is applicable in the case of discussions on narrow topics, under specific articles posted. To find the answer, we selected a few of the more active threads of high interest for a longer period of time as described in Table \ref{table_1}. Figure \ref{fermi03} shows the results observed from this kind of activity in individual subjects as well as for the entire blog, except that the parameters matching ($a$ and $t_0$) this time are different.
In particular, data in Table \ref{table_1} highlight the regularity: the smaller the exponent $a$, the larger the characteristic time $t_0$.
In order to verify this and to describe more quantitatively the dynamics of users activity, we will analyze the CDFs for posting in narrower time range. The entire time-span studied (almost 8 years) has been divided to equal parts (of $5\cdot 10^6$ s each, which is nearly 2 months). Figure \ref{number-of-postings} shows how the averaged number of postings changed with time: initially, when the blog was not widely known its popularity grows slowly, and it is followed then by a steep nearly parabolic increase in number of postings. With a high likeness we are able to predict the trends in the near future. For instance, at the end of the year 2014 it should reach about 175,000 postings per month, and at the end of 2015 about 220,000 postings per month. The change of the users activity pattern at around $1.2\cdot 10^8 s$ in Figure \ref{number-of-postings} (the year 2009/2010) is probably characteristic for many blogs, and may reflect an intrinsic feature of users activity, after passing a certain critical value, and it would require verification by studies performed on other blogs.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{160mm}{!}{\includegraphics{integral-fit03.eps}}
\caption{Time dependence of parameters $t_0$ (stars, left axis) and $a$ (squares, right axis),
obtained by fitting Equations \ref{logistic}, \ref{logistic2} to the CDFs as shown in Figure
\ref{integral08}.
}
\label{integral-fit03}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We are able to create a function that would approximate well a probability of posting to the blog, within a certain time range, at any time of blog existence.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{160mm}{!}{\includegraphics{integral-fit02.eps}}
\caption{Relationship between parameters $t_0$ and $a$ obtained from fitting function given by Equations \ref{logistic} and \ref{logistic2} to the data of Figure \ref{integral08}. As the solid line shows, an exponential dependence may be used for approximating $t_0 (a)$.
}
\label{integral-fit02}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{integral08} shows how Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) computed in time-span range of $5\cdot10^5$ s changes with time. And Figure \ref{integral-fit03} shows results of fitting of parameters $t_0$ and $a$ on time, while Figure \ref{integral-fit02} shows that a simple exponential relation may be used to describe $t_0 (a)$. Hence, we are able to derive a single equation that can approximate the dynamics of activity on a web blog through time-span reaching several years.
\section{Summary.}
\label{summary}
It is shown that the Zipf distribution describes well the number of entries from users of mailing lists and blogs as a function of their rank. An improved description is achieved when the stretched-exponential function is used instead.
Using the number of entries, the cumulative distribution function as a function of time is found to be a good tool to study the dynamics of entries. Each mailing list has its own CDF function. The results of the analysis suggest that the dynamics of entries of each of the participants may also be assigned their own characteristic distribution function. The same is observed in case of discussions on particular topic (thread).
For blogs or mailing list distribution function describing the dynamics of the activity of all participants in the discussion put together, can be accurately described using the function $P(t)=P_0(t) / (1+P_0(t)$, where $P_0(t)=exp(a \cdot log(t/t_0))$. Similar relationship describes also the activity of the participants of discussions on specific topics.
We are able to derive a single equation that can approximate the dynamics of activity on a web blog and predict its future activity.
|
\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\bf}}
\def\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\textit}}
\renewcommand\@biblabel[1]{#1}
\renewcommand\@makefntext[1
{\noindent\makebox[0pt][r]{\@thefnmark\,}#1}
\makeatother
\renewcommand{\figurename}{\small{Fig.}~}
\sectionfont{\large}
\subsectionfont{\normalsize}
\fancyhead{}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\columnsep}{6.5mm}
\setlength\bibsep{1pt}
\twocolumn[
\begin{@twocolumnfalse}
\noindent\LARGE{\textbf{Stretching of BDT-gold molecular junctions: thiol or thiolate termination?}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent\large{\textbf{Amaury de Melo Souza,\textit{$^{a}$} Ivan Rungger,\textit{$^{a}$}
Renato Borges Pontes,\textit{$^{b}$} Alexandre Reily Rocha,\textit{$^{c}$} Antonio Jose Roque da Silva,\textit{$^{d\ast}$}
Udo Schwingenschloegl,\textit{$^{e}$} and Stefano Sanvito\textit{$^{a}$}}}\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent\textit{\small{\textbf{Received Xth XXXXXXXXXX 20XX, Accepted Xth XXXXXXXXX 20XX\newline
First published on the web Xth XXXXXXXXXX 200X}}}
\noindent \textbf{\small{DOI: 10.1039/b000000x}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent
\normalsize{
It is often assumed that the hydrogen atoms in the thiol groups of a benzene-1,4-dithiol dissociate
when Au-benzene-1,4-dithiol-Au junctions are formed. We demonstrate, by stability and transport
properties calculations, that this assumption can not be made. We show that the dissociative
adsorption of methanethiol and benzene-1,4-dithiol molecules on a flat Au(111) surface is
energetically unfavorable and that the activation barrier for this reaction is as high
as 1 eV. For the molecule in the junction, our results show, for all electrode geometries
studied, that the thiol junctions are energetically more stable than their thiolate counterparts.
Due to the fact that density functional theory (DFT) within the local density approximation (LDA)
underestimates the energy difference between the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital and the highest
occupied molecular orbital by several electron-volts, and that it does not capture the renormalization
of the energy levels due to the image charge effect, the conductance of the Au-benzene-1,4-dithiol-Au
junctions is overestimated. After taking into account corrections due to image charge effects by means
of constrained-DFT calculations and electrostatic classical models, we apply a scissor operator to
correct the DFT energy levels positions, and calculate the transport properties of the thiol and
thiolate molecular junctions as a function of the electrodes separation. For the thiol junctions,
we show that the conductance decreases as the electrodes separation increases, whereas the opposite
trend is found for the thiolate junctions. Both behaviors have been observed in experiments,
therefore pointing to the possible coexistence of both thiol and thiolate junctions. Moreover,
the corrected conductance values, for both thiol and thiolate, are up to two orders of magnitude
smaller than those calculated with DFT-LDA. This brings the theoretical results in quantitatively good agreement with experimental data.}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{@twocolumnfalse}
]
\section{Introduction}\label{bdt-intro}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{a}$~School of Physics; AMBER and CRANN, Trinity College Dublin, College Green D2, Ireland, E-mail: <EMAIL>}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{b}$~Instituto de F\'isica, Universidade Federal de Goi\'as, Campus Samambaia 74001-970 , Goi\^ania-GO, Brasil}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{c}$~Instituto de F\'isica Te\'orica - Universidade Estadual Paulista, Barra-Funda 01140-070, S\~ao Paulo-SP, Brazil}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{d}$~Instituto de F\'isica, Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, Rua do Mat\~ao 05508-090, Cidade Universit\'aria, S\~ao Paulo-SP, Brazil}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{\ast}$~Laborat\'orio Nacional de Luz Sincroton LNLS, 13083-970 Campinas-SP, Brazil}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{e}$~PSE Division, KAUST, Thuwal 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia}}
A long standing problem in the area of molecular electronics has been the difficulty of finding quantitative agreement
between theory and experiment in some cases. This makes it difficult to design and build functioning devices based on molecules.
More than a decade has passed since the pioneering experiment by Reed \textit{et al.},\cite{Reed1997} and yet the
well-known prototype molecular junction that consists of a benzene-1,4-dithiol molecule between two gold electrodes
is still not fully understood. Numerous experimental~\cite{Tsutsui2006,Tsutsui2009,Tian2010,Tao2004,Taniguchi2010,Baheti2008,Lortscher2007,Baheti2008,Kim2011}
and theoretical~\cite{Demir2012,Pontes2006,Pontes2011a,Toher2008,Strange2011a,French2013,French2013a} works have been reported,
with both experimental and theoretical results varying over a large range.
In general, the possible experimental setups can be divided into two main categories: mechanically controlled break-junctions
(MCBJs)~\cite{Reed1997,Lortscher2007,Gonzalez2006,Kim2011, Taniguchi2010,Tian2006,Tian2010,Tsutsui2009,Tsutsui2006,Tsutsui2009a}
and scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments.\cite{Quek2009, Arroyo2011, Bruot2012, Baheti2008,Fatemi2011,Kiguchi2010,Reddy2007,Vazquez2012,
Venkataraman2006,Wold2002,Tao2004,Xu2003} In the former, a gold nano-contact is created by stretching a gold wire and,
just before rupture, a solution containing the target molecules is added to the system. Subsequently, the metallic contact
is further stretched until rupture and in some cases the molecules remain trapped between the Au-Au tips forming the molecular
junctions. In the second setup, the target molecules are deposited on a gold surface, and a STM tip is brought into contact to form
the junction. Due to the nature of the experiment, several different geometrical contacts
can be accessed during the stretching process of
the junction, which leads to a statistical character of the experimental analysis.
In fact, in a single experiment, a broad range of values of conductance, $G$, is observed, and possibly even
very different average $G$ values between experiments.\cite{Tsutsui2006,Kim2011,Pontes2011a} Yet, recent independent
measurements~\cite{Tao2004,Bruot2012,Kiguchi2010,Tsutsui2009a} agree on an average value of $G$ of about 0.01$G_0$,
where $G_0=2e^2/h$ is the quantum conductance ($e$ is the electron charge and $h$ is the Planck's constant).
From the theoretical point of view, the quantitative description of such molecular junctions is challenging for two main reasons.
Firstly, realistic electrode configurations and many arrangements should be considered in the calculations,
which becomes prohibitive within a fully \textit{ab initio} approach. More recently, French \textit{et al.}~\cite{French2013, French2013a}
have applied a sophisticated method that combines Monte Carlo simulations and classical molecular dynamics to simulate the junction stretching process,
allowing the sampling of hundreds of contact geometries between the molecule and the electrodes. In addition, it is generally assumed in
the literature~\cite{Tomfohr2004,Stokbro2003,Maksymovych2008,Andreoni2000,French2013, French2013a,Pu2010,Pontes2006,Pontes2011a,Strange2011,
Strange2011a,Toher2008,Gronbeck2000} that when the molecule attaches to the gold electrodes,
the hydrogen atoms linked to the thiol groups are dissociated to form a thiolate-Au bond.
However, recent DFT calculations on the details of the adsorption of the benzene-1,4-dithiol on gold have
been reported.\cite{Nara2004, Ning2010} They find that the thiol-Au structure is energetically
more stable than its thiolate-Au counterparts when the molecule binds to either a perfect flat
surface~\cite{Nara2004} or to an adatom structure.\cite{Ning2010}
Usually transport calculations rely on the Kohn-Sham (KS) eigenvalues to evaluate $G$, even though these eigenvalues can not be
rigorously interpreted as quasi-particle energy levels. The only exception is for the HOMO level, which is equal to the negative
of the ionization potential.\cite{Perdew1983,Parr1979,J.F.Janak1978} It has been demonstrated
experimentally~\cite{Search1997,Repp2005,Lu2004,Greiner2011,Perrin2013} that the quasi-particle
energy gap, $E_\mathrm{QP}^\mathrm{gap}$, of a molecule, defined as the difference between its
ionization potential, $I$, and electron affinity, $A$, shrinks with respect to that of the gas
phase by adsorbing the molecule on a polarizable substrate. Nevertheless, the electronic structure
theories usually used for such calculations can only partly account for this renormalization of the
molecular energy levels when the junction is formed. It is well-known that DFT, within the standard local and semi-local
approximations to the exchange-correlation (XC) energy, does not include non-local correlation effects,
such as the dynamical response of the electron system to adding electrons or holes to the molecule.
This limits its ability to predict the energy level alignment, when compared to experiments,
which often leads to overestimated values for $G$.\cite{Kronik2008, Flores2009}
A rigorous way to include such non-local correlation effects is by using many-body perturbation theory,
such as for example the GW approximation constructed on top of DFT.\cite{Search1973,Hybertsen1986,Onida2002}
In the last few years, this approach has been used for evaluating level alignments,\cite{Neaton2006,Garcia-Lastra2011,Garcia-Lastra2009,
Tamblyn2011,Rignanese2001,Strange2012} in general with good success.
The drawback of the GW scheme lays on the fact that it is highly computationally demanding,
which limits the system size that can be tackled. This is particularly critical in the case
of molecular junctions, where the system can be considerably large due to the presence of the
metal electrodes. Therefore, different alternative approaches and corrections have been proposed
to improve the description of the energy level alignment, for instance, corrections for self-interaction
(SI) errors,\cite{Toher2008, Pemmaraju2007} scissor operator (SCO)
schemes~\cite{Quek2007,Strange2011,Neaton2006,Flores2009,Garcia-Suarez2011} and constrained-DFT (CDFT).\cite{Souza2013}
In the present work we investigate, by means of total energy DFT and quantum transport calculations,
the stability and conductivity of thiol and thiolate molecular junctions. We compare the results for the
two systems and we relate them to experimental data. The paper is divided as follows. In Sec. \ref{methods}
we first give an overview of the methodology used.
In Sec. \ref{BDT-adsorption} we present a systematic study of the adsorption process of
two thiol-terminated molecules, namely, methanethiol and benzene-1,4-dithiol on Au(111) flat surface.
For the latter, we also compare the stability of the thiol and thiolate systems when the junction is
formed for several contact geometries.\cite{Pontes2006, Pontes2011a, Toher2008, French2013, French2013a}
In Sec. \ref{level-alignment} we discuss the energy level alignment, and present three methods used to
correct the DFT-LDA molecular energy levels, namely CDFT and SCO. Based on these results in Sec. \ref{Transport}
we finally discuss the transport properties and present the dependence of $G$ on the electrodes separation ($L$)
for flat-flat contact geometries, for both the thiol and thiolate junctions.
\section{METHODS}\label{methods}
\subsection{Calculation details}
All the calculations presented in this paper are based on DFT as implemented in the {\sc siesta} package.\cite{Soler2002}
For some calculations, we also use the plane-wave code {\sc vasp}~\cite{Kresse1996}
in order to compare with our results obtained with the localized basis set.
Unless stated otherwise, we use the following parameters throughout this work.
For total energy and relaxation calculations we use the generalized gradient approximation
as formulated by Perdew-Burke-Ernzenhof (GGA-PBE) to the XC energy.\cite{Perdew1996} The basis set for {\sc siesta}
is the double-$\zeta$ polarized for carbon, sulfur and hydrogen and
a double-$\zeta$ for the 5$d$6$s$6$p$ orbitals of Au atoms.
We take into account corrections for the basis set superposition error (BSSE).
The mesh cutoff
is 300 Ry, four $k$-points are used for the Brillouin zone sampling in the perpendicular
direction to the transport and norm-conserving pseudopotentials according to the Troullier-Martins
procedure to describe the core electrons.\cite{Troullier1991} In the case of {\sc vasp} calculations,
we use a cut-off energy of 450 Ry to expand the wave functions and the projector augmented-wave method to
treat the core electrons.\cite{Rostgaard2009} All the junctions are fully relaxed until all the forces
are smaller than 0.02 eV/\AA. All the quantum transport calculations presented are performed with
the {\sc smeagol} code,\cite{Rocha2006,Rungger2008} which uses the non-equilibrium Green's function (NEGF) formalism. Here,
the XC energy is treated within the LDA approximation.
\subsection{Self-interaction correction}\label{asic_methods}
One of the main deficiencies of local and semi-local DFT functionals when treating
organic/inorganic interfaces is the SI error. This spurious interaction of an electron with the Hartree
and XC potentials generated by itself leads to an over-delocalization of the electronic charge density.
Consequently, the occupied KS eigenstates of molecules are pushed to higher energies.
Moreover, the unoccupied states are found too low in energy due to the lack of the
derivative discontinuity in the XC potential.\cite{Parr1979} These two limitations
lead to a substantial underestimation of the energy gap of various systems.
In order to deal with the problem of SI, we apply the atomic self-interaction correction
(ASIC) method,\cite{Toher2008,Filippetti2011,Toher2005,Pemmaraju2007} which has been shown
to improve the position of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of molecules
when compared to their gas phase $I$. It has also been shown to improve the energy level
alignment when the junction is formed, leading to values of $G$ in better agreement
with experiments.\cite{Pontes2011a,Toher2008, French2013, French2013a}
The method, however, shows some limitations. The correction applied by
ASIC depends on the atomic orbital occupation, not the molecular orbital occupation.
Therefore, if different molecular orbitals are composed of a linear combination of a similar
set of atomic orbitals, ASIC will shift their energy eigenvalues by a similar amount.
For example, if empty states share the same character as the occupied states,
as it is usually the case for small molecules, the energy of these states will be spuriously shifted
to lower energies. In order to apply ASIC, a scaling parameter, $\alpha$, to the atomic-like
occupations needs to be specified, where for $\alpha=1$ the full correction is applied,
while for $\alpha=0$ no correction is applied. The value of $\alpha$ is related to the screening provided by
the chemical environment.\cite{Pemmaraju2007} For metals, where the SI is negligible, we therefore use
$\alpha$=0, whereas for the molecules, where SI is more pronounced, we use $\alpha$=1.
\subsection{Constrained Density Functional Theory}\label{cdft_methods}
In the present work we apply the CDFT method, described in Ref. [\onlinecite{Souza2013}],
to calculate the charge-transfer energy between the molecule and the metallic substrate.
This corresponds to the position of the frontier energy levels, i.e., the HOMO and the
lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO), with respect to the metal Fermi energy, $E_\mathrm{F}$.
For a given distance, $d$, from the center of the molecule to the surface, the procedure is as follows:
first, a conventional DFT calculation is performed, where no constraint is applied. This yields the total
energy of the combined system, $E(\mathrm{mol}/\mathrm{sub};d)$, and the amount of charge present on each
fragment (one fragment being the molecule and the other fragment the metal surface).
In a second step, a CDFT calculation is performed.
Since we are interested in accessing the position of the frontier energy levels with respect to the
metal $E_\mathrm{F}$, we consider two types of constraints. In the first one, a full electron is
removed from the molecule and added to the substrate, and the total energy of this charge-transfer
state, $E(\mathrm{mol}^{+}/\mathrm{sub}^{-};d)$, is obtained. Hence, the energy to transfer one
electron from the molecule to the substrate is given by
\begin{equation}
E_\mathrm{CT}^{+}(d)=E(\mathrm{mol}^{+}/\mathrm{sub}^{-};d)-E(\mathrm{mol}/\mathrm{sub};d)\:.
\label{e-homo}
\end{equation}
In the second case we evaluate the energy when one full electron is removed from the substrate and added
to the molecule, $E(\mathrm{mol}^{-}/\mathrm{sub}^{+};d)$. The charge-transfer energy to add one electron to the molecule is then given by
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{CT}}^{-}(d)=E(\mathrm{mol}/\mathrm{sub};d)-E(\mathrm{mol}^{-}/\mathrm{sub}^{+};d)\:.
\label{e-lumo}
\end{equation}
We can relate the charge-transfer energies to the frontier energy levels
by offsetting them with the metal work function ($W_\mathrm{F}$), so that $E_{\mathrm{HOMO}}(d)\simeq -[E^+_{\mathrm{CT}}(d)+W_{\mathrm{F}}]$
and $E_{\mathrm{LUMO}}(d)\simeq -[E^-_{\mathrm{CT}}(d)+W_{\mathrm{F}}]$ correspond to the HOMO and LUMO energies, respectively.
Note that if the metal substrate is semi-infinite in size, then these relations are exact, since by definition
the energy required to remove an electron from the metal and that gained by adding it are equal to $W_\mathrm{F}$.
However, in a practical calculation a finite size slab is used, and therefore,
the relations are only approximately valid due to the inaccuracies in the calculated $W_\mathrm{F}$ for finite systems.
$W_\mathrm{F}$ is calculated by performing a simulation for the metal slab
and by taking the difference between the vacuum potential and the $E_\mathrm{F}$ of the slab.
We can then compare the CDFT results for the renormalization of the energy levels due to the
image charge effect with two simplified classical electrostatic models.
In the first one we consider the electrostatic energy of a point charge
interacting with a single surface,\cite{Lang1973} given by
\begin{equation}
V(d)=-\frac{q^2}{4(d-d_0)}\:.
\label{cm1s}
\end{equation}
In the second model, the point charge is interacting with two infinite flat surfaces,\cite{Quek2007,Garcia-Suarez2011}
which gives the following interaction energy
\begin{equation}
U(d)=-\frac{q^2}{2(d-d_0)}\mathrm{ln2}\label{cm2s}.
\end{equation}
In both equations, $q$ is a point charge located at the center of the molecule,
and $d=L/2$ for the case of two surfaces, where $L$ is the distance between the two surfaces;
$d_0$ is the height of the image charge plane with respect to the surface atomic layer,
so that $d_0$ can be interpreted as the center of gravity
of the screening charge density formed on the metal surface,
which in general depends on $d$. Instead of treating $d_0$ as a free parameter,
as usually done in the literature,\cite{Quek2007,Garcia-Suarez2011}
our CDFT approach allows us to calculate it from first principles.\cite{Souza2013} Hence the classical models
shown in Eq. (\ref{cm1s}) and Eq. (\ref{cm2s}) are effectively parameter-free when based on the CDFT value for $d_0$.
\subsection{Scissor Operator method}\label{sco_methods}
Since we obtain the energies of the HOMO and LUMO from CDFT total energies,
we can shift the DFT eigenvalues to lie at these energies by means
of a SCO~\cite{Ferretti2005,Quek2011,Garcia-Suarez2011,Quek2007,Mowbray2008,Abad2008}
method. This has been shown to improve $G$ when compared to experimental data.\cite{Quek2007}
For the particular case of a single molecule attached to the electrodes,
first a projection of the full KS-Hamiltonian matrix and of the overlap matrix
is carried out onto the atomic orbitals associated with the molecule subspace,
which we denote as $H_\mathrm{mol}^0$ and $S_\mathrm{mol}^0$ (the remaining part of $\hat{H}$ describes the electrodes). By
solving the corresponding eigenvalue problem,
$H_\mathrm{mol}^0 \psi=\epsilon S_\mathrm{mol}^0\psi$, for this subblock we
obtain the eigenvalues, $\{\epsilon_{n}\}_{n=1,...,M}$,
and eigenvectors, $\{\psi_{n}\}_{n=1,...,M}$,
where $M$ is the number of atomic orbitals on the molecule. Subsequently, the corrections are applied to the eigenvalues,
where all the occupied levels are shifted rigidly by the constant $\Sigma_\mathrm{o}$
while the unoccupied levels are shifted rigidly by the constant $\Sigma_\mathrm{u}$.
We note that in principle each state can be shifted by a different amount.
Using the shifted eigenvalues we can construct a transformed molecular Hamiltonian matrix,
$H_\mathrm{mol}^\mathrm{SCO}$, given by
\begin{equation}
H_\mathrm{mol}^\mathrm{SCO}=H_\mathrm{mol}^0 + \Sigma_\mathrm{o}\sum_{i_\mathrm{o}=1,n_\mathrm{o}}\psi_{i_\mathrm{o}}\psi_{i_\mathrm{o}}^{\dagger}+\Sigma_\mathrm{u}\sum_{i_\mathrm{u}=1,n_\mathrm{u}}\psi_{i_\mathrm{u}}\psi_{i_\mathrm{u}}^{\dagger},\label{Eq.sco_method}
\end{equation}
where the first sum runs over the $n_\mathrm{o}$ occupied orbitals, and the second one runs over the $n_\mathrm{u}$ empty states.
In the full Hamiltonian matrix we then replace the subblock $H_\mathrm{mol}^0$ with
$H_\mathrm{mol}^\mathrm{SCO}$.\cite{Quek2011,Garcia-Suarez2011,Quek2007,Mowbray2008,Abad2008}
The SCO procedure can be applied self-consistently, although in this work we apply it non-selfconsistently to the converged DFT Hamiltonian.
The correction applied to the frontier energy levels of a molecule in a junction has two contributions.
First we need to correct for the fact that the gas-phase LDA HOMO-LUMO gap ($E_\mathrm{LDA}^\mathrm{gap}$) is
too small when compared to the difference between $I$ and $A$, where
$I=E^{(N-1)}-E^{(N)}$ and $A= E^{(N)}-E^{(N+1)}$ ($E^{(N)}$ is the
ground state total energy for a system with $N$ electrons).
Secondly, the renormalization of the energy levels, when the molecule is brought close to metal surfaces needs to be added
to the gas-phase HOMO and LUMO levels. Although CDFT in principle allows us to assess the renormalization
of the energy levels in the junction, to reduce the computational costs we calculate the charge-transfer
energies with one single surface. Since in transport calculations there are two surfaces,
we then use the corresponding classical model (Eq. \ref{cm2s}), with $d_0$ obtained from CDFT
for the single surface. Hence, for the molecule attached to two metallic surfaces forming a molecular
junction, we approximate the overall corrections
for the molecular levels below $E_\mathrm{F}$ by
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_\mathrm{o}(d)= - [I+\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO}}(d)] + U(d)\label{sigma_o}
\end{equation}
and similarly for the levels above $E_\mathrm{F}$ as
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_\mathrm{u}(d)= -[A +\epsilon_{\mathrm{LUMO}}(d)] - U(d);\label{sigma_u}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\mathrm{HOMO/LUMO}}(d)$ is obtained from the position of the
peaks of the PDOS and $U(d)$ is the classical potential given by Eq. (\ref{cm2s}).
Here we assume a that the character of the molecular states is preserved when the junction is formed.
\subsection{Electronic transport properties: DFT+NEGF}\label{negf_methods}
For the transport calculations, the system is divided into three regions: the central region, called scattering region
or device (D) region, which includes the molecule and a few layers of both the electrodes, and
the semi-infinite left (L) and right (R) electrodes, to which the device
region is connected. The retarded Green's function of the device region, $\mathcal{G}_\mathrm{D}$, is then given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{D}}(E)= \lim_{\eta\rightarrow 0}\left[(E+i\eta) -H_\mathrm{D}-\Sigma_\mathrm{L}-\Sigma_\mathrm{R}\right]^{-1} \label{eq:green-central},\\
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_\mathrm{{L,R}}$ are the so-called
self-energies of the left-hand and right-hand side electrodes, $E$ is
the energy and $H_\mathrm{D}$ is the KS-Hamiltonian
of the central region.
The electronic couplings between the electrodes and the device region are given by $ \Gamma_\mathrm{{L,R}}=i(\Sigma_\mathrm{{L,R}}-\Sigma_\mathrm{{L,R}}^{\dagger})$.
Following a self-consistent procedure,\cite{Rocha2006}
the non-equilibrium charge density extracted from Eq. (\ref{eq:green-central}) is used to calculate a new $H_{\mathrm{D}}[\rho]$.
Once the convergence is reached, the transmission coefficients are calculated as
\begin{equation}
T=\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma_\mathrm{L} \mathcal{G}_\mathrm{D}^\dagger\Gamma_\mathrm{R} \mathcal{G}_\mathrm{D}}]. \label{eq:trc}
\end{equation}
In the limit of zero-bias, we obtain the zero-bias conductance from the Fisher-Lee relation $G=G_0T(E_\mathrm{F})$
and the projected DOS (PDOS) for any orbital with index $\beta$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{PDOS}_\beta(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\mathrm{Im}[\mathcal{G}_{\mathrm{D}}(E)S_{\mathrm{D}}]_{\beta\beta}\label{eq:pdos}.
\end{equation}
In order to obtain reliable values for $T$ it is important to have an electronic structure theory capable of
describing the correct positions of the molecular energy levels with respect to $E_\mathrm{F}$,
since these ultimately dictate the transport properties of the device.
\section{RESULTS}
\subsection{Stability study of thiol-terminated molecules on a Au(111) flat surface and the junctions}\label{BDT-adsorption}
In this section we present a systematic study, by means of total energy DFT calculations, of the stability of thiol-terminated
molecules on Au(111) flat surfaces, as well as when the molecule is attached to two Au electrodes forming a molecular junction.
For the systems presented in this section, the gold surface is modeled by considering a 3$\times$3 surface
unit cell five-layer thick.
This corresponds to a surface coverage of 1/3.\cite{Pontes2011a,Nara2004} The three bottom layers of
gold are kept fixed during the relaxation. For the junctions shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures} we use a
slightly larger 4$\times$4 surface unit cell, in order to be able to model the tip-tip-like contact as well.
We first discuss the adsorption process of benzene-1-4-dithiol ($\mathrm{C_6H_6S_2}$) on the Au(111) flat surface,
and compare it to adsorption properties of methanethiol ($\mathrm{CH_3SH}$). These molecules represent two distinct
classes, namely, aromatic and linear hydrocarbon compounds, respectively.
From this point on, we refer to benzene-1-4-dithiol as BDT2H in order to distinguish it
from the benzene-1-thiolate-4-thiol $\mathrm{C_6H_5S_2}$ (BDT1H), and from benzene-1-4-dithiolate $\mathrm{C_6H_4S_2}$ (BDT).
The calculations are performed as follows: (i) a system with the molecule terminated by a thiol group ($R\mathrm{SH/Au}$),
where $R=\mathrm{CH_3}$ for the methanethiol and $R=\mathrm{C_6H_5S}$ for the BDT2H, is placed close to the Au(111)
surface and the geometry is relaxed. (ii) Then a second system is built where the molecule is now terminated by a
thiolate group and a H atom is attached to the surface ($R\mathrm{S/Au+H}$), and again the geometry is relaxed.
Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(a-c) shows the relaxed structures for the dissociative adsorption of the methanethiol
molecule, and the analogous structures are shown for the BDT2H in Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(d-f).
For the $R\mathrm{SH/Au}$ systems, the molecule is tilted with respect to its vertical axis perpendicular
to the surface, whereas for the $R\mathrm{S/(Au+H)}$ systems the molecule is upright sitting on a hollow-site.
Our relaxed geometries are in good agreement with literature.\cite{Gronbeck2000,Nara2004}
We have also calculated the binding energies, as given by
\begin{equation}
E_\mathrm{b}=E_\mathrm{T}(R\mathrm{SH/Au})-E_\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{Au})-E_\mathrm{T}(R\mathrm{SH}), \label{biding_energy}
\end{equation}
for the methanethiol
and methanethiolate molecules on the Au(111) surface, and we find 0.63 eV and 1.42 eV, respectively.
For the BDT2H we find 0.12 eV whereas for the BDT1H, $E_\mathrm{b}$ is equal to 1.53 eV.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_1}
\caption{Ball-stick representation of the adsorption process of methanethiol (a-c) and BDT2H (d-f)
on a flat Au(111) surface.
(a) and (d) the thiol molecules (\textit{R}SH/Au) are adsorbed on the surface;
(b) and (e) the hydrogen atom is dissociated to form thiolates (\textit{R}S/(Au+H)).
Finally, in (c) and (f) the hydrogen atoms attached to the Au surface desorbs
to form a $H_2$ molecule ((\textit{R}S+$H_2$)/Au). (g) and (h) schematically show the
total energy differences between each step of the reaction.}
\label{methiol@Au}
\end{figure}
Finally, we consider a third structure for which the H atom attached to the surface is released from the surface
to form a $\mathrm{H_2}$ molecule $(R\mathrm{S+H_2)/Au}$. The formation energy
of the thiolate structure with a H atom attached to the surface is given by
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{f}}=E_\mathrm{T}{(R\mathrm{SH/Au})}-E_\mathrm{T}{(R\mathrm{S/(Au+H)})}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the formation energy for the dissociative adsorption followed
by the formation of a $\mathrm{H_2}$ molecule is calculated by
\begin{equation}
E_\mathrm{f}= E_\mathrm{T}{(R\mathrm{SH/Au})}+\frac{1}{2}E_\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{H_2})-E_\mathrm{T}((R\mathrm{S+H_2)/Au}).
\end{equation}
Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(g) and Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(h) schematically show the total energy
differences between each step of the dissociative adsorption of the methanethiol and BDT2H molecules.
For the methanethiol molecule, if the dissociative reaction is accompanied by the chemisorption of a
H atom on the surface, as in Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(b), the thiolate structure is energetically
unfavorable by 1.09 eV, a result consistent with previous calculations by Zhou \textit{et al.}~\cite{Zhou2006}
and temperature-programmed desorption (TPD) experiments.\cite{Lee2005,Nuzzo1987} When the H atoms adsorbed
on the surface are detached to form $\mathrm{H_2}$ molecules as in Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(c),
the thiolate system becomes more stable by 0.33 eV compared to the thiolate system with the
H atom attached to the surface. Overall, the dissociative reaction followed by the formation
of a $\mathrm{H_2}$ molecule is unfavorable by 0.76 eV.
For the BDT2H molecule, the thiolate with a H atom attached to the surface is unfavorable by 0.60 eV
compared to the thiol structure, in good agreement with the value of 0.4 eV reported in recent studies
by Ning \textit{et al.}.\cite{Ning2010} When the dissociative reaction is accompanied by the formation
of a $\mathrm{H_2}$ from the H atom attached to the surface, this reaction is exothermic by 0.39 eV.
As a result, the dissociative absorption of BDT2H molecules on Au(111) surface followed by the
desorption of $\mathrm{H_2}$ is unfavorable by 0.21 eV. This partially contradicts the results
obtained by Nara \textit{et al.},\cite{Nara2004} who found the dissociative reaction
accompanied by the H atom on the surface to be indeed unfavorable by 0.22 eV. However,
for the case where the reaction is followed by the formation of $\mathrm{H_2}$,
the system is further stabilized by 0.42 eV so that the thiolate system is more stable by $\sim$0.20 eV.
Overall our results show that for both classes of molecules the dissociative
reaction is always unfavorable when considering either the formation of $R\mathrm{S/(Au+H)}$ or $(R\mathrm{S+H_2)/Au}$ structures.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_2}
\caption{Activation barrier for the dissociative adsorption of BDT2H on Au(111) surface as shown in Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(d)-(e).}
\label{adsorption_bdt}
\end{figure}
In addition to the total energy differences between the dissociated and non-dissociated structures of BDT2H,
we evaluate the barrier height between those states [Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(d) and Fig. \ref{methiol@Au}(e)], by means of
the Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) method,\cite{Henkelman2000, Henkelman2_2000, Henkelman3_2000} as shown in Fig. \ref{adsorption_bdt}. This allows us to estimate the transition probability between the states. Our results show that
the activation barrier is about 1 eV. The fact that the barrier is large provides evidence for possible existence of the thiol
structures on the surface, since a high temperature is required to overcome such a barrier. We note that defects
on the surface, such as adatom,
or the presence of a solvent, can change the energy barrier and eventually dissociation might take place at lower energies.
For the BDT2H molecule we also compare the stability of the thiol and thiolate structures when the molecule
is connected to two Au electrodes. We consider three types of junctions, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figure_3}
\caption{Ball-stick representation of three molecule-electrode contact geometries. (a), (b) and (c) shows the tip-tip,
adatom-adatom and surface-adatom configurations,
respectively. Left (right) panel shows the thiolate (thiol) junctions.}
\label{fig:junction-structures}
\end{figure}
For the configuration shown in Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures}(a),
ten gold atoms are added on each side of the junction forming a tip-like
symmetric contact with the molecule. For the configuration shown in Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures}(b),
an adatom is added symmetrically on each side of the junction and for the one shown in Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures}(c),
an adatom is added to one side of the junction and the molecule is connected to a flat surface on the other side.
These junctions constitute typical models for transport calculations found in the
literature.\cite{Toher2008,Strange2011a,Garcia-Lastra2009}
In this case, the formation energy difference between the thiol and the thiolate
structures with respect to the formation of $\mathrm{H_2}$ molecule is given by
\begin{equation}
E_\mathrm{f}= E_\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{BDT2H/Au})-E_\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{BDT/Au})-E_\mathrm{T}(\mathrm{H_2}),
\end{equation}
and the results are shown in Table. \ref{tab:formation_energy2}.
Note that for the adatom-flat configuration the binding energy is evaluated considering $\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{H_2}$.
For all the three junctions, the thiol
configurations are energetically more stable than their thiolate counterparts.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Formation energy difference between the thiol and the thiolate
structures with respect to the formation of $\mathrm{H_2}$ molecule, in eV, for the three molecular junctions shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures}.}
{
\begin{tabular}{ccc }
\hline
\hline
System & VASP & SIESTA \\
\hline
surface-adatom& -0.36 & -0.42 \\
adatom-adatom & -0.64 & -0.40 \\
tip-tip & -0.77 & -0.88 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{tab:formation_energy2}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
One possibility that has been considered in order to determine whether there are thiols or
thiolates in the junction is a simultaneous measurement of $G$ and force in a STM and atomic
force microscopy (AFM) setup.\cite{Frei2012,Aradhya2012,Huang2006,Li2006} Since the binding
energy for thiol and thiolate can differ considerably, one might expect that the forces
involved when stretching the junction should be different. Therefore, we investigate
the energetics of Au(111)-BDT-Au(111) and Au(111)-BDT2H-Au(111) junctions as a function of $L$.
For the Au(111)-BDT-Au(111) junctions, similar calculations have been reported in the literature
in on attempt to simulate a MCBJ experiment within DFT.\cite{Pontes2011a,French2013, French2013a,
Strange2010, Romaner2006,Sergueev2010,Qi2009} Details on how the stretching is performed can be found
in Ref. [\onlinecite{Pontes2011a}]. Figs. \ref{fig:bdtpics}(a)-(i) and Figs. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics}(a)-(i)
show the relaxed structures for the Au(111)-BDT-Au(111) and Au(111)-BDT2H-Au(111) junctions undergoing stretching.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{figure_4}
\caption{(a)-(i) Ball-stick representation of the stretching process of BDT between two flat surfaces.}
\label{fig:bdtpics}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{figure_5}
\caption{(a)-(i) Ball-stick representation of the stretching process of BDT2H between two flat surfaces.}
\label{fig:bdt2hpics}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:energy-forces} we show the energy and the forces as a function of $L$, for both Au(111)-BDT-Au(111)
and Au(111)-BDT2H-Au(111) junctions. Our results show that the breaking force for the S-Au
bond is about 1 nN, in good agreement with independent DFT results by
Romaner \textit{et al.}~\cite{Romaner2006} of 1.25 nN obtained using
the same contact geometry. The authors also considered the scenario when the BDT molecule is attached to an adatom contact geometry,
and they found that the breaking force can be as large as 1.9 nN.\cite{Romaner2006}
In fact, it is possible that during the elongation process the molecule is bonded to a single Au
atom rather than a flat surface.\cite{French2013}
For Au(111)-BDT2H-Au(111) our calculated breaking force is ~0.3 nN, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:energy-forces}(b).
Thus the breaking forces for the BDT2H junctions are smaller than for those of BDT when the flat electrode geometry
is considered. We note that this is much smaller than the calculated value of 1.1-1.6 nN for the BDT2H molecule attached
to a tip-like contact geometry.\cite{Ning2010}
Our small value of breaking forces of ~0.3 nN for the thiol junctions is consistent with the
rather small calculated $E_\mathrm{b}$ of 0.12 eV, and indicates weak coupling between the molecule and the flat electrodes.
A similar study for a octanedithiol-Au junction has also been reported,\cite{Qi2009} and for
an asymmetric junction they found the breaking force of the Au-thiol bond to be 0.4-0.8 nN.
Other experiments using the same molecule~\cite{Huang2006,Li2006} reported a breaking
force of ~1.5 nN, which is very similar to the breaking force of a Au-Au bond,
therefore, leading to the conclusion that the junction might break at the Au-Au
bond and also indicating the presence of Au-thiolate instead of Au-thiol junctions.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{figure_6_1}}
\hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{figure_6_2}}
\caption{Total energy and pulling force as a function of $L$ for the Au-BDT-Au and Au-BDT2H-Au molecular junctions shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics} and Fig. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics}, respectively.}
\label{fig:energy-forces}
\end{figure}
In summary, we find that the dissociative reaction of methanethiol and BDT2H on Au(111)
is energetically unfavorable. Especially for the BDT2H, the activation barrier of $\sim$1
eV strongly suggests the presence of thiol structures when the molecules attach to the metallic
surface. Moreover, for all the contact geometries of molecular junctions presented in
Figs. \ref{fig:junction-structures}-\ref{fig:bdt2hpics}, the thiol systems are also
energetically more stable. These results indicate that the non-dissociated structures
are likely to exist in experiments, and therefore should be considered when modeling
transport properties of such systems.
\subsection{Energy level alignment}\label{level-alignment}
One of the possible reasons for the discrepancies between theory and experiments regarding the conductance
of molecular junctions is the difficulty, from a theoretical point of view, to obtain the correct energy
level alignment of such systems. Table. \ref{tab:eigenvalues_IP_EA} shows the LDA eigenvalues for the frontier
molecular states of BDT and BDT2H in the gas phase. $E_\mathrm{LDA}^\mathrm{gap}$ is largely underestimated
when compared to $E_\mathrm{QP}^\mathrm{gap}=I-A$ calculated by the so-called delta self-consistent
field ($\Delta$SCF) method. For the BDT molecule,
our results show that the HOMO is higher in energy by 2.73 eV with respect to $-I$ whereas the LUMO is lower
in energy by 2.66 eV compared to $-A$. For the BDT2H, the HOMO is higher in energy by 2.49 eV with respect
to $-I$, and the LUMO is lower in energy by 2.51 eV when compared to $-A$.
The results clearly indicate that the KS eigenvalues offer a poor
description of the molecule quasi-particle levels even in the gas phase within GGA/LDA.
Fig. \ref{fig:energy-alignment}(a) shows schematically the energies of these states for the gas phase molecules.
In the case of BDT2H molecule, the wavefunctions $\Psi_0$ (blue), $\Psi_1$ (red) and $\Psi_2$ (green) correspond to the HOMO-1,
HOMO and LUMO of the isolated molecule, respectively. For the BDT the removal of 2 H atoms when compared to BDT2H leads to a
reduction of the number of electrons by 2 as well, so that to a first approximation the BDT2H HOMO becomes the LUMO for the
BDT molecule [see Fig. \ref{fig:homo-lumo-bubles}(b) and \ref{fig:homo-lumo-bubles}(e)]. Therefore, for BDT,
$\Psi_0$ corresponds to the HOMO, $\Psi_1$ to the LUMO, and $\Psi_2$ to the LUMO+1.
Fig. \ref{fig:homo-lumo-bubles} shows the real space representation
of $\Psi_0$, $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ for BDT (left) and BDT2H (right) molecules in the gas phase.
{
\begin{table}[!h]
\scalefont{1.0}
\begin{center}
\caption{Calculated LDA eigenvalues ($\epsilon$), $E_\mathrm{LDA}^\mathrm{gap}$,
$I$, $A$ and $E_\mathrm{QP}^\mathrm{gap}$ (calculated with $\Delta$SCF) for the gas phase
BDT and BDT2H molecules.}
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc }
\hline
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{LDA} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\Delta$SCF} \\
\cline{2-4}\cline{6-8}
System & $\epsilon\mathrm{_{HOMO}}$&$\epsilon\mathrm{_{LUMO}}$& $E_\mathrm{LDA}^\mathrm{gap}$ && -I & -A &$E_\mathrm{QP}^\mathrm{gap}$ \\
\hline
BDT & -5.74 & -5.19 & 0.55 && -8.47 & -2.53 & 5.94 \\
BDT2H & -5.09 & -1.82 & 3.27 && -7.58 & 0.69 & 8.27 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{tab:eigenvalues_IP_EA}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
}
Fig. \ref{fig:energy-alignment}(b) shows the CDFT results for $E_{\mathrm{HOMO}}/E_{\mathrm{LUMO}}$ as
a function of $d$ for the BDT/Au(111) system (see Sec. \ref{cdft_methods}). In the CDFT calculations
the metal is modeled by a 9$\times$9 Au(111) surface with five atomic layers and the molecule placed upright
at a distance, $d$, from the center of the molecule to the Au surface, and we use a 20~\AA~vacuum
region in the direction perpendicular to the surface plane.
We note that although CDFT is in principle applicable at all $d$, when $d$ becomes less than about $5.9$~\AA,
for which the Au-S bond distance, $d_\mathrm{Au-S}$, is less than 2.5~\AA, the amount of charge on each fragment
is ill defined due to the hybridization between the molecular orbitals and the electrode continuum.
Therefore, at those small distances, the CDFT charge-transfer energies are not well defined. At $d=5.9$~\AA,
the CDFT calculations give an overall reduction of $E_\mathrm{QP}^\mathrm{gap}$
of 2.09 eV with respect to
the value obtained for isolated BDT.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure_7}
\caption{Energy level alignment of the frontier molecular orbitals for the BDT molecule
from the gas phase to the formation of the Au-BDT-Au junction. (a)
LDA eigenvalues ($\epsilon_\mathrm{LDA}$) and $\Delta$SCF calculations in the gas phase BDT.
For comparison, we also show results for the gas phase of BDT2H. All the values are given with respect to the vacuum level.
(b) CDFT calculations for
the charge-transfer energies between BDT molecule adsorbed and a single flat surface: $E_\mathrm{CT}^{+}(d)$ (blue squares) and $E_\mathrm{CT}^{-}(d)$ (red squares).
The classical image charge contribution for two surfaces (dashed-line) and for a single surface
(dashed-dotted line) are plotted for comparison where $E_\mathrm{F}=-5.1$ eV and $d_0=1$~\AA.
(c) LDA and ASIC energy
levels for the HOMO ($\Psi_0$) and LUMO ($\Psi_1$) obtained from the PDOS peaks for
the molecule at the junction as a function of $d=L/2$.}
\label{fig:energy-alignment}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_8}
\caption{Plots of wavefunctions: (a), (b) and (c) show $\Psi_0$ (20th state),
$\Psi_1$ (21st state) and $\Psi_2$ (22sd state), respectively, for the gas phase
BDT molecule; (d), (e) and (f) show the same for the the BDT2H molecule. Isosurfaces are taken at
a density of 0.06 $e/\mathrm{\AA^3}$.}
\label{fig:homo-lumo-bubles}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_9}
\caption{Charge density differences for (a) $E_\mathrm{CT}^{+}(d)$ and (b) $E_\mathrm{CT}^{-}(d)$ for $d=6.9$~\AA. Isosurfaces are
taken at $10^{-4}~\mathrm{e/\AA^3}$.}
\label{fig:cdft-bubles}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:energy-alignment}(b) also shows the results of the classical model for the image charge
calculated for one [Eq. (\ref{cm1s}), dashed line] and for two [Eq. (\ref{cm2s}), dash-dotted line] surfaces.
The CDFT $d_0$ ranges from 0.79~\AA~to 1.13~\AA, depending on the distance,
and we therefore take $d_0=1$~\AA~as average value. Coincidentally, this is the
same value used in literature,\cite{Garcia-Suarez2011,Quek2011,Perrin2013}
where it was however not formally justified, but rather used as a free parameter.
The corrections to $I$ and $A$ from the classical model when considering two surfaces
are larger than the corrections for a single surface, since $U(d)>V(d)$ for all $d$.
We evaluate the charge density differences between the constrained and non-constrained
calculations for $E_\mathrm{CT}^{+}(d)$ and $E_\mathrm{CT}^{-}(d)$ (Fig. \ref{fig:cdft-bubles}).
It can be seen that the hole (electron) left on the molecule has the same character as the
corresponding $\Psi_0$ ($\Psi_1$) wavefunction [compare to Figs. \ref{fig:homo-lumo-bubles}(a)-(b)].
Fig. \ref{fig:energy-alignment}(c) shows the energies of the eigenvalues of the $\Psi_0$ and $\Psi_1$ states for the BDT
molecule as a function of $d=L/2$, calculated with LDA (solid lines) and ASIC (dashed lines), for the stretching
configurations shown in Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics}(c-h). The energies of these levels are set to be at
the peaks of the corresponding PDOS. In the limit of weak coupling between the BDT molecule and the electrodes,
which is the case for $L=12.35$~\AA, at which $d_\mathrm{Au-S}$ is the largest before
rupture of the junction, LDA gives the LUMO of the isolated BDT molecule ($\Psi_1$) slightly
above $E_\mathrm{F}$. However, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:energy-alignment}(a) and Table. \ref{tab:eigenvalues_IP_EA},
the corrected energy of $\Psi_1$ (which is given by $-A$) is 2.66 eV above the LDA eigenvalue.
Similarly, the LDA energy of $\Psi_0$ is too high by 2.73 eV when compared to $-I$.
The same analysis can be done for $L=11.86$~\AA~and $L=11.36$~\AA,
for which $\Psi_1$ is still above $E_\mathrm{F}$.
In other words, for $L\ge11.36$\AA,
the molecule is weakly bonded to the electrodes, therefore, charge transfer from the electrodes to the molecule due to the hybridization
of the molecular and electrodes states is small.
These results show that for the Au-BDT-Au junctions in the weak coupling regime the
LDA BDT HOMO (corresponding to $\Psi_0$) is in fact too high in energy whereas
the LDA BDT LUMO (corresponding to $\Psi_1$) is too low.
In order to correct the energy levels,
we apply the SCO method (see Sec. \ref{sco_methods}). Table. \ref{bdt2h_energy_corrections} shows,
for the Au-BDT2H-Au and Au-BDT-Au junctions, $U$ [Eq. (\ref{cm2s})], $\Sigma_\mathrm{o}$ [Eq. (\ref{sigma_o})]
and $\Sigma_\mathrm{u}$ [Eq. (\ref{sigma_u})] as functions of $L$.
As pointed out by Garcia-Suarez \textit{et al.},\cite{Garcia-Suarez2011} the shift of the energy
level is unambiguous when there is no resonance at $E_\mathrm{F}$,\cite{Quek2007,Quek2011} so that
the occupied levels are shifted downwards and the empty levels are shifted upwards in energy.
This is the case for the BDT2H molecule, where the isolated molecule has 42 electrons,
therefore the 21st molecular level is the HOMO of the isolated molecule ($\Psi_1$ in this case).
Since it is already filled with two electrons, it lies below $E_\mathrm{F}$ when the molecule is
in the junction, and the LUMO ($\Psi_2$) is always empty and well above $E_\mathrm{F}$.
\begin{table}[!h]
\scalefont{0.9}
\begin{center}
\caption{Contribution due to the classical image charge
for two surfaces model ($U$) and
the final corrections $\Sigma_\mathrm{o}/\Sigma_\mathrm{u}$ as a function of $L$ for BDT2H and BDT molecules at the junction. The first column
correspond to the labels of a subset of the structures shown in Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics} and Fig. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics}. The Au-S bond distance,
$d_\mathrm{Au-S}$, is also shown for completeness.}
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc }
\hline
\hline
&&&&& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{BDT2H} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{BDT}\\
\cline{7-8}\cline{10-12}
&$L$ (\AA) & $d_\mathrm{Au-S}$ (\AA) && U (eV)& &$\Sigma_\mathrm{o}$(eV) & $\Sigma_\mathrm{u}$ (eV) & & $\Sigma_\mathrm{o}$(eV) && $\Sigma_\mathrm{u}$ (eV) \\
\cline{1-3}\cline{4-5}\cline{7-8}\cline{10-12}
(c)&7.86 & 2.11 && 1.70 & & 0.18 & 1.63 & & - && - \\
(d)&9.89 & 2.08 && 1.26 & & -0.50 & 1.72 & &- && - \\
(e)& 10.87 & 2.47 & & 1.12 & & -0.80 & 1.78 & & - & & - \\
(f)& 11.36 & 2.67 && 1.06 & & -1.04 & 1.77 & & -1.13 && 1.45 \\
(g)& 11.84 & 2.90 && 1.01 & & -0.62 & 2.22 & & -1.63 && 1.53 \\
(h)& 12.35 & 3.18 & & 0.96 & & -0.83 & 2.17 & & -1.84 & & 1.55 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{bdt2h_energy_corrections}
}
\end{center}
\end{table}
For closer distances, due to the stronger coupling between molecule and electrodes,
hybridization occurs leading to a fractional charge transfer from the electrodes to the molecule.
For small $d$ also for the BDT molecule the $\Psi_1$ state becomes partially occupied,
and positioned slightly below $E_\mathrm{F}$. This means that, for the structures
considered in Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics}, the correction defined by Eq. \ref{sigma_u}
can not be applied for $L\le10.87$, since this is the distance where the level moves slightly below $E_\mathrm{F}$.
We note that when the level is pinned at $E_\mathrm{F}$, many-body effects become
important, and the GW method might be the most appropriate approximation.\cite{Strange2011}
Once the coupling is strong enough, and $\Psi_1$ is almost fully filled, it becomes effectively
the HOMO of the BDT. In this case we expect its energy to be too high within LDA, and therefore application
of ASIC is expected to improve its position with respect to $E_\mathrm{F}$.
In fact, ASIC corrects $\Psi_1$ by $\sim$1 eV as $d$ decreases, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:energy-alignment}(c).
For the weak coupling limit the calculated corrections show that $\Psi_1$ (the LUMO of the isolated BDT molecule)
is empty and its LDA eigenvalue is too low in energy. In contrast, for the strong coupling limit the energy
of $\Psi_1$ moves below $E_\mathrm{F}$, so that the state becomes occupied, and its LDA eigenvalue
is now too high in energy. In this regime we apply the ASIC method to give a better description
of the energy level alignment.
\subsection{Electronic Transport Properties: Thiol versus Thiolate Junctions}\label{Transport}
For the electronic transport properties, we start by presenting results for the
molecular junctions at fixed distance and different molecule-surface bonding. Subsequently we discuss
the conductivity of the thiol and thiolate systems attached to flat Au electrodes under stretching.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_10_1}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_10_2}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_10_3}}
\caption{(a) Transmission coefficients as a function of energy for thiolate (left column) and
thiol (right column) for the structures shown in Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures}.
For each case we report the transmission at $E_\mathrm{F}$ for both LDA (black full-line) and ASIC (red dashed-line)
results.}
\label{fig:trc-asic}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:trc-asic} shows $T(E)$ for the thiolate (left column) and thiol (right column),
for \textit{tip-tip}, \textit{adatom-adatom} and \textit{surface-adatom} structures
(see Fig. \ref{fig:junction-structures} for the structure geometries).
Within the LDA functional, the transmission curves of all the thiolate
junctions present a peak pinned at $E_\mathrm{F}$. These results have
been found in several works reported in the literature for Au-BDT-Au
(thiolate) junctions.\cite{Toher2008,Pontes2011a,Strange2011,Kim2011,French2013,French2013a}
The resonant states at $E_\mathrm{F}$ yield high values of $G$ of 1.35$G_0$, 0.45$G_0$ and 0.22$G_0$
for \textit{tip-tip}, \textit{surface-adatom} and \textit{adatom-adatom}, respectively.
The observed peaks at $E_\mathrm{F}$ correspond to the hybridized $\Psi_1$ state of the BDT molecule.
Note that the exact position of the peaks and so the exact $G$ values depend on the atomistic
details of the junctions, as well as on the functionals used within DFT.
We point out that such high values of $G$ have never been observed experimentally,
indicating that LDA does not give the correct energy level alignment between the molecule and the electrodes,
as already discussed in Sec. \ref{level-alignment}.
In contrast, for the thiol junctions, no resonant states are found around $E_\mathrm{F}$.
The zero-bias conductance is in the range of 0.035-0.004$G_0$, which is in good agreement
with experimental values of 0.011$G_0$.\cite{Tao2004,Bruot2012,Kiguchi2010,Tsutsui2009a}
When ASIC is used, for the BDT structures the molecular energy level remains pinned
at $E_\mathrm{F}$, and it is just slightly shifted to lower energies. This slight
shift is however enough to decrease $G$ by one order of magnitude. For the hydrogenated
junctions (BDT1H and BDT2H) there are no molecular states at $E_\mathrm{F}$ for LDA,
and in this case ASIC shifts downwards the energy levels of the occupied states. We also note that the empty
states are shifted down in energy, which is an artifact of the ASIC method, as discussed in Sec. \ref{asic_methods}.
This shows that, while the ASIC method improves the position of the levels below $E_\mathrm{F}$,
it can lead to down-shifts for the empty states, resulting in a spurious enhanced $G$ due to the LUMO.
Further corrections are therefore needed in order to give a quantitatively correct value of $G$ in such systems.
Hereafter we present results for the transport properties as a function stretching,
of molecules attached to flat Au electrodes. Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics-trc-sco} shows
the transmission coefficients for the Au-BDT-Au junctions corresponding to Figs. \ref{fig:bdtpics}(c)-(h),
while Fig. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics-trc-sco} shows the same for the Au-BDT2H-Au junctions of
Figs. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics}(c)-(h). We start by discussing the results for the Au-BDT-Au junctions.
In this case, the HOMO moves from lower energies at small $L$ towards $E_\mathrm{F}$ at larger $L$.
This results in an increase of $G$ under stretching [Fig. \ref{fig:conductance}(a)].
This is in agreement with previous theoretical works~\cite{Pontes2011a, Toher2008, Romaner2006, Sergueev2010}
for BDT attached to flat Au electrodes.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figure_11}
\caption{Transmission coefficients as a function of energy for
different electrode separation for the Au-BDT-Au junctions. Comparison between LDA, ASIC and LDA+SCO.}
\label{fig:bdtpics-trc-sco}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figure_12}
\caption{Transmission coefficients as a function of energy for
different electrode separation for the Au-BDT2H-Au junctions. Comparison between LDA, ASIC and LDA+SCO.}
\label{fig:bdt2hpics-trc-sco}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure_13}
\caption{Conductance as a function of $L$ for (a) Au-BDT-Au and (b) Au-BDT2H-Au molecular junctions.
Comparison between LDA, ASIC and scissor operator (SCO) results.}
\label{fig:conductance}
\end{figure}
Recently, using low-temperature MCBJs Bruot \textit{et al.}~\cite{Bruot2012} observed some
conductance traces where $G$ changed from 0.01$G_0$ to 0.1$G_0$ by increasing $L$.
The authors attributed this to the HOMO level moving up in energy towards the $E_\mathrm{F}$ of the electrodes.
However, most experimental
results~\cite{Lortscher2007,Gonzalez2006,Kim2011, Taniguchi2010,Tian2006,Tian2010,Tsutsui2009,Tsutsui2006,Tsutsui2009a,
Quek2009, Arroyo2011,Baheti2008,Fatemi2011,Kiguchi2010,Reddy2007,Vazquez2012, Venkataraman2006,Wold2002,Tao2004,Xu2003}
show conductance traces with either approximately constant $G$ under stretching, or with decreasing $G$ for increasing $L$.\cite{Huang2006,Kim2011}
In the calculations of French \textit{et al.}~\cite{French2013a} two types
of conductance traces are found: (i) large increase under stretching and (ii)
approximately constant values. The increase of $G$ is found only for junctions
that form monoatomic chains (MACs) of gold atoms connected to the BDT molecules.
MAC formation leads to an increase of the DOS at $E_\mathrm{F}$ in the contact Au atoms,
which adds to the increase of $G$ due to the HOMO shifting closer to $E_\mathrm{F}$ under stretching.
By applying the ASIC the absolute value of $G$ decreases by up to one order of magnitude
when compared to the LDA values, since the HOMO level is shifted to lower energies
(Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics-trc-sco}). For small $L$ the ASIC $G$ vs. $L$ curve is approximately
constant, while for large $L$ the value of $G$ is found to increase for large $L$ [Fig. \ref{fig:conductance}(a)],
which is also due to the fact that the HOMO level ($\Psi_1$) is approaching $E_\mathrm{F}$
as the junction is stretched. Our CDFT results of the previous section show that
for $L\ge11.36$~\AA~the $\Psi_1$ state is expected to be located at least $\sim$1.5 eV
above $E_\mathrm{F}$. Thus we apply the SCO to shift the eigenvalue of $\Psi_1$ to
this energy, and calculate the transmission (green-dashed lines) and $G$ (for $L\ge11.36$~\AA~)
by using the calculated corrections presented in Table. \ref{bdt2h_energy_corrections}.
The corrected $G$ is smaller than the LDA results by up to two orders of magnitude and smaller than the ASIC by about
a factor of 10.
In contrast, for the Au-BDT2H-Au structures, $G$ decreases with increasing $L$ for all used XC functionals
(Fig. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics-trc-sco}). For LDA $G$ monotonically decreases from 0.1$G_0$ to 0.026$G_0$,
and using ASIC the values of $G$ further decrease by up to one order of magnitude. Applying the SCO
correction $E_\mathrm{LDA}^\mathrm{gap}$ increases, and consequently $G$ decreases by more than one
order of magnitude when compared to the LDA results, except for the shortest considered distance.
We note that although $G$ is similar for ASIC and SCO, $T$ at $E_\mathrm{F}$ is dominated by the
LUMO tail for ASIC (see Fig. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics-trc-sco}), while it is HOMO dominated for SCO.
The agreement between ASIC and SCO is mainly due to the fact that both put $E_\mathrm{F}$ in the gap,
and the change of $G$ with stretching is mainly due to the change of the electronic
coupling to the electrodes.
The decreasing trend of $G$ vs. $L$ was observed by Ning \textit{et al.}~\cite{Ning2010}
where they considered the Au-BDT2H-Au junctions and the molecule is symmetrically
connected to an adatom structure. This is qualitatively in good agreement with the
experiments of Kim \textit{et al.}~\cite{Kim2011}, where by means of low-temperature MCBJ
technique, they reported values of $G$ ranging from $6.6\times10^{-4}$ to 0.5$G_0$ and
that high-conductance values are obtained when the molecular junction is compressed, i.e, $L$
decreases.
These are the key results of the present work since when combined with the results for
the formation energy of the hydrogenated junctions,
they indicate that the possibility of having thiol junctions can not be ruled out.
In fact, the thiol structures might be the ones
present in junctions where $G$ decreases with elongation.\cite{Huang2006,Kim2011}
An important difference between the Au-BDT-Au and Au-BDT2H-Au junctions is the character of the charge carriers, i.e.,
whether it is hole-like or electron-like transport. For Au-BDT-Au, in the strong coupling limit where $L\le10.87$~\AA,
the charges tunnel through the tail of the HOMO-like level which leads to a hole-like transport (see top panel
of Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics-trc-sco}). In the weak coupling limit, after considering the SCO, the charge
carriers tunnel through the tail of the LUMO-like level which leads to a electron-like transport,
as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig:bdtpics-trc-sco}. For Au-BDT2H-Au junctions,
the tunneling is always performed through the tail of the HOMO-like level (see Fig. \ref{fig:bdt2hpics-trc-sco})
and therefore the charge carriers are holes. This is an important information since, experimentally,
by means of thermoelectric transport measurements, it is possible to address which frontier molecular
level is the conducting level. It has been shown~\cite{Reddy2007} that for the systems discussed,
this level is the HOMO, which agrees with our findings for the Au-BDT2H-Au junctions and also
for the Au-BDT-Au junctions in the strong coupling limit. This leads to the conclusion that for
experiments where $G$ increases with stretching,~\cite{Bruot2012} the thiolate junction is present
and the explanation for this observed trend can be due to the formation of the MACs proposed by
French \textit{et al.}.\cite{French2013a} In contrast, the thiol structures might be the
ones present in experimental measurements showing the opposite trend.\cite{Huang2006,Kim2011}
\section{Conclusion}
We performed DFT calculations to study the adsorption process of methanethiol and BDT2H molecules on the Au(111) surface.
For all the structures studied we find that thiols are energetically more stable than their thiolate counterparts.
Moreover, we find a large activation barrier of about 1 eV for the the dissociation of the H atom from the thiol
groups adsorbed on Au(111). These results indicate that the non-dissociated structures
are likely to exist in experiments, and therefore can not be ruled out.
The energy level alignment between molecule and electrodes is one of the main factors that determine the conductance.
To overcome the limitations of using the LDA-DFT eigenvalues we apply a CDFT method, which is based on total energy
differences in the same way as $\Delta$SCF calculations, with the difference that it allows also the inclusion of the
non-local Coulomb interaction that leads to the renormalization of energy levels as the molecule is brought close
to a metal surface. We find a reduction of the BDT $E_\mathrm{QP}^\mathrm{gap}$ of 2.09 eV with respect to its
gas phase gap, when the molecule is brought closer to a single Au(111) surface. CDFT also allows us to obtain
the height of the image charge plane on Au(111), which we find to be at about 1~\AA~ above the gold surface.
While for the BDT2H molecules the coupling to the surface remains small at all distances,
for small molecule-surface separation the electronic coupling between BDT and Au becomes very strong,
and in this limit the use of the CDFT approach is not applicable. The strong coupling leads to a significant
electron transfer from the surface to the molecule, so that the molecular LUMO of isolated BDT becomes
increasingly occupied as the molecule-surface distance decreases. When we correct for the self-interaction
error in the LDA XC functional, the electron transfer is enhanced. At the equilibrium Au(111)-BDT bonding
distance we then find that the molecular LUMO of isolated BDT has become fully filled. On the other hand, for BDT2H,
the filling of the molecular orbitals does not depend on the distance to Au.
By means of NEGF+DFT we have then calculated the transport properties of the junctions with different contact
geometries and compare the results obtained with LDA, ASIC and LDA+SCO functionals. For the thiol structures,
the LDA values for $G$ are about one order of magnitude smaller than their thiolate counterparts. ASIC leads to
values of $G$ in better agreement with experiments for the thiolate systems. However, ASIC also leads to a spurious
increase of $G$ for the thiol junctions due to the down-shift of the empty states towards $E_\mathrm{F}$,
an artifact avoided in the SCO approach. We find that Au-BDT-Au and Au-BDT2H-Au junctions show opposite trends concerning
the dependence of $G$ on the separation between flat Au electrodes; $G$ decreases with $L$ for the thiol
junctions, whereas the thiolates show the opposite trend. Since for Au-BDT2H-Au there is no significant charge
transfer between the electrodes and the molecule, we can apply the SCO approach to set the HOMO-LUMO gap to the one
obtained from CDFT calculations. In this way $G$ decreases by up to two orders of magnitude when compared
to the LDA values, and this brings the results in good quantitative agreement with the experimental data. Our results therefore
suggest that thiol junctions must be present in experiments where $G$ decreases with $L$. In contrast, thiolates structures
are likely to be
present in experiments showing a increase of the conductance upon stretching.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Research reported in this publication was supported by the King Abdullah
University of Science and Technology (KAUST).
The Trinity College High-Performance Computer Center
and the HPC cluster at Universidade de S\~ao Paulo provided the computational resources.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION \label{sec1}}
Outflowing winds from accretion disks, accelerated by radiation force
\citep{mur95,pro00}, magnetocentrifugal force \citep{eve05,dek95},
and/or thermal pressure \citep{bal93,kro01,che05}, are a key
evolutionary link between quasars and their host galaxies. The disk
outflow plays an important role as 1) it extracts angular momentum
from the accretion disk, leading to growth of black holes
\citep{bla82,kon94,eve05}, 2) it provides energy and momentum feedback
and inhibits star formation activity \citep[e.g.,][]{spr05}, and 3) it
induces metal enrichment of intergalactic medium (IGM)
\citep{ham97b,gab06}. Outflowing matter has been detected through
blueshifted absorption lines in $\sim$70\%\ of quasar spectra
\citep{ham12}. These are usually classified as {\it intrinsic}
absorption lines, and distinguished from {\it intervening} absorption
lines that originate in foreground galaxies or in the IGM. Thus,
intrinsic absorption lines are powerful and unique tool to probe the
outflows in quasars. However, the main challenge in their study is
that these are traceable along {\it only} single sight-lines (i.e., a
one dimensional view alone) toward the nucleus for each quasar,
whereas the absorber's physical conditions likely depend strongly on
polar angle \citep[e.g.,][]{gan01,elv00}.
Multiple images of quasars produced by the gravitational lensing
effect provide a unique pathway for studying the multiple sightlines,
a technique frequently applied for intervening absorbers (e.g.,
\citealt{cro98,rau99,lop05}). It is clear that lensed quasars with
larger image separation angles have more chance of detecting
structural differences in the outflow winds in the vicinity of the
quasars themselves. In this sense, the following three lensed quasars
are the most promising site for our study as they are lensed by a
cluster of galaxies rather than a single massive galaxy:
SDSS~J1004+4112 with separation angle of $\theta$ $\sim$
14$^{\prime\prime}\!\!$.6 \citep{ina03}, SDSS~J1029+2623 with $\theta$
$\sim$ 22$^{\prime\prime}\!\!$.5 \citep{ina06,ogu08}, and
SDSS~J2222+2745 with $\theta$ $\sim$ 15$^{\prime\prime}\!\!$.1
\citep{dah13}. \citet{gre06} proposed that the differences in
emission line profiles between the lensed images of SDSS~J1004+4112
can be explained by differential absorptions along each sight-line
although no absorption features are detected.
There are clear absorption features detected at the blue wings of the
\ion{C}{4}, \ion{N}{5}, and Ly$\alpha$\ emission lines of other lensed
quasar, SDSS~J1029+2623 at {\ifmmode{z_{em}}\else{$z_{em}$}\fi}\ $\sim$ 2.197\footnote[10]{The quasar
redshift was derived from \ion{Mg}{2} emission lines in
\citet{ina06}. An uncertainty of {\ifmmode{z_{em}}\else{$z_{em}$}\fi}\ is $\Delta z$ $\sim$ 0.0003,
corresponding to $\Delta v$ $\sim$ 30~{\ifmmode{{\rm km~s}^{-1}}\else{km~s$^{-1}$}\fi}. The {\ifmmode{z_{em}}\else{$z_{em}$}\fi}\ could be
blueshifted from the systemic redshift by $\sim$100~{\ifmmode{{\rm km~s}^{-1}}\else{km~s$^{-1}$}\fi}\ in average
\citep{tyt92}.}, the current record-holding large-separation quasar
lens, in low/medium resolution spectra \citep{ina06,ogu08}.
\citet{mis13} obtained high-resolution spectra of the brightest two
images (i.e., images~A and B), and carefully deblended the \ion{C}{4}
and \ion{N}{5} absorption lines into multiple narrower components.
They show several clear signs supporting an origin in the outflowing
wind rather than in foreground galaxies or the IGM \citep{mis13}: i)
partial coverage, i.e., the absorbers do not cover the background flux
source completely along our sightline, ii) line-locking, iii) large
velocity distribution (FWHM $\geq$1000~km/s), and iv) a small ejection
velocity\footnote[11]{The ejection velocity is defined as positive if
the absorption line is blueshifted from the quasar emission
redshift.} from the quasar. \citet{mis13} also discovered a clear
difference in parts of these lines between the images~A and B in all
\ion{C}{4}, \ion{N}{5}, Ly$\alpha$\ absorption lines, which can be explained
by the following two scenarios: (a) intrinsic time variability of the
absorption features over the time delay of the two images
\citep[e.g.,][]{cha07}, and (b) a difference in the absorption levels
between the different sight-lines of the outflowing wind
\citep[e.g.,][]{che03,gre06}. With a single epoch observation, we
cannot distinguish these scenarios.
In this letter, we present results from new spectroscopic observations
of SDSS~J1029+2623 conducted $\sim$4 years later with the goal of
conclusively determining the origin of the difference in the
absorption features. We also examine the global and internal
structure of the outflow. Observations and data reduction are
described in \S2, and results and discussion are in \S3 and \S4.
\section{OBSERVATIONS and DATA REDUCTION \label{sec2}}
We observed the images~A and B of SDSS~J1029+2623 with Subaru/HDS on
2014 April 4 (the 2014 data, hereafter), 1514~days after the previous
observation on February 2010 (the 2010 data; \citealt{mis13}). The
time interval between the observations is longer than the time delay
between images~A and B, $\Delta t$ $\sim$ 744~days in the sense of A
leading B \citep{foh13}. We have taken high-resolution spectra ($R$
$\sim$ 36,000) with a slit width of $1.\!\!^{\prime\prime}0$, while
\citet{mis13} took $R$ $\sim$ 30,000 spectra using
$1.\!\!^{\prime\prime}2$ slit width. The wavelength coverage is
3400--4230 \AA\ on the blue CCD and 4280--5100~\AA\ on the red CCD,
which covers Ly$\alpha$, \ion{N}{5}, \ion{Si}{4}, and \ion{C}{4} absorption
lines at {\ifmmode{z_{abs}}\else{$z_{abs}$}\fi}\ $\sim$ {\ifmmode{z_{em}}\else{$z_{em}$}\fi}. We also sampled every 4 pixels in both
spatial and dispersion directions (i.e., $\sim$0.05\AA\ per pixel) to
increase S/N ratio. The total integration time is 11400~s and the
final S/N ratio is about 14~pix$^{-1}$ for both of the images.
We reduced the data in a standard manner with the software
IRAF\footnote[12]{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical
Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of
Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative
agreement with the National Science Foundation.}. Wavelength
calibration was performed using a Th-Ar lamp. We applied flux
calibrations for quasar spectra using the spectrophotometric standard
star Feige34\footnote[13]{We reduced the 2010 data again by applying
flux calibration, while \citet{mis13} only presented normalized
spectra. Because the continuum fitting gives an additional
uncertainty for absorption depth and profile we use flux-calibrated
spectra in this study.}. We did not adjust a spectral resolution of
the 2014 spectra ($R$ $\sim$ 36,000) to the 2010 ones ($R$ $\sim$
30,000) before comparing them, because a typical line width of each
absorption component after deblending into multiple narrower
components is large enough (FWHM $\geq$ 10~{\ifmmode{{\rm km~s}^{-1}}\else{km~s$^{-1}$}\fi}; \citealt{mis13}) to
ignore the influence of spectral resolution.
\section{RESULTS \label{sec3}}
Here, we examine the time variability of Ly$\alpha$, \ion{N}{5}, and
\ion{C}{4} lines. Although \ion{Si}{4} is also detected, we cannot
use it for the analysis because the \ion{Si}{4} line is severely
contaminated by intervening \ion{Si}{2} and \ion{C}{4} lines at lower
redshift. For the purpose of comparing absorption profiles, we
increase the S/N ratio by resampling the spectra every 0.5\AA. For a
more quantitative test, we also compare the flux difference between
the two spectra to 3$\sigma$ flux uncertainty\footnote[14]{Total flux
uncertainty is calculated by $\sigma$ = $\sqrt{\sigma_1^2 +
\sigma_2^2}$, where $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are the one sigma
errors of the first and second spectra, respectively, and include
photon-noise and readout-noise.}.
As shown in Figure~\ref{f1}, we did not find any time variations
either in Ly$\alpha$\ or \ion{N}{5} absorption lines. But \ion{C}{4} lines
in both of the images~A and B showed clear variation in its line {\it
strength} by more than the 3$\sigma$ level, without any change in
line {\it profiles}.
In the 2010 spectra, \citet{mis13} discovered a clear difference in
parts of \ion{C}{4}, \ion{N}{5}, and Ly$\alpha$\ absorption lines at an
ejection velocity of {\ifmmode{v_{ej}}\else{$v_{ej}$}\fi}\ $\sim$ 0 -- 200~{\ifmmode{{\rm km~s}^{-1}}\else{km~s$^{-1}$}\fi}\ between the images~A
and B. The difference still remains at $\geq$ 3$\sigma$ level in the
2014 spectra, except for the \ion{C}{4} absorption lines for which the
difference between images~A and B is no longer significant
(Figure~\ref{f2}). Thus, absorption components at {\ifmmode{v_{ej}}\else{$v_{ej}$}\fi}\ $\sim$ 0 --
200~{\ifmmode{{\rm km~s}^{-1}}\else{km~s$^{-1}$}\fi}\ (shaded regions in Figures~\ref{f1} and \ref{f2}) probably
have a different origin from the other absorption components, as
suggested in \citet{mis13}. We call the former and the latter
components as Components 1 and 2 ($C_1$ and $C_2$, hereafter),
respectively, and distinguish them in the discussion below.
\section{DISCUSSION \label{sec4}}
In this section, we discuss the difference between the images~A and B,
the origin of the time variation seen in the \ion{C}{4} lines between
the 2010 and the 2014 data, and then the detectability of the
sightline variation for quasar images with smaller separations, lensed
by a single galaxy.
\subsection{Difference between the Images~A and B}
\citet{mis13} presented two plausible scenarios that explain the
sightline variation of the $C_1$: (a) time variability over the time
delay between the images, $\Delta t$ $\sim$ 744~days, and (b) the
difference in the absorption levels between two sightlines. With our
new data, we can reject the first scenario because $C_1$ is again
detected only in the image~A as in the 2010 data. If this is due to
time variation, the $C_1$ has to decrease (from the image~A to B in
2010), increase (from the image~B in 2010 to the image~A in 2014), and
then decrease again (from the image~A to B in 2014), which requires an
unlikely fine-tuning. Although sightline variations are often
observed in intervening absorption lines
\citep[e.g.,][]{cro98,rau99,lop05}, the $C_1$ in the image~A should
have its origin in {\it intrinsic} absorber because it shows partial
coverage \citep{mis13} and time variation (this study). Thus, the
geometry of the outflow is such that the $C_1$ covers only sightline
to the image~A, while the $C_2$ covers both sightlines of the images~A
and B.
A possible structure of the outflow is shown in Figure~\ref{f3}. The
$C_1$ absorber covers only the sightline toward image~A but not
image~B, regardless of its distance ($r$) from the flux source. The
size of the absorbing cloud ($d_{cloud}$) should be smaller than the
size of the flux source (because of partial coverage) and also smaller
than the physical distance between the sightlines of the lensed
images, i.e., $d_{cloud}$ $\leq$ $r \theta$ to avoid covering both
sightlines. Here, we assume the separation angle of the two
sightlines from the flux source is very similar to that seen from us.
On the other hand, $C_2$ has two possible origins: a) small gas clouds
close to the flux source and b) filamentary (or sheet-like) structure
made of multiple clumpy gas clouds \citep{mis13}. In either case, both
sightlines A and B need to be covered. We will discuss these further
in Section 4.3.
\subsection{Origin of Time Variation in \ion{C}{4} Lines}
Time variability is frequently detected in broad absorption lines
(BALs) with line widths of $\geq$ 2,000~{\ifmmode{{\rm km~s}^{-1}}\else{km~s$^{-1}$}\fi}\ (e.g.,
\citealt{gib08,cap13,tre13}). Some narrower intrinsic absorption lines
(NALs and mini-BALs) are also known to be variable (e.g.,
\citealt{wis04,nar04,mis14}). There are several explanations for the
time variation, including gas motion across our line of sight
\citep[e.g.,][]{ham08,gib08}, changes of the ionization condition
\citep[e.g.,][]{ham11,mis07b}, and a variable scattering material that
redirect photons around the gas clouds \citep[e.g.,][]{lam04}. These
mechanisms are not applicable to intervening absorbers because they
have larger sizes (i.e., gas motion and photon redirection do not
work) and lower densities (i.e., the variability time scale due to ion
recombination is too long to observe over several years), compared to
intrinsic absorbers as noted in \citet{nar04}.
In our monitoring campaign, only \ion{C}{4} absorption lines show
clear time variation in both of the images. The absorption strength is
seen to weaken over the entire wavelength range (see Figure~\ref{f1}).
This immediately rejects the gas motion scenario because all gas
clouds that produce the $C_1$ and the $C_2$ need to cross our
sightline in concert, which is highly unlikely. The scattering
scenario is also difficult to accept because it cannot explain the
fact that only \ion{C}{4} changes while \ion{N}{5} and Ly$\alpha$\ are
stable. Thus, we conclude that the change of ionization scenario is
the most plausible explanation.
The $C_1$, arising in the absorber that locate only on the
sightline~A, was monitored twice in 2010 and 2014. On the other hand,
the $C_2$ has two possibilities. If the corresponding absorber locates
on both sightlines toward the images~A and B, we have monitored the
variable \ion{C}{4} lines in four epochs, i.e., images~A and B in 2010
and then images~A and B in 2014, with time intervals of $\sim$ 744,
770, and 744~days, given the time delay of $\Delta t$ = 744~days
between images~A and B. If the filamentary (or sheet-like) structure
is the case, it means we have monitored them only twice as we did for
the $C_1$. In either case, we cannot monitor the ionization condition
of the absorbers because a wide range of ionic species (which is
necessary for photoionization modeling) are not detected in our
spectra.
Here, we discuss two possible scenarios for explaining the decrease of
the \ion{C}{4} line strength. First, the ionization level may have
increased between the observations with more C$^{3+}$ ionized to
C$^{4+}$ while the ionization fraction of N$^{4+}$ remained stable. If
the absorber's ionization parameter\footnote[15]{The ionization
parameter U is defined as the ratio of hydrogen ionizing photon
density ($n_{\gamma}$) to the electron density ($n_e$), U $\sim$
$n_{\gamma}/n_e$.} is $\log U$ $\sim$ $-$1.5, at which point the
ionization fraction of \ion{N}{5} is close to peak \citep{ham97a},
this scenario is possible\footnote[16]{For example, the ionization
fraction of C$^{3+}$ changes by a factor of $\sim$2 while the
corresponding change is only $\sim$5\%\ for N$^{4+}$ with a
variation of $\Delta \log U$ $\sim$ 0.3 around $\log U$ $\sim$
$-$1.5, assuming the continuum shape of typical quasar used in
\citet{nar04}.}. Alternatively, the invariance of \ion{N}{5} may be
due to the saturation effect with partial coverage. Another possible
interpretation is recombination of C$^{3+}$ to C$^{2+}$. In this
case, we can place constraints on the electron density and the
distance from the flux source by the same prescription as used in
\citet{nar04}, assuming the variation time scale as the upper limit of
the recombination time. If we monitored the absorbers twice (i.e.,
$C_1$ and $C_2$ in the filamentary model) or four times (i.e., $C_2$
in the single-sightline model), the electron density is estimated to
be $n_e$ $\geq$ 8.7$\times$10$^{3}$~{\ifmmode{{\rm cm}^{-3}}\else{cm$^{-3}$}\fi}\ or
1.72$\times$10$^{4}$~{\ifmmode{{\rm cm}^{-3}}\else{cm$^{-3}$}\fi}, and the distance from the flux source to
be $r$ $\leq$ 620~pc or 440~pc, respectively. Because the absorber's
distance is always smaller than the boundary distance (see Section
4.3) in both cases, the filamentary model can be rejected for the
$C_2$ if recombination is the origin of the variation.
\subsection{Detectability of Sightline Difference}
Whether we detect sightline difference or not depends on the
absorber's size and its distance from the flux source. For placing
constraints on the absorber's distance, the size estimation of the
background flux source is very important. The outflow wind in
SDSS~J1029+2623 probably covers both the continuum source with a size
of $R_{\rm cont}$ $\sim$ 2.5$\times$10$^{-4}$~pc\footnote[17]{We
assume $R_{cont}$ is five times the Schwarzschild radius, $R_{\rm
cont}$ = 10GM$_{\rm BH}$/c$^2$.} and broad emission-line region
(BELR) with a size of $R_{\rm BELR}$ $\sim$ 0.09~pc\footnote[18]{This
is calculated in \citet{mis13}, using the empirical relation between
$R_{\rm BELR}$ and quasar luminosity \citep{kas00,mcl04}.} because
the residual flux at the bottom of the absorption lines are close to
zero around the peak of the broad emission lines (i.e., covering
factor toward BELR is {\ifmmode{C_f}\else{$C_{f}$}\fi}\ $\sim$ 1). Following \citet{mis13}, we
define a boundary distance ($r_b$), a distance from the flux source
where the physical distance between two sightlines ($r_b \theta$) is
same as $R_{\rm BELR}$ (i.e., the two sight-lines become fully
separated with no overlap at $r$ $>$ $r_b$). If the BELR as well as
the continuum source is the background source, the boundary distance
is $r_b$ $\sim$788~pc\footnote[19]{If only the continuum source is the
background source, which is applicable for absorption lines with
large ejection velocity, the boundary distance is $r_b$
$\sim$2.3~pc.}.
Here, we present two possible scenarios for the origin of the $C_1$.
First, the $C_1$ absorber could locate at larger distance than the
boundary distance, $\geq$788~pc. In this case, the $C_1$ absorber may
be the inter-stellar medium (ISM) of the host galaxy that are swept up
by an accretion disk wind \citep{kur09}. Another possible scenario is
that the absorber could be small clumpy cloud that locate at the
outskirt of the $C_2$ absorber whose distance is smaller than the
boundary distance. \citet{ham13} suggests that mini-BAL absorbers
consist of a number of small gas clouds ($d_{cloud}$ $\leq$ 10$^{-3}$
-- 10$^{-4}$~pc) with very large gas density ($n_e$ $\geq$ 10$^6$ --
10$^7$ {\ifmmode{{\rm cm}^{-3}}\else{cm$^{-3}$}\fi}) at the absorber's distance of $r$ $\sim$ 2~pc to avoid
over-ionization. A similar picture is also suggested for BAL quasars
\citep{jos14}. Furthermore, recent radiation-MHD simulations by
\citet{tak13} reproduce variable clumpy structures with typical sizes
of $\sim$ 20~$r_{\rm g}$ in warm absorbers, corresponding to $\sim$
5$\times$10$^{-4}$~pc assuming the black-hole mass of SDSS~J1029+2623,
M$_{\rm BH}$ $\sim$ 10$^{8.72}$ M$_{\odot}$. Indeed, high-velocity
intrinsic NALs are frequently detected with partial coverage toward
the continuum source only, suggesting their typical size is comparable
to or smaller than the continuum source \citep{mis07a}.
Our results have broader implications as well. Figure~\ref{f4}
summarizes physical distance between lensed images as a function of
separation angle for the 124 lensed quasars discovered to
date\footnote[20]{These are collected from the lensed quasar catalogs;
CASTLE (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/castles) and SQLS
(http://www-utap.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/\~{}sdss/sqls).}, assuming the
absorber's distance is 1~pc, 10~pc, 100~pc, and 1~kpc. The sightline
difference will be detected for quasars lensed by a single galaxy
whose typical separation angle is $\theta$ $\sim$ 2$^{\prime\prime}$,
if the absorber's size is smaller than its distance from the flux
source by more than five orders of magnitude (i.e., $d_{cloud}/r$
$\leq$ $\theta$). This would place an important constraint on the
absorbers.
\acknowledgments We thank the anonymous referee for a number of
comments that helped us improve the paper. We also thank Koji Kawabata
and Akito Tajitsu for their comments about data analysis. The
research was supported by JGC-S Scholarship Foundation, and partially
supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science through
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 26800093.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{section:introduction}
The search for materials which realize a spin-liquid state,
in which magnetic moments interact strongly, and yet fail to order,
has become something of a {\it cause c\'el\`ebre}.\cite{fazekas74,lee08,balents10}
A rare three-dimensional example of a spin liquid is provided by
the ``spin--ice'' materials, a family of rare--earth pycrochlore oxides
exemplified by Ho$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ and Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$,
which exhibit a ``Coulombic'' phase --- a classical spin liquid,
exhibiting an emergent $U(1)$ gauge field,
whose excitations famously take the form of magnetic
monopoles.\cite{bramwell01-Science294,castelnovo12}
The fate of this spin liquid at low temperatures is an important
question, touching on the limits of our understanding of phase
transitions,\cite{powell11} and the tantalising possibility of
finding a quantum spin-liquid in three dimensions.
Nonetheless, after nearly two decades of intensive study, the nature of the
quantum ground state of spin-ice materials remains a mystery.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{combined_phase_diagram.pdf}
\caption{
(Color online)
Quantum and classical phase diagrams for a spin ice with long-range dipolar
interactions $D$, as a function of second-neighbour exchange $J_2$.
Quantum tunneling $g$, and temperature $T$, drive quantum (QSL)
and classical (CSL) spin-liquid phases.
These compete with four distinct ordered phases based on ferromagnetically--polarised
chains of spins, illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}.
Results are taken from quantum and classical Monte Carlo simulations
of $\mathcal{H_{\sf QDSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})], for a cubic cluster of
128 spins, with exchange $J_k = 0$ for $k \ne 2$.}
\label{fig:combined.phase.diagram}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{ordered_states_preliminary_axes.pdf}
\caption{
(Color online)
Chain--based ordered ground states found in a dipolar spin--ice with
competing exchange interactions.
(a) cubic antiferromagnet (CAF);
(b) tetragonal double-Q state (TDQ);
(c) ferromagnet (FM);
(d) orthorhombic ``zig-zag'' (OZZ) state stabilised by quantum fluctuations.
All states obey the ice rules, and are composed of chains of spins with
net ferromagnetic polarisation (green and yellow lines).
Tetrahedra of the same color have the same spin--configuration.
Animated images of these ordered states can be found
in the supplemental materials.\cite{supplemental}
}
\label{fig:ordered.phases}
\end{figure*}
This question gains fresh urgency from recent experiments on the
spin ice Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$,~\cite{pomaranski13} which suggest
that the Pauling ice entropy, associated with an extensive number of
states obeying the ``two-in, two-out'' ice rules,\cite{ramirez99,klemke11}
is lost at the lowest temperatures.
Such a loss of entropy could herald the onset of a long-range ordered
state~\cite{siddharthan99,siddharthan-arXiv,denHertog00,bramwell01-PRL87,melko01},
in which magnetic monopoles would be confined.
Alternatively, it could signal the emergence of a three-dimensional
{\it quantum} spin-liquid, in which monopoles would remain deconfined.
The theoretical possibility of such a spin-liquid has been widely
discussed,~\cite{hermele04,banerjee08,savary12,shannon12,benton12,lee12,savary13,gingras14,hao-arXiv,kato-arXiv}
and is now well-established through quantum Monte Carlo simulations
of models with anisotropic nearest-neighbour exchange.~\cite{banerjee08,shannon12,benton12,kato-arXiv}
These results have generated considerable excitement in the context of recent
experiments on ``quantum spin ice''
systems such as Yb$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$,~\cite{thompson11,ross11-PRX1,chang12},
Tb$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$,~\cite{molovian07,fennell12,fennell14} and
Pr$_2$Zr$_2$O$_7$.~\cite{kimura13}
However they leave unanswered the question of what happens in
a realistic model of a spin ice such as Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.
Moreover, the long equilibration time--scales encountered in both
simulation~\cite{melko01} and experiment~\cite{pomaranski13} suggests
that it is difficult to access one low--energy spin configuration
from another.
It is therefore important to understand the nature of the different
low--energy spin configurations in a realistic model --- could a new organisational principle be in play ?
In this Article we address the question :
``What determines the equilibrium ground state of
spin ice, once quantum effects are taken into account ?''
We start from a realistic model, directly motivated by experiment,
which treats both short-range exchange and long-range dipolar
interactions, as well as quantum tunneling between different spin--ice configurations.
Our main theoretical results are summarized in the combined quantum and
classical phase diagram
Fig.~\ref{fig:combined.phase.diagram}, with illustrations of possible ordered
ground states given in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}.
We first consider the classical ground state of dipolar spin ice,
in the absence of quantum fluctuations.
We find that long--range dipolar interactions are minimised by spin--configurations
composed of chains of spins with net ferromagnetic polarisation.
We show that, within these ``chain states'', dipolar interactions are exponentially
screened and that all potential classical ground states can be described
by a mapping onto an effective Ising model on a two-dimensional, anisotropic
triangular lattice.
Within this mapping, the role of exchange interactions is to select between
three different competing ordered ground states, a cubic antiferromagnet (CAF),
a ferromagnet (FM) and tetragonal double--Q (TDQ) state.
Classical Monte Carlo simulation is used to confirm this picture,
and to assess the temperature at which the classical ground state
``melts'' into a classical spin liquid (CSL), of the type observed in spin ice.
We then turn to the problem of determining the ground state of dipolar
spin ice in the presence of quantum fluctuations.
Using zero--temperature quantum Monte Carlo simulation, we establish
that even a small amount of quantum tunneling between different spin--ice
configurations can ``melt'' chain states into a three-dimensional quantum
spin-liquid (QSL) ground state.
For small tunneling, $g$, quantum fluctuations also stabilise a new,
ordered ``orthogonal zig--zag'' (OZZ) ground state, at the boundary between
CAF and TDQ states.
We conclude the Article with a discussion of the application of these
results to real materials, paying particular attention to Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.
Based on published parameters [\onlinecite{yavorskii08}],
we find that the ground state of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$
should either be a quantum spin liquid, or an ordered CAF state,
depending on the strength of quantum tunneling.
We also provide estimates of the quantum tunneling needed to stabillize
a quantum spin liquid in Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$, and a range of other materials.
The remainder of the Article is structured as follows~:
In Section~\ref{section:model} we define the models studied in this
Article, first reviewing with the standard, classical, model for dipolar spin ice
(DSI) with competing exchange interactions
[Section~\ref{subsection:classical.model}],
and then introduce a minimal model for quantum tunneling between
different spin--ice configurations [Section~\ref{subsection:quantum.model}].
In Section~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory} we use a
mean--field theory
to establish the
ground state phase diagram for classical dipolar spin ice
in the presence of competing second--neighbour exchange interaction $J_2$.
In Section~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model} we show how the ground state
phase diagram for very general competing exchange interactions can be found
from a mapping on to an effective, two--dimensional Ising model,
describing exponentially--screened interactions between
ferromagnetically---polarised
chains of spins.
In Section~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo} we use classical Monte Carlo
simulation to establish a the finite--temperature phase diagram for dipolar spin
ice in the presence of competing exchange interactions.
In Section~\ref{section:QMC} we use Green's function Monte Carlo
simulation (GFMC) to study the zero--temperature {\it quantum}
phase diagram of dipolar spin ice, taking into account quantum tunneling
between different spin--ice configurations, in the presence of competing
exchange interactions.
In Section~\ref{section:application.to.real.materials} we discuss the application
of these results to spin ice and quantum spin--ice materials, including
Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.
Finally, in Section~\ref{section:conclusions} we conclude with a
summary of the results and discussion of some of the remaining
open issues.
The Article concludes with a number of technical appendices.
In Appendix~\ref{appendix:ewald.sum} the Ewald sum used to treat
long--range dipolar interactions is defined.
In Appendix~\ref{appendix:equivalence.J2.and.J3c} it is shown that
second--neighbour exchange $J_2$, and third--neighbour exchange
along $[110]$ chains, $J_{3c}$, have the same effect when acting on
spin--ice configurations.
In Appendix~\ref{section:CMC.technical} technical details
are given of classical Monte Carlo simulations.
In Appendix~\ref{section:QMC-technical} technical details
are given of quantum Monte Carlo simulations.
In Appendix~\ref{appendix:2nd.order.perturbation.theory.in.g} a
perturbarion theory is developed in the quantum tunneling between
spin ice states
and used to explore how the OZZ ground state emerges at the boundary
between CAF and TDQ states.
\section{Model}
\label{section:model}
\subsection{The classical ``dipolar spin ice'' model}
\label{subsection:classical.model}
After almost twenty years of study, it is generally accepted that the
finite--temperature properties of spin--ice materials are well-described by
an effective Ising model with both short-range exchange and long--range
dipolar interactions --- the so-called ``dipolar spin ice'' (DSI) model
\cite{siddharthan99,siddharthan-arXiv,denHertog00,bramwell01-PRL87,melko01,yavorskii08}.
The basic building blocks of this model are magnetic rare--earth ions,
occupying the sites of a pyrochlore lattice.
This pyrochlore lattice is built of corner--sharing tetrahedra, and has
the same cubic space group $Fd\overline{3}m$ as the diamond lattice.
It is convenient to represent this lattice in terms of its 4--site primitive
unit cell --- a tetrahedron.
The corresponding Bravais lattice is FCC, with sites
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{R}_{{\bf m}} &= \frac{a}{2} (m_x,m_y,m_z) \quad , \quad m_{x,y,z} \in \mathbb{Z} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ is the linear dimension of the chemical unit cell (which is cubic, and
contains 16 magnetic ions), and \mbox{$m_x + m_y + m_z$} is an even integer.
Magnetic ions then occupy sites belonging to one of the four
sublattices $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$, with position
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mathbf{r}_i &= \mathbf{R}_{{\bf m}_i} + \frac{a}{8} (1,1,1) \; , & i \in a \; ; \\
\mathbf{r}_i &= \mathbf{R}_{{\bf m}_i} + \frac{a}{8}(1,-1,-1) \; , & i \in b \; ; \\
\mathbf{r}_i &= \mathbf{R}_{{\bf m}_i} + \frac{a}{8}(-1,1,-1) \; , & i \in c \; ; \\
\mathbf{r}_i &= \mathbf{R}_{{\bf m}_i} + \frac{a}{8}(-1,-1,1) \; , & i \in d \; .
\end{align}
\label{eq:ri}
\end{subequations}
In spin ice, a cubic the crystal field
lifts the degeneracy of the 4$f$ multiplets of the rare--earth ions, such that
the ground state of each ion is a high--spin doublet.
This doublet acts like an Ising moment
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{M}_i = 2 \mu_{\sf eff} \mathsf{S}^z_i \mathbf{\hat{z}}_i \, ,
\label{eq:Ising-spin}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{$\mathsf{S}^z_i = \pm 1/2$} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
and the magnitude of the moment is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_{\sf eff} = g_{\sf L} \mu_B \langle \mathsf{J}^z \rangle \; .
\end{eqnarray}
The Ising moment on a given site is tied to a local easy--axis,
parallel to the unit-vector $\mathbf{\hat{z}}_i$, where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\hat{z}}_i &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)\;, &\quad i\in a \;; \\
\mathbf{\hat{z}}_i &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1,-1,-1)\;, &\quad i\in b \;; \\
\mathbf{\hat{z}}_i &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(-1,1,-1)\;, &\quad i\in c \;; \\
\mathbf{\hat{z}}_i &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(-1,-1,1)\;, &\quad i\in d \; .
\end{align}
\label{eq:local_axis}
\end{subequations}
It follows that the Ising spins $\mathbf{M}_i $
point into, or out of, the tetrahedron to which they belong [cf. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:local_axis})
and Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ri})].
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{Jexchanges.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Exchange interactions up to \mbox{3$^{\text{rd}}$--neighbour} on the pyrochlore lattice.
The interactions $J_k$ appearing in ${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.exchange})]
are color-coded $J_1$ (blue), $J_2$ (green), $J_{3c}$ (red), and $J_{3d}$ (purple).
\label{fig:j2j3cj3dexchanges}
}
\end{figure}
The dipolar spin--ice model
takes into account both dipolar and exchange interactions between
these Ising spins
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}
= \mathcal{H}_{\sf dipolar}
+ \mathcal{H}_{\sf exchange} \; .
\label{eq:Hdsi}
\end{eqnarray}
Dipolar interactions are long--ranged, and have the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}
&=& 4 D \sum_{i<j} \left(\frac{r_1}{r_{ij}}\right)^3
\left[
\mathbf{\hat{z}}_i \cdot \mathbf{\hat{z}}_j
\right. \nonumber\\
&& \qquad \left.
- 3 \left( \mathbf{\hat{z}}_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij} \right)
\left( \mathbf{\hat{z}}_j \cdot \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij} \right)
\right]
\, \mathsf{S}^z_i \, \mathsf{S}^z_j \,,
\label{eq:H.dipolar}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{r}_{ij}$ is the vector connecting
sites $i$ and $j$ (with $r_{ij} = |\mathbf{r}_{ij}|$ and
$\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij} = \mathbf{r}_{ij}/r_{ij}$);
\begin{eqnarray}
r_1 = \frac{a}{2\sqrt{2}}
\label{eq:r1}
\end{eqnarray}
is the distance between neighbouring
magnetic ions; and
\begin{eqnarray}
D = \frac{\mu_0 \mu_{\sf eff}^2}{16 \pi r_1^3}
\label{eq:D}
\end{eqnarray}
is the strength of dipolar interactions at distance $r_1$.
To keep the definition of $D$ consistent with
Refs.~[\onlinecite{siddharthan99,siddharthan-arXiv,denHertog00,bramwell01-PRL87,melko01,yavorskii08}],
where spins have unit length \mbox{$\mathsf{S}^z_i = \pm 1$}, an overall factor of $4$
has been introduced in ${\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.dipolar})].
Dipolar interactions have an infinite range, so where we simulate finite--size clusters,
with periodic boundary conditions we employ the Ewald resumption
described in Appendix~\ref{appendix:ewald.sum}.
The dipolar spin--ice model also allows for competing exchange interactions
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}
&=& \sum_{k}
4 J_k \sum_{\langle ij \rangle_k}
\left( \mathbf{\hat{z}}_i \cdot \mathbf{\hat{z}}_j \right)
\, \mathsf{S}^z_i \, \mathsf{S}^z_j \,,
\label{eq:H.exchange}
\end{eqnarray}
where $k$ counts equivalent pairs of sites on the pyrochlore lattice
and, once again, an overall factor of $4$ has been introduced in
${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}$~[\ref{eq:H.exchange}] to keep the definition of $J_k$
consistent with
Refs.~[\onlinecite{siddharthan99,siddharthan-arXiv,denHertog00,bramwell01-PRL87,melko01,yavorskii08}].
All possible exchange interactions up to \mbox{3$^{\text{rd}}$--neighbour},
including the two distinct forms of \mbox{3$^{\text{rd}}$--neighbour} exchange
$J_{3d}$ and $J_{3c}$, are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:j2j3cj3dexchanges}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{tunnelling.pdf}
\caption{
(Color online)
An example of quantum tunnelling between two different spin configurations obeying the
ice rules, mediated by the virtual excitation of a pair of magnetic monopoles.
(a) spin--configuration obeying the ice rules, containing a closed
loop of spins, numbered 1\ldots 6.
(b) excited state containing a pair of magnetic monopoles
(green and magnenta tetrahedra).
(c) degenerate excited state, in which one of the monopoles
has moved.
(d) spin--configuration obeying the ice rules, in which the closed
loop of spin has been reversed.
For the anisotropic exchange model ${\mathcal H}_{\sf xxz}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:xxzham})],
this process corresponds to 3$^\text{rd}$--order degenerate perturbation in
$J_\pm$, and leads to the tunneling amplitude $g = 12J_\pm^3/J_z^2$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpertJpm3})].
\label{fig:tunneling}
}
\end{figure*}
The defining property of spin ice is that at low temperatures
spin--configurations obey the ``ice rules'', which require
that two spins point into, and two spins point out of, every
tetrahedron on the lattice.
The simplest model leading to the ice rules contains only ferromagnetic
exchange $J_1 < 0$, between nearest--neighbour Ising spins.~\cite{harris97}
In this case, all spin configurations obeying the ice rules are degenerate.
The presence of long--range dipolar interactions, and further--neighbour exchanges,
lifts this degeneracy, giving rise to the possibility of ordered ground states.
However the differences in energy from dipolar interactions alone
are smaller than might be excepted, since dipolar interactions
are ``self-screened'' \cite{gingras01, enjalran04, melko04}
within spin-ice configurations, decaying as $1/r^5$.\cite{isakov05}
And, as discussed below, there exist a subset of spin-ice configurations,
the ``chain states'', in which dipolar interactions are even better screened,
with interactions decaying exponentially with distance.
\subsection{Quantum tunneling between spin-ice states}
\label{subsection:quantum.model}
The minimal change in a spin ice, once quantum effects
are taken into account, is the possibility of the system tunneling from
one spin--configuration obeying the ice rules to another.
Tunnelling matrix elements arise where it is possible to reverse
closed loops of spins, with the shortest loop occurring on the
hexagonal plaquette shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:j2j3cj3dexchanges}.
The natural quantum generalisation of the dipolar spin--ice model is
therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H_{\sf QDSI}}
= \mathcal{H}_{\sf dipolar}
+ \mathcal{H}_{\sf exchange}
+ \mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling} \,.
\label{eq:Hqdsi}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling} =
-g \sum_{\hexagon}
|\! \circlearrowright \rangle\langle \circlearrowleft\! | +
|\! \circlearrowleft \rangle\langle \circlearrowright\! | \,.
\label{eq:Htunneling}
\end{equation}
and the sum upon $\hexagon$ runs over the hexagonal plaquettes
of the pyrochlore lattice.
In the absence of long--range dipolar or exchange interactions, quantum
tunneling of the form $\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Htunneling})]
is known to stabilize a quantum spin liquid described by
a quantum $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory.~\cite{hermele04,banerjee08,shannon12,benton12}
Due to their relative smallness, it is hard even to estimate the strength
of quantum tunnelling in spin-ice materials such as Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$, and the
microscopic aspects of the quantum dynamics are only beginning
to be understood~\cite{rau-arXiv,tomasello-arXiv}.
However, the form of the tunnelling matrix element $\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Htunneling})]
is uniquely determined by the ice rules and the geometry of the pyrochlore lattice,
so estimates of $g$ can be taken from any quantum model which supports
a spin--ice ground state.
The simplest example is an anisotropic exchange model with
interactions of ``XY'' type,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal H}_{\sf xxz}
= J_{zz} \sum_{\langle ij \rangle}
\mathsf{S}_i^z \mathsf{S}_j^z
- J_{\pm} \sum_{\langle ij \rangle}
(\mathsf{S}_i^+ \mathsf{S}_j^- + \mathsf{S}_i^- \mathsf{S}_j^+) \,,
\label{eq:xxzham}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mathsf{S}_i^z$ promoted to a (pseudo) spin-1/2 operator such
that
\begin{eqnarray}
[\mathsf{S}_i^+,\mathsf{S}_j^-] = 2 \mathsf{S}^z_i \delta_{ij} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
In this case $\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Htunneling})]
can be derived in degenerate perturbation theory about classical
states obeying the ice rules.
The tunneling process shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tunneling} can be thought
of as the spontaneous creation of a (virtual) pair of magnetic monopoles,
which annihilate after one has traversed the hexagon, leading
to an effective tunneling
\begin{equation}
g = \frac{12 J_{\pm}^3}{J_{zz}^2} \,.
\label{eq:gpertJpm3}
\end{equation}
A more general starting point for describing a quantum spin ice is the
anisotropic nearest-neighbour exchange model~\cite{onoda11,savary12-PRL108,lee12}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}_{\sf S=1/2}
= & \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} \Big\{ J_{zz} \mathsf{S}_i^z \mathsf{S}_j^z - J_{\pm}
(\mathsf{S}_i^+ \mathsf{S}_j^- + \mathsf{S}_i^- \mathsf{S}_j^+)
\nonumber \\ &
+ J_{\pm\pm} \left[\gamma_{ij} \mathsf{S}_i^+ \mathsf{S}_j^+ + \gamma_{ij}^*
\mathsf{S}_i^-\mathsf{S}_j^-\right]
\nonumber \\ &
+ J_{z\pm}\left[ \mathsf{S}_i^z (\zeta_{ij} \mathsf{S}_j^+ + \zeta^*_{ij} \mathsf{S}_j^-) +
{i\leftrightarrow j}\right]\Big\} \,,
\label{eq:H-anisotropic-exchange}
\end{align}
where the sum $\langle ij\rangle$ runs over the nearest-neighbour bonds of the pyrochlore
lattice; and $\gamma_{ij}$ and $\zeta_{ij} $ are $4 \times 4$ complex unimodular matrices
encoding the rotations between the local axes $\mathbf{\hat{z}}_i$ and the cubic
axes of crystal.~\cite{curnoe08,ross11-PRX1}
The (pseudo) spin-1/2 model $\mathcal{H}_{\sf S=1/2}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:H-anisotropic-exchange})],
has been shown to give a quantitative description of spin excitations in both the
``quantum spin ice'' Yb$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$~[\onlinecite{ross11-PRX1}] and quantum
order-by-disorder system Er$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$~[\onlinecite{savary12-PRL109}].
The parameterization of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf S=1/2}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H-anisotropic-exchange})],
and its mean-field phase diagram have been explored in
Refs.~[\onlinecite{onoda11,savary12-PRL108,savary13,lee12}].
We will not develop this topic further here, but note that the additional terms,
$J_{z\pm}$ and $J_{\pm\pm}$, can also contribute to the tunneling $g$, but
do so in higher orders of perturbation theory than $J_{\pm}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:gpertJpm3})].
\subsection{Choice of parameters}
\label{subsection:model.parameters}
Like other spin ices, Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ is believed to be well--described by the dipolar
spin--ice model $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})], and the values of the
parameters $D$ and $J_k$ have been estimated by Yavors'kii {\it et al.} in Ref.~[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}].
In this case, the lattice constant $a = 10.124\ \AA$ [\onlinecite{fukazawa02}], and the
Dy$^{3+}$ ions have a Land\'e factor $g_{\sf L} = 4/3$ associated with an Ising
moment $\langle \mathsf{J}^z \rangle = 7.40\ \mu_B$.
It follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:D}) that
\begin{eqnarray}
D = 1.3224\ \text{K} \,. \qquad [\text{Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$}]
\label{eq:D.Dy2Ti2O7}
\end{eqnarray}
Competing exchange interactions were estimated
on the basis of fits of classical Monte Carlo simulation to the structure
factor $S({\bf q})$ measured in (diffuse) neutron scattering.
Working within the simplifying assumption
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{3c} = J_{3d} = J_3 \; , \qquad [\text{Ref.~\protect{\onlinecite{yavorskii08}}}]
\end{eqnarray}
Yavors'kii {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}] find
\begin{eqnarray}
J_1 = &\ & 3.41\ \text{K} \,, \nonumber\\
J_2 = &-&0.14\ \text{K} \,, \qquad [\text{Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$}] \\
J_3 = & & 0.03\ \text{K} \,, \nonumber
\label{eq:yavorskii.parameters}
\end{eqnarray}
For the purposes of this Article, we work with parameters
$D$ and $J_k$ chosen such that the net effect of the interactions in $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$
[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})] is to enforce the ice--rules constraint.
We consider all possible exchanges
up to \mbox{3$^{\text{rd}}$--neighbour}, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:j2j3cj3dexchanges},
maintaining the distinction $J_{3c} \ne J_{3d}$.
However, since $J_1$ plays no part in selecting ordered ground states
we set $J_1 \equiv 0$,
except where needed for comparison with the finite--temperature
properties of real materials.
A further simplication arises since, within spin--configurations
obeying the ice rules, the effect of the \mbox{3$^{\text{rd}}$--neighbour} exchange $J_{3c}$
is simply to renormalise the \mbox{2$^{\text{nd}}$--neighbour} exchange,
\begin{equation}
J_2 \to J_2 + 3 J_{3c} \; ,
\label{eq:j2_j3c_equivalence}
\end{equation}
leaving only $J_2$ and $J_{3d}$ as independent parameters.
This equivalence is proved in Appendix~\ref{appendix:equivalence.J2.and.J3c}.
Mindful of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:yavorskii.parameters})], we will
generally assume that $J_2$ is the leading form of exchange interaction.
And for the purposes of soft--spin mean--field theory [Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}],
classical Monte Carlo simulation [Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo}],
and quantum Monte Carlo simulation [Sec.~\ref{section:QMC}], we will generally
consider ferromagnetic $J_2 < 0$, setting all other exchange interactions to zero.
\section{Mean--field ground states of dipolar spin ice}
\label{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}
Many of the properties of spin-ice materials~[\onlinecite{denHertog00,isakov05}]
can be successfully described using a ``soft--spin'' mean field theory,
in which the ``hard--spin'' constraint of fixed spin-length
\begin{eqnarray}
({\sf S}^z_i)^2 = \frac{1}{4} \; ,
\label{eq:hard.spin.constraint}
\end{eqnarray}
is relaxed, and spins are treated as continuous variables.
In what follows, we use such a soft--spin mean--field theory to explore
the classical ground state--phase diagram of $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})].
We focus on the competition between long--range dipolar interactions $D$ and
second--neighbour exchange $J_2$, and construct a mean--field phase diagram
as a function of $J_2/D$.
The starting point for our mean--field theory is the Fourier transform
of the combined dipolar and exchange interactions, $\mathcal{J}^{ab}_{\bf q}$, where the index
\begin{eqnarray}
a,b =0,1,2, 3
\end{eqnarray}
counts the 4 sites of the tetrahedron $i$ as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ri}) (which is the primitive unit cell), with the local axis given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:local_axis}).
Following Reimers {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{reimers91}], den Hertog {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{denHertog00}], and
Isakov {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{isakov05}], we write
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}} \approx \overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}
= \sum_{\bf q}^{a,b} \mathcal{J}^{ab}_{\bf q} m^a_{\bf q} m^b_{\bf -q} \; ,
\label{eq:Hsoftspin}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
m^a_{\bf q} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{i\in a} {\sf S}^z_{i} e^{i {\bf q} \cdot {\bf r}_{i}} \; ,
\label{eq:m}
\end{eqnarray}
and similar equations hold for sublattice $b$, $c$, $d$.
The contribution to $\mathcal{J}^{ab}_{\bf q}$ from long--range
dipolar interactions is determined by an Ewald summation, as
described in~Ref.~[\onlinecite{enjalran04}].
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{kMFT_Bandwidth.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Band-width $\Delta E$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Delta.E})] of spin-ice states
in the presence of long-range dipolar interactions $D$, as a function of second-neighbour
exchange $J_2 < 0$, within the soft spin-mean field theory
$\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin})].
For small $|J_2|/D$, the competing exchange interaction
leads to a reduction in the bandwidth of spin-ice states, which takes
on a minimum value for $J_2/D = -0.062$.
\label{fig:kMFT_Bandwidth}
}
\end{figure}
The eigenvalues of the matrix $\mathcal{J}^{ab}_{\bf q} $,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{J}_{\bf q} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{q}}^{\mu}
= \epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\mu} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{q}}^{\mu} \, ,
\label{eq:eigenvalue.equation}
\end{eqnarray}
form four dispersing bands $\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\mu}$, labeled by $\mu$.
The eigenvector
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{q}_{\sf min}}^{\mu_{\sf min}}$
with the lowest eigenvalue(s)
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{J}_{\bf q} \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{q}_{\sf min}}^{\mu_{\sf min}}
= \epsilon_{\mathbf{q}_{\sf min}}^{\mu_{\sf min}} \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{q}_{\sf min}}^{\mu_{\sf min}} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
is(are) a ground state of $\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin})].
As long as the associated eigenvector $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{q}_{\sf min}}^{\mu_{\sf min}}$
satisfies the ``hard-spin'' constraint Eq.~(\ref{eq:hard.spin.constraint}), this state is also a valid
ground state of original dipolar spin--ice model
$\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})].
Once this constraint is (re)imposed, the soft--spin approximation
becomes equivalent to the well-known Luttinger--Tisza
method.~\cite{luttinger46}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{bzTDQ_alt.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Wave vectors associated with ordered ground states
in a dipolar spin ice described by $\mathcal H_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})].
The cubic antiferromagnet (CAF) has ordering vector
${\bf Q}^{\sf CAF} = (0,0,1)$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Q.min.CAF})],
and symmetry--related points [including the (1,1,0)], here labelled ``$X$'' (blue points).
The tetragonal double-Q state (TDQ) has is based on
pairs of ordering vectors of the form
\mbox{${\bf Q}^{\sf TDQ} = \pm (1/2,1/2,0)$}~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:QTDQ})], shown with red points.
The ferromagnet (FM) has ordering vector
${\bf Q}^{\sf FM} = (0,0,0)$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Q.min.FM})],
here labelled ``$\Gamma$'' (green points).
The evolution of the ordering vector within the soft--spin mean
field--theory
$\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin})]
is shown with an orange arrow.
\label{fig:ordering-vectors}
}
\end{figure}
In the simplest model of a spin--ice, in which only nearest--neighbour interactions
are taken into account, there is no unique eigenvector
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{q}_{\sf min}}^{\mu_{\sf min}}$
with a minimum energy.
Instead the two lowest-lying
eigenstates form ``flat'' bands with
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\sf 1} =\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\sf 2} \equiv 0.
\end{align}
These bands describe the (extensively degenerate) set of spin
configurations which obey the two-in two-out ``ice rules''~[\onlinecite{denHertog00,melko01,isakov05}].
The degeneracy of the spin--ice configurations is lifted by long--range dipolar
interactions, causing these flat bands to acquire a dispersion.
However dipolar interactions, despite being long-range, are effectively
``self-screened'' within the spin-ice states,~\cite{denHertog00} a fact
known as ``projective equivalence'' [\onlinecite{isakov05}].
The overall bandwidth of spin-ice states in the presence
of dipolar interactions
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta E =
\text{Max}(\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\sf 1},\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\sf 2})
- \text{Min}(\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\sf 1},\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\sf 2})
\approx 0.17 D
\label{eq:Delta.E}
\end{eqnarray}
and is significantly smaller than the bare scale of dipolar interactions $D$.
None the less, dipolar interactions do select an ordered ground state,
as described below.
We now turn to question of finding the ground state of
$\mathcal{H}_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})] as function of $J_2/D$.
Within the soft-spin approximation
$\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin})],
for $J_2 < 0$, there are three distinct regimes, corresponding
to different ordering vectors
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf q}_{\sf min} = \frac{2\pi}{a} \; {\bf Q}_{\sf min} \;,
\label{eq:Qmin}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ is the (cubic) lattice spacing, and ordering vectors
are measured relative to the usual, cubic, crystallographic coordinates.
We consider each of these regimes in turn, below.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{kMFT_Lowest_Band.pdf}
\caption{
(Color online)
Evolution of the
dispersion of lowest-lying eigenvalue of
$\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin})],
as a function of second-neighbour exchange $J_2 < 0$,
for wave vector ${\bf Q} = (Q,Q,0)$.
For \mbox{$J_2/D = -0.057$}, (blue curve) the minimum of the dispersion
is found at ${\bf Q}^{\sf CAF} = \left(1,1,0 \right)$.
For \mbox{$J_2/D = -0.08$}, (purple curve) the minimum of the dispersion
is found at ${\bf Q}^{\sf FM} = \left(0,0,0 \right)$.
The direction of decreasing $J_2/D$ is shown with an arrow. The mean field energy at $Q=1/2$ and $3/2$ does not depend on $J_2/D$, this is the origin of the line crossings. %
}
\label{fig:band.evolution}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{
Chain--based ordered ground states of dipolar spin ice,
$\mathcal{H_{\sf QDSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})].
The ordering wave vector $\mathbf{Q}$, [cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:ordering-vectors}],
is measured in reciprocal lattice units
[cf.~Eq.~(\ref{eq:Qmin})].
Also listed are the corresponding spin eigenvector [cf.~Eq.~(\ref{eq:eigenvalue.equation})],
the chain directions associated with each eignvector, and the degeneracy of the state.
The cubic antiferromagnet (CAF), tetragonal double--Q (TDQ) and ferromagnet
(FM) are all found in classical treatments of dipolar spin ice
[Sec~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory},\ref{section:effective.Ising.model},\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo}].
In contrast, the orthorhombic zig-zag (OZZ) is only stabilised by quantum
effects [Sec.~\ref{section:QMC}].
All four ordered states are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}.
}
\centering
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c r c }
state & ordering wavevector ${\bf Q}$ & eigenvectors $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}}$ & chain directions & degen. & figure \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\vspace{0.1cm}
& $\begin{array}{c} (1,0,0) \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl} \frac{1}{2}(-1)^j \left(1,-1,0,0 \right), & j=1,2 \\ \frac{1}{2}(-1)^{j'} \left(0,0,1,-1 \right), & j'=1,2 \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[0,1,1] \\{}[0,1,\bar{1}]\end{array} $
& 4
& Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(a) \\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
CAF
& $\begin{array}{c} (0,1,0) \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl} \frac{1}{2} (-1)^j \left(1,0,-1,0\right), & j=1,2\\ \frac{1}{2} (-1)^{j'}\left(0,1,0,-1\right), & j'=1,2\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} [1,0,1]\\{}[1,0,\bar{1}] \end{array}$
& 4
& \\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c} (0,0,1) \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl} \frac{1}{2} (-1)^j \left(1,0,0,-1\right), & j=1,2 \\ \frac{1}{2} (-1)^{j'}\left(0,1,-1,0\right), & j'=1,2 \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} [1,1,0]\\{} [1,\bar1,0] \end{array} $
& 4
& \\
\hline\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(0,\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2} \right)\\ \left(0,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2} \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j+1)\pi/4}\left(1,-1,0,0\right), & j=1,2,3,4\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j'+1)\pi/4}\left(0,0,1,-1\right), & j'=1,2,3,4\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[0,1,1] \\{}[0,1,\bar{1}]\end{array} $
& 16
& Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(b)
\\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
TDQ
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2},0,-\frac{1}{2} \right)\\ \left(\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{1}{2} \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j+1)\pi/4}\left(1,0,-1,0\right), & j=1,2,3,4\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j'+1)\pi/4}\left(0,1,0,-1\right), & j'=1,2,3,4\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} [1,0,1]\\{}[1,0,\bar{1}] \end{array}$
& 16
& \\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2},0 \right)\\ \left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0 \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j+1)\pi/4}\left(1,0,0,-1\right), & j=1,2,3,4\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} e^{i (2j'+1)\pi/4}\left(0,1,-1,0\right), & j'=1,2,3,4\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} [1,1,0]\\{} [1,\bar1,0] \end{array} $
& 16
& \\
\hline\vspace{0.1cm}
& $\begin{array}{c} (0,0,0)\\ {} \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} \pm\frac{1}{2} \left(1,-1,-1,1\right)\\ {} \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} [0,1,1]\; \& \; [0,1,\bar1] \\ \text{} [1,0,1] \; \& \; [1,0,\bar{1}] \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} 2 \\ {} \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} \text{Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(c)}\\{} \end{array}$ \\\cline{2-6} \vspace{1truemm}
FM
& $\begin{array}{c} (0,0,0)\\ {} \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} \pm\frac{1}{2} \left(1,-1,1,-1 \right)\\ {} \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} [0,1,1] \; \& \; [0,1,\bar1]\\ \text{} [1,1,0] \; \& \; [1,\bar{1},0] \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} 2\\ {} \end{array}$
& \\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c} (0,0,0)\\ {} \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} \pm\frac{1}{2} \left(1,1,-1,-1 \right)\\ {} \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} [1,0,1] \; \& \; [1,0,\bar1]\\ \text{} [ 1,1,0] \; \& \; [1,\bar{1},0] \end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c} 2\\ {} \end{array}$
& \\
\hline\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(0,\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2} \right)\\ \left(1,0,0 \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j+1)\pi/4}\left(1,-1,0,0\right), & j=1,2,3,4 \\ \frac{1}{2}(-1)^{j'} \left(0,0,1,-1 \right), & j'=1,2
\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[0,1,1] \\{}[0,1,\bar{1}]\end{array} $
& 8
& Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(d)
\\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(1,0,0 \right)\\\left(0,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2} \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{2}(-1)^{j} \left(1,-1,0,0\right), & j=1,2\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j'+1)\pi/4}\left(0,0,1,-1 \right), & j'=1,2,3,4\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[0,1,1] \\{}[0,1,\bar{1}]\end{array} $
& 8
&
\\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
OZZ
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2},0,-\frac{1}{2} \right)\\ \left(0,1,0 \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j+1)\pi/4}\left(1,0,-1,0\right), & j=1,2,3,4\\ \frac{1}{2}(-1)^{j'} \left(0,1,0,-1 \right), & j'=1,2\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[1,0,1] \\{}[1,0,\bar{1}]\end{array} $
& 8
&
\\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(0,1,0 \right)\\\left(\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{1}{2} \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{2}(-1)^{j} \left(1,0,-1,0\right), & j=1,2\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j'+1)\pi/4}\left(0,1,0,-1 \right), & j'=1,2,3,4\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[1,0,1] \\{}[1,0,\bar{1}]\end{array} $
& 8
&
\\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2},0 \right)\\ \left(0,0,1 \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j+1)\pi/4}\left(1,0,0,-1\right), & j=1,2,3,4\\ \frac{1}{2}(-1)^{j'} \left(0,1,-1,0 \right), & j'=1,2\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[1,1,0] \\{}[1,\bar{1},0]\end{array} $
& 8
&
\\\cline{2-6}\vspace{1truemm}
& $\begin{array}{c}\left(0,0,1 \right)\\\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0 \right)\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{rl}\frac{1}{2}(-1)^{j} \left(1,0,0,-1\right), & j=1,2\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i (2j'+1)\pi/4}\left(0,1,-1,0 \right), & j'=1,2,3,4\end{array}$
& $\begin{array}{c}[1,1,0] \\{}[1,\bar{1},0]\end{array} $
& 8
&
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{table:ordered.states}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Cubic antiferromagnet (CAF)}
\label{subsection:CAF}
For purely dipolar interactions ${\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.dipolar})],
the minimum of the lowest lying (nearly-flat) band $\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^{\mu}$
lies at
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Q}^{\sf CAF}
=
\left(0,0,1 \right)
\label{eq:Q.min.CAF}
\end{eqnarray}
--- the X point in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordering-vectors},
and two other wave vectors related by cubic symmetry.
The spectrum of $\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin})]
is doubly--degenerate at these wavevectors, with associated eigenvectors
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^{\sf CAF}}^{1^\prime} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(1,0,0,-1 \right) \, ,
\nonumber\\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^{\sf CAF}}^{2^\prime} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(0,1,-1,0 \right) \, .
\label{eq.CAF.ev}
\end{eqnarray}
These eigenvectors satisfy the hard--spin constraint Eq.~(\ref{eq:hard.spin.constraint}),
and correspond to the CAF --- an antiferromagnet ground state with
cubic symmetry, studied extensively by Melko {\it et al.} [\onlinecite{melko01}].
Competing second-neighbour exchange, $J_2 < 0$, leads a
reduction in the bandwidth of spin-ice configurations $\Delta E$,
as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:kMFT_Bandwidth}.
However the CAF remains a mean-field ground state for
\begin{equation}
J_{2}/D > -0.057(1) \; ,
\label{eq.MF.phase.boundary.CAF.TDQ}
\end{equation}
where the bracket indicates the uncertainty in the final digit.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{kMFT_Main_J2_D.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Evolution of the mean--field ordering wave vector,
\mbox{${\bf Q}_{\sf min} = (Q,Q,0)$}
as a function of second--neighbour exchange \mbox{$J_2 < 0$},
within a dipolar spin ice described by the soft--spin mean--field theory
$\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin})].
${\bf Q}_{\sf min}$
interpolates smoothly from \mbox{${\bf Q}^{\sf CAF} = (1,1,0)$}
[labelled $X$ in Fig.~(\ref{fig:ordering-vectors})],
through incommensurate values, to
\mbox{${\bf Q}^{\sf FM} = (0,0,0)$},
[labelled $\Gamma$ in Fig.~(\ref{fig:ordering-vectors})].
The wave vectors associated with the tetragonal double-Q (TDQ)
state, including \mbox{${\bf Q}^{\sf TDQ} = (1/2,1/2,0)$}
[cf.~Table~\ref{table:ordered.states}], occur for $J_2/D = -0.068$
(red dashed line), within the incommensurate region.
}
\label{fig:evolution-of-Qmin}
\end{figure}
The CAF ground state is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(a).
(An equivalent animated figure is provided in the supplemental materials).
It has the same 16--site cubic unit cell as the pyrochlore lattice.
Once time--reversal symmetry is taken into account, each of the three possible
ordering vectors ${\bf Q}^{\sf CAF}$ contributes four possible ground states,
leading to an overall 12--fold degeneracy.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(a), the CAF is shown within a tetragonal 32--site
cell, aligned with the $[110]$ and $[1\overline{1}0]$ axes of the lattice.
Plotted in this way, it becomes clear that the CAF is built of alternating chains
of
spins (coloured blue and red, respectively), running parallel
to the $[110]$ and $[1\overline{1}0]$ axes (green and yellow lines, respectively), corresponding to the $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^{\sf CAF}}^{1^\prime}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^{\sf CAF}}^{2^\prime}$ eigenvectors [Eqs.~(\ref{eq.CAF.ev})], respectively.
Each of these chains has a net ferromagnetic polarisation.
However, the polarisation of the chains rotates between the different $[001]$
planes of the lattice, to give a state with no net magnetisation.
\subsection{Incommensurate states and tetragonal double--Q (TDQ) order}
\label{subsection:TDQ}
In the intermediate parameter range
\begin{equation}
- 0.080 < J_{2} /D < - 0.057
\label{eq:J2.for.TDQ}
\end{equation}
the dispersion of lowest-lying eigenvalue of
$\overline{\mathcal H}_{\sf DSI}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hsoftspin}),
evolves smoothly from a band with a minimum at
${\bf Q}^{\sf CAF}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Q.min.CAF})]
to band with a minimum at
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Q}^{\sf FM} = (0,0,0) \, ,
\label{eq:Q.min.FM}
\end{eqnarray}
as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:band.evolution}.
The corresponding mean-field ordering wave vector, $\mathbf{Q}_{\sf min}$,
interpolates between ${\bf Q}^{\sf CAF}$
and ${\bf Q}^{\sf FM}$, following the path shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordering-vectors}.
In general, the eigenvectors $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}_{\sf min}}^\mu$ in
this range of $J_2/D$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:J2.for.TDQ})] do {\it not} satisfy the hard--spin
constraint Eq.~(\ref{eq:hard.spin.constraint}).
However a special case, occurring for
\begin{eqnarray}
J_2/ D = - 0.068(1) \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
is the commensurate wavevector
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Q}^{\sf TDQ}
&=&
\left( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}, 0 \right) \; .
\label{eq:QTDQ}
\end{eqnarray}
In this case, it {\it is} possible to construct to linear combinations
of pairs of the 12 eigenvectors $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^{\sf TDQ}}^\mu$,
listed in Table~\ref{table:ordered.states}, which {\it do} satisfy the hard-spin constraint.
These correspond to the 48--fold degenerate, tetragonal, double--Q state (TDQ)
illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(b).
(An equivalent animated figure is provided in the supplemental materials).
Close examination of Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(b) reveals that the TDQ state,
like the CAF, is built of alternating chains of
spins, running parallel to the $[110]$ and $[1\overline{1}0]$ axes.
Each alternating chain has a net ferromagnetic polarisation.
However the sense of this polarisation alternates between neighbouring chains,
to give a state with no net magnetisation.
To rule out the possibility of other mean--field ground states in this
parameter range, we have carried out a search of all possible
multiple--Q states of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi^a (\mathbf{r}_{i,a})
&=& \sum_{\eta}
\left[
z^a_\eta e^{ i \mathbf{q}_{\sf min}^\eta \cdot \mathbf{r}_{i,a} }
+ \text{c.c.}
\right] \; .
\label{eq:TL-order_parameter}
\end{eqnarray}
where $z^a_\eta$
is a 4--component vector proportional to
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^\mu_{\mathbf{Q}_{\sf min}^\eta}$,
and the sum $\sum_{\eta}$ runs over the six distinct mean--field
ordering wave vectors
given in Table~\ref{table:ordered.states}.
We find that the only solutions $\Psi^a (\mathbf{r}_{i,a})$
which satisfy the hard--spin constraint [Eq.~(\ref{eq:hard.spin.constraint})],
are those corresponding to the TDQ states.
\subsection{Ferromagnet (FM)}
\label{subsection:FM}
Finally, for parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{2}/D < -0.080(1)
\label{eq.MF.phase.boundary.TDQ.FM}
\end{eqnarray}
we find $\mathbf{Q}_{\sf min}$ equal to ${\bf Q}^{\sf FM}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Q.min.FM})],
and eigenvectors have unique solutions of the simple ``two--in, two--out'' form
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^{\sf FM}}^{\mu_{\sf min}} &=& \frac{1}{2} \left(1,1,-1,-1 \right) \;
\end{eqnarray}
There are three such eigenvectors up to time reversal and they are listed in Table~\ref{table:ordered.states}.
These eigenvectors trivially satisfy the hard-spin constraint
Eq.~(\ref{eq:hard.spin.constraint}), and correspond to a simple
ferromagnet (FM) in which all tetrahedra have the same spin
configuration.
Since there are six possible ``two--in, two--out'' spin configurations
for a single tetrahedron, the FM is six--fold degenerate.
The FM state is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(c).
(An equivalent animated figure is provided in the supplemental materials).
Once again, the FM can be seen to be built of alternating chains of
spins, running parallel to the $[110]$ and $[1\overline{1}0]$ axes.
However, unlike the CAF or TDQ state, all chains parallel to $[110]$ or $[1\overline{1}0]$
have the same polarisation, and as a result the FM has a net magnetization parallel
to the $[100]$ axis.
\section{Mapping to an effective triangular--lattice Ising model}
\label{section:effective.Ising.model}
The mean--field treatment of dipolar spin ice,
developed in Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}, reveals three different
ordered ground states as a function of second neighbour exchange $J_2 < 0$ ---
a cubic antiferromagnet (CAF), a tetragonal double--Q (TDQ) state, and
a cubic ferromagnet (FM).
These three ordered states have a striking common feature --- they are all built
of alternating chains of
spins.
Numerical simulations, described in Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo},
confirm that the CAF, TDQ and FM states are indeed the classical ground states of
$\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})] for $ J_2 < 0$.
However neither these simulations, nor the mean--field theory, explain why
ordered ground states should be built of alternating chains of spins.
Moreover, the fact that three different ground states are found within such a small
range of $J_2/D$ [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:evolution-of-Qmin}] suggests that ground state order
might also be very sensitive to third neighbour exchanges $J_{3c}$ and $J_{3d}$,
not treated in Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}.
Taken together, these results suggest that a new ordering principle is at
work in dipolar spin ice at low temperatures.
In what follows we identify this ordering principle, showing how long--range dipolar
interactions between alternating chains of spins can be described by an
effective Ising model on an anisotropic triangular lattice, with only weak,
short--ranged interactions.
The extreme sensitivity of the ground state dipolar spin--ice to competing
exchange interactions is shown to follow from the exponential--screening
of dipolar interactions within such ``chain states''.
We develop, below, the classical, ground-state phase diagram of this Ising model, and show
how it can be used to determine the ordered phases of a dipolar spin ice
with competing further-neighbour exchange.
\subsection{Effective Ising model}
\label{subsection:madlung.sum}
Spin ice is not the only material where long--range interactions arise
within an ice--like manifold of states.
Another example, famously studied by Anderson
is the charged ordered system magnetite, Fe$_3$O$_4$.
In a seminal paper,~\cite{anderson56} Anderson argued that Fe$^{2+}$
and Fe$^{3+}$ ions, occupying the sites of a pyrochlore lattice in magnetite,
could be equated with the hydrogen bonds in water ice.
The tendency to charge order means that they are subject to the same
``ice rule'', namely that there should be exactly two Fe$^{2+}$ and
two Fe$^{3+}$ in every tetrahedron in the lattice.
The degeneracy of these ice--like, locally charge--ordered states is lifted
by long--range Coulomb interactions between the Fe$^{2+}$ and Fe$^{3+}$
ions.~\cite{anderson56,mcclarty14}
At first sight, evaluating the effect of these long--range interactions
is a very challenging problem.
However, as Anderson realised, the particular geometry of pyrochlore
lattice leads to a significant simplification.
The pyrochlore lattice can be broken down into sites on two sets of
chains, running parallel to $[110]$ and $[1\overline{1}0]$, with a tetrahedron
at every point where two perpendicular chains cross.
States satisfying the ``ice rule''
can be constructed by populating these chains with alternating
Fe$^{2+}$ and Fe$^{3+}$ ions.
These chains of alternating charges are charge--neutral objects
(relative to the average valence of Fe$^{2.5+}$), and so interact
only weakly.
Moreover, it follows from the symmetry of the lattice that interactions
between perpendicular chains vanish.
What remains are two, independent, sets of weakly--interacting chains,
whose low--energy states can be described by an Ising variable on a triangular lattice.
The two states of the Ising variable stand for the two possible states of the ferromagnetic chains.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\subfloat[\label{fig:chain}]{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{chain_new.pdf}} \\
\subfloat[\label{fig:FM-to-ANNNI}]{\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{FM-to-Ising.pdf}} \\
\caption{(Color online)
Mapping from spin-ice states to the anisotropic Ising model on a triangular lattice.
(a) Alternating chain of
spins, with net ferromagnetic magnetisation.
(b) Pyrochlore lattice, showing how chains parallel to $[110]$ form a triangular lattice.
}
\label{fig:Ising-model-mapping}
\end{figure}
All of the same considerations apply in spin-ice, where spins interact
through long--range dipolar interactions, and the alternating charges
are replaced by alternating
spins (blue and red arrows in Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-model-mapping}), to form
ferromagnetic chains.
We consider the two sets of chains parallel to the $[1,1,0]$ and
$[1,\overline{1},0]$ directions.
In units of
\begin{eqnarray}
r_1^\prime = \frac{a}{4} = \frac{r_1}{\sqrt{2}}
\label{eq:r1.prime}
\end{eqnarray}
[cf.~Eq.~(\ref{eq:r1})], the coordinates of the spins on these chains
are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&(n+l,-n+l, 2m) &\quad (\text{chain} \parallel [1,1,0]) \, , \nonumber\\
&(n+1+l,n-l,2m+1) &\quad (\text{chain} \parallel [1,\overline{1},0]) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
l = -\infty \ldots -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, \ldots \infty
\end{eqnarray}
counts the spins on a given chain, while the integers
$m$ and $n$ (such that $m+n$ is even) determine the chain in question and at the same time, for $l=0$, define the sites of an anisotropic triangular lattice
(solid and dashed black lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-model-mapping}),
with coordinates
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{\delta} &=& (\delta_1,\delta_2)
\equiv (\delta_1,-\delta_1,\sqrt{2} \delta_2)
= (n,-n,2m) \nonumber\\
&& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad (\text{chain} \parallel [1,1,0]) \, .
\label{eq:triangular.lattice.of.chains}
\end{eqnarray}
In units of $r_1$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:r1})], projecting onto a $(1,1,0)$ plane,
these correspond to a lattice with primitive lattice vectors
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{a} = (2,0) \quad , \quad \mathbf{b} = (1,\sqrt{2}) \; .
\end{eqnarray}
An exactly equivalent triangular lattice can be assigned to
chains parallel to $[1,\overline{1},0]$.
We note that the local easy--axis of the spins within
each of these triangular lattices points in one of two directions,
and is the same for all even (odd) $n$ --- cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-model-mapping}.
Following Anderson,~\cite{anderson56} we now consider the specific
case of states composed of alternating chains of
spins, running parallel to $[1,1,0]$ and $[1,\overline{1},0]$, with net ferromagnetic polarisation.
Such states automatically satisfy the ``ice rules'', and so are candidates
as ground states in a spin ice.
Moreover, dipolar interactions between orthogonal ferromagnetic spin--chains
vanish by symmetry (by analogy to the charge problem mentioned above), while interactions between parallel chains
can be described by an effective Ising model
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}
&=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\boldsymbol{\rho},\boldsymbol{\delta}}
K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}
\, \sigma_{\boldsymbol{\rho}} \ \sigma_{\boldsymbol{\rho}+\boldsymbol{\delta}} \,,
\label{eq:HIsing}
\end{eqnarray}
where the sum $\sum_{\boldsymbol{\rho},\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ runs over all
pairs of sites within the triangular lattice defined by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:triangular.lattice.of.chains}), and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\boldsymbol{\rho}} \equiv 2 \sf \mathsf{S}^z_{\boldsymbol{\rho}} = \pm 1 \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
is the Ising variable characterising the state of a given ferromagnetic chain.
What remains is to determine the strength of the interaction
$K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})]
between parallel chains.
These will have contributions from both long--range dipolar interaction
${\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.dipolar})], and exchange
interactions ${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.exchange})].
Just as in the problem of charge--order,~\cite{anderson56} the contribution of the long range dipolar interactions can be calculated
through a Madelung sum.
We start by considering the dipolar interaction between a test spin
at $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (0,0)$ and a chain $\parallel [1,1,0]$, at position
$\boldsymbol{\delta} = (\delta_1,\delta_2)$
\begin{align}
K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}} =
\frac{D}{3} \sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}
&\left[
(-1)^l
\frac{\left(\delta_1^2 -2\delta_2^2 + l^2\right)}
{\left(\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2 + l^2\right)^{5/2}}
\right.
\nonumber\\ &\quad
\left.
+ 2 (-1)^{\delta_1}
\frac{\left(\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2 -2 l^2 \right)}
{\left(\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2 + l^2\right)^{5/2}}
\right] \, ,
\label{eq:K.delta.as.sum}
\end{align}
where the coordinates of the sites on the chain are given by
\begin{align}
(n+l,-n+l, 2m) = (\delta_1+l,\delta_1-l ,\sqrt{2} \delta_2) \; , \nonumber
\end{align}
The term with alternating sign comes from the alternating spin components perpendicular
to the chain, while the uniform term comes from the spin components parallel to the chain.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{
Interactions $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ of the extended Ising model
${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})], written
in terms of the microscopic parameters of
$\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}} $~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})].
The contribution of the long-range dipolar interactions
$\mathcal{H}_{\sf dipolar}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.dipolar})]
shows exponential decay as a function of distance $|{\boldsymbol{\delta}}|$.
}
\centering
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{l c l c}
$K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ &
$|\boldsymbol{\delta}|$ \quad &
\qquad ${\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}$ &
\qquad ${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange} $ \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\vspace{-0.25cm}\\
$K_{(1, \sqrt{2})}$ & $\sqrt{3}$ & $ -0.0227426 D $ & $- J_2/3 - J_{3c} - J_{3d}$ \\
$K_{(2,0)}$ & $2$ & $ \phantom{-}0.0021957 D$ & $ J_{3d}$ \\ [1ex]
$K_{(0,2\sqrt{2})}$ & $2\sqrt{2}$ & $-0.0008443 D$ & \\
$K_{(3,\sqrt{2})}$ & $\sqrt{11} $ & $-0.0000178 D$ & \\
$K_{(2,-2\sqrt{2})}$ & $2\sqrt{3}$ & $-0.0000649 D$ & \\
$K_{(1,3\sqrt{2})}$ & $\sqrt{19}$ & $-0.0000051 D$ & \\
$K_{(4,0)}$ & $4$ & $ \phantom{-}0.0000013 D $\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{table:Kdelta}
\end{table}
Evaluating the sum in Eq.~(\ref{eq:K.delta.as.sum}) numerically, we find
that the interchain couplings $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ are very small,
and decay very rapidly, with the first few interactions given by
\begin{align}
K_{(1, \sqrt{2})} &= -0.0227 D \;
\nonumber\\
\label{eq:Kdelta}
K_{(2,0)} &= \phantom{-}0.0022 D \;
\\
K_{(0,2\sqrt{2})} &= -0.0008 D \nonumber \; .
\end{align}
Interactions
up to 7$^\text{th}$--neighbour, including the contribution of ${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}$
[Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.exchange})], are listed in Table~\ref{table:Kdelta}.
In fact, $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ decays {\it exponentially}
with distance, as can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:Kdecay},
where interactions are plotted for the two main lattice
directions, $(0,\delta_2)$ and $(\delta_1,0)$.
The origin of this exponential decay lies in the alternation of the spins,
and can be understood by converting the sums on $l$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:K.delta.as.sum}) into integrals,
using Fourier representations of the Dirac delta function~:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty} f(l)
&=
\sum_{q=-\infty}^\infty
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} d l \;
f(l) \cos 2q l \pi \;,
\\
\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}
(-1)^l f(l)
&=
\sum_{q=-\infty}^\infty
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} d l \;
f(l) \cos (2q+1)l \pi \;.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Doing so, we obtain
\begin{align}
K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}} = & \frac{D}{3}
\sum_{q=-\infty}^\infty
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} d l
\left[
\frac{\left(\delta_1^2 -2\delta_2^2 + l^2\right)}
{\left(\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2 + l^2\right)^{5/2}} \cos (2q+1)l \pi
\right.\nonumber\\&\left.
+ 2(-1)^{\delta_1}
\frac{\left(\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2 -2 l^2 \right)}
{\left(\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2 + l^2\right)^{5/2}} \cos 2q l \pi
\right]\, .
\label{eq:intermediate.result}
\end{align}
The leading contribution to $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$
comes from the first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:intermediate.result}) with $q=-1$ and $q=0$, which
decays exponentially with distance~:
\begin{align}
\frac{K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}}{D} \approx & \frac{2}{3} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d l \,
\frac{\left(\delta_1^2 - 2\delta_2^2 + l^2\right)}
{\left(\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2 + l^2\right)^{5/2}}
\cos \pi l
\nonumber\\ =&
\frac{4 \pi}{3 \delta} K_1(\pi\delta) - \frac{4 \pi^2 \delta_2^2}{3 \delta^2} K_2(\pi\delta)
\nonumber\\
\approx & -\frac{2 \sqrt{2}}{3} \left[
\pi^2 \left(\frac{\delta_2}{\delta}\right)^2 \delta^{-1/2}
- \pi \delta^{-3/2}
+ \cdots
\right] e^{-\pi \delta} \; ,
\label{eq:sup_dip_decay}
\end{align}
where $K_1(x)$ and $K_2(x)$ are modified Bessel functions
of the second kind and
\begin{align}
\delta=\sqrt{\delta_1^2 + \delta_2^2} \; .
\end{align}
The neglected integrals decay as $e^{-2\pi\delta}$ or faster with the distance (more precisely, the integral with $\cos p l \pi $ decays as $e^{-p \pi \delta }$).
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{dipol_sum_decay_delta.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Exponential decay of dipolar contributions to the interchain interaction
$K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$, as a function of the distance between the
chains $d/r_1=\sqrt{\delta_1^2+\delta_2^2}$, where
$\boldsymbol{\delta} = (\delta_1,\delta_2)$, and $r_1$ is defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:r1}).
Interactions are measured in units of $D$ [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:D})].
The family of exchanges $K_{(0,\delta_2)}$ are shown with
blue squares, while those for $K_{(\delta_1,0)}$ are
shown with red diamonds.
Dashed lines of the same color show the corresponding asymptotic
expressions Eqs.~(\ref{eq:as_k_0_delta}) and (\ref{eq:as_k_delta_0}).
Exchanges for general $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ are plotted as green circles.
Interactions denoted with solid symbols are ferrromagnetic ($K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}} < 0$);
interactions denoted with open symbols are antiferrromagnetic ($K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}} > 0$).
\label{fig:Kdecay}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{Ising-model-phase-diagram.pdf}
\caption{
Phase diagram of the extended Ising model
${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})],
as a function of the leading interchain interactions $K_{(1, \sqrt{2})}$ and $K_{(2,0)}$.
In this model, each Ising spin $\sigma_{{\bf r}}$ corresponds to a chain of alternating
spins in a dipolar spin--ice described by $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$
[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})], with parameters $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ given
in Table~\ref{table:Kdelta}.
Three ordered ground states are found, a cubic antiferromagnet (CAF),
a tetragonal double--Q state (TDQ) and a ferromagnet (FM), illustrated
in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}.
The parameters estimated by Ya'vorskii {\it et al.} [\onlinecite{yavorskii08}]
place Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ in the CAF phase.
The parameters considered in soft--spin mean--field theory
[Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}], classical Monte Carlo simulation
[Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo}], and quantum Monte Carlo simulation
[Sec.~\ref{section:QMC}], are shown with blue line.
}
\label{fig:Ising-phase-diagram}
\end{figure*}
It follows that the assymptotic form of $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ at large distances
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{(0,\delta_2)}/D &\approx& - \frac{\pi^2}{3} 2^{3/2} \delta_2^{-1/2}
e^{-\pi \delta_2} \; ,
\label{eq:as_k_0_delta} \\
K_{(\delta_1,0)}/D &\approx& \phantom{-} \frac{\pi}{3} 2^{3/2}
\delta_1^{-3/2} e^{- \pi \delta_1} \,.
\label{eq:as_k_delta_0}
\end{eqnarray}
These functions are plotted as dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:Kdecay}.
\subsection{Ground--state phase diagram
\label{subsection:Ising.phase.diagram}
Finding the ground state of the dipolar spin--ice model,
$\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})], is a daunting
task, combining the geometric frustration of the pyrochlore lattice,
with long--range interactions and competing exchanges.~\cite{siddharthan-arXiv,melko01,yavorskii08}
In contrast, finding the ground state of the effective two--dimensional Ising model
${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})], describing chain states,
is relatively easy.
In this case, all interactions are short--ranged, and the frustration of the triangular lattice
\cite{Wannier1950} is lifted by the anisotropy of the leading interactions,
$K_{(1,\sqrt{2})}$ and $K_{(2,0)}$.
However since dipolar interactions are suppressed by two orders of magnitude within
chain state --- cf. Table~\ref{table:Kdelta} --- the behaviour of the model is {\it very}
sensitive to competing exchange.
Since nearest--neighbour interactions dominate, the ground---state phase diagram of
${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})] can be found by
examining spin--configurations on the elementary unit of the lattice, a triangle.
The resulting phase diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-phase-diagram},
with the parameter set considered in Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}
shown as a blue line.
This phase diagram contains the same three ordered ``chain states'' as are found
in mean--field theory \mbox{[cf. Table~\ref{table:ordered.states}]}~:
\begin{enumerate}
\item A cubic antiferromagnet (CAF),
with energy per triangle
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{\sf CAF}_\triangle = 2 K_{(1,\sqrt{2})} + K_{(2,0)} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
\item A tetragonal, double-q state (TDQ) with energy per triangle
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{\sf TDQ}_\triangle = -K_{(2,0)} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
\item A cubic ferromagnet (FM) with energy per triangle
\begin{eqnarray}
E^{\sf FM}_\triangle = -2 K_{(1,\sqrt{2})}+K_{(2,0)} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
While the CAF and FM are selected uniquely by the nearest--neighbour interactions
$K_{(1,\sqrt{2})}$ and $K_{(2,0)}$, the TDQ state is selected from a larger family of
degenerate states by ferromagnetic $K_{(0,2\sqrt{2})}$ [cf. Table~\ref{table:Kdelta}].
The effective Ising model ${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing}),
has much in common with the anisotropic next--nearest nieghbour Ising (ANNNI) model,
famous for supporting a ``Devil's staircase'' of ordered states.\cite{bak82, selke88}
And while the ground state phase diagram, Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-phase-diagram},
is dominated by three ordered states, additional degeneracies
arise on the boundaries between the CAF and the TDQ state,
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{(2,0)} = -K_{(1,\sqrt{2})} > 0 \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
and on the boundary between the TDQ state and the FM,
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{(2,0)}=K_{(1,\sqrt{2})}> 0 \; .
\end{eqnarray}
An example of one these degenerate ground states is the orthorhombic ``zig--zag'' state
(OZZ) shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(d), which is
found on the boundary between the CAF and the TDQ state.
Overall, these additional degeneracies are essentially the same as those found
in the Ising model on an anisotropic triangular lattice.~\cite{dublenych13}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{nonchain_diag_128}
\caption{(Color online)
Classical ground-state phase diagram of a dipolar spin ice described by
$\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})], showing the breakdown
of the chain picture of sufficiently strong, ferromagnetic third--neighbour
interactions $J_{3d}$.
The TDQ, CAF and FM states are composed of ``chains''
of ferromagnetically polarised spins.
For $J_{3d} < -0.018 D$, the FM and CAF phases are separated by a small
region of non-chain states.
Results are taken from a zero-temperature Monte-Carlo search
of spin-ice configurations, for a cubic cluster of 128 sites.
The parameters considered in soft--spin mean--field theory
[Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}], classical Monte Carlo simulation
[Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo}], and quantum Monte Carlo simulation
[Sec.~\ref{section:QMC}], are indicated with a blue line.
\label{fig:phase-diagram-J3d}
}
\end{figure}
For purpose of comparison with the mean--field theory of
$\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})] developed in
Sec~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}, and the numerical simulations
described in Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo} and Sec.~\ref{section:QMC},
it is interesting to express the phase boundaries found
from ${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})] in terms of
second--neighbour exchange~$J_2$, setting all $J_{k \ne 2} \equiv 0$.
Taking into account all $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ up to 7$^{th}$--nieghbour
[cf. Table~\ref{table:Kdelta}],we find that the transition between the CAF
and TDQ occurs for
\begin{equation}
J_2/D = -0.0621 \; ,
\label{eq:J2.CAF.TDQ}
\end{equation}
%
while the transition between the TDQ and the FM occurs for
\begin{equation}
J_2/D = -0.0745 \; .
\label{eq:J2.TDQ.FM}
\end{equation}
These results are consistent with the results of
classical Monte Carlo simulation, described in
Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo},
and in excellent agreement with the numerical values
from zero--temperature quantum Monte Carlo simulation,
described in Sec.~\ref{section:QMC}, below.
Mean field theory, on the other hand, is seen to over-estimate the
stability of the TDQ phase, giving values of
\mbox{$J_2/D = -0.57$}~[Eq.~(\ref{eq.MF.phase.boundary.CAF.TDQ})]
and \mbox{$J_2/D = -0.80$}~[Eq.~(\ref{eq.MF.phase.boundary.TDQ.FM})].
In the light of the recent experiments by Pomaranski {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{pomaranski13}],
it is also interesting to ask what interchain couplings might arise in the spin--ice Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.
Taking values for exchange and dipolar interactions from Yavorskii {\it et al.}
[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}], we find
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{(1,\sqrt{2})}/D &=& -0.025 \,, \nonumber\\
K_{(2, 0)}/D &=& \phantom{-}0.020 \,, \qquad [\text{Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$}] \\
K_{(0,2\sqrt{2})}/D &=& \phantom{-}0.001 \,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
These parameters suggest that the classical ground state of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$
would be a CAF --- cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-phase-diagram}.
We return to this point in Section~\ref{section:application.to.real.materials}, below.
\subsection{Breakdown of the of chain--state picture}
\label{subsection:sanity.check}
``Chain states''' provide an extremely efficient way of minimising dipolar interactions
${\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.dipolar})], but do not necessarily minimise
the exchange interactions ${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.exchange})].
Given this, it is natural to ask how strong competing exchange interactions need to be
to invalidate the ``chain picture''.
This proves to be a somewhat subtle question.
Exchange interactions up to third neighbour (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:j2j3cj3dexchanges})
can be grouped in three classes.
First--neighbour interactions $J_1$ help determine the stability of the spin--ice
manifold, but play no role in selecting an ordered ground state.
Second--neighbour interactions $J_2$ can be combined with third--neighbour
interactions $J_{3c}$ [see Appendix~\ref{appendix:equivalence.J2.and.J3c}],
to give a combined interaction $J_2 + 3 J_{3c}$.
This combined interaction selects between different chain states, and does
not by itself lead to any breakdown of the chain picture.
Third--neighbour interactions $J_{3d}$ also selects between different
chain states, but can also lead to a breakdown of the chain picture if
ferromagnetic, and sufficiently strong.
To asses the impact of $J_{3d}$, we performed a numerical search
for ground states of cubic clusters of 128, 432 and 1024 sites,
using a zero-temperature Monte Carlo ``worm'' algorithm.
Results for an 128-site cluster are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase-diagram-J3d}.
Apart from a small window of parameters for $J_{3d} < 0$, the ground state is
dominated by the chain-based TDQ, CAF and FM states discussed above.
The precise range of parameters for which non-chain states occur was found to
depend on the geometry of the cluster.
We note that {\it no} non-chain states were found for $J_{3d} > -0.018D$, in
{\it any} cluster.
\section{Classical Monte Carlo simulation}
\label{section:classical.monte.carlo}
The classical ground--states of dipolar spin ice
are based on alternating chains of spins [Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}],
a fact which can be understood through the mapping onto
an effective Ising model [Sec.~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model}].
However, at finite temperature, a spin--ice can gain an extensive ``ice entropy''
by fluctuating between different spin--ice configurations.~\cite{harris97,ramirez99}
As a result, chain--based ordered ground states will give way to a classical
spin liquid (CSL).
To learn more about the nature of this transition, and
whether thermal fluctuations stabilise new ordered states, we have performed
classical Monte Carlo simulations of $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})].
Simulations were carried out for cubic clusters of 128 and 1024 spins, using
the worm algorithm and parallel--tempering
methods described in Appendix~\ref{section:CMC.technical},
for \mbox{2$^{\text{nd}}$--neighbour} interaction $J_2/D$ spanning the
cubic antiferromagnet (CAF), tetragonal double-Q (TDQ)
and ferromagnetic (FM) ground states [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-phase-diagram}].
All other exchange interactions $J_{k \ne 2}$ were set to zero.
The results of these simulations are summarised in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.classical.MC}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{L2_L4_Phase_Boundaries.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Finite-temperature phase diagram of spin ice with long-range dipolar interactions,
as a function of competing 2$^{\text{nd}}$-neighbour exchange $J_2/D$.
Results are taken from classical Monte Carlo simulation of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf DSI}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})]
for cubic clusters of 128 (filled symbols) and 1024 spins (open symbols).
The error in the estimate of $T_c$ is set by the interval between consecutive temperatures
in simulations using parallel tempering.
\label{fig:phase.diagram.classical.MC}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\subfloat[$J_2/D=0.000$ \label{Sq.classical.a}]{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{SQ_m0p000_colorbar.png}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[$J_2/D=-0.070$ \label{Sq.classical.b}]{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{SQ_m0p070_colorbar.png}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[$J_2/D=-0.090$ \label{Sq.classical.c}]{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{SQ_m0p090_colorbar.png}} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{(Color online)
Equal-time structure factor $S^{\sf SF} (\mathbf{q})$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:def.Sq.SF})]
for a dipolar spin ice with competing further-neighbour exchange $J_2$,
as found from classical Monte Carlo simulation of
$\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})].
(a) $S^{\sf SF} ({\bf q})$ for $J_2 = 0$.
(b) $S^{\sf SF} ({\bf q})$ for $J_2 = - 0.07 D$.
(c) $S^{\sf SF} ({\bf q})$ for $J_2 = -0.09 D$.
Simulations were performed for a cubic cluster of $2000$ spins,
for parameters spanning the CAF, TDQ and FM ground states,
for a temperature $T = 0.5 D$ within the disordered spin-ice regime,
with $J_{k \ne 2} \equiv 0$.
$S^{\sf SF} (\mathbf{q})$ is shown in the $[hhl]$ plane, in the spin-flip channel
measured by Fennell {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{fennell09}].
}
\label{fig:Sq.classical}
\end{figure*}
\subsection {Classical spin liquid}
The finite--temperature phase diagram of dipolar spin ice is dominated by
a classical spin liquid (CSL), shown in yellow in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.classical.MC}.
This CSL has the character of a classical Coulombic phase, described
by a $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory.~\cite{henley10}
For $J_2/D = 0$, simulations reproduce known results for a purely dipolar spin
ice,~\cite{melko01} with the transition into the spin liquid occuring for $T_c/D \approx 0.12$.
For ferromagnetic $J_2$, this transition temperature is at first suppressed,
reaching a minimum value of $T_c/D \approx 0.02$ for $J_2/D \approx -0.06$.
For stronger ferromagnetic $J_2$, there is a rise in $T_c/D$.
These are the same trends as are observed in the overall band-width of spin-ice states
[Fig.~\ref{fig:kMFT_Bandwidth}], within the mean--field theory described
in Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}.
Spin correlations within the CSL phase are dipolar,\cite{isakov04,henley05}
leading to singular ``pinch--points''
\begin{eqnarray}
S (\mathbf{q}) \sim \left[ \delta_{\alpha\beta} - \frac{q^\alpha q^\beta}{q^2} \right]
\end{eqnarray}
in the spin structure factor.
Pinch--points of exactly this form have been observed in neutron scattering
experiments on the spin ice Ho$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ by Fennell {\it et al.}
[\onlinecite{fennell09}].
To characterise the CSL found in the presence of competing exchange interactions,
we have used classical Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the (equal--time)
structure factor
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{\alpha\beta} (\mathbf{q}) = \sum_{i, j=1}^{4}
\langle
S^{\alpha}_i(-{\bf q}) S^{\beta}_j ({\bf q})
\rangle \; ,
\label{eq:def.Sq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $i,j$ run over the sites of a tetrahedron and the spin
$S^{\alpha}_i$ is considered in frame of the cubic crystal axes
$\alpha = \{ x, y, z\}$.
We consider in particular the spin--flip component of scattering,
for neutrons polarised $\parallel [1\bar10]$, as measured by
Fennell {\it et al.} [\onlinecite{fennell09}]~:
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{\sf SF} (\mathbf{q})
&=& \sum_{i, j=1}^{4}
\langle
\left[ {\bf S}_i (-{\bf q}) \cdot {\bf u} ({\bf q}) \right]
\left[ {\bf S}_j ({\bf q}) \cdot {\bf u} ({\bf q}) \right]
\rangle \; , \nonumber\\
&& {\bf u} ({\bf q}) = \hat{\bf n} \times {\bf q}, \quad
\hat{\bf n} = (1,\bar1,0)/\sqrt{2} \; .
\label{eq:def.Sq.SF}
\end{eqnarray}
Simulation results for $S^{\sf SF} (\mathbf{q})$ in the CSL phase
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Sq.classical}, for $\mathbf{q}$ in the $[hhl]$
plane, and a range of values of $J_2/D$
spanning the three classical ordered ground states.
For $J_2/D = 0$, these simulations reproduce known
results for dipolar spin ice, with pinch--points clearly visible at a subset of reciprocal
lattice vectors, {\it e.g.} $\mathbf{q} = (1,1,2)$ [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Sq.classical}(a)].
For ferromagnetic $J_2/D < 0$, there is a progressive
redistribution of spectral weight within the $[hhl]$ plane [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Sq.classical}(b, c)],
None the less, pinch--points remain clearly defined.
\subsection {Ordered phases}
At low temperatures, in the absence of quantum tunnelling,
long--range dipolar interactions drive dipolar spin ice into a state with chain--based order.
Classical Monte Carlo simulation of $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})]
reveals the same three, chain--based ordered phases as are found
in mean--field theory [Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory}], and through
mapping onto an effective Ising model [Sec.~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model}]~:
a cubic antiferromagnet (CAF), a tetragonal double-Q (TDQ) state
and a cubic ferromagnetic (FM) [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}].
Transition temperatures for the transition from the classical spin liquid (CSL)
into each of these ordered states can be extracted from the susceptibility
associated with the appropriate order parameter [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:TL-order_parameter})].
The results of this analysis, for clusters of 128 and 1024 spins, are summarised in the
finite--temperature phase diagram, Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-phase-diagram}, where
the error on the estimated ordering temperature $T_c$ is indicated by the size of the point.
All phase transitions are found to be first--order, with finite-size corrections to
$T_c$ of order $10\% $ between the 128-site cluster and the 1024-site cluster.
Classical Monte Carlo simulations do {\it not} reveal any new phases on
the (degenerate) phase boundaries between the CAF and the TDQ,
or the TDQ and the FM~\footnote{
We have explored the possibility that boundary states fan into finite temperature
phases using self-consistent mean field theory in real space for an 128--site cluster.
Such a conventional real space mean field theory successfully captures the finite
temperature phases of the original 3D ANNNI model.\cite{selke88}
We find that the mean-field theory confirms the picture obtained from Monte Carlo
simulations in particular that no further phases arise between the CAF and TDQ states}.
\section{Quantum Monte Carlo simulation}
\label{section:QMC}
Just as thermal fluctuations stabilize a classical spin liquid (CSL), so quantum tunneling
might be expected to stabilize a quantum spin liquid (QSL), of the type previously studied
in idealised models of a quantum spin-ice with nearest-neighbour interactions.\cite{hermele04,banerjee08,savary12,shannon12,benton12,lee12,savary13,gingras14}
There is also the possibility that quantum fluctuations might stabilise new ordered
states, not found in classical dipolar spin ice.
To address these questions, we have carried out extensive quantum Monte Carlo (QMC)
simulations of $\mathcal{H_{\sf QDSI}}$~[\ref{eq:Hqdsi}].
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{phase_diagram_quantum.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Quantum ground-state phase diagram of a dipolar spin ice, as a function of competing
\mbox{2$^{\rm nd}$-neighbour} exchange $J_2/D$, and quantum tunneling $g/D$.
Results are taken from Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC)
simulation of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})],
for cubic clusters of 128 sites (solid symbols) and 1024 spins (open symbols),
with $J_{k \ne 2} = 0$.
Phase boundaries for $g/D=0$ were determined from the solution of the extended
Ising model described in Sec.~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model}.
Dashed lines bordering the OZZ state are taken from the degenerate perturbation
theory described in Appendix~\ref{appendix:2nd.order.perturbation.theory.in.g}.
\label{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{tabular}{c}
\subfloat[$J_2/D=0.00$ \label{Sq.quantum.a}]{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{SQ_2000_j0_bar.png}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[$J_2/D=-0.07$ \label{Sq.quantum.b}]{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{SQ_2000_j-7_bar.png}}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfloat[$J_2/D=-0.09$ \label{Sq.quantum.c}]{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{SQ_2000_j-9_bar.png}} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Equal-time structure factor $S^{\sf SF} (\mathbf{q})$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:def.Sq.SF})]
for a dipolar spin ice with competing further-neighbour exchange $J_2$,
as found from Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC)
simulation of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})].
(a) $S^{\sf SF} ({\bf q})$ for $J_2 = 0$;
(b) $S^{\sf SF} ({\bf q})$ for $J_2 = - 0.07 D$; and
(c)$S^{\sf SF} ({\bf q})$ for $J_2 = -0.09 D$.
The sharp pinch--point structure, characteristic of classical spin ice,
and visible in classical Monte Carlo simulations
[cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Sq.classical}(a)--(c) at, e.g.~${\bf Q} = (1,1,1)$],
is eliminated by quantum fluctuations.~\cite{shannon12,benton12}
All simulations were carried out for a cubic cluster of 2000 sites,
with quantum tunnelling $g = 0.5 D$, and $J_{k \ne 2} \equiv 0$.
$S^{\sf SF}({\bf q})$ is shown in the $[hhl]$ plane, in the
spin-flip channel measured by Fennell {\it et al.} [Ref.~\onlinecite{fennell09}].
}
\label{fig:Sq.quantum}
\end{figure*}
Simulations of cubic clusters of 128 and 1024 spins were performed using the
zero-temperature Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC) method described
in Refs.~[\onlinecite{shannon12,benton12,sikora09,sikora11}]
and Appendix~\ref{section:QMC-technical}.
Within this approach, only spin--configurations satisfying the ice--rules are considered,
and $\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})] is taken to act on the space of all
possible spin-ice ground states.
GFMC simulations were carried out for a range of values of quantum tunnelling
$g/D$, for 2$^{\text{nd}}$--neighbour interaction $J_2/D$ spanning
all three classical ground states [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-phase-diagram}].
All other exchange interactions $J_{k \ne 2}$ were set to zero.
The results of these simulations are summarised in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}.
\subsection{Quantum spin liquid}
\label{subsection:QSL}
The zero--temperature quantum phase diagram is dominated by a QSL phase, shown
in yellow in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}.
The minimum value of quantum tunneling $g_c$ needed to stabilize a
QSL for a given value of $J_2/D$, closely tracks the
transition temperature $T_c$ for $g=0$ [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:combined.phase.diagram}].
Crucially, $g_c$ is always very small, being of order $g_c \sim 0.1 D$ for $J_2/D = 0$,
and decreasing to a few percent of $D$ for $J_2/D \sim -0.06$.
Correlations within the QSL can once again be characterised by the equal--time structure
factor $S(\bf q)$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:def.Sq})].
While spin correlations in the CSL are dipolar
leading to ``pinch--points'' in $S({\mathbf q})$ [cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:Sq.classical}],
spin correlations in the QSL decay as $1/r^4$ [\onlinecite{hermele04}],
eliminating the pinch-points.~\cite{shannon12,benton12}.
Results for $S^{\sf SF}({\mathbf q})$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:def.Sq.SF})], calculated using GFMC
simulation, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Sq.quantum}, for a range of values of $J_2/D$
spanning the phase diagram Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}, and $g = 0.5\ D > g_c$
within the QSL phase.
As anticipated, the sharp zone--center pinch-points of the CSL are eliminated by
quantum fluctuations [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Sq.classical}].
Correlations are also suppressed near to ${\mathbf q} = 0$
[cf. Ref.~\onlinecite{shannon12,benton12}].
All of these features are universal characteristics of the QSL, and therefore
independent of the values of $J_2$ and $D$.
Correlations at short wave length, on the other hand, show a marked imprint
of the long--range dipolar interactions, when compared with results for $D=0$
[Ref.~\onlinecite{shannon12,benton12}].
These features are only weakly constrained by the structure of the QSL, and
therefore depend strongly on the ratio of $J_2/D$ for which the simulations
were carried out.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{phase_diagram_zoom_sidebyside_abc_gradient.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Evidence for the transition from the quantum spin liquid (QSL)
into ordered tetragonal double--Q (TDQ) and orthorhombic zig-zag (OZZ)
ground states, as determined by Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC)
simulation of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})].
(a) Results for the order parameter ${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:TDQ.OP})],
showing the transition between the Quantum spin liquid (QSL) and TDQ phases.
(b) Equivalent results for the transition between the QSL and OZZ phases.
(c) [Inset to (a)] Scaling of order parameter within the QSL, showing how,
for $D/g \to 0$, ${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ} \to 0.20(1)$, a finite-size
value characteristic of the cluster simulated.
Dashed lines in (a) and (c) show the corresponding asymptote for $g/D \to \infty$.
Simulations were carried out for a cubic cluster of 128 sites, with $J_{k \ne 2} = 0$.
Values of $J_2/D$ are shown on the legend within the figure.
\label{fig:order.parameters.in.QMC}
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ordered ground states}
\label{subsection:OZZ}
For $g < g_c$, quantum fluctuations are not sufficient to stabilise a QSL,
and the system orders.
For $g \to 0$ we find the same three, chain--based states discussed
in Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory} and Sec.~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model}
--- a cubic antiferromagnet (CAF), a tetragonal double-Q (TDQ) state and
a ferromagnet (FM).
However quantum simulations also reveal a new ordered state, the
orthorhombic zig--zag (OZZ) state shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(d).
The OZZ occurs at the boundary between the CAF and the TDQ,
and is stabilised by quantum fluctuations at finite $g$.
We consider each of these ordered states in turn, below.
The FM and CAF are ``isolated states'', unconnected to other
spin-ice configurations by matrix elements of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Htunneling})].
Quantum phase transitions between the QSL and the FM and CAF
are therefore first-order, and can be determined by a simple comparison
of ground state energies.
The corresponding values of $g_c$, as a function of $J_2$, are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}, for clusters of 128 and 1024 spins.
Finite-size effects are relatively small, at least in the range of $J_2$
for which is was possible to converge simulations for both clusters.
The TDQ state, in contrast, is directly connected with QSL by matrix elements
of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling}$.
In this case $g_c$ was determined from a jump in the
the order parameter of the TDQ state
\begin{align}
{\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ}
= \sum_{\eta=1}^{48} \sum_{j}
\left\langle
\left({\sf S}^{z,\text{\sf TDQ},\eta}_j
\sf{S}^z_{j} \right)^2
\right\rangle_{\text{\sf QMC}}
\label{eq:TDQ.OP}
\end{align}
where the spin configurations ${\sf S}^{z,\text{TDQ},\eta}_j$
are drawn from the 48 different TDQ ground states enumerated
in \mbox{Table~\ref{table:ordered.states}}.
Results for ${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ}$ within GFMC simulation
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:order.parameters.in.QMC}(a),
for parameters spanning the TDQ and QSL states.
An abrupt change in the order parameter marks the onset
of TDQ order, with ${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ} \to 1$
in the fully ordered state.
In the spin liquid, for $g > g_c$, ${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ} \to 0.20$,
a finite-size value determined by the cluster used in simulations
[cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:order.parameters.in.QMC}(b)].
The OZZ is one of the many degenerate classical
ground states found at the border between the CAF and TDQ phases
[cf. Sec.~\ref{subsection:Ising.phase.diagram}].
Unlike the CAF, the TDQ and OZZ both contain ``flippable'' hexagonal plaquettes
where $\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Htunneling})]
can act.
As a result, both states gain energy from quantum fluctuations,
Besides having flippable plaquettes, the OZZ is also directly connected
with the QSL.
And, since the spin configurations in the one of the sets of
parallel chains which make up the OZZ are identical
to those of the TDQ (cf.~Table.~\ref{table:ordered.states}), it is also
possible to use ${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:TDQ.OP})]
as an order parameter for the OZZ state.
Corresponding results for ${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ}$ are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:order.parameters.in.QMC}(b),
for parameters spanning the OZZ and QSL states.
We note that, in this case, \mbox{${\mathcal O}_{\sf TDQ} \to 0.5$}
in the fully ordered state.
Colllecting all of these results, we obtain the quantum ground state
phase shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}.
We find that a small fan of OZZ order opens from the highly degenerate
point $J_2/D = -0.0621$, $g/D=0$, at the expense of the CAF.
Detail of this highly frustrated region of the phase diagram is
given in Fig.~\ref{fig:detail.of.quantum.phase.diagram}.
It is possible to estimate the phase boundaries between the
TDQ, OZZ and CAF states from 2$^{\text{nd}}$--order
perturbation theory in $g$, as described in Appendix~\ref{appendix:2nd.order.perturbation.theory.in.g}.
The corresponding results are shown as dashed lines in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC} and Fig.~\ref{fig:detail.of.quantum.phase.diagram}.
In the case of the boundary between the CAF and OZZ states,
it is possible to make direct comparison between this perturbation
theory and GFMC.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}, the agreement is excellent.
While no new ordered states, besides the OZZ, were found for GFMC simulations of
cubic clusters of 128 or 1024 states, it is interesting to speculate that
quantum fluctuations might stabilise further new ordered state in the
thermodynamic limit --- perhaps in the form of the ``fans'' found in
classical anisotropic next-nearest neighbour Ising (ANNNI) models.~\cite{bak82,selke88}
It is also plausible that thermal fluctuations might stabilise the OZZ, or
some other state like it, in a more general model.
\section{Application to spin--ice materials}
\label{section:application.to.real.materials}
In this Article we have used a variety of numerical and analytic techniques
to explore the nature of the equilibrium ground state of a dipolar spin ice
with competing exchange interactions and quantum tunnelling between
different spin--ice configurations, as described by $\mathcal{H_{\sf QDSI}}$
[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})].
A clear picture emerges from this analysis.
Long--range dipolar interactions, ${\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.dipolar})],
are minimised by states composed of ferromagnetically polarised chains of spins, within
which they are exponentially screened.
Exchange interactions, ${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.exchange})]
act to select between such ``chain states'', and in the absence of quantum fluctuations
the ground state of a dipolar spin ice is one of the three ordered states, described
in Table~\ref{table:ordered.states}.
Quantum tunnelling between different spin--ice configurations,
$\mathcal{H}_{\sf tunneling}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:Htunneling})], can stabilise new forms
of chain--based order, and if sufficiently strong, will drive a quantum spin liquid
ground state.
We now consider the implication of these results for real materials, paying particular
attention to the dipolar spin ice, Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{phase_diagram_quantum_zoom_g2processed.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Detail of the ground-state phase diagram of a dipolar spin ice
[Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}], showing how a small fan of
orthorhombic zig-zag (OZZ) order opens between the cubic
antiferromagnet (CAF) and tetragonal double--Q (TDQ) states.
Filled symbols show the results of Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC)
simulation of $\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})],
as described in the text.
Dashed lines show the predictions of the degenerate perturbation theory
described in Appendix~\ref{appendix:2nd.order.perturbation.theory.in.g}.
Simulations were carried out for a cubic cluster of 128 sites, with
$J_{k \ne 2} = 0$.
\label{fig:detail.of.quantum.phase.diagram}
}
\end{figure}
Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ is perhaps the best studied of spin--ice materials.
Pioneering measurements of the heat capacity of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ by
Ramirez {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{ramirez99}] provided the first thermodynamic evidence
for the existence of an extensive ground--state degeneracy, as predicted by the
``ice rules'' [\onlinecite{pauling35}].
These results are consistent with subsequent measurements of the heat--capacity
of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ by other groups.~\cite{higashinaka02,hiroi03,klemke11}
And, significantly, none of these studies reported evidence for a transition
into an ordered ground state at low temperatures, despite the expectation that
a classical dipolar spin ice should have an ordered ground state.~\cite{melko01}
As the understanding of spin ice has improved, it has become clear
that non--equilibrium effects play an important role, and that
the thermodynamic properties of materials like Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$
are consequently subject to extremely long equilibriation times.~\cite{castelnovo12}
In the light of this, the evolution of the low--temperature heat capacity of
Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ was recently revisted by Pomaranski {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{pomaranski13}],
using an experimental setup designed to track the equilibration of the sample.
Their study reports equilibration times in excess of {\it 4 days}
at $340\ \text{mK}$, and a dramatically revised profile for the low--temperature
specific heat.~\cite{pomaranski13}
One of the most striking features of these results is an upturn in $\partial S/\partial T|_V = C_V/T$
below $T \approx 500 \text{mK}$, suggestive of an ordering transition, of the type
studied in Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo}, or the emergence of a new
(quantum) energy scale.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{Heat_Capacity_upon_T_Yavorskii.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Plot of heat capacity $C_{\rm V}$ divided by temperature, $T$,
for a dipolar spin ice described by $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})],
with parameters taken from fits to experiment on Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$
[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}], as specified in [Eq.~(\ref{eq:yavorskii.parameters})].
Results are taken from classical Monte Carlo simulation of a cluster of $128$ spins.
\label{fig:CVuponT}
}
\end{figure}
The results of Pomoranskii {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{pomaranski13}] clearly motivate
a number of questions, including~:
What is the origin of the upturn in $C_V/T$ ?
What is the nature of the ground state of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ ?
And, what is the reason for its extremely slow approach to equilibrium ?
These questions are most easily addressed within the well--established,
classical, dipolar spin--ice model $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})].
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsection:Ising.phase.diagram}, the parameters
reported by Yavorskii {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}], place the classical
ground state of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ in the cubic antiferromagnetic (CAF)
phase [cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:ordered.phases}(a)], previously investigated
by Melko {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{melko01}].
It is therefore natural to ask whether the upturn in $C_V/T$, observed
in Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ [\onlinecite{pomaranski13}], marks the onset of CAF order ?
At present, it is only possible to approach this question with reference to
the heat capacity measurements of Pomaranskii {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{pomaranski13}].
To this end, in Fig.~\ref{fig:CVuponT} we show estimates of
$C_V/T$ taken from classical Monte Carlo
simulations of $\mathcal{H_{\sf DSI}}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hdsi})], for the parameters given
by Yavorskii {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}] --- cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:yavorskii.parameters}).
Simulations were carried out using the methods described
in Appendix~\ref{section:CMC.technical}, for a cubic cluster of 128 sites.
A complete comparison between experiment and simulation is not possible,
since experimental data for $C_V/T$ is only available down to
$T=340\ \text{mK}$ [\onlinecite{pomaranski13}].
However simulations correctly reproduce the measured peak in $C_V/T$
at $T \approx 1\ \text{K}$, characteristic of the onset of spin-ice correlations, and
exhibit a second peak at $T \approx 100\ \text{mK}$, associated with a first-order
transition into the CAF ground state.
For temperatures $340 < T \lessapprox 500\ \text{mK}$, simulations suggest
an upturn in $C_V/T$ which is reminiscent of, but a little weaker than,
that observed in experiment.
At first sight, the comparison between simulation might seem good enough
to justify a diagnosis of CAF order.
However the CAF is only one of the infinite family of chain--based ground states
described by the effective Ising model ${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})]
--- cf. Sec.~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model}.
And, since dipolar interactions are exponentially screened within these
chain--states --- cf. Sec.~\ref{subsection:madlung.sum} --- the nature
of the classical ground state is {\it extremely} sensitive to small differences in
the exchange interactions ${\mathcal H}_{\sf exchange}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.exchange})].
For the specific set of parameters provided by Yavorskii {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}] ---
Eq.~(\ref{eq:yavorskii.parameters}) --- the inter--chain interactions of
${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})] take on the values
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{(1,\sqrt{2})} &=& -35 \;\text{mK} \, , \nonumber\\
K_{(2,0)} &=& \phantom{-}28 \;\text{mK} \, , \qquad [\text{Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$}] \\
K_{(0,2\sqrt{2})} &=& \phantom{-}1 \;\text{mK} \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
These very weak interactions between chains should be compared with the
uncertainty in exchange interactions, which is {\it at least} $10\ \text{mK}$ [\onlinecite{yavorskii08}].
It follows from definition of $K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ [cf. Table~\ref{table:Kdelta}],
that any change $\delta J_k$ in the value of exchange parameters leads directly
to a change $\delta K_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ in the interactions between chains
of spins
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta K_{(1,\sqrt{2})} &=& - \delta J_2/3 - \delta J_{3c} - \delta J_{3d} \, , \nonumber\\
\delta K_{(2,0)} &=& \delta J_{3d} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Since the parameters given by Yavorskii {\it et al.}~[\onlinecite{yavorskii08}] place
Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ close to borders of CAF, tetragonal double Q (TDQ)
and ferromagnetic (FM) phases --- cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:Ising-phase-diagram} ---
an error as small as $\delta J \sim 7\, \text{mK}$ could be enough
to convert the CAF into a TDQ ground state, while \mbox{$\delta J \sim 50\, \text{mK}$}
could stabilize a FM.
This extreme sensitivity of the ground state of dipolar spin ice to small changes
in exchange interactions makes very challenging to reliably predict the ground state
in a real material from high-temperature estimates of model parameters.
However this challenge
brings with it an opportunity~:
it seems entirely plausible that changes in $J_k$ of the scale
$\delta J \sim 50\, \text{mK}$ could be achieved through the
application hydrostatic pressure, or by chemical
substitution,\cite{zhou12} allowing a spin ice to be tuned from
one ground state to another.
The ``chain picture'' of ground--state order in a dipolar spin ice may also offer
some insight into the very slow equilibration of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ at low
temperatures.~\cite{pomaranski13}
In order to achieve an ordered, equilibrium ground state, a dipolar spin ice
must first select the low--energy chain--based states from the extensive set
of states obeying the ice rules, and then single out the chain--state with
the lowest energy.
At low temperatures, this thermal equilibration will be achieved through the motion
of magnetic monopoles.
However, to connect one chain--state with another, a monopole would have to
reverse all of the spins in chain.
This can only be achieved by the monopole traversing the entire length of a
chain --- potentially the entire width of the sample.
Such dynamics would be activated, since it costs energy to make a pair of monopoles,
and extremely slow.
The range of possible outcomes for the low--temperature physics of Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$
becomes much richer once quantum effects are taken into account.
One possibility is that quantum tunnelling, of the type described by
${\mathcal H}_{\sf tunneling}$~[\ref{eq:Htunneling}] could stabilise a quantum
spin--liquid (QSL) ground state, described by a quantum $U(1)$
lattice gauge theory [cf. Sec.~\ref{section:QMC}].
In this case, the upturn in $C_V/T$ would signal the crossover between
the classical and a quantum spin liquid regimes.~\cite{benton12,kato-arXiv}
Another possibility, where exchange interactions place the system close to a classical
phase boundary, is that quantum fluctuations could stabilise a new form of order,
such as the orthorhombic zig--zag (OZZ) state studied in Sec.~\ref{subsection:OZZ}.
Such a ground state could melt into a classical (or quantum) spin liquid at finite
temperature, leading to an upturn in $C_V/T$.
No reliable estimate is currently available for the strength of quantum tunneling
in Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.
And the uncertainty in published estimates of exchange
interactions is also too great to assess how close it lies to a classical phase boundary.
For both reasons, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about
the quantum or classical nature of its ground state.
\cite{iwahara15,rau-arXiv,tomasello-arXiv}
However, one of the interesting consequences of chain--based order,
and in particular of the exponential screening of dipolar interactions
within chain states, is that quantum tunnelling does not need to be very
strong to have a significant effect.
From Quantum Monte Carlo simulations for parameters
similar to those proposed for Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ [cf. Sec.~\ref{subsection:QSL}],
we estimate that the value of quantum tunnelling $g$ needed to stabilize a QSL
may be as little as \mbox{$g^{\text{Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$}}_c \approx \; 70\; \text{mK}$}.
Consequently --- and perhaps counter--intuitively --- a ``classical'' spin ice
like Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$, in equilibrium, may not be bad place to look for a QSL.
In this context it is interesting to note that the pinch--points observed
in Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$,~\cite{morris09} and its sister compound
Ho$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$,~\cite{fennell09} are
somewhat reminiscent of the QSL at finite temperature.~\cite{benton12,kato-arXiv}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{section:conclusions}
In conclusion, determining the zero-temperature, quantum, ground
state of a realistic model of a spin ice is an important challenge,
motivated by recent experiments on Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ \cite{pomaranski13}
and ongoing studies of quantum spin-ice
materials.~\cite{thompson11,ross11-PRX1,chang12,fennell12,fennell14,kimura13}
In this Article, we have used a variety of numerical and analytic techniques
to address the question~: ``What determines the equilibrium ground state of
spin ice, once quantum effects are taken into account ?''
In Sec.~\ref{sec:classical.mean.field.theory} and Sec.~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model},
we have shown how a new organisational principle emerges~:
ordered ground states in a dipolar spin ice are built of
alternating chains of
spins, with net ferromagnetic polarisation.
These ``chain states'' minimise long--range dipolar interactions, and
provide a natural explanation for the slow dynamics
observed in Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ [\onlinecite{pomaranski13}].
And, since dipolar interactions are exponentially screened within chain states,
they can be described by an extended Ising model on an anisotropic triangular
lattice, ${\mathcal H}^{\sf 2D}_{\sf Ising}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:HIsing})].
In Sec.~\ref{section:classical.monte.carlo} and Sec.~\ref{section:QMC},
using Monte Carlo simulation, we have determined both the quantum
and classical phase diagrams of ${\mathcal H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hqdsi})],
as a function of quantum tunneling $g$, and temperature $T$.
We find that only a modest amount of quantum tunneling
$g_c$ is needed to stabilize a quantum spin liquid (QSL), with deconfined fractional
excitations,~\cite{hermele04,banerjee08,savary12,shannon12,benton12,lee12,savary13,moessner03}.
These results are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:combined.phase.diagram}.
We have also considered the implication of these results for real materials,
concentrating on the spin ice Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.
Based on published estimates of exchange parameters,\cite{yavorskii08}
we find that an ordered ground state in Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ would be a
cubic antiferromagnet (CAF).
However this state lies tantalisingly close in parameter space to other, competing ordered
phases, and only a very small amount of quantum tunneling would be
needed to convert it into a quantum spin liquid.
While we have chosen to emphasize Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$, there are a great
many rare-earth pyrochlore oxides,\cite{gardner10} in which to search for
quantum spin ice, and other unusual forms of magnetism.\cite{savary12,lee12,yan-arXiv}
In many of these materials, dipolar interactions will also play a role, and
the small values of $g_c$ found in our simulations offer hope
that quantum spin-liquids may be found in other materials at low temperature.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
\label{section:acknowledgements}
PM and OS contributed equally to this work.
The authors acknowledge helpful conversations with
Owen Benton, Tom Fennell, and David Pomaranski, and thank
Peter Fulde, Michel Gingras and Ludovic Jaubert for critical
readings of the manuscript.
This work was supported by the Okinawa Institute of Science
and Technology Graduate University, by Hungarian OTKA Grant
No. K106047, by EPSRC Grants No. EP/C539974/1
and No. EP/G031460/ 1, and by the Helmholtz Virtual Institute
``New States of Matter and their Excitations''.
PM acknowledges an STFC Keeley-Rutherford fellowship held jointly
with Wadham College, Oxford.
KP, PM, NS and OS and gratefully acknowledge support from the visitors
program of MPI-PKS Dresden, where part of this work was carried out.
Since completing this work the authors have become aware of a parallel
study of classical spin ice with long-range dipolar interactions and
competing further-neighbour exchanges, by Henelius and
coauthors~\cite{gingras-private-communication}.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Ewald summation of long-range dipolar interactions}
\label{appendix:ewald.sum}
The quantum and classical Monte Carlo simulations described in
this Communication were carried out for cubic clusters of
\mbox{$N = 16 \times L^3 = 128, \, 432, \, 1024, \, 2000$} spins,
with periodic boundary conditions.
The long-range dipolar interactions ${\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:H.dipolar})],
which cross the periodic boundaries of the cluster, were treated by Ewald summation.
Imposing periodic boundary conditions on a cubic cluster of dimension $L$,
converts it into an infinitely-extended system, repeating with period $L$,
for which the sum over long-range dipolar interactions is only
conditionally convergent.
Within Ewald summation, this slowly converging sum,
$U = {\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}/D$, is divided
into two rapidly and absolutely convergent sums, $U^{({\rm R})}$ --- which is evaluated
in real space, and $U^{({\rm G})}$ --- which is evaluated in reciprocal space.
The rate of convergence of both sums is determined by a parameter
$\alpha$, with dimension of inverse length, which determines the
crossover between short-range interactions
(treated in real space) and long-range interactions
(treated in reciprocal space).
Since the system is periodic, the self-energy $U^{({\rm SE})}$ arising from a spin
interacting with an infinite number of copies of itself must also be taken into account.
And since it is infinitely-extended, care must also be
taken to impose an appropriate boundary condition at infinity.
Following [\onlinecite{wang01}], we impose boundary conditions
through a macroscopic field term $U^{({\rm MF})}$, and write
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal H}_{\sf dipolar}/D = U^{({\rm R})} + U^{({\rm G})} + U^{({\rm SE})} + U^{({\rm MF})} \, .
\end{equation}
\begin{widetext}
The sum evaluated in real space is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{({\rm R})}
& = & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} \sum_{{\bf n}} '
\left\{
\left( {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j \right)
F_1( \vert {\bf R}_{ij} + {\bf n} \vert )
-
\left[{\bf S}_i \cdot ( {\bf R}_{ij} + {\bf n} ) \right]
\left[{\bf S}_j \cdot ( {\bf R}_{ij} + {\bf n} ) \right]
F_2( \vert {\bf R}_{ij} + {\bf n} \vert ) \right\}
\; , \\
F_1(x) & = & \frac{1}{x^3} \left( {\rm erfc} \left( \alpha x\right) + \frac{2\alpha x}{\sqrt{\pi}} e^{-\alpha^2 x^2} \right)
\;, \\
F_2(x) & = & \frac{1}{x^5} \left( 3 \, {\rm erfc}\left( \alpha x\right) + \frac{2\alpha x}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\left( 3 + 2\alpha^2 x^2 \right) e^{ -\alpha^2 x^2} \right) \;,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf n}\equiv (n_x,n_y,n_z)L$
with $n_a \in {\mathbb Z}$, and the prime on
$
\sum^\prime_{{\bf n}}
$
indicates that the divergent terms arising for ${\bf n}=0$ and $\mathbf{R}_{ij}=0$ are omitted
from the sum.
The functions $F_1(x)$ and $F_2(x)$, which control the convergence of $U^{({\rm R})}$,
are expressed in terms of the complementary error function ${\rm erfc}(z)$.
The real space sum runs over all the periodic images of the cubic cluster of dipole moments.
The sum to be evaluated in reciprocal space is a sum over the points
${\bf G}\equiv (G_x,G_y,G_z)L$ (with $G_a \in {\mathbb Z}$) of the reciprocal lattice:
\begin{align}
U^{({\rm G})} = \frac{1}{2L^3} \sum_{\mathbf{G}\neq 0 } \frac{4\pi}{G^2}
\exp\left[ -\left( \frac{\pi G}{\alpha L} \right)^2 \right]
\sum_{i,j =1}^{N} \left( {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf G} \right) \left( {\bf S}_j \cdot {\bf G} \right)
\exp \left( \frac{ 2\pi i}{L} {\bf G}\cdot {\bf R}_{ij} \right) \;.
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
The self-energy of spins is given by
\begin{align}
U^{({\rm SE})} = - \frac{2\alpha^3}{3\sqrt{\pi}} \sum_{i=1}^{N} {\bf S}^2_i \, .
\end{align}
The boundary conditions ``at infinity'' are imposed by the macroscopic
field term
\begin{align}
U^{({\rm MF})} = \frac{2\pi}{\left( 2\epsilon + 1 \right) L^3}
\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N} {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j \,, \label{eq:MF}
\end{align}
where the choice of boundary conditions is determined by the
effective ``permitivity'' $\epsilon$.
In this work we make the choice $\epsilon\rightarrow \infty$.
This is equivalent to embedding the periodic array of finite-size clusters in
a medium which perfectly screens the net dipole moment of each cluster,
so that the macroscopic field term $U^{({\rm MF})} \to 0$.
The main justification for this choice of boundary condition comes
from the perfect quantitative agreement between the results of classical
Monte Carlo simulation in the limit $T \to 0$, and the classical
ground states determined through mapping onto an effective
Ising model, as described in Section~\ref{section:effective.Ising.model}.
In real materials, phases with a net moment, such
as the ferromagnet (FM), will form domains to screen the
macroscopic field, and the effective boundary condition ``at infinity''
will also depend on the shape of the sample.
\section{Equivalence of exchange interactions within the spin--ice manifold}
\label{appendix:equivalence.J2.and.J3c}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth]{j2_j3c_equivalence_spins_chains.pdf}
\caption{(Color online)
Equivalence of the exchange interactions $J_2$ and $J_{3c}$ within the
manifold of spin-ice configurations.
All possible spin-ice states can be constructed from the two configurations
(a) and (b), with energies $E_a$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ea})]
and $E_b$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Eb})].
In both cases, the energy is a function of $J_2 + 3 J_{3c}$, and the
effect of the two exchange interactions is equivalent, up to a factor $3$.
Ferromagnetic chains of spins, which form the building-block for ordered states,
are shown by thick magenta and green lines.
\label{fig:2tetrahedra}
}
\end{figure}
For spin--configurations obeying the ``ice rules'', a further simplification
arises from the fact that second--neighbour exchange $J_2$, and the third--neighbour
exchange in the direction of the $[110]$ chains, $J_{3c}$, are {\it no longer}
independent parameters.
To understand how this works, we consider the two corner--sharing tetrahedra
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2tetrahedra}.
The 2--in, 2--out ``ice--rule'' reduces the number of possible spin-configurations
from $2^7=128$, to 18.
Each of these 18 configurations is equivalent to one of the two
configurations shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2tetrahedra}.
The energy of these spin configurations can be calculated by counting
the number of satisfied and unsatisfied bonds of each type.
Second--neighbour bonds (denoted by green lines) contribute
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta E_{J_2} = \pm\ J_2/3 \; .
\end{eqnarray}
Third--neighbour bonds, of the type $J_{3c}$, meanwhile, contribute
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta E_{J_{3c}} = \pm J_{3c} \; .
\end{eqnarray}
Counting the relevant bonds, we find that the energies of the spin
configurations shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2tetrahedra}(a)
and Fig.~\ref{fig:2tetrahedra}(b), are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{a} = \phantom{-}\frac{2}{3} J_2 + 3 J_{3c} &=& J_{3c} + \frac{2}{3} \left( J_2 + 3 J_{3c} \right)
\label{eq:Ea} \;, \\
E_{b} = -\frac{2}{3} J_2 -J_{3c} &=& J_{3c} - \frac{2}{3} \left( J_2 + 3 J_{3c} \right)
\label{eq:Eb} \;.
\end{eqnarray}
Comparing the two results, we see that the interactions $J_2$ and $J_{3c}$
both have the same effect --- up to a factor~$\times 3$ --- when acting on any
spin--configuration obeying the ice rules.
The constant shift $J_{3c}$, which appears in both $E_a$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ea})]
and $E_b$~[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Eb})], is the same for {\it all} spin-ice configurations,
and so does not distinguish between different ordered or disordered states.
The physically relevant parameter, within a spin--ice, is therefore
\begin{equation}
J_2 + 3 J_{3c} \; ,
\label{eq:j2_j3c_equivalence_appendix}
\end{equation}
as given in Section~\ref{subsection:model.parameters}.
\section{Classical Monte Carlo - technical details}
\label{section:CMC.technical}
Our classical Monte Carlo was carried out using cubic cells with periodic boundary
conditions with $16\times L^3$ Ising spins with $L=2,3,4,5$, though for the phase
diagram we chose cubic clusters with $128$ ($L=2$) and $1024$ ($L=4$), compatible
with all three ordered phases.
The long-ranged dipolar interaction was handled using a pre-tabulated Ewald summation
(see Section~\ref{appendix:ewald.sum} and Ref.~[\onlinecite{mcclarty14}]).
As is now standard for simulations of spin ice, the Monte Carlo allowed for single spin flips
and worm updates.\cite{melko01}
The worm updates allow for efficient sampling of spin-ice states with a short autocorrelation
time compared to simulation time scales.
We simulated up to $128$ temperatures simultaneously on the hydra cluster based
in Garching with parallel tempering moves to assist equilibration.
The highest temperature was taken below the heat capacity peak into the ice states.
The simulations for $L=4$ at low temperature were somewhat hampered by slow
equilibration despite the presence of loop moves and parallel tempering.
Whereas $L=2$ simulations were found to be independent of the starting configuration,
this ceased to be the case for $L=4$.
We therefore conducted simulations by starting from each of the three known ordered states
and also from states that are degenerate at the phase boundaries --- for example the
orthorhombic zigzag state (OZZ).
\section{Quantum Monte Carlo - technical details}
\label{section:QMC-technical}
We have performed Green's function Monte Carlo (GFMC) simulations of
$\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[\ref{eq:Hqdsi}], using methods previously developed
to study the quantum dimer model on a diamond lattice,\cite{sikora09,sikora11}
and quantum spin ice in the absence of long-range dipolar
interactions.~\cite{shannon12,benton12}
GFMC is a form of zero-temperature Quantum Monte Carlo simulation,
which is numerically exact where simulations converge.
Our implementation of GFMC closely parallels that of [\onlinecite{calandra-buonaura98}].
We work explicitly with spin--ice configurations and, starting from a given spin configuration,
use a population of ``walkers'' to sample the space of other configurations connected by
off-diagonal matrix elements of the Hamiltonian, $\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[\ref{eq:Hqdsi}].
A guide wave function, optimised by a separate variational Monte Carlo simulation
is used to improve the convergence of simulations.
As such, GFMC can be thought of as a systematic way of improving upon
a variational wave function.
A suitable variational wave function for a quantum spin ice, based on
plaquette-plaquette correlations, is described in [\onlinecite{sikora11}].
The number of variational parameters used in simulations, depended on the
cluster, and was typically 20-40.
Populations of up to 1000 walkers were used in GFMC simulation.
The population of walkers was reconfigured after a typical period of
45 steps, with simulations run for a few thousand consecutive
reconfigurations.
The averages used in estimators for the ground state energy, etc.,
were calculated for sequences of 50-300 steps.
We performed GFMC simulations for clusters of
128, 1024, and 2000 sites, with the full cubic symmetry of the pyrochlore lattice.
Since not all of the ordered states considered are compatible with the
2000-site cluster, this was used to explore the correlations $S(\mathbf{q})$
of the QSL phase, and not to determine the ground-state phase diagram.
To test the accuracy of the method, simulations of were also performed for
a 80-site cluster with lower symmetry.
Exact diagonalization calculations were carried out for the same 80-site cluster,
and found to be in perfect numerical agreement with the results of GFMC.
Simulations for ``large'' values of $g \gtrsim 0.1 D$, within the QSL,
are relatively easy to converge, since all spin-ice configurations, apart for a
tiny subset of ``isolated states'', are connected by matrix elements of
$\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[\ref{eq:Hqdsi}], and all spin-ice configurations
enter into the QSL ground state with comparable weight.
Simulations are relatively difficult to converge for large clusters and
``small'' values of $g$, especially in the highly frustrated region
$-0.08 \lesssim J_2/D \lesssim -0.06$, where the coupling between
parallel ``chains'' is vanishingly small and many different ground states compete.
Detail of this region of the phase diagram is given in
Fig.~(\ref{fig:detail.of.quantum.phase.diagram}).
The Hilbert space of different possible spin--ice configurations, on which
$\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$~[\ref{eq:Hqdsi}] acts, can be divided into distinct
topological sectors, according to the net flux of spin moments
through the boundaries of a cluster~\cite{shannon12,sikora11}.
Under the dynamics described by $\mathcal{H}_{\sf QDSI}$, these
fluxes are conserved.
The QSL, and the CAF, TDQ and OZZ ground state all belong
to the zero--flux sector, while the FM has a finite value of flux.
We have GFMC performed simulations in a representative selection
of flux sectors, and find no evidence of other competing ground
states with finite values of flux.
We have also verified that the energies of the QSL in different flux sectors
satisfies the expected scaling with flux at fixed system size, as
described in Ref.~\onlinecite{shannon12}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{
Ground state energy $E_0$, excitation gap $\Delta$
and number of flippable plaquettes $N_{\text{flip}}$
for cubic clusters with $N=128$ and $N=1024$ sites,
used in constructing the degenerate perturbation theory
Eq.~(\ref{eq:degenerate-perturbation-theory}).
}
\centering
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{c r c c r}
state & $N$ & $E_0/N$ & $\Delta_0$ & $N_{\text{flip}}$ \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\vspace{-0.25cm}\\
CAF & 128 & $-1.94759 D - 2 J_2/3$ & & $0$ \\
CAF & 1024 & $-1.94760 D - 2 J_2/3$ & & $0$ \\
OZZ & 128 & $-1.92688 D - J_2/3$ & $0.2906 D + 8 J_2/3$ & 32\\
OZZ & 1024 & $-1.92687 D - J_2/3$ & $0.2919 D + 8 J_2/3$ & 256\\
TDQ & 128 & $-1.90617 D $ & $-0.3725 D - 8 J_2$ & 32\\
TDQ & 1024 & $-1.90613 D$ & $-0.3717 D - 8J_2$ & 256\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{table:pert2nd}
\end{table}
\section{2$^\text{nd}$ order perturbation theory in $g$}
\label{appendix:2nd.order.perturbation.theory.in.g}
We can use perturbation theory in $g$
to calculate the effect of the quantum fluctuations about the TDQ and OZZ ground states.
To second order in $g$, the ground state energy is given by
\begin{equation}
E^{(2)} = E^{(0)} - N_{\text{flip}} \frac{g^2}{\Delta_0}\,,
\label{eq:degenerate-perturbation-theory}
\end{equation}
where $E^{(0)}$ is the classical ground state energy and $\Delta_0$ is the energy gap
between the ground state and the excited state obtained by flipping the spins on a
hexagon (where $N_{\text{flip}}$ is the number of such hexagons, and all the flippable hexagons are equivalent).
%
These numbers, found by the numerical enumeration of states, are presented for
the 128 and 1024 site cluster in Table~\ref{table:pert2nd}.
Comparing these energies close to the classical phase boundary where the TDQ,
the OZZ, and the CAF are degenerate, we get that OZZ state has the lowest energy
and is stabilized between the TDQ and CAF phases.
The phase transition lines between the TDQ and OZZ phases are essentially
independent of $g$:
\begin{align}
J_2/D &= -0.0621 \quad \text{(128 sites)}\,,\label{eq:pertbond128TDQ}\\
J_2/D &= -0.0622 \quad \text{(1024 sites)}\,.
\end{align}
In contrast, the phase boundaries between the CAF and OZZ depend on $g/D$ as
\begin{align}
J_2/D &= -0.0621 + 6.01 (g/D)^2 \quad \text{(128 sites)}\,,\label{eq:pertbond128OZZ}\\
J_2/D &= -0.0622 + 5.95 (g/D)^2 \quad \text{(1024 sites)}\,.
\end{align}
These phase boundaries are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase.diagram.QMC}
and Fig.~\ref{fig:detail.of.quantum.phase.diagram} as dashed lines
(the finite--size effects are not discernible on the scale of the figure).
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Recent advances in 3D modeling and depth estimation have created many opportunities for non-invasive human body measurement and modeling. Particularly, getting precise size and fit recommendation data from consumer depth cameras such as Microsoft\textregistered~Kinect\texttrademark~device can reduce returns and improve user experience for online fashion shopping. Also, applications like virtual try-on or 3D personal avatars can help shoppers visualize how clothes would look like on them. According to \cite{Apparel12,Fitsme12}, about $\$44.7$B worth of clothing was purchased online in $2013$. Yet, there was an average return rate of $25\%$ because people could not physically try the clothes on. Therefore, an accurate 3D model of the human body is needed to provide accurate sizing and measurement information to guide online fashion shopping. One standard approach incorporates light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data for body scanning \cite{THD,GGS}. An alternative approach is to use a calibrated multi-camera rig and reconstruct the 3D human body model using structure from motion (SfM) and Multi-View Stereo (MVS) \cite{deAguiar}. A more recent work \cite{tsoliWACV14} aims at estimating high quality 3D models by using high resolution 3D human scans during registration process to get statistical model of shape deformations. Such scans in the training set are very limited in variations, expensive and cumbersome to collect and nevertheless do not capture the diversity of the body shape over the entire population. All of these systems are bulky, expensive, and require expertise to operate.
Recently, consumer grade depth camera has proven practical and quickly progressed into markets. These sensors cost around $\$200$ and can be used conveniently in a living room. Depth sensors can also be integrated into mobile devices such as tablets \cite{SIO}, cellphones \cite{TANGO} and wearable devices \cite{AHL}. Thus, depth data can be obtained from average users and accurate measurements can be estimated. However, it is challenging to produce high-quality 3D human body models, since such sensors only provide a low-resolution depth map (typically 320 $\times$ 240) with a high noise level.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{\textbf{Demographics.} Distribution of height and weight for selected age and sex groups (mean $\pm$ 1 std dev). The age and sex composition are obtained by using the 2010 census data~\cite{AGESEX}, while the height and weight distributions are obtained by using the NHANES 1999-2002 census data~\cite{BODYWEIGHT}. This table was used to generate synthetic models using MakeHuman~\cite{MH}. Note that, unlike our approach, datasets such as CAESAR~\cite{CAESAR} do not truly encompass the diversity of the population and are cumbersome and expensive to collect.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\multirow{4}{*}{Age}} & \multicolumn{8}{c|}{Gender} \\ \cline{3-10}
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Male} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Female} \\ \cline{3-10}
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Height\\ (cm)\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Weight\\ (kg)\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Height\\ (cm)\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Weight\\ (kg)\end{tabular}}} \\
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{18-24} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{176.7$\pm$0.3} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{83.4$\pm$0.7} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{162.8$\pm$0.3} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{71.1$\pm$0.9} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{25-44} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{176.8$\pm$0.3} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{87.6$\pm$0.8} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{163.2$\pm$0.3} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{75.3$\pm$1.0} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{45-64} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{175.8$\pm$0.3} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{88.8$\pm$0.9} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{162.3$\pm$0.3} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{76.9$\pm$1.1} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|l|}{65-74} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{174.4$\pm$0.3} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{87.1$\pm$0.6} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{160.0$\pm$0.2} & \multicolumn{2}{l|}{74.9$\pm$0.6} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:Demographics}
\end{table}
In this paper, we propose a method to predict accurate body parameters and generate 3D human mesh models from a single depth map. We first create a large synthetic 3D human body model dataset using real-world body size distributions. Next, we extract body measurements from a single frontal-view depth map using joint location information provided by OpenNI \cite{OPENNI}. We combine estimates of body measurements with local geometry features around joint locations to form a robust multi-dimensional feature vector. This allows us to conduct a fast nearest-neighbor search to every 3D model in the synthetic dataset and return the closest one. Since the retrieved 3D model is fully parameterized and rigged, we can easily generate data such as standard full body measurements,labeled body parts, etc. Furthermore,we can animate the model by mapping the 3D model skeleton to joints provided by Kinect\texttrademark. Given the shape and pose parameters describing the body, we also developed an approach to fit a garment to the model with realistic wrinkles. A key benefit of our approach is that we only calculate simple features from the input data and search for the closest match in the highly-realistic synthetic dataset. This allows us to estimate a 3D body avatar in real-time, which is crucial for practical virtual reality applications. Also, compared to real-world human body datasets such as CAESAR \cite{CAESAR} and SCAPE \cite{SCAPE}, the flexibility of creating synthetic models enables us to represent more variations on body parameter distributions, while lowering cost and refraining from legal privacy issues involving human subjects. In summary, we make the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
\item We build a complete software system for body measurement extraction and 3D human model creation. The system only requires a single input depth map with real-time performance.
\item We propose a method to generate a large synthetic human dataset following real-world body parameter distributions. This dataset contains detailed information about each sample, such as body parameters, labeled body parts and OpenNI-compatible skeletons. To our knowledge, we are the first to use large synthetic data that match distribution of true population for the purpose of model fitting and anthropometrics.
\item We design a robust multi-dimensional feature vector and corresponding matching schemes for fast 3D model retrieval. Experiments show that our proposed method that uses simple computations on the input depth map returns satisfactory results.
\end{itemize}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:Background} gives a summary of previous related work.
Section~\ref{sec:ProposedSystem} discusses Im2Fit - our proposed system. Section~\ref{sec:Experiments} shows our experimental results. Section~\ref{sec:Conclusion} provides some final conclusions and directions for future work.
\section{Background and Related Work}
\label{sec:Background}
We follow the pipeline to generate a large synthetic dataset, and then perform feature matching to obtain the corresponding 3D human model. A wealth of previous work has studied these two problems, and we mention some of them here to contrast with our approach.
{\bf{3D Human Body Datasets:}}
Despite vast literature concerning depth map based human body modeling, only a limited number of datasets are available for testing. These datasets typically contain real-world data to model the variation of human shape, and require a license to purchase.
The CAESAR~\cite{CAESAR} dataset contains few thousand laser scans of bodies of volunteers aged from 18 to 65 in the United States and Europe. The raw data of each sample consists of four scans from different viewpoints. The raw scans are stitched together into a single mesh with texture information. However, due to occlusion, noise and registration errors, the final mesh model is not complete.
The SCAPE~\cite{SCAPE} dataset has been widely used in human shape and pose estimation studies. Researchers found it useful to reshape the human body to fit 3D point cloud data or 2D human silhouettes in images and videos. It learns a pose deformation model from 71 registered meshes of a single subject in various poses. However, the human shape model is learned from different subjects with a standard pose. The main limitation of the SCAPE model is that the pose deformation model is shared by different individuals. The final deformed mesh is not accurate, since the pose deformation model is person-dependent. Also, the meshes are registered using only geometric information, which is unreliable due to shape ambiguities.
Recently, Bogo \etal~\cite{Bogo:CVPR:2014} introduced a new dataset called FAUST which contains 300 scans of 10 people with different poses. The meshes are captured by multiple stereo cameras and speckle projectors. All subjects are painted with high frequency textures so that the alignment quality can be verified by both geometry and appearance information.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figures/BlockDiagram.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Block Diagram}. This illustrates the interactions between various components of Im2Fit, along with relevant data. Details are in Section~\ref{sec:ProposedSystem}.}
\label{fig:BlockDiagram}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
{\bf{Human Shape Estimation:}} A number of methods have been proposed to estimate human shape based on raw 3D data generated by a depth sensor or multiple images. Early work by Blanz and Vetter~\cite{Blanz:1999:MMS:311535.311556} use dense surface and color data to model face shapes. They introduced the term \emph{3D morphable model} to describe the idea of using a single generic model to fit all real-world face shapes. In their work, pose and shape are learned separately and then combined by using linear blend skinning (LBS). This inspires the SCAPE~\cite{SCAPE} model, which models deformation as combination of a pose transformation learned from a single person with multiple poses and a shape transformation learned from multiple people with a standard pose. Balan \etal~\cite{balan2007detailed} fit the SCAPE model to multiple images. They later extend their work to estimate body shape under clothing~\cite{Balan:2008:NTE:1479250.1479253}. Guan \etal~\cite{guan2009estimating} estimated human shape and pose from a single image by optimizing the SCAPE model using a variety of cues such as silhouette overlap, edge distance and smooth shading. Hasler \etal~\cite{Hasler} developed a method to estimate 3D body shapes under clothing by fitting the SCAPE model to images using ICP~\cite{besl1992method} registration and Laplacian mesh deformation. Weiss \etal~\cite{Weiss11} proposed a method to model 3D human bodies from noisy range images from a commodity sensor by combining the silhouette overlap term, prediction error and an optional temporal pose similarity prior. More recently, researchers tackle the problem of decoupling shape and pose deformations by introducing a tensor based body model which jointly optimizes shape and pose deformations~\cite{Chen2013}.
\section{Im2Fit: The Proposed System }
\label{sec:ProposedSystem}
The overall processing pipeline of our software system can be found in Figure~\ref{fig:BlockDiagram}. Algorithm~\ref{DiscoveryAlgorithm} summarizes the various steps involved to estimate relevant anthropometrics for clothing fitment, once depth data and joint locations have been acquired.
\subsection{Depth Sensor Data Acquisition}
\label{sec:DataAcquisition}
The goal of real data acquisition process is to obtain user point cloud and joint locations, and extract useful features characterizing the 3D shape, such as body measurements and 3D surface feature descriptors. We first extract human silhouette from a Kinect\texttrademark~RGB-D frame and turn it into a 3D pointcloud. Next, we obtain joint locations by using OpenNI~\cite{OPENNI} which provides a binary segmentation mask of the person, along with skeletal keypoints corresponding to different body joints. There are 15 joint positions in 3D real world coordinates (Figure~\ref{fig:Anthropometrics}(a)). They can be converted to 2D coordinates on the imaging plane by projection.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Frontal Measurement Generation}\label{DiscoveryAlgorithm}
\KwData{Depth Map $\bf{D}$ and estimated set of joints from pose estimation $\{j_{t}\}_{t=1,\ldots,T}$}
\KwResult{Set of Measurements $\textbf{M}$, where $t^{th}$ row is the measurement around joint $j_{t}$ }
\While{onEndCalibration=failure}{
Call \emph{StartPoseDetection} \;
\If{User detected}
{
Draw skeletons\;
Compute principal axes $\left\{ \bf{u},\bf{v},\bf{w}\right\}$ \;
Request calibration pose from user\;
Call \emph{RequestCalibrationSkeleton}\;
\If{User calibrated}
{ Save calibrated pose\;
Call \emph{onEndCalibration}\;
\While{onEndCalibration=success}{
Call \emph{StartTrackingSkeleton} \;
\For{Joint label $t=1:T$}{
\If{$j_{t}$ is available}
{
Compute cross section plane.
\emph{/* defined by $\bf{v}$ and $\bf{w}$ passing through joint position $j_{t}$*/} \;
Compute intersection points\;
Ellipse fitting to obtain $m_{t}$\;
\If{$m_{t}$ is available for all $T$ joints}
{
Save $\textbf{M}$\;
Break\;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Depth Sensor Data Processing - Measurements and Feature Extraction}
\label{sec:DataProcessing}
Once we obtain depth map and joint locations,, we generate features such as body measurements and Fast Point Feature Histograms (FPFH)\footnote{FPFH features are simple 3D feature descriptors to represent geometry around a specific point and are calculated for all joints.}~\cite{FPFH} around these joints. The body measurements include height, length of arm \& leg, girth of neck, chest, waist \& hip. These measurements can help us predict important user attributes such as gender, height, weight, clothing size. The aforementioned features are concatenated into a single feature vector for matching the features in the synthetic dataset.
We observe that the 6 points on the torso \emph{(NE, TO, LS, RS, LH, RH)} do not exhibit any relative motion and can be regarded on a whole rigid body. Therefore, we define the principal coordinate axes $\left\{ \bf{u},\bf{v},\bf{w}\right\}$ as $\bf{u}=\frac{\overrightarrow {\left( NE,TO\right) }} {\|\overrightarrow {\left( NE,TO\right) }\|},
\bf{v}=\frac{\overrightarrow {\left( LS,RS\right) }} {\|\overrightarrow {\left( LS,RS\right) }\|},
\bf{w}=\bf{u}\times\bf{v}$, as long as the following condition is satisfied:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PrincipalComponents}
\begin{split}
\frac{\bf{u} \cdot \overrightarrow {\left( TO,\frac {LH+RH} {2}\right) }} {\|\overrightarrow {\left( TO,\frac {LH+RH} {2}\right) }\|} < \varepsilon _{1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\overrightarrow {\left(A,B\right)}$ is the vector from point $A$ to point $B$, $\times$ is the vector cross-product, $\cdot$ is the vector dot-product, $\|\cdot\|$ is the Euclidean distance, and $\varepsilon_1$ is a small positive fraction. We used $\epsilon_1=0.1$. Condition~(\ref{eq:PrincipalComponents}) ensures that the posture is almost vertical. For simplicity, if this is not satisfied, we treat the data as unusable since error in measurement estimates will be large.
{\bf{Height:}} To calculate height, we first extract contour of the segmented 2D human silhouette, which was obtained by thresholding the depth map and projection on to 2D plane defined by $\bf{u}$ and $\bf{v}$. Next, we pick those points on the contour that satisfy the following condition:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Height}
\frac {\left| \bf{v} \cdot \overrightarrow {\left( TO,P_{c}\right)} \right|} {\left\| \overrightarrow {\left( TO,P_{c}\right)}\right\| } < \varepsilon_{2}
\end{equation}
where $P_{c}$ is an arbitrary point on the contour and $\varepsilon_2$ is a small positive fraction. We used $\varepsilon_2=0.1$. These 2D points lie approximately on $\bf{u}$. We sort them by their $y$ coordinates \footnote{Note that OpenNI uses GDI convention for the 2D coordinate system.} and find the top and bottom points. These points are converted to 3D real-world coordinates and the estimated height can be calculated as the Euclidean distance between the two points.
{\bf{Length of Sleeve and Legs:}} The sleeve length can be calculated as the average of $\left\|\overrightarrow{(LH,LE)}\right\|
+\left\|\overrightarrow{(LE,LS)}\right\|
+\left\|\overrightarrow{(LS,NE)}\right\|
$ and $\left\|\overrightarrow{(RH,RE)}\right\|
+\left\|\overrightarrow{(RE,RS)}\right\|
+\left\|\overrightarrow{(RS,NE)}\right\|
$. Note that these points are in 3D real-world coordinates. Similarly, length of legs can be obtained as the average of $\left\|\overrightarrow{(LH,LK)}\right\|
+\left\|\overrightarrow{(LK,LF)}\right\|
$
and
$\left\|\overrightarrow{(RH,RK)}\right\|
+\left\|\overrightarrow{(RK,RF)}\right\|
$.
{\bf{Girth of neck, shoulder, chest, waist and hip:}}
To get estimates of neck, shoulder, chest, waist and hip girth, we need to first define a 3D point $\bf{x}$, and then compute the intersection between the 3D point cloud and the plane passing through $\bf{x}$ and perpendicular to $\bf{u}$. Since the joints tracked by OpenNI are designed to be useful for interactive games, rather than being anatomically precise, we need to make some adjustments to the raw joint locations. Here we define new joint locations as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NewPoints}
\begin{split}
\textbf{x}_{neck}=\frac {NE+HE} {2},
\textbf{x}_{shoulder}=\frac{\left( \textbf{x}_{neck}+\frac {LS+RS}{2}\right)}{2}\\
\textbf{x}_{chest}=\frac {NE+TO} {2},
\textbf{x}_{waist}=TO,
\textbf{x}_{hip}=\frac {LH+RH} {2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We can only get frontal view of the user, since the user is always directly facing the depth camera and we use a single depth channel as input. Therefore, we fit an ellipse~\cite{fitzgibbon1999direct} to the points on every cross-section plane to obtain full-body measurements. Such points are defined as
$
\left\{ \textbf{p}\in\text{Point Cloud},
s.t. \left | \frac{(\textbf{x}-\textbf{p})\cdot\bf{u}}{\|\textbf{x}-\textbf{p}\|} \right | < \varepsilon_3 \right\}
$, where $\varepsilon_3$ is a small positive fraction. We used $\varepsilon_3=0.1$.
Since our method is simple and computationally efficient, the measurements can be estimated in real time.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\vspace{-1ex}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\linewidth]{Figures/Joints.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{Figures/MeasurementDistribution.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{Figures/HeightEstimationError.pdf} \\
\footnotesize{\hspace{0\linewidth}(a) Joints} & \footnotesize{\hspace{0\linewidth}(b) Measurement Distribution} &
\footnotesize{\hspace{0\linewidth}(c) Height Estimation Error} \\
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0em}
\caption{\textbf{Estimated Anthropometrics}.
(a) We use 15 joints head, neck, torso and left/right hand, elbow, shoulder, hip, knee, foot, which we term \emph{HE, NE, TO, LA, RA, LE, RE, LS, RS, LH, RH, LK, RK, LF, RF}, respectively. (b) Distribution of key estimated measurements. We collected depth maps from 83 people and generated height, neck, shoulder, chest, waist, hip and leg measurements for each person. Plotted is the sample minimum, median and maximum, lower and upper quartile and outliers for different measurements.
(c) For a given height range, the distribution of height estimation errors are plotted. The overall mean estimation error for 83 samples is 1.87 cm.
}
\label{fig:Anthropometrics}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Synthetic Data Generation - Depth Map Rendering and Joint Remapping}
For realistic synthetic data generation, the goal is to create a large number of synthetic human data according to real world population distributions and save the feature vectors for each model. In order to generate the synthetic human model dataset, we developed a plug-in\footnote{We plan to make this plug-in available for research purpose and hope will flourish research in this area, which is stunted by the complexity of data acquisition for 3D human models and lack of royalty-free large public datasets.} for MakeHuman~\cite{MH}.
MakeHuman is an open-source python framework designed to prototype realistic 3D human models. It contains a standard rigged human mesh, and can generate realistic human characters based on normalized attributes for a specific virtual character, namely Age, Gender, Height, Weight, Muscle and Ethnic origin (Caucasian, Asian, African). Our plug-in only modifies 4 attributes: Age, Gender, Height and Weight, which follows the distribution shown in Table~\ref{table:Demographics}. This is because we only care about the 3D geometry of the human body. Every synthetic model contains a Wavefront .obj file (3D mesh), a .skel skeleton file (Joint location), a Biovision Hierarchy .bvh (Rigged skeleton data) file and a text file containing the 9 above-mentioned attributes. We tested our plug-in on a desktop computer with Intel Xeon E5507 (4 MB Cache, 2.26 GHz) CPU and 12 GB RAM. The modified software is able to generate around 50,000 synthetic models in 12 hours (roughly a model every second).
Since the synthetic data is clean, parametric and has fully labeled body parts and skeletons, we can match real world feature vectors extracted from depth frames directly to the MakeHuman synthetic feature vectors, and use the MakeHuman 3D parametric mesh model to replace incomplete and noisy point cloud data from consumer grade depth sensor. Since it is straightforward to establish joint correspondences, the 3D synthetic model can be deformed into any pose according to the pose changes of the user. The 3D mesh model can now be used for various applications such as virtual try-on, virtual 3D avatar or animation. Since it is difficult to directly process the MakeHuman mesh data, we also developed a scheme to render the mesh model into frontal and back depth maps and equivalent point clouds. The local 3D features can be extracted easily from these point clouds by using the Point Cloud Library (PCL)~\cite{PCL}.
The above process has several advantages. Firstly, our customized plug-in is able to generate a large number of realistic synthetic models with real world age, height, weight, or gender distribution, even dressed models with various clothing styles. Secondly, the feature vectors can be matched in real time. Thus, we can find the matching 3D model as soon as the user is tracked by OpenNI. Compared to methods such as \cite{Weiss11,Chen2013,barmpoutis2013} which try to generate parametric human model directly on the raw point cloud, our method is more robust and computationally efficient.
\subsection{Synthetic Data Retrieval - Online 3D Model Retrieval}
Now that we obtained real-world and synthetic data in compatible formats, we can match feature vectors extracted from Kinect\texttrademark~depth frames directly to those generated from MakeHuman~\cite{MH}. The retrieved 3D human model can be used to replace the noisy, unorganized raw Kinect\texttrademark~point cloud.
To reach the goal of real-time 3D model retrieval, we need to define a simple yet effective feature vector first. We divide the feature vector into three groups with different weights: global body shape, gender and local body shape.
The first group contains 4 parameters: height and length of sleeve, leg and shoulder. This captures the longer dimensions of the human body.
The second group contains two ratios. They are defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
ratio_1=\dfrac { \bigfrown{\left\| Chest\right\|} } {\overrightarrow {\left\| Chest\right\| }}
, ratio_2=\dfrac {Hip}{Waist}
\end{equation}
where $\bigfrown{\left\| Chest\right\|}$ represents the 3D surface geodesic distance and $ \overrightarrow {\left\| Chest\right\| }$ represents the Euclidean distance between point LS and RS. If two body shapes are similar, these two ratios tend to be larger for females and smaller for males.
The third group contains FPFH (33 dimensions) features~\cite{FPFH} computed at all 15 joints with a search radius of 20 centimeters. This describes the local body shape. The feature vector has $4+2+33\times15=501$ dimensions. Any pair of feature vectors can be compared simply by using their $L_2$ distance.
We use nearest neighbor search to find the closet match in the synthetic dataset. The size of the feature vector dataset for 50,000 synthetic models is roughly 25 MB, and a single query takes about 800 ms to complete on a 2.26 GHz Intel Xeon E5507 machine.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:Experiments}
We conducted our experiments on clothed subjects with various body shapes. Figure \ref{fig:Anthropometrics}(b) shows the distribution of measurements from 83 people predicted by our system. For privacy issues, we were only able to get ground truth height, gender and clothing size data.
The gender predicted by $Ratio_{1}$ and $Ratio_{2}$ is correct for all 83 samples. The height estimation error for different height ranges is shown in Figure \ref{fig:Anthropometrics}(c). The overall mean estimation error for the 83 samples is 1.87 centimeters. Compared to \cite{Weiss11}, our system has obtained competitive accuracy with a much simpler algorithm. The results of our system can be qualitatively evaluated from Figure \ref{fig:Qualitative}. To verify the prediction accuracy, we applied the Iterative Closest Point (ICP)~\cite{besl1992method} registration algorithm to obtain the mean geometric error between the retrieved 3D mesh model and the raw point cloud data for the four subjects shown in Figure \ref{fig:Qualitative}. The results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:ICPError}. We simply aligned the skeleton joints for ICP initialization. After 6 ICP iterations, the mean registration error converges to below 9 centimeters, for all four subjects. This is because the feature vector gives more weights to frontal measurements. The mesh alignment can be fine tuned by ICP after several iterations. However, the initial joint locations are only accurate on the 2D plane, and may shift in the $z$-direction due to random noise or holes on the point cloud surface.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figures/Runtime.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Runtime}. Runtime of our complete system with increasing size of the synthetic dataset. For synthetic dataset with given number of samples, we evaluate the average runtime end-end, to estimate relevant measurements, naked 3D models and clothed 3D models.
}
\label{fig:Runtime}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figures/Qualitative_fw.png}
\caption{\textbf{Qualitative Evaluation}. The first column shows the raw depth map from Kinect\texttrademark~360 sensor, the second column shows the normal map which we use to compute the FPFH~\cite{FPFH} features. The third column shows the reconstructed 3D mesh model, and the last three columns show the front, side and back view of the 3D model after basic garment fitting.}
\label{fig:Qualitative}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure*}
Runtime of 3D model retrieval algorithm with different size of the synthetic dataset is summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:Runtime}. The algorithm was run on a single desktop without GPU acceleration to obtain relevant measurements, naked body model and clothed model. The measurement estimation only depends on the input depth map. So the running time is almost constant on a depth map with given resolution. Generating clothed models is slower than naked models because of the garment fitting and rendering overhead which can be improved by GPU acceleration. On a dataset containing $5\times10^{6}$ samples, we achieved runtime of less than 0.5 seconds for a single query, with little memory usage. Compared to \cite{Weiss11} which takes approximately 65 minutes to optimize, our method is significantly faster, while still maintaining competitive accuracy.
Using measurements from the body meshes, we also predicted clothing sizes and compared with ground truth data provided by the participants. The overall clothing size prediction accuracy is $87.5\%$. We estimated size of T-shirt (\eg XS, S, M, L, XL, 2XL, 3XL).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figures/ICPError.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{ICP Error}. Mean registration error per ICP~\cite{besl1992method} iteration for different samples. We evaluated ICP registration error for 4 samples in the dataset. The raw depth maps and estimated body shapes for the 4 samples can be found in Figure \ref{fig:Qualitative}.
}
\label{fig:ICPError}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
We presented a system for human body measurement and modeling using a single consumer depth sensor, using only the depth channel. Our method has several advantages over existing methods. First, we propose a method for generating synthetic human body models following real-world body parameter distributions. This allows us to avoid complex data acquisition rig, legal and privacy issues involving human subject research, and at the same time create a synthetic dataset which represents more variations on body shape distributions. Also, models inside the synthetic dataset are complete and clean (\ie no incomplete surface), which is perfect for subsequent applications such as garment fitting or animation. Second, we presented a scheme for real-time 3D model retrieval. Body measurements are extracted and combined with local geometry features around key joint locations to form a robust multi-dimensional feature vector. 3D human models are retrieved by using a fast nearest neighbor search, and the whole process can be done within half a second on a dataset containing $5\times10^{6}$ samples. Experiment results have shown that our system is able to generate accurate results in real-time, thus is particularly useful for home-oriented body scanning applications on low computing power devices such as depth-camera enabled smartphones or tablets.
\section{Appendix - Implementation Details}
\label{sec:ImplementationDetails}
\subsection{Depth Sensor Data Acquisition - Skeleton Detection}
\label{sec:DataAcquisition}
The Kinect\texttrademark~depth sensor provides two sources of data, namely the RGB and depth channels. This work purely focusses on the depth channel, which can be used to infer useful information about the person's 3D location and motion. We utilize open source SDKs to detect and track the person of interest. The SDK provides a binary segmentation mask of the person, along with skeletal keypoints corresponding to different body joints.
\subsection{Depth Camera SDKs}
Compared to the Kinect\texttrademark~SDK which only works on Windows Platforms, OpenNI is more popular in open source and cross-platform projects. Although both SDKs provide access to basic RGB images and depth maps, the human silhouette tracking and joint location estimation are implemented in different algorithms. According to \cite{Cosgun2013}, OpenNI performs better for head and neck tracking, whereas Microsoft\textregistered~Kinect\texttrademark~SDK is more accurate on other joints. From our experience, the Microsoft\textregistered~Kinect\texttrademark~SDK outperforms OpenNI in both joint location estimation and human silhouette tracking and segmentation.
The Kinect\texttrademark~360 sensor utilizes infrared structured light to perceive depth. It has a resolution of $640\times480$ at 30 frames per second, with working range of 0.8m to 4m. In practice, a minimum distance of 2m is required for tracking the full body. The field of view is 57 degrees horizontal, 43 degrees vertical. The Kinect\texttrademark~device also provides a tilting motor which operates from -27 to 27 degrees with an accelerometer for detection the tilting angle. This is originally designed for automatically tracking the ground plane. The hardware specifications of the Kinect\texttrademark~sensor can be found in table 1.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figures/Platform.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Platform Stack.} See Section~\ref{sec:DataAcquisition} for details.}
\label{fig:Platform}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figures/UserInterface.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{User Interface.} This shows part of the user interface used to collect data from subjects using consumer grade depth sensor.}
\label{fig:UserInterface}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Data Acquisition}
\label{sec:DataAcquisition}
We choose the OpenNI framework as the SDK for data acquisition. Our graphical user interface (GUI) (see Figure~\ref{fig:UserInterface}) is able to track the user and record joint locations in real time. Also, a form is provided on a separate window for the user to enter attributes such as height, weight, age, gender and so on as ground truth data. Besides the OpenNI SDK, our software requires two additional packages, namely SensorKinect\texttrademark~driver and NITE middleware. The SensorKinect\texttrademark~provides low level drivers for accessing raw color image, depth map and infrared camera images from the Kinect\texttrademark~sensor. The NITE middleware, on the other hand, provides various features such as human silhouette segmentation, tracking, gait analysis and skeletonization. The OpenNI SDK is implemented in C++. Additionally, there are popular wrappers for the OpenNI such as simple-openni for Java \cite{SIMPLEOPENNI}, ZigFu ZDK for Unity 3D engine, Adobe Flash and HTML5 \cite{ZIGFU}, and an official wrapper for Matlab \cite{MATKIN}. These wrappers make it easier for programmers to call certain OpenNI functions using various programming languages. Figure ~\ref{fig:Platform} shows the relationship between the aforementioned components.
\subsection{Virtual Human Model Generation}
\label{sec:ModelGeneration}
We showed that it is possible to automatically create a large-scale synthetic human database following real-world distributions. However, the synthetic data is still not compatible with data obtained from the Kinect\texttrademark~device, for the following reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item The Wavefront .obj is in mesh format, which represents the 3D geometry in vertices and faces. For Kinect, the data is in color images and depth maps (or RGBXYZ point clouds).
\item The joints generated by MakeHuman~\cite{MH} are from the built-in game.json 32 bone skeleton system, which is not compatible with the OpenNI skeleton system with 15 joints.
\end{itemize}
To address these problems, we developed an additional program to process the data generated by MakeHuman, using OpenGL and OpenCV. This program renders a frontal and back depth map of the MakeHuman model with similar depth sampling rate to the Kinect\texttrademark~sensor and remaps the game.json joints to 15 OpenNI-compatible joints. The detailed process is discussed in Section~\ref{sec:DataAcquisition}.
The OpenNI SDK provides default camera models with fairly accurate focal lengths for the \emph{convertRealWorldToProjective} and \emph{convertProjectiveToRealWorld} function. However, the camera model is only assumed to be a simple pinhole model without lens distortion. This is because Kinect\texttrademark~uses low-distortion lenses, so the maximum distortion error will be only a few pixels. However, our application requires maximum accuracy from the Kinect's 3D data, so we still performed a standard camera calibration and saved the intrinsic parameters as an initialization .yaml file, which is used for both depth map rendering and joint remapping.
To render the depth map, we assume that the virtual camera is placed 2 meters in front of the 3D human model. We provide the customized projection matrix to the OpenGL Z-buffering routine to render the 8-bit unsigned integer depth map. The depth maps are stored in both high resolution and low resolution formats. The size of the low resolution depth maps is set to \begin{math}640\times480\end{math} to simulate the Kinect\texttrademark~sensor.
The joint remapping from MakeHuman to OpenNI is simple, as MakeHuman skeleton system contains all joints that OpenNI has. The 3D coordinates of MakeHuman game.json file are then projected to the imaging plane using the aforementioned projection matrix to align with the rendered depth map.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
The first direct detection of gravitational waves (GWs) is likely to occur soon. The ground-based interferometers LIGO~\cite{Abbott2009} and Virgo~\cite{Accadia2012} are currently undergoing upgrades to Advanced configurations which should start taking data in the next couple of years and, when they achieve their final design sensitivity, are expected to detect GWs from the inspiral and merger of stellar compact binaries at the rate of several events per year~\cite{Abadie2010}. There are ongoing efforts to detect a stochastic background of nanohertz GWs generated by merging supermassive black hole binaries using the accurate timing of arrays of millisecond pulsars and the first results could come within five years~\cite{Sesana2013}. Further in the future, the European Space Agency has selected ``The Gravitational Universe'' to be the science theme for the L3 science mission to launch in 2034, which aims to detect millihertz GWs using a space-based interferometer~\cite{Amaro-Seoane2012}. These distinct efforts to measure GWs span the wide frequency range of potential sources~\cite{Moore2014} and it is expected that GW observations from many different sources will eventually become routine~\cite{Harry2010}.
For many astrophysical systems, we can produce accurate models of the source and hence predict the waveform that would be observed on Earth. Given a bank of predicted waveform templates, a GW detection can be made using matched filtering: the comparison of observed data with every template in the bank. For this to be an effective technique, the templates need to be closely separated in parameter space; in high dimensional spaces, it is not possible to construct a template bank of sufficient density using reasonable computational resources. Rather, it is common to use a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to map the \emph{posterior} distribution, evaluating waveforms as required.
The posterior is the probability of a particular set of model parameters given some observed data. To achieve a mapping of the posterior surface with high enough resolution requires many evaluations of the \emph{likelihood} function, which is the probability of producing a particular data stream given some waveform model parameters. The Metropolis-Hastings algorithm provides a technique to explore the parameter space using a random walk, producing a chain of samples that will eventually converge to the posterior distribution. There is no guarantee about how long this convergence will take and the number of likelihood evaluations may still be large. Techniques to accelerate the convergence of MCMC routines are highly desirable.
Simulated annealing~\cite{Kirkpatrick1983} is one such method. The idea is to ``heat up'' the likelihood surface by replacing $\mathcal{L}$ with $\mathcal{L}_T=\mathcal{L}^{1/T}$ for some temperature $T > 1$, making it easier for chains to explore large regions of parameter space. Following some predetermined cooling schedule, the temperature is gradually reduced to $T=1$, where the chain begins to sample the true likelihood, starting from a point that is more likely to be near the global maximum. This approach is advantageous because it does not slow down the likelihood evaluation at each point, but the number of local maxima of $\mathcal{L}$ remains fixed. Within some fixed computational time, it is possible for a chain to remain close to a secondary and not find the global maximum.
Parallel tempering is related to simulated annealing in that it uses the modified likelihoods $\mathcal{L}_T$. Chains are run simultaneously on a ladder of different temperatures, with high $T$ chains exploring more of the parameter space. Swaps between the locations of adjacent chains are proposed, and in this way information about the global structure of the surface is propagated down to the $T=1$ chain, which is sampling the desired distribution.
Likelihood transform techniques~\cite{Wang2014} were recently suggested as an alternative and aim to accelerate MCMC convergence by modifying the likelihood surface in a more complicated way; specifically, we consider the case where $\mathcal{L}$ is convolved with a smoothing kernel $\mathcal{K}_\sigma$. This reduces the number of local maxima, but at the cost of an increased evaluation time at each point.
A separate approach to the problem is to speed up the individual likelihood evaluations by using reduced order methods~\cite{Canizares2013}. These accelerate the likelihood calculation by reducing the number of time or frequency samples at which the waveforms need to be evaluated by first finding a reduced spanning set for the waveform space. Similarly, the construction of surrogate models~\cite{Puerrer2014,Field2014} achieves acceleration of waveform computations by interpolating the waveform space. In both approaches, significant computational work is done offline to produce the interpolations, allowing for a quicker online run-time.
In this paper, we combine the principles of waveform interpolation and likelihood transformation via a smoothing convolution. A practical scheme for applying likelihood transform methods to GW data analysis with surrogate models is developed, allowing for accelerated convergence in MCMC searches without additional computational time. In section \ref{sec:GWs}, we introduce our notation for gravitational waveforms and outline the generation of surrogate models. The principle behind likelihood transform techniques is discussed in section \ref{sec:likelihood-transform}, along with the application of surrogate models to this problem. We then present some specific examples in section \ref{sec:examples}, before concluding in section \ref{sec:conclusions} with a discussion.
\section{\label{sec:GWs}Gravitational Waves}
A gravitational waveform $h(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda})$, depending on some set of parameters $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, has two independent components, describing two polarisations: plus $+$ and cross $\times$. A given GW detector is sensitive to a particular linear combination of the waveform polarisations
\begin{equation}
h_\alpha(t;\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = F^+_\alpha h_+(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}) + F^\times_\alpha h_\times(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}),
\end{equation}
where a subscript $\alpha$ denotes a specific detector and the response functions $F^A_\alpha$ depend on the relative orientations of the detector and the GW source. For the initial generation of ground-based detectors, these are essentially constant over the duration of a typical signal, but they may vary significantly over an observation for space-based interferometers as well as advanced ground-based detectors.
In data analysis, it is necessary to account for the noise present in GW detectors, which is assumed to be stationary and Gaussian. The natural overlap between waveforms is in the frequency domain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:noise-overlap}
\innerii{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_1)}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_2)} \equiv 4\sum_{\alpha}\intd{0}{\infty}{\frac{\tilde{h}^*_\alpha(f; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_1) \tilde{h}_\alpha(f; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_2)}{S_{n,\alpha}(f)}}{f},
\end{equation}
where we sum over different detectors, each with their own one-sided noise power spectral density $S_{n,\alpha}(f)$. Here $\tilde{h}_\alpha(f)$ denotes the Fourier transform of $h_\alpha(t)$, and we are using $\innerii{\cdot}{\cdot}$ to denote a noise-weighted overlap.
It is often convenient to write the waveform as a complex time series
\begin{equation}
h(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}) = h_+(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}) + {i\mkern1mu} h_\times(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}).
\end{equation}
The natural inner product on this complex waveform space is
\begin{equation}
\inneri{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_1)}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_2)} \equiv \intd{-\infty}{\infty}{h^*(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_1) h(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_2)}{t},
\end{equation}
where in practice, the integral is of finite length, $T$, equal to the observation time. The corresponding real overlap between two waveforms is given by the real part of this inner product. The complex inner product and associated overlap make no reference to a particular detector and are therefore useful for constructing reduced spanning sets for waveform spaces~\cite{Field2014}. The two overlaps coincide if it is assumed that there are two right-angled detectors, at $45^\circ$ to one another, with independent white noise, $S_{n,1}=S_{n,2} =\mbox{const.}$, and that the source is optimally oriented, i.e., the principal polarisation axes of the source are aligned with the arms of the first detector. In this configuration the detector aligned with the principal axes is sensitive only to the plus polarisation, while the other detector is sensitive only to the cross polarisation and the overlap is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{A=+,\times}\intd{-\infty}{\infty}{h_A(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_1) h_A(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_2)}{t} = \Re[\inneri{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_1)}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_2)}],
\end{equation}
where the sum is over polarisation states. We will assume this optimal configuration for all sources in subsequent calculations, as the likelihood transform technique is independent of our choice of detector.
\subsection{Data analysis}
Given some measured detector data $x_\alpha(t) = h_\alpha(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_*) + n_\alpha(t)$, composed of a GW signal $h$ with parameters $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_*$ and detector noise $n$, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) can be calculated
\begin{equation}
\rho(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \frac{\innerii{x}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}}{\sqrt{\innerii{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}}},
\end{equation}
which we expect to be strongly peaked at the true parameters $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_*$. It is useful to work with normalised templates, such that $\innerii{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})} = 1$. For noise-free data, $x_\alpha(t) = h_\alpha(t;\boldsymbol{\lambda}_*) $, and making the simplifying assumptions about the source orientation and noise properties described above, the SNR reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SNR}
\rho(\boldsymbol{\lambda}; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_*) = \Re[\inneri{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_*)}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}],
\end{equation}
which is linear in the model $h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})$.
The likelihood $\mathcal{L}(x | \boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is the probability that a particular data stream $x$ is observed, given the parameters $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ of the signal present. Assuming stationary Gaussian noise, the likelihood is simply
\begin{equation}\label{eq:likelihood}
\mathcal{L}(x | \boldsymbol{\lambda}) \propto \exp\left[-\innerii{x-h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}{x-h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}/\,2\right],
\end{equation}
up to some normalising factor. The actual quantity of interest is the posterior $\mathcal{P}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}| x)$, which is the probability distribution of the parameters of the source $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, given the observed data stream $x$. It is related to $\mathcal{L}$ via Bayes' theorem
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}| x) = \frac{\mathcal{L}(x|\boldsymbol{\lambda})\pi(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}{Z}, \qquad Z = \int {\rm d}\boldsymbol{\lambda}\,\, \mathcal{L}(x|\boldsymbol{\lambda})\pi(\boldsymbol{\lambda})
\end{equation}
where $\pi(\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is the prior probability distribution for the parameters, which reflects our beliefs about the source parameters prior to the data being taken. The evidence, $Z$, normalises the posterior over the parameter space and can also be used for model selection.
The expectation value of the likelihood over different noise realisations can be expanded about the true parameters in the linear signal approximation to yield the Fisher Information Matrix (FIM)
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{ij} = \innerii{h_{,i}}{h_{,j}},
\end{equation}
where $h_{,i} = \partial h/\partial\lambda_i$ denotes the partial derivative of the waveform model with respect to the parameters. In the case of uninformative (uniform) priors, the inverse of the FIM is the covariance of the posterior distribution, and so can be used to set a scale on its structure. The component $(\Gamma^{-1})_{ii}$ is a measure of the expected width of the marginalised posterior in $\lambda_i$ and hence is a measure of the expected uncertainty in the measurement of that parameter from the observed data.
The posterior encodes all of the information about the source that can be determined from an observation. In low-dimensional parameter spaces, the posterior can be evaluated on a fine grid in parameter space. For higher dimensional spaces, the required computational time is too large and alternative methods are typically adopted, such as Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.
MCMC techniques aim to generate a chain of samples, $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i$ in which, after a burn-in phase, the density of points is proportional to the posterior distribution. This is typically achieved using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Given some current parameter value $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i$, a new candidate parameter value $\boldsymbol{\lambda}'$ is chosen from a suitable proposal distribution $q(\boldsymbol{\lambda}'|\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i)$, for instance a Gaussian centred at $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i$. The Metropolis-Hastings ratio
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{\mathcal{P}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}'| x) q(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i|\boldsymbol{\lambda}')}{\mathcal{P}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{i}| x) q(\boldsymbol{\lambda}'|\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i)}
\end{equation}
is calculated and the new state is accepted with probability $\min(1,\alpha)$. Otherwise, the next state is set to be the current parameter values $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{i+1}=\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i$. The starting point for the algorithm, $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$, can be chosen arbitrarily.
\subsection{\label{sec:surrogate}Reduced order methods and surrogate models}
Gravitational waveforms are routinely generated for arbitrary system parameters by numerically solving differential equations. The accuracy of such waveforms is not guaranteed (and in some cases, deliberately sacrificed to reduce the computational cost, for example kludge models of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals~\cite{Barack2004,Babak2007}); indeed, it is possible to get significant systematic biases in parameter estimation by using unfaithful waveform templates, but we shall assume in this analysis that the numerical templates can be calculated exactly. Waveform models and the associated likelihood, Eq.~(\ref{eq:likelihood}), can be expensive to evaluate and reduced order methods have been proposed as a way to speed up such likelihood evaluations. These rely on finding an approximation to the likelihood, employing a surrogate model for the waveform, that is cheaper to evaluate.
There are many possible ways of approaching this problem~\cite{Puerrer2014,Field2014}. Here, we give a brief summary of a procedure for generating a reduced order likelihood and surrogate waveform model. This description follows Field \emph{et al}~\cite{Field2014}, where more details may be found.
As a starting point, we compute $M$ waveform templates $h(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_i)$, referred to as the \emph{training set}. The aim is first to find the minimal number $m$ of these waveforms such that all other waveforms in the training set can be well approximated. If the training set is sufficiently dense, the approximation will also be valid for waveforms outside the training set. Once this reduced basis set has been found, the second stage is to identify a set of $m$ discrete times at which it is sufficient to compute the waveform in order to represent it faithfully with the reduced basis. The final stage is to construct a surrogate model that can predict the value of the waveform at those times for arbitrary choices of the model parameters. The algorithm for achieving this is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Choose the $m$ most differing waveforms and construct an orthonormal basis $\{e_i(t)\}_{i=1}^{i=m}$ from them\footnote{The basis is constructed in a greedy manner. Given an existing basis of size $r<m$, the $(r+1)$th waveform is the member of the training set with the largest residual norm when projected onto the $r$-basis. The first waveform is chosen arbitrarily.}. The corresponding waveform parameters are referred to as \emph{greedy data}. Given the similarity between GWs with different parameters, it is expected that $m \ll M$. Every waveform in the training set, as well as waveforms that are not in the training set, may then be approximated by the expansion
\begin{equation}
h_m(t;\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \approx \sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i(\boldsymbol{\lambda})e_i(t).
\end{equation}
The representation error of the reduced basis (RB) is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:reperror}
\sigma_m \equiv \max_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\min_{c_i} \inneri{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})-h_m(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda})-h_m(\boldsymbol{\lambda})},
\end{equation}
where the minimisation over the coefficients is done by projecting the waveform onto the RB. The value of $m$ is set by a condition on $\sigma_m$; typically we may require that $\sigma_m \lesssim \mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$.
\item Identify $m$ evaluation times $\{T_i\}_{i=1}^{i=m}$ that can be used to construct an empirical interpolant for the RB; these are referred to as \emph{empirical nodes}\footnote{The empirical nodes are selected in a greedy manner. Using $r$ existing nodes and the first $r$ basis functions, an empirical interpolant \eqref{eq:empirical-interpolant} is built for the $(r+1)$th basis element. The $(r+1)$th empirical node is the time at which this interpolant is most different from the actual basis function.}. The goal is to construct an interpolant
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:empirical-interpolant}
\mathcal{I}_m[h](t;\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \sum_{j=1}^{m}B_j(t)h(T_j;\boldsymbol{\lambda}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B_j(t) \equiv \sum_{i=1}^{m}e_i(t)(V^{-1})_{ij}
\end{equation}
is independent of the system parameters and so may be computed offline. The $V$ matrix is constructed by requiring that $\mathcal{I}_m[h](T_j;\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = h(T_j;\boldsymbol{\lambda})$.
\item At each empirical node, predict the waveform value for arbitrary parameters by fitting $h(T_i;\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, using only the greedy data. It is often easier to find fits for the amplitude $A_i$ and phase $\phi_i$ of the waveform independently (as opposed to $h_+$ and $h_x$ individually). The waveform can then be written as
\begin{equation}
h(T_i;\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \approx A_i(\boldsymbol{\lambda})e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\lambda})},
\end{equation}
where the fits are arbitrary functions of the parameters; the specific choice will be determined by the problem at hand.
\end{enumerate}
Once these offline steps have been completed, a surrogate model can be constructed from the empirical interpolant
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:surrogate-model}
h_S(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}B_i(t)A_i(\boldsymbol{\lambda})e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}.
\end{equation}
The model is quick to evaluate at arbitrary $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ as the $\{B_i\}$ are computed in advance, and the $\{A_i\}$ and $\{\phi_i\}$ are simple analytic expressions, fitted to the numerical data.
\section{\label{sec:likelihood-transform}Likelihood Transform}
A general optimisation problem involves finding the set of parameters that globally maximises some function. Here we will initially calculate the SNR to illustrate the smoothing technique in a detector- and noise-independent way. We then apply the method to the maximisation of a simple noise-dependent likelihood function.
The SNR often has a great deal of structure: there are many local secondary maxima and the true global peak is tall and narrow. This makes the optimisation problem difficult because a high resolution is required and it is possible that any algorithm will stall at a secondary maximum, and thus not explore the full parameter space. It is therefore desirable to be able to sample a smoother distribution that closely mirrors the true SNR surface. To this extent, we follow Wang~\cite{Wang2014} and define a smoothed SNR via a convolution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:smoothSNR}
\rho_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\lambda}; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_*) \equiv \mathcal{K}_\sigma \star \rho(\boldsymbol{\lambda}; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_*) = \Re[\inneri{h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_*)}{h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\lambda})}],
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{K}_\sigma$ is some smoothing kernel of typical width $\sigma$, we have used the linear property of the SNR and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:smoothed-h}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) \equiv \mathcal{K}_\sigma \star h(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \intd{}{}{\mathcal{K}_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\lambda}-\boldsymbol{\lambda}')h(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda}')}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}'}.
\end{equation}
It would be possible to numerically perform this integral, by sampling the waveform space at $k$ points surrounding the desired parameters $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ and compute the appropriate sum, weighted by $\mathcal{K}_\sigma$. The major drawback to this approach is the required computational time; running time would be increased by $\mathcal{O}(k)$, and in high $N$-dimensional parameter spaces, the required number of points to accurately estimate the integral may be very large, $k \sim \mathcal{O}(2^N)$.
Alternatively, if there exists an analytic expression for the waveform model $h(t; \boldsymbol{\lambda})$, it may be possible to explicitly calculate (or at least approximate) the integral for particular choices of kernel $\mathcal{K}_\sigma$. This would result in an analytic expression for $h_\sigma$, enabling the smoothed SNR to be calculated quickly. This was the approach taken in the previous study of likelihood transform methods~\cite{Wang2014}, where a simple quadratic chirp signal was considered. This approach is highly restrictive since faithful models of likely GW sources are not usually analytic but instead are computed numerically on some parameter grid. The quadratic chirp model used in~\cite{Wang2014} is not a faithful model of any likely GW signal.
We take an approach between these two extremes, showing how the surrogate model \eqref{eq:surrogate-model} can be utilised to simplify the smoothing operation \eqref{eq:smoothed-h} required in likelihood transform techniques\footnote{We later illustrate the technique using an analytic model but, in contrast to Wang~\cite{Wang2014}, our procedure does not rely on this.}. To do this, we must first lose some generality, although the resulting procedure remains general enough to be of wide applicability.
The $N$ as-yet unspecified parameters, $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, for each waveform are mapped onto the unit cube $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ in parameter space. This allows us to discuss a wide range of waveform models, without being overly specific. We could have equally chosen to map the parameters $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ onto an infinite or semi-infinite range, giving similar results.
We choose the kernel $\mathcal{K}_\sigma$ to be a multivariate Gaussian with diagonal covariance matrix $\boldsymbol{\Sigma} = \mathrm{diag}(\sigma_1^2,\ldots,\sigma_N^2)$. The smoothed waveform can then be calculated using
\begin{equation}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \intd{}{}{\!}{\boldsymbol{\theta}'} \: h(t; \boldsymbol{\theta}') \prod_{j=1}^{N} \mathcal{N}_j e^{-(\theta_j-\theta'_j)^2/2\sigma_j^2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}_j \equiv \mathcal{N}(\theta_j;\sigma_j)$ is a normalisation function that we derive later.
We now make use of the surrogate model \eqref{eq:surrogate-model} to remove the time dependence from the integrals
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gaussian-smoothed-waveform}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}B_i(t)\intd{}{}{\!}{\boldsymbol{\theta}'} &\: A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}')e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}')} \nonumber\\
&\prod_{j=1}^{N} \mathcal{N}_j e^{-(\theta_j-\theta'_j)^2/2\sigma_j^2}.
\end{align}
The phase of the waveform may be approximated around the evaluation point using a Taylor series
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phase-approx}
\phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}') \approx \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}) + (\boldsymbol{\theta}'-\boldsymbol{\theta}).\nabla\phi_i.
\end{equation}
This is a good approximation when $(\boldsymbol{\theta}'-\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is small, which is true if we choose $\sigma$ to be sufficiently small\footnote{Even for larger values of $\sigma$, the procedure can still be followed. In this case, the smoothed waveform \eqref{eq:phase-shifted-waveform} is not a good approximation to \eqref{eq:gaussian-smoothed-waveform}, but the resulting smoothed likelihood surface may still be sufficiently similar to the unsmoothed surface that MCMC convergence will be accelerated.}. The waveform can then be written as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:phase-shifted-waveform}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\theta}) &= \sum_{i=1}^{m}B_i(t)e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta})}\intd{}{}{\!}{\boldsymbol{\theta}'} \: A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}') \nonumber\\
&\prod_{j=1}^{N} \mathcal{N}_j e^{-(\theta'_j-\theta_j)^2/2\sigma_j^2} \exp\left[{i\mkern1mu} (\theta'_j-\theta_j)\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta_j}\right].
\end{align}
We are free to choose any set of functions $\{A_i\}$, as long as they accurately fit the numerical waveform data. We first focus on functions that can be decomposed into a short series of separable terms\footnote{If we allow the number of terms to approach infinity, this decomposition can be used to represent any sufficiently smooth function, but the number of required fitting parameters will also approach infinity. By \textit{short} series, we mean that the number of fitting parameters required to represent the function is smaller than the number of elements $m$.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:terms-sum}
A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sum_{\mathrm{terms}}\prod_{j=1}^{N} f_{j}(\theta_j),
\end{equation}
where $f_{j}$ are arbitrary functions that may in principle be different for each term. We will discuss generic amplitudes later. The smoothed waveform can then be written as
\begin{align}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\theta}) &= \sum_{i=1}^{m}B_i(t)e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta})}\sum_{\mathrm{terms}} \intd{}{}{\!}{\boldsymbol{\theta}'} \:\nonumber\\
&\prod_{j=1}^{N} \mathcal{N}_j f_j(\theta'_j)\, e^{-(\theta'_j-\theta_j)^2/2\sigma_j^2} \exp\left[{i\mkern1mu} (\theta'_j-\theta_j)\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta_j}\right],
\end{align}
which can be simplified to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:smooth-waveform}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}B_i(t)e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta})}\sum_{\mathrm{terms}} \prod_{j=1}^{N} f_j(\theta_j;\sigma_j),
\end{equation}
where we define
\begin{align}
f_j(\theta_j;\sigma_j) &\equiv \intd{0}{1}{\!}{\theta'_j} \: \mathcal{N}_j \nonumber\\
&f_j(\theta'_j)\, e^{-(\theta'_j-\theta_j)^2/2\sigma_j^2} \exp\left[{i\mkern1mu} (\theta'_j-\theta_j)\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta_j}\right].
\end{align}
The appeal of such an approach is immediate: the smoothed waveform takes an identical form to the surrogate model, but with the replacement $f_j(\theta_j) \rightarrow f_j(\theta_j; \sigma_j)$.
\subsection{Polynomial amplitudes}
\label{sec:poly}
We now consider the specific case of amplitude functions $A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ that can be well described by polynomials. In this case, all of the $f_j(\theta_j)$ will be powers of $\theta_j$. We are hence interested in integrals of the form
\begin{equation}
f(\theta;\sigma,n) \equiv \intd{0}{1}{\!}{\theta'} \: \mathcal{N} {\theta'}^{n}\, e^{-(\theta'-\theta)^2/2\sigma^2} \exp\left[{i\mkern1mu} (\theta'-\theta)\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta}\right],
\end{equation}
where we have dropped the $j$ subscripts, for clarity. Completing the square in the exponential terms leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:polyf}
f(\theta;\sigma,n) = \mathcal{N} \exp\left[-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\left(\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta}\right)^2\right] C^n(\theta+{i\mkern1mu} \sigma^2 \partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta}; \sigma),
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{equation}
C^n(z;\sigma) \equiv \intd{0}{1}{\!}{z'} \: {z'}^n\, e^{-(z'-z)^2/2\sigma^2}.
\end{equation}
Integrating this by parts gives the recurrence relation
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
C^n(z;\sigma) &= \frac1{(n+1)}e^{-(1-z)^2/2\sigma^2} + \frac1{\sigma^2(n+1)}\intd{0}{1}{\!}{z'} \: \left\{{z'}^{n+2} - z{z'}^{n+1}\right\}\, e^{-(z'-z)^2/2\sigma^2},\\
\label{eq:Cn-recurrence2}
&= \frac1{(n+1)}e^{-(1-z)^2/2\sigma^2} + \frac1{\sigma^2(n+1)}\left\{C^{n+2}(z;\sigma) - zC^{n+1}(z;\sigma)\right\},\\
&= z C^{n-1}(z;\sigma) + \sigma^2\left((n-1)C^{n-2}(z;\sigma) - e^{-(1-z)^2/2\sigma^2}\right),
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where the last line follows from relabelling $n$ by $n-2$ in \eqref{eq:Cn-recurrence2}. We can perform the integral explicitly for the first two terms:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:C0}
C^0(z;\sigma) = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\sigma\left(\erf\left(\frac{1-z}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)+\erf\left(\frac{z}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right)\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C^1(z;\sigma) = z C^0(z;\sigma) + \sigma^2\left(e^{-z^2/2\sigma^2}-e^{-(1-z)^2/2\sigma^2}\right).
\end{equation}
To correctly normalise the Gaussian kernel, we must set $\mathcal{N}_j = 1/C^0(\theta_j;\sigma_j)$. To construct a smoothed waveform, we write out the surrogate model, including the polynomial fit for the amplitude functions, and then make the replacements\footnote{In particular, any term that does not depend on $\theta_j$ should be multiplied by $f(\theta_j;\sigma_j,0)$.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:poly-smooth-sub}
\theta_j^n \rightarrow f(\theta_j;\sigma_j,n).
\end{equation}
We note the expected property that $f(\theta;\sigma=0,n) = \theta^n$, thus recovering the original polynomial in the case of zero smoothing.
\subsection{Fourier amplitudes}
Rather than polynomials, it may be desirable to decompose the amplitude functions into Fourier components
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fourier-series}
A(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sum_{k_1,k_2,\ldots k_N}A_{\boldsymbol{k}} e^{2\pi {i\mkern1mu} \boldsymbol{k}.\boldsymbol{\theta}},
\end{equation}
where we have dropped the $i$ subscript for clarity, $\boldsymbol{k} = \{k_1,k_2,\ldots k_N\}$, the sum runs over positive and negative integers, and
\begin{equation}
A_{\boldsymbol{k}} = \intd{0}{1}{A(\boldsymbol{\theta})e^{-2\pi {i\mkern1mu} \boldsymbol{k}.\boldsymbol{\theta}}}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}.
\end{equation}
We note that \eqref{eq:fourier-series} is of the form of \eqref{eq:terms-sum} and so we are interested in computing integrals of the form
\begin{align}
f(\theta;\sigma,n,k) &\equiv \intd{0}{1}{\!}{\theta'} \: \mathcal{N}\nonumber\\
&{\theta'}^{n}\, e^{{i\mkern1mu} k\theta'}\, e^{-(\theta'-\theta)^2/2\sigma^2} \exp\left[{i\mkern1mu} (\theta'-\theta)\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta}\right],
\end{align}
where we have also included a polynomial factor, for generality. Following the same procedure as before leads to
\begin{align}
f(\theta;\sigma,n,k) = \mathcal{N} \exp&\left[-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\left(\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta} + k\right)^2 + {i\mkern1mu} k\theta\right]\nonumber\\
&C^n\left(\theta+{i\mkern1mu} \sigma^2 \left(\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta} + k\right); \sigma\right),
\end{align}
where the calculation of $C^n$ is discussed in the previous section. These can then be used in \eqref{eq:fourier-series}, replacing each exponential factor according to
\begin{equation}
e^{2\pi {i\mkern1mu} k\theta} \rightarrow f(\theta;\sigma,0,2\pi k).
\end{equation}
\subsection{\label{sec:generic-amplitudes}Generic amplitudes}
In some cases, it may not be possible to decompose the amplitude functions into a series of appropriate separable functions. In this case, we may use a Taylor series to approximate
\begin{equation}
A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}') \approx A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}) + (\boldsymbol{\theta}'-\boldsymbol{\theta}).\nabla A_i.
\end{equation}
As with the Taylor series in the phase \eqref{eq:phase-approx}, this is a good approximation for sufficiently small smoothing widths $\sigma$. Substituting it into \eqref{eq:phase-shifted-waveform} results in
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}B_i(t)e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta})} \bigg\{& A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \prod_{j=1}^{N} f(\theta_j;\sigma_j,0)\nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{k=1}^{N} \intd{0}{1}{\!}{\theta'_k} \mathcal{N}_k \left(\theta'_k-\theta_k\right) \partialdiff{A_i}{\theta_k} e^{-(\theta'_k-\theta_k)^2/2\sigma_k^2} \exp\left[{i\mkern1mu} (\theta'_k-\theta_k)\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta_k}\right]\prod_{j\neq k} f(\theta_j;\sigma_j,0)\bigg\},
\end{align}
which can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:generic-smoothed-waveform}
h_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\theta})=\sum_{i=1}^{m}B_i(t)e^{{i\mkern1mu} \phi_i(\boldsymbol{\theta})} \bigg\{A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta}) + \sum_{k=1}^{N} \partialdiff{A_i}{\theta_k}\frac{f(\theta_k;\sigma_k,1)-\theta_k f(\theta_k;\sigma_k,0)}{f(\theta_k;\sigma_k,0)}\bigg\}\prod_{j=1}^{N} f(\theta_j;\sigma_j,0),
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
where $f(\theta;\sigma,n)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:polyf}.
With these results, it should be possible to produce a smoothed SNR or likelihood for any given surrogate model waveform. We note that the smoothed waveforms do not necessarily have to be accurate (neglected terms of higher order in $A_i$ and $\phi_i$ may be large) as long as the resulting smoothed surface displays the desired properties that the global maximum is broadened and the number of secondary maxima has been reduced.
Using \eqref{eq:generic-smoothed-waveform}, the expected additional computational cost of evaluating a smoothed waveform with $N$ parameters is $\mathcal{O}(N)$, in comparison to $\mathcal{O}(2^N)$ for naive likelihood smoothing.
\section{\label{sec:examples}Chirp Waveforms}
As an illustration of our method, we consider the gravitational waveforms expected from a circular compact binary. Such waveforms are well-approximated by a high-order post-Newtonian (PN) expansion~\cite{Blanchet2014} in the dimensionless variable $x = (G M \Omega/c^3)^{2/3}$, where $M$ is the total mass of the system and $\Omega = \dot{\Phi}$ is the angular frequency of the binary, computed as a time derivative of the binary phase $\Phi$. The expansion takes the form
\begin{equation}
h_{+,\times} = \frac{2G\mu x}{c^2 R}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}x^{p/2}\underset{p/2}{H} \!_{+,\times}(\psi,\iota;\ln x) + \mathcal{O}(R^{-2}),
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the reduced mass, $R$ is the distance to the source, $\iota$ is the inclination of the binary and $\psi$ is the binary phase distorted by tails
\begin{equation}
\psi = \Phi - \frac{2G M_{\mathrm{ADM}}}{c^3}\Omega\ln\left(\frac{\Omega}{\Omega_0}\right).
\end{equation}
The tail integrals are a result of the nonlinear interaction between the source and the emitted GWs~\cite{Blanchet1993}. Here one must use the binary's mass monopole $M_{\mathrm{ADM}}$, which includes all contributions to the mass-energy of the binary. At 1PN order, it may be computed as~\cite{Blanchet2008}
\begin{equation}
M_\mathrm{ADM} = M\left(1-\frac{\nu}{2}x\right)
\end{equation}
where $\nu \equiv \mu/M$ is the symmetric mass ratio, which takes values between $0$ (test particle limit) and $1/4$ (equal mass). $\Omega_0$ is often chosen to be the lower cutoff of the detector band; we make the choice $\Omega_0 =\nobreak 10\pi \, \mathrm{rad \, s^{-1}}$.
To demonstrate the approach, we now make some simplifying assumptions. First, the expansion will be truncated at finite PN order: we specify the phase $\Phi$ up to 3.5PN (this is given explicitly in appendix \ref{app:PNphase}); the amplitude to 2PN; and $M_\mathrm{ADM}$ to 1PN\footnote{It is not a requirement to have consistency in PN orders between the amplitude and phase.}. The logarithmic term in $\psi$ is then at 4PN order relative to the dominant phase contribution, and is included for completeness. Secondly, we will consider aligned binaries that have $\iota = 0$. In this case, the relevant expansion functions for the plus polarisation are all proportional to $\cos(2\psi)$ and the cross terms are proportional to $\sin(2\psi)$. We can therefore write a two-parameter family of complex PN waveforms as
\begin{equation}
h(\mathcal{M},\nu;t) = \frac{2G\mathcal{M}\nu^{2/5}}{c^2 R}x(t) H(x(t),\nu) e^{{i\mkern1mu}(2 \psi(t)+\pi)},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{M} = \mu^{3/5}M^{2/5}$ is the chirp mass and the amplitude function $H$ takes the form~\cite{Blanchet1996}
\begin{align}
H(x,\nu) = 2 + &\frac1{3}\left(\nu-13\right)x + 4\pi x^{3/2}\nonumber\\
&+ \frac1{180}\left(15\nu^2 - 635\nu - 837\right)x^2.
\end{align}
The clean separation into an amplitude and phase is a consequence of our simplifying assumptions, but this is not a necessary requirement for the smoothing procedure.
\subsection{Newtonian chirp}\label{sec:0pn-chirp}
We first simplify the waveform model even more, truncating at 0PN order so that the waveform has only one free intrinsic parameter, the chirp mass $\mathcal{M}$. We choose $t_c = 0.4\mathrm{s}$, and set a fiducial distance of $R=1\mathrm{Mpc}$, although this is unimportant as we normalise the waveforms to unity. We shall consider chirp masses in the range $1 \leq \mathcal{M}/M_\odot \leq 20$, corresponding roughly to the range considered in recent LIGO searches~\cite{Abbott2009a}, and inject a signal with $\mathcal{M}_* = 2.2 M_\odot$.
We can calculate the FIM for this waveform model at our injection parameters. Using the unit parameter $\theta = (\mathcal{M}/M_\odot-1)/19$, we find that the global maximum of the likelihood has a characteristic scale of $7\times 10^{-4}$.
\subsubsection{Idealised data}
We initially perform calculations without noise, to demonstrate the underlying properties of the smoothing technique. Our injected waveform is plotted in figure \ref{fig:injected-waveform}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_chirp_waveform}
\caption{\label{fig:injected-waveform}Gravitational waveform from a compact binary with chirp mass $\mathcal{M}=2.2M_\odot$ in the final $0.01\mathrm{s}$ before coalescence. Inset is the same waveform for a period of $0.4\mathrm{s}$ before coalescence. The amplitude is set by the requirement that $\inneri{h}{h}=1$.}
\end{figure}
We construct a surrogate model for our waveform family, as discussed in section \ref{sec:surrogate}, using a training set of 501 waveforms, sampled at a frequency $f_\mathrm{sample} = 20 \,\mathrm{kHz}$ and with chirp masses selected such that they sample the frequency $\Omega$ uniformly\footnote{Selecting a training set with uniform values of $\mathcal{M}$ resulted in a poor surrogate model for low values of $\mathcal{M}$ (high frequencies).}. We target a representation error of $10^{-12}$ and the resulting RB contains 133 elements. The error as a function of the size of the RB is plotted in figure \ref{fig:RB-error}.
To check the faithfulness of the RB, we compute the representation error \eqref{eq:reperror} for 1000 waveforms \emph{not} in the training set, generated with random values of $\mathcal{M}$ sampled uniformly from the allowed range; all of the waveforms had $\sigma < 10^{-12}$, with typical values of $\sigma \sim 10^{-15}$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_RB_error}
\caption{\label{fig:RB-error}The representation error of our RB for the 0PN waveform family as a function of the number of elements in the basis.}
\end{figure}
Using the training set waveforms identified in generating the RB, we perform a fit to the waveform phase at each empirical node, using the functional form
\begin{equation}
\phi_i(\mathcal{M}) = a_1 + a_2\mathcal{M}^{a_3},
\end{equation}
where $\{a_k\}_{k=1}^{3}$ are the fitting parameters. Figure \ref{fig:phi1-fit} shows the phase as a function of chirp mass, evaluated at the first empirical node, along with the fit; the good agreement is not surprising as the fitting function was motivated by our knowledge of the exact waveform model. Similar results are found for the phase at the other empirical nodes.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_phi1_fit}
\caption{\label{fig:phi1-fit}The phase of the gravitational waveform, evaluated at the first empirical node, as a function of chirp mass. The dots show the values of the phase evaluated at the greedy points selected while constructing the RB. The line is a fit to the data, which in this case is exact.}
\end{figure}
For the 0PN waveforms, the amplitude at each empirical node is simply a constant
\begin{equation}
A_i(\mathcal{M}) = b_i.
\end{equation}
Following the procedure in section \ref{sec:poly}, we then make the replacement at each empirical node
\begin{equation}
b_i \rightarrow b_i\, \mathcal{N} \exp\left[-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\left(\partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta}\right)^2\right] C^0(\theta+{i\mkern1mu} \sigma^2 \partialdiff{\phi_i}{\theta}; \sigma),
\end{equation}
where $\theta = (\mathcal{M}/M_\odot-1)/19$ is the chirp mass mapped onto the unit cube. The resulting smoothed waveforms for our injection signal for different values of $\sigma$ are shown in figure \ref{fig:smoothed-waveforms}.
The choice of $\sigma$ is arbitrary, but clearly has a large impact on the resulting performance of the algorithm: choose $\sigma$ too small and the smoothed waveforms will be indistinguishable from the unsmoothed waveforms; choose $\sigma$ too large and the smoothed waveforms will be sufficiently dissimilar that the transform technique will not aid in locating the global maximum. To get some idea of the required scale, we compute the smoothed SNR $\rho_\sigma(\mathcal{M}_*;\mathcal{M}_*)$ of our injection waveform, as a function of smoothing width, shown in figure \ref{fig:smoothed-overlaps}. We see that choosing values $\sigma \sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-3})$ results in smoothed waveforms that are different to the unsmoothed waveform, but which still give a high SNR $\rho_\sigma \gtrsim 0.1$. This is consistent with the typical scale of the peak of the likelihood distribution obtained from the FIM.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_smoothed_waveforms}
\caption{\label{fig:smoothed-waveforms}The smoothed waveform \eqref{eq:smooth-waveform}, computed for our injection parameters with a chirp mass $\mathcal{M} = 2.2 M_\odot$. Thicker lines correspond to larger values of the smoothing width $\sigma$. The $\sigma = 0$ waveform is identical to that in figure \ref{fig:injected-waveform}. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_smoothed_overlaps}
\caption{\label{fig:smoothed-overlaps}The smoothed SNR \eqref{eq:smoothSNR}, computed for our injection parameters with a chirp mass $\mathcal{M}_* = 2.2 M_\odot$, as a function of smoothing width.}
\end{figure}
To simulate searching for the global maximum, we compute the smoothed SNR $\rho_\sigma(\mathcal{M}; \mathcal{M}_*)$ from \eqref{eq:smoothSNR} on a grid of $\{\sigma, \mathcal{M}\}$ values; the resulting curves for different values of $\sigma$ are shown in figure \ref{fig:smoothed-overlap-curves}. It can be seen that the desired smoothing properties have been achieved: the global peak has been broadened and the number of secondary maxima has been reduced.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_smoothed_overlap_curves}
\caption{\label{fig:smoothed-overlap-curves}The smoothed SNRs \eqref{eq:smoothSNR}, computed across the allowed range of chirp masses, for a selection of smoothing widths. The inset plot shows the behaviour around the injection value $\mathcal{M}_* = 2.2 M_\odot$. Thicker lines correspond to larger values of $\sigma$.}
\end{figure}
If the likelihood transform is to be useful, the time taken to evaluate $\rho_\sigma$ must not greatly exceed that taken to evaluate $\rho_0$\footnote{We compare to $\rho_0$ rather than $\rho$ to make use of the pre-calculated surrogate model.}. In this example, we found that to compute the smoothed SNR took roughly a factor of 4 longer than $\rho_0$. The time taken to calculate the training set data and to produce the surrogate model is relatively large, but this can be done offline.
\subsubsection{Noisy data}
We now consider analysing a data set containing an injected signal and Gaussian white noise. We use the plus polarisation of the waveform only, which is equivalent to having an optimally oriented source observed with a right-angle detector aligned with the principal polarisation axes of the system, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:GWs}. The SNR of the injected signal is approximately $400$. This is a particularly large SNR, albeit not unusual for, say, supermassive black hole mergers observed with space-based detectors. We deliberately chose this value to make the problem of secondary maxima more pronounced in our example. If the likelihood transform approach can accelerate convergence in this kind of problem it will readily solve the same problems when the SNR is lower.
For this one-dimensional example, it is possible to calculate the likelihood on a grid of parameter values, using both the unsmoothed and smoothed waveform models. Figure \ref{fig:smoothed-likelihood-curves} shows the computed likelihood for different smoothing widths. The desired smoothing properties are apparent: the global peak has broadened but remains close to the true value, and the number of secondary maxima has been reduced.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_smoothed_likelihood_curves}
\caption{\label{fig:smoothed-likelihood-curves}The likelihood function computed using the smoothed waveform model for different values of the smoothing width. Thicker lines correspond to larger values of $\sigma$.}
\end{figure}
We now illustrate the more realistic situation of performing an MCMC search on the posterior distribution. We use a uniform prior on the chirp mass, and a Gaussian proposal distribution of width $10^{-3}$. We choose $500$ seeds $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{seed}$ drawn from a uniform distribution across the allowed range of chirp masses, and start different MCMCs from each value: one using the unsmoothed surrogate waveform models; and four others using the smoothed model with different values of $\sigma$.
We run the chains for a small number of Metropolis-Hastings steps: 2500 for the unsmoothed chain and 1000 for the smoothed chains. We do not expect the chains to have converged on a stationary distribution by this point; it instead gives an indication of how quickly convergence may occur. The chain lengths are chosen such that the computational time is roughly equal for each type of chain.
The distributions of final chirp masses for both the unsmoothed and smoothed cases are shown in figure \figref{short-MCMC-finalvals}; the unsmoothed chains locate local maxima close to their seed value and so the final distribution is roughly uniform. On the other hand, the smoothed cases show that a significant number of chains have ended up near the global maximum at $\mathcal{M} = 2.2 M_\odot$. The large peak visible at $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{final} \approx 15 M_\odot$ is a local maximum that has accrued many chains within the small number of steps that we have run; as the number of steps is increased we expect these chains to move towards the global peak, as illustrated by the chains in the vicinity of $5 M_\odot$. Figure \figref{short-MCMC-final-vs-seed} shows the final chain values as a function of the seed chirp mass. Systems that start close to the global maximum locate it quickly using the smoothed waveform model.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_short_MCMC_finalvals}
\caption{\label{fig:short-MCMC-finalvals}Distribution of final chirp masses after a short MCMC, using likelihood functions with different amounts of smoothing. The narrowness of the peaks is indicative that the chains have located local maxima. The vertical grey dashed line is positioned at the true value $\mathcal{M}_* = 2.2 M_\odot$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_short_MCMC_finalvsseed}
\caption{\label{fig:short-MCMC-final-vs-seed}The final chirp mass, as a function of the seed mass, for MCMCs using different smoothed likelihood functions. The dashed sloped line is $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{final} = \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{seed}$, indicating chains that did not move far from their starting point. The dotted line $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{final} = \mathcal{M}_*$ denotes the true value.}
\end{figure}
It is also possible to perform a comparison with simulated annealing and parallel tempering techniques. We run MCMCs for 2500 steps on the unsmoothed likelihood but at different temperatures, starting at the same chirp mass seed values as above. The final distributions of chirp masses are shown in figure \figref{short-MCMC-finalvals-withT}. Changing the temperature of the chain does help to explore the parameter space, but is not as effective as likelihood smoothing at locating the largest peaks.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{0PN_short_MCMC_finalvals_withT}
\caption{\label{fig:short-MCMC-finalvals-withT}Distribution of final chirp masses for chains at different temperatures (dashed lines), compared to the smoothed chain (solid line).}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Higher order post-Newtonian chirp}
We now consider our full PN waveform (up to 3.5PN in the phase and 2PN in the amplitude), with the two mass parameters $\mathcal{M}$ and $\nu$ allowed to vary. We look at chirp masses in the range $1 \leq \mathcal{M}/M_\odot \leq 20$ and mass ratios in the range\footnote{If the component masses are $10 M_\odot$ and $1.4 M_\odot$, corresponding to a fiducial black hole-neutron star binary, the symmetric mass ratio is $\nu = 0.107725$.} $0.1 \leq \nu \leq 0.25$.
\subsubsection{Idealised data}
For an initial study, we look at waveforms in the absence of noise. Our injected waveform has parameters $\mathcal{M}_* = 2.2 M_\odot$, $\nu_*= 0.18$, $t_c = 0.1\mathrm{s}$ and $R=1\mathrm{Mpc}$, and is plotted in figure \figref{HighPN-injected-waveform}. The typical scales of variation about the true values obtained from the FIM are $2\times10^{-3}$ for $\theta_1$ (unit chirp mass) and $0.12$ for $\theta_2$ (unit symmetric mass ratio).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{HighPN_chirp_waveform}
\caption{\label{fig:HighPN-injected-waveform}PN gravitational waveform from a compact binary with chirp mass $\mathcal{M}=2.2M_\odot$ and symmetric mass ratio $\nu = 0.18$ in the final $0.01\mathrm{s}$ before coalescence. Inset is the same waveform for a period of $0.1\mathrm{s}$ before coalescence. The amplitude is set by the requirement that $\inneri{h}{h}=1$.}
\end{figure}
We construct a surrogate model for the two-dimensional PN waveform family using a training set of $190\times 190$ waveforms, sampled at a frequency $f_\mathrm{sample} = 20 \,\mathrm{kHz}$. The chirp masses for the training set waveforms are the same as those in section \ref{sec:0pn-chirp}, while $\nu$ is selected uniformly from the allowed range for each value of $\mathcal{M}$. We target a representation error of $10^{-12}$ and the resulting RB contains 69 elements\footnote{This number should not be directly compared to the 133 RB elements in section \ref{sec:0pn-chirp} since the waveform models are different.}. The error as a function of the size of the RB is plotted in figure \figref{HighPN-RB-error}. We confirm the faithfulness of the RB by computing the representation error for $2500$ waveforms drawn from a uniform distribution on the parameter space; no error exceeded $10^{-12}$ and typical errors were $\mathcal{O}(10^{-14})$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{HighPN_RB_error}
\caption{\label{fig:HighPN-RB-error}The representation error of the RB for the PN waveform family as a function of the number of elements in the basis.}
\end{figure}
Following the surrogate model procedure, we use the training set waveforms identified in generating the RB to perform a fit to the waveform phase at each empirical node. In this work, we are not interested in the efficacy of surrogate models, but instead on their application to likelihood transform methods. To obtain an accurate surrogate model, we therefore use a fitting function based on the exact binary phase \eqref{eq:PNphase}. As a result, the fits are exact to within numerical precision.
The amplitude at each empirical node is now some complicated function of $\mathcal{M}$ and $\nu$. To approximate this at arbitrary values, we perform plane interpolation between the greedy data points, which form an unstructured grid on parameter space. This seems somewhat less than ideal, however, the resulting surrogate model is sufficiently good due to our accurate phase model as well as the fact that the greedy points chosen by the RB algorithm are in important regions of parameter space.
We follow the approach of section \ref{sec:generic-amplitudes} and define a smoothed waveform model according to \eqref{eq:generic-smoothed-waveform}. We choose smoothing widths such that $\sigma_2 = 57 \sigma_1$, consistent with the FIM estimates. The resulting smoothed waveforms for our injection signal for different values of $\sigma \equiv \sigma_1$ are shown in figure \ref{fig:HighPN-smoothed-waveforms}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{HighPN_smoothed_waveforms}
\caption{\label{fig:HighPN-smoothed-waveforms}The smoothed PN waveform, computed for our injection parameters with a chirp mass $\mathcal{M} = 2.2 M_\odot$ and symmetric mass ratio $\nu = 0.18$. Thicker lines correspond to larger values of the smoothing width $\sigma$. The $\sigma = 0$ waveform is identical to that in figure \ref{fig:HighPN-injected-waveform}. }
\end{figure}
The value of $\rho_\sigma(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_*; \boldsymbol{\lambda}_*)$ gives an indication of typical scales on which $\sigma$ is likely to have the desired effect. Figure \ref{fig:HighPN-smoothed-overlaps} shows the smoothed SNR as a function of $\sigma$; widths around $10^{-3}$ give a sufficient level of smoothing, consistent with the FIM. The strange behaviour at larger values of $\sigma$ is due to the peak of the SNR distribution moving away from the true value $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_*$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{HighPN_smoothed_overlaps}
\caption{\label{fig:HighPN-smoothed-overlaps}The smoothed SNR for the PN waveform family, computed for our injection parameters with a chirp mass $\mathcal{M}_* = 2.2 M_\odot$ and symmetric mass ratio $\nu_* = 0.18$, as a function of smoothing width.}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Noisy data}
As with the 0PN waveform, we now consider the plus polarisation of our injection signal in the presence of white noise. With just two parameters, it is still feasible to map out the likelihood surface for different amounts of smoothing, shown in figure \figref{HighPN-smoothed-likelihood-curves} along with an indication of the size of the smoothing region. As the value of $\sigma$ is increased, we see a decrease in the amount of structure on the likelihood surface.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{HighPN_smoothed_likelihood_curves}
\caption{\label{fig:HighPN-smoothed-likelihood-curves}The smoothed log-likelihoods for our PN waveform family using a selection of smoothing widths. The black ellipses are centred on the injection values and are sized according to the smoothing width.}
\end{figure*}
\section{\label{sec:conclusions}Conclusions}
We have devised a practical scheme for using gravitational wave surrogate models to perform likelihood transform techniques, and have demonstrated that this can be used to accelerate convergence of MCMC methods. The advantage of smoothing the likelihood surface, rather than simply rescaling it (as is done in simulated annealing), is that the number of secondary maxima is reduced. The convolution required to perform this smoothing is expensive to evaluate numerically as it would require the generation of many waveform models. We make use of the waveform interpolation involved in constructing surrogate models to perform the convolution analytically.
Chirp waveforms have been considered as toy examples to demonstrate the methodology. We have calculated the overlap between, and corresponding likelihood of, model templates and injected data to illustrate the smoothing properties of the technique. We also considered an ensemble of short MCMCs in the presence of white noise, using unsmooothed and smoothed waveform models: the smoothing process accelerates the convergence of the algorithm without increasing computational time.
In practice, this approach could be implemented in a similar way to simulated annealing: starting the MCMC with a large smoothing width and gradually reducing this to zero according to some predetermined schedule. Alternatively, many different chains could be run with different smoothing widths, along with interchain communication, analagous to parallel tempering. A comparison of these different methods, using higher-dimensional waveform models, will be investigated in future work.
\begin{acknowledgments}
RHC is supported by STFC. JG is supported by the Royal Society.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Renewable energy contributed over half of total net additions to global electric generating capacity from all sources in 2012, with wind power accounting for around 39\% of the renewable power added~\citep[p.~13]{Renewables:2013}. Currently, arrays of horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWTs) are the most commonly used form of wind farm employed to extract large amounts of wind energy. However, as the turbines extract the energy from the wind, the energy content decreases and the amount of turbulence increases downstream from each. For example, see \cite{Hasager:2013} for photographs and explanation of the well-known wake effect at the Horns Rev offshore wind farm in the North Sea. Due to this, HAWTs must be spaced 3--5 turbine diameters apart in the cross-wind direction and 6--10 diameters apart in the downwind direction in order to maintain 90\% of the performance of isolated HAWTs~\citep{Dabiri:2011}. The study of these wake effects is therefore a very complex and important area of research~\citep{Barthelmie:2006}, as is turbine placement~\citep{Mosetti:1994}. Thus, ``modern wind farms comprised of HAWTs require significant land resources to separate each wind turbine from the adjacent turbine wakes. This aerodynamic constraint limits the amount of power that can be extracted from a given wind farm footprint. The resulting inefficiency of HAWT farms is currently compensated by using taller wind turbines to access greater wind resources at high altitudes, but this solution comes at the expense of higher engineering costs and greater visual, acoustic, radar and environmental impact''~\citep[p.~1]{Dabiri:2011}. This has forced wind energy systems away from high energy demand population centres and toward remote locations with higher distribution costs.
In contrast, vertical-axis wind turbines (VAWTs) do not need to be oriented to wind direction and the spacing constraints of HAWTs often do not apply. VAWT performance can even be increased by the exploitation of inter-turbine flow effects~\citep{Charwat:1978}. In addition, VAWTs can also be easier to manufacture, may scale more easily, are typically inherently light-weight with little or no noise pollution, and are more able to tolerate extreme weather conditions~\citep{Eriksson:2008}. This has resulted in a recent expansion of their use in urban environments~\citep{Toja-Silva:2013}. However, their design space is complex and relatively unexplored. Generally, two classes of design are currently under investigation and exploitation: \cite{Savonius:1930}, which has blades attached directly upon the central axis structure; and \cite{Darrieus:1931}, where the blades---either straight or curved---are positioned predominantly away from the central structure. Hybrids also exist. The small body of previous work considering VAWT farms/arrays has used turbines originally intended to operate alone. Our work is the only known work to consider designing VAWT in arrays of interacting turbines.
We have recently presented an initial study~\citep{PreenBull:2014a} of surrogate-assisted genetic algorithms \citep[SGAs;][]{Dunham:1963} used to design VAWTs wherein candidate prototypes are evaluated under fan generated wind conditions after being physically instantiated by a 3D printer. That is, unlike other approaches, no mathematical formulations are used and no model assumptions are made. Initially, artificial evolution was used to explore the design space of a single isolated VAWT and subsequently a cooperative coevolutionary genetic algorithm \citep[CGA;][]{HusbandsMill:1991} was applied to explore the design space of an array of 2 closely positioned VAWTs. Both conventional CGA and surrogate-assisted (SCGA) versions were examined, finding increased aerodynamic performance (rotational speed) in fewer fabrications with surrogate assistance. For single turbine comparison, the fittest evolved designs were found to be aerodynamically more efficient than several common human designs under the experimental conditions. In this paper, we extend that work by exploring alternative surrogate modelling and evolutionary techniques. First, the accuracy of various modelling techniques used to estimate the fitness of the individuals from the initial experiments is compared. Subsequently, we compare surrogate model performance with different training samples. An alternative surrogate approach based on an enhanced local search is introduced. Finally, alternative coevolution collaboration schemes are examined, including one that considers the potential for symmetry within the task.
\section{Background}
\subsection{Interacting Vertical-Axis Wind Turbines}
Arrays of closely spaced VAWTs have long been considered for use as wind power stations. For example, \cite{Charwat:1978} observed an improvement in the performance of a pair of closely spaced `S' shaped VAWT (S-rotors), whether counter or co-rotating, compared with that of a single turbine. Figure~\ref{fig:rotations} illustrates the possible rotation configurations of a pair of VAWT. Despite this, VAWTs have been restricted to niche applications since a single HAWT provides a much higher efficiency compared with a single VAWT. However, recently \cite{Kinzel:2012} performed an experimental field study of an array of 9 pairs of full-scale counter-rotating VAWTs. They found that the wind velocity behind a turbine pair recovers to 95\% of the wind velocity upwind after approximately 6 turbine diameters, compared with 4 diameters for the wake behind a single VAWT and 14 diameters for HAWTs. Thus, closely spaced VAWTs can result in an overall reduction in the average inter-turbine spacing as well as increasing individual performance, leading to a much greater power density. Indeed, it has recently been shown~\citep{Dabiri:2011} that power densities an order of magnitude greater can be potentially achieved by arranging VAWTs in layouts utilising counter-rotation that enable them to extract energy from adjacent wakes and from above the wind farm.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Clockwise co-rotation.]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}
} \hspace{0.5in}
\subfigure[Counter-clockwise co-rotation.]{
\scalebox{-1}[1]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
} \\
\subfigure[Counter-rotation; with a northerly wind, the upwind blades are in the middle region.]
{
\scalebox{-1}[1]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}
} \hspace{0.5in}
\subfigure[Counter-rotation; with a northerly wind, the driving blades are in the middle region.]
{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\scalebox{-1}[1]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, line width=2pt, ->, >=stealth] (0:-0.8) arc (120:50:{2.25cm-0.5cm});
\node [inner sep=5pt,below] {\includegraphics[width=2.25cm]{fig-1.png}};
\end{tikzpicture}}
}
\caption{Possible VAWT pair rotation configurations.}
\label{fig:rotations}
\end{figure}
A growing body of work has been exploring techniques to optimise a given wind farm layout---termed micro-siting. Algorithms used include, genetic algorithms~\citep[GAs;][]{Mosetti:1994}, evolution strategies~\citep[ESs;][]{KusiakSong:2010}, particle swarm optimisation~\citep{Aristidis:2010}, ant colony optimisation~\citep{Eroglu:2012}, Monte Carlo simulation~\citep{Marmidis:2008}, and principles from fish schooling~\citep{Whittlesey:2010}. See \cite{Salcedo-Sanz:2011} for a recent review of evolutionary computation-based techniques for micro-siting. Importantly, all of this work has been based on wake models of varying degrees of fidelity.
To date, heterogeneity in wind farms has been almost completely unexplored. \cite{Chamorro:2014} recently investigated a variable size HAWT array composed of $3\times8$ model wind turbines where large and small turbines were alternately positioned. They found that size heterogeneity has positive effects on turbulent loading as a result of the larger turbines facing a more uniform turbulence distribution and the smaller turbines operating under lower turbulence levels. The interactions show the possibility that heterogeneity within wind farms has the potential to improve the overall ability to harvest energy. Our initial study~\citep{PreenBull:2014a} observed that VAWT array asymmetry can be more efficient than similar symmetrical designs; for example, the individuals from the fittest SCGA array pairing after 160 fabrications were duplicated to form homogeneous arrays and the maximum combined rotational speed was found to be lower than the heterogeneous array.
\subsection{Evolutionary Design}
Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have long been used to design 3D physical objects. Notably, \cite{Hornby:2011} evolved and manufactured an {X}-band satellite antenna for NASA's ST5 spacecraft, representing the world's first artificially evolved hardware in space. Significantly, the evolved antennas outperformed a design hand-produced by the antenna contractor for the mission. Most approaches, however, have used simulations to provide the fitness scores of the evolved designs before final fabrication.
The majority of blade design optimisation is performed through the use of CFD simulations, typically described with 3D Navier-Stokes equations~\citep{Anderson:1995}. However, 3D CFD simulations are computationally expensive, with a single calculation taking hours on a high-performance computer, making their use with an iterative search approach difficult. Moreover, assumptions need to be made, e.g.,\ regarding turbulence or pressure distributions, which can significantly affect accuracy when modelling interacting wind turbines. Previous evolutionary studies have been undertaken with types of CFD to optimise the blade profile for both HAWT~\citep{Hampsey:2002} and VAWT~\citep{Carrigan:2012} to varying degrees of success/realism.
The evaluation of physical artifacts directly for fitness determination can be traced back to the origins of evolutionary computation~\citep{Dunham:1963}. For example, the first ESs were used to design jet nozzles with a string of section diameters, which were then machined and tested for fitness~\citep{Rechenberg:1971}. Other well-known examples include robot controller design~\citep{Nolfi:1992}, electronic circuit design using programmable hardware~\citep{Thompson:1998}, product design via human provided fitness values~\citep{Herdy:1996}, chemical systems~\citep{Theis:2006}, and unconventional computers~\citep{HardingMiller:2004}. More recently, \cite{Boria:2009} used an EA to evolve a morphing wing structure where physical designs were morphed using a set of actuators and evaluated in a closed-loop wind tunnel.
Evolution in hardware has the potential to benefit from access to a richer environment where it can exploit subtle interactions that can be utilised in unexpected ways. For example, the EA used by \cite{Thompson:1998} to work with field-programmable gate array circuits used some subtle physical properties of the system to solve problems where the properties used are still not understood. Humans can be prevented from designing systems that exploit these subtle and complex physical characteristics through their lack of knowledge, however this does not prevent exploitation through artificial evolution. There is thus a real possibility that evolution in hardware may allow the discovery of new physical effects, which can be harnessed for computation/optimisation~\citep{MillerDowning:2002}.
Moreover, the advent of high quality, low-cost, additive rapid fabrication technology---known as 3D printing---means it is now possible to fabricate a wide range of prototype designs quickly and cheaply. 3D printers are now capable of printing an ever growing array of different materials, including food, e.g.,\ chocolate~\citep{Hao:2009} and meat~\citep{Lipton:2010} for culinary design; sugar, e.g.,\ to help create synthetic livers~\citep{Miller:2012}; chemicals, e.g.,\ for custom drug design~\citep{Cronin:2012}; cells, e.g.,\ for functional blood vessels~\citep{Jakeb:2008} and artificial cartilage~\citep{Xu:2013}; plastic, e.g.,\ Southampton University laser sintered aircraft; thermoplastic, e.g.,\ for electronic sensors~\citep{Leigh:2012}; titanium, e.g.,\ for prosthetics such as the synthetic mandible developed by the University of Hasselt and transplanted into an 83-year old woman; and liquid metal, e.g.,\ for stretchable electronics~\citep{Ladd:2013}. One potential benefit of the technology is the ability to perform fabrication directly in the target environment; for example, \cite{Cohen:2010} recently used a 3D printer to perform a minimally invasive repair of the cartilage and bone of a calf femur {\it in situ}. \cite{LipsonPollack:2000} were the first to exploit the emerging technology in conjunction with an EA using a simulation of the mechanics and control, ultimately printing mobile robots with embodied neural network controllers.
\subsection{Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms}
Whilst the speed and cost of rapid-prototyping continues to improve, fabricating an evolved design before fitness can be assigned remains an expensive task when potentially thousands of evaluations are required; e.g.,\ 10~minutes print time for each very simple individual in the work of~\cite{RieffelSayles:2010}. However, given a sample $\mathcal{D}$ of evaluated individuals $N$, a surrogate model (also known as a meta-model or response surface model) $y=f(\vec{x})$ can be constructed, where $\vec{x}$ is the genotype and $y$ fitness, in order to compute the fitness of an unseen data point $\vec{x} \notin \mathcal{D}$. The use of surrogate models has been shown to reduce the convergence time in evolutionary computation and multiobjective optimisation; see~\cite{Jin:2011,Viana:2014} for recent general reviews and \cite{ForresterKeane:2009} for aerospace design optimisation.
Typically, a set of evaluated genotypes and their real fitness scores are used to perform the supervised training of a multi-layer perceptron \citep[MLP;][]{Rosenblatt:1962} based artificial neural network \citep[e.g.,][]{Eberhart:1992}. However, other approaches are widely used, for example, kriging~\citep[e.g.,][]{Ratle:2001}, clustering~\citep[e.g.,][]{KimCho:2001}, support vector regression~\citep[e.g.,][]{Yun:2009}, radial-basis functions~\citep[e.g.,][]{Ong:2006}, and sequential parameter optimisation~\citep[e.g.,][]{Bartz-Beielstein:2006}. The surrogate model is subsequently used to compute estimated fitness values for the EA to utilise. The model must be periodically retrained with new individuals under a controlled evolutionary approach (also known as model management) to prevent convergence on local optima. Retraining can be performed by taking either an individual or generational approach. In the individual approach, $n$ number of individuals in the population, $P$, are chosen and evaluated with the real fitness function each generation, and in the generational approach the entirety of $P$ is evaluated on the real fitness function each $n$-th generation. Typically the members with the highest approximated fitness are chosen to be evaluated with the real fitness function in the individual approach, although alternative schemes have been suggested; \cite{Bull:1999} found that evaluating both the best and random individuals suggested by a neural network surrogate model resulted in a significant improvement over exclusively evaluating either the best or random individuals. Both global modelling and local modelling using trust regions (e.g.,\ samples within a certain Euclidean distance) are popular approaches~\citep{Le:2013}. Resampling methods and surrogate model validation remain an important and ongoing area of research, enabling the comparison and optimisation of models~\citep{Bischl:2012}.
The use of approximations in a coevolutionary context has previously been shown capable of solving computationally expensive optimisation problems with varying degrees of epistasis more efficiently than conventional CGAs through the use of radial basis functions~\citep{Ong:2002} and memetic algorithms~\citep{Goh:2011}.
\subsection{Coevolution}
Since the early work in evolving both competitive~\citep{Axelrod:1987} and cooperative~\citep{HusbandsMill:1991} multi-agent systems, the problem of how to pick evaluation partners has been noted. Many strategies have been presented, which vary from the extreme case of each individual in one population using all others in all other populations~\citep[e.g.,][]{Koza:1991}, to each individual using a subset of the others~\citep[e.g.,][]{Hillis:1991}, to the more computationally preferable use of one individual from each population~\citep[e.g.,][]{BullFogarty:1993}. The use of the current best individuals from the other species populations was examined by \cite{PotterDeJong:1994}. In their work, all populations also received a shared fitness measure. Using a generational CGA they reported that the strategy performed well. They also suggested that for higher cross-species epistasis an additional randomly selected individual should be used as a partner and the highest obtained fitness from the two pairings assigned to the evaluating genome. \cite{Bull:1997b} examined various strategies for choosing evaluation partners from coevolving populations and also found improved performance on problems with significant cross-species epistasis when using multi-partner strategies. No significant difference was observed whether the second collaborator was chosen randomly or fitness proportionately after~\cite{Paredis:1994}. These early results suggested that the collaboration method depends entirely upon the amount of epistatic interaction between different species, however the issue is more complex; for example, \cite{Wiegand:2001} found that simply using the fittest individual as the collaborating partner worked best on a non-linearly separable quadratic problem with cross-species epistasis. In addition, they found that when using multiple collaborative function evaluations, assigning the fitness score from the best collaboration is significantly better than using either the worst or average of the scores.
\section{Methodology}
Here, we investigate the use of SCGAs to design small wind farms, utilising the aggregated rotational speed of the array as fitness. Each VAWT is treated separately by evolution and approximation techniques, i.e.,\ heterogeneous designs could emerge.
A vector of 10 integers is used as a simple and compact encoding of the $x$-$y$-axis of a prototype VAWT. Each allele thus controls 1/10th of a single $z$-layer. A workspace (maximum object size) of $30\times30\times30$~mm is used so that the instantiated prototype is small enough for timely production ($\sim30$~minutes) and with low material cost, yet large enough to be sufficient for fitness evaluation. The workspace has a resolution of $100\times100\times100$ voxels. A central platform is constructed for each individual to enable the object to be placed on to the evaluation equipment. The platform consists of a square torus, 1 voxel in width and with a centre of $14\times14$ empty voxels that are duplicated for each $z$ layer, thus creating a hollow tube that is 3~mm in diameter.
To translate the genome for a single $z$ layer, an equilateral cross is constructed using the 10 aforementioned genes, with 4 blades bent at right angles and an allele range [1,42]. For north-east and south-west quadrants the baseline is a horizontal line at $y$-axis=50, and for north-west and south-east quadrants the baseline is a vertical line at $x$-axis=50. Starting from the central platform and translating each gene successively, the one-tenth of voxels controlled by that gene are then drawn from the allele+baseline toward the baseline; see Figure~\ref{fig:d1}. If the current allele+baseline is greater than or the same as the previous allele+baseline, the voxels are enabled from the current allele+baseline to the previous allele+baseline and extended a further 2 voxels toward the baseline for structural support; see Figure~\ref{fig:d2}. If the current allele+baseline is less than or the same as the previous lower ending position, causing a gap, the voxels are enabled from the current allele+baseline upwards to the previous lower position and extended a further 2 voxels; see Figure~\ref{fig:d3}. In all other cases, 2 voxels are enabled from the current allele+baseline position toward the baseline; see Figure~\ref{fig:d4}.
An example phenotype without $z$-axis variation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:target-unsmoothed}. When production is desired, the 3D binary voxel array is converted to stereolithography (STL) format. Once encoded in STL, it then undergoes post-processing with the application of 50 Laplacian smoothing steps using MeshLab\footnote{MeshLab is an open source, portable, and extensible system for the processing and editing of unstructured 3D triangular meshes.\ http://meshlab.sourceforge.net}; see smoothed example phenotype in Figure~\ref{fig:target-smoothed}. Finally the object is converted to printer-readable G-code and is subsequently fabricated on a BFB 3000 printer (0.25~mm resolution) using a polylactic acid (PLA) bioplastic. Figure~\ref{fig:target-printed} shows the smoothed object after fabrication.
To enable prototypes with $z$-axis variability, the genome also includes 5 additional integers in the range [-42,42], each controlling 1/6th of the $z$-axis. After drawing the initial $z$-layer as previously described, each $z$ gene transforms the $x$-$y$ genome for the next successive $z$-layer by uniformly adding the allele value, after which it is then drawn as described above. For example, with an $x$-$y$-axis genome of [2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 20, 34, 40] and $z$-axis genome of [2, -5, 10, 3, -2], the next $z$-layer is translated using the $x$-$y$-axis genome of [4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 22, 36, 42] and the following $z$-layer is translated with [1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 10, 17, 31, 37], etc.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[]{\label{fig:d1}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5, font=\small]
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=white] (0,0) grid (4,10) rectangle (0,0);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (0,0) rectangle (1,5);
\foreach \i in {1,...,4} {
\draw (\i,1) -- (\i,10) node [below] at (\i-0.5,0) {$\i$};
}
\node[] at (2,-1.5) {gene no.};
\foreach \i in {1,...,10} {
\draw (1,\i) -- (4,\i) node [left] at (0,\i) {$\i$};
}
\node[rotate=90] at (-1.5,5) {gene value};
\end{tikzpicture}
}%
\subfigure[]{\label{fig:d2}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5, font=\small]
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=white] (0,0) grid (4,10) rectangle (0,0);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (0,0) rectangle (1,5);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (1,3) rectangle (2,8);
\foreach \i in {1,...,4} {
\draw (\i,1) -- (\i,10) node [below] at (\i-0.5,0) {$\i$};
}
\node[] at (2,-1.5) {gene no.};
\end{tikzpicture}
}%
\subfigure[]{\label{fig:d3}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5, font=\small]
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=white] (0,0) grid (4,10) rectangle (0,0);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (0,0) rectangle (1,5);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (1,3) rectangle (2,8);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (2,2) rectangle (3,5);
\foreach \i in {1,...,4} {
\draw (\i,1) -- (\i,10) node [below] at (\i-0.5,0) {$\i$};
}
\node[] at (2,-1.5) {gene no.};
\end{tikzpicture}
}%
\subfigure[]{\label{fig:d4}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5, font=\small]
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=white] (0,0) grid (4,10) rectangle (0,0);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (0,0) rectangle (1,5);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (1,3) rectangle (2,8);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (2,2) rectangle (3,5);
\draw [thick, draw=black, fill=black] (3,2) rectangle (4,4);
\foreach \i in {1,...,4} {
\draw (\i,1) -- (\i,10) node [below] at (\i-0.5,0) {$\i$};
}
\node[] at (2,-1.5) {gene no.};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Translation of $x$-$y$-axis genome [5,8,2,4]. In (a) the voxels are enabled from the first allele (5) to the baseline (bottom). Subsequently in (b) the voxels are enabled from the second allele (8) to the previous allele (5) and extended 2 voxels. In (c) the third allele (2) is less than the previous lower position (3), causing a gap, and is thus drawn from the allele (2) to the previous lower position and extended 2 voxels to provide structural support. In (d) the allele (4) is less than the previous upper position (5) and 2 voxels are enabled from the allele toward the baseline. }
\label{fig:drawing}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{fig-3a.png} } \hspace{0.2in}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{fig-3b.png} }
\caption{Example phenotype; genome = [2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 20, 34, 40].}\label{fig:target-unsmoothed}
%
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{fig-4a.png} } \hspace{0.2in}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{fig-4b.png} }
\caption{Example with 50 Laplacian smoothing steps applied.}\label{fig:target-smoothed}
%
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{fig-5a.jpg} } \hspace{-0.1in}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=1.4in]{fig-5b.jpg} }
\caption{Example smoothed and printed by a 3D printer; $30\times30\times30$~mm; 27~minutes printing time.}\label{fig:target-printed}
\end{figure}
Since the interaction effects of rotor direction in the context of differing turbine morphology, relative phase angle, separation distance, positional layout, wind velocity, etc.\ are not well understood, a Boolean gene is added to designate the rotation direction of a VAWT. Thus, a total of 16 genes define an individual. In a previous CGA experiment~\citep{PreenBull:2014a} with 2 Savonius turbines positioned 0.1 diameters adjacently and in perpendicular position to the air flow, the average combined rotational speed of the final 20 counter-rotating pairs ($M=1760$, $SD=206$, $N=20$) was significantly less than the average combined rotational speed of the final 20 co-rotating pairs ($M=2048$, $SD=95$, $N=20$) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test ($U=17$, $p\le7.39\times10^{-7}$), showing that co-rotation was found to result in faster combined rotational speed. It can be noted that this result is similar to \cite{Sun:2012} where 2 counter-rotating S-rotors performed worse than co-rotating versions when placed at small separation distances.
The CGA used herein proceeds with 2 species populations, a maximum mutation step size of $\pm10$, a per allele mutation rate of 25\%, and a crossover rate of 0\%. A tournament size of 3 takes place for both selection and replacement. To help increase performance and save fabrication time, each species population initially consists of the first 10 ($>$0~rpm) individuals from a single VAWT ($z$-varying) experiment in \citep{PreenBull:2014a}, both normally rotated and counter-rotated. These individuals still retain a good degree of randomness while possessing some useful aerodynamic properties. Each species thus maintains $P=20$ individuals. The individuals in each species population are initially evaluated in collaboration with a single randomly selected individual from the other species population. Thereafter, the CGA proceeds by alternating between species after each offspring is formed and evaluated with the elite member from the other species; see algorithm outline in Algorithm~\ref{alg:cga}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetAlgoLined%
Generate and fabricate individuals for all species\;
\For{each species population}{
Select random representative from each species\;
\For{each individual in population}{
Evaluate\;
}
}
\While{fabrication budget not exhausted}{
\For{each species population}{
Create an offspring using evolutionary operators\;
Select representatives for each species\;
Fabricate and evaluate the offspring\;
Add offspring to species population\;
}
}
\caption{Coevolutionary genetic algorithm}
\label{alg:cga}
\end{algorithm}
For the surrogate-assisted architecture used in this paper, the basic CGA remains unchanged except that fitness evaluations are obtained from a forward pass of the genome through a neural network when the real fitness value is unknown. Initially the entire population is fabricated and evaluated on the real fitness function and added to an evaluated set. The model is trained using backpropagation for 1000 epochs; where an epoch consists of randomly selecting, without replacement, an individual from the evaluated set and updating the model weights. Each generation thereafter, the individual with the highest approximated fitness as suggested by the model and a randomly chosen unevaluated individual are fabricated and evaluated on the real fitness function and added to the evaluated set. The model weights must be reinitialised each time before training due to the temporal nature of pairing with the elite member. The genetic algorithm runs for one generation (using the model approximated fitnesses where real fitness is unknown) before the individual with the highest approximated fitness and a randomly selected unevaluated individual are evaluated with the elite member from the other species; see outline in Algorithm~\ref{alg:scga}. The model parameters, $\beta=0.3$, $\theta=0$, $elasticity=1$, $calming~rate=1$, $momentum=0$, $elasticity~rate=0$.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetAlgoLined%
Generate and fabricate individuals for all species\;
\For{each species population}{
Select random representative from each species\;
\For{each individual in population}{
Evaluate\;
Add individual to species evaluated list\;
}
}
\While{fabrication budget not exhausted}{
\For{each species population}{
Initialise model weights\;
Train model on species evaluated list\;
\For{each individual in population}{
\If{individual unevaluated}{
Set approximated fitness\;
}
}
\For{population size number of times}{
Create offspring using evolutionary operators\;
Set offspring approximated fitness\;
Add offspring to species population\;
}
Select representatives for each species\;
Fabricate, evaluate, and add to species evaluated list, the individual with the highest approximated fitness in species\;
Fabricate, evaluate, and add to species evaluated list, a random unevaluated individual in species\;
}
}
\caption{Surrogate-assisted coevolutionary algorithm}
\label{alg:scga}
\end{algorithm}
The fitness of each individual is the maximum combined array rotational speed achieved over the period of 1~minute during the application of constant wind generated by a propeller fan after fabrication by a 3D printer. The rotational speed is the significant measure of aerodynamic efficiency since the design space is constrained (including rotor radius and turbine height). However, in future work, the power generated will be preferred, which will take into account any slight weight variations that may affect performance. The rotational speed is here measured in number of revolutions per minute (rpm) using a digital photo laser tachometer (PCE-DT62; PCE Instruments UK Ltd) by placing a $10\times2$~mm strip of reflecting tape on the outer tip of one of the individual's blades. The experimental setup can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:setup-double}, which shows the $30$~W, 3500~rpm, 304.8~mm propeller fan, which generates 4.4~m/s wind speed, and 2 turbines mounted on rigid metal pins 1~mm in diameter and positioned 33~mm adjacently and 30~mm from the propeller fan. That is, there is a 3~mm spacing between the blades at their closest point.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4.25in]{fig-6.jpg}
\caption{VAWT array experimental setup.}
\label{fig:setup-double}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Modelling Techniques}
To explore whether there is any significant advantage in replacing the neural network used previously as the surrogate model, several algorithms using the Weka 3.6.10 machine learning collection\footnote{Weka is an open source data mining algorithm collection. http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/} were run over the data generated from \citep{PreenBull:2014a}. It is important to note that a surrogate model with a larger fitness prediction error may be more accurate in predicting the rank order of individuals than a model with lower error. Since the rank order is the guiding influence on the evolutionary process, alternative quality measures for approximate models have therefore been suggested. However, \cite{Bischl:2012} found no difference between using the root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), or Spearman's rho, which measures the correlation between the actual and predicted ranking. Furthermore, in practice, optimisation based on the fitness accuracy has often been found to perform the best~\citep[e.g.,][]{Husken:2005}. Thus, the MAEs of the fitness predictions are here used as the performance metric.
Table~\ref{table:mae} shows the average MAEs for various algorithms predicting the fitness of evolved individuals. Each number represents the average MAE over 100 runs using 10-fold cross-validation (CV). The result is marked in bold font where it is statistically different from the standard MLP at the 95\% confidence level using a two-sample $t$-test assuming unequal variances. GA is the $z$-axis varying GA-only single VAWT experiment ($N=100$); SGA is the surrogate-assisted GA $z$-axis varying VAWT experiment ($N=100$); CGA-1 is the first species from the CGA experiment ($N=80$); CGA-2 is the second species from the CGA experiment ($N=80$); SCGA-1 is the first species from the surrogate-assisted CGA experiment ($N=80$); and SCGA-2 is the second species from the surrogate-assisted CGA experiment ($N=80$). Default Weka parameters were used unless otherwise specified.
The results show that there is little statistical difference between the algorithms in predicting the fitness of the evolved individuals. This is perhaps due to the very small and noisy training samples available for this task. In the rest of this paper we therefore continue with neural network surrogate models, which are well suited to problems with a high-dimensional input space (design space) and limited number of samples~\citep{Jin:2005}. In addition, neural network modelling frequently outperforms more complex approaches such as coevolutionary active learning~\citep{LyLipson:2014}.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Average MAEs (100 runs using 10-fold CV) for various algorithms predicting the fitness of evolved individuals from the experiments in \citep{PreenBull:2014a}. The result is marked in bold font where it is statistically different from the standard MLP at the 95\% confidence level using a two-sample $t$-test assuming unequal variances.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l r r r r r r }
\hline
Algorithm & GA & SGA & CGA-1 & CGA-2 & SCGA-1 & SCGA-2\\
\hline
Standard MLP & 197.89 & 237.86 & 430.30 & 432.64 & 462.57 & 394.04 \\
Linear Regression & 158.91 & {\bf 170.78} & {\bf 275.13} & 390.79 & 361.97 & 379.08 \\
Isotonic Regression & 135.57 & {\bf 145.97} & 327.22 & 462.68 & 367.10 & {\bf 523.73} \\
Pace Regression & 160.75 & 172.57 & {\bf 257.57} & 397.99 & 380.85 & 384.50 \\
Least Med Squares & 208.80 & 237.78 & {\bf 306.71} & 432.26 & 334.00 & 447.14 \\
SMO Regression & 152.70 & 191.33 & {\bf 280.94} & 370.18 & {\bf 334.65} & 356.75 \\
MLP $N=1000$ $H=10$ & 207.21 & 241.89 & 451.91 & 427.81 & 503.93 & 418.42 \\
MLP $N=1000$ $H=100$ & 265.10 & 202.33 & 385.61 & 414.38 & 416.14 & 408.88 \\
MLP $N=10000$ $H=10$ & 256.52 & 305.41 & 562.50 & 481.27 & {\bf 654.00} & 487.14 \\
MLP $N=500$ $H=10$ & 191.63 & 216.88 & 397.40 & 401.16 & 405.01 & 401.27 \\
MLP $N=500$ $H=1$ & 142.13 & 174.45 & 384.69 & 338.37 & 410.49 & 333.47 \\
MLP $N=1000$ $H=1$ & 142.32 & 177.98 & 395.50 & 340.86 & 418.94 & 343.24 \\
MLP $N=10000$ $H=1$ & 159.20 & 193.07 & 429.34 & 364.05 & 446.37 & 366.36 \\
MLP $N=500$ $H=2$ & 154.28 & 181.66 & 392.26 & 389.26 & 390.21 & 337.27 \\
MLP $N=1000$ $H=2$ & 156.30 & 181.51 & 408.23 & 407.67 & 408.15 & 358.50 \\
Gaussian Processes & 168.00 & 193.03 & {\bf 281.32} & 369.74 & {\bf 323.65} & 361.45 \\
RBF $B=2$ & 172.28 & 180.44 & 432.09 & 533.81 & 482.91 & {\bf 596.46} \\
RBF $B=10$ & 213.94 & {\bf 158.23} & 1253.08 & 512.91 & 404.72 & 3981.20 \\
REP Tree& 196.11 & {\bf 164.33} & 346.77 & 343.68 & 394.93 & 377.64 \\
Decision Stump & 169.99 & 193.78 & 325.33 & 488.70 & 390.42 & {\bf 519.27} \\
M5P & 165.70 & {\bf 168.34} & {\bf 311.37} & 337.33 & 355.37 & 350.04 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:mae}
\end{table}
\subsection{Windowing}
In interactive evolutionary computation, a user's evaluation is relative within each generation and therefore fitness values from generations long past may be different to recent generations even if the evaluated candidate is identical. Consequently, \cite{WangTakagi:2005} found that a neural network surrogate model using only recent training data was more effective than using all past data. In addition, many other surrogate-assisted approaches have used fixed length training sets~\cite[e.g.,][]{Bull:1997a}, although did so to save computational time rather than intentionally aid convergence. Due to the temporal nature of partnering with the elite species members it may be advantageous to exclude older training samples for SCGAs. To explore whether there is any benefit from using different windowing approaches to training the surrogate model, 13 different models from Weka were run across the 4 datasets consisting of the 80 evaluated individuals in each species from the coevolution experiments; 2 species for CGA and 2 for SCGA. The final 2 individuals from each set were used for testing and were excluded from any training.
The models used are as follows and Weka default parameters were used unless otherwise stated: (1) Gaussian Processes (Support Vector, RBF Kernel); (2) Isotonic Regression; (3) Linear Regression (M5 attribute selection); (4) Multilayer Perceptron; (5) SMOreg (RBF Kernel, RegSMO Improved); (6) RBF Network ($B=2$); (7) RBF Network ($B=100$); (8) Multilayer Perceptron ($N=1000$, $H=10$, $M=0$); (9) Multilayer Perceptron ($N=500$, $H=1$); (10) Multilayer Perceptron ($N=1000$, $H=1$); (11) Multilayer Perceptron ($N=500$, $H=5$); (12) Multilayer Perceptron ($N=1000$, $H=5$); (13) Multilayer Perceptron ($N=1000$, $H=100$).
One set of experiments used the full 78 training samples for each dataset ($T=78$); one set used the most recent 40 training samples ($T=40$); one set used the most recent 20 training samples ($T=20$); and one set used the most recent 10 training samples ($T=10$). The average of the 13 algorithm's MAEs over the 4 datasets with $T=20$ ($M=197.11$, $SD=30.54$, $N=13$) is significantly less than $T=78$ ($M=336.39$, $SD=18.34$, $N=13$) using a two-sample $t$-test assuming unequal variances, $t(14)=4.76$, $p=.0003$. In addition, the average MAE of $T=20$ is also significantly less than $T=40$ ($M=269.94$, $SD=16.43$, $N=13$), $t(16)=3.31$, $p=.0045$. However, the average MAE of $T=10$ ($M=190.14$, $SD=15.03$, $N=13$) was not significantly less than $T=20$, $t(17)=0.74$, $p=.47$.
These results suggest that using the most recent 20 training samples (i.e., $P$) produces a more accurate model than using the full evaluation set. The SCGA was therefore rerun, as before however using only the most recent 20 evaluated individuals for training (SCGA-20T), and the results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:res-t20}. The average rotational speed of the original SCGA ($M=2112$, $SD=307$, $N=40$) was significantly greater than CGA ($M=1905$, $SD=223$, $N=40$) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, $U=331$, $p\le6.4\times10^{-6}$. Furthermore, the fittest array combination designed by SCGA (2429~rpm) was greater than CGA (2209~rpm) after 160 fabrications. However, the average rotational speed of SCGA-20T ($M=1971$, $SD=386$, $N=40$) is not significantly different to SCGA ($M=2112$, $SD=307$, $N=40$) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, $U=629$, $p\le.1$, and the fittest array combination was nearly identical after 160 fabrications; SCGA-20T 2444~rpm vs. SCGA 2429~rpm. The fittest CGA, SCGA and SCGA-20T evolved arrays after 160 fabrications can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:best-evolved}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[font=\small]
\begin{axis}[
width=0.81\textwidth,
height=0.5\textwidth,
/pgf/number format/.cd,
1000 sep={},
xlabel=Fabrications,
ylabel=Combined Rotational Speed (RPM),
grid=major,
grid style={dashed, gray!50},
ymin=1500,
ymax=2500,
ytick={1500,1600,...,2500},
xmin=40,
xmax=160,
legend entries={CGA,SCGA,SCGA-20T},
legend style={nodes=right},
legend pos= south east,
cycle list name=mark list,
]
\addplot+[red] table [x=a, y=b, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\addplot+[blue] table [x=a, y=c, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\addplot+[black] table [x=a, y=d, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Array rotational speed-based evolution. Fittest array pairs. CGA (circle), SCGA (square), and SCGA-20T (triangle). The SCGAs are used for comparison only after 120 evaluations (i.e.,\ 3 generations) of the CGA since sufficient training data is required for the surrogate models.}
\label{fig:res-t20}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[CGA; 2209~rpm.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8a1.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8a2.png} \hspace{0.3in}
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8a3.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8a4.png} } \\
\subfigure[SCGA; 2429~rpm.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8b1.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8b2.png} \hspace{0.3in}
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8b3.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8b4.png} } \\
\subfigure[SCGA-20T; 2444~rpm.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8c1.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8c2.png} \hspace{0.3in}
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8c3.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-8c4.png} }
\caption{Fittest evolved interacting VAWTs after 160 fabrications.}
\label{fig:best-evolved}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Model Enhanced Local Search}
Typically $n$ individuals are evaluated with the real fitness function each generation, where $n<P$. This results in a population consisting of a mix of individuals evaluated with the real fitness function and those whose fitnesses are approximated. However, \cite{Ulmer:2004} introduced a pre-selection approach to the surrogate assistance of ESs. The approach consists of creating $\lambda_{Pre}$ offspring, where $\lambda_{Pre}>\lambda$, and evaluating each with the surrogate model; whereupon the $\lambda$ individuals with the highest approximated fitness are then selected to form the offspring population and are evaluated with the real fitness function. The main difference is that with pre-selection all offspring are generated from parent individuals evaluated directly with the real fitness function. This enables an enhanced local search through the evaluation of a large number of offspring while preventing the evolutionary search from drifting too far from the evaluated design space, which can occur when repeatedly creating offspring from approximated individuals. They found that the bigger $\lambda_{Pre}$ is, the better the algorithm performed. Here we explore the use of a SCGA with an enhanced local search, SCGA-ELS. The CGA runs as normal except that each time a parent is chosen, $m$ number of offspring are created and evaluated with the surrogate model, and the single offspring with the highest approximated fitness is then fabricated and evaluated with the real fitness function before being added to the population. See outline in Algorithm~\ref{alg:scga-pre}. Here $m=1000$. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:res-pre}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\SetAlgoLined%
Generate and fabricate individuals for all species\;
\For{each species population}{
Select random representative from each species\;
\For{each individual in population}{
Evaluate\;
Add individual to species evaluated list\;
}
}
\While{fabrication budget not exhausted}{
\For{each species population}{
Initialise model weights\;
Train model on species evaluated list\;
Select a parent using tournament selection\;
\For{$m$ number of times}{
Create an offspring using evolutionary operators\;
Set offspring approximated fitness\;
}
Select the single offspring with the highest approximated fitness\;
Select representatives for each species\;
Fabricate and evaluate the selected offspring\;
Add the selected offspring to the species population\;
Add the selected offspring to the species evaluated list\;
}
}
\caption{SCGA with enhanced local search}
\label{alg:scga-pre}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[font=\small]
\begin{axis}[
width=0.81\textwidth,
height=0.5\textwidth,
/pgf/number format/.cd,
1000 sep={},
xlabel=Fabrications,
ylabel=Combined Rotational Speed (RPM),
grid=major,
grid style={dashed, gray!50},
ymin=1500,
ymax=2700,
ytick={1500,1600,...,2700},
xmin=40,
xmax=160,
legend entries={CGA,SCGA,SCGA-ELS},
legend style={nodes=right},
legend pos= south east,
cycle list name=mark list,
]
\addplot+[red] table [x=a, y=b, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\addplot+[blue] table [x=a, y=c, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\addplot+[black] table [x=a, y=e, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Array rotational speed-based evolution. Fittest array pairs. CGA (circle), SCGA (square), and SCGA-ELS (triangle). The SCGAs are used for comparison only after 120 evaluations (i.e.,\ 3 generations) of the CGA since sufficient training data is required for the surrogate models.}
\label{fig:res-pre}
\end{figure}
The average rotational speed of SCGA-ELS ($M=2264$, $SD=322$, $N=40$) is significantly greater than SCGA ($M=2112$, $SD=307$, $N=40$) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, $U=469$, $p\le.0015$. Furthermore, the fittest SCGA-ELS array pairing (2692~rpm; see Figure~\ref{fig:els-best-evolved}) was greater than SCGA (2429~rpm) after 160 fabrications. However, this comparison may not be fair to the original SCGA, which fabricates a randomly selected individual as well as the best each epoch, whereas SCGA-ELS only fabricates the best. Therefore, a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test was performed for the rotational speed of SCGA-ELS over the first 20 model suggested offspring ($M=2303$, $SD=134$, $N=20$) with only the suggested best offspring from SCGA ($M=2087$, $SD=386$, $N=20$) and the result was found to be statistically significant, $U=114$, $p\le.02$. The same comparison was made for SCGA-ELS over the first 20 model suggested offspring with only the suggested best offspring from SCGA-20T ($M=1907$, $SD=443$, $N=20$) and the result was also statistically significant, $U=73.5$, $p\le.00063$. SCGA-ELS therefore seems to offer a clear benefit in these experiments.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-10a.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-10b.png} \hspace{0.3in}
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-10c.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-10d.png}
\caption{SCGA-ELS fittest evolved interacting VAWTs after 160 fabrications; 2692~rpm.}
\label{fig:els-best-evolved}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Collaboration Strategies}
Whilst it is relatively costly to fabricate a new VAWT prototype ($\sim30$~minutes), the rotational speed measurement with the laser tachometer is relatively cheap ($\le$~1~minute). Therefore, while it may not be the case for more elaborate wind tunnel testing conditions, here reevaluating some fabricated individuals with other partners may provide a relatively cheap way to increase performance. To see whether a two-partner strategy can increase the performance in designing two interacting VAWT, the CGA was rerun with the same initial population as before, however collaboration was performed with an individual that was fitness proportionately selected (i.e., roulette wheel) in addition to the usual elite member from the other species population, and the larger of the two fitness scores assigned to the individual being evaluated (CGA-2). Since initially no fitness scores are known, each individual in the first generation of a species population was evaluated in conjunction with a single randomly selected individual from the other population (that is, as before) and also with a second randomly selected individual, uniquely chosen for each evaluation, and the larger of the two shared fitness scores assigned.
So far, the CGA has assumed that there is a significant degree of asymmetry within the array solution and hence no cross-species gene sharing has been permitted. However, it is possible that there may be sufficient symmetry that can be exploited to increase performance. Therefore, the CGA was also rerun with the same initial population as before, however an offspring is also evaluated in the alternate physical position and in collaboration with the elite member from its own species population (CGA-CROSS). If the fitness is greater than the population best fitness, it is also added to that species population, replacing the worst individual.
Figure~\ref{fig:res-2partner} shows the rotational speed of the fittest array pairings evolved by the original CGA, CGA-2, and CGA-CROSS over 120 fabrications. As can be seen, the fittest CGA-2 array pairing after 120 fabrications (2343~rpm) is greater than CGA (2158~rpm). Furthermore, the average combined rotational speed of the final 40 offspring formed by CGA-2 ($M=2053$, $SD=295$, $N=40$) is significantly greater than the original CGA ($M=1882$, $SD=316$, $N=40$) using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, $U=481$, $p\le.0022$. The extra evaluation during initialisation was used 38 out of 40 times, which provided an initial performance boost. However, during steady state evolution the extra evaluation was only used 4 out of 80 times. That is, the roulette wheel selected partner resulted in a combined rotational speed greater than when paired with the best individual only 5\% of the time. Moreover, the average difference of those fitness scores was only 12~rpm, which probably would have made little difference to the GA. Whilst not used for fitness determination during the experiment, a randomly selected partner was also evaluated with each offspring and found to have a near identical effect to the roulette wheel collaborator, being greater than the best partner 4 out of 80 times with an average difference of 46~rpm. Thus it appears that performing extra evaluations during initialisation provides a significant boost to performance over only partnering with a single random collaborator, but thereafter there is little performance benefit from performing extra evaluations.
The fittest CGA-CROSS array pairing after 120 fabrications (2373~rpm) is similar to CGA-2 (2343~rpm). In 7 out of the 80 extra evaluations performed in the CGA-CROSS experiment, evaluating the offspring in the alternate position resulted in a faster combined rotational speed than the fittest individual in that species. Furthermore, both individuals in the fittest array pairing were offspring produced in the alternate species, showing that there is a high degree of symmetry in the task. However, despite the extra evaluations having resulted in a VAWT pair with a higher rotational speed than the fittest pair from the original CGA (2158~rpm), the average combined rotational speed of the final 40 CGA-CROSS offspring evaluated in the original species position ($M=1988$, $SD=261$, $N=40$) is not statistically different to CGA using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, $U=655$, $p\le.163$. The fittest CGA-2 and CGA-CROSS interacting VAWTs after 120 fabrications are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:collab-best-evolved}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[font=\small]
\begin{axis}[
width=0.81\textwidth,
height=0.5\textwidth,
/pgf/number format/.cd,
1000 sep={},
xlabel=Fabrications,
ylabel=Combined Rotational Speed (RPM),
grid=major,
grid style={dashed, gray!50},
ymin=1500,
ymax=2400,
ytick={1500,1600,...,2400},
xmin=40,
xmax=120,
legend entries={CGA,CGA-2,CGA-CROSS},
legend style={nodes=right},
legend pos= south east,
cycle list name=mark list,
]
\addplot+[red] table [x=a, y=b, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\addplot+[blue] table [x=a, y=f, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\addplot+[black] table [x=a, y=g, col sep=comma] {coevo-evals.dat};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Array rotational speed-based evolution. Fittest array pairs. CGA (circle), CGA-2 (square), CGA-CROSS (triangle).}
\label{fig:res-2partner}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[CGA-2; 2343~rpm.] {
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12a1.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12a2.png} \hspace{0.3in}
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12a3.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12a4.png} }
\subfigure[CGA-CROSS; 2373~rpm.] {
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12b1.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12b2.png} \hspace{0.3in}
\includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12b3.png} \includegraphics[width=0.90in]{fig-12b4.png} }
\caption{Fittest evolved interacting VAWTs after 120 fabrications.}
\label{fig:collab-best-evolved}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
This paper has explored a range of surrogate modelling and evolutionary techniques used to design interacting VAWTs wherein candidate prototypes are fabricated by a 3D printer and evaluated under fan generated wind conditions. The experiments here have shown that it is possible to use SCGAs to iteratively increase the performance of closely positioned Savonius turbines, exploiting the inter-turbine flow effects, which is extremely difficult to achieve under simulation. The SCGA represents a scalable approach to the design of wind turbine arrays since the number of inputs to the surrogate-models remains constant regardless of the number of turbines undergoing evolution.
The accuracy of various modelling algorithms used to estimate the fitness of evaluated individuals from the initial experiments was compared, finding that there is little difference between the algorithms for the current task. The effect of temporally windowing the surrogate model training samples was shown to be a promising approach, however resulted in no performance benefit in practice. Subsequently, a SCGA based on an enhanced local search was introduced and found to produce more efficient designs within the same number of fabrications when compared with the original SCGA approaches. Finally, alternative coevolution collaboration schemes were examined, finding an initial performance increase resulting from more accurate fitness assignments but with no significant improvement thereafter. This highlights that while much can be learnt by developing optimisation algorithms using simulated problems and mining data, significant differences in performance are often found when applying the results to the real application. Thus, whilst general learning algorithms provide a starting point for exploration, there is no escape from further development directly in the problem application.
The use of 3D printing to physically instantiate candidate designs completely avoids the use of 3D computer simulations, with their associated processing costs and modelling assumptions. In this case, 3D CFD analysis was avoided, but the approach is equally applicable to other real-world optimisation problems, for example, those requiring computational structural dynamics or computational electromagnetics simulations. We anticipate that in the future such `design mining' approaches will yield unusual yet highly efficient designs that exploit characteristics of the environment and/or materials that are difficult to capture formally or in simulation. This has the potential to place knowledge discovery at the core of engineering design, particularly within an iterative framework such as in agile approaches.
Although the print resolution used here to build the prototypes was set at the printer default, the resolution can be adjusted to provide coarser designs at a faster rate for preliminary studies (e.g.,\ for early evolutionary candidates), or slower higher resolution prints for more subtle optimisation. Further, only PLA plastic was used here to fabricate designs, but other materials such as flexible rubbers or multi-material designs can be constructed and explored by an EA. Thus 3D printing offers a range of ways to customise the evolutionary instantiation to the design task. Multiple 3D printers can also easily be used to perform parallel fabrication to speed up the process.
Future work will include the use of the power generated as the fitness computation under various wind tunnel conditions; the coevolution of larger arrays, including the turbine positioning; the exploration of more advanced assisted learning systems to reduce the number of fabrications required; examination of the effect of seeding the population with a given design; investigation of alternative representations that provide more flexible designs including variable number of blades, for example, supershapes~\citep{PreenBull:2014b}; and the production of 1:1 scale designs.
The issue of scalability remains an important future area of research. When increasing the scale of designs it is widely known that the changes in dimensionality will greatly affect performance, however it remains to be seen how performance will change in the presence of other significant factors such as turbine wake interactions in the case of arrays. One potential solution is to simply use larger 3D printing and wind-tunnel capabilities whereby larger designs could be produced by the same method. On the opposite end of the spectrum, micro-wind turbines that are 2~mm in diameter or smaller can be used to generate power, such as for wireless sensors~\citep{Howey:2011}, and in this case more precise 3D printers would be required. Moreover, wind turbines can find useful applications on any scale, e.g.,\ a recent feasibility study~\citep{Park:2012} for powering wireless sensors on cable-stayed bridges examined turbines with a rotor diameter of 138~mm in wind conditions with an average of 4.4~m/s (similar to the artificial wind conditions used in this paper).
If the recent speed and material advances in rapid-prototyping continues, along with the current advancement of evolutionary design, it will soon be feasible to perform a wide-array of automated complex engineering optimisation {\it in situ}, whether on the micro-scale (e.g.,\ drug design), or the macro-scale (e.g.,\ wind turbine design). That is, instead of using mass manufactured designs, EAs will be used to identify bespoke solutions that are manufactured to compensate and exploit the specific characteristics of the environment in which they are deployed, e.g.,\ local wind conditions, nearby obstacles, and local acoustic and visual requirements for wind turbines.
\acknowledgments
\\This work was supported by the UK Leverhulme Trust under Grant RPG-2013-344.
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, there is a strong interest in two-dimensional semiconductor systems with an inverted band structure, like narrow HgTe quantum wells. This interest is mostly connected with the quantum spin-Hall (QSH) effect regime~\cite{konig,kvon}. Similarly to the conventional quantum Hall (QH) effect in high magnetic fields~\cite{buttiker}, QSH regime is characterized~\cite{molenkamp_nonlocal,kvon_nonlocal} by presence of two spin-resolved, current-carrying helical edge states~\cite{pankratov,zhang1,kane,zhang2} even in zero magnetic field. The helical QSH edge states are regarded to be suitable for different applications like quantum computing and cryptography.
Experimental investigations of helical QSH edge states are mostly based on charge transport along the edge, which has been detected in local and non-local resistance measurements~\cite{konig,kvon,molenkamp_nonlocal,kvon_nonlocal} and by a direct visualization technique~\cite{imaging}. In the last case, the edge current has even been demonstrated to coexist with the conductive bulk~\cite{imaging}, which is also possible from theoretical considerations~\cite{pankratov,volkov}. Despite the initial idea of a topological protection~\cite{konig,zhang1,kane,zhang2}, backscattering appears at macroscopic distances~\cite{kvon,kvon_nonlocal}, possibly due to the allowed two-particle process~\cite{mirlin} or to the electron puddles~\cite{glazman}.
It is clear that for possible applications, it is necessary to develop a technique of selective contacting of these edge states. A possible variant is to use spin effects: QSH edge transport is supposed to be essentially spin-dependent~\cite{pankratov,zhang1,kane,zhang2} even in zero magnetic field. Strong coupling between the spin-resolved helical edge states and a ferromagnet can also be anticipated from theoretical considerations~\cite{qi,lunde}.
Here, we experimentally investigate spin-polarized electron transport between a permalloy ferromagnet and the edge of a two-dimensional electron system with band inversion, realized in a narrow, 8~nm wide HgTe quantum well. In zero magnetic field, we observe strong asymmetry of the edge potential distribution with respect to the ferromagnetic ground lead. This result indicates that the helical edge channel, specific for the structures with band inversion even at the conductive bulk, is strongly coupled to the ferromagnetic side contact, possibly due to the effects of proximity magnetization. It allows selective and spin-sensitive contacting of helical edge states.
\section{Samples and technique}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fehgte1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Sketch of the type A sample (not in scale) with electrical connections. Three ferromagnetic permalloy $Fe_{20}Ni_{80}$ stripes (denoted as front, central, and back) are placed at the 200~nm mesa step, with low (2-3~$\mu$m) overlap. The width of each stripe is equal to 20~$\mu$m. They are separated by the 100~$\mu$m distance along the sample edge. In every overlap region, a side junction is formed between the ferromagnetic lead and the 2DEG edge. We study electron transport through the F-2DEG interface for the central junction in a standard three-point technique: the central ferromagnetic electrode is grounded; a current is applied between it and one of the normal Au (yellow) contacts; two other ferromagnetic electrodes trace the 2DEG potential to both sides of the grounded junction, $V_f$ and $V_b$, respectively.
}
\label{sample}
\end{figure}
Our $Cd_{0.65}Hg_{0.35}Te/HgTe/Cd_{0.65}Hg_{0.35}Te$ quantum wells are grown by molecular beam epitaxy on GaAs substrate with [013] surface orientations. The layer sequence is shown in Fig.~\ref{sample}, a detailed description can be found elsewhere~\cite{growth1,growth2}. Our wells are characterized by band inversion~\cite{kvon,kvon_nonlocal}, because the wells' width $d=8$~nm is above the critical value 6.3~nm. They contain a 2DEG with the electron density of $1.5 \cdot 10^{11} $cm$^{-2}$, as obtained from standard magnetoresistance measurements. The 2DEG mobility at 4K equals to $2\cdot 10^{5} $cm$^{2}$/Vs. For samples with higher $d=20.5$~nm , a 2D system in the quantum well represents an indirect 2D semimetal~\cite{kvon_s1,kvon_s2}. Both electrons and holes contribute to transport in this case. The carriers' concentrations are low enough, about $0.5 \cdot 10^{11} $cm$^{-2}$ and $1 \cdot 10^{11} $cm$^{-2}$ for electrons and holes, respectively. Electrons' low-temperature mobility is about $4\cdot 10^{5} $cm$^{2}$/Vs, because the holes (with lower $5\cdot 10^{4} $cm$^{2}$/Vs mobility) provide efficient disorder screening~\cite{kvon_scat}.
Our principal idea is to use side contact to the 2DEG edge at the mesa step~\cite{feinas,nbnhgte,nbsemi}. Indeed, the usual procedure with annealed In contacts is not selective with respect to the edge state transport. Annealed In provides high-quality Ohmic contact primary to the bulk 2DEG. Thus, despite the edge current is allowed~\cite{pankratov,volkov} to coexist with the conductive bulk~\cite{imaging}, edge state transport can only be investigated near the charge-neutrality point~\cite{konig,kvon,molenkamp_nonlocal,kvon_nonlocal}. In contrast, without annealing procedure, the side contact is coupled to the 2DEG edge at the mesa step, because the CdTe layer on the top of the structure is a high-quality insulator at low temperatures.
A sample sketch is presented in Fig.~\ref{sample}. The 100~$\mu$m wide mesa is formed by dry etching (200 nm deep) in Ar plasma. We fabricate F-2DEG junctions by using rf sputtering to deposit 50~nm thick ferromagnetic permalloy $Fe_{20}Ni_{80}$ stripes at the mesa step, with low (2-3~$\mu$m) overlap. The stripes are formed by lift-off technique, and the surface is mildly cleaned by Ar plasma before sputtering. To avoid any 2DEG degradation, the sample is not heated during the sputtering process. The source-drain contacts (yellow in Fig.~\ref{sample}) are obtained by thermal evaporation of 100~nm thick Au, as well as the normal Au-2DEG side junctions for reference samples.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fehgte2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Examples of $I-V$ characteristics for transport across a single normal N-2DEG (a) or ferromagnetic F-2DEG (b,c) junction. The measurements are performed at a temperature of 30~mK in zero magnetic field. For a reference sample with Au-2DEG junctions (a), $V_f$ and $V_b$ coincide well and reflect the resistance of the N-2DEG interface in a standard three-point configuration. For the ferromagnetic F-2DEG junction to the 8~nm HgTe quantum well (b), we obtain significant (about 1~M$\Omega$ corresponding resistance) signal $V_f$, but $V_b$ is always zero. For the 20~nm HgTe quantum well (c), $V_f$ and $V_b$ are different, however, they are of the same order of magnitude: we do not observe $V_b=0$ in this case. The data for the 8~nm HgTe quantum well (b) indicate perfect coupling of the the grounded ferromagnetic electrode to the conductive edge channel.
}
\label{IVnl}
\end{figure}
We study electron transport across one particular F-2DEG junction in a three-point technique, see Fig.~\ref{sample}: the central ferromagnetic electrode is grounded; a current is applied between it and one of the normal (source or drain) contacts; two other permalloy contacts (front and back) trace the 2DEG potential to both sides of the grounded junction, $V_f$ and $V_b$, respectively.
We sweep the dc current and measure voltages in a mV range by a dc electrometer, the resulting $I-V$ characteristics are presented in Fig.~\ref{IVnl},\ref{IV2p}. To obtain $dV/dI(V)$ characteristics in Fig.~\ref{IVgate}, this dc current is additionally modulated by a low ac component (0.01~nA, 2~Hz). We measure the ac ($\sim dV/dI$) component of the 2DEG potential by using a lock-in with a 100~M$\Omega$ input preamplifier. We have checked, that the lock-in signal is independent of the modulation frequency in the range 1~Hz -- 6~Hz, which is defined by applied ac filters.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fehgte3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Two-point $I-V$ characteristics (dash) for double normal Au-2DEG-Au (a) or ferromagnetic F-2DEG-F (b) junctions in comparison with the three-point potential $V_f$ from Fig.~\protect\ref{IVnl} (a) and (b), respectively. The experimental Au-2DEG-Au $I-V$ reflects the resistance of two mostly identical Au-2DEG interfaces. In contrast, two-point F-2DEG-F curve coincides well with the three-point $V_f$ potential, so it reflects the resistance of the edge channel with negligible interface contributions. The measurements are performed at a temperature of 30~mK in zero magnetic field for the 8~nm wide HgTe well sample.
}
\label{IV2p}
\end{figure}
The measurements are performed at a temperature of 30~mK. To realize a spin-polarized transport, the permalloy stripes are initially pre-magnetized in the 2DEG plane~\cite{feinas}. The sample is placed within a superconducting solenoid, so the initial in-plane magnetization can be changed by introducing relatively high (above 1~T) external magnetic field. The field is switched to zero afterward, so the measurements are performed in zero magnetic field.
Qualitatively similar results were obtained from different samples in several cooling cycles. We study several samples of the type A (from both 8-nm and 20-nm HgTe quantum wells), which are depicted in Fig.~\ref{sample}, and one of the type B, which is additionally covered by a metallic Al gate. The gate covers all the sample (bulk 2DEG, mesa edges, all F-2DEG junctions), except for the normal Ohmic contacts. To avoid gate leakage, Al gate is placed over a 350~nm thick dielectric (guanine) layer. We check that there is no noticeable gate leakage through the dielectric at $\pm 5$~V dc gate bias. As a reference, we use a sample with Au (normal) side junctions instead of the permalloy ones.
\section{Experimental results}
Examples of $I-V$ characteristics are presented in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} for transport across a single normal N-2DEG (a) or ferromagnetic F-2DEG (b,c) junction.
In a three-point technique, the measured potential $V$ reflects in-series connected resistances of the grounded contact and the 2DEG. This technique is especially convenient if the former term is dominant. In this case, the 2DEG is equipotential, so the measured three-point $I-V$ curve is independent of the particular positions of the current/voltage probes.
This is exactly that we have for the reference normal Au-2DEG junction, see Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (a). $I-V$ curves coincide well for both potential probes $V_f$ and $V_b$. Thus, the measured three-point $I-V$ curves in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (a) reflect the behavior of the (grounded) Au-2DEG interface. These $I-V$ curves are obviously non-linear and are characterized by a high resistance (about 10~M$\Omega$) in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (a). The low-current resistive region with two kinks at about $\pm 1.5$~mV indicates a significant potential barrier (depletion region~\cite{shklovskii,image02}) at the 2DEG edge. Similar high-resistive junctions we have obtained for other non-magnetic materials like sputtered Nb and NbN~\cite{nbnhgte}.
Our most prominent experimental result is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b). If we ground the permalloy ferromagnetic side contact to the 8~nm HgTe quantum well, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{sample}, the measured potential is strongly asymmetric. We obtain a significant signal $V_f$, i.e. for the voltage probe placed between the current and ground ones, but $V_b$ is always zero. We observe the same behavior for both current polarities and for two different current probes in Fig.~\ref{sample}, so the asymmetry between $V_f$ and $V_b$ is not connected with any absolute direction in the sample. This asymmetry is only determined by the mutual positions of the current and voltage contacts with respect to the grounded ferromagnetic lead. Identical behavior is obtained for different ferromagnetic contacts and different 8~nm well samples. We wish to emphasize that the behavior, depicted in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b), is very unusual and is in a high contrast to the standard three-point resistance of a reference Au contact in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (a).
The asymmetry $V_f>>V_b=0$ can not originate from bulk 2DEG contribution to the measured potential: different signals $V_f>V_b$ would require the bulk 2DEG resistance to exceed strongly the F-2DEG interface contribution. Because of high-resistive curves (about 1~M$\Omega$ corresponding resistance) in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b), this is inconsistent with the metallic bulk conductivity (below 1 k$\Omega$) at $1.5 \cdot 10^{11} $cm$^{-2}$ electron concentration in our samples.
To verify this conclusion experimentally, similar measurements are performed for a 20~nm width HgTe quantum well, see Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (c). $V_f$ and $V_b$ are also different in this case, however, they are of the same order of magnitude: we do not observe $V_b=0$ in this case. Both experimental $I-V$ curves correspond to about 1 k$\Omega$ resistance, which is comparable with the bulk values. In other words, Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (c) experimentally demonstrates the typical effect of bulk current contribution to a three-point signal in the case of low F-2DEG interface resistance.
The only difference between 8~nm and 20~nm HgTe quantum wells is the conductive helical edge channel in the former case~\cite{molenkamp_nonlocal,kvon_nonlocal}. From the continuous evolution of the edge current when the system is driven away from the charge-neutral regime, demonstrated in Ref.~\onlinecite{imaging} by a direct visualization experiment, one can reasonably suppose that the edge current is still carried by helical spin-resolved edge states even at the conductive bulk 2DEG. It requires low coupling between the edge states and the bulk, possibly because of the formation of a depletion region where the edge channel is laterally localized~\cite{imaging}. The depletion region of finite width is often present at the 2DEG edge due to electrostatic effects~\cite{shklovskii,image02}. This depletion region is also confirmed in our experiment by the zero $V_b=0$ for any distance to the potential probe in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b).
Since the conductive channel is present at the edge of a 8~nm HgTe quantum well, the perfect ($V_b=0$ for any current $I$) asymmetry of the edge potential $V_f>>V_b$, observed in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b), indicates that the grounded ferromagnetic side electrode is perfectly coupled to this channel.
We verify the statement of ideal coupling of the ferromagnetic lead to the edge current by standard two-point characterization, see Fig.~\ref{IV2p}. It can be seen in the figure, that the two-point F-2DEG-F $I-V$ curve, measured between two neighbor ferromagnetic contacts, coincides well with the three-point $V_f$ potential from Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b), so the interface contributions are negligible.
In contrast, the experimental Au-2DEG-Au $I-V$ curve in Fig.~\ref{IV2p} (a) corresponds to a roughly two times higher resistance than three-point potentials $V_f,V_b$ from Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (a), so it mostly reflects the resistance of two resistive Au-2DEG interfaces.
\section{Discussion} \label{disc}
We should conclude that only a ferromagnetic permalloy side contact is strongly coupled to the conductive helical edge channel in zero magnetic field:
(i) the perfect ($V_b=0$ for any current $I$) asymmetry of the edge potential $V_f>>V_b$, see Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b), is only observed for the 8~nm quantum well; (ii) the coincidence between the two-point F-2DEG-F $I-V$ curve with the three-point $V_f$ potential, see Fig.~\ref{IV2p} (b), directly indicates negligible F-2DEG interface contributions.
If the transport current is concentrated at the edge, it is flowing along the shortest edge to the ground lead and there should be no current flowing near the potential probe $V_b$, so $V_b=0$ for any current $I$. The potential $V_f$ in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b) reflects therefore solely the resistance of the edge channel between two ferromagnetic contacts. It corresponds to about 1~M$\Omega$ resistance, which is also well known for a transport along the helical current-carrying states at macroscopic distances~\cite{kvon_nonlocal}. It is worth to mention, that this 1~M$\Omega$ resistance is still much smaller than the resistance for transport through the edge depletion region to the bulk (cp. with Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (a)), so the edge channel is still decoupled from the bulk even at macroscopic distances.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fehgte4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Top-view of the 2DEG near the ferromagnetic contact. A depletion region (white) is shown, where the edge current is laterally localized (yellow region). A blue region, surrounded by dashed line, depicts schematically a vicinity of the contact, where the proximity magnetization is important. Here, spin-polarized transport couples edge current with the ferromagnetic side contact.}
\label{discussion}
\end{figure}
This strong coupling is not defined by chemical composition of the metallic film or the fabrication technique: the sputtered permalloy film contacts the 20~nm HgTe quantum well similarly to other non-magnetic materials. There should be a specific magnetic (spin-dependent) process, which couples the spin-polarized ferromagnetic side contact and the one-dimensional helical channel at the edge of a 2DEG with band inversion: a proximity magnetization locally aligns~\cite{qi,lunde} the spins of two helical edge states in the vicinity of the ferromagnetic contact.
The spin-polarized electron flow from the ferromagnetic contact can be easily injected to the helical state with corresponding spin projection. The depletion at the interface decouples the bulk 2DEG and makes the helical edge mode even more important.
Farther transport along the sample edge is diffusive at at macroscopic distances~\cite{kvon,kvon_nonlocal}, because of allowed backscattering~\cite{mirlin,glazman}, so the injected electrons are flowing along the shortest edge to the ground lead. The coupling is independent of the magnetization direction, as we observe in the experiment, because it is the contact magnetization that defines the spin alignment direction, see Fig.~\ref{discussion}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fehgte5.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Differential resistance $dV_f/dI$ at low currents. The zero-bias resistance peak is strongly affected by (a) temperature and (b) gate voltage. It disappears completely above 0.5~K, which is consistent with the non-linearity onset $\approx 0.06$~mV in Fig.~\protect\ref{IVnl} (b). The measurements are performed in zero magnetic field for the 8~nm wide HgTe well sample B with a metallic gate.
}
\label{IVgate}
\end{figure}
The proximity magnetization can be directly identified in the experimental data. It opens a gap in the one-dimensional spectrum in the vicinity of the contact~\cite{lunde}, which can be seen as a $\approx 0.06$~mV width region of high resistance in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b). This gap only affects the edge channel resistance, and has no effect on its coupling to the ferromagnetic electrode.
The zero-bias resistive region is demonstrated in detail in Fig.~\ref{IVgate} as $dV/dI(I)$ dependencies for the sample B with a metallic gate. It disappears completely above 0.5~K, which is consistent in value with the non-linearity onset $\approx 0.06$~mV in Fig.~\ref{IVnl} (b). In contrast, the linear branches of the $dV/dI(I)-I$ curve are invariant below 1~K, which is also consistent with the reported temperature behavior of the diffusive helical edge state transport at macroscopic distances~\cite{kvon_temp}. The zero-bias resistive region is strongly sensitive to the gate voltage, even if it low enough to have no effect on the bulk carrier concentration, see Fig.~\ref{IVgate} (b). The suppression is fully symmetric with respect to a gate voltage sign. We connect it with the edge state structure reconstruction~\cite{lunde} in the vicinity of a ferromagnetic contact (denoted by a blue region in Fig.~\ref{discussion}), which, however, needs further investigations. A magnetic field above 0.2~T sharply increases the zero-bias resistive region. This behavior is consistent with a spectrum gap~\cite{lunde} due to proximity magnetization, the gap value can be estimated as $\approx 0.06$~meV.
\section{Conclusion}
As a result, we experimentally investigate spin-polarized electron transport between a permalloy ferromagnet and the edge of a two-dimensional electron system with band inversion, realized in a narrow, 8~nm wide HgTe quantum well. In zero magnetic field, we observe strong asymmetry of the edge potential distribution with respect to the ferromagnetic ground lead. This result indicates that the helical edge channel, specific for the structures with band inversion even at the conductive bulk, is strongly coupled to the ferromagnetic side contact, possibly due to the effects of proximity magnetization. It allows selective and spin-sensitive contacting of helical edge states.
\acknowledgments
We wish to thank V.T.~Dolgopolov, V.A.~Volkov, I.~Gornyi, and T.M.~Klapwijk for fruitful discussions. We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the RFBR, RAS and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation under Contract No. 14.B25.31.0007.
|
\section{Introduction}
The theory of quantum games was originally envisioned by Meyer \cite{Meyer} to be a study of aspects of quantum mechanics such as quantum algorithms via non-cooperative game theory. However, intervening years appear to have blurred the line between the object of study and the tool being used to study it, and a majority of the work in the subject tends to instead study non-cooperative games under a quantum mechanical model. In fact, this pole-reversal if you will, took place early in the development of quantum game theory, starting with the Eisert, Wilkens, and Lewenstein paper \cite{Eisert} and eventually producing a plethora of literature containing results that were really game-theoretic in nature but to which an improper quantum physical significance has been sometimes attached.
Motivated by discussions with colleagues (acknowledged in section \ref{sec:ack} below), Simon J.D. Phoenix and I have recently clarified some of these categorical issues in quantum game theory in \cite{Fkhan1}. We have argued in \cite{Fkhan1} that if the idea behind the merger of quantum physics and game theory is to gain new insights into aspects of quantum physics, then the correct approach to quantum game theory should be ``gaming the quantum'' as envisioned by Meyer and not `` quantizing games'' as proposed by Eisert et al. Let me motivate this argument further here as follows: quantum physicist are familiar and comfortable with quantization of phenomenon, both abstract and those carrying physical significance. For instance, information is quantized by associating the state space of a quantum system (a complex projective Hilbert space) with the set of probability distributions (a convex set). Likewise, space-time is quantized by associating the state space of a quantum system with a region of space-time (a differentiable manifold). Note that when a phenomenon is quantized, {\it it} is the object of study under a quantum physical model. Therefore, quantum information (more accurately, quantized information) is the study of information processing under a quantum physical model, and quantum field theory is the study of space-time under a quantum physical model. It follows that quantized games study games under a quantum physical model, but not necessarily aspects of quantum physics under a game-theoretic model. Therefore, attaching quantum physical significance to any results in quantized game theory may not always be the most obvious or the most sensible thing to do.
The idea of studying one type of object by analogy with one of another type is an old one; however, it was mathematically formalized in the early part of the twentieth century under the name of category theory where one studies objects in one (mathematical) category via those in another. A fundamentally important feature of this mathematically formal process of forming analogies is a {\it functor}, that is, a map that associates objects in one category to those in another and satisfies certain axioms. John Baez poetically expresses the importance of functors in science in \cite{Baez} as follows: ``...every sufficiently good analogy is yearning to become a functor''.
What is most relevant to note here about functors is that as with functions, it is important to differentiate between their domain and co-domain. Hence, quantization schemes always map {\it from} the category of Hilbert space {\it into} some other, allowing one to study the objects in the co-domain category via objects in the domain category. It is indeed conceivable that such distinction may sometimes be moot; however, I would argue that if good scientific reasoning has taught us anything it is that one should let such simplification arise naturally from a minimal set of assumptions.
To make this point further, note that if one insists that a gamed quantum system should collapse to the underlying game upon the introduction of appropriate restrictions \cite{Bleiler}, then one has effectively quantized a game! However, in the absence of such restrictions, one is only gaming the quantum system with the goal of gaining new insights into the quantum system. So quantizing a game is a special case of gaming the quantum, but not necessarily the other way around.
Category theory has recently become popular among quantum information scientists, as evidenced by works of Abramsky et. al, \cite{Abramsky}, Baez \cite{Baez}, and Bergholm et al. \cite{Bergholm} that studies quantum informational aspects from a categorical perspective. A similar categorical approach in quantum game theory can only clarify the subject further and offer deeper insights into notions of constrained optimization and equilibrium in quantum systems, for example.
In this paper, I will build up on my previous work with Simon J.D. Phoenix in \cite{Fkhan1} where we presented a strictly competitive game model for two qubit quantum computations and characterized the corresponding solution concept of mini-max outcomes via the inner product of the Hilbert space of these computations. Strictly competitive games are a special case of the more general class of games known as non-cooperative games. They are so special a case in fact that they are sometimes criticized as being of little practical use in modeling real world phenomena. But history bears witness to the practical usefulness of non-cooperative game theory in areas ranging from Economics to various disciplines of engineering. It can be easily argued that this success of game theory as a practically useful science is due to the work of John Nash in formulating the now ubiquitous solution concept of Nash equilibrium for non-strictly competitive, non-cooperative games. For the sake of further clarity, I point out here that mini-max outcomes are identical to Nash equilibrium in strictly competitive games, but Nash equilibrium need not be a mini-max outcome in general.
Motivated by the significance of Nash equilibrium in game theory and its more traditional applications, I will offer in this paper a non-strictly competitive game model for two qubit quantum computations and establish a notion of Nash equilibrium in such ``quantum games'' using the inner product of the Hilbert space of these computations. It is hoped that this application of the more general non-strictly competitive, non-cooperative game theory to quantum mechanics will produce further new insights in the constrained optimization of quantum mechanisms.”
In the following section \ref{sec:games}, I restate the established notion of functional form of non-cooperative games and the terminology that facilitates the definition of the solution concept of Nash equilibrium. In the same spirit, the notion of dominant strategies is developed in section \ref{sec:domstrat}, followed by notions of quantum games with dominant strategies in section \ref{sec:quantdom} and Nash equilibrium in section \ref{sec:NE} Application to two qubit quantum computations and algorithms is discussed in section \ref{sec:quantcomp}, followed by conclusions and potential future work in section \ref{sec:conc}.
\section{Non-cooperative games in normal form}\label{sec:games}
A non-cooperative game in normal form is a function
\begin{equation}\label{gamma}
\Gamma: \prod X_i \longrightarrow Y
\end{equation}
with $X_i$ the {\it strategy set} of player $i$ and $Y$ the set of {\it outcomes} with a notion of non-identical preferences of the players defined over these outcomes. In a game with finitely many players, a {\it play} of the game is a tuple of strategies, one per player, $(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n)$, with $x_i \in X_i$. A play of the game is said to be {\it Nash equilibrium} if unilateral deviation by any player from his choice of strategy will produce an outcome of the game that is less preferable to {\it that} player. In other words, a Nash equilibrium play is one in which each player employs a strategy that is a best reply to those of his opponents. Hence, a Nash equilibrium outcome is an {\it optimal outcome under given constraints}, where the constraints are the non-identical preferences of the players over the outcomes.
For a more concrete example of a game, consider the following famous game called Prisoner's Dilemma, a two player game with both players having access to two strategies labeled $C$ and $D$. The outcomes of the game are $\left\{o_1, o_2, o_3, o_4 \right\}$ with non-identical preferences of the players over the elements of this set defined as
\begin{equation}\label{prefI}
I: \quad o_3 \succ o_1 \succ o_4 \succ o_2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{prefII}
II: \quad o_2 \succ o_1 \succ o_4 \succ o_3.
\end{equation}
where $\succ$ represents the notion of ``preferred over''. The game itself can be defined as
\begin{equation}\label{PD}
P: X_1 \times X_2 \longrightarrow \left\{o_1, o_2, o_3, o_4 \right\}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}\label{sets}
X_1=X_2=\left\{ C, D \right\}, \quad Y=\left\{o_1, o_2, o_3, o_4 \right\}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{function}
P(C,C)=o_1, \quad P(C,D)=o_2, \quad P(D,C)=o_3,\quad P(D,D)=o_4
\end{equation}
\section{Two player games with dominant strategies}\label{sec:domstrat}
Games like Prisoner's Dilemma have added structure to the players' preferences. In Prisoner's Dilemma, for player I it is the case that
\begin{equation}\label{dom1}
o_3 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} o_4 \succ o_1 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} o_2
\end{equation}
and for player II it is the case that
\begin{equation}\label{dom2}
o_2 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} o_4 \succ o_1 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} o_3
\end{equation}
In this situation, the notion of {\it strongly dominant} strategy arises as a strategy that a given player will utilize regardless of what his opponent does. In Prisoner's Dilemma, based on (\ref{function}), player I and II will both always utilize the strategy $D$ regardless of what their opponent does. Hence, appropriate conditions on players' preferences in this case induce players' preferences over their strategic choices, a fact that can be used to compute Nash equilibrium by arguing that a player would never employ a dominated strategy. In Prisoners' Dilemma, this means that the play $(D,D)$ is a Nash equilibrium and the corresponding outcome $o_4$ the Nash equilibrium outcome.
A question of both mathematical and game-theoretic interest could be raised here about the classification of all those two player, two strategy normal form games that entertain dominant strategies (note that the way the function $\Gamma$ maps into $Y$ will influence the existence of dominant strategies) and therefore a Nash equilibrium. Instead of attempting to answer this general question here however, I will consider next the restricted case where the normal form games are quantum physically meaningful.
\section{Two player quantum games with dominant strategies}\label{sec:quantdom}
A {\it quantum game} in normal form is a function $Q$ with $X_i= (H_{d})_i $, a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space representing the strategy set of player $i$, and $Y=H_e$, a $e$-dimensional Hilbert space representing the set of {\it outcomes} with a notion of non-identical preferences of each player defined over its elements. In a game with finitely many players, a {\it play} of the game is a tuple of strategies, one per player, $(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n)$, with $x_i \in (H_{d})_i$. In functional symbols,
\begin{equation}\label{quantumgame}
Q: \prod (H_d)_i \longrightarrow H_e
\end{equation}
While it is straight forward to map the functional language of games in normal form to quantum mechanical systems as above, it is not as straight forward to talk of players' preferences over the outcomes, for in any such quantum game we must justify notions of players' preferences within a physical context. This can be achieved by appealing to the concept of observables, that is, elements of an orthogonal basis of $H_e$. For example, consider a two qubit quantum computation $Q$ in the game-theoretic context of Prisoner's Dilemma by setting
\begin{equation}\label{quantident}
(H_d)_1=(H_d)_2=H_2, \quad H_e=H_4.
\end{equation}
The Hilbert space $H_4$ has associated with it four observables in the form of elements of an orthogonal basis, say $B=\left\{ b_1, b_2, b_3, b_4 \right\}$, exactly one of which is the ultimate results of any two qubit quantum computation set up with respect to $B$ and followed by measurement. Given the physical significance of the elements of $B$, one can first define players' preferences over the elements of $B$ as per Prisoner's Dilemma to get
\begin{equation}\label{quantpref1}
{\rm Player \hspace{1mm} I}: \quad b_3 \succ b_1 \succ b_4 \succ b_2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{quantpref2}
{\rm Player \hspace{1mm} II}: \quad b_2 \succ b_1 \succ b_4 \succ b_3.
\end{equation}
and further insist that for player I
\begin{equation}\label{quantumdom1}
b_3 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} b_4 \succ b_1 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} b_2
\end{equation}
and that for player II
\begin{equation}\label{quantumdom2}
b_2 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} b_4 \succ b_1 \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} b_3.
\end{equation}
The inner-product of the $H_4$ allows a more general notion of players' preferences to be set up \cite{Fkhan1} via (\ref{quantumdom1}) and (\ref{quantumdom2}) as follows. Player I will prefer an arbitrary outcome, that is, a quantum superposition $p$ of the elements of $B$ in $H_4$ over another $q$ if $p$ is closer to $b_3$ or $b_4$ than $q$ is, and player II will prefer any arbitrary quantum superposition $r$ over another $s$ if $r$ is closer to $b_2$ or $b_4$ than $s$ is. Denote by $\theta_{(,)}$ the geometric distance between two quantum superpositions induced by the inner-product of Hilbert space; then
\begin{equation}\label{genericpref1}
{\rm Player \hspace{1mm} I}: \quad p \succ q \quad {\rm whenever} \quad \theta_{(p,b_3)} < \theta_{(q,b_3)} \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} \theta_{(p,b_4)} < \theta_{(q,b_4)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{genericpref2}
{\rm Player \hspace{1mm} II}: \quad r \succ s \quad {\rm whenever} \quad \theta_{(r,b_2)} < \theta_{(s,b_2)} \hspace{2mm} {\rm or} \hspace{2mm} \theta_{(r,b_4)} < \theta_{(s,b_4)}
\end{equation}
Any two qubit quantum computation $Q$ for which the elements of ${\rm Im}(Q) \subseteq H_4$, where ${\rm Im}(Q)$ is the image of $Q$, satisfy (\ref{genericpref1}) and (\ref{genericpref2}) can now be referred to as quantum Prisoner's Dilemma, and one can ask for states of qubits in $H_2$, one per player (players' quantum strategies), that are dominant and correspond to Nash equilibrium. Since quantum Prisoner's Dilemma has infinitely many outcomes corresponding to infinitely many possible strategic choices of the players, it is not possible to identify potential dominant strategies by a direct analysis of the added structure of players’ preferences over the outcomes similar to the one that can be performed in Prisoners Dilemma. Instead, the effect of the added structure of players’ preferences over arbitrary outcomes of quantum Prisoner's Dilemma is first captured by (\ref{genericpref1}) and (\ref{genericpref2}) and these conditions are then used to identify Nash equilibrium; finally, one concludes by virtue of (\ref{genericpref1}) and (\ref{genericpref2}) that all quantum strategies realizing Nash equilibrium are necessarily strongly dominant, as the following discussion shows.
\subsection{Nash equilibrium and dominant strategies}\label{sec:NE}
Nash equilibrium in $Q$ can be identified as follows. Suppose $N \in {\rm Im}(Q)$ is a Nash equilibrium arising from the play $(A^*, B^*)$, that is $Q(A^*,B^*)=N$. If player I unilaterally deviates from strategy $A^*$ to another $A$, then the result $q=Q(A,B^*)$ will be less preferable to him than $N$. Similarly, if player II unilaterally deviates from strategy $B^*$ to another $B$, then the result $s=Q(A^*,B)$ will be less preferable to him than $N$. It follows that for player I, $N \succ q$ for any $q \in {\rm Im}(Q)$, and that for player 2, $N \succ s$ for any $s \in {\rm Im}(Q)$. Therefore, $N$ is a quantum state that satisfies both (\ref{genericpref1}) and (\ref{genericpref2}) with $N=p=r$. It follows immediately that all Nash equilibrium quantum strategies are necessarily strongly dominant and the players will never employ any other strategy in quantum Prisoner's Dilemma.
\section{Application to quantum computation}\label{sec:quantcomp}
An immediate significance of gaming two qubit quantum computation lies in the ability to talk meaningfully of constrained optimization of these computations. In \cite{Fkhan2}, Simon J.D. Phoenix and I have optimized two qubit quantum computations under constraints arising from a strictly competitive (also known as zero-sum) game model. Strictly competitive games have the property that one player's win is exactly the other player's loss. As such, strictly competitive constraints offer an interesting potential approach to studying Grover's algorithm which searches for an item from a finite collection. One can view the item being searched for as the winning outcome for one player, and all other outcomes as the winning outcome for the other. A Nash equilibrium in such a quantum game would occur at the so-called mini-max outcome.
Gaming two qubit quantum computations using the game model of Prisoner's Dilemma here gives the first instance of a proper application of non-strictly competitive game theory to a quantum system, resulting in the characterization of qubit states that produce an optimal outcome under such constraints. Classification of two qubit states and quantum computations that are optimal under the constraints of Prisoner's Dilemma can be achieved by a detailed mechanism design approach similar to the one in \cite{Fkhan2}. The initial set up for such an analysis follows below, with the detailed analysis itself left as an excercise for the reader.
Start with
\[
B=\left\{ b_{1}=\left| 0\right\rangle \otimes\left| 0 \right\rangle
,b_{2}=\left| 0 \right\rangle \otimes\left| 1 \right\rangle ,b_{3}=\left| 1
\right\rangle \otimes\left| 0 \right\rangle ,b_{4}=\left| 1 \right\rangle
\otimes\left| 1 \right\rangle \right\} ,
\]
as the standard (orthogonal) computational basis for $H_{4}$
with
\[
\left| 0 \right\rangle = \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
1\\
0
\end{array}
\right) ; \quad\left| 1 \right\rangle = \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
0\\
1
\end{array}
\right)
\]
and preferences of the players defined as in expressions (\ref{quantpref1}) - (\ref{quantumdom2}). Consider the two qubit quantum computation
\[
U=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc
U_{11} & U_{12} & U_{13} & U_{14}\\
U_{21} & U_{22} & U_{23} & U_{24}\\
U_{31} & U_{32} & U_{33} & U_{34}\\
U_{41} & U_{42} & U_{43} & U_{44
\end{array}
\right)
\]
as a two player, two strategy quantum game represented
with respect to the basis $B$. Also, let $B^{\prime}=\left\{ \left| 0
\right\rangle , \left| 1 \right\rangle \right\} $ be the computational basis
for each $H_{2}$ that constitutes the players' set of strategies. A strategy
for Player I is the choice of a qubit state, say
\[
A=x_{1}\left| 0 \right\rangle +y_{1}\left| 1 \right\rangle
\]
and a strategy for Player II is the choice of qubit state, say
\[
B=x_{2}\left| 0 \right\rangle +y_{2}\left| 1 \right\rangle .
\]
Next, consider a Nash equilibrium play of the quantum game $U$, that is, a play in
which Player I chooses the strategy
\[
A^{*}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
x_{1}^{*}\\
y_{1}^{*
\end{array}
\right)
\]
and Player II chooses the strategy
\[
B^{*}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
x_{2}^{*}\\
y_{2}^{*
\end{array}
\right) .
\]
The output of the game at this Nash equilibrium is
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:output}N=U(A^{*},B^{*})=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c
U_{11}x^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{12}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{13}y^{*}_{1}x^{*
_{2}+U_{14}y^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}\\
U_{21}x^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{22}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{23}y^{*}_{1}x^{*
_{2}+U_{24}y^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}\\
U_{31}x^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{32}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{33}y^{*}_{1}x^{*
_{2}+U_{34}y^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}\\
U_{41}x^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{42}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{43}y^{*}_{1}x^{*
_{2}+U_{44}y^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
with $\left\| N \right\| ^{2}=1$ and
\[
\theta_{(N,b_{i})}=\cos^{-1}(\left| U_{i1}x^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{i2
x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{i3}y^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{i4}y^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right|
^{2})
\]
\subsection{Nash equilibrium in quantum prisoner's dilemma }\label{sec:NE}
A unilateral deviation on part of Player I from the play $(A^{*}, B^{*})$ to
\textit{any} other $(A,B^{*})$ will produce the output state $\widehat{N}$
such that
\[
\theta_{(\widehat{N},b_{3})} \geq\theta_{(N,b_{3})} \quad {\rm and} \quad \theta_{(\widehat{N},b_{4})} \geq\theta_{(N,b_{4})}
\]
Because the inverse cosine function is decreasing and the quadratic function is one-to-one and increasing on non-negative inputs, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ineq1}
\left| U_{31}x_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{32}x_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{33
y_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{34}y_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| \leq\left| U_{31}x^{*}_{1
x^{*}_{2}+U_{32}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{33}y^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{34}y^{*
_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| .
\end{equation}
and that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ineq2}\left| U_{41}x_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{42}x_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{43
y_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{44}y_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| \leq\left| U_{41}x^{*}_{1
x^{*}_{2}+U_{42}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{43}y^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{44}y^{*
_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| .
\end{equation}
Likewise, a unilateral deviation on part of Player II from the play $(A^{*},
B^{*})$ to \textit{any} other $(A^{*},B)$ will produce the output state
$\widetilde{N}$ such that
\[
\theta_{(\widetilde{N},b_{2})} \geq\theta_{(N,b_{2})} \quad {\rm and} \quad \theta_{(\widetilde{N},b_{4})} \geq\theta_{(N,b_{4})}.
\]
Reasoning as in the case of Player I above, the previous two inequalities representing Player II's preferences can be expanded as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ineq3}
\left| U_{21}x^{*}_{1}x_{2}+U_{22}x^{*}_{1}y_{2}+U_{23
y^{*}_{1}x_{2}+U_{24}y^{*}_{1}y_{2} \right| \leq\left| U_{21}x^{*}_{1
x^{*}_{2}+U_{22}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{23}y^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{24}y^{*
_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| .
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ineq4}
\left| U_{41}x^{*}_{1}x_{2}+U_{42}x^{*}_{1}y_{2}+U_{43
y^{*}_{1}x_{2}+U_{44}y^{*}_{1}y_{2} \right| \leq\left| U_{41}x^{*}_{1
x^{*}_{2}+U_{42}x^{*}_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{43}y^{*}_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{44}y^{*
_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| .
\end{equation}
Focusing back on Player I's preferences and factoring and applying triangle inequality on the right-hand side of
inequality (\ref{eqn:ineq1}) produces
\[
\left| U_{31}x_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{32}x_{1}y^{*}_{2}+U_{33}y_{1}x^{*}_{2
+U_{34}y_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| \leq \left| U_{31}x_{2}^{*}+U_{32}y_{2
^{*}\right| \cdot\left| x_{1}^{*}\right| +\left| U_{33}x_{2}^{*}+U_{34
y_{2}^{*}\right| \cdot\left| y_{1}^{*}\right|
\]
which can be expressed compactly as
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:shortineq1}
\left| U_{31}x_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{32}x_{1}y^{*}_{2
+U_{33}y_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{34}y_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| \leq P\left| x_{1}^{*}
\right| + Q \left| y_{1}^{*} \right|
\end{equation}
with $P=\left| U_{31}x_{2}^{*}+U_{32}y_{2}^{*}\right| $ and $Q=\left|
U_{33}x_{2}^{*}+U_{34}y_{2}^{*}\right| $. Applying the same reasoning to
inequality (\ref{eqn:ineq2}) gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:shortineq2}\left| U_{41}x_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{42}x_{1}y^{*}_{2
+U_{43}y_{1}x^{*}_{2}+U_{44}y_{1}y^{*}_{2} \right| \leq P^{\prime}\left| x_{1}^{*}
\right| + Q^{\prime} \left| y_{1}^{*} \right|
\end{equation}
with $P^{\prime}=\left| U_{41}x_{2}^{*}+U_{42}y_{2}^{*}\right| $ and
$Q^{\prime}=\left| U_{43}x_{2}^{*}+U_{44}y_{2}^{*}\right| $. Inequalities
(\ref{eqn:shortineq1}) and (\ref{eqn:shortineq2}) can be further simplified by
factoring and applying the triangle inequality to their respective left-hand
sides, giving two cases each:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case1}P|x_{1}| +Q|y_{1}| \leq P| x_{1}^{*}| + Q| y_{1}^{*}|
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case2}P|x_{1}| +Q|y_{1}| \geq P| x_{1}^{*}| + Q| y_{1}^{*}|
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case3}P^{\prime}|x_{1}| +Q^{\prime}|y_{1}| \leq P^{\prime}|
x_{1}^{*}| + Q^{\prime}| y_{1}^{*}|
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case4}P^{\prime}|x_{1}| +Q^{\prime}|y_{1}| \geq P^{\prime}|
x_{1}^{*}| + Q^{\prime}| y_{1}^{*}|.
\end{equation}
Similar reasoning applied to inequalities (\ref{eqn:ineq3}) and (\ref{eqn:ineq4}) for Player II will produce the following collection of inequalities:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case5}S|x_{2}| +T|y_{2}| \leq S| x_{2}^{*}| + T| y_{2}^{*}|
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case6} S|x_{2}| + T|y_{2}| \geq S| x_{2}^{*}| + T| y_{2}^{*}|
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case7}S^{\prime}|x_{2}| +T^{\prime}|y_{2}| \leq S^{\prime}|
x_{2}^{*}| +T^{\prime}| y_{2}^{*}|
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:case8}S^{\prime}|x_{2}| +T^{\prime}|y_{2}| \geq S^{\prime}|
x_{2}^{*}| + T^{\prime}| y_{2}^{*}|.
\end{equation}
with
$S=\left| U_{21}x_{1}^{*}+U_{23}y_{1}^{*}\right| $, $T=\left| U_{22}x_{1}^{*}+U_{24}y_{1}^{*}\right| $, $S^{\prime}=\left| U_{42}x_{1}^{*}+U_{44}y_{1}^{*}\right| $, and $T^{\prime}=\left| U_{42}x_{1}^{*}+U_{44}y_{1}^{*}\right| $.
Inequalities (\ref{eqn:case1}) - (\ref{eqn:case8}) capture the structure of Nash equilibrium in the class of two qubit quantum computations, $U$, using the notion of dominant strategies from Prisoner's Dilemma. In particular, Each player's dominant, and therefore Nash equilibrium, strategic choice can be analyzed in comparison to {\it all} other strategic choices of the player {\it and} with respect to the parameters of the particular game $U$. That is, one can solve inequalities (\ref{eqn:case1}) - (\ref{eqn:case8}) for the Nash equilibrium parameters $|x_i^*|$ and $|y_i^*|$ in terms of the paramters $|x_i|$ and $|y_i|$ and the parameters of the game $U$
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conc}
Although I gamed two qubit quantum computations here via Prisoner's Dilemma, the same could be done using other non-cooperative two player games such Stag Hunt, Chicken, Battle of the Sexes, and the full general class of the so-called Hawk-Dove games to which the latter two (and Prisoner's Dilemma) belong. Readers interested in the quantization of these games are refered to \cite{Iqbal, Nawaz, Nawaz1}, respectively.
Multi-qudit quantum computations could be gamed for constrained optimization using non-cooperative multi-player games. More generally, it is possible to game the quantum to construct more general notions of state distinguishability \cite{Fkhan3} as well as to construct notions of quantum data classification \cite{Fkhan4}.
\section{Acknowledgment}\label{sec:ack}
I am grateful to Derek Abbott, Steven Bleiler, Azhar Iqbal, and Simon J.D. Phoenix for fruitful discussions. I am also indebted to the referees whose advice has elevated the quality of this paper's presentation and results.
\singlespace
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper focuses on flows of electrically conducting fluids in channels pervaded by a spanwise (i.e. parallel to the bounding walls, rather than perpendicular as in the more familiar case of Hartmann flow) magnetic field with a double aim: 1) to determine the properties of the associated dynamical system, and in particular, an upper bound for the dimension of its attractor, and
2) to derive a functional basis that tightly encompasses the attractor of the system, for subsequent use in highly efficient spectral direct numerical simulations (DNS). Both aims are achieved by deriving the set of least dissipative eigenmodes of the dissipative part of the governing equations.
Before setting out on this task, we familiarize the reader with the key role played by this slightly unusual functional basis in this particular problem and a number of potential others.\\
The physical problem is one of the generic configurations where liquid metals flow in devices pervaded by a strong externally imposed magnetic field. It concerns a number of engineering applications in the field of metallurgy and in the nuclear industry, where liquid metals flows are controlled and diagnosed with such fields, or are used to extract heat from nuclear fusion or fission reactors
\cite{vecha13_pf}.
In these engineering problems and small scale laboratory experiments, the flow falls within the low magnetic Reynolds number (Rm) approximation,
where the externally imposed magnetic field is considered constant \cite{roberts67}. Its main effect is then to induce electric eddy currents and a Lorentz
force that acts to eliminate variations of velocity along the magnetic field lines.
This process has been extensively studied in \cite{moffatt67, dav97, zikanov98_jfm, thess07_jfm, kp10_prl, p12_mhd, pk14_jfm}.
It manifest itself through the presence of very fine boundary layers (Hartmann layers) and highly anisotropic structures. The numerical resolution of the
boundary layers
incurs prohibitive computational costs when the magnetic fields becomes high.
Furthermore, because of the strong anisotropy and Joule dissipation that characterises these flows, Kolmogorov laws for the smallest scales are no longer valid and must be replaced by different scalings for the smallest scales along and across the magnetic field \cite{alemany79}.
On the other hand, at low Rm, stronger fields incur higher dissipation: this reduces the number of degrees of freedom in the system and therefore, potentially, the computational cost of resolving these flows completely \cite{pa03,pa06_pf}. Recently, a new type of spectral numerical method taking advantage of this property, \cite{dyp09_tcfd,kop15_jcp}, was developed. The number of degrees of freedom is estimated from an upper bound for the dimension of the attractor for the dynamical system associated to the governing equation \cite{doering95}. This more efficient spectral method was constructed in such a way that the flow is represented with a functional basis that encompasses the attractor significantly more tightly than classical bases such as Fourier or Tchebychev bases.
Because in low-Rm magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), the Lorentz force is exclusively dissipative and linear, such a basis can be found by seeking the eigenmodes of the operator arising from the
dissipative part of the governing equations, with the boundary conditions of the considered problem \cite{pa03,pa06_pf}.
In periodic domains and in channels with a transverse magnetic field,
the derivation of this basis
provided an upper bound for the attractor dimension, scalings for the smallest
scales and the thickness of wall boundary layers that could be verified heuristically and numerically. Most importantly, it
made it possible to calculate turbulent MHD flows in almost arbitrarily high magnetic fields at a moderate computational cost \cite{pdy10_jfm, kop15_jcp}.\\
The problem of channel flows with a uniform spanwise magnetic field has received much recent attention \cite{krasnov08,krasnov08_pf} but no such basis is yet known for it. Consequently,
upper bounds for the attractor dimension, scalings for the smallest scales and
the thickness of the boundary layers along the channel walls and are not available. Nor is it possible to perform efficient spectral DNS at high magnetic field.
We therefore set out to answer these question for this geometry by deriving
the basis of least dissipative modes and analysing its properties.
We first derive analytically the least dissipative eigenmodes (Sec. \ref{sec:eigenmodes}), then numerically calculate their associated eigenvalues (Sec. \ref{sec:numerics}). From these, we deduce an upper bound for the attractor dimension of the system and distinguish three possible regimes: weakly 3D, strongly 3D and 2D (Sec. \ref{sec:attractor}). Finally from the set of least dissipative modes, we shall extract scalings for the thickness of the boundary layer that develops along the channel walls and for the size of the smallest scale present in the flow (Sec. \ref{sec:scalings}).
\section{Governing equations and procedure for obtaining bounds on the attractor dimension \label{sec:eigenmodes}}
\subsection{Governing equations}
To evaluate the attractor dimension, let us consider the time evolution of the
flow as given by a dynamical system whose phase space is the space of all
solenoidal vector-valued functions on the fluid containing region. This time
evolution is specified by the Navier-Stokes equations. We proceed by
considering the time evolution of an infinitesimal perturbation to a flow, $\pmb{U}$, that evolves in the neighbourhood of the attractor ($\pmb{U}$ follows the attractor itself). To obtain an upper bound for the attractor dimension, we note that such a perturbation, which we denote $\pmb{u}$, spans a $n$-dimensional infinitesimal volume, which should asymptotically contract to 0 as soon as $n$ is larger than the embedding dimension of the attractor
\cite{doering95}.
Denoting by $\pmb{u}$ this perturbation, and ignoring higher-order terms, we
then find the trace of the linearized Navier-Stokes equations, which determine
the contraction or expansion rate of this volume. Making use of an estimate
obtained in earlier work for the part of the trace due to inertia \cite{doering95}, we then obtain an upper bound
to the attractor dimension of this dynamical system at various Reynolds and Hartmann numbers. Note that since the trace of the operator is independent of the basis, the basis of eigenvectors of $\mathcal D_{Ha}$ need not be orthogonal, and in general, it isn't.\\
The physical problem we consider is that of the flow of a fluid of density $\rho$, conductivity $\sigma$, and kinematic viscosity $\nu$, which is confined
between impermeable perfectly electrically insulating walls at $z=\pm L$, and subject to periodic boundary conditions in the $x$ and $y$ directions at
$x=\pm\pi L$ and $y=\pm\pi L$ in the presence of an applied magnetic field
$\pmb{B}=B\pmb{e}_x$.
We consider the usual Navier-Stokes equation for MHD within the quasi-static
MHD approximation, which is valid as long as the induced magnetic field remains
small compared to the externally imposed one \cite{roberts67}. Taking $L$ to be
the typical distance, and $U$ the typical velocity, the evolution
of $\pmb U$ within this approximation is written nondimensionally as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\partial_t \pmb{U} &= -\nabla p - \pmb{U}\cdot\nabla \pmb{U}
+\text{Re}^{-1} \left(\Delta - \text{Ha}^2 \Delta^{-1} \partial_{xx} \right)\pmb{U},\\
\nabla.\pmb{U}&=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and the evolution of $\pmb{u}$ is given by \cite{pa03,pa06_pf}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\partial_t \pmb{u} &= -\nabla p - \pmb{U}\cdot\nabla \pmb{u} - \pmb{u}\cdot\nabla \pmb{U}
+\text{Re}^{-1} \left(\Delta - \text{Ha}^2 \Delta^{-1} \partial_{xx} \right)\pmb{u},\\
\nabla.\pmb{u}&=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the perturbation to the pressure, and $\Delta$ is the Laplacian operator, whose inverse is well-defined for functions satisfying the boundary conditions of interest here, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\pmb {u}(x,y,\pm 1) &=& 0,\nonumber \\
\pmb {u}(x,y,z)&=&\pmb {u}(x+2 \pi,y+2 \pi,z).
\end{eqnarray}
The problem is governed by two non-dimensional parameters, the Hartmann and
Reynolds numbers $\text{Ha}=\sqrt{\sigma/(\rho\nu)}BL$ and $\text{Re}=UL/\nu$
respectively.
The perturbation to the current, $\pmb{j}$, is given by Ohm's law:
\begin{equation}
\pmb{j} = (-\nabla \phi + \pmb{u} \times \pmb{e}_x).
\label{ohm}
\end{equation}
Taking the curl of this twice, and using the fact that $\nabla\cdot\pmb{j}=0$
yields
\begin{equation}
\pmb{j} = - \Delta^{-1} \partial_x \nabla \times \pmb{u} = -\Delta^{-1} \partial_x \pmb{\omega},
\label{jinvlap}
\end{equation}
where $\pmb{\omega}$ is the vorticity. Finally, $\pmb{j}$ satisfies the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
j_z(x,y,\pm 1)=0.
\end{equation}
We now consider a space spanned by $n$ mutually orthogonal perturbations, and the behaviour of this space as it evolves. Denoting by $\mathcal{A}$ the linearised evolution operator, and by $P_n$ the projection to this space, it can be shown \cite{constantin85_ams,pa03} that the trace of $\mathcal{A}P_n$ satisfies the inequality
\begin{equation}
\text{Tr}(\mathcal{A}P_n) \leq \text{Tr}\left( \left[ \frac{1}{2}\Delta - \text{Ha}^2\Delta^{-1} \partial_{xx}\right] P_n\right) + \frac{n}{2}\text{Re}^2 \label{trdim}.
\end{equation}
To find the attractor dimension, we find the eigenvalues of the operator $\mathcal{D}_{\textrm{Ha}}=1/2 \Delta - \text{Ha}^2\Delta^{-1} \partial_{xx}$, listed in decreasing order (bearing in mind that the eigenvalues of this operator are real and negative, as expected from a purely dissipative operator). Then the lowest value of $n$ which gives a negative value for the upper bound of the trace of $\mathcal{A}P_n$ provides an upper bound on
the attractor dimension for a given value of the Reynolds number. Finding the
eigenmodes and eigenvalues of $\mathcal{D}_{\textrm{Ha}}$ in order to obtain
these bounds is our next aim. We therefore require the solution of the eigenvalue problem for the operator
$\mathcal{D}_{\textrm{Ha}}$ in a closed box with periodic boundary conditions
of period $2\pi$ in the $x$ and $y$ directions, and with impermeable, perfectly
insulating walls at $z=\pm 1$.
In terms of the non-dimensional variables, this yields the eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}_{\text{Ha}} \pmb{u}=\lambda \pmb{u},
\end{equation}
where the symmetry of the operator $\mathcal{D}_{\text{Ha}}$ guarantees that
the eigenvalues are real.
As the Laplacian operator is invertible for these boundary conditions, we can instead take the Laplacian of both sides and consider the problem
\begin{equation}
(\Delta^2 - 2 \text{Ha}^2 \partial_{xx}) \pmb{u} = 2 \lambda \Delta\pmb{u} \label{ev}
\end{equation}
where $\pmb{u}$ satisfies the incompressibility condition $\nabla\cdot\pmb{u}=0$.
From the periodicity in $x,y$,
we can consider $\pmb{u}$ to be a sum of terms of the form
\begin{equation}
\pmb{u}=e^{i\pmb{k.x}} \sum_{i \in \{x,y,z\}} Z_i(z)\pmb{e}_i,
\end{equation}
where $\pmb{k}=k_x\pmb{e}_x+k_y\pmb{e}_y$, $(k_x,k_y) \in \mathbb{Z}^2$, and $\pmb{x}=x\pmb{e}_x+y\pmb{e}_y$. Now consider a single component of $\pmb{u}$, denoted by $e^{i\pmb{k.x}}Z_i(z)$. For this to be a solution to the eigenvalue problem (\ref{ev}), we must have
\begin{equation}
Z_i''''-2(\lambda + k^2)Z_i''+(k^4+2\lambda k^2+2\text{Ha}^2k_x^2)Z_i=0,
\end{equation}
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $z$.
We seek a solution of the form $Z_i(z)=e^{Kz}$, resulting in the auxiliary quartic equation
\begin{equation}
K^4-2(\lambda + k^2)K^2+(k^4+2\lambda k^2+2\text{Ha}^2k_x^2)=0.
\label{eq:charact}
\end{equation}
Solving this quadratic equation in $K^2$ yields the two roots
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
K_1^2=\lambda+k^2+\sqrt{\lambda^2-2\text{Ha}^2k_x^2},\\
K_2^2=\lambda+k^2-\sqrt{\lambda^2-2\text{Ha}^2k_x^2},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and eliminating $\lambda$ from these gives the relation
\begin{equation}
K_1^2K_2^2=k^2(K_1^2+K_2^2)-k^4+2\text{Ha}^2k_x^2.
\label{disp}
\end{equation}
This relation gives one constraint on the allowed roots of the auxiliary equation: other constraints are provided by the boundary conditions on the flow. Once these constraints have been solved to give $K_1$ and $K_2$, we obtain the corresponding eigenvalue from (\ref{eq:charact}):
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\frac{1}{2}(K_1^2+K_2^2)-k^2.
\label{eig}
\end{equation}
From the impermeability and non-slip conditions at $z=\pm 1$, together with incompressibility, we have
\begin{equation}
Z_i(\pm 1)=0 = Z_z'(\pm 1), \label{fbc}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
ik_x Z_x(z)+ik_y Z_y(z) + Z'_z(z) = 0. \label{inc}
\end{equation}
In addition, we obtain electrical boundary conditions from the current field
$\pmb{j}$, which is determined by $\Delta \pmb{j}=-\partial_x \pmb{\omega}$ (\ref{jinvlap}). Taking the curl of (\ref{ev}) and considering the $z$-component of $\pmb{j}$ finally gives the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
k_y Z''_x(x,y,\pm 1)=k_x Z''_y(x,y,\pm 1), \label{ebc}
\end{equation}
since we must have $j_z(x,y,\pm 1)=0$.
Modes can conveniently be divided into two classes: those for which $Z_z(z)$ is not identically zero, and so the boundary conditions (\ref{fbc}) must be underdetermined, and those for which $Z_z(z)$ is identically zero, so that non-zero $Z_x(z)$ and $Z_y(z)$ must satisfy the electric boundary condition (\ref{ebc}). By analogy with linear stability theory in hydrodynamics, we call these the Orr-Sommerfeld (OS) and Squire modes, respectively. $\lambda$ is the
exponential decay rate of the corresponding eigenmode under the sole effect of
dissipation (viscous and Joule). Such a decay would, however, only be observed
on individual modes and in the absence of inertia. The evolution of more
complex linear flows can still be expressed as a combination of exponential
decays \cite{dyp09_tcfd}.
\subsection{Expressions of modes and eigenvalues}
We can now solve the eigenvalue problem to find the modes and corresponding
eigenvalues explicitly. In addition to providing an upper bound on the
attractor dimension, the basis formed with these modes can be used to carry out
numerical simulations of the flows under consideration by means of spectral
methods so they constitute an important result of their own \cite{kop15_jcp}.
A laborious calculation shows that the only significant possibilities are
\begin{enumerate}
\item OS-type modes where one of $K_1^2$ and $K_2^2$ is positive, and the other
negative, and where $k_x$ and $k_y$ are not both zero,
\item OS-type modes where both $K_1^2$ and $K_2^2$ are negative, and $k_x$ and $k_y$ are not both zero ,
\item Squire type modes with $k_x=k_y=0$.
\end{enumerate}
In each case above, $|K_1|$ is different from $|K_2|$. Other possible cases are those in which $|K_1|=|K_2|$,
or $K_1^2$ and $K_2^2$ are complex.
In each of these cases, either
there is no non-trivial mode at all, or for any given choice of $k_x$ and $k_y$
there is a mode for just one precisely tuned value of $\text{Ha}$. These
singular cases are of lesser importance for our purpose but are an interesting
property of this problem, which is absent when the magnetic field is
perpendicular to the walls for instance \cite{pa06_pf}. They are briefly described
in appendix \ref{sec:resonant}. We now restrict our attention to the
generic case where for a chosen Hartmann number there is a set of solutions to
the constraints.
In case (1), we denote the roots of the auxiliary quartic by $K_1=\pm1/\delta$ and $K_2=\pm i \kappa_z$, where $1/\delta \neq \kappa_z$. This reflects that real roots correspond to the exponential profile of a boundary layer of thickness $\delta$ near the walls, whereas imaginary ones induce spatial oscillations of wavelength in the bulk of the flow. In this case, in order to have a non-trivial $Z_z$ mode, we require
\begin{eqnarray}
1/\delta \tanh 1/\delta &=& -\kappa_z \tan \kappa_z \qquad \text{or} \label{eq:solvab_osa}\\
1/\delta \tan\kappa_z &=& \kappa_z \tanh 1/\delta \label{eq:solvab_osb}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
-\frac{\kappa_z^2}{\delta^2}=k^2(1/\delta^2-\kappa_z^2)-k^4+2\text{Ha}^2k_x^2.
\label{eq:disp_orr}
\end{equation}
If neither $k_x$ nor $k_y$ is zero, then the two possibilities are
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z_z(z)&=-\cos\kappa_z \cosh(z/\delta)+\cosh(1/\delta)\cos(\kappa_z z)\\
Z_x(z)&=i\frac{k_x ( \kappa_z^3 \cosh(1/\delta) \sin \kappa_z-1/\delta^3 \cos \kappa_z \sinh(1/\delta)) }{(1/\delta^2+\kappa_z^2)(k_x^2+k_y^2)}\\
&\times \left(\frac{\sinh(z/\delta)}{\sinh(1/\delta)}- \frac{\sin(\kappa_z z)}{\sin \kappa_z}\right)\\
Z_y(z)&=\frac{1}{k_y}(iZ'_z(z)-k_xZ_x(z))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z_z(z)&=-\sin \kappa_z \sinh(\kappa_z z) +\sinh(1/\delta) \sin(\kappa_z z)\\
Z_x(z)&=i\frac{k_x(1/\delta^3 \sin \kappa_z \cosh(1/\delta) + \kappa_z^3 \sinh (1/\delta) \cos \kappa_z)}{(k_x^2+k_y^2)(1/\delta^2+\kappa_z^2)}\\
&\times \left( \frac{\cos(\kappa_z z)}{\cos \kappa_z} - \frac{\cosh(z/\delta)}{\cosh(1/\delta)} \right)\\
Z_y(z)&=\frac{1}{k_y}(iZ'_z(z)-k_xZ_x(z)).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
If $k_x=0$ then from (\ref{ebc}) we immediately have $Z_x(z)=0$, and from (\ref{inc}) we then obtain
\begin{equation}
Z_y(z)=iZ_z'(z)/k_y
\end{equation}
and similarly if $k_y=0$.
In case (1), for each interval of the form $[n\pi/2,(n+1)\pi/2]$ there is one
value of $\kappa_z$ and a corresponding value of $1/\delta$ satisfying the
constraints, as for the analogous modes in the case where the magnetic field
is perpendicular to the walls.
In this case, (\ref{eig}) gives
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\delta^2} - \kappa_z^2 \right) - k^2.
\end{equation}
In case (2), we have $K_1=i\tilde{\kappa}_z$, and $K_2=i\kappa_z$, where $\tilde{\kappa}_z \neq \kappa_z$. This time the non-trivial $Z_z$ modes are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\kappa}_z \tan \tilde{\kappa}_z &=& \kappa_z \tan \kappa_z \qquad \text{or} \label{eq:solvab_osi1} \\
\tilde{\kappa}_z \tan \kappa_z &=& \kappa_z\tan \tilde{\kappa}_z.
\label{eq:solvab_osi2}
\end{eqnarray}
This yields:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z_z(z)&=-\cos \kappa_z \cos(\tilde{\kappa}_z z)+\cos \tilde{\kappa}_z \cos (\kappa_z z)\\
Z_x(z&)=i\frac{k_x(\tilde{\kappa}_z^3 \cos \kappa_z \sin \tilde{\kappa}_z - \kappa_z^3 \cos \tilde{\kappa}_z \sin \kappa_z )}{(k_x^2+k_y^2)(\tilde{\kappa}_z^2-\kappa_z^2)} \\
&\times \left(\frac{\sin(\tilde{\kappa}_z z)}{\sin \tilde{\kappa}_z} - \frac{\sin(\kappa_z z)}{\sin \kappa_z}\right)\\
Z_y(z)&=\frac{1}{k_y}(iZ'_z(z)-k_xZ_x(z))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z_z(z)&=-\sin(\kappa_z)\sin(\tilde{\kappa}_z z)+\sin(\tilde{\kappa}_z) \sin(\kappa_z z)\\
Z_x(z)&=i\frac{k_x(\kappa_z^3 \sin \tilde{\kappa}_z \cos \kappa_z-\tilde{\kappa}_z^3 \sin \kappa_z \cos \tilde{\kappa}_z)}{(k_x^2+k_y^2)(\tilde{\kappa}_z^2-\kappa_z^2)}\\
&\times \left(\frac{\cos(\tilde{\kappa}_z z)}{\cos \tilde{\kappa}_z}- \frac{\cos(\kappa_z z)}{\cos \kappa_z}\right)\\
Z_y(z)&=\frac{1}{k_y}(iZ'_z(z)-k_xZ_x(z))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
when neither of $k_x$ not $k_y$ are zero, and obtain the $Z_z$ and $Z_y$ modes as before if one of them is zero.
This time (\ref{eig}) gives
\begin{equation}
\lambda = -\frac{1}{2} (\kappa_z^2+\tilde{\kappa_z}^2)-k^2.
\end{equation}
In case (2), however, the roots are not as conveniently located as in the previous case; as $\kappa_z$ increases, they can become arbitrarily close together. We will consider the consequences of this in the next subsection.
Finally, we have the Squire modes (case (3)), which occur only when $k_x=k_y=0$. In this case we have $Z_z(z)=0$, and if $n$ is a positive integer, $Z_x(z)$ and $Z_y(z)$ are given either by
\begin{equation}
Z_{x,y}(z)=\cos((n+1/2)\pi z),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda=-\frac{1}{2}(n+1/2)^2 \pi^2$
or by
\begin{equation}
Z_{x,y}(z)\sin(n\pi z),
\end{equation}
where $\quad \lambda =-\frac{1}{2}n^2\pi^2$.
These functions $Z_x$, $Z_y$ and $Z_z$ then provide a functional basis for consideration of flows, which will be
be applied in DNSs analogous to those in \cite{dyp09_tcfd,kop15_jcp}. The full expression of the functional basis is given in appendix \ref{sec:basis}.
\section{Numerical method and validation \label{sec:numerics}}
In order to find the eigenvalues of the modes and the corresponding values of $k_x$, $k_y$, $\kappa_z$, and $1/\delta$, a numerical approach was required. The approach taken was to find, for each of an increasing family of values of $\text{Ha}$, all the modes and eigenvalues up to a limiting value.
In case (1) (one real and one imaginary root), finding the eigenvalues was straightforward; the roots are located in known intervals so that it is easy to find the root in each interval by means of a bisection method.
In the case (2), the roots are not spread out in such a convenient manner. In
fact, as the Hartmann number grows and the relevant values of $\kappa_z$ become
larger, the roots can become arbitrarily close together. It is therefore necessary
to use a much smaller step length, use Eq. (\ref{disp}) to express
(\ref{eq:solvab_osi1}) and (\ref{eq:solvab_osi2}) in terms of just one of the roots,
and check for a sign change. The number of roots found as the step length is decreased
is shown in Fig \ref{fig:convergence}. We found that to an excellent degree of approximation the
number of roots varied linearly with step length: a linear fit gives
\begin{equation}
n=5.01 \times 10^5 - 9.644 \times 10^4 s
\end{equation}
with goodness of fit measure $R^2 = 0.9996$,
where $n$ is the number of roots and $s$ is the step length. Extrapolating to $s=0$,
we find that the fraction of roots omitted with $s=0.001$ is about $0.02\%$.
The fact that some roots are omitted means
that the estimate for $|\text{Tr}(\mathcal{D}_{\textrm{Ha}}P_n)|$ is a slight
underestimate, but the eigenvalues are very closely spaced, so that although
some eigenvalues are omitted, the sum of the first $n$ eigenvalues obtained is
close to the sum of the first $n$ of all eigenvalues.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{step_evidence.eps}
\caption{Number of eigenvalues found versus step length.}
\label{fig:convergence}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The numerical methods were implemented in Python, allowing the investigation of a maximum Hartmann number of about $4400$, and numbers of modes in excess of $10^7$. The main obstruction to investigating higher Hartmann number was that of computational time: as a consequence of the short step length required, the calculation of all required modes is very time consuming at high Hartmann number.\\
Once obtained, these modes for each Hartmann number considered were then sorted in order of increasing magnitude of $\lambda$, and the modulus of the sum of the first $n$ eigenvalues used as an estimate for $\text{Tr}(\mathcal{D}_{\textrm{Ha}}P_n)$. From (\ref{trdim}), an approximation to the Reynolds number for which $n$ is the dimension of the attractor is then given by $\sqrt{|2\text{Tr}(\mathcal{D}_{\textrm{Ha}}P_n)|/n}$.\\
It is interesting to note that for small values of the Hartmann number, the modes of the first type (one real and one imaginary root) predominate---indeed, there is no contribution from modes of the second type (two imaginary roots) until the Hartmann number exceeds 1.2. But as the Hartmann number grows, the contribution from modes of the second type grows until at Hartmann numbers exceeding 3000, the modes of the first type are only about a quarter of all those considered.
Such an inhomogeneous distribution of modes was not observed in 3D periodic domains nor in MHD channels perpendicular to $\mathbf B$. A significant consequence is that since the spectral density of the distribution of modes in $(k_x,k_y,\kappa_z)$ space cannot be easily predicted, it is no longer possible to obtain an analytical estimate for the upper bound for $d_{\rm att}$ by means of a simple approximation of the Trace in (\ref{trdim}) by a continuous integral, as in \cite{pa03} and \cite{pa06_pf}. Consequently, it has to be obtained numerically only.
\section{Distribution and physical properties of least dissipative modes \label{sec:attractor}}
\subsection{Spectral distribution of eigenvalues
\label{sec:distrib}}
Even though the least dissipative modes do not give an exact solution of the full system of equations governing the flow evolution, it has been shown that finite combinations of them were able to provide an accurate representation of the actual solution \cite{pdy10_jfm,kop15_jcp}, at least in low-Rm MHD flows. Much can therefore be learned from the flow properties by studying the properties of such finite sets of modes. Since $\lambda<0$, modes can be sorted by growing dissipation rate $\lambda_n$. By construction, the $N$ least dissipative modes are contained within the region delimited by a manifold $\lambda(k_x,\kappa_y,k_z)=\lambda_N$ of the $(k_x,\kappa_y,k_z)$ space. The shape of these manifolds therefore gives a good measure of the flow anisotropy, in particular at small scales.
From (\ref{eig}), these can be rescaled to a single manifold representing
surfaces of constant $\lambda/\text{Ha}$ in the $(k_x/\text{Ha},k_y/\text{Ha},\kappa_z/\text{Ha})$ space.\\
Since $k_x=0$ removes the Hartmann number from the situation, the shapes of the
contours in the $k_x=0$ plane are unaffected by the growing magnetic field.
Consequently, the cross-section of this family of manifolds in planes
$k_x=$constant is very close to a family of concentric circles, which indicates that iso-$\lambda$ manifolds are isotropically distributed in in planes perpendicular to the magnetic field direction. This was indeed the case too in channels with a transverse magnetic field and in periodic domains. Discrepancy to anisotropy in these two cases was only due to the discrete distribution of values of wavenumbers perpendicular to $\mathbf B$, which had to be integers. Because
of the walls at $z=\pm1$, though, $\kappa_z$ spans the solutions of $(\ref{eq:solvab_osa}) ,(\ref{eq:solvab_osb}), (\ref{eq:disp_orr} )$ or $(\ref{eq:solvab_osi1}) ,(\ref{eq:solvab_osi2}), (\ref{eq:disp_orr})$ rather than the set of integers. This effectively introduces a form of anisotropy in the sense that the sets of wavenumbers in the $x$ and $z$ directions are not identical, but still span the same interval.\\
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{iso_lambda.eps}
\caption{Contours of fixed values of $\lambda/$Ha}
\label{isol}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Cross-sections of the iso-$\lambda$ manifolds in the $k_y=0$ plane tell a
different story (see Fig. \ref{isol}).
The geometry of this graph is formally identical to geometries of channel flow
with transverse magnetic field \cite{pa06_pf}, but with the roles of $\kappa_z$
and $k_x$ reversed. Both phenomenologies thus bear strong similarities, but for
the orientation of the magnetic field.
For small Ha, the flow is essentially isotropic, $k_x$ and $k_y$ have
similar behaviours, and the manifolds are spheres.
As Ha increases, the increasing suppression of the $k_x$ modes distorts the
contours in the $k_y=0$ plane. This effect becomes more pronounced as Ha
increases, until we obtain situations where the $k_x$ modes are almost entirely
suppressed.\\
Conversely, for a fixed value of Ha, as the value of the largest eigenvalue (and so the number of modes under consideration) increases, we have the following sequence. Initially, the modes have $k_x$ strongly suppressed, and the flow is essentially 2D. Next, we enter a regime where the curves of constant $\lambda$ pass through the origin; this is the 3D, anisotropic regime. In this regime, all modes are contained outside a cone of axis $\mathbf e_x$, tangent to the manifold at the origin, whose half-angle is easily derived from (\ref{eig}) as $\theta_J=\pi/2-\cos^{-1}(\sqrt{-\lambda}/Ha)$. This phenomenology reflects that in MHD turbulence at high interaction parameter $S=\sigma B^2L/(\rho U)$, all energy-containing modes are expelled from the Joule cone \cite{knaepen08_arfm,p12_mhd}.
Finally, the contours split away from the origin and we reach the regime of weakly anisotropic 3D flow, which becomes more closely isotropic as the contours approach a semi-circular shape. We also see this from a different perspective in the following subsection.\\
\subsection{Upper bound for the attractor dimension \label{sec:bounds}}
Now consider the plot of attractor dimension vs Hartmann number for fixed Reynolds number. Figure \ref{attdim} plots the dimension of the attractor for Reynolds numbers starting at $10$ and increasing in steps of $20$, for Hartmann number starting at $1$ and increasing in multiplicative steps of 1.2 up to a maximum value of approximately 4400.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{att_dim.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{dattvsRe.eps}
\caption{Attractor dimension (a) as a function of Ha for Re ranging from 10 (lowest data set) to 270 (highest data set) in steps of 20 and (b)
as a function of Re for Ha=1.0 (leftmost curve), 26.62, 6, 410.2 (from left to right), 4389 (rightmost curve) (b).}
\label{attdim}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We note that as in \cite{pa03} this plot divides the plane up into three regions: a 3D quasi-isotropic region (I), a 3D anisotropic region (II), and a 2D region (III), corresponding to the classification given above.\\
For a fixed Reynolds number, and increasing Ha, the dimension initially
depends only weakly on Hartmann number in the quasi-isotropic 3D region. When a
critical value is reached, all iso-$\lambda$ manifolds cut through the origin:
at this point, the attractor dimension undergoes a transition to the 3D
anisotropic region where where it scales approximately as $\text{Ha}^{-1}$. From the data, we find that for low Reynolds numbers, the exponent is $-1 \pm 0.1$, but as the Reynolds number increases the uncertainty reduced to about $-1 \pm 0.003$, which strongly suggests that the slope tends to $-1$ at large Reynolds number.\\
For higher values of Ha, another phase transition occurs
to the 2D state, where all modes become $x-$independent. Since their associated
eigenvalue becomes independent of Ha (from (\ref{disp})), so does the upper
bound for the attractor dimension.\\
The transition from quasi-isotropic 3D to anisotropic 3D sets occurs for $d_{\rm att} \sim Ha^{3}$ in this diagram: this transition is quite gradual, and we can find the transition curve and its slope either by examining the data for the first mode with non-zero $k_x$, zero $k_y$ and $\kappa_z$ approximately 1.57, or by finding the number of modes for which $|\lambda| < \text{Ha}^2/2$. The two approaches give the results $d_{\rm att} \simeq (0.25 \pm 0.01) \text{Ha}^{3 \pm 0.003}$ and $d_{\rm att} \simeq (2.35 \pm 0.01) \text{Ha}^{3.05 \pm 0.05}$ respectively.
The 2D region is that of all least dissipative modes for which $k_x=0$; this time, examining the data gives a scaling of the form $d_{\rm att}\simeq (2.2 \pm 0.1) \text{Ha}^{1.03 \pm 0.03}$ for this transition.
A similar approach is followed, holding Ha constant and varying Re, to determine how $d_{att}$ varies with Re
in each of these three regions. Some sample curves are plotted on Fig. \ref{attdim}. Combining both graphs, we obtain that the upper bound for the attractor dimension follows one of three scalings:\\
In the 2D regime,
\begin{equation}
d_{att}\simeq (1.2 \pm 0.1) \text{Re}^{2.1 \pm 0.1},
\label{eq:datt_2d}
\end{equation}
In the 3D anisotropic regime,
\begin{equation}
d_{att}\simeq (1.2 \pm 0.2) \frac{\text{Re}^{4.1 \pm 0.1}}{Ha},
\label{eq:datt_3dmhd}
\end{equation}
and in the 3D quasi-isotropic regime:
\begin{equation}
d_{att}\simeq (1.7 \pm 0.5) \text{Re}^{3.1 \pm 0.1}
\label{eq:datt_3d}
\end{equation}
The scalings for $d_{\rm att}$ in 3D regimes are consistent with the upper bound
obtained in periodic domains and with heuristic estimates for the
number of degree of freedoms in the system as both $d_{\rm att}\sim \text{Re}^4/\text{Ha}$ in the
limit as Re and Ha tend to infinity while remaining within the 3D regime, i.e. $Ha<<d_{\rm att}<<Ha^3$ \cite{pa03}. This result is not \emph{a priori}
obvious from the mathematical point of view, since walls parallel to the
magnetic fields make the spectral distribution of the modes strongly inhomogeneous, in contrast with flows in periodic domains and with channels perpendicular to the field. From the physical point of view, however, the fact that the attractor dimension is not significantly affected by the nature of
the boundaries when Re is large enough, reflects that the number of degrees
of freedom in the flow is mainly determined by turbulence far from the walls.
In the 2D regime, $d_{\rm att}$ understandably behaves in the same way as in the fully periodic case, since in both cases, strictly 2D modes incur no Joule
dissipation. In channels with walls perpendicular to the magnetic field, on the other hand, the Hartmann boundary layer that develops against the wall precludes strict two-dimensionality and significant Joule dissipation occurs there so
that $d_{\rm att}$ continues to decrease with Ha in the quasi-2D regime.\\
A remark should be made on the value of the exponent of Re in the estimates
for the $d_{\rm att}$. In the strongly anisotropic regime, for example, heuristic
estimate for the number of degrees of freedom of turbulence in a
periodic box yields $d_M\sim Re^2/Ha$ \cite{pa03}, and not $d_M\sim Re^4/Ha$.
It was previously noted that this overestimate for the exponent of Re
takes its roots in the loose upper bound for the inertial terms in (\ref{trdim}).
This issue is not specific to MHD flows but betrays a core difficulty
in the derivation of tight upper bounds for attractor dimensions in 3D turbulence. Nevertheless, the exponent of Ha in the estimate for $d_{\rm att}$ coincides with the heuristic estimates in the geometries with periodic boundary
conditions and channels perpendicular to the magnetic field in both 3D regimes. Since our
numerical estimate shows that this exponent also remains valid in the case of
a channel parallel to the magnetic field, it is likely to be a tight estimate
in this case too.
\section{Scalings for the small scales and the boundary layer thickness \label{sec:scalings}}
Expressing the evolution of a solution of the Navier-Stokes equation in terms
of the least dissipative modes necessitates that these modes are able to resolve the smallest structures present in the flow, namely the boundary layers and
the dissipative scales. For the solution to be faithfully represented on this basis, it must include at least the $d_{\rm att}$ least dissipative elements
of them \cite{pdy10_jfm,kop15_jcp} (From the physical point of
view, more dissipative modes than these are dissipated before they are able to
transfer energy through inertia). This uniquely determines the smallest scales present in the flow $\kappa_z^{\rm max}$, $k_x^{\rm max}$ and $k_y^{\rm max}$ as well as
the smallest and largest possible boundary layer thicknesses. Both are readily
extracted from the ordered sequence of least dissipative modes calculated in
Sec. \ref{sec:distrib}.
Let us first examine the behaviour of the small scales, shown on Figs \ref{fig:kmaxvsRe1} and \ref{fig:kmaxvsRe2}.
We see in the graphs how the maximum values of $k_x$, $k_y$ and $\kappa_z$ behave in the three regimes. For small $\text{Ha} \lesssim 1$, the system is in the quasi-isotropic 3D state for all values of Re, and we see that in this case all three of $k_x$, $k_y$ and $\kappa_z$ scale approximately as Re.
From the numerical data, the scaling is of the form
\begin{equation}
k_x\sim k_y\sim \kappa_z\sim(1.3 \pm 0.1) \text{Re}^{1 \pm 0.05}.
\label{eq:kx_3d_m}
\end{equation}
As Ha is increased, for low values or Re we have the anisotropic 3D regime, in
which $k_x$ is significantly less than Ha. $d_{att}$ then scales approximately as $(0.52 \pm 0.03)\text{Re}^{2 \pm 0.1}/\text{Ha}$, and as Re increases the system makes a transition to the quasi-isotropic 3D regime.The small scales are then
\begin{eqnarray}
k_x\sim(0.18 \pm 0.08) \frac{\text{Re}^{2.1 \pm 0.2}}{Ha}, \label{eq:kx_mhd_m}\\
k_y\sim \kappa_z\sim (1.3 \pm 0.1) \text{Re}^{1 \pm 0.05} \label{eq:kp_mhd_m}.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, for Ha large enough, the fluid is in the 2D regime initially, in which $k_x$ is entirely suppressed. As Re increases, we enter the anisotropic 3D regime, with a trace of this transition appearing in the curves for $k_y$ and $\kappa_z$. For the larger values of Ha the transition to quasi-isotropic 3D takes place at too large a value of Re to be observed here.\\
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{kxkykappazmaxvsReforHa11.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{kxkykappazmaxvsReforHa95.eps}
\caption{ Maximal values of $k_x,k_y,\kappa_z$ for Ha $\approx$ 10.70 (a), and 95.40(b).}
\label{fig:kmaxvsRe1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{kxkykappazmaxvsReforHa1021.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{kxkykappazmaxvsReforHa4389.eps}
\caption{ Maximal values of $k_x,k_y,\kappa_z$ for Ha $\approx$ 1021 (a), and 4389 (b).}
\label{fig:kmaxvsRe2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The boundary layers thicknesses are perhaps the most interesting because they can be expected to differ radically from the Hartmann boundary layers found in
channels perpendicular to the magnetic field \cite{pa06_pf}:
since the magnetic field is aligned parallel to the walls, we would not expect
it to lead to the formation of a Hartmann layer: and indeed, the numerical
evidence is that the minimum boundary layer thickness scales as $1/\text{Re}$, in all three regimes; here, the numerical data give a scaling law of $\delta=(0.8 \pm0.02)\text{Re}^{-1.02 \pm 0.02}$.
The dependence on Reynolds indicates that the thinnest layer is purely viscous.
Figure \ref{deltavsRe} shows the
relationship for the smallest and largest Hartmann numbers considered, and one
intermediate value. We also observe that the graph of the smallest boundary layer thickness shows a trace of the transition from 2D to anisotropic 3D flow, in the form of a discrepancy from the power law line which then settles down as Re increases, but which does not affect the asymptotic scaling. Interestingly, while the minimum boundary layer thickness does not depend on Ha, the critical value of Re at which this transition occurs, on the other hand, does.
The thickest layer, on the other hand, rapidly saturates as Re is increased.
Unlike Hartmann layers, the layers in channels parallel to walls do not have a
definite thickness determined by the balance between Lorentz force and viscous
friction, even at low Re. This reflects in different modes exhibiting
different boundary layer thicknesses at all values of Re. Since the real flow is ultimately a combination of these modes with different boundary layer thicknesses, it may not exhibit an exponential profile, unlike the Hartmann layers found in the case of the channel with transverse magnetic field.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{deltavsRe.eps}
\caption{Boundary layer thicknesses for Ha $\approx 1.0, 590.7, 4389$.}
\label{deltavsRe}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Heuristics for the transition between turbulent regimes}
The attractor dimension represents the number of degrees of freedom of the dynamical system underlying turbulence. It can be heuristically estimated as the number of vortices in the flow. In homogeneous hydrodynamic turbulence, Kolmogorov's law for the size of the small scales $k^{\rm max}\sim Re^{3/4}$ yields
\begin{equation}
d_{\rm att}\sim Re^{9/4}.
\label{eq:dk41}
\end{equation}
In the anisotropic MHD regime, scalings for the small scales are usually
obtained by assuming that anisotropy is constant along the inertial range and
that inertial transfer is balanced by Joule dissipation at all scales in the
inertial range, which translates into the following scaling for the anisotropy
and the power spectral density \cite{alemany79,pa03}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{k_x}{k_\perp}\sim N^{-1},\\
E(k_\perp)\sim E_0 k^{-3} \label{eq:k3spec},
\end{eqnarray}
, where $E_0=E(k\perp=1)$,
and since at the small scales, viscous friction becomes of the same order as
these two effects, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
k_x^{\rm max}\sim \frac{Re}{Ha} \label{eq:kx_heu},\\
k_y^{\rm max}\sim\kappa_z^{\rm max}\sim k_\perp^{\rm max}\sim Re^{1/2},
\label{eq:kp_heu}\\
d_{\rm att}\sim \frac{Re^2}{Ha}. \label{eq:d_mhd_heu}
\end{eqnarray}
The transition between the homogeneous isotropic regime and the anisotropic MHD regime, occurs when the estimates for $k_\perp$ and $k_x$ converge to the
same value. Whether using mathematical estimates (\ref{eq:kx_mhd_m}), (\ref{eq:kp_mhd_m}) and (\ref{eq:datt_3dmhd}), or heuristics (\ref{eq:kx_heu}), (\ref{eq:kp_heu}) and (\ref{eq:d_mhd_heu}) the number of degrees of freedom at the transition scales as $d_{\rm att}\sim Ha^3$, in line with the numerical findings of
Sec. \ref{sec:bounds}.\\
Similarly, the transition between anisotropic MHD regime and the 2D regime
takes place when $k_x^{\rm max}\sim 1$. Applying this condition to both the
mathematical
estimates (\ref{eq:datt_3dmhd}) and (\ref{eq:kx_mhd_m}), and the heuristics estimates
(\ref{eq:d_mhd_heu}) and (\ref{eq:kx_heu}) yields the same scaling $d_{\rm att}\sim Ha$. It is remarkable that when expressed in terms of the number of
degrees of freedom rather than Reynolds number, the transition
laws found from the properties of the least dissipative modes reflect
heuristics accurately, and do not suffer from the loose estimate for the
inertial terms.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that
the heuristic phenomenology for MHD turbulence discussed in this section
is only well established
for values of the interaction parameter $S$ of the order of unity
\cite{alemany79}. The authors of \cite{eckert01_ijhff} experimentally observed that the
spectral exponent in the inertial range varied continuously but
non-monotonously between -5/3 and -4 when $S$ spanned larger intervals from 0
to large values. Although the full range of these values included nearly
isotropic regimes and quasi-2D regimes, this stresses that the $k^{-3}$ spectrum
is not a universal feature of anisotropic MHD turbulence, unlike the $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum of isotropic, homogeneous hydrodynamic turbulence. Scalings for the small scales of MHD
turbulence with a different spectrum are however not known. Equally, the scaling $d_{\rm att}\sim Ha^{-1}$ is asymptotic and Fig. \ref{attdim} shows that it may be imperfectly verified away from the middle range of the anisotropic regime.\\
Finally, it should be noticed that the phenomenology discussed in this section
applies regardless of the boundary conditions, and therefore to Hartmann flows
and flows in 3D periodic domains \cite{pa03,pa06_pf}. The most remarkable
aspect about the case of a channel flow with a spanwise magnetic field is that
the same phenomenology applies to it despite a very different spectral
distribution of eigenmodes. Although not surprising from the physical point of
view, this property is anything but straightforward from the mathematical point
of view.
\section{Concluding remarks}
The sequence of least dissipative modes for a channel flow in a homogeneous magnetic field parallel to the walls has been derived. This achieves the first step
towards spectral DNS of MHD flows in this configuration based on this functional basis. This promising method was shown to partially lift the cost of meshing the very thin boundary layers in MHD channel flows perpendicular to the externally applied magnetic field. In the present case, Hartmann
layers are not present. This implies that when the flow is 3D but strongly
anisotropic, the number of modes required to
represent the flow completely can be expected to come close to the actual
attractor dimension $d_{\rm att}$, as in the case of periodic flows \cite{pdy10_jfm}. An upper bound for it was found to scale as
$\text{Re}^4/\text{Ha}$, but $d_{\rm att}$ itself is heuristically expected to scale as
$\text{Re}^2/\text{Ha}$, suggesting that the upper bound we find is tight as far as the exponent of Ha is concerned but not that of Re. Either way, $d_{\rm att}$ significantly decreases with Ha and so using the
least dissipative modes in spectral DNS should incur
significant computational savings.\\
The success of such a numerical approach relies on the ability of these modes
to faithfully represent the physical properties of the flow. In this respect
the least dissipative modes have been shown to recover most of the known
attributes of MHD turbulence in a channel parallel to the magnetic field:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.2cm]
\item In regimes where the flow is 3D, turbulence far from the
wall determines the number of degrees of freedom of the flow. The ensuing
scalings for the attractor dimension, small scales along and across the magnetic fields, and Joule cone half-angle are essentially the same as those for turbulence in a periodic domain. These are all finely recovered by the set of least dissipative modes. In the most important case of 3D anisotropic flow, these scalings for the small scales were:
\begin{displaymath}
\kappa_z\simeq k_y \simeq 01.3 \text{Re} \qquad k_x\simeq\frac{\text{Re}^{2}}{2 \text{Ha}}
\end{displaymath}
\item The modes spread into two families: Orr-Sommerfeld modes, which have a velocity component across the channel and Squire modes which do not.
\item The spectral distribution of the least dissipative modes is strongly inhomogeneous, because of the presence of pairs of OS modes with imaginary eigenvalues. This effect is due to the presence of walls parallel to the magnetic field but does not affect the main scalings for the attractor dimension: this important result is \emph{a priori} far from obvious from the mathematical
point of view but reflects that high-Re turbulence is not strongly affected by the walls in the present geometry (see above).
\item The maximum and minimum thicknesses of the boundary layers associated to the least dissipative modes along the walls are essentially
independent of the external magnetic field and depend on Re only, as one would expect for a magnetic field parallel to the walls.
\end{itemize}
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Leverhulme Trust (Grant Ref. F00/732J).
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec_intro}
The \emph{conditional mutual information} $I(A : C | B)_{\rho} = H(\rho_{A B}) + H(\rho_{B C}) - H(\rho_B) - H(\rho_{A B C})$ of a state $\rho_{ABC}$ on a tripartite system $A \otimes B \otimes C$ is meant to quantify the correlations between $A$ and $C$ from the point of view of $B$. Here $H(\rho) = -\mathrm{tr}(\rho \log_2 \rho)$ is the von Neumann entropy. Apart from its central role in traditional information theory, the conditional mutual information has recently found applications in new areas of computer science and physics. Examples include communication and information complexity (see~\cite{Bra12} and references therein), de Finetti type theorems~\cite{BH13, BH13b} and also the study of quantum many-body systems~\cite{Kim13thesis}. The importance of the conditional mutual information for such applications is due to its various useful properties. In particular, it has an additivity property called the \emph{chain rule}: ${I(A_1 \dots A_n : C | B)} = {I(A_1 : C |B)} + {I(A_2 : C | B A_1)} + \dots + {I(A_n : C | B A_1 \dots A_{n-1})}$.
When the $B$ system is classical, the conditional mutual information $I(A : C | B)$ has a simple interpretation: it is the average over the values $b$ taken by $B$ of the (unconditional) mutual information evaluated for the conditional state on the system $A \otimes C$. This is crucial for applications because the (unconditional) mutual information can be related to operational quantities such as the distance to product states using Pinsker's inequality for instance. However, when $B$ is quantum, the conditional mutual information is significantly more complicated and much less is known about it. In fact, even the fact that $I(A:C|B) \geq 0$, also known as \emph{strong subadditivity} of the von Neumann entropy, is a highly non-trivial theorem~\cite{LieRus73}. The structure of states that satisfy $I(A:C|B)_{\rho} = 0$ was also studied~\cite{Pet88,HJPW04}. It has been found that a zero conditional mutual information characterises states $\rho_{A B C}$ whose $C$ system can be reconstructed just by acting on $B$, i.e., there exists a quantum operation~$\mathcal{T}_{B \to BC}$ from the $B$ to the $B \otimes C$ system such that
\begin{align}
\label{eq_markovchain}
\rho_{ABC} = \mathcal{T}_{B \to BC}(\rho_{AB}) \ .
\end{align}
States $\rho_{A B C}$ that satisfy this condition are called \emph{(quantum) Markov chains}. When $B$ is classical the condition~\eqref{eq_markovchain} simply means that, for all values $b$ taken by $B$, the conditional state on $A \otimes C$ is a product state. We say that \emph{$A$ and $C$ are independent given $B$}.
A natural question that is very relevant for applications is to characterise states for which the conditional mutual information is approximately zero, i.e., for which it is guaranteed that $I(A:C|B) \leq \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon > 0$. In applications involving $n$ systems $A_1, \ldots, A_n$, such a guarantee is often obtained from an upper bound on the total conditional mutual information ${I(A_1 \dots A_n : C | B)} \leq c$ (which can even be the trivial bound $2 \log_2 \dim C$). The chain rule mentioned above then implies that, on average over~$i$, we have ${I(A_i : C | B A_1 \dots A_{i-1})} \leq c/n$. The authors of~\cite{ILW08} gave evidence for the difficulty of characterising such states in the quantum setting by finding states for which the conditional mutual information is small whereas their distance to any Markov chain is large (see also~\cite{CSW12} for more extreme examples). Recent works by~\cite{WL, Kim13, Zha12} made the important observation that instead of considering the distance to a (perfect) Markov chain, another possibly more appropriate measure would be the accuracy with which Eq.~\ref{eq_markovchain} is satisfied. In fact, it was conjectured in~\cite{Kim13} that the conditional mutual information is lower bounded by the trace distance between the two sides of Eq.~\ref{eq_markovchain} for a specific form for the map $\mathcal{T}_{B \to BC}$ known sometimes as the Petz map (cf.\ Eq.~\ref{eq_petzmap} below). Later, in the context of studying R\'enyi generalisations of the conditional mutual information, the authors of~\cite{BSW14} refined this conjecture by replacing the trace distance with the negative logarithm of the fidelity (see also~\cite{SesWil14}). Here, we prove a variant of this last conjecture where the map $\mathcal{T}_{B \to BC}$ does not necessarily have the form of a Petz map.
\paragraph{Main result.} We prove that for any state $\rho_{A B C}$ on $A \otimes B \otimes C$ there exists a quantum operation $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ from the $B$ system to the $B \otimes C$ system such that the fidelity of the reconstructed state \begin{align} \label{eq_sigmadef}
\sigma_{A B C} = \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B})
\end{align}
is at least\footnote{The \emph{fidelity} of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ is defined as $F(\rho , \sigma) = \| \sqrt{\rho} \sqrt{\sigma} \|_1$. }
\begin{align} \label{eq_maininequality}
F(\rho_{A B C}, \sigma_{A B C})
\geq 2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B)_{\rho}} \ .
\end{align}
We refer to Theorem \ref{thm_maininequality} for a more precise statement.
\paragraph{Reformulations and implications.} A first immediate implication of our inequality is the \emph{strong subadditivity} of the von Neumann entropy, ${I(A : C | B)}_{\rho} \geq 0$~\cite{LieRus73}. The latter may be rewritten in terms of the conditional von Neumann entropy, $H(A|B)_{\rho} = H(\rho_{A B}) - H(\rho_B)$, as
\begin{align} \label{eq_strongsubadditivity}
H(A|B)_\rho \geq H(A| B C)_\rho
\end{align}
and is also known as the \emph{data processing inequality}. Furthermore, \eqref{eq_maininequality}~implies that if~\eqref{eq_strongsubadditivity} holds with equality for some state $\rho_{A B C}$ then it satisfies the Markov chain condition~\eqref{eq_markovchain}, reproducing the result from~\cite{Pet88,HJPW04}. The work presented here may thus be viewed as a robust extension of this result | if~\eqref{eq_strongsubadditivity} holds with \emph{approximate} equality then the Markov chain condition is fulfilled \emph{approximately}.
Our result may also be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\inf_{\sigma_{A B C}} D_{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho_{A B C}, \sigma_{A B C}) \leq I(A : C | B)_\rho \ ,
\end{align}
where the infimum ranges over all \emph{recovered} states, i.e., states of the form~\eqref{eq_sigmadef}, and where $D_{{1}/{2}}(\rho \| \sigma) = -2 \log_2 F(\rho, \sigma)$ is the R\'enyi divergence of order $\alpha = {1}/{2}$~\cite{MDSFT13, WWY13}. We remark that the quantity on the left hand side is equal to the \emph{surprisal of the fidelity of recovery}, which has been introduced and studied in detail in~\cite{SesWil14}.
Finally, we note that~\eqref{eq_maininequality} also implies an upper bound on the trace distance, which we denote by $\Delta(\cdot, \cdot)$, between $\rho_{A B C}$ and the recovered state $\sigma_{A B C}$,
\begin{align} \label{eq_maininequalityc}
\frac{1}{\ln 2} \Delta( \rho_{A B C}, \sigma_{A B C})^2 \leq I(A : C | B)_{\rho} \ .
\end{align}
The bound is readily verified using $\Delta(\cdot, \cdot)^2 \leq 1-F(\cdot, \cdot)^2$ (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{lem_tracedistancefidelity}) and $1-2^{-x} \leq \ln(2) x$.
\paragraph{Tightness.} One may ask whether, conversely to our main result, the conditional mutual information of a state $\rho_{A B C}$ also gives a lower bound on its distance to any reconstructed state $\sigma_{A B C}$ of the form~\eqref{eq_sigmadef}. To answer this question, we note that, as a consequence of the data processing inequality, we have
\begin{align}
I(A : C | B)_{\rho}
= H(A | B)_\rho - H(A | B C)_{\rho}
\leq H(A | B C)_{\sigma} - H(A | B C)_\rho \ .
\end{align}
The entropy difference on the right hand side can be bounded by the Alicki-Fannes inequality~\cite{AF03} in terms of the trace distance between the two states, yielding\footnote{We refer to~\cite{BSW14} for a more detailed discussion, including a proof that the same bound holds also when the conditional mutual information is evaluated for $\sigma$ instead of $\rho$.}
\begin{align}
I(A : C | B)_{\rho}
\leq 8 \Delta \log_2(\dim A) - 4 \Delta \log_2(2 \Delta) - 2 (1-2 \Delta) \log_2(1-2 \Delta) \qquad \text{for $\Delta \leq \frac{1}{2}$}\ .
\end{align}
This can be seen as a converse to~\eqref{eq_maininequalityc}. To simplify the comparison, we may use
\begin{align}
8 \Delta- 4 \Delta \log_2(2 \Delta) - 2 (1-2 \Delta) \log_2(1-2 \Delta) \leq 7 \sqrt{\Delta} \qquad \text{for $\Delta \leq \frac{1}{11}$} \ ,
\end{align}
which gives
\begin{align}
I(A : C | B)_{\rho} \leq 7 \log_2(\dim A) \sqrt{\Delta(\rho_{A B C}, \sigma_{A B C})} \ .
\end{align}
Note that a term proportional to the logarithm of the dimension of $A$ is necessary in general as the trace distance is always upper bounded by~$1$, whereas the conditional mutual information may be as large as $2 \log_2 \dim A$.
\paragraph{The classical case.}
Inequality~\eqref{eq_maininequality} is easily obtained in the case where $B$ is classical, i.e., when $\rho_{A B C}$ is a qcq-state,
\begin{align}
\rho_{A B C} = \sum_{b} P_B(b) \, \proj{b}_B \otimes \rho_{AC,b} \ ,
\end{align}
for some probability distribution $P_{B}$, an orthonormal basis $\{\ket{b}\}_b$ of $B$, and a family of states $\{\rho_{A C, b}\}_{b}$ on $A \otimes C$. Let $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ be any map such that
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\proj{b}) = \proj{b} \otimes \rho_{C,b} \qquad (\forall b) \ ,
\end{align}
where $\rho_{C, b} = \mathrm{tr}_A(\rho_{A C,b})$. Then the reconstructed state $\sigma_{A B C} = \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B})$ is the qcq-state
\begin{align} \label{eq_qcqMarkov}
\sigma_{A B C} = \sum_{b} P_B(b) \rho_{A, b} \otimes \proj{b} \otimes \rho_{C, b} \ ,
\end{align}
where $\rho_{A, b} = \mathrm{tr}_C(\rho_{A C, b})$. We remark that $\sigma_{A B C}$ is a Markov chain. Furthermore, a straightforward calculation shows that the relative entropy\footnote{See Section~\ref{sec_relativeentropy} for a definition.} $D(\rho_{A B C} \| \sigma_{A B C})$ between $\rho_{A B C}$ and $\sigma_{A B C}$ is given by
\begin{align} \label{eq_classicalidentity}
D(\rho_{A B C} \| \sigma_{A B C}) = I(A : C | B)_\rho \ .
\end{align}
Inequality~\eqref{eq_maininequality} then follows from Lemma~\ref{lem_DFidelity}.
\paragraph{Related results.} While the conditional mutual information is well understood in the classical case and has various interesting properties (see, e.g., \cite{R02}), these properties do not necessarily hold for quantum states. For example, identity~\eqref{eq_classicalidentity} cannot be generalised directly to the case where $B$ is non-classical (see~\cite{WL} for a discussion). Furthermore, it has been discovered that there exist states $\rho_{A B C}$ that have a large distance to the closest Markov chain, while the conditional mutual information is small~\cite{ILW08, CSW12, Erk14}. We remark that this is not in contradiction to~\eqref{eq_maininequality} as the reconstructed state $\sigma_{A B C}$, defined by~\eqref{eq_sigmadef}, is not necessarily a Markov chain. (Note that this is a major difference to the classical case sketched above.)
As mentioned above, the special case of~\eqref{eq_maininequality} where $I(A : C | B) = 0$ has been studied in earlier work~\cite{Pet88,HJPW04}. There, it has also been shown that the relevant reconstruction map $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ is of the form
\begin{align}
\label{eq_petzmap}
X_B \mapsto {\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} X_B \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_C) \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}}} \ .
\end{align}
However, it remained unclear whether this particular map also works in the case where $I(A : C | B)$ is strictly larger than zero, even though several conjectures in this direction were proposed and studied~\cite{WL,Kim13,Zha12,BSW14}. We refer to~\cite{LW14} for a detailed account of the evolution of these conjectures.
We note that our result provides some information about the structure of the map for which~\eqref{eq_maininequality} holds (cf.\ Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality}), but leaves open the question whether it is of this particular form.
There is a large body of literature underlying the fundamental role that the conditional mutual information plays in quantum information theory. Notably, it has been shown to characterise the communication rate for the task of \emph{quantum state redistribution} in the asymptotic limit of many independent copies of a resource state~\cite{DY08}. Furthermore, the quantum conditional mutual information is the basis for an important measure of entanglement, known as \emph{squashed entanglement}~\cite{ChrWin03}. The properties of this entanglement measure thus hinge on the properties of $I(A : C | B)$. In this context, lower bounds on $I(A : C | B)$ in terms of the distance between the marginal $\rho_{A C}$ from the set of separable states have been proved in~\cite{BCY11} and later improved in~\cite{LiWin14}. We also note that another lower bound on the conditional mutual information in terms of a distance between certain operators derived from $\rho_{A B C}$ has recently been stated in~\cite{ZhaWu14}. This bound is based on a novel monotonicity bound for the relative entropy~\cite{CL14}. Our work may be used to obtain strengthened versions of some of these results. We are going to illustrate this for the case of squashed entanglement.
\paragraph{Applications.}
For us, one motivation to study how well the conditional mutual information characterises approximate Markov chains is in the context of device-independent quantum key distribution~\cite{BDFR14}. Another implication, proposed in~\cite{WL,LW14}, is a novel lower bound on the squashed entanglement of any bipartite state. The bound depends only on the trace distance to the closest $k$-extendible\footnote{A non-negative operator $\omega_{A C}$ is called \emph{$k$-extendible} if there exists a non-negative operator $\bar{\omega}_{A C_1 \cdots C_n}$ such that $\bar{\omega}_{A C_i} = \omega_{A C}$ for all $i = 1, \ldots, k$. \label{ftn_extendible}} state, and also implies a strong lower bound in terms of the trace distance to the closest separable state (cf.\ Appendix~\ref{app_squashed} for details).
It would be interesting to investigate whether inequality~\eqref{eq_maininequality} can lead to better quantum de Finetti theorems. In fact, the authors of~\cite{BH13,BH13b} recently gave beautiful proofs of various de Finetti theorems using the conditional mutual information. For the quantum version, they apply an informationally complete measurement to reduce the problem to the classical case, but this comes at the cost of a factor that is exponential in the number of systems. We also believe that inequality \eqref{eq_maininequality} will be helpful in proving communication complexity lower bounds via the \emph{quantum information complexity}~\cite{JRS03,JN10,KLLRX12,Tou14}.
\paragraph{Structure of the proof.} The proof of inequality~\eqref{eq_maininequality} is based on two main ideas, which we discuss in separate sections. The first is the use of \emph{one-shot entropy measures}~\cite{Renner05} to bound the von Neumann relative entropy (Section~\ref{sec_relativeentropy}). The second is an extension of the method of \emph{de Finetti reductions}~\cite{Ren07,CKMR07,CKR09,Renner10} (Section~\ref{sec_deFinetti}). We use the latter to derive a general tool for evaluating the fidelity of permutation-invariant states (Section~\ref{sec_fidelity}). The proof of~\eqref{eq_maininequality} then proceeds in two main steps in which these techniques are applied successively (Section~\ref{sec_proof}).
\section{Typicality bounds on the relative entropy} \label{sec_relativeentropy}
In this section we are going to derive bounds on the relative entropy that will be used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality}. The method we use to obtain these bounds is inspired by a recent approach~\cite{BeaRen12} to prove strong subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy (see Eq.~\ref{eq_strongsubadditivity}). The idea there was to first prove strong subadditivity for one-shot entropies~\cite{Renner05} and then use \emph{typicality} or, more precisely, the \emph{Asymptotic Equipartition Property}~\cite{TCR09} to obtain the desired statement for the von Neumann entropy. Here we proceed analogously: we use one-shot versions of the relative entropy (defined in Appendix~\ref{app_relativeentropy}) to obtain bounds on the von Neumann relative entropy.
The \emph{(von Neumann) relative entropy} $D(\rho \| \sigma)$ for two non-negative operators $\rho$ and $\sigma$ is defined as
\begin{align}
D(\rho \| \sigma) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{tr}(\rho)}\mathrm{tr}\bigl(\rho(\log_2 \rho - \log_2 \sigma)\bigr) \ ,
\end{align}
where we set $D(\rho \| \sigma) = \infty$ if the support of $\rho$ is not contained in the support of $\sigma$.
Our statements also refer to the \emph{trace distance}. While this distance is often defined for density operators only, we define it here more generally for any non-negative operators $\rho$ and $\sigma$ by
\begin{align}
\Delta(\rho, \sigma) = \frac{1}{2} \|\rho - \sigma\|_1 + \frac{1}{2}\bigl|\mathrm{tr}(\rho - \sigma)\bigr|
\end{align}
(see Section~3.2 of~\cite{Tom12}). Note that the second term is zero if $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are both density operators. We also remark that the trace distance may be rewritten as
\begin{align} \label{eq_tracedistancepositive}
\Delta(\rho, \sigma) = \max\bigl[\mathrm{tr}(Y^+), \mathrm{tr}(Y^-)\bigr] \ ,
\end{align}
where $Y+$ and $Y^-$ are the positive and negative parts of $\rho - \sigma$, i.e., $\rho - \sigma = Y^+ - Y^-$ with $Y^+ \geq 0$, $Y^- \geq 0$, and $\mathrm{tr}(Y^+ Y^-) = 0$. It follows that we can write $\Delta$ as
\begin{align} \label{eq_tracedistancemaximisation}
\Delta(\rho, \sigma) = \sup_{0 \leq Q \leq \mathrm{id}} |\mathrm{tr}(Q (\rho - \sigma))| \ .
\end{align}
\comment{
To prove this expression, we prove both inequalities. Taking two particular values for $Q$ being the projector onto the support of $Y^+$ and the projector on the support of $Y^{-}$, we see that $\Delta(\rho, \sigma) = \max\bigl[\mathrm{tr}(Y^+), \mathrm{tr}(Y^-)\bigr] \leq \sup_{0 \leq Q \leq \mathrm{id}} |\mathrm{tr}(Q (\rho - \sigma))|$. Also for any $0 \leq Q \leq \mathrm{id}$, we have $\mathrm{tr}(Q(\rho - \sigma)) = \mathrm{tr}(Q(Y^+ - Y^{-})) \leq \mathrm{tr}(Q Y^+) \leq \mathrm{tr}(Y^+)$. Similarly, $\mathrm{tr}(Q(\rho - \sigma)) \geq - \mathrm{tr}(Q Y^{-}) \geq - \mathrm{tr}(Y^{-})$, which proves that $ \sup_{0 \leq Q \leq \mathrm{id}} |\mathrm{tr}(Q (\rho - \sigma))| \leq \Delta(\rho, \sigma)$. \\
}
One can easily see from this expression that for any trace non-increasing completely positive map $\mathcal{W}$ we have
\begin{align} \label{eq_tracedistancemonotone}
\Delta(\mathcal{W}(\rho), \mathcal{W}(\sigma)) \leq \Delta(\rho, \sigma) \ .
\end{align}
\comment{
For any trace non-increasing completely positive map $\mathcal{W}$,
\begin{align}
\Delta(\mathcal{W}(\rho), \mathcal{W}(\sigma))
= \sup_{0 \leq Q \leq \mathrm{id}} |\mathrm{tr}(Q \mathcal{W}(\rho - \sigma))|
&= \sup_{0 \leq Q \leq \mathrm{id}} |\mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{W}^*(Q)(\rho - \sigma))| \\
&\leq \sup_{0 \leq \bar{Q} \leq \mathrm{id}} |\mathrm{tr}(\bar{Q} (\rho - \sigma))|
= \Delta(\rho, \sigma) \ ,
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{W}^*$ is the adjoint map. The inequality holds because $\mathcal{W}^*$ is sub-unital and completely positive, so that $0 \leq \mathcal{W}^*(Q) \leq \mathrm{id}$.
}
Our first lemma provides an upper bound on the relative entropy in terms of sequences of operators that satisfy an operator inequality.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_boundfromsequence}
Let $\rho$ be a density operator, let $\sigma$ be a non-negative operator, and let $\{\bar{\rho}_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of non-negative operators such that for some $s \in \mathbb{R}$
\begin{align} \label{eq_limitdistancesmallerone}
\bar{\rho}_n \leq 2^{s n} \sigma^{\otimes n} \quad (\forall n \in \mathbb{N}) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \lim_{n \to \infty} \Delta(\bar{\rho}_n, \rho^{\otimes n}) < 1 \ .
\end{align}
Then $D(\rho \| \sigma) \leq s$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By assumption, there exist $c<1$ and $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{align}
\Delta(\bar{\rho}_n, \rho^{\otimes n}) \leq c
\end{align}
holds for all $n \geq n_0$. Let $\epsilon \in (c,1)$. By Lemma~\ref{lem_DHupperbound} we have
\begin{align}
D_H^\epsilon(\rho^{\otimes n} \| \sigma^{\otimes n}) \leq s n -\log_2 (1-c/\epsilon) \ ,
\end{align}
where $D_H^\epsilon(\cdot \| \cdot)$ is the generalised relative entropy defined in Appendix~\ref{app_relativeentropy}. Setting $C = 1- c/\epsilon > 0$ we conclude that
\begin{align}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} D_H^\epsilon(\rho^{\otimes n} \| \sigma^{\otimes n})
\leq \lim_{n \to \infty} \bigl(s + \frac{1}{n} \log_2 \frac{1}{C} \bigr) = s \ .
\end{align}
The claim then follows from the Asymptotic Equipartition Property of $D_H^\epsilon(\cdot \| \cdot)$ (Lemma~\ref{lem_QAEPequal}).
\end{proof}
The following lemma is in some sense a converse of Lemma~\ref{lem_boundfromsequence}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_sequencefrombound}
Let $\rho$ be a density operator, let $\sigma$ be non-negative operator, and let $s > D(\rho \| \sigma)$. Then there exists $\kappa > 0$ and a sequence of non-negative operators $\{\bar{\rho}_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $\mathrm{tr}(\bar{\rho}_n) \leq 1$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_rhobarconditions}
\bar{\rho}_n \leq 2^{s n} \sigma^{\otimes n} \quad (\forall n \in \mathbb{N})
\qquad \text{and} \qquad \lim_{n \to \infty} 2^{n \kappa} \Delta(\bar{\rho}_n, \rho^{\otimes n}) = 0 \ .
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses the smooth relative max-entropy $D_{\max}^\epsilon(\cdot \| \cdot)$ defined in Appendix~\ref{app_relativeentropy}.
The Asymptotic Equipartition Property for this entropy measure (Lemma~\ref{lem_DAEP}) asserts that there exists $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that for any $n \geq n_0$
\begin{align}
D^{\epsilon_n}_{\max}(\rho^{\otimes n} \| \sigma^{\otimes n}) < n s
\end{align}
for $\epsilon_n > 0$ chosen such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_epsilonndef}
D(\rho \| \sigma) + c \sqrt{\frac{\log_2(2/\varepsilon_n^2)}{n}} = s \ ,
\end{align}
where $c$ is independent of~$n$. Inserting this into the definition of $D_{\max}^\epsilon(\cdot \| \cdot)$ we find that there exists a non-negative operator $\bar{\rho}_n$ with $\mathrm{tr}(\bar{\rho}_n) \leq 1$ such that
\begin{align}
\bar{\rho}_n \leq 2^{s n} \sigma^{\otimes n}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align} \label{eq_epsilonnbound}
\sqrt{1 - F(\bar{\rho}_n, \rho^{\otimes n})^2} \leq \epsilon_n \ .
\end{align}
Eq.~\eqref{eq_epsilonndef} may be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\epsilon_n = \sqrt{2} \, 2^{-\kappa' n/2}
\qquad \text{with} \quad
\kappa' = \left(\frac{s-D(\rho\|\sigma)}{c}\right)^2 \ .
\end{align}
Inserting this in~\eqref{eq_epsilonnbound} and using Lemma~\ref{lem_tracedistancefidelity}, we conclude that
\begin{align}
\Delta(\bar{\rho}_n, \rho^{\otimes n}) \leq \sqrt{2} \, 2^{-\kappa' n/2} \ .
\end{align}
This proves~\eqref{eq_rhobarconditions} for any $\kappa < \kappa'/2$. (Note that for $n < n_0$ we may simply set $\bar{\rho}_n = 0$ so that the left hand side of~\eqref{eq_rhobarconditions} holds for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.)
\end{proof}
The next lemma asserts that the relative entropy, evaluated for $n$-fold product states, has the following stability property: if one acts with the same trace non-increasing map on the two arguments then the relative entropy cannot substantially increase. This property is used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality} (but see also Remark~\ref{rem_Dmap}).
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_Dmapping}
Let $\rho$ be a density operator, let $\sigma$ be a non-negative operator on the same space, and let $\{\mathcal{W}_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of trace non-increasing completely positive maps on the $n$-fold tensor product of this space. If $\mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n}))$ decreases less than exponentially in $n$, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\liminf_{n \to \infty} e^{\xi n} \mathrm{tr}\bigl(\mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n})\bigr) > 0
\end{align}
for any $\xi > 0$, then
\begin{align}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} D\bigl(\mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n}) \| \mathcal{W}_n(\sigma^{\otimes n})\bigr) \leq D(\rho \| \sigma) \ .
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\delta > 0$. Lemma~\ref{lem_sequencefrombound} tells us that there exists $\kappa > 0$ and a sequence of non-negative operators $\{\bar{\rho}_m\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_CgivenABinequality}
\bar{\rho}_m \leq 2^{m (D(\rho \| \sigma) +\delta)} \sigma^{\otimes m}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq_rhoABCndistanceboundstrong}
\lim_{m \to \infty} e^{\kappa m} \Delta( \bar{\rho}_m, \rho^{\otimes m}) = 0 \ .
\end{align}
To abbreviate notation, we define $r_n = 1/\mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n}))$. Note that, by assumption, $r_n$ grows less than exponentially in $n$, so that
\begin{align} \label{eq_rnzero}
r_n < e^{\kappa n}
\end{align}
holds for $n$ sufficiently large.
Let now $k,n \in \mathbb{N}$ and set $m = k n$. Applying $\mathcal{W}_n$ and multiplying with the factor $r_n$ on the two sides of~\eqref{eq_CgivenABinequality} yields
\begin{align}
r_n^k \mathcal{W}_n^{\otimes k}(\bar{\rho}_{n k})
& \leq 2^{k n (D(\rho \| \sigma) + \delta)} \bigl(r_n \mathcal{W}_n(\sigma^{\otimes n})\bigr)^{\otimes k} \ .
\end{align}
As $\mathcal{W}_n$ is trace non-increasing,
\begin{multline}\label{eq_rhoABCndistanceboundstrongp_2}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \Delta\bigl(r_n^k \mathcal{W}_n^{\otimes k}(\bar{\rho}_{n k}), \left( r_n \mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n}) \right)^{\otimes k}\bigr)
= \lim_{k \to \infty} r_n^k \Delta\bigl(\mathcal{W}_n^{\otimes k}(\bar{\rho}_{n k}), \mathcal{W}_n^{\otimes k}(\rho^{\otimes n k}) \bigr) \\
\leq \lim_{k \to \infty} r_n^k \Delta( \bar{\rho}_{n k}, \rho^{\otimes n k} )
\leq \lim_{k \to \infty} e^{\kappa n k} \Delta( \bar{\rho}_{n k}, \rho^{\otimes n k} )
= 0 \ ,
\end{multline}
where the first inequality follows from the monotonicity property of the trace distance~\eqref{eq_tracedistancemonotone}, the second inequality follows from~\eqref{eq_rnzero}, and where the final equality follows from~\eqref{eq_rhoABCndistanceboundstrong}. We can now apply Lemma~\ref{lem_boundfromsequence} to the density operator $r_n \mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n})$ and the non-negative operator $r_n \mathcal{W}_n(\sigma^{\otimes n})$, which gives
\begin{align}
D\bigl(r_n \mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n}) \| r_n \mathcal{W}_n(\sigma^{\otimes n}) \bigr) \leq n\bigl(D(\rho \| \sigma) + \delta\bigr) \ .
\end{align}
Noting that multiplying both arguments of the relative entropy with the same factor leaves it unchanged we conclude
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{n} D\bigl(\mathcal{W}_n(\rho^{\otimes n}) \| \mathcal{W}_n(\sigma^{\otimes n}) \bigr) \leq D(\rho \| \sigma) + \delta \ .
\end{align}
Taking the limit $n \to \infty$ and noting that $\delta > 0$ was arbitrary, the claim of the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem_Dmap}
Lemma~\ref{lem_Dmapping} will be used in one of the steps of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality}. We note that, alternatively, this step may also be based on the inequality (cf.\ Lemma~25 of~\cite{BCFST13})
\begin{align} \label{eq_Dmonotone}
(1-\epsilon) D\bigl(\mathcal{W}(\rho) \| \mathcal{W}(\sigma)\bigr) \leq D(\rho \| \sigma) + \epsilon \log_2(\mathrm{tr}(\sigma)/\epsilon) \ ,
\end{align}
which holds for any density operator $\rho$, any non-negative operator $\sigma$, any trace non-increasing completely positive map $\mathcal{W}$, and $\epsilon = 1-\mathrm{tr}\bigl(\mathcal{W}(\rho)\bigr)$ (see also Footnote~\ref{ftn_altproof}). However, Lemma~\ref{lem_Dmapping} provides a stronger stability condition for the relative entropy of product states (notably when $\epsilon \gg 0$) and may therefore be useful for generalisations of our results.
\comment{\\ To prove~\eqref{eq_Dmonotone}, we define
\begin{align}
\bar{\mathcal{W}} : \quad X \mapsto \mathcal{W}(X) + \mathrm{tr}(X - \mathcal{W}(X)) \omega
\end{align}
where $\omega$ is some density operator orthogonal to $\rho$ and $\sigma$. Because $\bar{\mathcal{W}}$ is trace-preserving, we can use the monotonicity of the relative entropy under such maps to conclude that
\begin{align}
(1-\epsilon) D\bigl(\mathcal{W}(\rho) \| \mathcal{W}(\sigma)\bigr) + \epsilon D\bigl(\epsilon \omega \| \mathrm{tr}(\sigma - \mathcal{W}(\sigma)) \omega\bigr)
= D\bigl(\bar{\mathcal{W}}(\rho) \| \bar{\mathcal{W}}(\sigma)\bigr)
\leq D(\rho \| \sigma) \ .
\end{align}
The inequality then follows from
\begin{align}
\epsilon D\bigl(\epsilon \omega \| \mathrm{tr}(\sigma - \mathcal{W}(\sigma)) \omega\bigr)
= \epsilon \log_2(\epsilon) - \epsilon \log_2(\mathrm{tr}(\sigma-\mathcal{W}(\sigma)))
\geq \epsilon \log_2(\epsilon) - \epsilon \log_2(\mathrm{tr}(\sigma))
= - \epsilon \log_2(\mathrm{tr}(\sigma)/\epsilon) \ .
\end{align}}
\end{remark}
As a corollary of Lemma~\ref{lem_Dmapping} we also obtain the well known \emph{Asymptotic Equipartition Property} (see, e.g., Chapter~3 of~\cite{CovTho05}). We state it here explicitly as Lemma~\ref{lem_typicalsubspace} because we are going to use it within the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality} and because it illustrates the use of Lemma~\ref{lem_Dmapping}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_typicalsubspace}
Let $\rho$ be a density operator. For any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ let $\rho^{\otimes n} = \sum_{s \in S_n} s \, \Pi_s$ where $S_n$ is the set of eigenvalues of $\rho^{\otimes n}$ and where $\Pi_s$, for $s \in S_n$, is the projector onto the corresponding eigenspace. Furthermore, for any $\delta > 0$, let $S_n^\delta$ be the subset of $S_n$ defined by
\begin{align}
S_n^\delta = \bigl\{s \in S_n : \, s \in [2^{-n(H(\rho) + \delta)}, 2^{-n(H(\rho) - \delta)}] \bigr\} \ .
\end{align}
Then $\lim_{n \to \infty} \sum_{s \in S_n^{\delta}} \mathrm{tr}(\Pi_s \rho^{\otimes n}) = 1$ and the convergence is exponentially fast in $n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and consider the projector $ \bar{\Pi}^+_n =\sum_{s \in S_n^{+}} \Pi_s$, where $S_n^+ = \{s \in S_n : \, s > 2^{-n(H(\rho)-\delta)} \}$. An explicit evaluation of the relative entropy shows that
\begin{align}
D(\bar{\Pi}^+_n \rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^+_n\| \bar{\Pi}^+_n)
= \frac{\mathrm{tr}\bigl(\rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}_n^+ \log_2(\rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}_n^+)\bigr)}{\mathrm{tr}(\rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^+_n)}
\geq \frac{ \mathrm{tr}\bigl(\rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}_n^+ \log_2(2^{-n(H(\rho)-\delta)} \bar{\Pi}_n^+)\bigr) }{\mathrm{tr}(\rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^+_n)}
= - n \bigl(H(\rho) - \delta\bigr) \ .
\end{align}
Using
\begin{align} \label{eq_entropyrelative}
- H(\rho) = D(\rho \| \mathrm{id})
\end{align}
and defining the map $\mathcal{W}^+_n : \, X \mapsto \bar{\Pi}^+_n X \bar{\Pi}^+_n$ we can rewrite this bound as
\begin{align} \label{eq_Wndecrease}
\frac{1}{n} D(\mathcal{W}^+_n(\rho^{\otimes n}) \| \mathcal{W}^+_n(\mathrm{id}^{\otimes n}))
\geq D(\rho \| \mathrm{id}) + \delta \ .
\end{align}
If we now assume, by contradiction, that $\mathrm{tr}(\rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^+_n) = \mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{W}^+_n(\rho^{\otimes n}))$ decreases less than exponentially fast in~$n$, Lemma~\ref{lem_Dmapping} tells us that
\begin{align}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} D(\mathcal{W}^+_n(\rho^{\otimes n}) \| \mathcal{W}^+_n(\mathrm{id}^{\otimes n})) \leq D(\rho \| \mathrm{id}) \ .
\end{align}
This is obviously in contradiction to~\eqref{eq_Wndecrease} and thus proves that $\mathrm{tr}(\rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^+_n)$ decreases exponentially fast in~$n$.
Similarly, we may consider the projector $ \bar{\Pi}^-_n =\sum_{s \in S_n^{-}} \Pi_s$ where $S_n^- = \{s \in S_n : \, s < 2^{-n(H(\rho)+\delta)} \}$. Here, instead of~\eqref{eq_entropyrelative}, we use that for any purification $\rho_{D R}$ of $\rho_D = \rho$
\begin{align} \label{eq_condentropyrelative}
H(\rho) = - H(D|R)_{\rho} = D(\rho_{D R} \| \mathrm{id}_D \otimes \rho_R) \ .
\end{align}
We may choose the purification such that $(\bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \mathrm{id}_{R^n}) \rho_{D R}^{\otimes n} (\bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \mathrm{id}_{R^n}) = (\bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \bar{\Pi}^-_n) \rho_{D R}^{\otimes n} ( \bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \bar{\Pi}^-_n)$. Then
\begin{multline}
D\bigl((\bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \mathrm{id}_{R^n}) \rho_{D R}^{\otimes n} (\bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \mathrm{id}_{R^n}) \big\| \bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \rho_R^{\otimes n}\bigr)
= \log_2\mathrm{tr}(\rho_D^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n) - \frac{\mathrm{tr}\bigl( \rho_R^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n \log_2(\rho_R^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n) \bigr)}{\mathrm{tr}(\rho_D^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n)} \\
\geq \log_2\mathrm{tr}(\rho_D^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n) - \frac{\mathrm{tr}\bigl( \rho_R^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n\log_2(2^{-n(H(\rho) + \delta)}\bar{\Pi}^-_n) \bigr)}{\mathrm{tr}(\rho_D^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n)}
= \log_2\mathrm{tr}(\rho_D^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n) + n\bigl(H(\rho) + \delta\bigr) \ .
\end{multline}
Defining $\mathcal{W}^-_n : \, X_{D R} \mapsto (\bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \mathrm{id}_R) X_{D R} (\bar{\Pi}^-_n \otimes \mathrm{id}_R)$ and inserting~\eqref{eq_condentropyrelative} we obtain the bound
\begin{align} \label{eq_WDRbound}
\frac{1}{n} D\bigl(\mathcal{W}^-_n(\rho_{D R}^{\otimes n}) \big\| \mathcal{W}^-_n (\mathrm{id}_{D}^{\otimes n} \otimes \rho_R^{\otimes n})\bigr) \geq D(\rho_{D R} \| \mathrm{id}_D \otimes \rho_R) + \delta + \frac{\log_2 \mathrm{tr}\bigl(\mathcal{W}^-_n(\rho_{D R}^{\otimes n})\bigr)}{n} \ .
\end{align}
Assume now, by contradiction, that $\mathrm{tr}(\rho_D^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n) = \mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{W}^-_n(\rho_{D R}^{\otimes n}))$ decreases less then exponentially fast in~$n$. Then the last term of~\eqref{eq_WDRbound} approaches~$0$ in the limit of large~$n$. In particular, we have
\begin{align}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} D\bigl(\mathcal{W}^-_n(\rho_{D R}^{\otimes n}) \big\| \mathcal{W}^-_n (\mathrm{id}_{D}^{\otimes n} \otimes \rho_R^{\otimes n})\bigr) \geq D(\rho_{D R} \| \mathrm{id}_D \otimes \rho_R) + \delta \ ,
\end{align}
which contradicts the statement of Lemma~\ref{lem_Dmapping}. We have thus shown that both $\mathrm{tr}( \rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^-_n)$ and $\mathrm{tr}( \rho^{\otimes n} \bar{\Pi}^+_n )$ decrease exponentially fast in~$n$. The claim of the lemma follows because $\sum_{s \in S_n^{\delta}} \Pi_s = \mathrm{id} - \bar{\Pi}^+_n - \bar{\Pi}^-_n$.
\end{proof}
We conclude this section with a remark that is going to be useful for our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem_typicalsize}
Considering the decomposition $\rho = \sum_{r \in R} r \pi_r$, it is easy to see that all eigenvalues of $\rho^{\otimes n}$ have the form $\prod_{r \in R} r^{n_r}$, where $(n_r)_{r \in R}$ are partitions of $n$, i.e., elements from the set
\begin{align}
Q_n = \bigl\{(n_r)_{r \in R}, \, n_r \in \mathbb{N}_0, \, \sum_{r \in R} n_r = n \bigr\} \ .
\end{align}
Hence, the set $S_n$ of eigenvalues of $\rho^{\otimes n}$ used within Lemma~\ref{lem_typicalsubspace} has size at most $|S_n| \leq |Q_n|$. Since $|Q_n| = \binom{n+|R|-1}{n} \leq (n+1)^{|R|}$, where $|R| \leq \mathrm{rank}(\rho)$ is the number of different eigenvalues of~$\rho$, we can upper bound the size of $S_n$ by
\begin{align}
| S_n | \leq (n+1)^{\mathrm{rank}(\rho)} \ .
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\section{Generalised de Finetti reduction} \label{sec_deFinetti}
The main result of this section, stated as Lemma~\ref{lem_postselection}, is motivated by a variant of the method of \emph{de Finetti reductions} proposed in~\cite{CKR09}. (This variant is also known as \emph{postselection technique}; we refer to~\cite{Renner10} for a not too technical presentation.) De Finetti reductions are generally used to study states on $n$-fold product systems $S^{\otimes n}$ that are invariant under permutations of the subsystems~\cite{Ren07,CKMR07}. More precisely, the idea is to reduce the analysis of any density operator $\rho_{S^n}$ in the symmetric subspace $\mathrm{Sym}^n(S)$ of $S^{\otimes n}$ to the | generally simpler | analysis of states of the form $\sigma_{S}^{\otimes n}$, where $\sigma_S$ is pure. We extend this method to the case where $S = D \otimes E$ is a bipartite space and where the marginal of $\rho_{S^n} = \rho_{D^n E^n}$ on $D^{\otimes n}$ is known to have the form
\begin{align} \label{eq_marginalcondition}
\mathrm{tr}_{E^n}(\rho_{D^n E^n}) = \rho_{D^n} = \sigma_{D}^{\otimes n}
\end{align}
for some given state $\sigma_D$ on $D$. Lemma~\ref{lem_postselection} implies that, in this case, the analysis can be reduced to states of the form $\sigma_{D E}^{\otimes n}$, where $\sigma_{D E}$ is a purification of $\sigma_D$. (We note that a similar extension has been proposed earlier for another variant of the de Finetti reduction method; see Remark~4.3.3 of~\cite{Renner05}.) Lemma~\ref{lem_postselection} will play a central role for the derivation of the claims of Section~\ref{sec_fidelity} below. Its proof uses concepts from representation theory, which are presented in Appendix~\ref{app_representation}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_postselection}
Let $D$ and $E$ be Hilbert spaces and let $\sigma_{D}$ be a non-negative operator on $D$. Then there exists a probability measure $\mathrm{d}\phi$ on the set of purifications $\proj{\phi}_{D E}$ of~$\sigma_{D}$ such that
\begin{align}
\rho_{D^n E^n} \leq (n+1)^{d^2-1} \int \proj{\phi}_{D E}^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d} \phi
\end{align}
holds for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$, any permutation-invariant purification $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ of $\sigma_D^{\otimes n}$, and $d = \max[\dim(D), \dim(E)]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the following argument, we assume without loss of generality that $d = \dim(D) = \dim(E)$, and that $\sigma_{D}$ has full rank and is therefore invertible on $D$. (If this is not the case one may embed the smaller space in one of dimension $d$ and replace $\sigma_D$ by $\sigma_D + \epsilon \, \mathrm{id}_D$ for $\epsilon > 0$. The claim is then obtained in the limit $\epsilon \to 0$.) We define
\begin{align}
\ket{\theta}_{D E} = \sum_i \ket{d_i}_D \otimes \ket{e_i}_E \ ,
\end{align}
where $\{\ket{d_i}_D\}_i$ and $\{\ket{e_i}_E\}_i$ are orthonormal bases of $D$ and $E$, respectively. Let now
\begin{align}
T_{D^n E^n} = \int (\mathrm{id}_{D^n} \otimes U_E^{\otimes n}) \proj{\theta}_{D E}^{\otimes n} (\mathrm{id}_{D^n} \otimes U_E^{\otimes n})^{\dagger} \mathrm{d} U \ ,
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{d} U$ is the Haar probability measure on the group of unitaries on $E$. Because $(\sigma_D^{\frac{1}{2}} \otimes U_E) \proj{\theta} {(\sigma_D^{\frac{1}{2}} \otimes U_E^{\dagger})}$ is a purification of $\sigma_D$ for any $U_E$, the operator
\begin{align}
\tau_{D^n E^n}
= (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{\frac{1}{2}} T_{D^n E^n} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{\frac{1}{2}}
= \int \bigl((\sigma_D^{\frac{1}{2}} \otimes U_E) \proj{\theta}_{D E} (\sigma_D^{\frac{1}{2}} \otimes U_E^{\dagger})\bigr)^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d} U
\end{align}
is obviously of the form
\begin{align}
\tau_{D^n E^n} = \int \proj{\phi}_{D E}^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d} \phi \ ,
\end{align}
for some suitably chosen measure $\mathrm{d} \phi$ on the set of purifications $\proj{\phi}_{D E}$ of $\sigma_{D}$. It therefore suffices to show that
\begin{align} \label{eq_tauform}
\rho_{D^n E^n} \leq (n+1)^{d^2-1} \tau_{D^n E^n} \ .
\end{align}
We do this by analysing the structure of $T_{D^n E^n}$. For this we employ the Schur-Weyl duality, which equips the product space $(D \otimes E)^{\otimes n}$ with a convenient structure (see Appendix~\ref{app_representation}). Specifically, according to Lemma~\ref{lem_SchurWeyldecomposition}, the vector $\ket{\theta}_{D E}^{\otimes n}$ decomposes as
\begin{align} \label{eq_thetadecomposition}
\ket{\theta}_{D E}^{\otimes n}
= \sum_{\lambda} \ket{\phi_\lambda}_{U_{D, \lambda} U_{E, \lambda}} \otimes \ket{\Psi_\lambda}_{V_{D, \lambda} V_{E,\lambda}} \ .
\end{align}
where, for each Young diagram $\lambda$,
\begin{align}
\ket{\Psi_\lambda}_{V_{D, \lambda} V_{E,\lambda}}
= \sqrt{\dim(V_\lambda)} \ket{\psi_\lambda}_{V_{D, \lambda} V_{E,\lambda}}
= \sum_{k} \ket{v_k}_{V_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \ket{\bar{v}_k}_{V_{E, \lambda}}
\end{align}
for orthonormal bases $\{\ket{v_k}_{V_{D, \lambda}}\}_k$ and $\{\ket{\bar{v}_k}_{V_{E, \lambda}}\}_k$ of $V_{D,\lambda}$ and $V_{E, \lambda}$, respectively, and $ \ket{\phi_\lambda}_{U_{D, \lambda} U_{E, \lambda}}$ is a vector in $U_{D, \lambda} \otimes U_{E, \lambda}$. The latter may always be written in the Schmidt decomposition as
\begin{align} \label{eq_philambda}
\ket{\phi_\lambda}_{U_{D, \lambda} U_{E, \lambda}} = \sum_{j} \alpha_{\lambda, j} \ket{u_j}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \ket{\bar{u}_j}_{U_{E, \lambda}} \ ,
\end{align}
where $\{\ket{u_j}_{U_{D, \lambda}}\}_j$ and $\{\ket{\bar{u}_j}_{U_{E, \lambda}}\}_j$ are orthonormal bases of of $U_{D, \lambda}$ and $U_{E, \lambda}$, respectively, and $\alpha_{\lambda, j}$ are appropriately chosen coefficients, which we assume without loss of generality to be real. The marginal of $\proj{\theta}_{D E}^{\otimes n}$ on $D^{\otimes n} \cong \bigoplus_{D, \lambda} U_{D,\lambda} \otimes V_{D, \lambda}$ is equal to the identity and can thus be written as
\begin{align} \label{eq_marginalidentity}
\mathrm{tr}_{E^n}(\proj{\theta}_{D E}^{\otimes n}) = \mathrm{id}_{D^n} = \sum_\lambda \mathrm{id}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{V_{D, \lambda}} \ .
\end{align}
Comparing this to~\eqref{eq_thetadecomposition} shows that all coefficients $\alpha_{\lambda, j}$ in~\eqref{eq_philambda} must be equal to~$1$, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\ket{\phi_\lambda}_{U_{D, \lambda} U_{E, \lambda}} = \sum_{j} \ket{u_j}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \ket{\bar{u}_j}_{U_{E, \lambda}} \ .
\end{align}
Note also that, according to the Schur-Weyl duality (see, e.g., Theorem~1.10 of~\cite{Christandl06}), $U_E^{\otimes n}$ acts on
$E^{\otimes n} \cong \bigoplus_{E, \lambda} U_{E,\lambda} \otimes V_{E, \lambda}$ as $\sum_\lambda U_{E, \lambda}(U) \otimes \mathrm{id}_{V_{E, \lambda}}$. We thus have
\begin{align}
(\mathrm{id}_{D^n} \otimes U_E^{\otimes n}) \ket{\theta}^{\otimes n}
= \sum_{\lambda, j} \ket{u_j}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes U_{E, \lambda}(U) \ket{\bar{u}_j}_{U_{E, \lambda}} \otimes \ket{\Psi_\lambda}_{V_{D, \lambda} V_{E, \lambda}} \ .
\end{align}
We may therefore write
\begin{align} \label{eq_Tform}
T_{D^n E^n} = \sum_{\lambda, \lambda', j, j'} \ket{u_j} \! \bra{u_{j'}}_{U_{D, \lambda} \gets U_{D, \lambda'}} \otimes (T_{\lambda, \lambda', j, j'})_{U_{E, \lambda} \gets U_{E, \lambda'}} \otimes \ket{\Psi_\lambda} \! \bra{\Psi_{\lambda'}}_{(V_{D, \lambda} V_{E, \lambda}) \gets (V_{D, \lambda'} V_{E, \lambda'})} \ ,
\end{align}
where $T_{\lambda, \lambda', j, j'}$ is the homomorphism between $U_{E, \lambda'}$ and $U_{E, \lambda}$ defined by
\begin{align}
(T_{\lambda, \lambda', j, j'})_{U_{E, \lambda} \gets U_{E, \lambda'}} = \int U_{E, \lambda}(U) \ket{\bar{u}_j} \! \bra{\bar{u}_{j'}}_{U_{E, \lambda} \gets U_{E, \lambda'}} U_{E, \lambda'}(U)^{\dagger} \mathrm{d} U \ .
\end{align}
Since this operator manifestly commutes with the action of the unitary, Schur's lemma (see, e.g., Lemma~0.8 of~\cite{Christandl06}), together with the fact that $U_{E, \lambda}$ and $U_{E, \lambda'}$ are inequivalent for $\lambda \neq \lambda'$, implies that it has the form
\begin{align}
(T_{\lambda, \lambda', j, j'})_{U_{E, \lambda} \gets U_{E, \lambda'}} = \mu_{\lambda, j, j'} \delta_{\lambda, \lambda'} \mathrm{id}_{U_{E, \lambda}}
\end{align}
for appropriately chosen coefficients $\mu_{\lambda, j, j'}$. Inserting this in~\eqref{eq_Tform} gives
\begin{align}
T_{D^n E^n} = \sum_{\lambda, j, j'} \mu_{\lambda, j, j'} \ket{u_j} \! \bra{u_{j'}}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{U_{E, \lambda}} \otimes \proj{\Psi_\lambda}_{V_{D, \lambda} V_{E, \lambda}} \ .
\end{align}
Because the marginal of $T_{D^n E^n}$ on $D^{\otimes n}$,
\begin{align}
T_{D^n} = \sum_{\lambda, j, j'} \mu_{\lambda, j, j'} \dim(U_\lambda) \ket{u_j} \! \bra{u_{j'}}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{V_{D, \lambda}} \ ,
\end{align}
must be equal to the marginal of $\proj{\theta}_{D E}^{\otimes n}$, we conclude from~\eqref{eq_marginalidentity} that $\mu_{\lambda, j, j'} = \frac{1}{\dim(U_\lambda)} \delta_{j, j'}$. Hence,
\begin{align}
T_{D^n E^n}
= \sum_{\lambda} {\textstyle \frac{\dim(V_\lambda)}{\dim(U_\lambda)}} \, \mathrm{id}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{U_{E, \lambda}} \otimes \proj{\psi_\lambda}_{V_{D, \lambda} V_{E, \lambda}} \ ,
\end{align}
where $\ket{\psi_\lambda}_{V_{E, \lambda}}$ is normalised.
Defining the invertible operator
\begin{align}
\kappa_{D^n} = \sum_{\lambda} {\textstyle \frac{\dim(V_{\lambda})}{\dim(U_\lambda)}} \, \mathrm{id}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{V_{D, \lambda}}
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align}
S_{D^n E^n}
= (\kappa_{D^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} T_{D^n E^n} (\kappa_{D^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}}
= \sum_{\lambda} \mathrm{id}_{U_{D, \lambda}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{U_{E, \lambda}} \otimes \proj{\psi_\lambda}_{V_{D, \lambda} V_{E, \lambda}} \ .
\end{align}
Note that $\kappa_{D^n}$ commutes with any permutation, because, according to the Schur-Weyl duality, permutations act like $\sum_\lambda \mathrm{id}_{U_\lambda} \otimes V_\lambda(\pi)$ on the decomposition of $D^{\otimes n}$. Consequently, because the support of $T_{D^n E^n}$ is contained in the symmetric subspace $\mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E)$, the same must hold for $S_{D^n E^n}$. Furthermore, for any vector $\ket{\Omega} \in \mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E)$, it follows from its representation according to Lemma~\ref{lem_SchurWeyldecomposition} that $S_{D^n E^n} \ket{\Omega} = \ket{\Omega}$. This proves that
\begin{align} \label{eq_Sidentity}
S_{D^n E^n} = \mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E)} \ .
\end{align}
Consider now the operator
\begin{align}
Q_{D^n E^n} = (\kappa_{D^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{D^n E^n} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} (\kappa_{D^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \ .
\end{align}
Since the support of $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ is contained in $\mathrm{Sym}^n({D \otimes E})$, the same must hold for $Q_{D^n E^n}$ and we find
\begin{align}
Q_{D^n E^n} \leq \|Q_{D^n E^n}\|_\infty \mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E)} \leq \mathrm{tr}(Q_{D^n E^n}) \mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E)} = \mathrm{tr}(Q_{D^n E^n}) S_{D^n E^n} \ .
\end{align}
This, in turn, implies that
\begin{align}
\rho_{D^n E^n} \leq \mathrm{tr}(Q_{D^n E^n}) (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{\frac{1}{2}} T_{D^n E^n} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{\frac{1}{2}}
= \mathrm{tr}(Q_{D^n E^n}) \tau_{D^n E^n} \ .
\end{align}
To conclude the proof of~\eqref{eq_tauform}, we note that $\rho_{D^n} = \sigma_D^{\otimes n} = \tau_{D^n}$, which implies
\begin{multline}
\mathrm{tr}(Q_{D^n E^n})
= \mathrm{tr}\bigl((\kappa_{D^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-1} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{D^n E^n} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \bigr) \\
= \mathrm{tr}\bigl(\kappa_{D^n}^{-1} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{D^n} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \bigr) \\
= \mathrm{tr}\bigl(\kappa_{D^n}^{-1} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \tau_{D^n} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \bigr) \\
= \mathrm{tr}\bigl((\kappa_{D^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-1} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \tau_{D^n E^n} (\sigma_D^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-\frac{1}{2}} \bigr) \\
= \mathrm{tr}\bigl((\kappa_{D^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{E^n})^{-1} T_{D^n E^n}\bigr) \\
= \mathrm{tr}(S_{D^n E^n})
= \mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E)})
= \dim(\mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E))
\leq (n+1)^{d^2-1} \ .
\end{multline}
\end{proof}
Because any permutation-invariant density operator has a permutation-invariant purification, Lemma~\ref{lem_postselection} can be easily extended so that $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ does not need to be pure.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor_postselection}
Let $D$ and $E$ be Hilbert spaces and let $\sigma_{D}$ be a non-negative operator on $D$. Then there exists a probability measure $\mathrm{d} \sigma_{D E}$ on the set of non-negative extensions $\sigma_{D E}$ of $\sigma_D$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_postselectionext}
\rho_{D^n E^n} \leq (n+1)^{d^2-1} \int \sigma_{D E}^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d} \sigma_{D E}
\end{align}
holds for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$, any permutation-invariant non-negative extension $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ of $\sigma_D^{\otimes n}$, and $d = \dim(D) \dim(E)^2$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
According to Lemma~\ref{lem_symmetricpurification}, $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ has a permutation-invariant purification $\rho_{D^n E^n R^n}$ with purifying system $R^{\otimes n}$, where $\dim R \leq \dim (D \otimes E)$. Lemma~\ref{lem_postselection} with $E$ replaced by $E \otimes R$, applied to $\rho_{D^n E^n R^n}$, yields
\begin{align}
\rho_{D^nE^nR^n} \leq (n+1)^{d^2 - 1} \int \proj{\phi}_{D E R}^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d} \phi \ ,
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{d} \phi$ is a probability measure on the purifications $\proj{\phi}_{D E R}$ of $\sigma_D$ and $d = \max[\dim D, \dim {E \otimes R}] \leq \dim D (\dim E)^2$. Taking the partial trace over $R^{\otimes n}$ on both sides gives
\begin{align}
\rho_{D^nE^n} \leq (n+1)^{d^2 - 1} \int \mathrm{tr}_R(\proj{\phi}_{D E R})^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d} \phi \ .
\end{align}
The claim follows because the probability measure $\mathrm{d} \phi$ on the pure states $\proj{\phi}_{D E R}$ can be replaced by the induced measure $\mathrm{d} \sigma_{D E}$ on the marginal states $\sigma_{D E} = \mathrm{tr}_R(\proj{\phi}_{D E R})$.
\end{proof}
Even though we do not need it here, it is worth pointing out that, by virtue of the Choi-Jamio\l{}kowski isomorphism~\cite{Jam72,Cho75}, the claim above can be rephrased in terms of completely positive trace-preserving maps. As shown in~\cite{BHOS14}, this is useful to derive an improved variant of inequality~\eqref{eq_maininequality}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor_postselectionmap}
Let $D$ and $E$ be Hilbert spaces. Then there exists a probability measure $\mathrm{d}\tau$ on the set of completely positive trace-preserving maps $\tau_{D \to E}$ such that\footnote{The inequality means that the difference between the right hand side and the left hand side is a completely positive map.}
\begin{align}
\label{eq_postselection_maps}
\mathcal{W}_{D^n \to E^n} \leq (n+1)^{d^2-1} \int \tau_{D \to E}^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d} \tau
\end{align}
holds for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$, any completely positive trace-preserving map $\mathcal{W}_{D^n \to E^n}$ that is permutation-invariant (i.e., $\mathcal{W} \circ \pi = \pi \circ \mathcal{W}$ for all permutations $\pi$), and $d = \dim(D) \dim(E)^2$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\rho_{D^nE^n} = J^{\otimes n}(\mathcal{W}_{D^n \to E^n})$ where $J$ denotes the Choi-Jamio\l{}kowski isomorphism on the mappings from~$D$ to~$E$. That is, $\rho_{D^nE^n} = ({\mathcal{W}_{\bar{D}^n \to E^n} \otimes \mathcal{I}_{D^n}})(\Psi_{\bar{D} D}^{\otimes n})$, where $\Psi_{\bar{D} D}$ is a maximally entangled state. The marginal of $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ on $D^n$ equals $\sigma_D^{\otimes n}$ with $\sigma_D = \frac{\mathrm{id}_D}{\dim D}$. Furthermore, as the map $\mathcal{W}_{\bar{D}^n \to E^n} \otimes \mathcal{I}_{D^n}$ is permutation invariant, so is the state $\rho_{D^n E^n}$. Hence \eqref{eq_postselectionext}~holds. Since the corresponding probability measure $\mathrm{d} \sigma_{D E}$ is restricted to the set of density operators $\sigma_{D E}$ with marginal $\sigma_D$, each $\sigma_{D E}$ is the image of a trace-preserving completely positive map $\tau_{D \to E}$ under the isomorphism $J$, i.e., $\sigma_{D E} = J(\tau_{D \to E})$. The claim thus follows by applying the inverse of $J^{\otimes n}$ to both sides of~\eqref{eq_postselectionext}.
\end{proof}
\section{Fidelity between permutation-invariant operators} \label{sec_fidelity}
The purpose of this section is to provide techniques to approximate the fidelity of permutation-invariant states. They play a key role in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality}. The derivation of the statements below is based on the generalised de Finetti reduction method introduced in Section~\ref{sec_deFinetti}. Furthermore, we will use several established facts about the fidelity, which are summarised in Appendix~\ref{app_fidelity}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_fidelitysymmetricoptimal}
Let $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ be a permutation-invariant non-negative operator on $(D \otimes E)^{\otimes n}$ and let $\sigma_D$ be a non-negative operator on $D$. Then there exists a non-negative extension $\sigma_{D E}$ of $\sigma_D$ on $D \otimes E$ such that
\begin{align}
F(\rho_{D^n E^n}, \sigma_{D E}^{\otimes n})
\geq (n+1)^{-d^2/2} F(\rho_{D^n}, \sigma_{D}^{\otimes n}) \ ,
\end{align}
where $d = \dim(D) \dim(E)^2$.
Furthermore, if $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ is pure then $\sigma_{D E}$ is pure and $d \leq \max[\dim(D), \dim(E)]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\rho_{D^n E^n R^n} = \proj{\Psi}_{D^n E^n R^n}$ be a permutation-invariant purification of $\rho_{D^n E^n}$, i.e., $\ket{\Psi} \in {\mathrm{Sym}^n(D \otimes E \otimes R)}$, where $\dim(R) \leq \dim(D \otimes E)$. (That such a purification exists is the statement of Lemma~\ref{lem_symmetricpurification}. We also note that, if $\rho_{D^n E^n}$ is already pure, then $R$ can be chosen to be the trivial space~$\mathbb{C}$, i.e., $\dim(R) = 1$.) According to Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitysymmetricpurification}, there exists a permutation-invariant purification $\bar{\sigma}_{D^n E^n R^n}$ of $\sigma_{D}^{\otimes n}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_fidelitybarsigma}
F(\rho_{D^n}, \sigma_D^{\otimes n})
= F(\rho_{D^n E^n R^n}, \bar{\sigma}_{D^n E^n R^n})
= \sqrt{\bra{\Psi} \bar{\sigma}_{D^n E^n R^n} \ket{\Psi} }\ .
\end{align}
Let $\Gamma$ be the set of vectors $\ket{\phi}_{D E R}$ on $D \otimes E \otimes R$ such that $\mathrm{tr}_{E R}(\proj{\phi}_{D E R}) = \sigma_D$. According to Lemma~\ref{lem_postselection} there exists a probability measure $\mathrm{d}\phi$ on $\Gamma$ such that
\begin{align}
\bar{\sigma}_{D^n E^n R^n} \leq (n+1)^{d^2-1} \int \proj{\phi}_{D E R}^{\otimes n} \mathrm{d}\phi \ ,
\end{align}
where $d = \max[\dim(D), \dim(E) \dim(R)] \leq \dim(D) \dim(E)^2$. Using this we find
\begin{align} \label{eq_fidelitytau}
(n+1)^{-d^2} \bra{\Psi} \bar{\sigma}_{D^n E^n R^n} \ket{\Psi}
\leq \int \bra{\Psi} (\proj{\phi}_{D E R}^{\otimes n}) \ket{\Psi} \mathrm{d}\phi
\leq \max_{\ket{\phi} \in \Gamma} \bra{\Psi} (\proj{\phi}_{D E R}^{\otimes n}) \ket{\Psi} \ .
\end{align}
We now set $\sigma_{D E R} = \proj{\phi}_{D E R}$, where $\ket{\phi}_{D E R} \in \Gamma$ is a vector that maximises the above expression. Note that, by the definition of the set $\Gamma$, $\sigma_{D E}$ is then a valid extension of the given operator $\sigma_D$. (Furthermore, if $R$ is the trivial space $\mathbb{C}$ then $\sigma_{D E}$ is pure.) Combining~\eqref{eq_fidelitybarsigma} with~\eqref{eq_fidelitytau}, and using the monotonicity of the fidelity under the partial trace (Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitypartialtrace}), we conclude that
\begin{align}
(n+1)^{-d^2/2} F(\rho_{D^n}, \sigma_D^{\otimes n})
\leq \sqrt{\bra{\Psi} \sigma_{D E R}^{\otimes n} \ket{\Psi}}
= F(\proj{\Psi}_{D^n E^n R^n}, \sigma_{D E R}^{\otimes n})
\leq F(\rho_{D^n E^n}, \sigma_{D E}^{\otimes n}) \ .
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem_subfidelity}
Let $\rho_{R^n S^n}$ be a permutation-invariant non-negative operator on $(R \otimes S)^{\otimes n}$ and let $\sigma_{R S}$ be a non-negative operator on $R \otimes S$. Furthermore, let $W_{R^n}$ be a permutation-invariant operator on $R^{\otimes n}$ with $\|W_{R^n}\|_\infty \leq 1$. Then there exists a unitary $U_R$ on $R$ such that\footnote{Here and in the following we simplify our notation by omitting identity operators that are clear from the context, e.g., we write $U_R$ instead of $U_R \otimes \mathrm{id}_S$.}
\begin{align} \label{eq_subfidelity}
F\bigl(\rho_{R^n S^n}, U_R^{\otimes n} \sigma_{R S}^{\otimes n} (U_R^{\otimes n})^{\dagger}\bigr) \geq (n+1)^{-d^2} F\bigl(W_{R^n} \rho_{R^n S^n} W_{R^n}^{\dagger}, \sigma_{RS}^{\otimes n} \bigr) \ ,
\end{align}
where $d = \dim(R) \dim(S)^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\rho_{R^n S^n E^n}$ be a permutation-invariant purification of $\rho_{R^n S^n}$ on $(R \otimes S \otimes E)^{\otimes n}$, where $\dim(E) = \dim(R \otimes S)$ (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{lem_symmetricpurification}). Then $W_{R^n} \rho_{R^n S^n E^n} W_{R^n}^{\dagger}$ is a permutation-invariant purification of $W_{R^n} \rho_{R^n S^n} W_{R^n}^{\dagger}$. Hence, according to Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitysymmetricoptimal}, there exists a purification $\sigma_{R S E}$ of $\sigma_{R S}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_Fpureprojector}
(n+1)^{d_1^2/2} F(W_{R^n} \rho_{R^n S^n E^n} W^{\dagger}_{R^n}, \sigma_{R S E}^{\otimes n} )
\geq
F(W_{R^n} \rho_{R^n S^n} W^{\dagger}_{R^n}, \sigma_{R S}^{\otimes n} ) \ ,
\end{align}
where $d_1 = \max[\dim(R \otimes S), \dim(E)] = \dim(R) \dim(S)$. We then use Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelityreduced} which asserts that
\begin{align} \label{eq_reductionstep}
F(\rho_{S^n E^n}, \sigma_{S E}^{\otimes n})
\geq
F(W_{R^n} \rho_{R^n S^n E^n} W^{\dagger}_{R^n}, \sigma_{R S E}^{\otimes n} ) \ .
\end{align}
Furthermore, again by Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitysymmetricoptimal}, there exists a purification $\tilde{\sigma}_{R S E}$ of $\sigma_{S E}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_purificationstep}
(n+1)^{d_2^2/2} F(\rho_{R^n S^n E^n}, \tilde{\sigma}_{R S E}^{\otimes n})
\geq F(\rho_{S^n E^n}, \sigma_{S E}^{\otimes n}) \ ,
\end{align}
where $d_2 = \max[\dim(S \otimes E), \dim(R)] = \dim(R) \dim(S)^2$. Because all purifications are unitarily equivalent, there exists a unitary $U_R$ on $R$ such that $U_R \sigma_{R S E} U_R^\dagger = \tilde{\sigma}_{R S E}$, that is,
\begin{align}
F\bigl(\rho_{R^n S^n E^n}, U_R^{\otimes n} \sigma_{R S E}^{\otimes n} (U_R^{\otimes n})^{\dagger}\bigr) = F(\rho_{R^n S^n E^n}, \tilde{\sigma}_{R S E}^{\otimes n}) \ .
\end{align}
Because the fidelity is non-decreasing under the partial trace (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitypartialtrace}), we also have
\begin{align} \label{eq_Fpureiid}
F\bigl(\rho_{R^n S^n}, U_R^{\otimes n} \sigma_{R S}^{\otimes n} (U_R^{\otimes n})^{\dagger}\bigr)
\geq F\bigl(\rho_{R^n S^n E^n}, U_R^{\otimes n} \sigma_{R S E}^{\otimes n} (U_R^{\otimes n})^{\dagger}\bigr) \ .
\end{align}
Combining all these equations, we obtain the desired claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem_Udiagonal}
If for some orthonormal basis $\{\ket{r}\}_r$ of $R$ the operator $W_{R^n}$ is diagonal in the corresponding product basis $\{\ket{r_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \ket{r_n}\}_{r_1, \ldots r_n}$ then inequality~\eqref{eq_subfidelity} also holds for an operator $U_R$ which is diagonal in the basis $\{\ket{r}\}_r$ and satisfies $\| U_R \|_\infty \leq 1$, and for $d = \dim(R)^2 \dim(S)^2$.
To see this, let $\bar{R}$ be a system that is isomorphic to $R$ and let $C$ be the isometry from $R$ to $R \otimes \bar{R}$ defined by
\begin{align}
C = \sum_r \bigl(\ket{r}_R \otimes \ket{r}_{\bar{R}}\bigr)\bra{r}_R \ .
\end{align}
It is straightforward to verify that, for $W_{R^n}$ diagonal in the product basis $\{\ket{r_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \ket{r_n}\}_{r_1, \ldots r_n}$, we have
\begin{align}
W_{R^n} = (C^{\dagger})^{\otimes n} (W_{R^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{\bar{R}^n}) C^{\otimes n} \ .
\end{align}
Let now $\rho_{R^n S^n E^n}$ and $\sigma_{R S E}$ be pure operators such that~\eqref{eq_Fpureprojector} holds. Furthermore, define $\bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n E^n} = C^{\otimes n} \rho_{R^n S^n E^n} (C^{\dagger})^{\otimes n}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E} = C \sigma_{R S E} C^{\dagger}$. Using Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelityoperator} we find
\begin{multline} \label{eq_Wsigmabar}
F(W_{R^n} \rho_{R^n S^n E^n} W_{R^n}^{\dagger}, \sigma_{R S E}^{\otimes n})
=
F\bigl((C^{\dagger})^{\otimes n} W_{R^n} C^{\otimes n} \rho_{R^n S^n E^n} (C^{\dagger})^{\otimes n} W_{R^n}^{\dagger} C^{\otimes n}, \sigma_{R S E}^{\otimes n}\bigr) \\
= F(W_{R^n} \bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n E^n} W_{R^n}^{\dagger}, \bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}^{\otimes n}) \ .
\end{multline}
Furthermore, we can carry out the proof steps as in~\eqref{eq_reductionstep} and~\eqref{eq_purificationstep}, while keeping the system $\bar{R}^{\otimes n}$, to obtain
\begin{align} \label{eq_purestepbar}
(n+1)^{d^2/2} F(\bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n E^n}, \tilde{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}^{\otimes n})
\geq F(\bar{\rho}_{\bar{R}^n S^n E^n}, \bar{\sigma}_{\bar{R} S E}^{\otimes n} )
\geq F(W_{R^n} \bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n E^n} W_{R^n}^{\dagger}, \bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}^{\otimes n}) \ ,
\end{align}
for some purification $\tilde{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}$ of $\bar{\sigma}_{\bar{R} S E}$. Because $\bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}$ is pure there must exist a unitary $\bar{U}_R$ on $R$ such that $\bar{U}_R \bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E} \bar{U}_R^\dagger = \tilde{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}$. Using this and the fact that the fidelity is non-decreasing under the partial trace we find
\begin{align} \label{eq_fidelityndbar}
F\bigl(\bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n}, \bar{U}_R^{\otimes n} \bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S}^{\otimes n} (\bar{U}_R^\dagger)^{\otimes n} \bigr)
\geq F\bigl(\bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n E^n}, \bar{U}_R^{\otimes n} \bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}^{\otimes n} (\bar{U}_R^{\dagger})^{\otimes n}\bigr)
= F\bigl(\bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n E^n}, \tilde{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}^{\otimes n} \bigr) \ .
\end{align}
Finally, by the definition of $\bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n E^n}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S E}$, and using Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelityoperator} we have
\begin{align} \label{eq_UbarU}
F\bigl(\bar{\rho}_{R^n \bar{R}^n S^n}, \bar{U}_R^{\otimes n} \bar{\sigma}_{R \bar{R} S}^{\otimes n} (\bar{U}_R^\dagger)^{\otimes n}\bigr)
= F\bigl(\rho_{R^n S^n}, U_R^{\otimes n} \sigma_{R S}^{\otimes n} (U_R^{\dagger})^{\otimes n} \bigr)
\end{align}
where $U_R = C^{\dagger} (\bar{U}_R \otimes \mathrm{id}_{\bar{R}}) C$. Combining this with~\eqref{eq_Fpureprojector}, \eqref{eq_Wsigmabar}, \eqref{eq_purestepbar}, and~\eqref{eq_fidelityndbar} we obtain again inequality~\eqref{eq_subfidelity}. Furthermore, by construction, $U_R$ is diagonal in the basis $\{\ket{r}\}_r$ and satisfies $U^{\dagger}_R U_R \leq \mathrm{id}_R$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{rem_subfidelity}
If $\rho_{R^n S^n}$ has product form $\rho_{R S}^{\otimes n}$, the statement of Lemma~\ref{lem_subfidelity} can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
F(\rho_{R S}, U_R \sigma_{R S} U_R^{\dagger})
\geq \sqrt[n]{(n+1)^{-d^2} F(W_{R^n} \rho_{R S}^{\otimes n} W^{\dagger}_{R^n}, \sigma_{R S}^{\otimes n} )} \ .
\end{align}
Hence, for a family $\{W_{R^n}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ of permutation-invariant non-negative operators such that $\|W_{R^n}\|_\infty \leq 1$ we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{U_R} F\bigl(\rho_{R S}, U_R \sigma_{R S} U_R^{\dagger}\bigr) \geq \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{F(W_{R^n} \rho_{R S}^{\otimes n} W^{\dagger}_{R^n}, \sigma_{R S}^{\otimes n} )} \ .
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\section{Main result and proof} \label{sec_proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm_maininequality}
For any density operator $\rho_{A B C}$ on $A \otimes B \otimes C$, where $A$, $B$, and $C$ are separable Hilbert spaces, there exists a trace-preserving completely positive map $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ from the space of operators on $B$ to the space of operators on $B \otimes C$ such that\footnote{$\mathcal{I}_A$~denotes the identity map on the space of operators on $A$. We include it here in our notation to stress that the map leaves the $A$ system unaffected, but will usually omit it when it is clear from the context.}
\begin{align} \label{eq_maininequalityp}
2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B)_\rho}
\leq F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}, (\mathcal{I}_A \otimes \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C})(\rho_{A B}) \bigr) \ .
\end{align}
Furthermore, if $A$, $B$, and $C$ are finite-dimensional then $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ has the form
\begin{align} \label{eq_mappingform}
X_B \mapsto V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B X_B U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_C) \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger}
\end{align}
on the support of $\rho_B$, where $U_B$ and $V_{B C}$ are unitaries on $B$ and $B \otimes C$, respectively.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first note that, by Remark~\ref{rem_infinitedimensional} below, it is sufficient to prove the statement for the case where $A$, $B$, and $C$ are finite-dimensional. Let $\delta > 0$, $\delta' > 0$, and $\delta'' > 0$. Let $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and let $\{\Pi_b\}_{b \in \bar{B}_n}$ and $\{\Pi_d\}_{d \in \bar{D}_n}$ be the families of projectors onto the eigenspaces of $\rho_B^{\otimes n}$ and $\rho_{B C}^{\otimes n}$, labelled by their eigenvalues $b \in \bar{B}_n$ and $d \in \bar{D}_n$, respectively. Furthermore, let $\bar{B}_n^{\delta'}$ and $\bar{D}_n^{\delta''}$ be the subsets of $\bar{B}_n$ and $\bar{D}_n$ defined by Lemma~\ref{lem_typicalsubspace} and define
\begin{align}
\Pi_{B^n} = \sum_{b \in \bar{B}_n^{\delta'}} \Pi_b \qquad \text{and} \qquad \Pi_{B^n C^n} = \sum_{d \in \bar{D}_n^{\delta''}} \Pi_d \ .
\end{align}
Note that for any $\eta > 0$ we have
\begin{align} \label{eq_projtypical}
\mathrm{tr}(\Pi_{B^n} \rho_B^{\otimes n}) \geq 1-\eta \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\mathrm{tr}(\Pi_{B^n C^n} \rho_{B C}^{\otimes n}) \geq 1 - \eta
\end{align}
for $n$ sufficiently large. Define the mapping on $(A \otimes B \otimes C)^{\otimes n}$
\begin{align}
\mathcal{W}_n : \quad X_{A^n B^n C^n} \mapsto (\mathrm{id}_{A^n} \otimes \Pi_{B^n C^n}) (\mathrm{id}_{A^n} \otimes \Pi_{B^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{C^n}) X_{A^n B^n C^n} (\mathrm{id}_{A^n} \otimes \Pi_{B^n} \otimes \mathrm{id}_{C^n}) (\mathrm{id}_{A^n} \otimes \Pi_{B^n C^n}) \ .
\end{align}
as well as the abbreviation
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n} = \mathcal{W}_n(\rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n}) = \Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_{B^n C^n} \ .
\end{align}
It is easily seen that the map $\mathcal{W}_n$ is trace non-increasing and completely positive. Furthermore, because of~\eqref{eq_projtypical}, we always have $\mathrm{tr}(\mathcal{W}_n(\rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n})) = \mathrm{tr}(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}) > 2/3$ for $\eta$ sufficiently small (using the gentle measurement lemma, see~\cite{Wil11} for instance). Lemma~\ref{lem_Dmapping} then tells us that, for $n$ sufficiently large,\footnote{We note that a similar conclusion may be obtained from the inequality given in Remark~\ref{rem_Dmap}. \label{ftn_altproof}}
\begin{multline}
D\bigl(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n} \| \Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_{B^n C^n} \bigr)
= D\bigl( \mathcal{W}_n(\rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n}) \big\| \mathcal{W}_n((\rho_{A B} \otimes \mathrm{id}_C)^{\otimes n}) \bigr) \\
\leq n \bigl(D(\rho_{A B C} \| \rho_{A B} \otimes \mathrm{id}) + \frac{\delta}{2}\bigr)
= n (-H(C|AB) + \frac{\delta}{2}) \ ,
\end{multline}
where the last equality is the definition of the conditional entropy, $H(C|AB) = - {\mathrm{tr}(\rho_{A B C} \log_2 \rho_{A B C})} + {\mathrm{tr}(\rho_{A B} \log_2 \rho_{A B})} = - {D(\rho_{A B C} \| \rho_{A B} \otimes \mathrm{id}_C)}
$. The relation between the fidelity and the relative entropy (Lemma~\ref{lem_DFidelity}) now allows us to conclude that
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\mathrm{tr}(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n})} F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_{B^n C^n}) \geq 2^{\frac{1}{2} n (H(C|AB)-\frac{\delta}{2})} \ .
\end{align}
We now use Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelityoperator} to remove the projector $\Pi_{B^n C^n}$ from the second argument and note that the factor $\mathrm{tr}(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}) > 2/3$ can be absorbed by another factor $2^{-\frac{1}{4} n \delta}$ for $n$ sufficiently large. This shows that
\begin{align} \label{eq_typical}
F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n}) \geq 2^{\frac{1}{2} n (H(C|AB)-\delta)} \ .
\end{align}
Because $\sum_{b \in \bar{B}_n} \Pi_b = \mathrm{id}_{B^n}$ we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitydecomposition}, which gives
\begin{multline}
F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n})
\leq \sum_{b \in \bar{B}_n} F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_b \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_b) \\
= \sum_{b \in \bar{B}_n^{\delta'}} F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_b \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_b)
\leq |\bar{B}_n^{\delta'}| \max_{b \in \bar{B}_n^{\delta'}} F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_b \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_b)
\ ,
\end{multline}
where the equality follows from
\begin{align}
\Pi_b \Pi_{B^n} = \begin{cases} \Pi_b & \text{if $b \in \bar{B}_n^{\delta'}$} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}
\end{align}
Hence, there exists $b \in \bar{B}_n^{\delta'}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_cctwo}
F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n})
\leq |\bar{B}_n^{\delta'}| F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_b \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_b)
\leq \mathrm{poly}(n) F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_b \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_b) \ ,
\end{align}
where the second inequality follows from Remark~\ref{rem_typicalsize}. By the definition of $\Pi_b$ we also have
\begin{align}
\Pi_b = \sqrt{b} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_b \ ,
\end{align}
where $b$ is the eigenvalue of $\rho_B^{\otimes n}$ corresponding to $\Pi_b$. By the definition of $\bar{B}_n^{\delta'}$ we also have $\sqrt{b} \leq 2^{- \frac{1}{2} n(H(B) - \delta')}$ and, hence,
\begin{multline} \label{eq_ccthree}
F(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, \Pi_b \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_b)
= \sqrt{b} F\bigl(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_b \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_b (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \bigr) \\
\leq 2^{-\frac{1}{2} n (H(B) - \delta')} F\bigl(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_b \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \Pi_b (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \bigr) \\
= 2^{-\frac{1}{2} n (H(B) - \delta')} F\bigl(\Pi_b (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_b, \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \bigr) \ ,
\end{multline}
where the equality follows from Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelityoperator}, which we will use repeatedly in the following. Furthermore, by Lemma~\ref{lem_subfidelity}, there must exist a unitary $U_B$ on $B$ such that
\begin{multline} \label{eq_ccfour}
F\big(\Pi_b (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_b, \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} \bigr)
\leq \mathrm{poly}(n) F\bigl( (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} , U_B^{\otimes n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} (U_B^{\otimes n})^{\dagger}\bigr) \\
= \mathrm{poly}(n) F\bigl( \Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} U_B^{\otimes n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} (U_B^{\otimes n})^{\dagger} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \bigr) \ .
\end{multline}
Combining now~\eqref{eq_typical}, \eqref{eq_cctwo}, \eqref{eq_ccthree}, and~\eqref{eq_ccfour} we obtain
\begin{multline} \label{eq_ccpart}
2^{\frac{1}{2} n (H(C|A B) + H(B) - \delta - \delta')}
\leq \mathrm{poly}(n) F\bigl(\Gamma_{A^n B^n C^n}, (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} U_B^{\otimes n} \rho_{A B}^{\otimes n} (U_B^{\otimes n})^{\dagger} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} )\bigr) \\
= \mathrm{poly}(n) F(\Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_{B^n C^n}, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n}) \ ,
\end{multline}
where $\gamma_{A B C} = \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B \rho_{A B} U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
Next we use that $\sum_{d \in \bar{D}_n} \Pi_d = \mathrm{id}_{B^n C^n}$ and apply again Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitydecomposition} to obtain
\begin{multline}
F(\Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_{B^n C^n}, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n})
\leq \sum_{d \in \bar{D}_n} F(\Pi_d \Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_d, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n}) \\
= \sum_{d \in \bar{D}_n^{\delta''}} F(\Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n})
\leq |\bar{D}_n^{\delta''}| \max_{d \in \bar{D}_n^{\delta''}} F(\Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n}) \ ,
\end{multline}
where $|\bar{D}_n^{\delta''}| \leq \mathrm{poly}(n)$ by Remark~\ref{rem_typicalsize}. Hence, there exists $d \in \bar{D}_n^{\delta''}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_cdone}
F(\Pi_{B^n C^n} \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_{B^n C^n}, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n})
\leq \mathrm{poly}(n) F(\Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n}) \ .
\end{align}
By the definition of $\bar{D}_n^{\delta''}$ we have
\begin{align}
\Pi_d = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_d
\end{align}
with $d \geq 2^{-n(H(B C) + \delta'')}$. This implies
\begin{multline} \label{eq_cdtwo}
F(\Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n})
= \sqrt{\frac{1}{d}} F\bigl((\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n}, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n}\bigr) \\
\leq 2^{\frac{1}{2} n (H(B C) + \delta'')} F\bigl((\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n}, \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \bigr) \\
= 2^{\frac{1}{2} n (H(B C) + \delta'')} F\bigl(\Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d, (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n} (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n}\bigr) \ .
\end{multline}
We use again Lemma~\ref{lem_subfidelity}, which asserts that there must exist a unitary $V_{B C}$ on $B \otimes C$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq_VBCstep}
F\bigl(\Pi_d \Pi_{B^n} \rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n} \Pi_{B^n} \Pi_d, (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n} (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n}\bigr)
\leq \mathrm{poly}(n) F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n}, V_{B C}^{\otimes n} (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n} (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} (V_{B C}^{\otimes n})^{\dagger}\bigr) \ .
\end{align}
Combining this with~\eqref{eq_ccpart}, \eqref{eq_cdone} and~\eqref{eq_cdtwo} yields
\begin{align}
2^{\frac{1}{2} n (H(C | A B) + H(B) - H(B C) - \delta - \delta' - \delta'')}
\leq \mathrm{poly}(n) F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}^{\otimes n}, V_{B C}^{\otimes n} (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} \gamma_{A B C}^{\otimes n} (\rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}})^{\otimes n} (V_{B C}^{\otimes n})^{\dagger}\bigr) \ .
\end{align}
We take the $n$th root, use $H(B C) - H(B) - H(C | A B) = I(A: C | B)$, and insert the expression for $\gamma_{A B C}$ to rewrite this as
\begin{multline}
2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B) - \delta - \delta' - \delta''}
\leq \sqrt[n]{\mathrm{poly}(n)} F(\rho_{A B C}, V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B \rho_{A B} U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger} ) \\
\leq \sqrt[n]{\mathrm{poly}(n)} \max_{U_B, V_{BC}} F(\rho_{A B C}, V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B \rho_{A B} U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger} ) \ ,
\end{multline}
where the maximum is take over unitary transformations $U_B$ and $V_{BC}$. As this maximised fidelity is now independent of $n$ and because $\sqrt[n]{\mathrm{poly}(n)}$ approaches $1$ for $n$ large, we conclude that
\begin{align}
2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B) - \delta - \delta' - \delta''}
\leq \max_{U_B, V_{BC}} F(\rho_{A B C}, V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B \rho_{A B} U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger} ) \ .
\end{align}
Inequality~\eqref{eq_maininequalityp} now follows because $\delta > 0$, $\delta' > 0$, and $\delta'' > 0$ were arbitrary.
It remains to verify that the map $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ is trace-preserving. But this follows from the observation that
\begin{align} \label{eq_Ttracenonincreasing}
\mathrm{tr}_C(U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger} V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B)
= \mathrm{tr}_C(U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{B C} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B)
= U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{B} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B
= \mathrm{id}_B \ .
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{rem_infinitedimensional}
Any proof of the main claim of Theorem~\ref{thm_maininequality},
\begin{align} \label{eq_maininequalitypp}
2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B)_\rho}
\leq \sup_{\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}} F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}, (\mathcal{I}_A \otimes \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C})(\rho_{A B}) \bigr) \ ,
\end{align}
which uses the assumption that $A$, $B$, and $C$ are finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, implies that the claim also holds under the less restrictive assumption that these spaces are separable.
To see this, let $\{P_A^{k}\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, $\{P_B^{k}\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$, and $\{P_C^{k}\}_{k_C \in \mathbb{N}}$ be sequences of finite-rank projectors on $A$, $B$, and $C$ which converge to $\mathrm{id}_A$, $\mathrm{id}_B$, and $\mathrm{id}_C$, respectively, with respect to the weak (and, hence, also the strong) operator topology (see, e.g., Definition~2 of~\cite{FAR11}). Define furthermore the density operators
\begin{align}
\rho_{A B C}^{k, k'} = \frac{(P_A^k \otimes P_{B}^{k'} \otimes P_{C}^k) \rho_{A B C} (P_A^k \otimes P_{B}^{k'} \otimes P_{C}^k)}{\mathrm{tr}\bigl((P_A^k \otimes P_{B}^{k'} \otimes P_{C}^k) \rho_{A B C}\bigr)}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\rho_{A B C}^k = \frac{(P_A^k \otimes \mathrm{id}_B \otimes P_{C}^k) \rho_{A B C} (P_A^k \otimes \mathrm{id}_B \otimes P_{C}^k)}{\mathrm{tr}\bigl((P_A^k \otimes \mathrm{id}_B \otimes P_{C}^k) \rho_{A B C}\bigr)} \ .
\end{align}
We note that, for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$, the sequence $\{\rho_{A B C}^{k, k'}\}_{k' \in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $\rho_{A B C}^k$ in the trace-norm (see, e.g., Corollary~2 of~\cite{FAR11}). Also, $\{\rho_{A B C}^k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $\rho_{A B C}$ in the trace norm.
Let us first consider the left hand side of~\eqref{eq_maininequalitypp}. Because, for any fixed finite dimension of system $A$, the conditional mutual information ${I(A : C | B)}_\rho = H(A|B)_\rho - H(A | B C)_\rho$ is continuous in $\rho$ with respect to the trace norm~\cite{AF03}, we have
\begin{align} \label{eq_Ikpcont}
\lim_{k' \to \infty} I(A : C | B)_{\rho^{k, k'}} = I(A : C | B)_{\rho^{k}}
\end{align}
for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$. In addition, using the fact that local projectors applied to the subsystems $A$ and $C$ can only decrease $I(A: C | B)_\rho$, provided we scale by the probability of such a projector,
\begin{align}
\mathrm{tr}\bigl((P_A^k \otimes \mathrm{id}_B \otimes P_{C}^k) \rho_{A B C}\bigr) I(A : C | B)_{\rho^{k}} \leq I(A : C | B)_{\rho}
\end{align}
holds for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
\comment{To see this, consider first a single local projector, say $P^k_A$ on $A$, in which case the claim reads
\begin{align*}
I(A : C | B)_{\rho} \geq \mathrm{tr}(P^k_A \rho) I(A : C | B)_{P^k_A \rho P^k_A / \mathrm{tr}(P^k_A \rho)} \ .
\end{align*}
To prove this, assume that a measurement with respect to $P^k_A$ as well as its orthogonal complement is applied to $\rho$. Let furthermore $Z$ be a random variable that stores the outcome of this measurement. Then, by strong subadditivity, we have
\begin{align*}
I(A : C | B)_\rho = H(C|B)_\rho - H(C|A B)_\rho \geq H(C|B)_{\rho'} - H(C|ABZ)_{\rho'} \geq H(C|B Z)_{\rho'} - H(C|ABZ)_{\rho'} = I(A : C | B Z)_{\rho'} \ ,
\end{align*}
where $\rho'$ denotes the state after the measurement. Because $ I(A : C | B Z)_{\rho'}$ can be written as the expectation over the mutual information of the post-measurement states conditioned on the different values of $Z$, and because all these terms are non-negative, the above claim follows. By symmetry, the same argument can be repeated for a projector $P^k_C$ on $C$. }
Because $\lim_{k \to \infty} \mathrm{tr}\bigl((P_A^k \otimes \mathrm{id}_B \otimes P_{C}^k) \rho_{A B C}\bigr) = \mathrm{tr}(\rho) = 1$, we find
\begin{align}
\limsup_{k \to \infty} I(A : C | B)_{\rho^{k}} \leq I(A : C | B)_{\rho} \ .
\end{align}
The combination of this statement with~\eqref{eq_Ikpcont} yields
\begin{align} \label{eq_Iasymptotics}
2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B)_\rho} \leq \liminf_{k \to \infty} \lim_{k' \to \infty} 2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B)_{\rho^{k, k'}}} \ .
\end{align}
We now consider the right hand side of~\eqref{eq_maininequalitypp}. Let $\delta > 0$ and note that, for sufficiently large $k$ and $k'$, we have
\begin{align}
\bigl\| \rho_{A B C}^{k, k'} - \rho_{A B C} \bigr\|_1 < (\delta/2)^2 \ .
\end{align}
Because the trace norm is monotonically non-increasing under trace-preserving completely positive maps, we also have
\begin{align}
\bigl\| \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}^{k, k'}) - \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}) \bigr\|_1 < (\delta/2)^2
\end{align}
for any $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$. Lemma~\ref{lem_fidelitycontinuoustracenorm} then implies that
\begin{align}
F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}^{k, k'}, \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}^{k, k'}) \bigr)
< F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}, \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}) \bigr) + \delta
\end{align}
But because this holds for any $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$, we have
\begin{align}
\sup_{\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}} F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}^{k, k'}, \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}^{k, k'}) \bigr)
\leq \sup_{\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}} F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}, \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}) \bigr) + \delta \ .
\end{align}
Because this holds for all $\delta > 0$ and sufficiently large $k$ and $k'$, we find that
\begin{align} \label{eq_Fasymptotics}
\limsup_{k \to \infty} \limsup_{k' \to \infty} \sup_{\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}} F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}^{k, k'}, \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}^{k, k'}) \bigr)
\leq \sup_{\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}} F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}, \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}) \bigr) \ .
\end{align}
To conclude the argument, we observe that if the inequality~\eqref{eq_maininequalitypp} is valid for finite-dimensional spaces $A$, $B$, and $C$ we have in particular
\begin{align}
\liminf_{k \to \infty} \lim_{k' \to \infty} 2^{-\frac{1}{2} I(A : C | B)_{\rho^{k, k'}}}
\leq \limsup_{k \to \infty} \limsup_{k' \to \infty} \sup_{\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}} F\bigl(\rho_{A B C}^{k, k'}, \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_{A B}^{k, k'}) \bigr) \ .
\end{align}
Combining this with~\eqref{eq_Iasymptotics} and~\eqref{eq_Fasymptotics} then proves the claim that the inequality holds for arbitrary separable spaces $A$, $B$, and $C$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
By Remark~\ref{rem_Udiagonal}, the unitary $U_B$ chosen in~\eqref{eq_ccfour} may be replaced by an operator which commutes with $\rho_B$ and satisfies $\|U_B\|_{\infty} \leq 1$. Analogously, the unitary $V_{B C}$ chosen in~\eqref{eq_VBCstep} may be replaced by an operator of the form $V_{B C} = V'_B V''_{B C}$ where $V'_B$ commutes with~$\rho_B$ and $V''_{B C}$ commutes with~$\rho_{B C}$, and where $\|V'_B\|_\infty \leq 1$ and $\|V''_{B C}\|_\infty \leq 1$. Similarly to~\eqref{eq_Ttracenonincreasing} one can see that the resulting recovery map $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ is trace non-increasing. Furthermore, we have
\begin{multline}
\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_B)
= V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} (\rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} U_B \rho_B U_B^{\dagger} \rho_B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \otimes \mathrm{id}_C) \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger}
= V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} (U_B U_B^{\dagger} \otimes \mathrm{id}_C) \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger} \\
\leq V_{B C} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V_{B C}^{\dagger}
= V'_B \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} V''_{B C} (V''_{B C})^{\dagger} \rho_{B C}^{\frac{1}{2}} (V'_B)^{\dagger}
\leq V'_B \rho_{B C} (V'_B)^{\dagger} \ .
\end{multline}
In particular, we have
\begin{align}
\mathrm{tr}_C\bigl(\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_B)\bigr) \leq \rho_B \quad \text{and} \quad \mathrm{tr}_B\bigl(\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C} (\rho_B)\bigr) \leq \rho_C \ .
\end{align}
This implies that one can always choose a recovery map that exactly reproduces the marginal on $B$ and the marginal on~$C$.
\comment{One may specify this recovery map explicitly as follows. Let $\rho'_{B C} = \mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}(\rho_B)$, where $\mathcal{T}_{B \to B C}$ is the trace non-increasing map defined above. Furthermore, define $\omega_B = \rho_B - \rho'_B$ and $\omega_C = \rho_C - \rho'_C$. Note that $\omega_B$ and $\omega_C$ are non-negative and have the same trace $\mathrm{tr}(\omega_B) = \mathrm{tr}(\omega_C) = 1 - \mathrm{tr}(\rho'_{B C})$. A trace-preserving recovery map may then be defined by
\begin{align} \label{eq_recoverymapadded}
X_B \mapsto \mathcal{T}(X_B) + \bigl(\mathrm{tr}(X_B) - \mathrm{tr}\mathcal{T}(X_B)\bigr) \frac{\omega_B}{\mathrm{tr}(\omega_B)} \otimes \frac{\omega_C}{\mathrm{tr}(\omega_C)} \ .
\end{align}
Note that the second term is non-negative for any non-negative input. The map is therefore completely positive. Furthermore, for $X_B = \rho_B$ we have
\begin{align}
\mathrm{tr}(X_B) - \mathrm{tr}\mathcal{T}(X_B)
= \mathrm{tr}(\rho_B) - \mathrm{tr}(\rho'_{B C}) = \mathrm{tr}(\omega_B) = \mathrm{tr}(\omega_C) \ .
\end{align}
Hence, the output of the map defined by~\eqref{eq_recoverymapadded} on input $\rho_B$ is
\begin{align}
\rho'_{B C} + \frac{\omega_B \otimes \omega_C}{\mathrm{tr}(\omega_C)} \ .
\end{align}
The marginal of this operator on $B$ is obviously equal to $\rho'_B = \omega_B = \rho_B$. Similarly, the marginal on $C$ is equal to $\rho_C$. }
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
Secondary eclipses (occultations) of transiting planets occur when the planet passes behind its host star. Observations of these events in the infrared allow us to directly detect thermal emission from these planets, providing an unparalleled opportunity to study the chemistry and physics of exoplanetary atmospheres.
When measured at multiple wavelengths with high precision, the emission spectrum of a planet can be used to characterize planetary atmospheric temperature-pressure structure, chemistry, and heat recirculation \citep[e.g.,][]{Burrows et al.2006, Barman2008, Fortney et al.2008, Line et al.2013, Madhusudhan et al.2014}.
To date, detections of thermal emission have been made for more than fifty planets, most of which were obtained using the {\em Spitzer Space Telescope}.
{Since 2009, however, {\em Spitzer} has exhausted its cryogen and has been limited to observing in only the 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~bands.}
Ground-based observations have recently emerged as another important tool to measure secondary eclipses, providing highly complementary wavelength coverage to that of $Spitzer$ and even the {\em Hubble Space Telescope} \citep[e.g.,][]{Alonso et al.2009, Gillon2009, Gibson et al.2010, Croll et al.2010a, Croll et al.2010b, Croll et al.2011, Caceres et al.2011, Zhao et al.2012a, Zhao et al.2012b, Deming et al.2012, Bean et al.2013, Wang et al.2013, ORourke et al.2014, Shporer et al.2014, Chen et al.2014}.
Because ground-based near-IR observations generally probe different layers of planetary atmospheres, they can provide important constraints and break degeneracies among differing temperature-pressure profiles and compositions \citep[e.g.,][]{Madhusudhan et al.2010, Madhusudhan et al.2011}.
In addition to studying planetary atmospheres, the timing of the secondary eclipse relative to that of the primary transit also provides a tight constraint on $e \cos \omega$, where $e$ is the planet's orbital eccentricity and $\omega$ is the longitude of periastron. {When combined with radial velocity observations, secondary eclipse timing data can reduce the uncertainty in the estimated eccentricity by a factor of $\sim$10 \citep[e.g.,][]{Lewis et al.2013, Knutson et al.2014}.}
Precisely measured eccentricities allow for better estimates of planetary mass and radius \citep[e.g.,][]{Madhusudhan et al.2009b}, and can provide important information to the tidal circularization process. This may in turn shed light on the nature of the inflated radii observed in a subset of hot Jupiters \citep[e.g.,][]{Bodenheimer et al.2001, Miller et al.2009}.
A majority of the secondary eclipse observations obtained to date have focused on a class of short-period gas giant planets known as ``hot Jupiters". This is due to their high temperatures and large radii, which result in particularly favorable planet-star flux ratios.
Previous studies of hot Jupiters have revealed that they are in fact a heterogeneous group. Some planets seem to have a temperature inversion layer caused by unknown absorber in their upper atmospheres, while other planets seem to lack such an inversion layer \citep[e.g.,][]{Fortney et al.2008, Burrows et al.2008, Madhusudhan et al.2014, Line et al.2014}. \citet{Knutson et al.2010} found a correlation between stellar activity and the presence/absence of thermal inversions. They suggested that increased far UV flux from active stars might destroy the compounds responsible for the formation of the observed temperature inversions, preventing inversions from forming in planets orbiting chromospherically active stars. In addition, \citet{Madhusudhan2012} suggested that
super-solar C/O ratios (C/O $>$1) may explain the lack of inversions in some planets.
Hot Jupiters experience strong irradiation from their host stars due to their close-in and tidally-locked orbits. The resulting heat on the dayside can be redistributed to the nightside by strong zonal winds (Showman et al. 2008). \citet{Cowan et al.2011} found that hot Jupiters with temperatures $\gtrsim$2400 K usually have very low global recirculation efficiency and large day-night temperature contrasts, while cooler planets have a wider variety of recirculation efficiencies.
\citet{Perez-Becker et al.2013} reproduced this observed trend using a shallow-water model, and found that the transition between low and efficient heat redistribution depends on the timescale of gravity wave propagation, among other timescales.
Among the large number of transiting exoplanets discovered to date, the hot Jupiter HAT-P-32Ab, discovered by \citet{Hartman et al.2011} with HATNet, stands out as one of the three most inflated planets \citep{Wright et al.2011}.
Its abnormally large radius ($R_p$=1.798 $R_{\rm Jup}$ or 2.037 $R_{\rm Jup}$, depending on the eccentricity) is difficult to explain even with ohmic heating in its interior \citep{Wu et al.2013, Huang et al.2012}. HAT-P-32Ab orbits a late-type F dwarf at 0.034 AU with a period of 2.15 days \citep{Hartman et al.2011}. The orbit is highly misaligned and lies almost in the same plane as the spin axis of the star ($\lambda=85\degr \pm 1\fdg5$) \citep{Albrecht et al.2012}. Its host star has a high radial velocity jitter of 64 $\pm$ 10 m s$^{-1}$ \citep{Knutson et al.2014}. The origin of the host star's high jitter is unclear, although it could be due to convective inhomogeneities on the stellar surfaces that vary in time, or due to perturbations from an unseen body in the system \citep{Saar et al.1998}.
The eccentricity of the planetary orbit was poorly constrained because of the high velocity jitter, resulting in two sets of orbital and planetary properties depending strongly on the eccentricity.
The circular orbit solution is preferred by statistical tests and the short tidal circularization timescale of the system ($t_{\text{tidal}} \sim3 -5$ Myr, much shorter than the $>$2 Gyr age of the system) \citep{Hartman et al.2011, Zhang et al.2013}. \citet{Seeliger et al.2014} observed 45 transits of HAT-P-32Ab to search for transit timing variations (TTV), and found no evidence for any perturbations to the hot Jupiter's orbit from a nearby planetary companion.
Using adaptive optics (AO) imaging in the $K_S$ band, \citet{Adams et al.2013} detected a candidate M-dwarf companion at a distance of $\sim$2\farcs9 with a magnitude difference of $\Delta K_S=3.4$, contributing $\sim$4\% of the light in $K_S$ that slightly dilutes the transit signal of the planet.
{Meanwhile, \citet{Knutson et al.2014} detected a radial velocity trend of $-33\pm10 $m s$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$ in the system using long-term radial velocimetry, and Ngo et al. (in preparation) confirmed the physically associated stellar companion HAT-P-32B using proper motion measurements from AO imaging.
While the velocity jitter might be partially explained by contamination from the M-dwarf, the long-term velocity trend cannot be explained by the companion star due to its large separation of $\sim$830 AU, but requires an inner body at 3.5-21 AU from the planet host star with a projected mass ($M\sin i$) between 5-500 $M_{Jup}$. }
The hot Jupiter HAT-P-32Ab is very suitable for atmospheric characterization using both secondary eclipses and transmission spectroscopy thanks to its large radius, high temperature, and large atmospheric scale height. \citet{Gibson et al.2013} obtained a low-resolution transmission spectrum in the visible and found a featureless spectrum. The flat spectrum of the planet's terminator can be explained by clouds in the upper atmosphere or a clear atmosphere with trace amounts of TiO, VO, or metal hydrides that mask the Na and K wings in the spectrum.
In this paper we report measurements of HAT-P-32Ab's thermal emission spectrum in the NIR $H$, $K_S$ bands from the ground and the 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~bands from $Spitzer$. To facilitate our characterization of the hot Jupiter's atmosphere, we also obtain high-angular resolution AO imaging of the double star system to characterize both stellar components and to correct for the dilution of the secondary eclipse depths. In Section \ref{obs} we present our observations and data reduction procedures. In Section \ref{analysis} we describe our analysis of the AO images, the characterization of the M dwarf companion, the analysis of HAT-P-32Ab's secondary eclipse light curves, and corrections to its diluted eclipse depths. We then discuss the eccentricity of the planet's orbit and its atmospheric models in Section \ref{discuss}. Finally, we summarize our results in Section \ref{summary}.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
\label{obs}
\subsection{Palomar/WIRC Secondary Eclipse Photometry}
\label{wirc}
We observed two secondary eclipses of the hot Jupiter HAT-P-32Ab in $H$ and $K_S$ bands on UT 2012 October 03 and 2012 October 31 respectively, using the Wide-field Infra-Red Camera (WIRC) at the Palomar 200-in Hale telescope \citep{Wilson2003}.
The camera had\footnote{The original HAWAII-2 array used for this study failed
in April 2014 due to explosive debonding and
separation of the semiconductor from its substrate, and thus is no longer installed on the camera.}
a science grade 2048 $\times$ 2048 HAWAII-2 HgCdTe detector with
a pixel scale of 0.2487\arcsec/pixel, corresponding to a field of view of $8.7' \times 8.7'$.
The $H$-band observation started roughly 166 min before the predicted mid-eclipse, and ended 226 min after mid-eclipse. The airmass changed from 1.21 to 1.03 and then back to 1.39 during the observation. To minimize systematics, we ``stared" at the target throughout the observation and used the active guiding scheme developed in \citet{Zhao et al.2012b} to stabilize the telescope motion and keep the stellar centroids at the same positions. We also defocused the telescope to $\sim$2\farcs5 FWHM to mitigate pixel-to-pixel variations and keep the counts below saturation.
Due to the brightness of the target, all images in the $H$ band were taken with 6 sec exposures and one double-correlated sampling (1 Fowler).
A total number of 1131 images were recorded during the 392 min observing period, corresponding to a duty cycle of 26.3\% when the readout and centroiding overhead are taken into account.
Thirty nine frames had saturated pixels on the target (mostly due to a bright spot on the point spread function caused by astigmatism of the optics) and were thus excluded from subsequent analysis.
Forty images with large sudden flux drops due to passing clouds were also excluded.
The UTC timestamp of each mid-exposure was converted to the Barycentric Dynamical Time standard (BJD$_{TDB}$) following \citet{Eastman2010}.
The $K_S$-band observation started 205 minutes before the predicted mid-eclipse and ended 267 minutes after the mid-point, following the same observing strategy as in the $H$-band. The airmass changed from 1.22 to 1.028 before the target transited the meridian, and went back to 1.83 at the end of the observation. We defocused the telescope to $\sim$3\arcsec~ FWHM to keep the counts below saturation. Still, a few images had saturated pixels on the target due to astigmatism and were excluded in the analysis.
We took a total of 1208 non-saturated images with exposures of 8 s exposures during the 472 min observation, corresponding to a duty cycle of 34\%.
To reduce the images, we constructed and applied darks, twilight flats, and interpolated the bad pixels following the procedures described in \citet{Zhao et al.2012a}. In addition, to better subtract the background in the science images, particularly the reflected thermal background from the optics, we took dithered sky images immediately before and after the secondary eclipses and averaged them after bias subtraction, flat fielding, and normalization to construct a ``supersky" frame. The background of each science image was estimated using the normalized ``supersky" and was subtracted after applying the flat field. This new step significantly reduced the large-scale background structures and fringe patterns on the detector, particularly the thermal reflections in the $K_S$ band and the internal fringing in the $H$ band.
To further reduce detector-related systematics, we implemented a new correction for the non-classical, flux-dependent non-linearity \citep[also known as ``reciprocity failure", ][]{Hill et al.2010, Biesiadzinski et al.2011a, Biesiadzinski et al.2011b} of the HAWAII-2 detector of WIRC. The new calibration improved the precision of the $H$-band data
whose fluxes suffer from large nonlinearity differences between the wings of the point spread functions (due to low background counts of $\sim$4K) and high fluxes of their peaks ($\gtrsim$31K counts).
The precision of the $K_S$ band data was not improved by this correction, due to the much smaller difference between the sky background ($\gtrsim$12K counts) and the peak fluxes ($\lesssim$30K) (see Appendix for details).
We corrected for time-varying telluric and instrumental effects in both data sets by selecting
9 and 12 reference stars with median fluxes between 0.15 - 1.0 times that of HAT-P-32A in the $H$ and $K_S$ band, respectively.
Fainter stars in the field were excluded due to low signal-to-noise, while stars brighter than the target saturate the detector. Stars were also excluded if they caused significantly increased scatter or correlated noise in the residuals in the subsequent light curve analysis.
{Transient ``hot pixels" outside the photometry aperture were identified using a local 4-$\sigma$ spatial filter and corrected using a 2-D cubic spline interpolation.}
We calculated the centroid of each star's position using the flux-weighted average (or ``center-of-light").
The $x$ and $y$ positions of the stellar centroid typically varied by less than 3 pixels in the $H$ band, with a standard deviation of 0.81 pixel in $x$ and 0.52 pixel in $y$. For the $K_S$ band, we had two software glitches that caused the target to drift away by $>$5 pixels. We therefore excluded the 54 images affected by the glitches from the analysis. The centroid of the target in the remaining images fluctuated
by less than 3 pixels in both $x$ and $y$, with a standard deviation of 0.84 pixel in $x$ and 0.60 pixel in $y$, respectively.
We carried out aperture photometry using elliptical instead of circular apertures to include both the companion M dwarf and the primary star while reducing the encircled background, since the PSFs of the two stars overlap with each other in the WIRC images. We fixed the position angle of the semi-major axis of the ellipse to 110\degr~based on the analysis of our AO images (section \ref{ao}), and used an axial ratio of 1.4 based on estimation of the contour of the PSFs.
We applied 48 different aperture sizes with a step of 0.5 pixel for the target and reference stars.
The extracted fluxes were normalized to the median of the time series. The median of the reference time series is then taken as the final reference light curve to normalize the flux of HAT-P-32AB to correct for the common-mode systematics stemming from variations of atmospheric transmission, seeing, and airmass, etc.
We found that semi-major axes of 30.5 pixels (7.625\arcsec) and 26.5 pixels (6.625\arcsec) for the $H$ and $K_S$ band, respectively, produced the smallest residuals, and were used as the final photometry apertures.
We also experimented with circular apertures and time-varying apertures but
found that these resulted in higher scatter in our final light curve.
We used elliptical sky annuli with 35-pixel inner and 60-pixel outer semi-major axes in the $H$-band, and 30-pixel inner and 53-pixel outer semi-major axes in the $K_S$-band, respectively, to fit surfaces to estimate and subtract the residual background for the target and references. Different annulus ranges and sizes were also explored but showed consistent results.
Figure \ref{wirc_raw} shows the normalized raw fluxes of the target and the references in the $H$ and $K_S$ bands, respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in, angle=0]{hat32_H_raw.eps}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in, angle=0]{hat32_Ks_raw.eps}
\caption{
Normalized raw light curves of HAT-P-32 in the $H$ band (top) and $K_S$ band (bottom) obtained using Palomar/WIRC. The flux of the target is shown in black dots, while the fluxes of the references stars are shown in colored dots. Data points with large ($>$5\%), sudden flux drops due to passing cirrus (top), or large centroid drifts due to software glitches (bottom) were excluded.
Light from the M star companion is also included in our photometric apertures in both bands.
}
\label{wirc_raw}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spitzer IRAC secondary eclipse photometry}
We observed two secondary eclipses of HAT-P-32Ab with the {\em Spitzer Space Telescope} and the IRAC instrument in the 3.6\micron~and 4.5\micron~band on UT 2011 October 20 and UT 2011 October 29 respectively. All observations were taken in the full array mode with 256$\times$256 pixels.
We obtained 3972 images with an exposure time of 6 sec in the 3.6 \micron~band and 2167 images with an exposure time of 12 s in the 4.5\micron~band, respectively. The time stamps in the FITS header, BJD$_{UTC}$, were converted into the Barycentric Dynamical Time standard (BJD$_{TDB}$) or the time of our observations following \citet{Eastman2010}\footnote{BJD$_{TDB}$ $\approx$ BJD$_{UTC}$ + 66.184 s +$\Delta_{TBD-TT}$, where the correction term $\Delta_{TDB-TT}$ is only $\sim$1.6 ms for the two {\em Spitzer} epochs. Unlike the WIRC data, the time stamps in the {\em Spitzer} FITS headers were already in BJD$_{\rm UTC}$. }.
We extracted photometry from the basic calibrated data (BCD) files generated using version S.19.0.0 of the IRAC pipeline, following the steps described in \citet{ORourke et al.2014}.
Briefly, we first corrected for transient ``hot pixels" within a 20$\times$20-pixel box centered on the target. In total, 0.61\% and 0.21\% of pixels in the 3.6 and 4.5\micron~bands were corrected, respectively. We then calculated the flux-weighted centroid within 3.5 pixels of the approximate position of the target star to find the center of the stellar PSF. The $x$ and $y$ coordinates changed by less than 0.16 and 0.26 pixels, respectively, during our 3.6 and 4.5\micron~observations.
We experimented with aperture photometry using a time-varying aperture based on the noise-pixel parameter, but we found that fixed photometric apertures gave lower scatter in the final residuals.
Because the nearby M-dwarf companion and the planet host star are blended together in $Spitzer$ images,
we used circular apertures with fixed radii of 3.5 pixels in both bands to include the companion while also minimizing errors in the photometry. For the 1.21\arcsec/pixel size of {\em Spitzer IRAC}, our circular aperture corresponds to a radius of 4.24\arcsec, sufficient to encircle the fluxes from both stars with a separation of 2.93\arcsec (see Section \ref{ao}).
Apertures with radii of 2.7 and 1.8 pixels (3.3\arcsec and 2.2\arcsec) for our 3.6 and 4.5\micron~band observations, respectively, produced the lowest scatter in the final residuals, but only included partial flux from the companion star and thus were not used in the final solution. We verified that we obtained consistent eclipse depths and time offsets to within 1-$\sigma$ using apertures ranging from 1.8 to 4.0 pixels. We also verified that, after correcting for the dilution by the companion (see Section \ref{correction}), the eclipse depths obtained with 3.5-pixel apertures became more consistent with the values obtained with 1.8-pixel apertures.
We estimated the background using the 3-$\sigma$ clipped mean within circular sky annuli with inner and outer radii of 20.0 and 30.0 pixels and 20.0 and 35.0 pixels in the same bands, and obtained consistent values. There were no visible bright stars within these annuli.
We discarded points in our light curves that suffered uncorrected cosmic ray hits within our photometric aperture or significant spatial drift. In total, we discarded 28 and 23 images from our 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~band light curves, respectively. We also trimmed 9 and 7 frames (corresponding to 0.9 min and 1.4 min) from the beginning of our 3.6 and 4.5\micron~light curves, respectively, in order to avoid effects related to the settling of the telescope at a new pointing.
Figure \ref{spitzer_raw} shows the normalized raw light curves of HAT-P-32Ab in both bands.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{fig_hat32_1.eps}
\caption{
Normalized raw light curves of HAT-P-32 in the Spitzer 3.6 \micron~and 4.5 \micron~bands. The functions used to correct for intra-pixel sensitivity and linear trends in time are overplotted in grey (Section \ref{spitzer_lc}). Data points are binned in 3 minute intervals. Flux from the faint companion is also included in the photometry.}
\label{spitzer_raw}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{AO Imaging of HAT-P-32AB}
The planet host star HAT-P-32A is in a double star system separated by $\sim2\farcs9$. To better characterize the planet host star and the planet itself, we carried out AO imaging to resolve the two stars in both visible and near-IR (NIR) wavelengths.
\subsubsection{Near-Infrared Adaptive Optics Imaging}
We observed HAT-P-32AB in the NIR $H$ and $K_S$ bands on 2013 March 02 using the Keck-II AO system \citep{Wizinowich et al.2000} and the NIRC2 instrument (Instrument
PI: Keith Matthews).
We used the narrow camera with a scale of 0.01\arcsec/pixel for fine spatial sampling of the point spread function (PSF).
We conducted the observation in position angle mode, in which the orientation of the detector was fixed throughout the observation, instead of using angular differential imaging as the companion was bright enough to be resolved from the primary in this relatively simple observing mode.
We used the full array with 1024 $\times$ 1024 pixels and the standard three-position dither pattern to assist the subtraction of sky and instrumental background.
We took a total of 9 images in the $H$ band with 5 s integrations and 24 images in the $K_S$ band with 3 s and 15 s integrations, respectively.
The $K_S$-band data were the same set reported in \citet{Knutson et al.2014}, in which the images were used to place a limit on the presence of massive outer companions at smaller projected separations that could explain the observed radial velocity acceleration.
The $H$ and $K_S$ images were also included in Ngo et al.\ (in preparation) as part of their effort to measure the proper motion of both stars.
After initial dark subtraction and flat-field correction using dome flats, we subtracted the averaged sky and instrumental background in each science frame using dithered images at different positions. This worked well as the three dither positions fell on different quadrants on the detector. Figure \ref{aoimg} shows two representative images of the HAT-P-32AB system obtained with NIRC2 in $H$ and $K_S$.
We treated each science image individually in the subsequent analysis instead of aligning and co-adding them together as the seeing and PSFs varied significantly from frame to frame. One dither position fell on the lower-left quadrant of the detector with higher bias and read noise level, while another dither position fell too close to the edge of the detector, causing the wing of the companion's PSF only partially imaged on the detector.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.3in, angle=0]{ao_img.eps}
\caption{Adaptive optics imaging of HAT-P-32AB. The binary is well resolved. The F7 primary, HAT-P-32A, is to the right and the fainter companion B is to the left. The top two panels show the Keck-II/NIRC2 images in the near-IR $H$ \& $K_S$ bands. The bottom and middle panels show the Robo-AO images in the SDSS $g', r', i', z'$ bands, respectively. The images are scaled by cubic root to reduce the contrast between the two stars so the faint companion can be easily seen in the figure. The images are rotated such that north is up and east is to the left. }
\label{aoimg}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Visible Adaptive Optics Imaging}
We observed HAT-P-32AB at visible wavelengths on UT 2013 January 20 using the Robo-AO instrument, an autonomous laser-guide-star adaptive-optics imaging system installed on the 60-inch telescope at the Palomar Observatory \citep{Baranec et al.2013, Baranec et al.2014}.
{Robo-AO provides diffraction-limited full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) of $0\farcs10 - 0\farcs15$ and Strehl ratios of 4-26\% in the $i'$-band with a pixel sampling of 0\farcs04353/pixel \citep{Baranec et al.2014}, sufficient to resolve the stellar companion from the primary while providing fine sampling of the PSF. }
The observation consisted of a sequence of rapid-frame-transfer read-outs at 8.6 frames per second with a total integration time of 90 s in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) $g', r', i', z'$ bands, respectively.
The images were reduced using the pipeline described in \citet{Law et al.2014}.
{In short, after dark subtraction and flat-fielding using daytime calibrations, the individual images were up-sampled, and then shifted and aligned by cross-correlating with a diffraction-limited PSF. The aligned images were then co-added together using the Drizzle algorithm \citep{Fruchter et al.2002} to form a single output frame for each bandpass. The final ``drizzled" images have a finer pixel scale of 0\farcs02177/pixel.}
Figure \ref{aoimg} shows the images of HAT-P-32AB obtained with Robo-AO in the $g'r'i'z'$ bands.
\section{Analysis and Results}
\label{analysis}
\subsection{Analysis of AO images}
\label{ao}
\subsubsection{PSF modeling}
\label{psf}
We first analyzed the AO images of HAT-P-32AB to determine their separation, position angle, and flux ratios in $H$ and $K_S$ bands.
Given the well separated PSFs of the two stars in the NIRC2 images, we started with standard aperture photometry of the two stars. However, due to residual instrumental background patterns on the InSb array of NIRC2, the varying and high level of uncorrected bias patterns in the lower-left quadrant of the detector where one dither position fell on, and a partially imaged PSF wing in the third dither position, we were unable to obtain reliable flux ratio measurements. Instead, we determined the flux ratios using PSF model fitting. Nonetheless, the separation and position angle can still be robustly determined using aperture photometry and they are consistent with those determined from PSF modeling within 1-$\sigma$.
We constructed PSF models for both stars simultaneously using a joint Gaussian and Moffat PSF function, following a similar approach to the one used in \citet{Bechter2014}. The Gaussian function is used to characterize the core of the PSF, while the Moffat function is used to trace the extended PSF wing (or halo). This joint function can model the effects of tip/tilt and focal anisoplanatism well, although it cannot account for higher order aberrations or diffraction in the PSF. Nonetheless, it is sufficiently accurate for our purpose here to determine the relative flux ratio, separation, and position angle of the two stars \citep{Bechter2014}.
We assumed the same PSFs for the two stars and only allowed their flux ratio to change, which is justified by their close angular distance ($\sim$2\farcs9) and
corresponding high degree of similarity in their PSFs.
The PSF model has a total number of 15 free parameters, including the flux ratio, background, the peaks of the Gaussian and Moffat profiles, the FWHMs along the $x$ \& $y$ axes of the detector, the $x$ \& $y$ centroid positions, and the individual position angles of the Gaussian and Moffat profile.
To test the reliability of this model, we simulated NIRC2 and Robo-AO images using the actual background and the average PSF model, and injected a scaled version of the PSF as the companion at certain separations and position angles. We then fitted the simulated data using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for least-square minimization, and explored the parameter space extensively.
{We demonstrate that we were able to recover the injected flux ratios within an accuracy of 5-10\% for the NIRC2 data. For the Robo-AO data, we can recover the flux ratios with an accuracy better than 30\% at separations larger than 2\farcs5, due to more extended PSF halo and much fainter flux from the companion.}
We thus proceeded to implement this modeling approach to the NIRC2 and Robo-AO images.
\subsubsection{Application to NIRC2 and Robo-AO images}
For the NIRC2 images, we trimmed the reduced images into a smaller size of 600$\times$200 pixels, which includes both stars while avoiding extra background.
We fitted the double PSF model to each of the 9 images in $H$ band and 24 images in $K_S$ band. The pixels in each trimmed image were weighted by their photon noise or background noise, whichever is higher.
Since the weights were dominated by high signal-to-noise pixels in the core of the PSF, this model fitting approach allows us to obtain reliable parameters even for images affected by variable and high bias levels (the lower left quadrant) and truncated PSF wings.
We took the error-weighted average of the best-fit parameters for each set of images as the final result. The scatters of the best-fit parameters dominate their formal uncertainties from the fits and were thus chosen as the final uncertainties of the parameters.
The resulting flux ratios (${f_B}/{f_A}$) for $H$ and $K_S$ bands are 0.044 $\pm$ 0.005 and 0.047 $\pm$ 0.002, respectively,
and are consistent with those from Ngo et al. (in preparation) within 2-$\sigma$.
These values are plotted in Figure \ref{stellar_ratio} and are shown in Table \ref{hat32ab}, together with the corresponding apparent magnitudes for each star, where the individual magnitudes are derived using the total magnitudes of the system from the tenth data release of SDSS \citep{Ahn et al.2014}.
We convert the separation of HAT-P-32AB from pixels to arcseconds using the plate scale and orientation of the NIRC2 array determined by \citet{Yelda2010}\footnote{Pixel scale = 9.950 $\pm$ 0.004 mas/pixel. Actual Position Angle = Measured Position Angle $-0\fdg254 \pm 0\fdg016$ \citep{Yelda2010}.}.
The resulting best-fit separation $\rho$ and position angle $\theta$ in the $H$-band are: $\rho=2\farcs927 \pm 0\farcs011$ and $\theta=110\fdg65 \pm 0\fdg18$.
The $K_s$ band NIRC2 images gave highly consistent results of $\rho=2\farcs925 \pm 0\farcs006$ and $\theta=110\fdg64 \pm 0\fdg15$. The weighted averages of the separation and position angle are listed in Table \ref{hat32ab}.
As another cross-check of the NIRC2 results, we also selected the best Palomar/WIRC images of HAT-P-32AB with well-focused and well-separated PSFs in both bands obtained when checking the telescope focus, and fitted for the flux ratios. The resultant flux ratios and their formal errors are 0.040 $\pm$ 0.006 in $H$ and 0.058 $\pm$ 0.011 in $K_S$, and the separation is 2\farcs917 $\pm$ 0\farcs036, consistent with the NIRC2 results within 1-$\sigma$. The position angle is not directly comparable as the orientation of the WIRC detector is uncalibrated.
The Robo-AO images were analyzed in the same manner using the dual two-component PSF model. We trimmed the reduced Robo-AO images into a smaller size of 610$\times$420 pixels to avoid extra background in the fit. The best-fit reduced $\chi^2$ ranges from 0.22 to 0.26 for the four SDSS bands. To avoid possible underestimation from the nominal uncertainties from the best-fit, we chose a conservative uncertainty of 30\% of each flux ratio in the four bands based on our simulations described previously (see Section \ref{psf}). We detected the companion star in the $r', i',$ and $z'$ bands, and derive an upper limit for the flux ratio in the $g'$ band. The best-fit flux ratios are listed in Table \ref{hat32ab} and are shown in Figure \ref{stellar_ratio}.
We also calibrated the positions of the two stars on the detector as an additional check on the NIRC2 results.
The resulting error-weighted average separation and position angle from the three bands with a detection of the companion are 2\farcs920 $\pm$ 0\farcs006 and 111\fdg50 $\pm$ 0\fdg32, and are consistent with the NIRC2 results at the 1-$\sigma$ and 3-$\sigma$ level, respectively, where the uncertainties are dominated by calibration of the instrument's pixel scale and orientation.
We take the error-weighted average of the NIRC2 and Robo-AO separations as the final separation of the binary. We take the NIRC2 position angle as the final solution thanks to its better calibration, higher angular resolution and finer pixel scale. These results are listed in Table \ref{hat32ab}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{hat32_ab_ratio.eps}
\caption{Flux ratios of the fainter companion HAT-P-32B to the brighter planet host HAT-P-32A vs. wavelengths. Flux ratios in the SDSS bands and the 2MASS bands are determined using AO imaging and PSF fitting. Flux ratios in the $Spitzer$ 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~bands are extrapolated using the $K_S - [3.6]$ and $K_S - [4.5]$ colors determined from SED fitting.
}
\label{stellar_ratio}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Properties of HAT-P-32AB}
\tablehead{
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Apparent magnitudes}\\
& \colhead{AB combined} &\colhead{Star A\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Star B\tablenotemark{a}}
}
\startdata
${g'}$ & 11.482$\pm$0.001\tablenotemark{b} & \nodata & \nodata \\
${r'}$ & 11.167$\pm$0.001\tablenotemark{b} & 11.170$\pm$0.001 & 17.477$\pm$0.362 \\
${i'}$ & 11.062$\pm$0.001\tablenotemark{b} & 11.069$\pm$0.002 & 16.579$\pm$0.347 \\
${z'}$ & 11.422$\pm$0.003\tablenotemark{b} & 11.435$\pm$0.004 & 16.207$\pm$0.317 \\
$H$ & 10.024$\pm$0.022\tablenotemark{c} & 10.071$\pm$0.022 & 13.462$\pm$0.101 \\
$K_S$ & \phn9.990$\pm$0.022\tablenotemark{c} & 10.040$\pm$0.022 & 13.355$\pm$0.051 \\
\cutinhead{B to A flux ratios }
$(f_B/f_A)_{g'}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ $<$0.0018 } \\
$(f_B/f_A)_{r'}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ 0.003$\pm$0.001 } \\
$(f_B/f_A)_{i'}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ 0.006$\pm$0.002 } \\
$(f_B/f_A)_{z'}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ 0.012$\pm$0.004 } \\
$(f_B/f_A)_{H}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ 0.044$\pm$0.005 } \\
$(f_B/f_A)_{K_S}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ 0.047$\pm$0.002 } \\
$(f_B/f_A)_{3.6}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ 0.050$\pm$0.020 } \\
$(f_B/f_A)_{4.5}$ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{ 0.053$\pm$0.020 } \\
\cutinhead{Effective temperatures from SED fit}
$T_{\text{eff, A}}$ (K) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{6269 $\pm$ 64 } \\
$T_{\text{eff, B}}$ (K) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{3565 $\pm$ 82 } \\
\cutinhead{AO Astrometry}
& NIRC2 & Robo-AO & Final result\tablenotemark{d} \\
Separation & {2\farcs925 $\pm$ 0\farcs005 } & 2\farcs920 $\pm$ 0\farcs006 & 2\farcs923 $\pm$ 0\farcs004 \\
P.A. ($\vec{{AB}}$) & 110\fdg64 $\pm$ 0\fdg12 & 111\fdg50 $\pm$ 0\fdg32 & 110\fdg64 $\pm$ 0\fdg12
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a.}{Derived using total magnitudes and flux ratios in this work.}
\tablenotetext{b.}{Magnitude from the tenth data release of SDSS \citep{Ahn et al.2014}.}
\tablenotetext{c.}{2MASS magnitude}
\tablenotetext{d.}{We adopt the position angle from NIRC2 as the final nominal solution because of its better instrumental calibration, higher angular resolution and finer pixel scales.}
\label{hat32ab}
\end{deluxetable}
\vspace{0.3in}
\subsection{Stellar SEDs}
In order to account for the dilution of our measured secondary eclipse depths in the {\em Spitzer} 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~bands, we must first estimate the flux ratios of the binary in these two bands. We do this by fitting the Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) of the two stars using the synthetic broadband magnitudes converted from PHOENIX model spectra by the Dartmouth Stellar Evolution models \citep{Dotter et al.2008, Husser2013}. Specifically, we converted the combined magnitudes of HAT-P-32AB into individual absolute magnitudes based on their measured flux ratios and the distance $d= 283$ pc \citep{Hartman et al.2011}, and fitted the SEDs using a Dartmouth model with [Fe/H] = -0.04 and [$\alpha$/Fe]=0 \citep{Hartman et al.2011}. We excluded the upper limit on the $g'$ band magnitude of HAT-P-32B in the fit.
We then fit for the effective temperatures of both stars, where we take into account the uncertainty in their metallicity by fitting SED models for the 1-$\sigma$ lower and upper limits on [Fe/H] from a spectroscopic analysis of the F star primary.
The resulting systematic differences among models are added in quadrature to the best-fit uncertainty of $T_{\text{eff}}$.
The best-fit SED models for HAT-P-32AB are shown in Figure \ref{sed}. The best model for HAT-P-32B has a temperature of 3565 $\pm$ 82 K, indicating a spectral type of M1.5 according to \citet{Kraus et al.2007} and \citet{Lepine et al.2013}. The best model for HAT-P-32A gives $T_{\text{eff}}$~= 6269 $\pm$ 64 K, consistent with the value of \citet{Hartman et al.2011} within 1-$\sigma$.
We derived the flux ratios of HAT-P-32AB in the {\em Spitzer} bands based on the $K_S$ - [3.6] and $K_S$ - [4.5] colors from the SED models and listed them in Table \ref{hat32ab}. The $K_S$ - [3.6] and $K_S$ - [4.5] colors from the models are consistent with the empirical values in \citet{Patten et al.2006}.
Uncertainties of the derived flux ratios were propagated from the magnitudes of the SED models in the two {\em Spitzer} bands. Figure \ref{stellar_ratio} also shows the flux ratios of HAT-P-32AB in the {\em Spitzer} bands.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{HAT32_sed_dartmouth.eps}
\caption{Best-fit SED models for HAT-P-32AB based on synthetic magnitudes of PHOENIX model spectra in the observed bands.
Filled dots with error bars show absolute magnitudes for each star derived using their flux ratios and total magnitudes (some error bars are too small to be seen).
The solid lines show the best-fit models. The dashed lines show their corresponding 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties with $T_{\rm eff}$ values labeled to the left.
The absolute magnitudes are calculated with a distance modulus of 7.259 ($d=283$ pc) based on \citet{Hartman et al.2011}.
}
\label{sed}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analysis of Spitzer Light Curves}
\label{spitzer_lc}
We simultaneously fit our light curves with secondary eclipse models \citep{Mandel2002} and decorrelation functions that
correct for the well-known intra-pixel sensitivity effect. For both observations, we use the decorrelation function,
\begin{equation}
F(\{c_i\},\bar x,\bar y,t)=c_0 + c_1\bar x + c_2 \bar y + c_3 \bar x^2 + c_4 \bar y^2 + c_5 t, \label{eq:dec}
\end{equation}
where the $\bar x$ and $\bar y$ are the median-subtracted centroid positions, $t$ is time from the predicted center of secondary eclipse assuming a circular orbit, and the $\{c_i\}$ are free parameters. We use the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to verify that we achieve optimal results by including all of the terms in
Eq.~\ref{eq:dec} \citep{Liddle2007, Priestley1981}. The BIC penalizes extra model parameters, and models with lower BIC are usually preferred.
Specifically, for the 4.5~$\mu$m band observation, the function with all of the terms gives the lowest BIC compared to a function without the quadratic terms ($\Delta BIC=-2$)\footnote{$|\Delta BIC| > 1$ means significant difference, and the model with lower BIC is preferred \citep{Priestley1981}.}.
Similarly, for fits to the 3.6~$\mu$m band data, the function with all of the terms gives the lowest BIC compared to that without the quadratic terms ($\Delta BIC=-63$).
We tried adding a cross-term ($c_6 \bar{x} \bar{y}$) to each decorrelation function, but this did not improve our fits for either bands.
We first perform our simultaneous fit using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm \citep{Press1992}. We report the resulting values for the eclipse depths and offsets as our best-fit results. The decorrelation functions for the raw relative flux are shown in Figure \ref{spitzer_raw}.
Figure \ref{spitzer_lc_fig} shows the final secondary eclipse light curves and best fit models for HAT-P-32Ab after removing the correlated systematics.
We assume a constant error for each measurement of relative flux, equal to the root-mean-squared (RMS) scatter in the residuals between our best-fit eclipse model and decorrelated data, as it better represents the uncertainty in the relative flux than the nominal photon noise.
The RMS scatters in our final residuals are 0.327\% and 0.324\% in the 3.6\micron~and 4.5\micron~bands, respectively, which are 23.6\% and 26.9\% above the photon noise limits.
Figure \ref{spitzer_scatter} compares the residual scatter with ``white noise" expectation, and indicates that the standard deviation of the residuals roughly follow a Gaussian distribution when binned together, suggesting that the decorrelation functions have removed most of the systematics.
We estimate our uncertainties using two different methods. First, we use the Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method with 10$^7$ steps and compute the width of the 68.3\% (1-$\sigma$) symmetric confidence intervals centered on the medians of our (roughly Gaussian, uncorrelated) parameter distributions. We also use the residual permutation (RP) method \citep{Winn et al.2009} to provide an estimate of errors accounting for any time-correlated noise in our data. We report the larger of the two as our formal errors.
For the 3.6\micron~band data, the RP and MCMC errors on the diluted eclipse depth and offset are 0.010\% and 0.014\% and 1.4 min and 1.3 min, respectively. Thus, we measure a diluted depth of 0.341\% $\pm$ 0.014\% and an offset of 1.3 min $\pm$ 1.4 min. For the 4.5\micron~data, the RP and MCMC errors on the diluted eclipse depth and offset are 0.005\% and 0.9 min and 0.018\% and 1.7 min, respectively. Thus, we measure a diluted depth of 0.418\% $\pm$ 0.018\% and a delay of -1.2 min $\pm$ 1.7 min in this band.
We list these results in Table \ref{tab3}.
Our observed center of eclipse times for the 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~bands
are $T_{se}=2455855.57877 \pm 0.00095$ (BJD$_{TDB}$) and 2455864.17701 $\pm$ 0.00118 (BJD$_{TDB}$), respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{fig_hat32_2.eps}
\caption{The final secondary eclipse light curves of HAT-P-32Ab in the {\em Spitzer} 3.6 \micron~and 4.5 \micron~bands after correcting for intra-pixel sensitivity variations. Best-fit light curve models are over plotted as solid lines.
Data are binned in 10 minute intervals. The sizes of the error bars are binned based on the RMS scatter (0.327\% and 0.324\% for the top and bottom panels, respectively) in the residuals between the photometry and the best-fit eclipse model over the whole light curve.
Note that the secondary eclipse depths are diluted by the M dwarf stellar companion. }
\label{spitzer_lc_fig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{hat32_residual_spitzer.eps}
\caption{Comparison of HAT-P-32Ab's residual scatter with Gaussian noise expectation for the {\em Spitzer} bands. The dashed lines show the standard deviation of the residuals if they follow a Gaussian (or white noise) distribution. The solid lines show the standard deviation of actual residuals as a function of bin size.
Both curves closely follow the ``white-noise" expectation with bin sizes smaller than 50 points ($\sim$6 minutes for the top and $\sim$10 min for the bottom), indicating that most of the small-scale intra-pixel variations have been corrected.
}
\label{spitzer_scatter}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Analysis of Palomar/WIRC light curves}
\label{wirc_lc}
The $H$ and $K_S$ band Palomar light curves of HAT-P-32Ab do not show strong correlated systematics after normalizing with the median reference light curves, but still need further decorrelation to detect the secondary eclipse signal.
We fit a secondary eclipse light curve model simultaneously with a decorrelation function to the data,
\begin{equation}
f(\{ a_i \}, t) = a_0 + a_1t + a_2t^2 + a_3 L_{\text{Ref}},
\end{equation}
where $f$ is the reference-corrected flux, $t$ is time from the predicted center of secondary eclipse assuming a circular orbit, and the $\{a_i\}$ are free parameters.
Similar to \citet{ORourke et al.2014}, we also included the median reference light curve $L_{\text{Ref}}$ in the model as it further reduces the scatter of light curves in both bands.
The scatter in the target's centroid is relatively small, and we do not see obvious correlation between the light curve flux and centroid positions. We therefore do not include the centroid positions in the decorrelation function, similar to that in \citet{Zhao et al.2012b}.
In addition to the decorrelation coefficients, the secondary eclipse depth is the only free parameter in the fit.
The orbital ephemeris is fixed to the circular solution of \citet{Hartman et al.2011}, i.e., $T_0 = 2454420.44637$ (BJD) and Period = 2.150008 days, as our $H$ or $K_S$ data cannot constrain the eclipse timing with better precision than that of the $Spitzer$ data. The eclipse duration, inclination, semi-major axis, and stellar and planetary radii are also fixed to the circular orbit solution of \citet{Hartman et al.2011} based on our $Spitzer$ secondary eclipse timing (see Table \ref{tab2} and Section \ref{ecc}).
We employed the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm in order to determine the best-fit solution. We searched the parameter space extensively with a fine grid of starting points to ensure that we find the global minimum instead of local minima.
The data points are uniformly weighted such that the reduced $\chi^2$ is nearly 1.0.
We also tested the necessity of each term in our decorrelation function using the Bayesian Information Criterion. For the $K_S$ band data set, a decorrelation function with all coefficients ($a_0$ to $a_3$) gives the lowest BIC value ($|\Delta BIC|>$1) and thus is preferred for the final fits.
For the $H$ band data, a decorrelation function without the quadratic term $a_2$ gives a significantly lower BIC value than other models ($|\Delta BIC|>$6); therefore only $a_0, a_1$, and $a_3$ are used for the final fits.
The global best-fit solution for the $K_S$ band data gives a diluted eclipse depth of 0.170\% $\pm$ 0.035\% with a reduced $\chi^2$ of 0.96. For the $H$ band data, the best-fit diluted depth is
0.086\% $\pm$ 0.024\% with a reduced $\chi^2$ of 0.92. The best-fit light curve models are shown in the bottom panels of Figure \ref{lc}.
Figure \ref{wirc_resi} compares the scatter of the best-fit residuals with ``white noise" expectations, indicating there are still time-correlated systematics in both light curves, particularly in the $H$-band.
We verify the robustness of the best-fit eclipse depths and estimate their uncertainties using two methods: bootstrapping \citep{Press1992} and residual permutation \citep{Winn et al.2009}. For the bootstrapping method, we uniformly resample the data with replacement and re-fit the light curve with the aforementioned decorrelation model. This technique is suitable for unknown distributions, and can robustly test the best-fit model and the distribution of the parameters. We made 2000 bootstrap iterations and the resulting distribution for the eclipse depth is nearly Gaussian. The corresponding 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties are 0.017\% in $H$ and 0.054\% in $K_S$, respectively. For the residual permutation method,
we subtract the best-fit model from the data and shift the residuals pixel-by-pixel. The shifted residuals are then added back to the best-fit model and are re-fitted. We conducted 2184 iterations in the $H$ band and 2108 iterations in the $K_S$ band. The resulting median diluted eclipse depth and 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty is 0.085\% $\pm$ 0.032\% in the $H$ band, and 0.171$^{+0.031}_{-0.043}$\% in the $K_S$ band.
Our two estimates of the secondary eclipse depth and corresponding uncertainty are consistent with each other to well within 1-$\sigma$.
We report the best-fit eclipse depths as the final result in Table \ref{tab3}. We compare the uncertainties from all the methods and report the largest value as our formal errors.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{hat32_H_lc.eps}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{hat32_Ks_lc.eps}
\caption{The final decorrelated secondary eclipse light curves of HAT-P-32Ab obtained using WIRC. Best-fit light curve models are over plotted as solid blue lines. The top panels show the unbinned, normalized data after decorrelation. The middle panels show the data with 23-minute bins, while the bottom panels show the corresponding residual after subtracting the best-fit models. The sizes of the error bars are based on the scatter of the data in each bin. Note that the secondary eclipse depths are diluted by the stellar companion.
}
\label{lc}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{hat32_residual.eps}
\caption{Comparison of HAT-P-32Ab's residual scatter with Gaussian noise expectation in the $H$ and $K_S$ bands. The dashed lines show the standard deviation of the residuals if they follow a Gaussian distribution (or white noise). The solid lines show the standard deviation of actual residuals as a function of bin size. The residuals are not following the Gaussian expectation in the $H$ band beyond bin size of 20 points, indicating the presence of time-correlated ``red-noise" in the data.}
\label{wirc_resi}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Flux ratio correction}
\label{correction}
Due to the close angular separation of the planet host star and the M1.5 companion, our {\em Spitzer} and WIRC photometry included both stars in their apertures. The measured secondary eclipse depths of the hot Jupiter are therefore diluted by the flux from the companion star. The true planet-to-star flux ratio is
\begin{equation}
\frac{f_b}{f_A} = \delta \left(1+\frac{f_B}{f_A} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the measured, diluted eclipse depth, $\frac{f_B}{f_A}$ is the flux ratio of the M dwarf companion HAT-P-32B to the planet host star HAT-P-32A (see Table \ref{hat32ab}), and (1+$\frac{f_B}{f_A})$ is the dilution correction factor \citep[see also][]{Shporer et al.2014}. We calculated the dilution correction factors based on the measured and derived flux ratios in Table \ref{hat32ab}, and applied them to correct for the four secondary eclipse bands respectively, i.e., $H$, $K_S$, IRAC 3.6 \micron~and 4.5 \micron. We propagated the errors to calculate the final uncertainties. The final dilution-corrected planet-to-star flux ratios are listed in Table \ref{tab3}.
This dilution will also affect estimates of HAT-P-32Ab's transit depth, depending on the photometry apertures used and the actual amount of flux contamination included in the analysis.
Existing transit observations for this planet were typically obtained at visible wavelengths, where the flux ratio of the M dwarf companion should be relatively small as compared to our infrared data.
\citet{Gibson et al.2013} took the M dwarf into account in their transit light curve analysis. They found minimal contaminations in their light curves
as a result of their small apertures, and obtained transit parameters that were consistent with those of \citet{Hartman et al.2011}.
\begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}[th]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{HAT-P-32Ab secondary eclipse parameters}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{$H$} & \colhead{$K_S$} & \colhead{3.6\micron} &\colhead{4.5\micron}
}
\startdata
Diluted eclipse depth & 0.086\% $\pm$ 0.032\% & 0.170\% $\pm$ 0.054\% & 0.341\% $\pm$ 0.014\% & 0.418\% $\pm$ 0.018\% \\
Dilution corrected eclipse depth & 0.090\% $\pm$ 0.033\% & 0.178\% $\pm$ 0.057\% & 0.364\% $\pm$ 0.016\% & 0.438\% $\pm$ 0.020\% \\
Brightness temperature ($K$) & 2065$^{+191}_{-155}$ & 2096$^{+206}_{-180}$ & 2063 $\pm$ 36 & 2014 $\pm$ 41 \\
Planet temperature ($K$) & \multicolumn{4}{c}{2042 $\pm$ 50} (joint solution) \\
Eclipse timing offset ($t-T_{\rm se}$)\tablenotemark{a} (min) & fixed to 0 & fixed to 0 & 1.3 $\pm$ 1.4 & -1.2 $\pm$ 1.7 \\
Eclipse timing offset ($t-T_{\rm se}$)\tablenotemark{a} (min) & \multicolumn{4}{c}{0.3 $\pm$ 1.3} (joint solution)
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{T$_{\rm se}$ is the predicted secondary eclipse time.
\label{tab3}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Parameters for HAT-P-32A and HAT-P-32Ab}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{HAT-P-32A} & \colhead{Reference}
}
\startdata
~[Fe/H] & -0.04 $\pm$ 0.08 & 1 \\
T$_{\rm eff}$ (K) & 6269 $\pm$ 64 & 2 \\
R$_{*}$ (R$_{\odot}$) & 1.219 $\pm$ 0.016 & 1\\
Distance (pc) & 283 $\pm$ 5 & 1\\
\cutinhead{ HAT-P-32Ab}
\sidehead{Transit Parameters}
R$_p$ (R$_{\rm Jup}$) & 1.789 $\pm$ 0.025 & 1\\
a (AU) & 0.0343 $\pm$ 0.0004 & 1\\
$i$ (deg) & 88.9 $\pm$ 0.4 & 1 \\
T$_{\rm se, 3.6\micron}$ (BJD$_{\rm TDB}$) & 2455855.57877 $\pm$ 0.00095 & 2\\
T$_{\rm se, 4.5\micron}$ (BJD$_{\rm TDB}$) & 2455864.17701 $\pm$ 0.00118 & 2\\
\sidehead{RV Model Parameters}
Period (days) & 2.15000805 $^{+9.3e-07}_{-9.7e-07} $ & 2\\
$T_0$ (BJD$_{\rm TDB}$)& 2454420.44712 $^{+9.2e-05}_{-8.4e-05}$ & 2 \\
$e$ & 0.0072 $^{+0.0700}_{-0.0064}$ & 2 \\
$\omega$ (deg) & 96 $^{+180.0}_{-11}$ & 2 \\
$K$ (m s$^{-1}$) & 110 $\pm$ 16 & 2 \\
$\gamma$ (m s$^{-1}$) & 78 $^{+12}_{-13}$ & 2 \\
$\dot{\gamma}$ (m s$^{-1}$ day$^{-1}$) & -0.048 $\pm$ 0.012 & 2 \\
jitter (m s$^{-1}$) & 67.2 $^{+9.6}_{-7.5}$ & 2 \\
\sidehead{RV Derived Parameters}
$e \cos \omega$ & 0.0004 $^{+0.0007}_{-0.0006}$ & 2 \\
$e \sin \omega$ & 0.0003 $^{+0.052}_{-0.010}$ & 2
\enddata
\tablenotetext{1}{Hartman et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 59}
\tablenotetext{2}{This work}
\label{tab2}
\end{deluxetable}
\section{Discussion}
\label{discuss}
\subsection{Orbital eccentricity}
\label{ecc}
We can put a stringent constraint on the orbital eccentricity $e$ of the planet using the measured secondary eclipse timing from Section \ref{spitzer_lc}.
The time delay due to light traveling across the orbit \citep[$\sim2a/c$, e.g.,][]{Kaplan2010} is $\sim$34.23 s for the hot Jupiter HAT-P-32Ab, so we expect to observe the secondary eclipse at an orbital phase of 0.50018. Since the transit epoch reported in \citet{Hartman et al.2011}, a total of 667 and 671 orbital periods elapsed before our observations in the 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m bands, respectively.
Taking the formal error of the transit epoch and the orbital period into account ($\sim$7.78 s and $\sim$0.0864 s, respectively), the cumulative errors resulting from the uncertain orbital period are 0.9605 min at 3.6 \micron~and 0.96624 min at 4.5 \micron. We add these uncertainties from the ephemerides in quadrature to our measurement uncertainty to obtain our final results for time delay from the predicted centers of eclipse for a circular orbit: 1.3 min $\pm$ 1.7 min at 3.6 \micron~and -1.2 min $\pm$ 2.0 min at 4.5 \micron. Therefore, the weighted-average timing delay from expected mid-occultation is $\Delta t \approx 0.3 \pm 1.3$ min (Table \ref{tab3}).
For a complete constraint on the eccentricity, we incorporate the measured time delay in both bands into the RV orbital solution, using the RV data and procedures described in \citet{Knutson et al.2014}, as well as an additional 7 RV measurements obtained from Keck.
The resulting eccentricity of the orbit is $e=$0.0072$^{+0.0700}_{-0.0064}$, which is consistent with a circular orbit at 1.1-$\sigma$.
Our secondary eclipse data constrain $|e \cos \omega|$ in these fits to be very close to zero, while $|e\sin\omega|$ is constrained primarily by the radial velocity measurements and spans a wider range of values.
We listed all the RV parameters in Table \ref{tab2}.
A circular orbit for the planet is also preferred by statistical tests
\citep[Lucy \& Sweeney test and BIC test, see][]{Hartman et al.2011},
and the short tidal circularization timescale of the system ($t_{\rm tidal} \sim3 -5$ Myr, much shorter than the $>$2 Gyr age of the system; \citet{Zhang et al.2013}).
Due to ambiguity in the radial velocity data, \citet{Hartman et al.2011} provided two sets of solutions to the system, one with a fixed circular orbit $e=0$, and the other with a free floating $e$=0.163 $\pm$ 0.061. Our constraint on the eccentricity strongly prefers the $e=0$ solution. Therefore, the circular solution of the orbital and planetary parameters for HAT-P-32Ab \citep[middle column of Table 8 in][]{Hartman et al.2011} should be adopted as the formal parameters, which have already been used throughout this study.
The mass of HAT-P-32Ab is thus 0.860 $\pm$ 0.164 $M_{\rm Jup}$, and its radius is 1.789 $\pm$ 0.025 $R_{\rm Jup}$, making it the third largest transiting planet known to date.
\subsection{Atmospheric models for HAT-P-32Ab}
We combine our final secondary eclipse depths in the $Spitzer$ 3.6 \& 4.5\micron~and WIRC $H$ \& $K_S$ bands to compare with atmospheric models. We first fit a blackbody model to our broadband data and determine the effective temperature of the planet as well as its brightness temperatures in each bandpass (Table \ref{tab3}), using the PHOENIX atmospheric models \citep{Husser et al.2013} for the host star with $T_{\text{eff}}$=6200 K, $\log g$=4.5 cm s$^{-2}$ and [Fe/H]=0.0.
We find that our combined data are well-fit by a blackbody model with $T_{\text{eff}}$=2042 $\pm 50$ K for the planet, which we show in Figure \ref{burrows} and \ref{fortney}.
We then compare our measurements with atmospheric models calculated as described in \citet{Burrows et al.2006, Burrows et al.2008} and \citet{Fortney et al.2008}, respectively.
Figure \ref{burrows} shows the dilution corrected planet-to-star flux ratios and comparison with models based on \citet{Burrows et al.2006, Burrows et al.2008}, assuming a plane-parallel atmosphere with local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), solar abundance, and equilibrium chemistry. These models use a generalized absorption coefficient, $\kappa_e$, to represent the unknown extra absorber in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), which can cause extra heating and create a temperature inversion. The efficiency of energy redistribution is denoted by a dimensionless parameter $P_n$, with $P_n$ = 0.0 representing dayside-only redistribution (2$\pi$ redistribution), $P_n$ = 0.5 representing a full redistribution over the planet (4$\pi$ redistribution) and other $P_n$ values representing intermediate level of redistribution.
Figure \ref{burrows} shows that the data prefer a model with extra upper-atmosphere heating ($\kappa_e = 0.1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$), i.e., a temperature inversion, over a model without extra absorber, due to the high temperature and flux ratio in the 4.5 \micron~band.
The ground-based data provide less leverage than the {\em Spitzer} data due to their larger uncertainties. The data also prefer a less efficient heat redistribution model with $P_n=0.1$ (red, total $\chi^2=2.47$) to a more efficient redistribution model of $P_n=0.3$ (green, total $\chi^2=6.12$), suggesting little recirculation to the planet's nightside.
Nonetheless, we also note that a blackbody model provides a superior fit to the data ($\chi^2=0.9$), despite the fact that the 4.5 \micron~point is more consistent with the red model ($\kappa_e=0.1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, $P_n=0.1$).
Figure \ref{fortney} compares the dilution corrected planet-to-star flux ratios with models based on \citet{Fortney et al.2008}, also assuming a plane-parallel atmosphere with local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), solar abundance, and equilibrium chemistry. Unlike the \citet{Burrows et al.2008} models, these models use gas-phase TiO as the upper atmospheric absorber and add it in chemical equilibrium to create a temperature inversion. The efficiency of energy redistribution is denoted by a dimensionless parameter $f$, with $f$ = 0.25 representing dayside-only (2$\pi$) redistribution, $f$ = 0.5 representing a full-planet (4$\pi$) redistribution.
Figure \ref{fortney} shows that the model with TiO in the upper atmosphere and with very little heat redistribution ($f=0.5$) is more consistent with the data (red, total $\chi^2=5.68$). A model without TiO cannot match the data in the two $Spitzer$ bands (purple, total $\chi^2=39.2$), although it is consistent with the data in the $H$ \& $K_S$ bands. The blackbody model with $T_{\text{eff}}$=2042 K still provides a better overall fit than any of the other models.
The 4.5 \micron~datum again provides the most leverage than other data points, while the other three points are consistent with both the 2$\pi$ TiO model and the blackbody model.
Both sets of atmospheric models prefer an atmosphere with a temperature inversion caused by high altitude absorber, and inefficient heat redistribution to the nightside of the planet.
The relatively high temperature of HAT-P-32Ab implies that it falls near the inefficient end of the transition between efficient and inefficient redistribution on the trend found by \citet{Cowan et al.2011} and \citet{Perez-Becker et al.2013}. Its low heat redistribution based on the models is therefore consistent with the observed correlation.
However, the planet host star HAT-P-32A has a moderately strong $\log R'_{HK}$ of -4.62 based on the analysis of \ion{Ca}{2} H and K line cores by \citet{Hartman et al.2011}. Thus it seems to be an exception to the hypothesis of \citet{Knutson et al.2010} that active stars with $\log R'_{HK} \gtrsim -4.9$ are likely to have non-inverted atmospheres as increased far UV flux from the star destroys the high altitude absorber in the upper atmosphere of the planet and suppresses temperature inversion. Nonetheless, we also note that the planet host star HAT-P-32A is at the boundary where the calibration for $\log R'_{HK}$ is highly uncertain ($T_{\text{eff}}$ $>6200$ K). \citet{Hartman et al.2011} also pointed out that HAT-P-32 does not show significant chromospheric emission in their \ion{Ca}{2} H \& K line cores. Therefore, this system may actually have weak far UV emission despite its large (but uncertain) $\log R'_{HK}$ value, and thus may not be an exception of the empirical correlation after all, as for the case of XO-3 \citep{Knutson et al.2010}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{hat32_model_burrows.eps}
\caption{Comparison of dilution corrected planet-to-star flux ratios with atmospheric models based on \citet{Burrows et al.2008}. The blue dashed line shows a nearly dayside-only redistribution model (close to 2$\pi$ redistribution) without upper-atmosphere heating (i.e., no temperature inversion). The green dashed line shows a model with a temperature inversion and moderate heat redistribution. The red line shows a model with a temperature inversion but very little redistribution. The black solid line indicates a blackbody model. Actual data points are shown as filled black dots with error bars. Colored diamonds indicate band-averaged models points.
Normalized filter profiles of each bandpass are shown at the bottom.
}
\label{burrows}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in, angle=0]{hat32_fortney_mod.eps}
\caption{Comparison of dilution corrected planet-to-star flux ratios with atmospheric models based on \citet{Fortney et al.2008}. The blue dashed line shows a planet-wide full redistribution model (4$\pi$ redistribution) with TiO in the upper atmosphere (i.e., has temperature inversion). The green dashed line shows a model with TiO (temperature inversion) and moderate heat redistribution. The solid red line shows a model with TiO but has only day-side redistribution. The purple dashed line shows a day-side only model without TiO. The black solid line indicates a blackbody model. Actual data points are shown as filled black dots with error bars. Colored diamonds or triangles indicate band-averaged models points.
Normalized filter profiles of each bandpass are shown at the bottom.
}
\label{fortney}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{summary}
We detected four secondary eclipses of the hot Jupiter HAT-P-32Ab with the WIRC instrument at the Palomar Hale 200-inch telescope in the $H$ and $K_S$ bands, and with {\em Spitzer} at 3.6 and 4.5 \micron.
We characterized the flux-dependent nonlinearity of the HAWAII-2 detector of WIRC, and found that it can cause non-negligible effect to high precision photometry when the incident flux has large fluctuations in time, particularly at shorter wavelengths ($H$ or $J$ band) where the sky background is low.
We also carried out AO imaging of the HAT-P-32AB system to resolve the planet host star from its nearby faint companion. We measured a separation of 2\farcs923 $\pm$ 0\farcs004 and a position angle of 110\fdg64 $\pm$ 0\fdg12 for the binary system.
By measuring the flux ratios of the stellar companion to the planet host star in $g'r'i'z'$ and NIR $H$ and $K_S$ bands, we determined a temperature of $T_{\text{eff}}$=3565 $\pm$ 82 K for the companion, corresponding to an M1.5 dwarf.
We extrapolated the flux ratios of the binary to the $Spitzer$ 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~bands based on their colors from the PHOENIX stellar atmosphere models. We then corrected the dilution to the secondary eclipse depths of the hot Jupiter in the four NIR bands to estimate the corresponding planet-to-star flux ratios.
These corresponding flux ratios are 0.090 $\pm$ 0.033\%, 0.178 $\pm$ 0.057\%, 0.364 $\pm$ 0.016\%, and 0.438 $\pm$ 0.020\% in the $H$, $K_S$, and the $Spitzer$ 3.6 and 4.5 \micron~bands, respectively.
By comparing the planet-to-star flux ratios with planetary atmospheric models, we found that both the \citet{Burrows et al.2008} models and the \citet{Fortney et al.2008} models prefer an atmosphere with temperature inversion caused by high altitude absorber and has inefficient heat redistribution to the nightside of the planet.
The inefficient heat redistribution is consistent with the trend found by previous studies of \citet{Cowan et al.2011} and \citet{Perez-Becker et al.2013}.
Given the moderately strong $\log R'_{HK}$ value of the planet host star, the hot Jupiter HAT-P-32Ab seems to be an exception to the correlation of \citet{Knutson et al.2010}. Nonetheless, because the $T_{\text{eff}}$~of the star is high, its $\log R'_{HK}$ is largely uncertain and it may actually have low UV activities, which can make this system still consistent with the trend.
Meanwhile, we also note that a blackbody model with $T_{p} =2042\pm 50$ K also fits the data well and cannot be distinguished from other models by our data.
In addition, we measured a secondary eclipse timing offset of 0.3 $\pm$ 1.3 min from the predicted mid-eclipse time. We combined this with new RV data from Keck and those from \citet{Knutson et al.2014} to put more stringent constraint on the eccentricity of the hot Jupiter's orbit.
We found $e$ = 0.0072 $^{+0.0700}_{-0.0064}$, which is consistent with a circular orbit at the 1.1-$\sigma$ level. The presence of both a radial velocity acceleration and a separate, directly imaged companion in this system might point to a complex dynamical history that could have resulted in the planet's extreme spin-orbit misalignment at present.
A circular orbital solution also makes HAT-P-32Ab the third largest planet known to date.
Because high-eccentricity dynamical migration mechanisms such as the Kozai migration can be very slow ($\sim$Gyrs) \citep{Wu et al.2003}, this planet might have reached its present configuration relatively recently, which may partially explain its abnormally large radius.
In addition to the M1.5 companion, \citet{Knutson et al.2014} detected a radial velocity trend of $-33\pm10$m s$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$ in the system. The trend, however, cannot be explained by the companion star due to its large separation of $\sim$830 AU, but requires an inner body at 3.5-21 AU from the planet host star with a projected mass ($M\sin i$) between 5-500 $M_{Jup}$. At a distance of 283 pc, the inner body has a angular separation between 0\farcs012 - 0\farcs074 and is unresolved by our AO imaging.
{Therefore, if the unseen inner body is a stellar companion close to $\sim$500 $M_{Jup}$ (i.e., a late K dwarf), it would further dilute the transit and secondary eclipse depths of HAT-P-32Ab, making its radius even larger.}
Nonetheless, this potential unseen body would not significantly affect the characterization of the hot Jupiter's atmosphere due to its small and negligible flux contribution.
Due to the large apertures used in our photometry (and correspondingly much more background noise in the photometry), and the correlated instrumental systematics cause by telescope astigmatism, our ground-based photometry of HAT-P-32Ab in this study was not able to provide strong constraints on the atmospheric models.
{Future observations with stabilized PSFs \cite[e.g., using a diffuser,][]{Zhao et al.2014} and a newer generation of IR detectors (e.g., the HAWAII-2RG series) will be able to mitigate the correlated systematics at the instrument level and achieve precisions of $\lesssim$100 parts-per-million for better characterization of planetary atmospheres.
Although the WIRC detector used in this study is now defunct, it may be upgraded to a new science-grade HAWAII-2RG array and allow better performance in the future.}
\acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous referee for valuable comments for the paper.
We thank the Palomar staff for their help with the observations.
M.Z. is supported by funding from NASA Origins of Solar Systems grant NNX14AD22G and the Center for Exoplanets
and Habitable Worlds at the Pennsylvania State University.
The Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds is supported by the
Pennsylvania State University, the Eberly College of Science, and the
Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium.
J.G.O. receives support from the National Science Foundation's Graduate Research Fellowship Program.
H.N. acknowledges funding support from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
A.B. acknowledges support in part under NASA HST grants HST-GO-12181.04-A, HST-GO-12314.03-A, HST-GO-12473.06-A, and HST-GO-12550.02, and JPL/Spitzer Agreements 1417122, 1348668, 1371432, 1377197, and 1439064.
S.H. acknowledges support from the NASA Sagan Fellowship at California Institute of Technology.
C.B. acknowledges support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
The Palomar Hale 200 inch Telescope is operated by Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The Robo-AO system is supported by collaborating partner institutions, the California Institute of Technology and the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. AST-0906060, AST-0960343, and AST-1207891, by a grant from the Mt. Cuba Astronomical Foundation and by a gift from Samuel Oschin.
Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.
This research has made use of the Exoplanet Orbit Database
and the Exoplanet Data Explorer at exoplanets.org.
{\it Facilities}: \facility{Hale (WIRC), Spitzer (IRAC), PO:1.5m (Robo-AO), Keck:II (NIRC2)}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The time evolution of non-equilibrium isolated quantum many-body systems is one of the most intriguing problems in modern-day physics \cite{2011_Polkovnikov_RMP_83}. One of the most common out-of-equilibrium protocols is the so-called quantum quench, when the system is prepared in some initial state which is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian driving its unitary time evolution. This allows the system to explore a much larger part of the Hilbert space than the one associated to equilibrium properties. This leads to unusual physics as for example new steady states or pre-thermalized ones
\cite{
2006_Calabrese_PRL_96,
2007_Rigol_PRL_98,
2006_Rigol_PRA_74,
rigol_dunjko_08,
2008_Barthel_PRL_100,
2010_Cramer_NJP_12,
2011_Cassidy_PRL_106,
2011_Calabrese_PRL_106,
2012_Calabrese_JSTAT_P07016,
2012_Calabrese_JSTAT_P07022,
2014_Bucciantini_JPA_47,
2009_Barmettler_PRL_102,
2010_Barmettler_NJP_12,
2009_Rossini_PRL_102,
2010_Rossini_PRB_82,
2009_Faribault_JMP_50,
2010_Fioretto_NJP_12,
2010_Mossel_NJP_12,
2011_Igloi_PRL_106,
2011_Banuls_PRL_106,
2011_Rigol_PRA_84,
2012_Brandino_PRB_85,
2012_Demler_PRB_86,
2012_He_PRA_85,
2013_He_PRA_87,
2013_Caux_PRL_110,
2013_Mussardo_PRL_111,
2013_Kormos_PRB_88,
2013_Mitra_PRB_87,
2014_Matta,
2013_Heyl_PRL_110,
2013_Pozsgay_JSTAT_P07003,
2013_Fagotti_JSTAT_P07012,
2013_Pozsgay_Jstat_10,
2013_Liu,
2013_Marcuzzi_PRL_111,
Sotiriadis201452,
2014_Fagotti,
2014_DeNardis_PRA_89,
2014_Heyl,
2014_Essler_PRB_89,
2014_Bertini_Sinegordon,
2014_Fagotti_PRB_89,
2014_Wouters,
2014_Pozsgay_Dimer,
2014_Pozsgay_qbosons,
Neel_Long}.
Analytical expressions for the time evolution of physical observables in quantum many-body systems are not easily computable and up to now there are only few explicit results available \cite{2006_Calabrese_PRL_96,2011_Calabrese_PRL_106,
2012_Calabrese_JSTAT_P07016,2013_Mussardo_PRL_111,1751-8121-47-40-402001,2013_Collura_PRL_110,2014_Kormos_PRA_89,2014_Bertini_Sinegordon}. Numerical simulations on the other hand are limited in the range of time due to the exponential growth of the entanglement entropy after the quench and they are in any case up to now insufficently able to treat continuous systems \cite{DMRG}. These are two of the reasons why exact analytical solutions are of fundamental importance for experimental realizations and necessary checks for numerical implementations.
\\
The usual approach to computing the time evolution of a generic operator after a quench is to expand the initial state on a basis of eigenstates and then to sum over the whole Hilbert space.
For some systems it is indeed possible to classify the eigenstates and have expressions for the matrix elements of some physically relevant operators. An example is given in one dimension by integrable systems \cite{GaudinBOOK,KorepinBOOK} where the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz allows to obtain matrix elements and scalar products between states even in presence of nontrivial interactions between the constituents of the system \cite{1989_Slavnov_TMP_79,1990_Slavnov_TMP_82}. However these are complicated functions of the variables parametrizing the eigenstates and it is then very hard to obtain a closed-form expression for the sum over the whole Hilbert space.
Following the recently-introduced quench action paradigm for quenches in integrable systems \cite{2013_Caux_PRL_110,2014_DeNardis_PRA_89}, (applied also in \cite{2014_Wouters,2014_Pozsgay_Dimer,Neel_Long,2014_DeLuca}) in the thermodynamic limit we can reduce the whole sum over the eigenstates to a much more limited set of states. The logic is as follows: after the quench the system is effectively described by one of its eigenstates, the saddle point state, and the whole time evolution is governed by a restricted set of excitations on this state. The thermodynamic energies and overlaps are factorized in terms of these excitations which drastically reduces the necessary amount of information to reconstruct the time evolution of a generic operator \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89}. Moreover in some cases it can give a direct indication of the velocity of propagation of the information in a quenched system \cite{Essler_LIGHT}.
\\
In this paper we focus on the Lieb-Liniger integrable model for interacting one-dimensional bosons \cite{1963_Lieb_PR_130_1}. In particular we compute the time evolution of the one-body density matrix in the Tonks-Girardeau regime \cite{1936_Tonks_PR_50,1960_Girardeau_JMP_1,2004_Paredes_NATURE_429,2004_Kinoshita_SCIENCE_305} (hard-core bosons) after a quench from the ground state of the noninteracting regime, the BEC state.
This observable is much less trivial than the density-density correlations even at equilibrium \cite{1964_Lenard_JMP_5} and it is directly measurable in some out-of-equilibrium experimental realizations \cite{2007_Hofferberth_NATURE_449,2008_Hofferberth_NATPHYS_4,2012_Gring_SCIENCE_337} the same being true for its Fourier transform, which represents the (bosonic) momentum distribution function.
\\
The saddle point state after the quench from the BEC state to the Lieb-Liniger model for any final interaction strength was analysed in \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89} while other aspects of the same quench are also examined in \cite{2013_Kormos_PRB_88,2014_Kormos_PRA_89,1742-5468-2014-1-P01009,2014_Matta}. In \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89} the time evolution of the density-density operator is computed via the quench action approach while in \cite{2014_Kormos_PRA_89} the mapping of the density operator to the free fermion basis is used. However the same method relies only on the structure of the density operator (which is equivalent to the free fermion density in this limit) and is inapplicable to the bosonic field operator. Moreover this constitutes a step towards the computation of the time evolution after a quench to the Lieb-Liniger model with generic interaction strength.
\\
The paper is organized as follows:
in section \ref{sec2} we review the quench action logic for quenches in the Lieb-Liniger model, focusing on the post-quench time evolution of physical operators in the thermodynamic limit. We restrict then to the Tonks-Girardeau regime: in section \ref{sec3} we review the time evolution of the static density-density operator and in section \ref{sec4} we present the main result of the paper on the time evolution of the one-body function. Finally in \ref{FF_Psi} it is shown how to obtain the necessary form factors of the field-field operator in the thermodynamic limit starting from their finite size expressions given in \ref{Finite_Size}. \ref{Fredholm} reviews some properties of the Fredholm determinant and Pfaffian.
\section{The quench protocol}\label{sec2}
We consider a system of $N$ bosons on a one-dimensional ring of circumference $L$ with periodic boundary conditions and the Lieb-Liniger \cite{1963_Lieb_PR_130_1} Hamiltonian given by (with the choice $\hbar = 2m = 1$)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LL_Ham}
H_{LL}= -\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial^2 }{\partial x^2_j} + 2c \sum_{j>k=1}^N \delta(x_j - x_k) \:.
\end{equation}
The coupling constant $c$ parametrizes the interaction strength. We focus here on the repulsive case $c>0$ and, in particular, on the Tonks-Girardeau regime $c = \infty$ \cite{1960_Girardeau_JMP_1}.
The exact eigenstates of \eqref{eq:LL_Ham} are Bethe Ansatz wave functions,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:EF}
\psi\left({\boldsymbol{x}}|{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\right) = F_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} \sum_{P\in \mathcal{S}_N} A_P (\boldsymbol{x}|{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}) \prod_{j=1}^N e^{i\lambda_{P_j}x_j} \:,
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{S}_N$ all the permutations of the set $[1,\ldots, N]$ and $ F_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}} = \frac{\prod_{j>k=1}^N (\lambda_j -\lambda_k)}{\sqrt{ N! \prod_{j>k=1}^N\left( (\lambda_j - \lambda_k)^2 + c^2\right)}}$ , $A_P ({\boldsymbol{x}}|{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}) = \prod_{j>k=1}^N \left( 1 - \frac{ic \: \text{sgn}(x_j - x_k)}{\lambda_{P_j} - \lambda_{P_k}}\right)$. The periodic boundary conditions enforce the quantization of the rapidities $\boldsymbol{\lambda} \equiv \{\lambda_j\}_{j=1}^N$ such that they solve a set of $N$ nonlinear coupled equations, \textit{i.e.} the Bethe equations \cite{1963_Lieb_PR_130_1}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BE_Log}
\lambda_j = \frac{2 \pi I_j}{L} - \frac{1}{L} \sum_{k=1}^N \theta(\lambda_j - \lambda_k) \:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\: j = 1 , \ldots N \:,
\end{equation}
where the scattering phase shift is given by
\begin{equation}
\theta(\lambda) = 2 \arctan(\lambda/c) \:.
\end{equation}
The quantum numbers $\boldsymbol{I} = \{I_j\}_{j=1}^N$ are mutually distinct integers (half-odd integers) for N odd (even), and they label an eigenstate $|\boldsymbol{I}\rangle$ uniquely.
The energy $\omega_{\boldsymbol{I}} $ and momentum $P_{\boldsymbol{I}}$ of the states are given in terms of their rapidities by
\begin{align}
& P_{\boldsymbol{I}} = \sum_{j=1}^N\lambda_j \:,\\
& \omega_{\boldsymbol{I}}= \sum_{j=1}^N \lambda_j^2 \:.
\end{align}
In the limit $c\to \infty$ equations \eqref{eq:BE_Log} become the standard quantization conditions for free fermionic momenta
\begin{equation}
\lim_{c \to \infty}\lambda_j = \frac{2 \pi I_j}{L} \:.
\end{equation}
In this limit there is a rigorous one-to-one correspondence between the wave function \eqref{eq:EF} and the Slater determinant for free spinless fermions \cite{1960_Girardeau_JMP_1}. The relation between the two is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BEwave_TG}
\lim_{c \to \infty} \psi\left({\boldsymbol{x}}|{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\right) = \prod_{i<j=1}^N \text{sgn}(x_i -x_j) \frac{\det_{i,j=1}^N \left(e^{i x_i \lambda_j} \right)}{\sqrt{N!}} \:.
\end{equation}
A generic quench protocol consists in preparing the system in some initial state $| 0 \rangle $ which is not an eigenstate of \eqref{eq:LL_Ham}. At $t = 0$, the system is let unitarly evolve with the Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:LL_Ham}. The eigenstate basis $|\boldsymbol{I}\rangle$ allows to compute the exact time evolution of a generic operator $\mathcal{O}$ as given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Double_sum}
\langle 0(t) | \mathcal{O} | 0(t) \rangle =
\sum\nolimits_{{\boldsymbol{I}},{\boldsymbol{I}}' } e^{- S_{\boldsymbol{I}}^\ast - S_{{\boldsymbol{I}}'} } e^{i ( \omega_{{\boldsymbol{I}}} - \omega_{{\boldsymbol{I}}'}) t} \langle {\boldsymbol{I}} | \mathcal{O} | {\boldsymbol{I}}' \rangle \:,
\end{equation}
where we introduced the logarithm of the overlap coefficient $S_{\boldsymbol{I}} = -\log{\langle {\boldsymbol{I}} | 0\rangle}$ between a normalized Bethe state and the initial state and the time evolved initial state $| 0(t) \rangle = e^{- i H_{LL} t}| 0 \rangle $.
{The double summation over the whole Hilbert space is impossible to perform but we can get considerable simplifications by going to the thermodynamic limit} $L \to \infty$
with fixed density $N/L= D $ (we denote such a limit with $\lim_{\text{th}}$). In this limit the finite size Bethe states are replaced by their thermodynamic equivalents $| \rho \rangle$ specified by two distributions of rapidities $\rho(\lambda), \rho^h(\lambda)$ related to each other by the thermodynamic Bethe equations
\begin{equation}
\rho(\lambda)+\rho^h(\lambda)= \frac{1}{2 \pi} \left( 1 + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\mu \frac{2 c \; \rho(\mu) }{(\lambda - \mu)^2 + c^2} \right) \:,
\end{equation}
and normalized by the density of the gas
\begin{equation}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\mu \rho(\mu) = D \:,
\end{equation}
where we choose $D=1$ here for simplicity.
In terms of finite size Bethe states $| \boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle$ at finite size $N$ there is an exponential number $\sim \exp(S_{YY}[\rho])$ of them which are representative of the same thermodynamic state $| \boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle \to | \rho \rangle$. The extensive functional $S_{YY}$ is the Yang-Yang entropy given by
\begin{equation}
S_{YY}[\rho]= L \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\lambda \big( (\rho + \rho^h) \ln (\rho + \rho^h) - \rho \ln \rho
- \rho^h \ln \rho^h \big) \:.
\end{equation}
With such a thermodynamic expression for the eigenstates we can perform the same steps as in \cite{2013_Caux_PRL_110,2014_DeNardis_PRA_89} to obtain a computationally much less expensive formula for the whole time evolution (only valid for simple \textit{weak} operators $\mathcal{O}$ \cite{2013_Caux_PRL_110})
\begin{align} \label{eq:QA_expectation}
&\langle 0(t) | \mathcal{O} | 0(t) \rangle = \frac{1}{2} \int \mathcal{D}[\rho] \: e^{ -2S[\rho] + S_{\text{YY}}[\rho]} \times\notag\\
&\sum_{ \mathbf{e} } \Big( e^{ - \delta s_\mathbf{e} - i \delta \omega_\mathbf{e} t } \langle \rho | \mathcal{O} | \rho , \mathbf{e} \rangle + e^{ - \delta s^*_\mathbf{e} + i \delta \omega_\mathbf{e} t } \langle \rho,\mathbf{e} | \mathcal{O} | \rho \rangle \Big) \:,
\end{align}
where $S[\rho] = \lim\nolimits_\text{th} \Re S_I $ is the extensive real part of the overlap coefficient and $\mathbf{e}$ denotes a class of discrete excitations on the state $| \rho \rangle$ with
energy $\delta \omega_\mathbf{e}$ and differential overlap $\delta s_\mathbf{e} = - \log \big( \langle I \cup \mathbf{e} | 0 \rangle / \langle I | 0 \rangle \big) $.
In the thermodynamic limit the functional integral can be evaluated in its saddle point defined as $\left.\frac{\delta S^Q[\rho] }{\delta\rho} \right|_{\rho_\text{sp}} = \left.\frac{\delta ( 2S[\rho] - S_{\text{YY}}[\rho])}{ \delta \rho }\right|_{\rho_\text{sp}} = 0$ analogously to \cite{2013_Caux_PRL_110,2014_DeNardis_PRA_89} leading to a final expression for the whole time evolution after the quench
\begin{equation}\label{eq:QA_expectation_2}
\lim\nolimits_\text{th}\langle 0(t) | \mathcal{O} | 0(t) \rangle=\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{ \mathbf{e} } \Big( e^{ - \delta s_\mathbf{e} - i \delta \omega_\mathbf{e} t } \langle \rho_{sp} | \mathcal{O} | \rho_{sp} , \mathbf{e} \rangle + e^{ - \delta s^*_\mathbf{e} + i \delta \omega_\mathbf{e} t } \langle \rho_{sp},\mathbf{e} | \mathcal{O} | \rho_{sp} \rangle \Big) \:.
\end{equation}
Expression \eqref{eq:QA_expectation_2} is exact in the thermodynamic limit and valid for any time $t > 0$ after the quench. \\
We focus now on the time evolution of the expectation values of some physical operators when the initial state $|0 \rangle $ is the bosonic ground state in the absence of interactions, {\it i.\,e.}~the BEC state
\begin{equation}
|0 \rangle = |\text{BEC}\rangle \:,
\end{equation}
with $\langle \mathbf{x} | \text{BEC} \rangle = \frac{1}{L^{N/2}}$.
The limit $t \to \infty$ of expression \eqref{eq:QA_expectation_2} and the characterization of the saddle point state is given in \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89} while here we focus on the time evolution towards the saddle point state.
The necessary excitations to resolve the whole time evolution can be written in terms of particle-hole excitations $\{ \mu^+_j, \mu_j^-\}_{j=1}^n$ where $n$ is a sub-extensive number $n \ll N $ such that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\text{th}} \frac{n}{N} = 0 \:.
\end{equation}
Given one of the many finite size $N=L$ normalized realizations of the saddle point state $| \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{sp} \rangle \to | \rho_{sp} \rangle$ we define as holes a set of $n$ rapidities $\{ \lambda_{c_j} \}_{j=1}^n \equiv \{ \mu^-_j \}_{j=1}^n $ where $\{ c_j \}$ is a $n-$partition of $[1, \ldots
, N]$. We define then as particles the new values $ \{ \mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n$ that we assign to them $\{ \lambda_{c_j} \}_{j=1}^n \to \{ \mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n$. We denote such an excited state of $| \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{sp} \rangle$ with the notation $| \boldsymbol{\lambda}'_{sp} , \{ \mu_j^- \to \mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n \rangle$. The bulk rapidities which have not been chosen as holes $\boldsymbol{\lambda}'_{sp}$ get shifted by a $1/L$ factor according to
\begin{equation}
\lambda'_{sp,j} - \lambda_{sp,j} = -\frac{1}{L}\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{F(\lambda_{sp,j}| \mu_k^+) -F(\lambda_{sp,j}| \mu_k^-) }{ \rho_{sp}(\lambda_{sp,j}) + \rho^h(\lambda_{sp,j})} + \mathcal{O}(1/L^2) \:,
\end{equation}
where the back-flow $F(\lambda|\mu)$ is given in terms of the distribution $\rho(\lambda)$ of the thermodynamic state as \cite{KorepinBOOK}
\begin{equation}
2 \pi F(\lambda|\mu) = \theta(\lambda - \mu) + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\alpha \frac{2 c}{(\lambda - \alpha)^2 + c^2} \frac{\rho(\alpha)}{\rho(\alpha)+ \rho^h(\alpha)} F(\alpha|\mu) \:.
\end{equation}
Since the overlaps of the BEC state with the Bethe states are non-zero only for parity-invariant Bethe states \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89,1742-5468-2014-5-P05006,2014_Brockmann_npi} the only allowed type of particle-hole excitations to be included in the sum \eqref{eq:QA_expectation_2} are the parity-invariant ones
$\{ \mu_j^+ , - \mu_j^+, \mu_j^-, -\mu_j^- \}_{j=1}^n$. The differential overlaps and the energies of these type of excitations for a generic post-quench interaction strength $c$ are factorized (see Appendix A in \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89})
\begin{align}\label{eq:deltasdeltae}
& e^{- \delta s_{\mathbf{e}} } = \prod_{k=1}^n \exp \left( - \delta s(\mu_k^+) + \delta(\mu_k^-) \right)\:, \\
&
e^{- i \delta \omega_{\mathbf{e}} t} = \prod_{k=1}^n \exp\left( -2i t ( \delta \omega(\mu_k^+) - \delta \omega(\mu_k^-) ) \right) \:,
\end{align}
where the differential overlap is given in terms of the distribution $\rho = \rho_{sp}$ by
\begin{equation}
\delta s(\mu)= \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\lambda \: \rho(\lambda) \frac{1 + 8 \frac{\lambda^{2}}{c^{2}}}{\lambda \left(1+ 4\frac{\lambda^{2}}{c^{2}}\right)} F(\lambda | {\mu} )
+ \log \left({{\mu} \sqrt{ ( {\mu}/c)^2 + 1/4}}\right) \:.
\end{equation}
The differential energy $\delta \omega(\mu)$ is a functional of the distribution $\rho$ as given by the integral equation \cite{KorepinBOOK}
\begin{align}
&\delta \omega(\mu) = \mu^2 + 2\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\alpha \: \alpha \: F(\alpha | \mu) \frac{\rho(\alpha)}{\rho(\alpha)+ \rho^h(\alpha)} \:.
\end{align}
The time evolution \eqref{eq:QA_expectation_2} is then written in terms of these excitations as
\begin{align}\label{eq:laststep}
& \langle 0(t) | \mathcal{O} | 0(t) \rangle \nonumber
\\&
= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[ \sum_{0<\mu_1^+ < \mu_2^+ < \ldots < \mu_n^+} \sum_{0<\mu_1^- < \mu_2^- < \ldots < \mu_n^-} \right]
\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{sp} | \mathcal{O} | \boldsymbol{\lambda}'_{sp} , \{ \mu_j^- , - \mu_j^- \to \mu_j^+, -\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n \rangle
\nonumber + \text{mirr.} \\&
= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!^2} \left[\prod_{j=1}^n\sum_{\mu_j^- > 0} \sum_{\mu_j^+ > 0 } \right]
\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{sp} | \mathcal{O} | \boldsymbol{\lambda}'_{sp} , \{ \mu_j^- , - \mu_j^- \to \mu_j^+, -\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n \rangle
e^{- \delta s_{\mathbf{e}} - i \delta \omega_{\mathbf{e}} t} + \text{mirr.} \:,
\end{align}
where $ \delta s_{\mathbf{e}}$ and $\delta \omega_{\mathbf{e}}$ are factorized for each excitation as in equations \eqref{eq:deltasdeltae} (which is believed to be valid for any type of quench to the Lieb-Liniger model).
The mirrored sum is obtained by summing over the excitations on the left state instead of on the right state
\begin{equation}
\text{mirr.} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!^2} \left[\prod_{j=1}^n\sum_{\mu_j^- > 0} \sum_{\mu_j^+ > 0 } \right]
\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}'_{sp}, \{ \mu_j^- , - \mu_j^- \to \mu_j^+, -\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n | \mathcal{O} | \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{sp} \rangle
e^{- \delta s_{\mathbf{e}} + i \delta \omega_{\mathbf{e}} t} \:.
\end{equation}
One should note that in the last step of equation \eqref{eq:laststep} we included in the sums the points $\mu_j^+ = \mu_k^+$ and $\mu_j^- = \mu_k^-$ for any $j,k$. However these contributions are zero due to the fact that the matrix element when one of the states has two coinciding rapidites is zero \cite{KorepinBOOK}.
Assuming that the saddle point distribution is a smooth function (typical for any initial state with a non-zero energy density) the sums over the rapidities of the excitations can be converted to integrals for large system size leading to
\begin{equation}
\left[\prod_{j=1}^n\sum_{\mu_j^- > 0} \sum_{\mu_j^+ > 0 } \right] \to L^{2n} \left[\prod_{j=1}^n \int_0^\infty d\mu_j^- d\mu_j^+ \rho_{sp}(\mu_j^-) \rho^h_{sp}(\mu_j^+)\right] \:.
\end{equation}
The system size divergence $L^n$ coming from the sum is reabsorbed into the form factors which have the same scaling in system size. The essential ingredients are then the form factors of physical operators in the thermodynamic limit for a given saddle point state and a given number $n$ of particle-hole excitations
\begin{align}\label{eq:therm_FF}
&\lim_{th} L^{n}\langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{sp} | \mathcal{O} | \boldsymbol{\lambda}'_{sp} , \{ \mu_j^- ,\to \mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n \rangle= \langle {\rho}_{sp} | \mathcal{O} | {\rho}_{sp}, \{ \mu_j^- \to\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n \rangle \:, \\&
\lim_{th} L^{n} \langle \boldsymbol{\lambda}'_{sp} , \{ \mu_j^- , - \mu_j^- \to \mu_j^+, -\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n | \mathcal{O} | \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{sp} \rangle = \langle {\rho}_{sp}, \{ \mu_j^- \to\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n | \mathcal{O} | {\rho}_{sp} \rangle \:.
\end{align}
With this notation we can finally express the time evolution after the quench in the thermodynamic limit
\begin{align}\label{eq:TEF}
&\lim_{\text{th}} \langle 0(t) | \mathcal{O} | 0(t) \rangle \nonumber \\&
= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!^2} \left[\prod_{j=1}^n \int_0^\infty d\mu_j^+ \int_0^\infty d\mu_j^- \rho_{sp}(\mu_j^-) \rho_{sp}^h(\mu_j^+) e^{- \delta s(\mu_j^+) + \delta s(\mu_j^-) - 2 i t (\delta \omega(\mu_j^+) -\delta \omega(\mu_j^-) )} \right] \nonumber
\\&
\times\langle {\rho}_{sp} | \mathcal{O} | {\rho}_{sp}, \{ \mu_j^- , - \mu_j^-\to\mu_j^+ , -\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n \rangle + \text{mirr.} \:,
\end{align}
Formula \eqref{eq:TEF} is valid in general for quenches in the Lieb-Liniger model with any interaction $c$ and any parity-invariant initial state. The computation of the form factors \eqref{eq:therm_FF} for two-point operators is however rather involved and up to now there is no generic method to obtain them. \\
From now on we focus on the quench from the BEC state to the $c=+\infty$ Lieb-Liniger model. In this limit the Bethe Ansatz wave function \eqref{eq:EF} takes the simpler form given in equation \eqref{eq:BEwave_TG} and it can be integrated together with some static physical operators for any finite size $N$ (see \ref{Finite_Size} and Appendix C in \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89}) \cite{zvonarev}. It is then possible to extract the thermodynamic limit of the finite size expressions for the form factors. Also in this limit the back-flow is zero $\lim_{c \to \infty }F(\lambda | \mu)=0$ and as a first consequence the differential overlaps and the energies have much simpler expressions in terms of the rapidities of the excitations:
\begin{align}\label{eqn:BEC_Overlap}
&\exp \delta s(\mu)= \exp(\log \mu/2 ) = \mu/2 \:, \\&
\exp (- 2 i t \delta \omega(\mu)) =\exp( -2 i t \mu^2) \:.
\end{align}
The saddle point distribution for this quench is given by \cite{2013_Kormos_PRB_88,2014_DeNardis_PRA_89,2014_Kormos_PRA_89}
\begin{align}
&\rho_{sp}(\lambda) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \frac{1}{1 + (\lambda/2)^2} \:, \\&
\rho_{sp}^h(\lambda) =\frac{1}{2 \pi} \left(1 - \rho_{sp}(\lambda) \right) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \frac{(\lambda/2)^2}{1 + (\lambda/2)^2} \:.
\end{align}
\section{Time Evolution of the density-density correlations} \label{sec3}
We review here some results obtained in \cite{2014_DeNardis_PRA_89} for the two-point density-density operator $\mathcal{O} = \hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) $ where $\hat{\rho}(x) = \Psi^+(x)\Psi(x)$ and $\Psi$ is the bosonic annihilation operator.
At $c= \infty$ the density operator $\hat{\rho}$ connects only states which differ at most for one particle-hole. The only non-zero form factors of $\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0)$ are then the diagonal one and the two particle-hole ones corresponding to the first two terms in the sum \eqref{eq:TEF}. The form factor for the parity-invariant two-particle hole excitations is given by
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho_{sp} |\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | \rho_{sp} , \{ \mu^- , - \mu^- \to \mu^+, -\mu^+ \} \rangle = {4}{} \sin{(\mu^- x)}\sin{(\mu^+ x)} \:,
\end{equation}
which is a special case of the two particle-hole form factor for generic thermodynamic states $| \rho \rangle$ at $c =\infty$
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho |\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | \rho ,\{ \mu_1^- , \mu_2^- \to \mu_1^+, \mu_2^+ \} \rangle = \Big( e^{i\, x \mu^+_{1} } - e^{i\, x \mu^+_{2} } \Big)\Big( e^{-i\, x{\mu}^-_{1}} - e^{-i\, x {\mu}^-_{2} } \Big) \:.
\end{equation}
Combining this with the diagonal form factor
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho|\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | \rho \rangle = 1 + \delta(x) - \Big| \int_{-\infty}^\infty d\lambda \rho(\lambda) e^{i x \lambda} \Big|^2 \:,
\end{equation}
we can recover the whole time evolution summing over all these classes of possible excitations
\begin{align}
&\langle 0(t) | \hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | 0(t) \rangle= \langle \rho_{sp} |\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | \rho_{sp} \rangle \\&+ 4\int_{0}^\infty {d\mu^-} {d\mu^+} \rho_{sp}(\mu^-) \rho^h_{sp}(\mu^+) e^{- 2it \epsilon(\mu^+) + 2it \epsilon (\mu^-) - \delta s (\mu^+) + \delta s (\mu^-) } \sin(\mu^+ x) \sin(\mu^- x) \:,
\end{align}
where we used the fact that $\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0)$ is a self-adjoint operator to write the time evolution only as a single sum.
By substituting the expressions for the BEC quench overlaps \eqref{eqn:BEC_Overlap} we can then simplify the above expression to
\begin{align}
&\langle 0(t) |\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | 0(t) \rangle= \delta(x) + 1- e^{- 4|x|} + \frac{1}{4}\Big|e^{2 x} \text{erfc} \left( \frac{8 i t +x}{\sqrt{8 i t}} \right) - (x \to - x) \Big|^2 \:.
\end{align}
This reproduces the result of Ref.~\cite{2014_Kormos_PRA_89} but differently from the method used in there. The result can be extended easily to a generic quench protocol with a given saddle point distribution $\rho_{sp}$ and differential overlaps $\delta s$.
It is interesting to consider the large time behaviour of the time evolution. The approach of the correlator to its saddle point value is indeed given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:large_t_density}
&\langle 0(t) |\hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | 0(t) \rangle - \langle \rho_{sp} | \hat{\rho}(x)\hat{\rho}(0) | \rho_{sp} \rangle = \frac{1}{512 \pi} \frac{1}{t} \left( \frac{x}{t} \right)^2 + \mathcal{O}(t^{-5})\:.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=1]{corr_funcs_whole_figure.pdf}\caption{\label{fig:time_ev1} Panel (a): Time evolution of one-body density matrix $ \langle 0 (t)| \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0 (t) \rangle $ on the time evolved BEC state $\e^{-i t H_{LL}} |0 \rangle = | 0 (t) \rangle$ as a function of $x$ and for given values of time $t=10^{-3}, 5 \times 10^{-3}, 10^{-2}, 5 \times 10^{-2}, 10^{-1}$ (black lines) from top ($t=10^{-3}$) to bottom $(t=10^{-1})$ and for infinite time after the quench $ \lim_{t \to \infty }\langle 0 (t)| \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0 (t) \rangle = e^{-2 |x|} $ (red dotted line). Panel (b): $ \langle 0 (t)| \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0 (t) \rangle$ on the interval $x\in[0,1]$ and for $t=10^{-3}( 1 + 2k) $ for $k \in [0,5]$ (black lines) from top ($k=0$) to bottom $(k=5)$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Time evolution of the one-body density matrix}\label{sec4}
In the following we derive an analytical expression for the time evolution of the bosonic field-field operator $\mathcal{O} = \Psi^+(x) \Psi(y) $ (where we can set $y=0$ due to the translational invariance of the initial state) at $c=\infty$ which constitutes the main result of this paper. Differently from the density operator, $\Psi^+$ and $\Psi$ connect states differing by an arbitrary number of particle-hole excitations. The computation of the full time evolution then requires to perform the whole sum in \eqref{eq:TEF}.
The Fourier transform of the one-body density matrix gives the single particle bosonic momentum distribution function which in general is not the same as the fermionic one and whose exact expression even for the ground state or for a generic thermal state is rather involved \cite{1964_Lenard_JMP_5,KorepinBOOK}.
The necessary thermodynamic form factors are computed in \ref{FF_Psi}, here we report their expression for the parity-invariant excitations over the saddle point state $|\rho_{sp} \rangle $ :
\begin{align}\label{eq:FF_psi_parity}
& \langle \rho_{sp} | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | \rho_{sp} , \{ -\mu_i^-, \mu_i^- \to -\mu_i^+, \mu_i^+ \}_{i=1}^n \rangle \\& = \text{Det} ( 1+ {K'} \rho_{sp}) \det_{i,j=1}^n \begin{pmatrix}
W'(\mu^-_i,\mu^+_j) & W'(\mu^-_i,-\mu^+_j) \\ W'(-\mu^-_i, \mu^+_j) & W'(-\mu^-_i, -\mu^+_j)
\end{pmatrix} \\&
- \text{Det} ( 1+ {K}\rho_{sp}) \det_{i,j=1}^n \begin{pmatrix}
W(\mu^-_i,\mu^+_j) & W(\mu^-_i,-\mu^+_j) \\ W(-\mu^-_i, \mu^+_j) & W(-\mu^-_i, -\mu^+_j)
\end{pmatrix} \:,
\end{align}
where $K$ and $K'$ are two kernels given respectively by
\begin{align}
&K(u,v) = - 4 \frac{\sin \frac{x}{2} (u-v)}{u-v} \:, \\
& K'(u,v) = - 4 \frac{\sin \frac{x}{2} (u-v)}{u-v} + e^{i \frac{x}{2} (u+v)} \:.
\end{align}
The kernels $W= (1 + K \rho_{sp})^{-1} K$ and $W'= (1 + K' \rho_{sp})^{-1} K'$ are rigorously defined as solution of the following integral equations
\begin{align}
& W(u,v) + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz \: K(u,z) \rho(z) W(z,v) = K(u,v) \:, \\
& W'(u,v) + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz \: K'(u,z) \rho(z) W'(z,v) = K'(u,v) \:.
\end{align}
Given a kernel $A(u,v)$ and a function $\phi(u)$ we denote with $\text{Det}( 1+ A \phi)$ the Fredholm determinant (see \ref{Fredholm} and \cite{2008_Bornemann}) of the kernel $[A \phi](u,v) = A(u,v) \phi(v)$. We also introduced the short-hand notation for the minor of a kernel $A(u,v)$
\begin{equation}
\det_{i,j=1}^n A(x_i,x_j) = \det \begin{pmatrix}
A(x_1,x_1) & A(x_1,x_2) & \ldots & A(x_1, x_n) \\
\vdots & & & \vdots \\
A(x_n,x_1) & A(x_n,x_2) & \ldots & A(x_n, x_n)
\end{pmatrix} \:.
\end{equation}
We can then perform the sum of the first term in \eqref{eq:TEF} and finally add the mirrored part. The property of the form factors under exchange of left and right state
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho , \{ \mu_i^- \to \mu_i^+ \}_{i=1}^n | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | \rho \rangle = \Big( \langle \rho| \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | \rho , \{ \mu_i^- \to \mu_i^+ \}_{i=1}^n \rangle^* \Big)\Big|_{x \to - x} \:,
\end{equation}
allows to express the mirrored sum as the complex conjugate with $x \to - x$ of the first sum. Since this is a real and symmetric function of $x$ we can just express the time evolution of the one-body density matrix as a single sum
\begin{align}\label{eq:TE1}
& \langle 0(t) | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0(t) \rangle =\nonumber \\
= & \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!^2} \left[\prod_{j=1}^n \int_0^\infty d\mu_j^+ \int_0^\infty d\mu_j^- \rho_{sp}(\mu_j^-) \rho_{sp}^h(\mu_j^+) e^{- \delta s(\mu_j^+) + \delta s(\mu_j^-) - 2 i t (\delta \omega(\mu_j^+) -\delta \omega(\mu_j^-) )} \right] \nonumber
\\&
\times\langle {\rho}_{sp} | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | {\rho}_{sp}, \{ \mu_j^- , - \mu_j^-\to\mu_j^+ , -\mu_j^+ \}_{j=1}^n \rangle
\nonumber\\
&
= \text{Det}( 1+ K'\rho_{sp}) \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!^2} \Big[\prod_{j=1}^n \int_{0}^{+ \infty} d\mu_j^+ \rho_{sp}^h(\mu^+_j) d\mu_j^- \rho_{sp}(\mu^-_j) e^{-2i t (\delta \omega(\mu_j^+) -\delta \omega (\mu_j^-)) - \delta s(\mu_j^+) + \delta s(\mu_j^-) } \Big]
\nonumber\\& \times
\det_{i,j=1}^{n} \begin{pmatrix}
W'(\mu^-_i,\mu^+_j) & W'(\mu^-_i,-\mu^+_j) \\ W'(-\mu^-_i, \mu^+_j) & W'(-\mu^-_i, -\mu^+_j)
\end{pmatrix}
-(K',W' \to K,W) \:.
\end{align}
The product of the saddle point distribution times the differential overlaps and energies can be rewritten as one function for particle excitations and one for holes
\begin{align}
& \rho_{sp}^h(\mu ) e^{-2i t \delta \omega(\mu) - \delta s (\mu) }= e^{-2i t \delta \omega(\mu) } \varphi_{+}^{(0)}(\mu) = \varphi_{+}^{(t)}(\mu) \:, \\&
\rho_{sp}(\mu ) e^{2i t \delta \omega(\mu) + \delta s (\mu) }= e^{2i t \delta \omega(\mu) } \varphi_{-}^{(0)}(\mu) = \varphi_{-}^{(t)}(\mu) \:.
\end{align}
Now we use the following identity \cite{MethaBOOK}: consider the following multi dimensional integral where $\mu(y)$ is some well-defined measure on a domain $X \in \mathbb{R}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ID_Pf}
\Big[ \prod_{\alpha=1}^n \int_X d\mu(y_\alpha) \Big] \det_{\alpha=[1,2n],\beta=[1,n]} \Big( A_\alpha(y_\beta)\: \: \: B_\alpha(y_\beta) \Big) \:.
\end{equation}
The integration can be performed and it leads to
\begin{equation}
\Big[ \prod_{\alpha=1}^n \int_X d\mu(y_\alpha) \Big] \det_{\alpha=[1,2n],\beta=[1,n]} \Big( A_\alpha(y_\beta)\: \: \: B_\alpha(y_\beta) \Big) \:.= n! \sqrt{\det_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{2n} a_{\alpha \beta}}= n! \text{\text{Pf}}{}_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{2n} \: (a_{\alpha \beta}) \:,
\end{equation}
where $\text{\text{Pf}}{}_{i,j=1}^{2n} $ is the Pfaffian of the matrix $a_{\alpha \beta}$ and $a_{\alpha \beta}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
a_{\alpha \beta}= \int_X d\mu(y) \Big( A_\alpha(y)B_\beta(y) - A_\beta(y)B_\alpha(y) \Big) \:.
\end{equation}
In our case we can choose $A_\alpha(y_\beta) = W(\mu_i^-, \mu^+_j )$($ W(-\mu_i^-, \mu^+_j )$) for odd(even) $\alpha \in [ 1, \ldots, 2n]$ and with the same logic $B_\alpha(y_\beta) = W(\mu^-_i, - \mu^+_j)$ ($B_\alpha(y_\beta) = W(-\mu_i^-,- \mu^+_j )$) for odd(even) $\alpha \in [ 1, \ldots, 2n]$. With such a choice of the index we can integrate over the $\{ \mu_j^+\}_{j=1}^n$ for each $n$ using the identity \eqref{eq:ID_Pf}
\begin{align}\label{eqn:intermediate_1}
&\left[\prod_{j=1}^n \int_0^\infty {d\mu_j^{+}}{} \varphi_{+}^{(t)}(\mu_j^+)\right] \det_{i,j=1}^{n} \begin{pmatrix}
W(\mu^-_i,\mu^+_j) & W(\mu^-_i,-\mu^+_j) \\ W(-\mu^-_i, \mu^+_j) & W(-\mu^-_i, - \mu^+_j)
\end{pmatrix} \\
&= n! \:\: \text{Pf}_{i,j=1}^{n} \begin{pmatrix}
\Phi(\mu^-_i,\mu^-_j) & \Phi(\mu^-_i,-\mu^-_j) \\ \Phi(-\mu^-_i, \mu^-_j) & \Phi(-\mu^-_i, - \mu^-_j)
\end{pmatrix} \:,
\end{align}
where the new kernel $\Phi(u,v)$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:Phi_def}
\Phi(u,v) &= \int_0^\infty dy \: \varphi_{+}^{(t)}(y) \Big( W(u,y) W(v,-y) - W(u,-y) W(v,y) \Big) \\&
= \int_{-\infty}^\infty dy \: \varphi_{+}^{(t)}(y) W(u,y) W(v,-y) \:.
\end{align}
In the last step we used the antisymmetry of the differential overlaps which leads to $ \varphi_{+}^{(t)}(-y) =-\varphi_{+}^{(t)}(y)$. The same can be done for the function $W'$ leading to an analogous result as in \eqref{eqn:intermediate_1} with a different kernel $\Phi'$ given by
\begin{align}
\Phi'(u,v)
= \int_{-\infty}^\infty dy \: \varphi_{+}^{(t)}(y) W'(u,y) W'(v,-y) \:.
\end{align}
The expression \eqref{eq:TE1} then translates to
\begin{align}
& \langle 0(t) | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0(t) \rangle = \nonumber \\&
= \text{Det}( 1+ K' \rho_{sp}) \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \left[ \prod_{j=1}^n \int_{0}^{+ \infty} d\mu_j^- \varphi_{-}^{(t)}(\mu_j^-) \right]
\text{Pf}_{i,j=1}^{n} \begin{pmatrix}
\Phi'(\mu^-_i,\mu^-_j) & \Phi'(\mu^-_i,-\mu^-_j) \\ \Phi'(-\mu^-_i, \mu^-_j) & \Phi'(-\mu^-_i, - \mu^-_j) \nonumber
\end{pmatrix}\\&
- (K',\Phi' \to K,\Phi) \:.
\end{align}
We now use the definition of the Fredholm Pfaffian (see \ref{Fredholm}) for the kernel $\Phi$ (which can be equivalently implemented for the kernel $\Phi'$)
\begin{align}\label{eq:stepsign}
&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \left[\prod_{j=1}^n \int_{0}^{+ \infty} d\mu_j^- \varphi_{-}^{(t)}(\mu_j^-) \right]
\times \text{Pf}_{i,j=1}^{n} \begin{pmatrix}
\Phi(\mu^-_i,\mu^-_j) & \Phi(\mu^-_i,-\mu^-_j) \\ \Phi(-\mu^-_i, \mu^-_j) & \Phi'(-\mu^-_i, - \mu^-_j) \nonumber
\end{pmatrix} \\&
= \text{Pf}\Big( \boldsymbol{J} +P_0 \boldsymbol{\Phi} \varphi_{-}^{(t)} P_0\Big) = \sqrt{\text{Det}(\boldsymbol{I} - P_0 \boldsymbol{J}\boldsymbol{\Phi} \varphi_{-}^{(t)} P_0)} \:,
\end{align}
where we introduced the $2 \times 2$ matrix kernels
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{\Phi} = \begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_{++} & \Phi_{+-} \\ \Phi_{-+}& \Phi_{--}
\end{pmatrix} \:\: \:\: \:\: \:\: \:\: \boldsymbol{J} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} \:,
\end{equation}
where $1$ denotes the identity on the kernel space as usual and the set of kernels $\Phi_{\pm \pm}$ are defined as $\Phi_{\pm \pm} \equiv \Phi(\pm u, \pm v)$. The function $P_0$ is the projector on the positive real line $x>0$.
In the last step we used the relation between Fredholm Pfaffian and Fredholm determinant $ \text{Pf}\Big( \boldsymbol{J} + \boldsymbol{\Phi} \Big)^2 = {\text{Det}(\boldsymbol{I} - \boldsymbol{J}\boldsymbol{\Phi} )}$ as given in \ref{Fredholm}. The square root of this expression produces an undetermined sign which in \eqref{eq:stepsign} is chosen to be positive. This choice is purely arbitrary and its correctness is checked in the limit $t = 0^+$ where the expression for the time evolution recovers the one-body density matrix of a BEC state. The antisymmetry of $ \varphi_{-}^{(t)}(-y)= - \varphi_{-}^{(t)}(y)$ leads to
\begin{equation}
\text{Det}(\boldsymbol{I} -P_0 \boldsymbol{J}\boldsymbol{\Phi}P_0 \varphi_{-}^{(t)} ) = \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 - P_0 \varphi_{-}^{(t)}\Phi_{-+} P_0 & - P_0 \varphi_{-}^{(t)} \Phi_{--} P_0 \\ P_0 \varphi_{-}^{(t)} \Phi_{++} P_0 & 1 + P_0 \varphi_{-}^{(t)} \Phi_{+-} P_0
\end{pmatrix} = \text{Det}( 1+ \varphi_{-}^{(t)} \Phi_{+-} ) \:,
\end{equation}
where the last Fredholm determinant is defined on the whole $\mathbb{R}$ axis.
Using the behaviour of $W$ and $W'$ under inversion of its coordinates $W(-u,-v) = W^*(u,v)= (1 + K \rho_{sp})^{-1}{}^* K^*$ (see \ref{FF_Psi}) the kernel $\Phi_{+-} = \Phi(u,-v)$ defined in \eqref{eq:Phi_def} can be written in terms of the kernels $K$ as the following product of operators
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{+ -} = W \varphi_{+}^{(t)} W^* = (1+K \rho_{sp})^{-1}{} K \varphi_{+}^{(t)} [ (1+K \rho_{sp})^{*}]^{-1} K^* \:.
\end{equation}
Using the Cauchy-Binet formula for determinants we obtain
\begin{align}
& \text{Det}( 1 + \varphi_{-}^{(t)} \Phi_{+-} ) = \text{Det}( 1 + \Phi_{+-} \varphi_{-}^{(t)} )
=
\\& \frac{\text{Det}( 1 + K \rho_{sp} + K \varphi_{+}^{(t)} [ (1+K \rho_{sp})^{*}]^{-1} K^* \varphi_{-}^{(t)} ) }{\text{Det}( 1+K \rho_{sp})} \nonumber
= \frac{ \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + K\rho_{sp} & - K \varphi_{+}^{(t)} \\ K^* \varphi_{-}^{(t)} & 1 + K^*\rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} }{\text{Det}( 1+ K \rho_{sp})^2} \:,
\end{align}
where in the last step we used the following property for the determinant of a block matrix
\begin{equation}
\det \begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\ C & D
\end{pmatrix} = \det D \times \det ( A - B D^{-1} C) \:.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale=1]{corr_funcs_whole_figure2.pdf}\caption{\label{fig:time_ev2_fig} Panel (a): Time evolution of the one-body density matrix $ \langle 0 (t)| \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0 (t) \rangle $ on the time evolved BEC state $\e^{-i t H_{LL}} |0 \rangle = | 0 (t) \rangle$ as a function of time $t$ and for given values of $x=0.1,0.2,0.4$ (black lines) from top ($x=0.1$) to bottom $(x=0.4)$. The red dotted lines show the respectively saddle point values. Panel (b): Time evolution of the logarithm of the time dependent correlation after having subtracted its saddle point value $\log \left(\langle 0 (t)| \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0 (t) \rangle - e^{- 2 |x|} \right)$ as a function of $\log t$ and for given values of $x=0.4,0.2,0.1$ (black lines) from top ($x=0.4$) to bottom $(x=0.1)$. For each value of the spatial separation $x$ there is a crossover time $t^*_x$ after that the correlation function approaches its saddle point value with the power law $t^{-7/6}$. The red dotted line shows the fitting function $ - 9.3 - 7/6 \log t$ while the value of the correlation in $x=0.2$ at $t=0$, given by $\log (1 - e^{-0.4})$, is shown by the blue dotted line. The logarithm of the crossover time $t^*_{0.2}$ is chosen to be the intersection point between the two lines and the same is done for the correlations at different points $x$. The obtained values of the logarithm of the crossover times $\log t^*_x$ are shown by the red semi-circles on the $\log t$ axis for $x=0.1,0.2,0.4$ (from left to right). The plot shows that the crossover times are linear functions of the spatial separation $x$ ($t^*_{2x} = 2 t^*_{x}$ up to the precision of the numerical evaluation) which is an indication of a light-cone spreading of information after the quench similarly to what is shown in\cite{2006_Calabrese_PRL_96,NATURE_397}}
\end{figure}
Then finally we can write the full analytical result for the time evolution valid at any time $t$ in the thermodynamic limit
\begin{align}\label{eq:TE_Final}
& \langle 0(t) | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0(t) \rangle \nonumber \\&
= \sqrt{ \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + K' \rho_{sp} & - K' \varphi_{+}^{(t)} \\ K'^* \varphi_{-}^{(t)} & 1 + K'^* \rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} } -\sqrt{ \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + K \rho_{sp} & - K \varphi_{+}^{(t)}\\ K \varphi_{-}^{(t)} & 1 + K \rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} } \:.
\end{align}
Formula \eqref{eq:TE_Final} represents the main result of this paper.
\\
The limit $t \to \infty$ recovers the known results for the expectation value of the field-field operator on the saddle point state \cite{2013_Kormos_PRB_88,2014_DeNardis_PRA_89,2014_Kormos_PRA_89}
\begin{align}
& \lim_{t \to \infty}\langle 0(t) | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0(t) \rangle \nonumber \\&
= \sqrt{ \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + K' \rho_{sp} & 0 \\ 0 & 1 + K'^* \rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} } -\sqrt{ \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + K \rho_{sp} & 0\\ 0 & 1 + K \rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} } \nonumber \\&
= \text{Det}( 1+ K' \rho_{sp} ) - \text{Det}( 1+ K \rho_{sp} ) \equiv \langle \rho_{sp} | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | \rho_{sp} \rangle = e^{- 2 |x|} \:,
\end{align}
where we set the kernels $K^*\varphi^{(t)}_+ $ and $K^*\varphi^{(t)}_- $ to zero since for any smooth function $g$ on $\mathbb{R}$ the oscillating phase $e^{-2 i t y^2}$ sets the action of the two kernels to zero for large $t$
\begin{equation}
\lim_{t \to \infty} [K\varphi^{(t)}_\pm] g = \lim_{t \to \infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dz [K\varphi^{(t)}_\pm] (x,z) g(z) =0 \:,
\end{equation}
where the same is valid obviously also for the kernel $K'$.
The first corrections to the steady state expectation for large time are in principle obtainable from the final formula \eqref{eq:TE_Final}. The numerical evaluations of it suggest that the saddle point expectation value is approached with corrections of order $\sim t^{-7/6}$ for large time.
The limit $t \to 0^+$ is more involved to recover analytically but it can be evaluated numerically as for all other values of $t$. We discretized the kernels in \eqref{eq:TEF} with $m$ points on the $\mathbb{R}$ axis reducing in this way the Fredholm determinant to a determinant of an $m \times m$ matrix as is explained in \cite{2008_Bornemann}. With a Gaussian quadrature method with $m = 800$ points in the range $x \in [-300,300]$ we obtain the expected one-body density matrix for a BEC state at $t=0$
\begin{equation}
\langle 0 | \Psi^+(x) \Psi(0) | 0 \rangle = 1 + \epsilon \:,
\end{equation}
with a constant numerical error $\epsilon \sim 10^{-3}$.
From the same numerical procedure we obtain also the following analytical guesses for the Fredholm determinant of the two kernels (up to the numerical precision of the evaluation procedure)
\begin{align}
&\text{Det}( 1 + K \rho_{sp}) = e^{-2 |x|} \cos 2 x \:, \\
&\text{Det}( 1 + K' \rho_{sp}) = e^{-2| x|}(\cos 2 x + 1) \:.
\end{align}
We used the same numerical procedure to obtain the plots in Fig \ref{fig:time_ev1} for different values of $t$ and $x$.
The limit $x \to 0$ gives the density of the gas $D$ and it is also easily recovered for any time $t$ since $K \to 0$ and $K' \to 1$. We then obtain
\begin{align}\label{densityxzero}
& \langle 0(t) | \Psi^+(0) \Psi(0) | 0(t) \rangle \nonumber \\&
= \sqrt{ \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + \rho_{sp} & - \varphi_{+}^{(t)} \\ \varphi_{-}^{(t)} & 1 + \rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} } -1 \nonumber \\& =
\sqrt{ \text{Det} \left[\begin{pmatrix} e^{- i t \delta \omega} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{ i t \delta \omega} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + \rho_{sp} & - \varphi_{+}^{(0)} \\ \varphi_{-}^{(0)} & 1 + \rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} e^{- i t \delta \omega} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{ i t \delta \omega} \end{pmatrix}^{-1} \: \right] } -1 \nonumber
\\& =
\sqrt{ \text{Det} \begin{pmatrix}
1 + \rho_{sp} & - \varphi_{+}^{(0)} \\ \varphi_{-}^{(0)} & 1 + \rho_{sp}
\end{pmatrix} } -1 = \sqrt{ \left(1 + \int_{-\infty}^\infty d\lambda \rho_{sp}(\lambda) \right)^2 + \left(\int_{-\infty}^\infty d\lambda \varphi_+^{(0)}(\lambda) \right)^2 } - 1 \nonumber \\
& = D \:,
\end{align}
where in the last steps we used that $\varphi_{+}^{(0)}(\lambda) =\varphi_{-}^{(0)}(\lambda) $ and $\varphi_{+}^{(0)}(\lambda) = - \varphi_{+}^{(0)}(-\lambda)$. Furthermore we extended the following property of the determinant (with $\{ v_j \}_{j=1}^N$ and $\{ c_j \}_{j=1}^N$ two different vectors)
\begin{equation}
\det_{2 N} \begin{pmatrix}
\delta_{ij} + v_j & - c_j\\ c_j & \delta_{ij} + v_j
\end{pmatrix} = \left( 1 + \sum_{j=1}^N v_j \right)^2 +\left( \sum_{j=1}^N c_j \right)^2 \:,
\end{equation}
to the Fredholm determinant in \eqref{densityxzero}.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we applied the quench action logic to compute the exact time evolution of the one-body density matrix for the interaction quench in the Lieb-Liniger model when the interaction strength $c$ is switched from $c=0$ to $c=+\infty$. Although the system is mappable to free fermions in this limit the one-body operator cannot be expressed easily in terms of the fermionic operators. Therefore this result constitutes the fist application of the quench action method to obtain a new exact result on the time evolution of operators which resisted to all the analytical approaches up to now.
Moreover the methods used here are completely general and they can be used for any other quench protocol in the Tonks-Girardeau gas for hard-core bosons.
It would be interesting to compare this result with the one obtained by performing a corresponding quench in the interaction parameter in the Luttinger Liquid theory \cite{2009_Iucci_PRA_80,PhysRevB.88.115144,2012_Rentrop_NJP_14,2012_Karrasch_PRL_109}. The one-body bosonic function, which corresponds to the two-point correlation function of the phase fluctuations, is in principle directly computable in this framework and the exact result in this paper could then give some indications on the universality of time dependence for quenches in the Luttinger Liquid model. The numerical evaluations of the final formula in Fig. \ref{fig:time_ev2_fig} suggest that the phase-phase correlations spread after the quench according to a light-cone dynamical effect as is the case in an hydrodynamical theory \cite{NATURE_397}. This is in contrast with what has been observed for the time evolution of the density-density correlation functions within the same quench protocol \cite{2014_Kormos_PRA_89}. The dramatic difference between the two behaviors could be due to the simple structure of the density operator in the $c \to \infty$ limit. In this limit indeed the density operator becomes quasi-diagonal and it can only create a small number of excitations on the saddle point state after the quench (See Section \ref{sec3}), in contrast with the infinite number of them created by the field operator. Consequently the relaxation of the density-density correlations is much faster than the one of the one-body density function.
However for a more extensive analysis it is important to obtain expansions of the formula around the asymptotic points $t \to \infty$ and $x,t \to \infty$ with $x/t = v$ where universal features are expected and check the numerical evaluations of Fig. \ref{fig:time_ev2_fig}. Due to the complicated dependence in time of the two Fredholm determinants we are not able to give a rigorous explanation of the power law scaling $t^{-7/6}$ for the approach to the steady state correlation function. We will come back to these questions in future publications.
Finally we will also address in future the extension of the quench action method to time evolution after quenches in the Lieb-Liniger model with finite coupling constant $c$.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge useful and inspiring discussions with Sebastiaan Eli\"{e}ns, Mi\l osz Panfil, Bram Wouters, Michael Brockmann, Davide Fioretto, Dirk Schuricht, Pasquale Calabrese.
We acknowledge support from the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM) and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
This work forms part of the activities of the Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics (D-ITP).
|
\section*{ABSTRACT}
\begin{abstract}
We observed dynamically new sungrazing comet ISON (C/2012 S1) extensively at Lowell Observatory throughout 2013 in order to characterize its behavior prior to perihelion. ISON had ``typical'' abundances for an Oort Cloud comet. Its dust production, as measured by {{$Af\rho$}}, remained nearly constant during the apparition but its CN gas production increased by $\sim$50$\times$. The minimum active area necessary to support observed water production rates exceeded the likely surface area of the nucleus and suggests a population of icy grains in the coma. Together with the flattening of the dust radial profile over time, this is consistent with ejection of a large quantity of slow moving dust and icy grains in the coma at large heliocentric distance. The dust morphology was dominated by the tail, but a faint sunward dust fan was detected in March, April, May, and September. We imaged multiple gas species in September, October, and November. All gas species were more extended than the dust coma, although only CN had sufficient signal-to-noise for detailed morphological study. Excess CN signal was observed in the sunward hemisphere in September and early October. In November the excess CN signal was in the tailward hemisphere and two faint CN features appeared approximately orthogonal to the tail with position angles varying by about $\pm$20$^\circ$ from night to night. Using numerical modeling, we best reproduced the orientation and shape of these features as well as the bulk brightness with a pole oriented approximately towards the Sun and a single source located within $\sim$35$^\circ$ of the equator. Variations in position angle and relative brightness of the CN features from night to night suggest a rotation period shorter than 24 hr. The production rates and coma morphology suggest a nucleus that was active over nearly its entire sunward facing hemisphere in September and October but which underwent a significant mass loss event, potentially including fragmentation, shortly before November 1. Significant mass loss likely continued at the same site over subsequent days/weeks and may have catastrophically weakened the nucleus prior to perihelion.
\end{abstract}
\keywords{comets: general --- comets: individual (C/2012 S1 ISON) --- methods: data analysis --- methods: observational}
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Comet ISON (C/2012 S1) was discovered 2012 September 21 and was soon recognized as being both dynamically new and on a sungrazing orbit \citep{cbet3238}. This combination is unique; never before have we observed a comet newly arriving from the Oort Cloud reach such a small perihelion distance. Furthermore, all known sungrazing comets have been discovered inside of 1 AU and most are destroyed during the perihelion passage (cf. \citealt{sekanina02b,knight10d}), preventing detailed studies of their evolution with heliocentric distance. Thus, ISON represented an unprecedented opportunity to study a comet as it passed from beyond Jupiter, where activity is driven by hypervolatiles like CO and CO$_2$, through the zone of water-driven activity where comets are most frequently observed, and into the near-Sun region where dust and metals sublimate.
Recognizing this opportunity, we began observing ISON in 2013 January and observed it regularly through early November. These observations were intended to establish a baseline for comparison with its composition and behavior after perihelion. Since ISON did not survive perihelion (e.g., \citealt{knight14,sekanina14}) this paper represents the totality of our observations. In addition to its destruction near perihelion, ISON was fainter throughout most of its apparition than early expectations, so community data were somewhat limited. Published observational datasets have so far included characterization of the early dust activity \citep{meech13}, dust coma morphological studies at large heliocentric distance \citep{li13,hines14}, snapshot compositional analysis (e.g., \citealt{orourke13, shinnaka14, agundez14}), and observations from telescopes onboard Sun-observing spacecraft \citep{knight14,combi14,curdt14}.
The current work includes both compositional and morphological studies over a wider range of heliocentric distances than any papers on ISON yet published. Our observations and reductions are summarized in Section~\ref{sec:observations}. As we chose to concentrate our efforts on imaging, our photoelectric photometer observations (Section~\ref{sec:photometry}) were relatively limited and were supplemented with production rates derived from imaging. Nevertheless, they included the first published gas production rates \citep{iauc9254,iauc9257} as well as the first published detection of OH \citep{iauc9260}. The bulk of our imaging was snapshots owing to ISON's relative faintness throughout the first half of the year and the small nightly observing window once it reemerged from solar conjunction in August. Our observations of the evolving dust and gas coma morphology are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:imaging} while section~\ref{sec:modeling} summarizes the numerical modeling we conducted to explain the coma morphology. The implications of our observations are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:discussion} and conclusions are presented in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{OBSERVATIONS AND REDUCTIONS}
\label{sec:observations}
\subsection{CCD Observations and Reductions}
\label{sec:obs_ccd}
Imaging began 2013 January 12 on the inaugural science night for Lowell Observatory's 4.3-m Discovery Channel Telescope (DCT; \citealt{schleicher13}) and continued monthly to perihelion except when solar conjunction precluded it (July and August) or when we were weathered out (February). DCT images were acquired with the Large Monolithic Imager (LMI) which has a 6.1K$\times$6.1K e2v CCD with a field of view of 12.3 arcmin on a side. All LMI observations were binned 2$\times$2 on-chip, yielding a pixel scale of 0.240 arcsec. Four-inch diameter round HB narrowband comet filters \citep{farnham00} were used in September and October resulting in a partially vignetted field of view with a circular usable area approximately 12 arcmin in diameter. Full sized 4.75-in square Kron-Cousins broadband filters were used throughout and did not obscure the field of view.
DCT observations were supplemented by imaging with the 42-in Hall telescope (1.1-m) from April onwards and by the 31-in telescope (0.8-m) in robotic mode in October and November. The 42-in images were obtained with an e2v CCD231-84 chip with 4K$\times$4K pixels and a field of view of 25.3 arcmin on a side. These were binned 2$\times$2 on chip yielding a pixel scale of 0.740 arcsec. The 31-in images were obtained with an e2v CCD42-40 chip with 2K$\times$2K pixels having a pixel scale of 0.456 arcsec and a field of view of 15.7 arcmin on a side. These observations are summarized in Table~\ref{t:imaging_circ}.
As shown in Table~\ref{t:imaging_circ}, most of our imaging consisted of snapshot observations. From January through April, when ISON was observable for much of the night, this was a deliberate choice due to its faintness, which restricted imaging to broadband filters, and due to ISON's observability window overlapping with our primary science target, 10P/Tempel 2, for which we sought to obtain a high temporal coverage lightcurve of its bare nucleus \citep{schleicher13}. While broadband B, V, R, and I images were acquired throughout the apparition, we emphasized R-band. We acquired narrowband CN and blue continuum (BC) images in April, but after removal of the underlying continuum (discussed below) there was no detectable CN signal. The comet's small solar elongation limited observations from May onward to less than 2 hr per night, primarily at high airmass and/or during twilight. Emphasis was placed on the narrowband comet filters when ISON became bright enough (September onward). While it was detected in all narrowband filters we used (see Table~\ref{t:imaging_circ}), only CN provided high enough signal-to-noise (S/N) for morphological assessment. All 31-in observations consisted of images acquired with broadband R or narrowband CN filters due to the small telescope size and limited observing window. All images were either tracked at the comet's rate or exposures were short enough that trailing was not an issue.
The bias was removed and a flat field was applied following standard reduction techniques. HB narrowband and broadband standard stars \citep{farnham00,landolt09} were observed on all photometric nights with the DCT or the 42-in. We used our standard photometric procedures \citep{farnham00} on these nights to determine flux calibrations and process the narrowband images into pure dust and pure gas images. We also flux calibrated CN images obtained with the 31-in on photometric nights by creating synthetic BC images from broadband R images, where the scaling between R and BC was determined from their ratios on photometric nights in which both were obtained. Since the signal from underlying dust in the CN filter was small (typically less than 20\%), any uncertainty introduced by the use of synthetic BC images was negligible for these purposes. On photometric nights gas features were distinctly different from dust features and were visible in both raw and decontaminated images (discussed in Section~\ref{sec:imaging}). Therefore, we were able to use contaminated CN images for morphological assessment on non-photometric nights.
To supplement our standard photometry discussed in the next section, we also extracted fluxes from subsets of CCD images acquired on photometric nights. Fluxes were converted to production rates and {{$Af\rho$}} in the same manner as the photometer fluxes described next. The uncertainty in the CCD-derived fluxes was considerably higher than the photometer-derived fluxes primarily because no sky frames were acquired during imaging so sky values necessary for background removal were measured near the corners of the frames (and also due to bias and readout noise). ISON's gas coma extended to the edge of the CCD for all of our narrowband gas images but only contributed significantly in the DCT images, where the sky was measured closer to the nucleus due to the smaller field of view. The fluxes measured from 31-in images contained additional uncertainty due to our use of broadband R images and assumed extinction and instrumental coefficients to create synthetic underlying continuum images.
We determined the centroid of each image by fitting a two-dimensional Gaussian to the apparent photocenter. This was necessary for some image enhancement techniques and for processing into pure gas and dust images. As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:imaging}, the gas morphology did not affect the centroiding but dust images had a strong tail which may have biased the dust centroids slightly tailward. We applied various enhancement techniques (e.g., \citealt{schleicher04,samarasinha14}) to explore faint structures in the coma morphology. Numerous enhancement techniques were applied to confirm the validity of structures in the coma, but analyses discussed herein primarily utilized removal of an azimuthal median profile.
\subsection{Photometer Observations and Reductions}
\label{sec:obs_phot}
A traditional photoelectric photometer remains our standard instrument
for measuring gas and dust production rates and the associated observations
were obtained at the 42-in telescope in March, May, September,
and October (Table~\ref{t:phot_circ}). The HB
filter set was employed, but we only used two of our standard eight
filters (CN and blue continuum) in early 2013 due to the faintness
of the comet ($\sim$16$^{th}$ mag). These early data also required us to obtain
a long sequence of measurements ($>$1 hr) alternating between comet and sky
that were averaged to yield one resulting value per night. In other respects,
the photometry were acquired and reduced using our standard techniques
(cf.\ \citealt{ahearn95,schleicher11}) to fluxes, aperture abundances ($M$($\rho$)), and then
to production rates ($Q$) for each observed gas species -- OH, NH, CN, C$_3$,
and C$_2$ -- along with a vectorial-equivalent value for water based on OH.
The quantity {{$Af\rho$}} \citep{ahearn84} was computed for the continuum filters, and as appropriate,
we also apply a phase adjustment of {{$A$($\theta$)$f\rho$}} to normalize to
0$^\circ$ phase angle (see \citealt{schleicher11}).
Because of unusually poor weather along with our priority of morphological
studies of ISON, standard photometry observations were only obtained
on four nights. Therefore, as noted in the prior subsection, we have
supplemented these data by extracting aperture fluxes from some of the
imaging data obtained on photometric nights. The nightly observing
circumstances for both data types are presented in Table~\ref{t:phot_circ}, along with
the associated reduction coefficients.
\section{PHOTOMETRIC RESULTS}
\label{sec:photometry}
\subsection{The Data Set}
We first present results from our various photometric measurements.
In Table~\ref{t:phot_flux} we list reduced fluxes and aperture abundances,
while the resulting production rates and {{$A$($\theta$)$f\rho$}} values are
given in Table~\ref{t:phot_rates}. Formal photon statistical uncertainties
are also provided in Table~\ref{t:phot_rates}
for the photometer measurements, while estimated uncertainties are
presented for the imaging data.
\subsection{Composition and Behavior with Time and Distance}
We plot in Figure~\ref{fig:photometry} the logarithms of the derived
production rates as a function of the heliocentric distance on a logarithmic scale. Values extracted
from images are distinguished from those derived from photometer
measurements by open versus filled symbols, while R-band dust {{$Af\rho$}} values
from images are also identified by differing symbols from the blue
continuum results.
Looking first at ISON's basic composition, abundance ratios among the
gas species indicate that ISON had ``typical'' abundances, as would be
expected for an Oort Cloud origin (cf. \citealt{ahearn95,bair12}),
but the ratios of the minor species to OH
are all near the low end of their respective typical ranges.
Note that this is not associated with its age, as dynamically new
comets encompass the full typical range.
Unexpectedly, our only night with multiple apertures with the
photometer (October 4) revealed significant and systematic trends with
aperture size for the gas species. These ranged from 15\% for CN to 47\%
for the short-lived C$_3$, with the largest aperture yielding the
highest production rates. Although fewer species were measured using
photometry extracted from images, these cases also exhibit similar trends.
The only previous times that we have observed such persistent trends
with aperture size were for very high production rate comets
such as 1P/Halley and Hale-Bopp (C/1995 O1) when the radial outflow
velocites were systematically higher than normal \citep{schleicher89,schleicher99},
and for Comet 17P/Holmes, where the outgassing rate dropped
systematically following its epic outburst. In the latter case,
an expanding icy grain halo coupled with a strong decay in the rate of
outgassing produced non-equilibrium conditions in Holmes \citep{schleicher09}.
For ISON, we suspect that the observed aperture trends might also be
caused by an expanding halo of residual icy grains released early in the
apparition. Given the long duration, we suspect these grains must have been
relatively large in size with very low velocities and/or the halo was
replenished by the ongoing release of additional icy grains.
Despite this behavior for the gas species in the fall, {{$Af\rho$}}
exhibited the opposite aperture trend throughout the apparition
caused by a steeper radial fall-off in the dust than the canonical 1/$\rho$
where $\rho$ is distance from the nucleus.
The departure from 1/$\rho$ was greatest early in the
apparition and was much less by the fall, as demonstrated
in Figure~\ref{fig:afrho} where we show {{$Af\rho$}} for varying aperture sizes at several
representative times.
The decreasing departure from 1/$\rho$ during the apparition is not the result of changing coma size. While {\it Hubble Space Telescope} ({\it HST}) observations in April reported a ``well-defined'' coma in the sunward direction extending out to only $\sim$9000 km \citep{cbet3496}, we detected coma out to 70,000--80,000 km in March and April, and beyond 100,000 km in May. Thus, at most our largest aperture plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:afrho} was biased downward by $\sim$25,000 km of empty sky in March and April. This is a $\sim$25\% effect that is considerably less than the factor of $\sim$3 decrease in {{$Af\rho$}} from the smallest aperture during those months (as compared to a decrease from the smallest to largest aperture of only $\sim$1.5 in the fall).
The severe steepness in the spring explains the
apparent large increase in {{$Af\rho$}} from March to May as being caused
by the use of a smaller aperture in May (to avoid a nearby star).
It also explains the apparent discrepancy between our large aperture
photometer results \citep{iauc9254,iauc9257}
and the very small aperture result reported from
{\it HST} observations in April \citep{cbet3496} along with our April
imaging value (Figure~\ref{fig:photometry}) which is at an intermediate
aperture size.
Since the comet did not brighten appreciably during the spring,
we cannot attribute this strong aperture trend to increasing
activity. Instead, we suspect that very low velocity grains released
near or prior to the beginning of 2013 remained in the inner coma
throughout the spring; such grains must have had outflow velocities
in the meters per second range, consistent with recent modeling of
dust in the coma of comet Siding Spring (C/2013 A1) at comparable
heliocentric distances \citep{tricarico14}.
To examine the evolution of dust production with heliocentric distance,
we have extracted values for a constant ${\rho}=25,000\ \mathrm{km}$
from the images -- an aperture size for which seeing effects are
negligible and S/N is maximized -- and used the curves from images
such as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:afrho} to extrapolate the photometer measurements
to the same projected aperture radius for Figure~\ref{fig:water_rates}.
To increase our temporal coverage of {{$Af\rho$}}, we have also made use
of our R-band imaging. Because our and other data sets indicate
the dust in ISON exhibited little or no reddening compared to solar
color \citep{li13,cbet3598,cbet3608},
we have simply included our R-band results with the blue continuum
results in Figures~\ref{fig:photometry} and \ref{fig:water_rates}, making no adjustments for wavelength as
the color terms are smaller than the size of the plotted symbols.
Finally, Figure~\ref{fig:water_rates} includes an adjustment for phase angle
(cf.\ \citealt{schleicher11} and references therein) -- normalizing
to 0$^\circ$ -- since the
comet's phase angle varied from 11$^\circ$ to 70$^\circ$ during these observations
(see Table~\ref{t:phot_flux}).
As evident from Figure~\ref{fig:water_rates}, dust production as defined by $A(0{^\circ})f{\rho}(25,000\ \mathrm{km})$
was nearly constant throughout our observing interval, even as gas production
as evidenced from CN in Figure~\ref{fig:photometry} increased by a factor of 50. Note that
the overall {$r_{\mathrm{H}}$}-dependence of $Q$(CN) in log-log space was $-$1.9, somewhat
steeper than previously found for a pair of inbound, dynamical-new
comets by \citet{ahearn95}, while this same pair of objects
also had near-constant dust production. While the dust-to-gas ratio
varies by over two orders of magnitude among comets, the dust-to-gas
ratio for a given comet as a function of heliocentric distance seldom
varies by more than a factor of a few; as a class, inbound, dynamically
new comets appear to be quite different. Since these comets are known
to have unusually high activity for their respective nucleus size at
large {$r_{\mathrm{H}}$}, we suggest that a population of large, slow moving grains
are released at large {$r_{\mathrm{H}}$} and remain in the coma as the comet approaches
the Sun, dominating the {{$Af\rho$}} measurements. We will return to this
possibility in Section~\ref{sec:discussion}.
While our own observations ended earlier than planned due to an unfortunate
sequence of a dome failure and then an early winter storm system, other investigators
report a large outburst in ISON occuring between November 11 and 13, with
{\it both} gas and dust increasing by about a factor of 12 \citep{cbet3711c}.
Looking at our sequence of dust and gas measurements in early November,
it appears that the $\sim$15\% increase on November 11.5 as compared
to the previous
nights indicates the onset of the outburst. Further, we argue that the
similar increase in dust and gas production directly implies that only
with the outburst does newly released dust finally dominate over old
grains released much earlier in the apparition.
\subsection{Water Production and Active Area}
As the comet was only bright enough to cleanly measure OH in the
fall with the photometer (even with the DCT, the net count per pixel
for imaging was dominated by readout and bias uncertainties),
our direct OH measurements are insufficient for examining the
variation throughout the apparition. However, we can supplement
these observations
by assuming that the OH-to-CN abundance ratio was constant throughout
the apparition. We consider this to be a reasonable assumption in the
early fall, since we measured the identical value -- a log abundance ratio
of 3.00 -- in September and early October. However, some comets have
exhibited a progressive increase in the CN-to-OH ratio inside 1 AU
believed to be an artifact from the Haser model \citep{ahearn95}, and
we estimate that OH might be correspondingly lower
than we assume by as much as 40\% on our last night (this trend is
consistent with preliminary analysis of optical spectroscopy of ISON
by \citealt{mckay14}).
The validity of the measured ratio to computing values in the spring
based on CN is even less certain, as we do not know if outgassing
at this time was dominated by water vaporization, or if icy grains
containing water and/or the CN parent were released by more
volatile species such as CO.
With these cautions in mind, we have used our measured CN production
rates and the measured ratio of 1000 to compute OH $Q$s throughout the
apparition. As described in Section~\ref{sec:obs_phot}, these were then used to
compute vectorial equivalent water production rates, which are
plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:water_rates}. As there is a {$r_{\mathrm{H}}$}$^{-0.5}$ factor
in the vectorial model not present in our Haser model, the overall
slope from our data is $-$2.4, rather than the CN value of $-$1.9.
We also plot in Figure~\ref{fig:water_rates} other water production rates
made with a variety of
techniques and reported by different teams of investigators (see key).
As is evident, we are in generally good agreement with the ensemble
of measurements. Error bars are not shown, both for clarity and because
some reported measurements did not include uncertainties.
Taken together, there is clear evidence for a more shallow slope
between 2 and 1 AU than the apparition as a whole, especially as the
values at large {$r_{\mathrm{H}}$} based on CN are likely higher than the true water
production. The previously mentioned outburst that apparently began on November 11
($r_\mathrm{H}=0.72$ AU) is also clearly evident, and appears to have
continued through the last reported water measurements with SWAN on
November 23.6 at $r_\mathrm{H}=0.32$ AU \citep{combi14}, possible evidence
that ISON was beginning to break apart.
Making some standard assumptions regarding vaporization of ice from
the surface of a cometary nucleus (cf.\ \citealt{cowan79}), we have computed the minimum active
area required to yield the observed water production, and these
results are presented in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:water_rates}. The near-level
values between 1.3 and 0.7 AU are likely representative of the true
active area on the surface -- $\sim$1.5 km$^2$ for the sub-solar case or
$\sim$6 km$^2$ for the uniformly active, isothermal case -- while we think
that the higher values prior to this interval also contain a component
from vaporizing icy grains in the coma.
The large increase with the outburst on November 11 is either due to fragmentation of
the nucleus or ongoing release of large quantities of fresh icy grains.
As usual for a new comet, the nucleus was never detected due to being
overwhelmed by light from the coma. The only published upper limits were
reported by \citet{cbet3496} from HST imaging in April (effective nucleus radius $R_{N} <2$ km)
and by \citet{cbet3720a} from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's
HiRISE instrument in late September -- early October ($R_{N}<0.6$ km). For a uniformly
active surface, as one would expect for a comet approaching the Sun
for the very first time, this later upper-limit implies that $\sim$100\%
of the surface was, indeed, active. Even the sub-solar solution for
effective active area implies at least one-quarter of the surface was
active. Thus it seems very unlikely that ISON only had an isolated source
region on its surface as suggested by some investigators.
\section{SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND MORPHOLOGY}
\label{sec:imaging}
\subsection{Dust Distribution and Morphology}
\label{sec:dust_morph}
We now turn our attention to imaging, which will be the focus of the remainder of the paper. Figure~\ref{fig:morph} shows representative images of the evolution of ISON's appearance in broadband R images. R-band images are relatively free of gas contamination, as we confirmed when gas images were obtained, and are therefore dominated by dust reflecting the solar continuum. When first observed in January, the comet appeared diffuse with minimal tail evident. The visible extent of the dust tail increased as ISON brightened, eventually extending beyond our field of view in October ($\sim$300,000 km in the plane of the sky).
Multiple image enhancement techniques revealed a feature roughly in the sunward direction in R-band images acquired throughout much of the apparition (Figure~\ref{fig:dust_feature}). During March, April, and May the feature extended 6000--7000 km before turning around towards the north and moving tailward. No feature was detected in January or June, but the the lack of appearance during these months is not conclusive owing to the comet's faintness (January) and extremely high airmass (June). The feature was nearly straight in September, extending radially $\sim$5000 km. A sunward feature was seen in October and November but was shorter in extent than other months (2500--3000 km) and its appearance and position were highly sensitive to the centroid position. Thus, we suspect that it was not real in October or November, but was an artifact of the enhancement process since the bright tail may have biased the centroid slightly in the anti-sunward direction, yielding a small amount of excess signal in the sunward direction.
Despite the relatively small extent of the dust feature and its low contrast relative to the coma, we consider it likely to be real in March, April, May, and September for several reasons. It was 1.5--3$\times$ greater in extent than the effective seeing in every month except March, when it was roughly comparable to the seeing, which was extremely poor. The feature was seen in each individual frame during these months, and was similar in appearance when the centroid was shifted by 1 pixel in each direction. The dust feature matches the PA (position angle), shape, and extent of the dust feature discovered in {\it HST} images acquired on April 10 \citep{cbet3496,li13} and seen in {\it HST} images acquired May 7 \citep{hines14}. The relatively small change in geometric circumstances and the similar morphology between March, April, and May argue strongly in favor of its existence in March as well. The feature had its greatest extent both in pixels and relative to the seeing during September, making it unlikely to be an artifact of the processing. Our conclusion that the October and November features are artifacts of the processing are consistent with non-detections of a dust feature in {\it HST} images acquired on October 9 and November 1 (J.-Y. Li, private communication, 2014).
The dust feature did not appear to change position or shape during a night or from night to night. It was centered at a PA of 270$^\circ\pm$20$^\circ$ in March, 300$^\circ\pm$10$^\circ$ in April, 250$^\circ\pm$20$^\circ$ in May, and 120$^\circ\pm$15$^\circ$ in September, having an opening angle of $\sim$60$^\circ$ each month. Since no changes in the morphology were seen over $\sim$19 hr of {\it HST} observations, \citet{li13} proposed that the dust originated from a polar source. Under this assumption, the PA of the middle of the feature indicates the comet's projected pole, and each epoch provides a great circle of possible pole solutions. Using our dust PAs from March, April, May, and September, we find a pole at R.A. = 296$^\circ$$\pm$5$^\circ$ and Dec = $-$27$^\circ$$\pm$5$^\circ$. This is $\sim$10$^\circ$ from one end of \citet{li13}'s preferred range of solutions, but is more robust since our PAs were measured across a range of viewing geometries, thus constraining the solution.
However, we believe that this solution for the rotation axis is unlikely for several reasons. During the fall this pole pointed progressively closer to the plane of the sky, so the dust feature should have become more obvious and well defined; instead, the dust feature was shorter and less well defined in September than in April, and was not seen at all in October or November. Second, if this was the only source of activity then all of the observed water and CN should also be traceable to it. As previously noted, the water production rate implies that at least one quarter of the surface was active -- hardly a small source -- while a source at this location does not replicate the CN features seen in November (discussed in the next subsection). Third, from a statistical standpoint, we find it improbable that ISON was so fortuitously aligned, having its pole directed towards the Sun and its only active region also located at that pole.
We propose that the dust feature was due to enhanced activity at the subsolar point, as has been suggested for other comets at similar distances, e.g., Hale-Bopp (C/1995 O1) at 6 AU \citep{weaver97}, Christensen (C/2006 W3) at 5 AU \citep{valborro14}. In this scenario, the shortening of the feature in September and its disappearance in October and November can be explained by decreasing contrast of the feature relative to the overall coma as the comet approached the Sun and sublimation increased across the surface. Alternatively, the feature could have been produced by an extended outburst (in either the polar or sub-solar source scenario) that increased in activity between March and April and decreased thereafter. This would explain the relative clarity of the feature in April relative to other months despite the same telescope, comparable seeing, and comparable relative brightness (except in September when ISON was brighter). Additional, less likely, possibilities include that the feature seen in September may have been entirely unrelated to that seen in the spring, or that the nucleus was precessing so the PAs of the dust feature did not actually constrain the pole solution.
\subsection{Gas Morphology}
We successfully imaged ISON's gas coma from September onwards. As expected, the spatial extent of the gas coma was considerably larger than the dust coma (Figure~\ref{fig:morph}). While narrowband imaging was obtained for OH, CN, C$_3$, C$_2$, and CO$^+$ on various nights (Table~\ref{t:imaging_circ}), only CN yielded sufficient signal to permit detailed investigations of its morphology via image enhancement techniques. Thus, the remainder of this subsection deals only with CN.
The CN coma was nearly spherically symmetric in September and October but a faint, broad brightness excess in the sunward hemisphere was discernible in the inner coma after image enhancement (Figure~\ref{fig:gas_enhanced}). This suggests that the nucleus was active over much or all of the sunward hemisphere, as expected for a dynamically new comet and consistent with our interpretation of the water production rates. At larger distances from the nucleus a brightness excess in the tailward region of enhanced images first appeared in late-September and continued through November, when it was significantly brighter. This was likely due at least in part to an extended source of CN that was subject to radiation pressure, such as icy grains.
Two CN features roughly 180$^\circ$ apart and orthogonal to the dust tail appeared in our November images. While the S/N of these features was relatively low, both features were seen on every night we obtained data from November 1--12 and were evident before and after continuum was removed. The relative brightness of the features varied greatly from night to night as can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:gas_enhanced}, where the relative intensities of the northern and southern features were similar on November 1, the southern feature was much stronger on November 7, and the northern feature was much stronger on November 12. The PAs also varied from night to night and we list them in Table~\ref{t:cn_pas}. However, no obvious variations in the shapes or brightness were seen during the limited observing window each night. No corresponding features were observed in dust images on any of these nights.
These features require enhanced activity from one or two regions on the nucleus, from which the CN parent is released. Under the assumption that the varying morphology was periodic and tied to the nucleus' rotation, we tried to constrain the rotation period by phasing the relative strength and PA of the CN feature on each night. This yielded potential periods of 8.9, 10.4, 11.4, 12.6, 14.2, or 18.4 hr. Shorter periods were ruled out due to the lack of obvious change in the PA of the CN feature during a given night's observations. Longer periods were ruled out because there was evidence for both the northern and southern features in every image. The observed extent of the features in the plane of the sky was 15,000--20,000 km from the nucleus so, for a gas outflow velocity $\sim$1 km s$^{-1}$, gas took $\sim$6 hr to traverse the feature, and significantly longer if highly projected. Since the CN feature tracks the rotation of the source, if the source had been pointing away from a given hemisphere for more than 6 hr and was in the plane of the sky, the CN should have completely traversed the feature without additional CN following behind it, but material moving mostly toward or away from us could remain visible for considerably longer periods. This potentially explains the strong brightness variations between hemispheres from night to night and the presence of both features on all nights, but cannot constrain the rotation period further without knowing the degree of projection.
Weaver et al.\footnote{http://isoncampaign.org/observation-logs\#20131101} found a period of $\sim$10.4 hr for a single peaked lightcurve based on seven inner coma brightness measurements by {\it HST} on November 1 and noted that ``periods within the range 8--12 hr give acceptable fits to the observations.'' The signal measured by {\it HST} was dominated by dust in the inner coma rather than the nucleus, thus variations in brightness were caused by changes in activity, not changes in the apparent cross section of the nucleus. Assuming that the gas flow drops when a source region is not receiving sunlight, less dust would be entrained during local ``night.'' For one source region this would create a single peaked sinusoidal lightcurve, while for two source regions this would create a double peaked sinusoidal lightcurve. If the lightcurve was double peaked, Weaver et al.'s preferred period would be $\sim$20.8 hr, which is inconsistent with the variations in CN morphology we observed. As will be discussed in the following section, our modeling favors a single source solution, thus supporting the Weaver et al.\ results and implying one of our shorter periods is the most likely rotation period.
The first appearance of CN features by November 1 was likely due to an intrinsic change in the comet and not simply due to the improvement in the S/N as it brightened. Accounting for the increase in the CN flux between our final night of DCT observations on October 4 and our November 1 31-in observations and the differences in telescopes (collecting area, pixel scale, quantum efficiency), the effective S/N was comparable on our final DCT run and the beginning of the November 31-in run. Thus, if the CN features were present with a comparable contrast to the ambient CN coma by October 4, they should have been detectable in our earlier images. It is unlikely that they appeared prior to October 15, as the effective S/N was only $\sim$2$\times$ lower on that night than November 1, so some hint of the features would likely have been visible. Thus, we conclude that these features likely originated in the second half of October. This correlates with the bulk brightness flipping from the sunward to the tailward hemisphere and suggests that the tailward bulk brightness observed in November was also tied to the emergence of the CN features.
This timeline is consistent with published descriptions of the coma morphology by other observers.
The TRAPPIST team first clearly detected features in CN images on October 31, their first data since October 19 (Opitom, private communication, 2014). They later detected the features in C$_2$, OH, and dust continuum filters at the same PAs as the CN features \citep{cbet3693a,cbet3711c}\footnote{Opitom (private communication, 2014) notes that there was an error on CBET 3693, and their measured PAs were actually 10$^\circ$ and 190$^\circ$, not 10$^\circ$ and 90$^\circ$ as stated.}. Similar morphology was reported in broadband Bessell R \citep{cbet3715} and unfiltered \citep{cbet3718b} images acquired on November 14, and was reportedly not present on similar images acquired by both groups on November 13.
\section{MODELING}
\label{sec:modeling}
In an effort to better understand the cause of ISON's morphological features, we conducted numerical modeling with our Monte Carlo jet modeling code (e.g., \citealt{schleicher03a}). The code utilizes 10$^5$ particles to simulate cometary activity, with changes to any of numerous parameters being reflected in an updated model nearly instantaneously. This permits us to quickly explore a large variety of parameters including orientation of the nucleus' pole, source location(s) and extent(s), outflow velocities, parent/daughter lifetimes, position in the orbit, etc. Due to the large number of free parameters in the model and ISON's minimal observational constraints, we focused on replicating the gross coma morphology by constraining the pole orientation and varying the location(s) of active regions on the surface. For all modeling we have assumed ISON is a simple rotator; our Monte Carlo code can simulate non-principal axis rotation but, in the absence of data suggesting this, doing so would needlessly complicate matters.
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:dust_morph}, we determined a pole solution from the assumption that the sunward dust feature originates from a near-polar source region. However, our modeling reveals that a source at this location cannot replicate the CN morphology observed in November as this would be approximately orthogonal to what we observed. Instead, we proposed that the dust feature was produced by activity from the subsolar point. Since this means that the dust feature cannot be used to constrain ISON's pole orientation, we investigate below two methods of replicating the CN features seen in November: 1.)\ two source regions, one located near each pole, and 2.)\ one source region near the equator.
In the two source region scenario, each source region must have been located near the rotation pole since the PAs of the CN feature changed little from night to night. Sources farther from the pole would have swept out a corkscrew pattern as seen in other comets, e.g.\ C/2007 N3 Lulin \citep{knight09b}. Thus, the pole is constrained to a great circle by the midpoint of one feature (the midpoint of the feature in the opposite hemisphere yields the opposite pole). The ensemble of observations from November 1--12 yields similar great circles since the viewing geometry changed relatively little during the interval, so we used the average to define the pole. We found that sources within $\sim$15$^\circ$ of each pole produced features with similar shapes to what was observed. We then stepped through possible pole solutions in 10$^\circ$ intervals along the great circle, modeling the resulting coma morphology between November 1--12 for each potential solution.
This scenario can match the changing PAs of the CN feature from night to night and can explain the variations in brightness as due to the source regions being located at different longitudes. However, it cannot explain the bulk brightness enhancement in the tailward hemisphere being aligned with the midpoint of the CN features. Material leaving the nucleus from the poles would be expected to produce brightness enhancements in the north and south, not along the midpoint to the west. A second, more glaring, issue with this scenario is the simultaneous appearance of these features in late October as well as the increase in contrast of both features following the outburst on November 11--13. It is highly improbable that two source regions located near opposite poles would turn on at the same time and even less probable that they would later experience simultaneous outbursts of similar strength.
Our second and preferred scenario involves a single near-equatorial source
sweeping out a spiral that was seen nearly edge on. In this scenario, the resulting feature appeared clearly when it was in the plane of the sky (orthogonal to our line of sight) but was difficult to distinguish from the ambient coma when pointing towards or away from us (along our line of sight). The rotation axis would be near the plane of the sky and the direction of the pole is indicated by the angle that bisects the north and south feature PAs.
We explored possible source locations for 10$^\circ$ steps
along this great circle finding that solutions within $\sim$35$^\circ$ of the equator produced two features in approximately the correct orientation. However, the PA of the features and the location of the bulk brightness to the west
were best reproduced for a relatively small range of solutions near R.A. = 89$^\circ$$\pm$10$^\circ$ and Dec = $+$30$^\circ$$\pm$7$^\circ$.
Even more than the two source solution, this readily explains the PA variation and the bulk brightness variation. However, unlike the two source solution, this solution also naturally explains the bulk tailward brightness enhancement being aligned with the midpoint of the features. Material released when the jet is pointing towards or away from the Earth will be near the middle, increasing the amount of material seen in the west as compared to the north and south. This scenario also easily explains the surge in brightness of both features following the November 11--13 outburst since increasing activity from the single source region would affect both the north and south features. As discussed previously, a single source is also preferred when comparing the variability in ISON's inner coma brightness seen by $HST$ with our possible rotation periods based on the relative brightness and PAs of the CN features. It is possible that inclusion of as yet unpublished data from other observers could allow the rotation period to be conclusively determined, with the progression of the PAs of the feature yielding the sense of rotation (prograde or retrograde).
This pole solution is $\sim$30$^\circ$ from the pole inferred from the dust feature, which we have already discounted. With the dust pole, any choice of source locations will produce a spiral quite different from the CN features we observed in November. The $HST$ pole solution magnifies the problem, producing even more extreme spirals for any source locations, and therefore also not matching the CN morphology.
\section{DISCUSSION}
\label{sec:discussion}
As introduced earlier, the minimum active area necessary to support the measured water production rates between 1.3 and 0.7 AU was $\sim$1.5 km$^2$. This is approximately the cross section of sunlight that an $R_N=0.6$ km nucleus intercepts, e.g., it is consistent with ISON's sunward hemisphere being nearly 100\% active for published upper limits of the nucleus size \citep{cbet3720a}. Earlier in the apparition, the minimum active area was considerably higher, greatly exceeding the nucleus' surface area. Thus, we concluded that there was likely a substantial population of icy grains providing the needed surface area. Outgassing from an icy grain halo was predicted by \citet{huebner66} and has been suggested for other comets (e.g., Comet Bowell 1980b by \citealt{ahearn84}; 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 by \citealt{fougere12}; C/2009 P1 Garradd by \citealt{paganini12,villanueva12,combi13,bodewits14}) and conclusively demonstrated for 103P/Hartley 2 \citep{ahearn11a,kelley13,knight13,protopapa14}. Icy grains have already been suggested by other authors to explain ISON's early brightness behavior \citep{meech13}, the blue color of ISON's dust near the nucleus in April \citep{li13} and the lower negative-polarization of ISON's circumnuclear halo in May \citep{hines14}.
In this scenario, a large population of icy grains was present in ISON's coma early in 2013 but gradually diminished until it contributed negligibly to the total outgassing rate by late October. This would explain the disappearance of the bluer dust near the nucleus in the October 9 {\it HST} observations as compared to the April 10 observations \citep{li14} and is consistent with preliminary analysis of the October 26 {\it HST} polarization observations (D. Hines, private communication, 2014). One possible explanation for the origin of such a population is that they were released in a single event at large heliocentric distance, such as during the CO outburst suggested by \citet{meech13}. If released in such an event, the icy grains would have needed to be large enough to survive until near $r_\mathrm{H} = 1$~AU, implying that they had radii of 10s of cm if they were dirty ice \citep{beer06}. We see evidence for such a population of slow moving (velocities of order 1 m s$^{-1}$) grains in the flattening of our {{$Af\rho$}} profiles during the apparition. Alternatively, a relatively low flux of smaller dirty ice grains (e.g. 10s of $\mu$m to $\sim$1 cm size) could have been released nearly continuously from large heliocentric distance inward. At large distances these grains would have survived for days to weeks, but at smaller distances would have only lasted minutes to hours \citep{beer06}.
The presence of a population of icy grains explains why the CN and water production rates did not increase at a constant rate (in log-log space) but flattened significantly as ISON approached the Sun. The nearly flat production rate from September to early November likely occured as lingering icy grains, which had dominated activity early in the apparition, finally left our photometic apertures and/or the increasing insolation shortened their lifetimes and they were destroyed faster than they were replenished by new production from the nucleus. It was only with the significant outburst November 11--13, when gas production rates increased by 12$\times$ \citep{cbet3711c} that sufficient quantities of new material were being produced to dominate over lingering material.
The sudden appearance of CN features in November, several months after ISON crossed the ``snow'' line where water ice sublimation begins to dominate activity (e.g., \citealt{meech04}) followed by a rapid increase in overall gas production is reminiscent of the seasonal behavior of Jupiter family comets.
This behavior has been interpreted as being due to a loss of volatiles across much of the surface, resulting in activity being confined to a few isolated source regions (e.g., \citealt{ahearn95}). Until these regions are exposed to direct sunlight, they are inactive, with activity typically increasing steeply once illuminated.
It is unlikely that ISON's surface was highly evolved; its relatively large brightness at large heliocentric distance and subsequent slower than expected increase in brightness is common for dynamically new comets (cf.\ \citealt{oort51,whipple78}) and supports the idea that this was indeed its first pass close to the Sun. It is also unlikely that the ice on ISON became rapidly depleted during the apparition since this is believed to occur gradually over many orbits, not in just a few months and while the comet was still at normal cometary distances, near $r_\mathrm{H}= 1$ AU. Furthermore, at a minimum of one quarter of the total surface area of the nucleus, the active area necessary to support water production is hardly a ``small'' region of the surface and would not be expected to produce the well defined CN features we observed.
We propose that the CN features were caused by a localized enhancement of activity from a single, near equatorial source region in addition to the ongoing activity across the sunward hemisphere. This model would naturally explain the variations in PA and bulk brightness of the two CN features we observed in November. Our modeling suggests that the Sun remained within $\sim$30$^\circ$ of ISON's pole until just days before perihelion (when the true anomally finally began to change rapidly)
so regions near its equator only received sunlight obliquely and therefore heated up slowly. Thus, enhanced activity from the source region may have been initiated in late October when local temperatures (either at the surface or below it as the thermal wave penetrated) climbed sufficiently to trigger significant outgassing for the first time. This initiation of activity may have been violent enough to expose substantial portions of the comet's pristine interior and likely lead to enhanced activity at this location (local topography may have also played a role in shaping the outgassing into a ``jet,'' e.g., \citealt{crifo02}). If this caused the creation of a hole or occurred on the side of a sunward facing slope, some regions likely would have experienced more direct sunlight than the average surface at that latitude, helping vigorous outgassing to continue and exposing ever larger portions of the interior.
The chronological appearance of the features first in narrowband gas images and later in broadband and unfiltered images acquired after the $\sim$12$\times$ increase in both gas and dust from November 11 to 13 suggests that the active region creating the features was the source of subsequent outbursts of activity.
The initial activity was only vigorous enough for the features to be seen in narrowband gas images. The accompanying dust likely did not achieve sufficient S/N to appear in broadband images until
the large outburst November 11--13, when the rate of outgassing from this region increased significantly compared to the ambient outgassing from the rest of the surface. At this time the features brightened enough relative to the ambient coma to become visible in broadband and even unfiltered images. This was likely due to more extreme excavation of the interior around the active region, such as break off of additional chunks, caving in of a crevasse wall, or extensive cracking. The later appearance of the features in broadband images was not likely due to a change in the dust-to-gas ratio at deeper depths, since the dust and gas production rates went up in unison during the outburst.
Note that the massive increase in gas and dust production that began November 11 was unlikely to have been due only to the release of one or a few large chunks that remained intact, as these would not have had nearly enough surface area to significantly affect the production rates. Instead, the increase likely required the release of a large number of small particles, either directly or through the rapid disintegration of larger particles, to efficiently increase the effective surface area within the coma. For example, the disintegration of a $\sim$10-m on a side cube into $\mu$m-sized icy grains would have provided sufficient surface area to achieve the increase in water production reported by \citet{cbet3711c}. In order to sustain this higher level of production, however, such mass loss would have needed to be ongoing, and the increasing production rates from November 11 to 23 would have required increasingly more material to be lost. Thus, the November 11 outburst may have triggered runaway mass loss that eventually led to the catastrophic failure of the nucleus.
\citet{cbet3715} suggested that the appearance of ``coma wings'' in their broadband images on November 14 signaled that the nucleus had recently split. Similar morphology has previously been noted in at least three split comets: C/1996 B2 Hyakutake \citep{harris97,rodionov98}, C/1999 S4 LINEAR \citep{farnham01a}, and C/2001 A2 LINEAR \citep{jehin02}; see also the review by \citet{boehnhardt04}. Of these, C/1999 S4 LINEAR is the best match for ISON, where two ``wings'' perpendicular to the comet-Sun line appeared $\sim$2 weeks prior to that comet's breakup. As with our interpetation of ISON's CN features, \citet{farnham01a} concluded that these wings were produced by a single active area near the equator of a rotating nucleus as opposed to the nucleus splitting at that time. Since ISON both lasted for several weeks after the first appearance of the features and continued to show similar features through at least November 18 (Boehnhardt et al.\footnote{http://isoncampaign.org/observation-logs\#20131118}), we contend that the first appearance of its features on or before November 1 was not caused by a final, catastrophic disruption of the nucleus at that time.
Furthermore, the variation of the PAs and relative brightness of the features from night to night as well as the asymmetric nature of the features are all inconsistent with the ``wings'' seen in C/2001 A2 LINEAR that apparently originated between two fragments \citep{jehin02}.
If significant chunks of the nucleus were shed November 1 or later and remained intact, they would not likely have traveled far enough from the nucleus to be distinguishable in our images by November 12. Assuming a breakup on November 1.0 at a separation velocity of $\sim$1 m s$^{-1}$ \citep{sekanina82a,boehnhardt04} and ignoring gravitational or rocket effects, the maximum separation of two fragments was $\lesssim$1.5 arcsec by November 12, with projection effects likely decreasing the apparent separation in the plane of the sky. This is below typical seeing on these nights ($\sim$2 arcsec) and would, therefore, not have been detectable in our images.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
\label{sec:conclusions}
By combining the observations presented herein with results from the community, a coherrent narrative for ISON's behavior is beginning to emerge. It appears that ISON was considerably smaller than original estimates based on the brightness at discovery suggested. This was likely due to the presence of a large cross section of dust and icy grains, many of which were probably expelled during an extended, CO-driven outburst as suggested by \citet{meech13}. These grains moved away from the nucleus very slowly, increasing ISON's apparent brightness and measured production rates for many months. The slow movement of such grains away from the nucleus and/or their gradual destruction helps explain a number of our observations during 2013: the flattening of the dust radial profile, {{$Af\rho$}} remaining relatively constant, the shoulder in gas production rates, and the declining minimum active area. As a result, ISON underperformed most brightness projections until at least late October.
ISON's fortunes likely changed dramatically in late-October. Around this time we observed a pair of CN features that varied in PA and relative brightness from night to night. Our modeling suggests that these originated from a single source region located near the equator, and may have been triggered by the delayed heating of this region due to the Sun being nearly over the pole throughout ISON's approach. Beginning on November 11, ISON's dust and gas production rates increased rapidly \citep{cbet3711c} and similar morphological features first appeared in dust and broadband images. This suggests that an increasing fraction of activity was occuring from the source region, perhaps due to the opening of a sizeable fissure or the loss of one or more large chunks. Regardless of the mechanism, newly injected material must have quickly broken up into many small particles in order to supply the surface area needed to explain observed water production rates, which greatly exceeded the total surface area of an $R_N<0.6$ km nucleus \citep{cbet3720a}. Water production rates continued to increase until at least November 23.6 \citep{combi14}, implying that progressively more mass loss occured, possibly including fragmentation of the nucleus.
Possible explanations for the runaway mass loss include the loss of icy glue holding sections of the nucleus together, build up of subsurface pressure which was eventually released through one or more catastrophic outbursts, or splitting via rotational spin-up \citep{samarasinha13}. Significant mass loss was not likely triggered by tidal forces, which should not have become significant until the day of perihelion \citep{knight13b}.
The recognition of this extreme mass loss helps explain why ISON's brightness and morphological behavior in {\it STEREO} and {\it SOHO} images in the days before perihelion \citep{knight14} was akin to that of the small ($R_N<50$ m) Kreutz sungrazing comets regularly observed by those telescopes being destroyed as they approach perihelion \citep{knight10d}. While ISON's brightness and gas production rates at larger heliocentric distances implied it was large enough to survive insolation despite its small perihelion distance \citep{knight13b}, the largest remaining fragment as it entered the {\it SOHO} fields of view was likely quite a bit smaller. Thus, ISON's destruction near perihelion should be seen not as a single catastrophic event, but as the culmination of a series of events which weakened and/or broke it up over several weeks leading up to perihelion.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
We thank the anonymous referee for a helpful review. We gratefully acknowledge our various telescope operators at DCT: Stephen Levine, Alex Venetiou, Michael Sweaton, Jason Sanborn, Ron Winner, Lisa Foley, Susan Strosahl, and Heidi Larson for helping obtain successful observations during the early commissioning phase of the DCT. We thank Brian Skiff for obtaining the 42-in images on October 8--9, Larry Wasserman for scripting the 31-in robotic images, and Michaela Fendrock, Kevin Walsh, and Allison Bair for assistance in observing at DCT. We also thank BBC Horizons for showcasing the DCT during these observations, and Hermann Boehnhardt, Tony Farnham, and Michael A'Hearn for useful discussions.
These results made use of Lowell Observatory's Discovery Channel Telescope, supported by Lowell, Discovery Communications, Boston University, the University of Maryland, and the University of Toledo. M.M.K. is grateful for office space provided by the University of Maryland Department of Astronomy and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory while working on this project. The LMI instrument was funded by the National Science Foundation via grant AST-1005313. This research has been supported by NASA's Planetary Astronomy Program (Grants NNX09AB51G, NNX11AD95G, and NNX14AG81G).
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is mainly divided into two parts. First, we are interested in studying the regularity properties of the following Stochastic Differential Equation (SDE)
\begin{align}\label{SDE0}
dX_t = b(t,X_t)dt+dB_t, \ 0\leq t \leq T, \ X_0 =x\in \mathbb{R}^d,
\end{align}
where $B_t$, $t\in [0,T]$ is a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion and $b$ is a measurable function such that a unique strong solution exists. Our goal is to analyse the regularity of strong solutions to (\ref{SDE0}) both in space and in the Malliavin sense. We give a condition based on the regularity properties of $b$ to obtain regularity properties of $X_t$, $t\in [0,T]$. Then we study the consequences of the aforementioned properties and we take two different directions. On one hand, the Malliavin regularity allows us to improve the regularity of densities of strong solutions. On the other hand, the regularity in space entitles us to study the associated Stochastic Transport Equation and gain more regularity on the solution. Namely, for $b$ Lipschitz we are able to show that one obtains a classical solution to the Stochastic Transport Equation.
Considerable research in the direction of regularity of densities of solutions to SDEs has been done in the past years. There are well-known results on conditions for a density to be smooth when the coefficients are smooth, for example, in \cite{Nua10} or in the case of SDEs with boundary conditions in \cite{KHSS97} under the so-called H\"{o}rmander's condition.
We highlight the work by S. Kusuoka and D. Stroock in \cite{Kus82} where the authors show that if \mbox{$b\in C_b^{n+2}(\mathbb{R}^d)$} then the density lies in $C_b^n(\mathbb{R}^d)$ using Sobolev inequalities associated to the \mbox{$H$-derivative} of the solution. Here, we improve the regularity of the density and skip the boundedness of $b$, instead we consider additive noise and provide an extension to a class of non-degenerate diffusion coefficients. In \cite{Kus10} S. Kusuoka also gives conditions for the law to be absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure when drift coefficients are non-Lipschitz, his work is closely related to the findings of N. Bouleau and F. Hirsch in \cite{BH91} where the authors show that for global Lipschitz coefficient a density exists, here we show that such density is H\"{o}lder continuous with exponent $\alpha<1$. An improvement was given in dimension one in \cite{FP10} where they show that for a H\"{o}lder continuous drift of, at most, linear growth and H\"{o}lder continuous diffusion coefficient the solution admits densities at any given time.
Our technique is mainly based on Malliavin calculus and on a sharp estimate on the moments of the derivative of the flow associated to the solution motived by a previous work in \cite{MNP14} where a very similar estimate is used to prove that solutions of SDE's with irregular drift coefficients are once Sobolev differentiable in the initial condition. SDE's with irregular drift coefficients has been a very active topic of research in the last years. For example, it is known, see \cite{Men11}, where the authors prove that solutions of SDEs with merely bounded drift are Malliavin differentiable. Nevertheless, once Malliavin differentiability is not enough to guarantee regularity of the densities. A related result on this matter is \cite{AP14} where the drift is assumed to be irregular and a representation for the derivative is also obtained, even in the higher dimensional case. Also, \cite{Zhang11} deals with the same problem as in \cite{MNP14} but here, the diffusion is non-trivial. Here instead, we look at the regularity of the drift coefficient and connect it to regularity of the solution in both the Malliavin and Sobolev sense.
For the study of densities, we use a powerful result by V. Bally and L. Caramellino in \cite{Bally2011} which allows us directly to improve the regularity of densities of solutions with with sufficient Malliavin regularity. In addition, we also look at the regularity in space. As a consequence of the relationship between the Malliavin and Sobolev derivatives we are also able to give a condition to determine the regularity of solutions to (\ref{SDE0}) in the Sobolev sense (locally) and show that such derivatives admit moments of any order. At the end of the section we also give an extension to more general diffusions.
The last application of the paper is devoted to the study of the Stochastic Transport Equation (STE) since it is closely related to the SDE (\ref{SDE0}) by the inverse of the flow of the solution. We use the results obtained in the first part of the paper to show that, for $b$ Lipschitz, the solution is classical. Work in the direction of SPDE's and in particular the Stochastic Transport Equation has brought a lot of interests in the last years. In \cite{FGP10} F. Flandoli, M. Gubinelli and E. Priola study the well-posedness for H\"{o}lder-continuous drifts and show pathwise uniqueness of the weak solution. In \cite{Nil13}, in dimension one, it is shown that when the drift is a step function then the solution to the transport equation is even once continuously differentiable.
\section{Framework}
In this section we recall some facts from Malliavin calculus and Sobolev spaces, which we aim at employing in Section \ref{main results} to analyse the regularity of densities of strong solutions of SDEs. See \cite{Nua10, Mall78, Mall97, DOP08} for a deeper insight on Malliavin Calculus. As for theory on Sobolev spaces the reader is referred to \cite{Leo09, Evan10}.
\subsection{Basic elements of Malliavin Calculus}\label{somedefmalcal}
In this Section we briefly elaborate a framework for Malliavin calculus.
Let $H$ be a real separable Hilbert space and $W=\{W(h), h\in H\}$ an isonormal Gaussian process, see \cite[Definition 1.1.1]{Nua10}. Assume $W$ is defined on a complete probability space $\left( \Omega ,\mathcal{F},P\right)$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is generated by $W$.
Denote by $D$ the derivative
operator acting on elementary smooth random variables in the sense that%
\begin{equation*}
D(f(h_{1},\ldots,h_{n}))=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\partial
_{i}f(h_{1},\ldots,h_{n})h_{i},\quad h_{i}\in H, \quad f\in C_{b}^{\infty }(\mathbb{R%
}^{n}).
\end{equation*}
Further let $\mathbb{D}^{k,p} (\Omega)$, $k,p\geq 1$ be the closure of the family of elementary smooth random variables with respect to the norm%
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{\mathbb{D}^{k,p}(\Omega)}:=\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega
)}+\sum_{i=1}^k \left\Vert D\overset{i)}{\cdots} DF\right\Vert _{L^{p}(\Omega ;H\otimes \overset{i)}{\cdots} \otimes H)}.
\end{equation*}
Our framework will rely on the special case where $H$ is isometric to $L^2([0,T];\mathbb{R}^d)$ endowed with the Lebesgue measure, then we have that the Malliavin derivative is a process $\{D_t F\}_{t\in [0,T]}$ in $L^2(\Omega\times [0,T];\mathbb{R}^d)$ defined as
$$D_tF = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} f\left(\int_0^T h_1(u)dW_u, \dots, \int_0^T h_n(u)dW_u \right) h_i(t)$$
and again we take the closure w.r.t. the norm
$$\|F\|_{\mathbb{D}^{k,p}(\Omega)} = E[|F|^p]^{1/p}+ \sum_{i=1}^k E\left[ \int_0^T\cdots \int_0^T \|D_{t_1}\cdots D_{t_i} F\|^p dt_1\cdots t_i\right]^{1/p}$$
where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes any norm in $\mathbb{R}^{d\times \overset{i)}{\cdots} \times d}$.
The operator $D\overset{k)}{\cdots} D$ is then a closed operator from $\mathbb{D}^{k,p} (\Omega)$ to $L^p(\Omega \times [0,T]^k ; \mathbb{R}^{d\times \overset{k)}{\cdots} \times d})$ for all $p\geq 1$. Moreover, for $p\leq q$ and $k\leq l$ we have
$$\|F\|_{\mathbb{D}^{k,p}(\Omega)} \leq \|F\|_{\mathbb{D}^{l,q}(\Omega)}$$
and as a consequence
$$\mathbb{D}^{k+1,p}(\Omega) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{D}^{k,q} (\Omega)$$
if $k\geq 0$ and $p>q$.
We shall say that a random variable is $k$-times \emph{Malliavin differentiable} with derivatives in $L^p(\Omega)$, $p\geq 1$ if it lies on $\mathbb{D}^{k,p}(\Omega)$.
Finally, we have the chain-rule for the Malliavin derivative. Let $\varphi :\mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ be a function such that
$$|\varphi(x) - \varphi(y)| \leq K |x-y|$$
for any $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^m$. Suppose $F=(F^1,\dots,F^m)$ is a random vector whose components belong to the space $\mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$. Then $\varphi(F) \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ and there exists a random vector $G=(G_1,\dots,G_m)$ bounded by $K$ such that
$$D \varphi(F) = \sum_{i=1}^mG_i DF^i.$$
In particular if $\varphi'$ exists, then $G= \varphi'(F)$.
For a stochastic process $v \in \mbox{Dom}( \delta)$ (not necessarily adapted to $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in [0,T]}$) we denote by
\begin{align}\label{skorokhod}
\delta(v) := \int_0^T v_t \delta B_t
\end{align}
the action of $\delta$ on $v$. The above expression (\ref{skorokhod}) is known as the Skorokhod integral of $v$ and it is an anticipative stochastic integral. It turns out that all $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in [0,T]}$-adapted processes in $L^2(\Omega\times[0,T])$ are in the domain of $\delta$ and for such processes $v_t$ we have
$$\delta( v ) =\int_0^T v_t dB_t,$$
i.e.the Skorokhod and It\^{o} integrals coincide. In this sense, the Skorokhod integral can be considered to be an extension of the It\^{o} integral to non-adapted integrands.
The dual relation between the Malliavin derivative and the Skorokhod integral implies the following important formula:
\begin{thm}[Duality formula]\label{duality}
Let $F\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}$ and $v\in \mbox{Dom}(\delta)$. Then
\begin{align}
E\left[ F\int_0^T v_t \delta B_t\right] = E\left[ \int_0^T v_t D_t F dt\right].
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\subsection{Basic facts of theory on Sobolev spaces}
In this section we concisely review some basic facts about theory on Sobolev spaces.
Let $U$ be an open bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$. Fix $1\leq p \leq \infty$ and let $k\geq 0$ an integer. The Sobolev space $W^{k,p}(U)$ is composed by all locally integrable functions $u: U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that for any multiindex $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|\leq k$, then $D^\alpha u$ exists in the weak sense and belongs to $L^p(U)$.
We endow the space $W^{k,p}(U)$ with the topology generated by the norm
$$\|u\|_{W^{k,p}(U)} := \left(\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k} \int_U |D^\alpha u|^p dx \right)^{1/p}, \ \ 1\leq p <\infty$$
or
$$\|u\|_{W^{k,\infty}(U)}:= \sum_{|\alpha|\leq k} {\mathrm{ess}\sup}_{U} |D^\alpha u|, \ \ p=\infty. $$
The following relations will be of high relevance for our purposes. For $1\leq p < q \leq \infty$, $k>l$ such that $(k-l)p<d$ and
$$\frac{1}{q} = \frac{1}{p}- \frac{k-l}{d}$$
then we have the following continuous embedding
\begin{align}
W^{k,p}(\mathbb{R}^d) \hookrightarrow W^{l,q}(\mathbb{R}^d).
\end{align}
Also, we have the following embedding as a consequence of Morrey's inequality; if $\frac{k-r-\alpha}{d}=\frac{1}{p}$ with $\alpha\in (0,1)$ then
\begin{align}\label{embed}
W^{k,p}(\mathbb{R}^d) \hookrightarrow C^{r,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^d).
\end{align}
Essentially, this means that if we have enough Sobolev-regularity then we may expect some continuous classical derivatives up to some order.
We will though use $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ to denote differentiation in both the weak and classical sense when the context is clear.
\subsection{Shuffles}\label{shuffles}
Let $m,n\in \mathbb{N}_0$ and denote by $S_{m} =\{\sigma: \{1,\dots, m\}\rightarrow \{1,\dots,m\} \}$ the set of permutations of $m$ elements. Define the set of \emph{shuffle permutations} of length $n+m$ as
$$S(m,n) := \{\sigma\in S_{m+n}: \, \sigma(1)<\cdots <\sigma(m), \, \sigma(m+1)<\cdots <\sigma(m+n)\}.$$
Fix $s,t\in [0,T]$ with $s <t$ and define the $m$-dimensional subset of $[0,1]^m$
$$\Lambda_{s,t}^m:=\{(u_1,\dots,u_m)\in [0,T]^m : \, s<u_1<\cdots < u_m<t\}.$$
Denote $u=(u_1,\dots,u_m)\in [0,T]^m$ and for given a permutation $\sigma \in S_m$ let $u_{\sigma(1:m)} := (u_{\sigma(1)},\dots, u_{\sigma(m)})$.
Let $f:[0,T]^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $g:[0,T]^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be two measurable functions. Then
\begin{align}\label{shuffle}
\left(\int_{\Lambda_{s,t}^m} f(u)du \right)\left( \int_{\Lambda_{s,t}^n} g(u)du \right)= \sum_{\sigma\in S(m,n)} \int_{\Lambda_{s,t}^{m+n}} f(u_{\sigma(1:m)})g(u_{\sigma(m+1:m+n)})du.
\end{align}
We will also need the following formula. Let $f_i:[0,T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $i=1,\dots,m+n$ be measurable functions and $k=0,\dots, m$ be fixed. Then
\begin{align}\label{shuffle2}
\begin{split}
\int_{\Lambda_{s,t}^m} \int_{\Lambda_{s,u_k}^n} \prod_{i=1}^n f_i(v_i) \prod_{i=n+1}^{n+m} f_i(u_i) dvdu = \sum_{\sigma\in S_k(m,n)} \int_{\Lambda_{s,t}^{m+n}} \prod_{i=1}^{m+n} f_i(w_{\sigma(i)}) dw
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
$$S_k (m,n) = \{\sigma \in S(m,n): \, \sigma(j)=j, \, j=k,\dots,m\}.$$
If we consider the case $u_k=t$ in the last formula we indeed obtain \eqref{shuffle}. Observe also that the number of terms in the sum given in \eqref{shuffle2} is at most of order $C^{m+n}$ for some finite constant $C>0$.
\section{Malliavin and flow regularity of strong solutions of SDEs}\label{main results}
Consider the \emph{stochastic differential equation} (SDE) given by
\begin{align}\label{SDE}
\begin{cases}
dX_t = b(t,X_t) dt + dB_t,\\
X_0=x \in \mathbb{R}^d,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where the drift coefficient $b:[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ is a Borel measurable function and $B_t$ is a \mbox{$d$-dimensional} Brownian motion defined on the filtered probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in[0,T]}, P)$ where the filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in [0,T]}$ is the one generated by $B_t$, $t\in [0,T]$ augmented by the $P$-null sets.
If $b$ is of linear growth and Lipschitz continuous it is well-known that there exists a unique global strong solution to the SDE (\ref{SDE}) which belongs to $\mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$. In fact, under more relaxed conditions on $b$ one has the same result, see for instance \cite{Men11}, \cite{Nil13}.
In this section we are concerned with the regularity of the solution in the Malliavin sense in terms of the regularity of $b$. We will assume the following hypotheses for $b$, for every $(t,x) \in [0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^d$
\begin{align}\label{bcondition}
\begin{split}
\sup_{t\in [0,T]}|b(t,x)|\leq C(1+|x|), C>0,\\
D b(t,\cdot), D^2 b(t,\cdot),\dots, D^k b(t,\cdot)\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)
\end{split}\tag{H}
\end{align}
for some $k\geq 1$ where here, the derivatives are understood in the weak sense. In particular, $b$ is $k-1$ times continuously differentiable in virtue of the Sobolev embedding (\ref{embed}) and equation (\ref{SDE}) admits a unique strong solution.
Before we proceed to the main statements of this section we need two preliminary results which are essential for our targets.
\begin{lemm}\label{epsilonbound}
Let $\{b_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ be a sequence of compactly supported smooth functions approximating $b$ a.e. in $t \in [0,T]$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that $\sup_{n\geq 0}|b_n(t,x)| \leq C(1+|x|)$, all $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $t\in [0,T]$. Then for any compact subset $K\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ there exists an $\varepsilon>0$ such that
\begin{align}\label{epsilonboundn}
\sup_{x\in K} \sup_{n\geq 0}E\left[ \mathcal{E}\left( \int_0^T b_n(u,B_u^x)dB_u\right)^{1+\varepsilon} \right] <\infty.
\end{align}
where $B_t^x := x+B_t$ and
$$\mathcal{E}(M_t):= \exp \left\{M_t- M_0 - \frac{1}{2}[M]_t\right\}$$
denotes the Dol\'{e}ans-Dade exponential of a martingale $M$ and $[M]$ the quadratic variation of $M$. In particular we also have
\begin{align}\label{epsilonbound}
\sup_{x\in K} E\left[ \mathcal{E}\left( \int_0^T b(u,B_u^x)dB_u\right)^{1+\varepsilon} \right] <\infty.
\end{align}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, write
\begin{align*}
E&\left[\mathcal{E}\left( \int_0^T b_n(u,B_u^x)dB_u \right)^{1+\varepsilon} \right] =\\
&= E\left[\exp \left\{\int_0^T (1+\varepsilon)b_n(u,B_u^x)dB_u - \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T (1+\varepsilon)|b_n(u,B_u^x)|^2du \right\}\right]\\
&= E\Bigg[\exp \Bigg\{\int_0^T (1+\varepsilon)b_n(u,B_u^x)dB_u - \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T (1+\varepsilon)^2|b_n(u,B_u^x)|^2du\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \varepsilon(1+\varepsilon) |b_n(u,B_u^x)|^2du \Bigg\}\Bigg]\\
&= E\left[\exp \left\{\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T \varepsilon(1+\varepsilon) |b_n(u,X_u^{\varepsilon,x})|^2du \right\}\right]\\
\end{align*}
where the last step follows from Girsanov's theorem and here $X_t^{\varepsilon,x}$ is a solution of the following SDE
$$
\begin{cases}
dX_t^{\varepsilon,x} = (1+\varepsilon)b_n(t,X_t^{\varepsilon,x}) dt + dB_t, \ \ t\in [0,T] \\
X_0^{\varepsilon,x} = x.
\end{cases}
$$
Observe that, since $b$ has at most linear growth, we have
$$
|X_t^{\varepsilon,x}| \leq |x| + C(1+\varepsilon)\int_0^t(1+|X_u^{\varepsilon,x}|)du + |B_t|
$$
for every $t\in [0,T]$. Then Gronwall's inequality gives
\begin{align}\label{gronw}
|X_t^{\varepsilon, x}| \leq \left( |x| + C(1+\varepsilon)T +|B_t|\right)e^{C(1+\varepsilon)T},
\end{align}
and the sublinearity of $b$ and the estimate (\ref{gronw}) give
$$|b_n(u,X_u^{\varepsilon,x})| \leq C_{\varepsilon,T}\left(1+|x| + |B_t|\right)$$
where $C_{\varepsilon,T}$ denotes the collection of all constants depending on $\varepsilon,T$.
As a result,
\begin{align*}
E\Big[ \exp\bigg\{\varepsilon(1+&\varepsilon) \int_0^T |b_n(u,X_u^{\varepsilon,x})|^2 du\bigg\}\Big] \leq E\left[\exp\left\{\tilde{C}_{\varepsilon,T} \int_0^T \left( 1+|x|+|B_u|\right)^2 du\right\}\right]\\
&\leq e^{\tilde{C}_{\varepsilon,T} (1+|x|)^2}E\left[\exp\left\{\tilde{C}_{\varepsilon,T}(1+|x|) \int_0^T (|B_u|+|B_u|^2) du\right\}\right]
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{C}_{\varepsilon,T}>0$ is a constant such that $\lim_{\varepsilon \searrow 0} \tilde{C}_{\varepsilon,T}=0$. Clearly, for every compact set $K\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ we can choose $\varepsilon>0$ small enough such that
$$\sup_{x\in K} \sup_{n\geq 0} E\Big[ \exp\bigg\{\varepsilon(1+\varepsilon) \int_0^T |b_n(u,X_u^{\varepsilon,x})|^2 du\bigg\}\Big] <\infty.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{remdensity}
We point out that the finite dimensional laws of the strong solution of (\ref{SDE}) are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. To see this, let $A$ denote a set with null Lebesgue measure. Then since $b$ is of, at most, linear growth, by Girsanov's theorem, see e.g. \cite[Proposition 5.3.6]{Kar98}, and Lemma \ref{epsilonbound} one has
\begin{align*}
P(X_t \in A) &\leq E\left[\textbf{1}_{\{B_t^x \in A\}} \mathcal{E} \left( \int_0^T b (u,B_u^x)dB_u\right)\right]\\
&\leq C_{\varepsilon} P(B_t^x \in A)^{\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}}\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
\end{rem}
Next, we give a crucial estimate for the proof of our main results.
\begin{prop} \label{mainEstimate}
Let $B$ be a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion starting from $z_0\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $b_1, \dots , b_m$ be compactly supported continuously differentiable functions $b_i : [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ for $i=1,2, \dots m$. Let $\alpha_i\in \{0,1\}^d$ be a multiindex such that $| \alpha_i| \leq 1$ for $i = 1,2, \dots, m$. Then there exists a universal constant $C$ (independent of $\{ b_i \}_i$, $m$, and $\{ \alpha_i \}_i$) such that
\begin{equation}
\label{estimate}
\left| E \left[ \int_{t_0 < t_1 < \dots < t_m < t} \left( \prod_{i=1}^m D^{\alpha_i}b_i(t_i,B_{t_i}) \right) dt_1 \dots dt_m \right] \right| \leq \frac{C^m \prod_{i=1}^m \|b_i \|_{\infty} (t-t_0)^{m/2}}{\Gamma(\frac{m}{2} + 1)}
\end{equation}
for every $t_0,t\in [0,T]$ where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma-function. Here, $\alpha_i=(0,\dots, 1,\dots, 0)$ is a multiindex where $1$ is placed in position $1\leq j\leq d$ and thus $D^{\alpha_i}$ denotes the partial derivative with respect to the $j'$th space variable.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Proposition 3.7]{Men11} for a detailed proof when $|\alpha_i|=1$ for all $i=1,\dots,m$. For the case, $|\alpha_i|\leq 1$ the proof is fairly similar.
\end{proof}
We turn now to one of the main results of this section.
\begin{thm}\label{mainprop}
Let $X_t$, $t\in[0,T]$ denote the solution to equation (\ref{SDE}) with \mbox{$b:[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$} a function satisfying hypotheses $(H)_1$, i.e. of linear growth with bounded weak derivative, then we have $X_t \in \mathbb{D}^{2,p}(\Omega)$ for all $p\geq 1$. In particular the result holds if $b$ is (globally) Lipschitz.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In order to carry out the proof of Theorem \ref{mainprop}, we use the following result in \mbox{\cite[Proposition 1.5.5.]{Nua10}}.
\begin{prop}
Let $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ a sequence of random variables such that $X_n \rightarrow X$ in $L^p(\Omega)$, $p\geq 1$ and such that for $k\geq 1$
$$\sup_{n\geq 0}\|X_n\|_{\mathbb{D}^{k,p}(\Omega)}<\infty,$$
then $X\in \mathbb{D}^{k,p}(\Omega)$.
\end{prop}
We start with the proof of Theorem \ref{mainprop} by showing that the solution $X_t$ of (\ref{SDE}) can be approximated by random variables in $L^p(\Omega)$ for every $t\in[0,T]$.
We have that the weak derivative of $b$ lies in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $b$ has linear growth, i.e. there is $C>0$ such that
$$|b(t,x)|\leq C(1+|x|)$$
for every $t\in [0,T]$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$. Then we can approximate $b$ a.e. in $t\in [0,T]$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ by a sequence of functions $\{b_n\}_{n\geq 1} \subset \mathcal{C}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that \mbox{$\sup_{n\geq 0} |b_n(t,x)| \leq C(1+|x|)$} and \mbox{$\sup_n \|b_n'\|_{\infty}<\infty$}. For each $t\in[0,T]$, denote by $X_t^n$ the sequence of random variables in $L^p(\Omega)$ solution to equation (\ref{SDE}) with drift coefficient $b_n$. Then
$$X_t^n = x + \int_0^t b_n(u,X_u^n)du + B_t.$$
Denote by $p_{X_t}$ the density of $X_t$ for a fixed $t\in [0,T]$ from Remark \ref{remdensity}. Denote by $|\cdot|$ the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^d$, then
\begin{align*}
E\big[|X_t^n &- X_t|^p\big] = E\left[\bigg| \int_0^t \left( b_n(u,X_u^n) - b(u,X_u)\right) du \bigg|^p\right]\\
&\leq (2t)^{p-1} E\left[\int_0^t |b_n(u,X_u)-b(u,X_u)|^p du\right] + (2t)^{p-1} E\left[\int_0^t |b_n(u,X_u^n)- b_n(u,X_u)|^p du\right]\\
&\leq (2t)^{p-1} E\left[\int_0^t |b_n(u,X_u)-b(u,X_u)|^p du\right] + (2t)^{p-1} \|b_n'\|_{\infty}^p E\left[\int_0^t |X_u^n - X_u|^p du\right].
\end{align*}
Using Gronwall's inequality we obtain
\begin{align*}
E\left[|X_t^n - X_t|^p\right] &\leq (2t)^{p-1} \exp\left\{ (2t)^{p-1}t \sup_{k} \|b_k'\|_{\infty}^p\right\} E\left[\int_0^t |b_n(u,X_u)-b(u,X_u)|^p du\right] \\
&\leq C \int_0^t \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} |b_n(u,x)-b(u,x)|^p p_{X_u}(x) dx du
\end{align*}
for a constant $C>0$ independent of $n$. Then Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem gives the $L^p(\Omega)$-convergence.
Let us now proceed with the proof that the random variables $X_t^n$ are bounded in $\mathbb{D}^{2,p}(\Omega)$ for every $p\geq 1$: Fix $s_1,t \in [0,T]$, $s_1,\leq t$. Then
\begin{align}\label{malliavin1}
D_{s_1} X_t^n = \mathcal{I}_d + \int_{s_1}^t b_n'(u,X_u^n)D_{s_1}X_u^ndu.
\end{align}
The above equations for $D_{s_1}X_u^n$, $n\geq 1$, are linear equations with matrix-valued unknowns. Since each $b_n$ is smooth we have a unique solution of (\ref{malliavin1}). Again, for notational convenience we denote by \mbox{$\Lambda_m(s,t):= \{(u_1,\dots,u_m)\in [0,T]^m: \ s<u_1<\cdots < u_m <t\}$} the $m$. Then using a Picard iteration argument we may write the solution of (\ref{malliavin1}) as a series expansion as follows
\begin{align}\label{picard}
D_{s_1} X_t^n = \mathcal{I}_d + \sum_{m\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_m(s_1,t)} b_n'(u_1,X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(u_m ,X_{u_m}^n) du_1\cdots du_m.
\end{align}
To see that the above expression is indeed the solution of (\ref{malliavin1}) just make the following observation
$$\frac{d}{dt} D_{s_1} X_t^n = b_n'(t,X_t^n)\left(\mathcal{I}_d+ \sum_{m\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_m(s_1,t)}b_n'(u_1,X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n '(u_{m}, X_{u_m}^n)du_1\cdots du_{m}\right).$$
Take now $s_2\in [0,t]$. Then
\begin{align}\label{malliavin21}
D_{s_2} D_{s_1} X_t^n = \sum_{m\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_m(s_1 \vee s_2,t)} D_{s_2}\left[b_n'(u_1,X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(u_m, X_{u_m}^n)\right] du_1\cdots du_m.
\end{align}
We expand the integrand of (\ref{malliavin21}) using Leibniz's rule as follows
$$ D_{s_2}\left[b_n'(u_1,X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(u_m,X_{u_m}^n)\right] = \sum_{r=1}^m b_n'(u_1,X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n''(u_r,X_{u_r}^n)D_{s_2}X_{u_r}^n\cdots b_n'(u_m,X_{u_m}^n).$$
\begin{rem}
We recall here that $b:[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ so $Db(t,\cdot): \mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow L(\mathbb{R}^d,\mathbb{R}^d)$ and so $Db(t,x)\in L(\mathbb{R}^d,\mathbb{R}^d)$. The second derivative is then $D^2 b(t,\cdot):\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow L(\mathbb{R}^d,L(\mathbb{R}^d, \mathbb{R}^d))$ so $D^2b(t,x): L(\mathbb{R}^d, L(\mathbb{R}^d,\mathbb{R}^d)) \cong L^2(\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d, \mathbb{R}^d)$ denoting by $L^2(\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d, \mathbb{R}^d )$ the bilinear forms from $\mathbb{R}^d\times \mathbb{R}^d$ into $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{rem}
Inserting the representation (\ref{picard}) for $D_{s_2}X_{u_r}^n$ in this case we have that the above quantity can be written as
\begin{align*}
\sum_{r=1}^m & b_n'(u_1,X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n''(u_r,X_{u_r}^n)\\
&\times\left(\mathcal{I}_d+ \sum_{m\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_m(s_2,u_r)} b_n'(v_1, X_{v_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(v_m, X_{v_m}^n) dv_1\cdots dv_m\right)b_n'(u_{r+1},X_{u_{r+1}}^n)\cdots b_n'(u_m, X_{u_m}^n).
\end{align*}
Altogether
\begin{align*}
D_{s_2} D_{s_1} X_t^n &= \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1} b_n'(u_1, X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n''(u_r, X_{u_r}^n)\\
&\times \left(\mathcal{I}_d+ \sum_{m_2\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_2}(s_2,u_r)} b_n'(v_1, X_{v_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(v_{m_2} ,X_{v_{m_2}}^n) dv_1\cdots dv_{m_2}\right)\\
&\times b_n'(u_{r+1},X_{u_{r+1}}^n) \cdots b_n'(u_{m_1}, X_{u_{m_1}}^n) du_1\cdots du_{m_1}. \\
&= \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1} b_n'(u_1, X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n''(u_r, X_{u_r}^n) \cdots b_n'(u_{m_1}, X_{u_{m_1}}^n)du_1\cdots du_{m_1} \\
&+ \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1} b_n'(u_1, X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n''(u_r, X_{u_r}^n) \\
&\times \left(\sum_{m_2\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_2}(s_2,u_r)} b_n'(v_1, X_{v_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(v_{m_2}, X_{v_{m_2}}^n) dv_1\cdots dv_{m_2}\right)\\
&\times b_n'(u_{r+1},X_{u_{r+1}}^n)\cdots b_n'(u_{m_1}, X_{u_{m_1}}^n) du_1\cdots du_{m_1}.
\end{align*}
We reallocate terms by dominated convergence and respecting the order of matrices
\begin{align}\label{malliavin22}
D_{s_2} D_{s_1} & X_t^n = \sum_{m_1\geq 1}\sum_{r=1}^{m_1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} b_n'(u_1, X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n''(u_r, X_{u_r}^n) \cdots b_n'(u_{m_1}, X_{u_{m_1}}^n)du_1\cdots du_{m_1} \\
&+ \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1}\sum_{m_2\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \int_{\Lambda_{m_2}(s_2,u_r)} b_n'(u_1, X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n''(u_r, X_{u_r}^n) \notag\\
&\times b_n'(v_1, X_{v_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(v_{m_2}, X_{v_{m_2}}^n) b_n'(u_{r+1},X_{u_{r+1}}^n)\cdots b_n'(u_{m_1}, X_{u_{m_1}}^n) dv_1\cdots dv_{m_2} du_1\cdots du_{m_1}.\notag\\ &=: I_1^n + I_2^n.\notag
\end{align}
Denote by $\|\cdot\|$ the maximum norm on $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d \times d}$. Then Minkowski's inequality gives
\begin{align*}
E\|D_{s_2}D_{s_1}X_t^n\|^p = E\| I_1^n + I_2^n \|^p\leq 2^{p-1}\left(E\|I_1^n\|^p + E\|I_2^n\|^p\right)
\end{align*}
Let $p\geq 1$ and choose $p_1,p_2\in [1,\infty)$ such that $pp_1=2^q$ for some integer $q$ and $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}=1$. We focus now on the term $I_2^n$. Then by Girsanov's theorem we have
\begin{align}
E\|I_2^n\|^p &= E\Bigg[\bigg\| \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1}\sum_{m_2\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \int_{\Lambda_{m_2}(s_2,u_r)} b_n'(u_1, B_{u_1}^x)\cdots b_n''(u_r, B_{u_r}^x) \notag\\
&\times b_n'(v_1, B_{v_1}^x)\cdots b_n'(v_{m_2}, B_{v_{m_2}}^x) b_n(u_{r+1}, B_{u_{r+1}}^x)\cdots b_n'(u_{m_1}, B_{u_{m_1}}^x) dv_1\cdots dv_{m_2} du_1\cdots du_{m_1}\bigg\|^p \notag \\
&\times \mathcal{E}\left( \sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^T b_n^{(i)}(u,B_u^x)dB_u^{(i)}\right)\Bigg] \notag.
\end{align}
Then choose $p_2=1+\varepsilon$ and $p_1=\frac{1+\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}$ with $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small and apply Lemma \ref{epsilonbound} to obtain
\begin{align}\label{I2}
\begin{split}
E&\|I_2^n\|^p \leq C_{\varepsilon} \bigg\| \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1}\sum_{m_2\geq 1} \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \int_{\Lambda_{m_2}(s_2,u_r)} b_n'(u_1,B_{u_1}^x)\cdots b_n''(u_r,B_{u_r}^x)b_n'(v_1, B_{v_1}^x) \\
&\times \cdots b_n'(v_{m_2}, B_{v_{m_2}}^x) b_n(u_{r+1},B_{u_{r+1}}^x)\cdots b_n'(u_{m_1}, B_{u_{m_1}}^x) dv_1\cdots dv_{m_2} du_1\cdots du_{m_1} \bigg\|_{L^{2^q}(\Omega; \mathbb{R}^{d\times d\times d})}^p
\end{split}
\end{align}
Now we carry out the product of linear and bilinear forms in the integrand of (\ref{I2}). Recall that $b''(u,B_u^x)=\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_j \partial x_k} b^{(i)}(u,B_u^x)\right)_{i,j,k=1,\dots,d}$ and $b'(u,B_u^x)=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} b^{(i)}(u,B_u^x) \right)_{i,j=1,\dots,d}$ where the superscript $b^{(i)}(u,B_u^x)$ here denotes the $i$-th component of the vector $b(u,B_u^x)$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}$, resp. $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_j \partial x_k}$, denote the weak derivative of $b^{(i)}(u,B_u^x)$ with respect to the $j$-th space component, resp. with respect to the $j$-th and $k$-th space components. So we represent the second order derivatives as a matrix of matrices in this case, i.e. \mbox{$b''(t,x) = \nabla\otimes \nabla b(t,x)$} where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker tensor product.
Hence we can represent the second order derivatives in the integrand in (\ref{I2}) in this manner
\begin{align}\label{D2b}
b''(u,B_u^x)=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}\begin{pmatrix} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_d} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x)\end{pmatrix}\\
~\\
\vdots\\
~\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_d}\begin{pmatrix} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_d} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x)\end{pmatrix}\\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
The product of $b''(B_{u})$ with $b'(B_v)$ is then
\begin{align}\label{D2bDb}
b''(u,B_u^x)b'(v,B_v^x)=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}\begin{pmatrix} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_d} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x)\end{pmatrix} b'(v,B_v^x)\\
~\\
\vdots\\
~\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_d}\begin{pmatrix} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_d} b^{(1)}(u,B_u^x) \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x) & \cdots & \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} b^{(d)}(u,B_u^x)\end{pmatrix} b'(v,B_v^x)\\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
As a result
\begin{align*}
& &b''(u,B_u^x)b'(v,B_v^x)= \left( \sum_{l=1}^d \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_k \partial x_l}b^{(i)}(u,B_u^x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} b^{(l)}(v,B_v^x) \right)_{i,j,k=1}^d
\end{align*}
Hence, taking maximum norm over all products
\begin{align}\label{I2eq2}
\begin{split}
E\|I_2^n\|^p &\leq C_p \ \Bigg( \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1}\sum_{m_2\geq 1}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^d \sum_{l_1,\dots,l_{m_1+m_2-1}=1}^d \bigg\| \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee s_2,t)}\int_{\Lambda_{m_2}(s_2,u_r)} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_1}}b_n^{(i)}(u_1,B_{u_1}^x) \\
&\times \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_2}}b_n^{(l_1)}(u_2,B_{u_2}^x)\cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r-1}}}b_n^{(l_{r-2})}(u_{r-1},B_{u_{r-1}}^x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_r}}b_n^{(l_{r-1})}(u_r,B_{u_r}^x) \\
&\times \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r+1}}}b_n^{(l_r)}(v_1,B_{v_1}^x)\cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{ l_{r+m_2} } }b_n^{ (l_{r+m_2-1} ) }(v_{m_2},B_{v_{m_2}}^x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r+m_2+1}}}b_n^{(l_{r+m_2})}(u_{r+1},B_{u_{r+1}}^x)\\
&\times \cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}b_n^{(l_{m_1+m_2-1})}(u_{m_1},B_{u_{m_1}}^x) dv_1\cdots dv_{m_2} du_1\cdots du_{m_1} \bigg\|_{L^{2^q}(\Omega; \mathbb{R})}\Bigg)^p.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Observe the second order partial derivatives in the integrand.
The following step is to apply expectation and get rid of the second order derivatives. To do so, we will use the estimate from Proposition \ref{mainEstimate}.
Before applying Proposition \ref{mainEstimate} we need to make the following observation on the integrating regions in connection to (\ref{I2eq2}): the iterated integrals of (\ref{I2eq2}) can be split up as a sum of integrals where the regions which we integrate over are ordered. Indeed, using formula \eqref{shuffle2} we express the term in (\ref{I2eq2}) as follows
\begin{align}\label{I2eq3}
\begin{split}
E&\|I_2^n\|^p\\
\leq& C_p \ \Bigg( \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1}\sum_{m_2\geq 1}\sum_{i,j,k=1}^d \sum_{l_1,\dots,l_{m_1+m_2-1}=1}^d \sum_{\sigma \in S_r(m,n)}\bigg\| \int_{\Lambda_{m_1+m_2}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_1}}b_n^{(i)}(w_{\sigma(1)},B_{w_{\sigma(1)}}^x) \\
&\times \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_2}}b_n^{(l_1)}(w_{\sigma(2)},B_{w_{\sigma(2)}}^x)\cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r-1}}}b_n^{(l_{r-2})}(w_{\sigma(r-1)},B_{w_{\sigma(r-1)}}^x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_r}}b_n^{(l_{r-1})}(w_{\sigma(r)},B_{w_{\sigma(r)}}^x) \\
&\times \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r+1}}}b_n^{(l_r)}(w_{\sigma(r+1)},B_{w_{\sigma(r+1)}}^x)\cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{ l_{r+m_2} } }b_n^{ (l_{r+m_2-1} ) }(w_{\sigma(r+m_2)},B_{w_{\sigma(r+m_2)}}^x)\\
&\times\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r+m_2+1}}}b_n^{(l_{r+m_2})}(w_{\sigma(r+m_2+1)},B_{w_{\sigma(r+m_2+1)}}^x) \cdots \\
& \cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}b_n^{(l_{m_1+m_2-1})}(w_{\sigma(m_1+m_2)},B_{w_{\sigma(m_1+m_2)}}^x) dw_1\cdots dw_{m_1+m_2} \bigg\|_{L^{2^q}(\Omega; \mathbb{R})}\Bigg)^p.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Now that the sets over which we integrate are symmetric we can use deterministic integration by parts to write the integrals in (\ref{I2eq3}) to the power two as a sum of at most $2^{2m}$ summands of the form
$$\int_{\Lambda_{2m}^s (s_1\vee s_2,t)} g_1(w_1)\cdots g_{2m}(w_{2m})dw_1\cdots dw_{2m}$$
where $m:=m_1+m_2$ and $g_l \in \left\{ \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} b^{(i)}(\cdot, B_{\cdot}^x), \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_{l_1} \partial x_{l_2}} b^{(k)}(\cdot,B_{\cdot}^x), i,j,k,l_1,l_2=1,\dots d\right\}$ and \mbox{$l=1,\dots,2m$}. Once more, we can write the integrals to the power four as a sum of at most $2^{8m}$ summands of the form
$$\int_{\Lambda_{4m}^s (s_1\vee s_2,t)} g_1(w_1)\cdots g_{4m}(w_{4m})dw_1\cdots dw_{4m}.$$
Repeating this principle, one can write the integrals to the power $2^q$ as a sum of at most $2^{q2^q m}$ summands of the form
$$ \int_{\Lambda_{2^q m}^s (s_1\vee s_2,t)} g_1(w_1)\cdots g_{2^q m}(w_{2^q m})dw_1\cdots dw_{2^q m}.$$
Combining this with Proposition \ref{mainEstimate} we obtain
\begin{align}\label{I2eq4}
\begin{split}
&\bigg\| \int_{\Lambda_{m_1+m_2}(s_1\vee s_2,t)} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_1}}b_n^{(i)}(w_{\sigma(1)},B_{w_{\sigma(1)}}^x) \\
&\times \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_2}}b_n^{(l_1)}(w_{\sigma(2)},B_{w_{\sigma(2)}}^x)\cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r-1}}}b_n^{(l_{r-2})}(w_{\sigma(r-1)},B_{w_{\sigma(r-1)}}^x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_r}}b_n^{(l_{r-1})}(w_{\sigma(r)},B_{w_{\sigma(r)}}^x) \\
&\times \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r+1}}}b_n^{(l_r)}(w_{\sigma(r+1)},B_{w_{\sigma(r+1)}}^x)\cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{ l_{r+m_2} } }b_n^{ (l_{r+m_2-1} ) }(w_{\sigma(r+m_2)},B_{w_{\sigma(r+m_2)}}^x)\\
&\times\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{l_{r+m_2+1}}}b_n^{(l_{r+m_2})}(w_{\sigma(r+m_2+1)},B_{w_{\sigma(r+m_2+1)}}^x) \cdots \\
& \cdots \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}b_n^{(l_{m_1+m_2-1})}(w_{\sigma(m_1+m_2)},B_{w_{\sigma(m_1+m_2)}}^x) dw_1\cdots dw_{m_1+m_2} \bigg\|_{L^{2^q}(\Omega; \mathbb{R})} \\
&\leq \left(\frac{2^{q2^q (m_1+m_2)}C_{d,p,T}^{2^q (m_1+m_2)} \|b_n'\|_{\infty}^{2^q (m_1+m_2)}|t-(s_1 \vee s_2)|^{2^{q-1}(m_1+m_2)}}{\Gamma\left( 2^{q-1}(m_1+m_2)+1\right)}\right)^{2^{-q}} \\
&=\frac{2^{q(m_1+m_2)}C_{d,p,T}^{m_1+m_2}\|b_n'\|_{\infty}^{m_1+m_2}|t-(s_1 \vee s_2)|^{(m_1+m_2)/2}}{\left[\left(2^{q-1}(m_1+m_2)\right)!\right]^{2^{-q}}}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Using the bound in (\ref{I2eq4}) we get
\begin{align*}
E&\|I_2^n\|^p \leq\\
&\leq \Bigg( \sum_{m_1\geq 1} \sum_{r=1}^{m_1}\sum_{m_2\geq 1} C^{m_1+m_2}\frac{d^{m_1+m_2+2}2^{q(m_1+m_2)}C_{d,p,T}^{m_1+m_2} \|b_n'\|^{m_1+m_2}|t-(s_1 \vee s_2)|^{(m_1+m_2)/2}}{\left[\left(2^{q-1}(m_1+m_2)\right)!\right]^{2^{-q}}} \Bigg)^p\\
&\leq \Bigg( \sum_{m_1\geq 1}\sum_{m_2\geq 1} m_1C^{m_1+m_2}\frac{d^{m_1+m_2+2}2^{q(m_1+m_2)}C_{d,p,T}^{m_1+m_2} \|b_n'\|^{m_1+m_2}|t-(s_1 \vee s_2)|^{(m_1+m_2)/2}}{\left[\left(2^{q-1}(m_1+m_2)\right)!\right]^{2^{-q}}} \Bigg)^p\\
&\leq \Bigg( \sum_{m\geq 1} mC^m\frac{d^{m+2}2^{qm}C_{d,p,T}^{m} \|b_n'\|_{\infty}^{m}|t-(s_1 \vee s_2)|^{m/2}}{\left[\left(2^{q-1}m\right)!\right]^{2^{-q}}} \Bigg)^p\\
&\leq C_{d,p,T} f(\|b_n'\|_{\infty})
\end{align*}
for some continuous function $f$ only depending on $d$, $p$ and $T$. As a result,
$$\sup_{n\geq 0}\sup_{s_1,s_2\in [0,T]} E\|I_2^n\|^p \leq C_{d,p,T} \sup_{n\geq 0}\sup_{s_1,s_2\in [0,T]} f(\|b_n'\|_{\infty}) < \infty.$$
Finally, one can bound $E\|I_1^n\|^p$ using exactly the same steps as for $I_2^n$.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to state one of the main results of this section on the Malliavin regularity of the solution to SDE (\ref{SDE}).
\begin{thm}\label{mainthm}
Assume that $b$ satisfies condition (\ref{bcondition}) for some $k\geq 1$. Let $X_t$, $t\in[0,T]$ denote the solution to equation (\ref{SDE}). Then
$$X_t \in \bigcap_{p\geq 1} \mathbb{D}^{k+1,p}(\Omega).$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this more general result relies on Theorem \ref{mainprop} by iterating all arguments up to $k+1$. Similarly as before, let $\{b_n\}_{n\geq 1} \subset \mathcal{C}^{k+1}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ be an approximating sequence of functions such that $b_n \to b$ a.e. in $t\in [0,T]$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ as $n\to \infty$ and $\sup_{n\geq 0} |b_n(t,x)|\leq C(1+|x|)$ and $\sup_n \|b_n^{(j)}\|<\infty$, $j\leq k$ where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes any norm in $\mathbb{R}^d \times \overset{j)}{\dots} \times \mathbb{R}^d$, $j\leq k$. For each $t\in[0,T]$, denote by $X_t^n$ the sequence of random variables in $L^p(\Omega)$ solution to equation (\ref{SDE}) with drift coefficient $b_n$. Then we wish to compute the Malliavin derivative of $X_t^n$ up to order $k+1$. This becomes a large expression where the terms increase at a binomial speed. We saw in the proof of Proposition (\ref{mainprop}) that the second order Malliavin derivative of $X_t^n$ can be written as $D_{s_2}D_{s_1}X_t^n = I_1^n+I_2^n$ where the integrals in $I_2^n$ are doubled. If we fix $s_3\in[0,t]$ then $D_{s_3}D_{s_2}D_{s_1} X_t^n = D_{s_3} I_1^n + D_{s_3} I_2^n = I_1^n + I_2^n + I_3^n + I_4^n$ and so on. Each term $I_i^n$, $i=1,2,3,4$ is a sum of integrals of the form (\ref{malliavin22}) with at most one factor $b_n^{(3)}$. Iterating this argument, we have that for fixed $s_1,\dots,s_{k+1}\in [0,t]$
$$D_{s_{k+1}}\cdots D_{s_1}X_t^n = I_1^n + \dots + I_{2^{k}}^n$$
where each $I_i^n$, $i=1,2,\dots, 2^k$ is an integral over at most $\Lambda_{m_1+\dots+m_{k+1}}$ with at most one factor $b_n^{(k+1)}$ and the rest $b_n^{(j)}$, $j \leq k$. This can be readily checked by looking at expression (\ref{malliavin22}). Then, estimating $I_{2^{k}}^n$ implies that all former terms are also bounded.
To illustrate $I_{2^{k}}^n$ we use expression (\ref{malliavin22}) and apply $D_{s_3}\cdots D_{s_{k+1}}$ and focus on the last term. In order to simplify notation and make the reading clearer we consider indices $m_1,\dots,m_{k+1},r_1,\dots, r_{k}\in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{0\}$ and denote
$$\sum_{\substack{m_1,\dots,m_{k+1}\\r_1,\dots,r_{k}}} :=\sum_{m_1\geq 1}\sum_{r_1=1}^{m_1} \sum_{m_2\geq 1}\sum_{r_2=1}^{m_1+m_2}\cdots \sum_{r_{k}=1}^{m_1+\cdots+m_{k}}\sum_{m_{k+1}\geq 0},$$
as well as,
$$\int_{\Delta} := \int_{\Lambda_{m_1}(s_1\vee\dots\vee s_{k+1},t)}\int_{\Lambda_{m_2}(s_2\vee\dots\vee s_{k+1},t)}\cdots \int_{\Lambda_{m_{k+1}}(s_{k+1},t)}.$$
Then $I_{2^{k}}^n$ will take the following form
\begin{align*}
I_{2^{k}}^n &= \sum_{\substack{m_1,\dots,m_{k+1}\\r_1,\dots,r_{k}}} \int_{\Delta} \mathcal{A}(u_1^1,\dots,u_{m_1}^1,\dots, u_{1}^{k+1},\dots, u_{m_{k+1}}^{k+1}) du_1^{k+1}\cdots du_{m_{k+1}}^{k+1} \cdots du_1^1 \cdots du_{m_1}^1
\end{align*}
with integrand
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}:= g_n(u_1^1)\cdots g_n(u_{r_1}^1)\bigg[g_n(u_1^2)\cdot g_n(u_{r_2}^2)&\bigg[\cdots g_n(u_1^{k+1})\cdots\\
&\cdots g_n(u_{m_{k+1}}^{k+1})\bigg]g_n(u_{r_{k}+1}^{k})\cdots g_n(u_{m_2}^2)\bigg]g_n(u_{r_1+1}^1)\cdots g_n(u_{m_1}^1)
\end{align*}
where the functions $g_n$ denote an element in the set
$$g_n\in \{D b_n, D^2 b_n, \cdots, D^{k+1} b_n\}.$$
Then, using exactly the same procedure as for $I_1^n$ and $I_2^n$, mutatis mutandis, we obtain an integral of products of partial derivatives of at most order $k+1$, this together with Proposition \ref{mainEstimate} one is able to get rid of the $k+1$-th derivative as we did for $I_2^n$ in Theorem \ref{mainthm}.
\end{proof}
To emphasize that the solution depends on the initial point $x$ we write $X_t^x$. Next result gives a condition for the regularity of $x\mapsto X_t^x$ in the space variable in the Sobolev sense.
\begin{thm}\label{sobreg}
Assume that $b$ satisfies condition (\ref{bcondition}) for some $k\geq 1$. Let $U\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be an open bounded set and $X_t$, $t\in[0,T]$ denote the solution to equation (\ref{SDE}). Then
$$X_t^{\cdot} \in \bigcap_{p\geq 1} L^2\big(\Omega, W^{k+1,p}(U)\big).$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This result actually follows by observing that the process $\frac{\partial}{\partial x} X_t^x$ satisfies the following linear ODE
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} X_t^x = \mathcal{I}_d + \int_0^t b'(u, X_u^x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}X_u^x du.$$
This equation is the same as (\ref{malliavin1}) when $s=0$. Using this observation, in connection with the same method employed in the proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm} by replacing the Malliavin derivative of $X_t$ with $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}X_t^x$ we get that for the approximating sequence of solutions $X_t^{n,x}$, $n\geq 0$ described in Theorem \ref{mainthm} we have
$$\sup_{n\geq 0}\sup_{x\in \overline{U}} E\left[\|\frac{\partial^{j}}{\partial x^{j}} X_t^{n,x}\|^p \right] <\infty$$
for all $j=0,\dots,k+1$ and any $p\geq 1$ so $X_t^{n,\cdot}$ is bounded in the Sobolev norm $ L^2(\Omega, W^{k+1,p}(U))$ for each $n\geq 0$. Indeed
$$\sup_{n\geq 0} \|X_t^{n,\cdot}\|_{L^2(\Omega, W^{k+1,p}(U))}^2 = \sup_{n\geq 0}\sum_{i=0}^{k+1} E\left[\|\frac{\partial^i}{\partial x^i}X_t^{n,\cdot}\|_{L^p(U)}^2\right]\leq \sum_{i=0}^{k+1} \int_{U} \sup_{n\geq 0}E\left[ \|\frac{\partial^i}{\partial x^i}X_t^{n,x}\|^p \right]dx <\infty.$$
Since $L^2(\Omega, W^{k+1,p}(U))$ is reflexive, by Banach-Alaoglu's theorem we get that the set $\{X_t^{n,x}\}_{n\geq 0}$ is weakly compact in the $L^2(\Omega, W^{k+1,p}(U))$ topology. Thus, there exists a subsequence $n(j)$, $j\geq 0$ such that
$$X_t^{n(j),\cdot} \xrightarrow[j\to \infty]{w} Y \in L^2(\Omega, W^{k+1,p}(U)).$$
On the other hand, we have that $X_t^{n,x} \to X_t^x$ strongly in $L^p(\Omega)$, so by uniqueness of the limit we can conclude that
$$X_t^{\cdot} =Y, \ \ P-a.s.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The previous result actually gives classical derivatives of the solution up to order $k+\alpha$ with $\alpha\in (0,1)$ as a consequence of the Sobolev embedding (\ref{embed}).
\end{rem}
\section{Application to the regularity of densities}
As mentioned in the introduction one implication of improving the Malliavin regularity of SDEs with drift coefficient satisfying hypotheses \textbf{(H)} is that the finite dimensional laws have $k$-times differentiable densities due to a result by V.Bally and L.Caramellino, see \cite{Bally2011}. We see this as an improvement of the regularity condition given by \cite{Kus82} for the additive noise case. In addition, we see that the boundedness of $b$ is not needed.
The following is a consequence of Theorem \ref{mainthm} for the special case $d=1$ and illustrates how we may gain regularity of the densities of solutions to (\ref{SDE}) and provide with an explicit expression for the density and its derivatives. Later on, we will show it for higher dimensions.
\begin{cor}
For $d=1$, let $p_{X_t}$ denote the density of the solution $X_t$ to equation (\ref{SDE}) for a given \mbox{$t\in [0,T]$}. If $b$ satisfies (\ref{bcondition}) for some $k\geq 1$ then $p_{X_t} \in C^{k-1}(\mathbb{R})$ for every $t\in [0,T]$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $G_0, G_1,G_2,\dots,G_k$ be the random variables defined as $G_0=1$ and for each $i=1,\dots,k$
$$G_i=\delta \left(G_{i-1}\cdot\left(\int_0^T D_s X_t ds\right)^{-1}\right),$$
where $\delta$ denotes the Skorokhod integral as introduced in \eqref{skorokhod}.
It is known that if $X_t\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$, $\int_0^T D_s X_t ds \neq 0$, $P-a.s.$ and \mbox{$G_i\left( \int_0^T D_s X_t ds\right)^{-1}\in \mbox{Dom}(\delta)$} for each $i=0,\dots,k$ then $X_t$ has a density of class $C^k(\mathbb{R})$ and
\begin{align}\label{density}
\frac{d^i}{dy^i}p_{X_t}(y) = (-1)^i E\left[ \textbf{1}_{\{X_t>y\}} G_{i+1}\right]
\end{align}
for each $i=0,\dots,k$. See \cite[p115]{Nua10}.
We will then prove that $G_i \left(\int_0^T D_s X_t ds\right)^{-1}\in \mbox{Dom}(\delta)$ for $i=0,\dots,k-1$. First, observe that for dimension $d=1$ we can easily solve the linear SDE for $D_s X_t$ and write
\begin{align}\label{mallexp}
D_s X_t = \exp\left\{\int_s^t b'(u,X_u)du\right\}
\end{align}
where $b'$ denotes the weak derivative of $b$ (one may also use local time to express (\ref{mallexp}) independently of $b'$ if $b$ is non-regular, see \cite{Ein2000}). Hence, for any $t\in [0,T]$ there is an $\varepsilon >0$ such that \mbox{$\int_0^T D_s X_tds \geq \varepsilon >0$}. Since $x\mapsto \frac{1}{x}$ is smooth on the domain $(\varepsilon, \infty)$ we see that \mbox{$\left(\int_0^T D_s X_t ds\right)^{-1} \in \mathbb{D}^{k,2}(\Omega)$} since $X_t \in \mathbb{D}^{k+1,2}(\Omega)$ by Theorem \ref{mainthm}. Denote $F:=\left(\int_0^T D_s X_t ds\right)^{-1}$.
Now, since $F\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ we have $F\in \mbox{Dom}(\delta)$ and $G_1=\delta(F) = FW(T) + \int_0^T D_s F ds$. Then we see that $G_1\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ and hence $G_1F\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ therefore $G_1 F\in \mbox{Dom}(\delta)$ with \mbox{$G_2= \delta(G_1F)= G_1FW(T) - \int_0^T [D_s G_1 F + G_1 D_sF]ds$}. Again, it is readily checked that \mbox{$G_2\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$} since \mbox{$G_1,F\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$} so $G_2F\in \mbox{Dom}(\delta)$. For a fixed $i=0,\dots,k-1$ we have $G_i,F\in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ therefore $G_iF\in \mbox{Dom}(\delta)$ with $G_{i+1}=\delta(G_iF)= G_iFW(T) - \int_0^T [D_sG_i F + G_i D_sF]ds$. So $G_i$ is well-defined for $i=0,\dots,k$ but we can not say anything about $G_{k+1}$ so $p_{X_t}$ is at least $k-1$-times differentiable with derivatives given by (\ref{density}).
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the Malliavin regularity we have shown for SDEs of the form (\ref{SDE}) we may apply the results by V.Bally and L.Caramellino, see \cite{Bally2011}, to be able to obtain regularity of the densities, also in higher dimension. In order to do so, we need to study integrability properties of the Malliavin covariance matrix. Let us denote
$$\gamma_{X_t}^{ij} := \langle D_{\cdot} X_t^{(i)}, D_{\cdot} X_t^{(j)}\rangle_{H}, \ \ i,j=1,\dots,d,$$
the Malliavin covariance matrix of the process $X_t$, given $t\in [0,T]$. We will say that \mbox{$\gamma_{X_t} = (\gamma_{X_t}^{ij})_{i,j=1,\dots,d}$} satisfies the \emph{non-degeneracy condition} whenever
\begin{align}\label{nondeg}
(\det \gamma_{X_t})^{-1} \in \bigcap_{p\geq 1} L^p(\Omega).
\end{align}
Next, we invoke a result by \cite[Proposition 23]{Bally2011} which gives us the desired properties on the density of $X_t$, $t\in [0,T]$.
\begin{prop}
Let $F=(F^1,\dots,F^d)$ with $F^1,\dots,F^d \in \bigcap_{p\geq 1} \mathbb{D}^{k+1,p}(\Omega)$. Assume that condition (\ref{nondeg}) holds for $\gamma_F$. Denote by $p_F$ the density of $F$. Then $p_F \in C^{k-1,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ with $\alpha<1$, i.e. $p_F$ is $k-1$-times differentiable with H\"{o}lder continuous derivatives of exponent $\alpha<1$.
\end{prop}
In view of the above result we only need to check that the non-degeneracy condition (\ref{nondeg}) is fulfilled. To do so, we use the following intermediate result.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemmaepsilon}
Let $Z:\Omega \rightarrow E$ be a random variable taking values on a separable Banach space with norm $\|\cdot\|_E$. Fix $p>0$. Then the following are equivalent
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
\begin{align}
E\left[\|Z\|_E^{-p}\right] <\infty.
\end{align}
\item[(ii)] There exists $\varepsilon_0 >0$, depending on $p$, such that
$$\int_0^{\varepsilon_0} \varepsilon^{-(p+1)} P(\|Z\|_E^2< \varepsilon) d\varepsilon <\infty.$$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
We have that, for any positive integrable random variable $Y$,
$$E[Y] = \int_0^\infty P(Y>\eta) d\eta.$$
Condition $(i)$ implies that $\|Z\|_E >0$ $P$-a.s. so
\begin{align*}
E\left[\|Z\|_E^{-2p}\right] &= \int_0^{\eta_0} P(\|Z\|_E^{-2p}>\eta) d\eta + \int_{\eta_0}^\infty P(\|Z\|_E^{-2p}>\eta) d\eta\\
&\leq \eta_0 + \int_{\eta_0}^\infty P(\|Z\|_E^{-2p}>\eta) d\eta\\
&= \eta_0 + p\int_0^{\eta_0^{-1/p}} \varepsilon^{-(p+1)} P(\|Z\|_E^2 <\varepsilon)d\varepsilon
\end{align*}
where in the last step we have used the change of variables $\eta = \varepsilon^{-p}$.
\end{proof}
Now we are in a position to prove the non-degeneracy condition for the Malliavin matrix associated to the solution of the SDE (\ref{SDE}). The proof of this result is much inspired in Proposition 8.1 from \cite{MSS05}.
\begin{prop}
Let $X_t$, $t\in [0,T]$ be the solution to SDE (\ref{SDE}) with drift coefficient $b$ satisfying condition (\ref{bcondition}) for $k=1$. Then the Malliavin covariance matrix $\gamma_{X_t}$ satisfies
$$(\det \gamma_{X_t})^{-1} \in \bigcap_{p\geq 1} L^p(\Omega)$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider $X_t^n$ with drift coefficient $b_n$ approximating $b$ a.e. such that $\sup_{n\geq 0} \|b_n'\|_{\infty}<\infty$.
It suffices to show that
$$\sup_{n\geq 0} E \left[\bigg| \int_0^T \|D_s X_t^n\|_{\infty}^2 ds \bigg|^{-p}\right]<\infty$$
for any $p\geq 1$.
Recall that for $0\leq s\leq t$, $t\in [0,T]$ we have
$$D_s X_t^n = \mathcal{I}_d + \sum_{m\geq 1} \int_{s<u_1<\cdots <u_m<t} b_n'(u_1,X_{u_1}^n) \cdots b_n'(u_m, X_{u_m}^n)du_1 \cdots du_m.$$
Then for any $\delta >0$, $t-\delta >0$ one has
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T \|D_s X_t^n \|_\infty^2 ds \geq \int_{t-\delta}^t \|D_s X_t^n\|_\infty^2 ds \geq \frac{\delta}{2} - I_n(t,\delta)
\end{align*}
where
$$I_n(t,\delta):= \int_{t-\delta}^t \bigg\|\sum_{m\geq 1} \int_{s<u_1<\cdots <u_m<t} b_n'(u,X_{u_1}^n)\cdots b_n'(u,X_{u_m}^n)du_1\cdots du_m\bigg\|_{\infty}^2ds.$$
Clearly, we have
\begin{align}\label{deltap}
\sup_{n\geq 0} E\left[|I_n(t,\delta)|^p\right] \leq C \delta^p
\end{align}
since $b_n'$, $n\geq 0$ are uniformly bounded.
Then by the previous estimates
\begin{align*}
P\left(\|D_{\cdot} X_t^n\|_{L^2(\Omega, \mathbb{R}^{d\times d})}^2 <\varepsilon\right) &\leq P\left( \int_{t-\delta}^t \|D_s X_t^n\|_\infty^2 ds <\varepsilon\right) \\
&\leq P\left( I_n(t,\delta) \geq \frac{\delta}{2} - \varepsilon\right)\\
&\leq \left(\frac{\delta}{2}-\varepsilon\right)^{-p} E[|I_n(t,\delta)|^p]
\end{align*}
for any $p\geq 1$ due to Chebyshev's inequality. Now, by estimate (\ref{deltap}) we obtain that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{n\geq 0} P\left(\|D_{\cdot} X_t^n\|_{L^2(\Omega, \mathbb{R}^{d\times d})}^2 <\varepsilon\right)&\leq C \left(\frac{\delta}{2}-\varepsilon\right)^{-p}\delta^p.
\end{align*}
By virtue of Lemma \ref{lemmaepsilon} we can conclude if we find $\delta:(0,\infty) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\varepsilon \mapsto \delta(\varepsilon)$ such that $\lim_{\varepsilon \searrow 0} \delta(\varepsilon) = 0$ and
$$\int_0 \varepsilon^{-(p+1)}\left(\frac{\delta (\varepsilon)}{2}-\varepsilon\right)^{-p}\delta (\varepsilon)^p d\varepsilon < \infty$$
for an arbitrary large $p\geq 1$.
We claim that
$$\delta (\varepsilon) := \left|\frac{2\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2p}+2}}{\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2p}+1}-2}\right|$$
does the job.
\end{proof}
Finally, we are able to state our conditions to determine the regularity of densities of solutions to SDEs.
\begin{cor}\label{maincor}
Let $X_t^x$, $t\in [0,T]$ be the strong solution to SDE (\ref{SDE}). Assume $b$ satisfies condition (\ref{bcondition}) for some integer $k\geq 1$. Then the density $p_{X_t}$ belongs to $C^{k-1,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, $\alpha<1$, i.e. $k-1$-times continuously differentiable with H\"{o}lder continuous derivatives with exponent $\alpha<1$.
\end{cor}
We end this section by giving an example that shows that the Malliavin regularity we obtained in Theorem \ref{mainthm} is optimal when $k=1$, for the general condition we conjecture it is also optimal.
\begin{exam}
\normalfont
In this example we show that Theorem \ref{mainprop} is an optimal result in the sense that, if $b$ is of linear growth and one time weakly differentiable with bounded derivative then $X_t\in \mathbb{D}^{2,p}(\Omega)$ for all $p\geq 1$ and $X_t\notin \mathbb{D}^{3,p}(\Omega)$ for any $p\geq 1$. Just choose $b$, in dimension $d=1$, to be such that
$$b'(x) = \textbf{1}_{(0,\infty)}(x), \ x\in \mathbb{R}.$$
Then fix $t\in [0,T]$ and for $s_1\leq t$
$$D_{s_1} X_t = \exp\left\{\int_{s_1}^t b'(X_u)du\right\}.$$
Denote by $\tilde{b}(x) := b(a) + \int_a^x b(y)dy$, $a\in \mathbb{R}$ a primitive of $b$. It\^{o}'s formula implies
$$D_{s_1} X_t = \exp\left\{2\tilde{b}(X_t) - 2\tilde{b}(X_{s_1})-2\int_{s_1}^t b^2(X_u)du-2\int_{s_1}^t b(X_u)dB_u\right\}.$$
Then by Theorem \ref{mainthm}, $D_{s_1}X_t \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. So for $s_2\leq t$
\begin{align}\label{twoMall}
\begin{split}
D_{s_2}D_{s_1} X_t &= D_{s_1}X_t \bigg(2b(X_t)D_{s_2}X_t - 2b(X_{s_1}) D_{s_2}X_{s_1})-4\int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b(X_u)b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u du -2 b(X_{s_2})\\
&-2\int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u dB_u ) \bigg).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Now observe that $b(X_t)\in \cap_{p\geq 1} \mathbb{D}^{1,p}(\Omega)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$ so all terms are \mbox{immediately} Malliavin differentiable with all moments except from maybe $\int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b(X_u)b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u du$ and $\int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u dB_u$. The stochastic integral is in fact not Malliavin differentiable. Indeed, by \cite[Lemma 1.3.4]{Nua10}
\begin{align}\label{stochint}
\int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u dB_u \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)
\end{align}
if, and only if
$$b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega).$$
On the other hand we have $b'(X_u)=\textbf{1}_{(0,\infty)}(X_u) \notin \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ since $0<P(0<X_u<\infty)<1$, see \mbox{\cite[Proposition 1.2.6]{Nua10}}, and so $D_{s_1}X_t\int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u dB_u \notin \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$.
Let us finally prove that
$$Y_t := \int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b(X_u)b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u du \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega).$$
Let $\{b_n\}_{\{n\geq 0\}}$ be a sequence of smooth functions such that $b_n(x) \to b(x)$ a.e. in $x\in \mathbb{R}$ as $n\to \infty$ and $\sup_{n\geq 0}\|b_n'\|_{\infty}<\infty$ and $b_n(x),b_n'(x),b_n''(x)\geq 0$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$, we claim that this is trivially possible by the very concrete shape of the function $b$ in this example. Define
$$Y_t^n := \int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b(X_u)b_n'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u du.$$
Clearly, $Y_t^n \rightarrow Y_t$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. We only need to bound $\|D_{\cdot} Y_t^n\|_{L^2([0,T]\times \Omega)}$ uniformly in $n\geq 0$. Then
\begin{align*}
D_{s_3} Y_t^n &= \int_{s^\ast}^t b'(X_u)D_{s_3} X_u b_n'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u du\\
&+ \int_{s^\ast}^t b(X_u)b_n''(X_u)D_{s_3}X_u D_{s_2}X_u du+\int_{s^\ast}^t b(X_u)b_n'(X_u)D_{s_3}D_{s_2}X_u du
\end{align*}
where $s^\ast := \max\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$.
Then the critical term is
\begin{align*}
I_n := E\left[\int_0^T\left(\int_{s^\ast}^t b(X_u)b_n''(X_u)D_{s_3}X_u D_{s_2}X_u du\right)^2 ds_3 \right]
\end{align*}
Denote $\tilde{B}_{s,t}:= \exp\left\{\int_s^t b'(B_u^x)du \right\}$. Then, by Girsanov's theorem and Lemma \ref{epsilonbound} we have for a suitable $\varepsilon>0$
\begin{align*}
I_n&=\int_0^T E\left[\left(\int_{s^\ast}^t b(B_u^x)b_n''(B_u^x)\tilde{B}_{s_3,u} \tilde{B}_{s_2,u} du\right)^2 \ \mathcal{E}\left(\int_0^T b(B_u^x)dB_u\right)\right]ds_3\\
&\leq C_{\varepsilon} \int_0^T E\left[\left(\int_{s^\ast}^t b(B_u^x)b_n''(B_u^x)\tilde{B}_{s_3,u} \tilde{B}_{s_2,u} du\right)^{2\frac{1+\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}}\right]^{\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}} ds_3.
\end{align*}
Now we focus on the expectation. Choose $\varepsilon>0$ so that $p:= 2\frac{1+\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}$ is a natural number. Then since $|\tilde{B}_{s_3,{u_i}} \tilde{B}_{s_2,{u_i}}|\leq e^{(|t-s_3|+|t-s_2|)\|b'\|_{\infty}}\leq C<\infty$ and since $b$ and $b_n''$ are positive we have
\begin{align*}
\Bigg|E\bigg[&\int_{s^\ast}^t\cdots \int_{s^\ast}^t \prod_{i=1}^p b(B_{u_i}^x)b_n''(B_{u_i}^x)\tilde{B}_{s_3,{u_i}} \tilde{B}_{s_2,{u_i}} du_1 \cdots du_p\bigg]\Bigg| \leq \\
&\leq E\bigg[\int_{s^\ast}^t\cdots \int_{s^\ast}^t \prod_{i=1}^p \big| b(B_{u_i}^x)b_n''(B_{u_i}^x)\tilde{B}_{s_3,{u_i}} \tilde{B}_{s_2,{u_i}}\big| du_1 \cdots du_p\bigg]\\
&\leq C E\bigg[\int_{s^\ast}^t\cdots \int_{s^\ast}^t \prod_{i=1}^p \big| b(B_{u_i}^x)b_n''(B_{u_i}^x)\big| du_1 \cdots du_p\bigg]\\
&= C E\bigg[\int_{s^\ast}^t\cdots \int_{s^\ast}^t \prod_{i=1}^p b(B_{u_i}^x)b_n''(B_{u_i}^x) du_1 \cdots du_p\bigg].
\end{align*}
Then since $(u_1,\dots,u_p)\mapsto b(B_{u_1}^x)b_n''(B_{u_1}^x)\cdots b(B_{u_p}^x)b_n''(B_{u_p}^x)$ is symmetric we may write
\begin{align*}
E\bigg[\int_{s^\ast}^t\cdots \int_{s^\ast}^t \prod_{i=1}^p b(B_{u_i}^x)b_n''(B_{u_i}^x)& du_1 \cdots du_p\bigg]\\
&\leq p! E\bigg[\int_{s^\ast<u_1<\cdots <u_p<t} \prod_{i=1}^p b(B_{u_i}^x)b_n''(B_{u_i}^x) du_1 \cdots du_p\bigg]
\end{align*}
and the last may be bounded independently of $b_n''$ by using Proposition \ref{mainEstimate}. In fact,
$$\sup_{s^\ast \in [0,T]} \sup_{n\geq 0} E\bigg[\int_{s^\ast<u_1<\cdots <u_p<t} \prod_{i=1}^p b(B_{u_i}^x)b_n''(B_{u_i}^x) du_1 \cdots du_p\bigg] \leq C$$
for a finite constant $C$. So
$$\sup_{n\geq 0} I_n <\infty$$
being thus $Y_t \in \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$ for every $t\in [0,T]$.
In a summary, we have in (\ref{twoMall}) a sum of Malliavin differentiable terms except for the last one $-4D_{s_1} X_t \int_{s_1\vee s_2}^t b'(X_u)D_{s_2}X_u dB_u$ . In conclusion $D_{s_2}D_{s_1} X_t \notin \mathbb{D}^{1,2}(\Omega)$.
\end{exam}
Finally, we give an extension of Theorem \ref{mainthm} and Corollary \ref{maincor} to a class of non-degenerate $d-$dimensional It\^{o}-diffusions$.$
\begin{thm}
\label{generalsde}Consider the time-homogeneous $\mathbb{R}^{d}-$valued SDE%
\begin{equation}
dX_{t}=b(X_{t})dt+\sigma (X_{t})dB_{t},\,\,\text{ }X_{0}=x\in \mathbb{R}^{d},%
\text{ }\,\,0\leq t\leq T, \label{SDE1}
\end{equation}%
where the coefficients $b:\mathbb{R}^{d}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $%
\sigma :\mathbb{R}^{d}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d}\times $ $\mathbb{R}^{d}$%
are Borel measurable. Require that there exists a bijection $\Lambda :%
\mathbb{R}^{d}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d}$, which is twice continuously
differentiable. Let \mbox{$\Lambda _{x}:\mathbb{R}^{d}\longrightarrow L\left(
\mathbb{R}^{d},\mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $} and $\Lambda _{xx}:\mathbb{R}%
^{d}\longrightarrow L\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\times \mathbb{R}^{d},\mathbb{R}%
^{d}\right) $ be the corresponding derivatives of $\Lambda $ and assume that%
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda _{x}(y)\sigma (y)=id_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\text{ for }y\text{ a.e.}
\end{equation*}%
as well as%
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda ^{-1}\text{ is Lipschitz continuous.}
\end{equation*}%
Suppose that the function $b_{\ast }:\mathbb{R}^{d}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}%
^{d}$ given by
\begin{align*}
b_{\ast }(x)&:=\Lambda _{x}\left( \Lambda ^{-1}\left( x\right) \right)
\left[ b(\Lambda ^{-1}\left( x\right) )\right] \\
&\,\,\,+\frac{1}{2}\Lambda _{xx}\left( \Lambda ^{-1}\left( x\right) \right) \left[
\sum_{i=1}^{d}\sigma (\Lambda ^{-1}\left( x\right) )\left[ e_{i}\right]
,\sum_{i=1}^{d}\sigma (\Lambda ^{-1}\left( x\right) )\left[ e_{i}\right] %
\right]
\end{align*}%
satisfies condition (\ref{bcondition}), where $e_{i},$ $%
i=1,\ldots,d$, is a basis of $\mathbb{R}^{d}.$ Then the conclusions of Theorem \ref{mainthm} and Corollary \ref{maincor} also apply to $X_t$, $t\in [0,T]$ and its density.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof can be directly obtained from It\^o's Lemma. See \cite{MBP10}.
\end{proof}
\section{A classical solution to the stochastic transport equation}
The Sobolev regularity of the solution shown in Theorem \ref{mainprop} with respect to the initial condition entitles us to construct a classical solution to the \emph{stochastic transport equation} when the drift is Lipschitz which to our knowledge is not proved.
The Stochastic Transport Equation is written in differential form
\begin{align}\label{STE}
\begin{cases}
d_t u(t,x) + \nabla u(t,x) \cdot b(t,x) dt + \sum_{i=1}^d e_i \cdot \nabla u(t,x) \circ dB_t^{(i)} =0\\
u(0,x) = u_0(x),
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $b:[0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ is a given vector field and $u_0: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ a given initial data. The stochastic integration is understood in the Stratonovich sense.
\begin{defi}[Classical solution]\label{solutionDefinition}
Let $u_0$ and $b$ be given functions. We say that a stochastic process \mbox{$u \in L^{\infty}(\Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^d)$} is a classical solution to (\ref{STE}) if
\begin{enumerate}
\item
There exists a measurable set $\tilde{\Omega} \subset \Omega$ with full measure such that for fixed $t \in [0,T]$ and $p \geq 1$, the mapping $x \mapsto u(\omega,t,x)$ is in $W^{2,p}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ on $\tilde{\Omega}$;
\item
For fixed $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$ there are $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-adapted versions of $t \mapsto u(t,x)$ and $t \mapsto \nabla u(t,x)$;
\item
The following integral equation is satisfied
\begin{equation} \label{integralSTE}
u(t,x) + \int_0^t b(s,x) \cdot \nabla u(s,x) ds + \sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^t e_i \cdot \nabla u(s,x) \circ dB_s^{(i)} = u_0(x)
\end{equation}
for a.e. $(\omega, x) \in \Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defi}
Notice that we are using the Stratonovich integral in our definition, but following the same idea as in \cite{FGP10}, Lemma 13, we can recast (\ref{integralSTE}) in It\^{o}-form as
\begin{equation} \label{integralSTEito}
u(t,x) + \int_0^t b(s,x) \cdot \nabla u(s,x) ds + \sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^t e_i \cdot \nabla u(s,x) dB_s^{(i)} + \frac{1}{2} \int_0^t \Delta u(s,x) ds= u_0(x).
\end{equation}
We will use these formulations interchangeably.
Before we proceed further we will introduce the concept of stochastic flow associated to SDE (\ref{SDE}):
\begin{defi}[Stochastic flow of diffeomorphisms]\label{flowDefinition}
A function $\phi: [0,T]\times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\phi_{s,t}(x,\omega)$ is said to be a stochastic flow of diffeomorphisms of the SDE (\ref{SDE}) if there exists a full-measure set $\tilde{\Omega}\in \mathcal{F}$ such that for any $\omega \in \tilde{\Omega}$ the following holds true:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\phi_{s,t}(x,\omega)$, $s,t\in [0,T]$, $x\in \mathbb{R}$ is a (global) strong solution to the SDE (\ref{SDE}).
\item[(ii)] $\phi_{s,t}(x,\omega)$ is continuous in $(s,t,x)\in [0,T] \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}$.
\item[(iii)] $\phi_{s,t}(\cdot, \omega) = \phi_{u,t}(\cdot, \omega) \circ \phi_{s,u}(\cdot,\omega)$ for any $s,u,t\in [0,T]$ .
\item[(iv)] $\phi_{s,s}(x,\omega)= x$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}$ and $s\in [0,T]$.
\item[(v)] $\phi_{s,t}(\cdot,\omega):\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ are diffeomorphisms (of class $C^k$) for all $s,t\in [0,T]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{defi}
For the rest of this section we will assume that $b$ satisfies condition (\ref{bcondition}) for $k=1$ which in particular means that $b$ is globally Lipschitz, uniformly in time.
To get a globally defined (i.e. on the entire $\mathbb{R}^d$) stochastic flow of diffeomorphisms of the SDE (\ref{SDE}) we notice that since $b$ is uniformly Lipschitz there exists a unique solution to
$$
\phi_{s,t}(x,\omega) = x + \int_s^t b(r, \phi_{s,r}(x, \omega)) dr + B_t(\omega) - B_s(\omega)
$$
for \emph{all} $\omega \in \Omega$.
It is easy to check conditions (i) to (iv) in Definition \ref{flowDefinition} holds for all $\omega \in \Omega$.
Fix $p \geq 1$ and $N \in \mathbb{N}$ and invoke Theorem \ref{sobreg} to guarantee that there exists a measurable subset $\Omega_N \subset \Omega$ with full measure such that the local solution
$$
\phi^N_{s,t}(x,\omega) = x + \int_s^t b(r, \phi^N_{s,r}(x, \omega)) dr + B_t(\omega) - B_s(\omega).
$$
satisfies $\phi^N_{s,t}(\cdot , \omega) \in W^{2,p} ( B(0,N))$ for all $\omega \in \Omega_N$ and $x \in B(0,N)$. By uniqueness we have that $\phi_{s,t} |_{B(0,N) \times \Omega_N} = \phi^N_{s,t}$.
If we let $\tilde{\Omega} := \cap_{N=1}^{\infty} \Omega_N$, we get that $\mathbb{R}^d \ni x \mapsto \phi_{s,t}(x,\omega) \in \mathbb{R}^d$ is twice weakly differentiable for every $\omega \in \tilde{\Omega}$, and thus condition (v) in \ref{flowDefinition} is satisfied for $k=1$.
\bigskip
In \cite{FGP10} the authors study (\ref{STE}) under the considerably weaker condition (at least for $d > 1$), $b\in L_{loc}^1([0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^d; \mathbb{R}^d)$, div$b \in L_{loc}^1([0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and $u_0 \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. However, in this case, one is restricted to study analytically weak solutions in the sense that for every test function $\theta \in C^{\infty}_0(\mathbb{R}^d)$ one has
\begin{align} \label{weakSTE}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u(t,x)\theta(x)dx &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u_0(x) \theta(x)dx\\
\notag&+ \int_0^t \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u(s,x)\left[b(t,x)\cdot \nabla \theta(x) + \textrm{div} b(t,x) \theta (x)\right]dxds\\
\notag &+\sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^t \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u(s,x)\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\theta(x) dx\right) \circ dB_s^{(i)} .
\end{align}
Moreover, the equation is uniquely solved by $u(t,x) = u_0 (\phi_t^{-1}(x))$.
Although we consider more restrictive coefficients, we arrive at an analytically stronger solution:
\begin{thm}
Let $b$ satisfy condition (\ref{bcondition}) for $k=1$ and $u_0 \in C_b^2(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Then there exists a unique classical solution to the stochastic transport equation.
Moreover, the equation is explicitly solved by $u(t,x) = u_0(\phi_t^{-1}(x))$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By the above discussion we know that for every test function $\theta \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, the equation (\ref{weakSTE}) is satisfied $P$-a.s. by $u(t,x) = u_0(\phi_t^{-1}(x))$. We now choose $\tilde{\Omega}$ such that $x \mapsto \phi_t^{-1}(x)$ is in $W^{2,p}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ on $\tilde{\Omega}$. Then we get that $u$ satisfies condition (i) and (ii) of Definition \ref{solutionDefinition}, and by integration by parts we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u(t,x)\theta(x)dx &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u_0(x) \theta(x)dx\\
\notag&- \int_0^t \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \nabla u(s,x) \cdot b(t,x) \theta (x)dxds\\
\notag &-\sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^t \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \nabla u(s,x)\theta(x) dx\right) \circ dB_s^{(i)} .
\end{align*}
or equivalently
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u(t,x)\theta(x)dx &= \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} u_0(x) \theta(x)dx\\
\notag&- \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\int_0^t \nabla u(s,x) \cdot b(t,x) \theta (x)dsdx\\
\notag &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^t \nabla u(s,x)t dB_s^{(i)} \theta(x) dx - \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \int_0^t \Delta u(s,x) ds \theta(x)dx.
\end{align*}
Since $\theta$ was arbitrary, this proves the claim.
\end{proof}
\textbf{Acknowledgement:} We would like to thank the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.
|
\section{...}
\long \def \blockcomment #1\endcomment{}
Partial quenching is a common approximation used to extract
additional information from sets of field configurations obtained in
dynamical lattice gauge simulations. The idea is to take these
configurations, generated with some set of fixed ``sea'' quark
masses, and then study quark propagators using different ``valence''
quark masses. From these propagators, one then constructs ``valence''
bound states and studies their properties. Of course when the sea and
valence masses are equal, this is just the normal lattice prescription
for obtaining hadronic properties.
The conventional assumption is that, as the valence masses go to zero,
a valence quark condensate will form on which one might expect the
valence pion masses to go to zero with the square root of the valence
quark mass. The point I wish to make is that in some cases this
assumption can fail. I will show an example, using two non-degenerate
sea quark masses, where the valence pions do not become massless in
the valence chiral limit.
Consider two non-degenerate quark flavors to which I give
the conventional names``$u$'' and ``$d$.'' The standard chiral
symmetry prediction for the dynamical pions is that their mass is
controlled by the average quark mass
\begin{equation}
M_{\pi}^2\sim {m_u+m_d \over 2}+O(m_q^2).
\end{equation}
Now consider fixing the down quark mass to some non-vanishing value,
$m_d\ne 0$, and take the up quark mass to zero. Then we expect the
pion mass to remain finite
\begin{equation}
M_{\pi}^2\sim {m_d \over 2}+O(m_q^2).
\end{equation}
In particular we expect no singularity in physics for $m_u$ in the
vicinity of zero.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{iso2.eps}
\caption{
\label{iso2}
A schematic representation of how the pseudo-scalar masses depend on
the up quark mass with a fixed non-vanishing down quark mass. The
theory maintains a mass gap even at vanishing up quark mass.}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
Without a singularity at vanishing up quark mass, it is natural to
imagine continuing the up quark mass to negative values. In standard
chiral perturbation theory the neutral pion mass continues to drop
until at some point it becomes negative. At this location a second
order transition is expected into a CP violating phase with an
expectation value for the neutral pion. This phase was anticipated by
Dashen some time ago \cite{Dashen:1970et}. For a recent discussions
of these issues see
Refs.~\cite{Creutz:2013hza,Aoki:2014moa,samc,horkel}. The qualitative
meson mass spectrum as a function of the up quark mass is sketched
qualitatively in Fig.~(\ref{iso2}).
Considerable insight into the nature of the chiral limit in QCD was
provided some time ago by Banks and Casher \cite{Banks:1979yr}. They
argued that a finite density of small eigenvalues for the Dirac
operator could generate a jump in the condensate $\overline\psi\psi$
as the quark mass passes through zero. This is exactly as expected
from chiral perturbation theory with degenerate quarks.
The situation with a single massless quark, however, generates a
conundrum for this picture. As discussed above, as the sea up-quark
mass passes through zero, no singularity is expected. In particular,
there should be no jump in the up quark condensate $\langle \overline
u u\rangle$ if the down quark mass remains finite. Following the
Banks Casher argument, the density of up quark eigenvalues
$\rho_u(\lambda)$ must vanish at $\lambda=0$. For another discussion
of this, see Ref.~\cite{Creutz:2005rd}.
Now we bring in two degenerate valence quarks and consider taking
$m_{val}$ to zero while the dynamical up quark mass is maintained to
vanish. In the limit that the valence quarks and the up sea-quark
have the same mass, their propagators become identical.
\begin{equation}
D_{val}\rightarrow D_u\qquad \hbox{as}\qquad m_{val}\rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
We conclude that with a vanishing dynamical up quark
mass we must have
\begin{equation}
\rho_{val}(0) \rightarrow \rho_u(0) = 0.
\end{equation}
Thus the valence quarks can not condense, there is no valence chiral
symmetry breaking, and there is no expectation for the valence pion
mass to go to zero. This is in direct contradiction to the usual
assumptions of partially quenched chiral perturbation theory.
It is well known that in the fully quenched case, i.e. with no
dynamical quarks, problems arise when the masses for valence quarks
are taken to zero. In general, configurations will be encountered where
the Dirac operator is not invertible and the propagators do not exist.
In the example presented above, the dynamical quarks suppress such
configurations so the propagators do exist, although their chiral
properties are strongly modified.
While this is the basic result, some technical comments are perhaps in
order. The discussion above is based on the expectation that the four
dimensional free energy density behaves smoothly as the up quark mass
passes through zero. The full partition function is the exponential
of the volume times this density, and should be well behaved
throughout the small mass region, including negative mass.
There are some peculiarities of the path integral at negative quark
mass. In this situation gauge field configurations can appear for
which the fermion determinant is negative. This is somewhat
non-intuitive; for instance the topological susceptibility, despite
being the expectation of a square, is itself negative
\cite{Creutz:2013xfa}. Indeed, the susceptibility diverges to
negative infinity as the Dashen phase is approached.
It should be noted that the expectation
$\langle\overline\psi\psi\rangle$ for the up quark does not vanish at
zero mass. This does not come from spontaneous chiral symmetry but
rather is a direct consequence of the chiral anomaly. As discussed in
\cite{Creutz:2005rd} and \cite{Creutz:2006ts} , this expectation
arises from a cancellation of the mass suppression of unit topology
with an inverse mass dependence in this particular observable. As
such it is tied not to a density of small eigenvalues, but rather to
exact zero modes of the Dirac operator. This effect is only present
when a single quark becomes massless; with degenerate light quarks
further factors of the mass suppress topology and the Banks-Casher
picture becomes relevant.
At this meeting, Verbaarschot and Wettig \cite{vw} have suggested that
it might be possible for the eigenvalue density at the origin to
remain finite if there is a cancellation at negative mass between
configurations of non-trivial topology. However, other than the above
contribution to $\langle\overline\psi\psi\rangle$ from unit topology,
effects of higher winding number sectors are suppressed by powers of
the quark mass. Also, for local observables, at large volume one can
avoid these issues by working in the zero winding number sector
\cite{Aoki:2007ka}.
In summary, I have presented a situation where partially quenched
chiral perturbation theory can fail. One should be particularly
suspicious of the approach whenever the valence quark masses become
small compared to the average sea quark mass. This conclusion is a
direct consequence of the anomaly and applies for any valid
lattice fermion formulation.
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most important sources of gravitational waves (GWs) for a space-based detector like eLISA~\cite{eLISA:13,AmaroSeoane:2012je,eLISAGWN}
are extreme-mass-ratio binaries in the stage where the dynamics are driven by GW emission. These systems, called EMRIs, are composed of a stellar-mass compact object (SCO) (a white dwarf, a neutron star, or a stellar-mass black hole (BH)) that inspirals into a massive
BH (MBH) located at a galactic centre. The masses of interest for the SCO are in the range
$m = 1-10^2\; M^{}_{\odot}$, and for the MBH in the range $M = 10^5-10^7\; M_{\odot}$.
Then, the mass-ratio for these systems is in the interval $\mu=m/M \sim 10^{-7} -10^{-3}$.
The GW signals emitted by EMRIs are long lasting (months to years) and contain many GW cycles (of the order of $10^{5}$ during the last year before the SCO plunges into the MBH). Many of these cycles are spent in the neighbourhood of the MBH horizon, meaning EMRI GWs encode a map of the strong-field region of the MBH. These extraordinary features of EMRIs allow for a revolutionary research program, which could lead to understanding different aspects of stellar dynamics in galactic centres, tests of the geometry of BHs, and tests of General Relativity (GR) and alternative theories of gravity. However, to implement such an ambitious program, several preliminary studies need to be done. In particular, we need to know how many events we expect to observe, which requires understanding which kind of astrophysical mechanisms can produce ERMI events. Even more importantly, given the complexity of EMRI signals (which are essentially composed of a number of harmonics of three independent frequencies), we need a very precise theoretical
description of EMRI waveforms and also efficient data analysis search algorithms. Finally, it is important to carry out theoretical studies in astrophysics, cosmology, and fundamental physics that will enable us to exploit all the scientific potential of EMRI GW observations.
This writeup offers a broad discussion of these themes, summarizing the three talks given in the plenary session on EMRIs~\cite{emrisession} at the 10th International LISA Symposium~\cite{lisax}, which was organized and chaired by Scott A. Hughes and Carlos F. Sopuerta.
The topics and organization of these talks are the following: the astrophysics of EMRIs (Pau Amaro-Seoane), in Sec.~\ref{emri-astrophysics}; an overview of EMRI science (Jonathan R. Gair), in Sec.~\ref{emri-scientificpotential}; and the status of EMRI modeling (Adam Pound), in Sec.~\ref{emri-modeling}.
\section{Astrophysics of EMRIs}\label{emri-astrophysics}
\subsection{Introduction}
One of the most exciting results of modern astronomy is the discovery, mostly
through high-resolution observations of the kinematics of stars and gas, that
most, if not all, nearby bright galaxies harbor a dark, massive, compact object
at their centers. The most spectacular case is our own
galaxy, the Milky Way. By tracking and interpreting the stellar dynamics at
the centre of our galaxy, we have the most well-established evidence for the
existence of a MBH, with a mass of $\sim 4 \times 10^{6} \,
M_{\odot}$ \cite{EisenhauerEtAl05,GhezEtAl05,GhezEtAl08,GillessenEtAl09}.
These observations are difficult, especially for low-mass MBHs (ranging between
$10^5$ and $10^7\,M_{\odot}$) and even more so for the even less-massive
intermediate MBHs. Nowadays, using adaptive optics we could
optimistically hope to get a handful of measurements of stellar velocities of
such targets about $\sim 5$ kpc away in some ten years. This is what makes an
experiment such as eLISA \cite{eLISA:13,AmaroSeoane:2012je,eLISAGWN} so
appealing. Whilst main-sequence stars are tidally disrupted when approaching
the central MBH, SCOs slowly spiral into the MBH and are swallowed after some $\sim 10^{3-5}$
orbits in the eLISA band. At the closest approach to the MBH, the system emits
a burst of GWs which contains information about the spacetime geometry, the
masses of the system, and the spins of the MBH. We can regard each such burst
as a snapshot of the system. By extracting the information encoded in the GWs
of this scenario, we can determine the redshifted mass of the central MBH with
an error of $\sim 1 - 0.1\,\%$ and for the spin of the MBH with $0.01\,\%$.
\subsection{The role of the MBH spin}
For a binary of an MBH and an SCO to be in the eLISA band, it has
to have a frequency of between roughly $10^{-4}$ and $1$ Hz. The emission of GWs
is more efficient as the SCO approaches its last stable orbit (LSO), so
that eLISA will detect the sources when they are close to the LSO line. The
total mass required to observe systems with frequencies between $10^{-4}$ and
$1$ Hz is $10^4 - 10^7\,M_{\odot}$. For masses larger than
$10^7\,M_{\odot}$, the frequencies close to the LSO will be too low, so
that their detection will be very difficult. On the other hand, for a total
mass of less than $10^3\,M_{\odot}$ we could in principal detect the EMRI at an
early stage, but then the amplitude of the GWs would be rather low.
Naively one could assume that the inspiral time is dominated by GW emission and
that if this is shorter than a Hubble time, the SCO will enter into an
EMRI with the MBH. This is wrong, because one has to take into account the relaxation of
the stellar system. Whilst it certainly can increase the eccentricity of the
SCO's orbit, it can also perturb the orbit and circularize it, so that the
inspiral time, $t^{}_{\rm GW}$, becomes larger than a Hubble time.
The condition for the SCO to be in an EMRI is that it is on an orbit
for which $t^{}_{\rm GW} \ll (1-e)\,t^{}_{\rm r}$ \cite{Amaro-SeoaneEtAl07}, with
$t^{}_{\rm r}$ being the {\em local} relaxation time and $e$ the orbital eccentricity. When the orbit has a
semi-major axis for which the condition is not fulfilled, the SCO will have to be already on a so-called ``plunging orbit'', with $e\ge
e_{\rm plunge} \equiv 1-4\,R^{}_{\rm Schw}/a^{}_{\rm plunge}$, where $R^{}_{\rm Schw}$ is the
Schwarzschild radius of the MBH (i.e., $R^{}_{\rm Schw} =
2GM/c^{2}$, with $M$ being the MBH mass), and $a^{}_{\rm plunge}$ is the semi-major axis.
It has been
claimed a number of times by different authors that these plunging orbits would result in too
short a burst of gravitational radiation, which could only be detected if it
originated in our own Galactic Center \cite{HopmanFreitagLarson07} because one needs a
coherent integration of some few thousand repeated passages through the
periapsis in the eLISA bandwidth. Therefore, such plunging objects would be lost from the GW signal,
since they would be plunging directly through the horizon of the MBH and
only a final burst of GWs would be emitted, and (i) such a burst would be very
difficult to recover, since the very short signal would be buried in a sea of
instrumental and confusion noise, and (ii) the information contained in the
signal would be practically nil. There has been some work on the detectability
of such bursts~\cite{RubboEtAl2006,HopmanFreitagLarson07,YunesEtAl2008}, but
they would only be detectable in our galaxy or in the close neighborhood, and
the event rates are rather low, even in the most optimistic scenarios.
However, this picture is based on orbits around a non-spinning, Schwarzschild MBH, and it is significantly altered when the spin of the MBH is accounted for. Reference~\cite{Amaro-SeoaneSopuertaFreitag2013} estimated the number of cycles that
certain EMRI orbital configurations that were thought to be plunging orbits (or
orbits with insufficiently many cycles) in the case of non-spinning MBHs can spend in
a frequency regime of $f\in [10^{-4},1]$ Hz during their last year(s) of
inspiral before plunging into a spinning MBH. It is important to assess how many of
these EMRIs will have sufficient Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) to be detectable.
Reference~\cite{Amaro-SeoaneSopuertaFreitag2013} found that (prograde) EMRIs in a very radial orbit (that would lead to a plunge in the case of a Schwarzschild MBH) actually spend a
significant number of cycles near the LSO in the Kerr case, more than sufficient to be detectable with good
SNR. The number of cycles has previously been associated with $N^{}_{\varphi}$ (the
number of times that the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ advances $2\pi$), which is
usual for binary systems. However, as we mentioned above, the structure of
the waveforms from EMRIs is quite rich since they contain harmonics of three
different frequencies: $f_{\varphi}$, $f_{r}$ (associated with the time to go from apoapsis to periapsis and back), and
$f^{}_{\theta}$ (associated with the time to complete an oscillation around the orbital plane in the case of inclined orbits). Therefore the waveforms have cycles associated with these
three frequencies, $(f^{}_{r},f^{}_{\theta},f^{}_{\varphi})$, which makes them
quite complex, and in principle this is good for detectability (assuming we have
the correct waveform templates). Moreover, these cycles happen just before
plunge and take place in the strong field region very near the MBH horizon.
So these cycles should contribute more to the SNR than cycles taking place
farther away from the MBH horizon.
More interestingly, very highly eccentric EMRIs have an impact on event rates.
One can prove that
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{{{a}_{\rm EMRI}^{\rm Kerr}}}{{{a}_{\rm EMRI}^{\rm Schw}}} & = & {\cal W}^{\frac{-5}{6-2\gamma}}(\iota,\,s)\,,\\
\frac{{\dot{N}_{\rm EMRI}^{\rm Kerr}}}{{\dot{N}_{\rm EMRI}^{\rm Schw}}} & = & {\cal W}^{\frac{20\gamma-45}{12-4\gamma}} (\iota,\,s) \,,
\label{eq.NAEMRIW}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $a_{\rm EMRI}$ is the maximum radius within which we estimate the event rate $\dot{N}_{\rm EMRI}$, and the ``Schw"/``Kerr" labels refer to results for a non-spinning (Schwarzschild)/spinning (Kerr) MBH. In these expressions, ${\cal W}$ is a function that depends on $\iota$, the
inclination of the EMRI orbit, and on $s$, the MBH dimensionless spin parameter\footnote{For the derivation and some
examples of values for ${\cal W}$, we refer the reader to the work of
\cite{Amaro-SeoaneSopuertaFreitag2013}.}. We also have assumed that the stellar BHs
distribute around the central MBH following a power-law cusp of exponent
$\gamma$; i.e., that the density profile follows $\rho \propto r^{-\gamma}$
within the region where the gravity of the MBH dominates over the gravity of the
stars, with $\gamma$ ranging between 1.75 and 2 for the heavy stellar
components
\cite{Peebles72,BW76,BW77,ASEtAl04,PretoMerrittSpurzem04,AlexanderHopman09,PretoAmaroSeoane10,Amaro-SeoanePreto11}.
See~\cite{Gurevich64} for an interesting first appearance of this
concept\footnote{The authors obtained a similar solution for how electrons
distribute around a positively charged Coulomb centre.}.
For instance, for a spin of $s=0.999$ and an inclination of $\iota = 0.4\,$rad,
it is estimated that ${\cal W}\sim 0.26$ and, thus, $\dot{N}_{\rm EMRI}^{\rm Kerr}
\sim 30$. That is, {\em the event rates are boosted by a factor of 30} in comparison
to a non-rotating MBH.
Very eccentric EMRIs spend enough cycles
inside the band of eLISA to be detectable. We note here that whilst it is true that EMRIs very near the
new separatrix shifted by the spin effect will probably not contribute enough
cycles to be detected, it is equally true for the old separatrix
(Schwarzschild, without spin). In this sense, it is found that the spin generically increases
the number of cycles inside the band for prograde EMRIs in such a
way that EMRIs very near to the non-spin separatrix, which contributed few
cycles, become detectable EMRIs. In summary, spin increases the area, in
configuration space, of detectable EMRIs. One can thus predict that EMRIs will be
highly dominated by prograde orbits.
Moreover, because spin allows for stable orbits very near the horizon in the
prograde case, the contribution of each cycle to the SNR is significantly
bigger than each cycle of an EMRI around a non-spinning MBH.
It has also been shown that vectorial resonant relaxation will not be efficient enough to
change prograde orbits into retrograde orbits once GW evolution dominates (which
would make the EMRIs plunge instantaneously, as they would be in a non-allowed
region of phase space).
More remarkably, the very eccentric EMRIs we have described here are solely produced by
two-body relaxation, a chaotic process, and as such, they are ignorant of the Schwarschild
barrier~\cite{Merritt:2011ve,Brem:2012et}, a phenomenon that drastically suppresses EMRI rates close to the MBH. While low-eccentricity EMRIs run into the problem of having to find a
way to traverse this barrier, very eccentric EMRIs do not. One can therefore predict that EMRI
rates will be dominated by high-eccentricity binaries, with the proviso that
the central MBH is described by the Kerr solution of GR.
\subsection{Conclusions}
The event rate of very eccentric EMRIs is much larger than that of low-eccentricity EMRIs, as a number of
different studies by different authors using different methods have found (although in earlier works very eccentric EMRIs were enviasaged to be direct plunges
since they only considered Schwarzschild MBHs). Up to now,
spin effects of the central MBH have been neglected. Hence, the question
arises, whether a plunge is really a plunge when the central MBH is spinning.
This consideration has previously been ignored.
To estimate EMRI event rates, one needs to know whether the orbital
configuration of the SCO is stable or not, because this is the
kernel of the difference between an EMRI and a plunge.
Reference~\cite{Amaro-SeoaneSopuertaFreitag2013} takes into account the fact that the spin
brings the LSO much closer to the horizon in the case of prograde orbits
but it pushes it away for retrograde orbits. Since the modifications
introduced by the spin are not symmetric with respect to the non-spinning case,
and they are more dramatic for prograde orbits, one can prove that the inclusion of
spin increases the number of EMRI events by a significant factor. The exact
factor of this enhancement depends on the spin, but the effect is already quite
important for spins around $s \sim 0.7$.
Reference~\cite{Amaro-SeoaneSopuertaFreitag2013} proves that these very eccentric EMRIs do
spend enough cycles inside the band of eLISA to be detectable. Although EMRIs very near
the new separatrix shifted by the spin effect will probably not contribute enough cycles to be detected, it is
equally true for the old separatrix, without spin. The conclusion is that the presence of spin increases the area,
in configuration space, of detectable EMRIs. As a consequence, EMRIs will be highly dominated by prograde orbits.
It has also been shown that these new kind of EMRIs originate in a region of
phase-space such that they will be ignorant of the Schwarschild barrier~\cite{Merritt:2011ve,Brem:2012et}, which drastically reduces the rates for low eccentricity EMRIs. The
reason for this is that they are driven by two-body relaxation and not resonant
relaxation. While the boost in EMRI rates due to resonant relaxation is
affected by the Schwarzschild barrier, so that low-eccentricity EMRIs run into
the problem of having to find a way to cross it, high-eccentricity EMRIs are
already in the right place and led by two-body relaxation, a chaotic process ignorant of secular effects. The barrier affects
the production of EMRIs via torques, but not two-body relaxation, which is the
mechanism producing the high-eccentricity EMRIs. Moreover, because the supression in
the rates is severe for those EMRIs with semi-major axes with values
approximately $a \gtrapprox 0.03$ pc, it has been predicted that the rates will be
dominated by the kind of EMRIs described in Ref.~\cite{Amaro-SeoaneSopuertaFreitag2013}.
In short, the existence of these highly eccentric EMRIs is good news: They sample regions closer to the MBHs' event horizons, offer richer signal sources, are not suppressed by secular effects (unlike lower-eccentricity EMRIs), enhance the event rates, and are louder and, hence, probe larger horizon distances.
\section{The scientific potential of EMRI observations} \label{emri-scientificpotential}
It is expected that a space-based gravitational wave detector similar to eLISA~\cite{eLISA:13} will observe a few tens of EMRI events per year~\cite{eLISAGWN}, although this number is subject to large astrophysical uncertainties. These events will be seen out to redshifts $z \sim 0.7$ and they will primarily be the inspirals of stellar BHs with mass $m \sim 10M_\odot$ into MBHs with mass $M\sim10^5$--$10^6M_\odot$~\cite{gair2009}. For every EMRI observed, eLISA will measure the system parameters to high precision, with typical fractional errors on masses of $\sim 10^{-4}$, typical errors on the spin of the central black hole of a few times $10^{-4}$ and typical precision on the sky location and distance of a source of a few square degrees and $\sim10\%$ respectively. These precise measurements come from accurately tracking the phase of the inspiral over the $\sim10^5$ waveform cycles observed for a typical system and are therefore not very dependent on the final design of the detector. The precise measurements for tens of systems that eLISA EMRIs will provide have tremendous potential to inform us about astrophysics, cosmology, and fundamental physics.
\subsection{Astrophysics}
Massive black holes in the low-mass range that will be observed by eLISA are not well constrained by electromagnetic observations, and there are therefore big uncertainties in the demographics of this population. EMRI observations will measure the mass and spin distributions of these MBHs in the local Universe for the first time. Using a simple power law model for the BH mass function, $dn/d\log M = AM^\alpha$, it was shown that with $N$ eLISA observations of EMRIs, constraints would be placed on the BH mass function at the level~\cite{gtv}
\begin{equation}
\Delta (\ln A) \approx 1.1 \sqrt{10/N}, \qquad \Delta(\alpha) \approx 0.35 \sqrt{10/N} .
\end{equation}
The current uncertainty in the slope of the mass function is $\sim \pm 0.3$, and so eLISA will improve on this with as few as $10$ EMRI observations. Predicted event rates are a factor of several larger than this. eLISA observations of EMRIs by themselves will not be able to probe evolution in the mass function with redshift~\cite{gtv}. The analysis in~\cite{gtv} assumed that the scaling of the astrophysical EMRI rate with the mass of the central MBH was known, so these constraints are really on the slope of the EMRI-rate-weighted mass function. While analytic and numerical calculations might improve our understanding of the rate scaling before eLISA is launched, the best chance to break this degeneracy is probably to use both eLISA observations of EMRIs and those of MBH mergers together to probe the mass function and its evolution.
EMRI observations have the potential to inform us about several other aspects of astrophysics, although these have not yet been investigated in detail. The properties of EMRI orbits measured by eLISA encode details of EMRI formation mechanisms. In the standard capture scenario, EMRIs would be expected to be on eccentric orbits inclined to the equatorial plane of the MBH, but other formation scenarios make different predictions: EMRI formation by the splitting of a binary would tend to create circular but inclined EMRIs; massive star formation in a disc would lead to circular and equatorial EMRIs; and formation of EMRIs via the tidal stripping of massive stars would lead to circular, inclined EMRIs involving low mass compact objects (white dwarfs)~\cite{Amaro-SeoaneEtAl07}. eLISA observations will indicate the relative importance of these different mechanisms. In addition, the rates, orbital properties and compact object masses of EMRI events probe the dynamical processes, such as relaxation and mass segregation, that drive them and the properties of stellar populations (e.g., mass functions) in galactic centres.
\subsection{Cosmology}
The amplitude of a gravitational wave source scales as $(1+z)M/D_L(z)$, where $M$ is the mass, $z$ the redshift and $D_L(z)$ the luminosity of the source. The redshifted mass, $(1+z)M$, can be determined very precisely from the observed phase evolution of the source, so provided that the mass-redshift degeneracy can be broken, gravitational wave sources can be used as ``standard sirens'' to measure $D_L(z)$ and probe the cosmological expansion history of the Universe~\cite{schutzH0}. Redshifts can be measured directly if an electromagnetic counterpart to a GW source is observed. For EMRIs, the only possible counterpart would be the tidal disruption of a white dwarf by a low-mass, highly-spinning BH~\cite{EMRIcounterpart}. However, it is extremely unlikely that any such EMRIs will be observed~\cite{gair2009}. Constraints can also be derived statistically using many EMRI events and this was examined in~\cite{McLeodHogan}. For each event, every observed galaxy consistent with the error bars from the GW measurement can be used to estimate the redshift of the source and hence a value for the luminosity distance or cosmological parameters. Averaging over multiple EMRI events provides final constraints on the cosmology. It was found that LISA observations of $\sim20$ events at redshift $z \aplt 0.5$ would be sufficient to measure the Hubble constant, $H_0$, to $\sim1\%$. eLISA will have slightly larger error bars for each EMRI, and therefore more events will be required to reach the same precision. However, we expect eLISA to observe several tens of EMRIs, all in this redshift range, and so we should be able to place constraints on $H_0$ at the level of $1-2\%$. Although electromagnetic constraints are likely to be more precise than this before eLISA is launched, the GW derived constraints will be completely independent, providing an important verification of existing results and a way to identify previously unknown systematics.
\subsection{Fundamental physics}
GW observations will probe sources in a regime of strong-field, non-linear and dynamical gravity that has never been explored, thus providing new tests of our understanding of the theory of gravity. All GW sources and detectors can be used for tests of fundamental physics, but EMRIs will provide particularly powerful probes as they will generate many tens of thousands of observable cycles in the strong-field regime, they are ``clean'' systems, as we expect most EMRIs to be BH binaries, and the orbital dynamics are rich---we expect most EMRIs to be both eccentric and inclined, so the emitted waveforms comprise a complex superposition of three fundamental frequencies---and the inspiralling object explores a large fraction of the space-time before it plunges. For a thorough review of the tests of fundamental physics that will be possible using EMRIs and other eLISA sources, we refer the interested reader to~\cite{TestGRLRR}, but we will summarise some of the main ideas here.
In general relativity, with some additional physicality assumptions, it is known that the Kerr BH is the unique end state of gravitational collapse~\cite{hawkingellis}. This is often referred to as the ``no-hair'' theorem, since the Kerr metric depends on only two parameters, mass $M$ and spin $a$, and all higher mass ($M_l$) and spin ($S_l$) multipole moments of the space-time are related to these as $M_l + iS_l = M (ia)^l$. The GWs emitted by an EMRI encode the orbital dynamics of the inspiralling object, which are in turn determined by the space-time structure. EMRI GWs thus encode a map of the space-time structure, which can be used to verify the no-hair property of the central black hole. This was first discussed in~\cite{ryan95}, in which a space-time with arbitrary multipole moments was used to show that the multipoles were separately encoded in gravitational wave observables, specifically the orbital precession rate and inspiral rate. The multipole expansion is not particularly practical, as an infinite number of multipoles are needed to represent Kerr. Recent work has instead focussed on ``bumpy'' black holes~\cite{CH2004}, in which the metric is Kerr plus a small perturbation. There have been many different studies of EMRI constraints on bumpy black holes~\cite{CH2004,GB2006,BCbumpy,GLM2008}, including BH solutions motivated by alternative theories of gravity~\cite{SY2009,CGS2012}. These studies conclude that EMRI observations will be able to simultaneously measure the MBH mass and spin to $\sim 0.01\%$ and a deviation in the quadrupole moment of the black hole of $\sim 0.1\%$. In addition, EMRI observations could place a bound on the deviation parameter characterising dynamical Chern Simons modified gravity (a parity-violating alternative to GR inspired by string theory) of $\xi^{\frac{1}{4}} < 10^4 {\rm km}$~\cite{CGS2012}.
GWs from EMRIs also encode qualitative information about the surface of the central object, whether or not the external space-time differs from Kerr. The presence/absence of a horizon would be indicated by a cut-off/continuation of GW emission after plunge (e.g., persistent emission for a massive boson star~\cite{KGK2005}); the properties of the surface of the central object can be inferred by comparing the observed inspiral rate and observed energy flux to deduce the energy lost to tidal interaction between the two objects~\cite{LiLove2008}, with $O(100\%)$ changes in the tidal energy loss being detectable with eLISA; and if the quasi-normal mode (QNM) spectrum of the central object is sufficiently different from that of Kerr, an EMRI could tidally excite QNMs as its orbital frequency passes through the QNM frequencies during an inspiral, leading to a resonant signature in the emitted GWs---e.g., for orbits around ``gravastars'', which comprise a thin shell of material with a de Sitter interior and Schwarzschild black hole exterior~\cite{pani2009}.
Measurable departures of an EMRI signal from the predictions of GR could also arise from astrophysical perturbations. The gravitational effect of a sufficiently dense and massive accretion torus could measurably perturb an EMRI~\cite{barausseA}, although this imprint can be mimicked by an error in the MBH mass and spin. In addition, hydrodynamic drag from material that the EMRI is moving through will qualitatively change the inspiral, by driving the orbit to become more prograde, while a GW driven inspiral should become more retrograde~\cite{barausseB}. However, in both cases the imprints will only be measurable if the amount of matter close to the central BH is unphysically high. If the inspiralling object in an EMRI is migrating through a massive disc a $\sim1$ radian dephasing could accumulate over a typical observation~\cite{Yunesdisc}. Finally, the presence of a second MBH within $\sim 0.1$pc would leave a detectable imprint~\cite{YMT2011}, while the presence of a second small object near the EMRI could lead to chaotic motion for $\sim 1\%$ of EMRIs~\cite{butterfly}. For each of these mechanisms, the number of systems in which a detectable signature could accumulate is small and, overall, we expect that these effects should leave a measurable imprint in only a small fraction ($\aplt 10\%$) of observed EMRIs. These imprints will be qualitatively different from fundamental physics effects and so will not be misinterpreted as the latter, but instead will provide constraints on the underlying astrophysical process.
EMRI observations can also be used in several other ways to test fundamental physics. Kerr orbits have a complete set of constants of motion, allowing the orbital motion to be separated, but this will not be true in generic space times, leading to qualitative differences in the dynamics that are potentially observable, such as the appearance of chaos late in the inspiral~\cite{GLM2008} or the appearance of persistent resonances during the inspiral~\cite{persistres}. EMRI observations can be used to test specific alternative theories of gravity (e.g., scalar-tensor gravity~\cite{scharre02,berti2005}, dynamical Chern Simons modified gravity~\cite{CGS2012} and scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity~\cite{yagi2012}) or to place constraints on generic deviations from GR using phenomenological models~\cite{ppE,GY2011}. In most cases, the constraints possible with EMRIs are one or more orders of magnitude better than those that are available currently or likely to be obtained in the near future. EMRIs can be used to test that energy losses to gravitational waves are consistent with the quadrupole formula by comparing the inspiral rate to the quadrupole prediction. Indeed, the constraints on scalar-tensor gravity come primarily from detecting the excess energy lost to dipole radiation~\cite{scharre02}. Finally, EMRI observations can be used to test that GW polarisation is consistent with the two transverse-tensor modes expected in GR. Up to four alternative polarisation states exist in alternative theories of gravity, and eLISA's sensitivity to longitudinal modes is ten times greater than that to transverse modes at high frequencies~\cite{tinto2010}. Whether or not such modes are detectable will of course depend on the relative amplitude of excitement of the different modes in astrophysical sources. For a detailed discussion of all of these possibilities, see~\cite{TestGRLRR} and references therein.
\section{Status of EMRI modeling} \label{emri-modeling}
\subsection{Basic features and challenges}
Realizing the scientific potential of EMRI observations will require an accurate model of their waveforms. This poses many distinct challenges. The orbital motion is highly relativistic and the fields are strong, meaning post-Newtonian approximations are inapplicable. The system contains disparate lengthscales, the SCO's size $\sim m$ and the orbital scale $\sim M$, meaning full numerical relativity is unsuitable. Furthermore, the system contains disparate timescales: in addition to the orbital period $\sim M$, there is the inspiral time $t_{GW}\sim M/\mu$. For an astrophysically relevant mass ratio $\mu\sim 10^{-5}$, the inspiral time corresponds to an enormous $\sim 10^5$ wavecycles. Hence, to extract system parameters from an observed signal, a model must accurately match the true waveform's phase over this same, extraordinary number of orbits.
Despite these obstacles, substantial progress has been made in modeling EMRIs in recent years. Inspirals can now be simulated with an accuracy that may suffice for signal detection, if not for parameter estimation~\cite{Fujita-etal:09,Warburton-etal:12}. Numerous highly accurate calculations on the shorter, orbital timescale have been performed for generic orbits about a nonrotating BH~\cite{Barack-Sago:07,Detweiler:08,Barack-Sago:09,Barack-Sago:10,Barack-Sago:11}, as well as some for circular, equatorial orbits about a rotating one~\cite{Shah-etal:12,Dolan:13}. And the fundamental ingredients are now in place to simulate a complete inspiral accurately enough for parameter estimation, assuming the system is ``clean'' and described by classical GR~\cite{Hinderer-Flanagan:08, Pound:10a, Pound:12a, Gralla:12}. This progress has largely stemmed from advances in the self-force program~\cite{Barack:09,Poisson-Pound-Vega:11}, in which the SCO is treated as a source of perturbation of the background geometry of the MBH. Before detailing the various calculations that have been performed, we will briefly review the formalism.
\subsection{The self-force formalism}
The gravitational self-force program, initiated nearly twenty years ago~\cite{Mino-Sasaki-Tanaka:97,Quinn-Wald:97}, is now mature and on firm mathematical footing~\cite{Gralla-Wald:08,Pound:10a,Harte:12}. Its essential idea is to write the full metric of the system, ${\sf g}_{\mu\nu}$, as an expansion
\begin{equation}\label{g_expansion}
{\sf g}_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} + h^1_{\mu\nu} + h^2_{\mu\nu} + O(\mu^3),
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric of the MBH, and $h^n_{\mu\nu}\sim \mu^n$ is the $n$th-order perturbation due to the SCO. The perturbations travel to infinity, where they can be observed as gravitational waves, but they also distort the geometry around the small object, influencing its motion; this effect on the motion is termed the self-force.
To cope with the challenges of EMRI modeling, this general picture must be tailored to accommodate both the multiple lengthscales and the multiple timescales in the problem.
\subsubsection{Matched asymptotic expansions}\label{matching}
The multiple lengthscales are handled using the method of matched asymptotic expansions~\cite{Mino-Sasaki-Tanaka:97,Gralla-Wald:08,Pound:10a}. One first defines some appropriate worldline $z^\mu$ to represent the SCO's bulk motion in the background spacetime. Near the SCO, in a region of radius $r\sim m$ around $z^\mu$, the gravity of $m$ dominates over that of $M$, and the `outer expansion'~\eqref{g_expansion} fails to be accurate. In this region, a complementary `inner expansion' is assumed to exist, one that effectively zooms in on the SCO by letting $\mu\to 0$ while holding $r/m$ fixed. In this inner expansion, the background metric is that of the SCO itself. In a `buffer region', where $m\ll r\ll M$, both the inner and outer expansions are valid, and information about the SCO can be fed from the inner expansion to the outer. It turns out that in this procedure, only minimal information about the SCO is required---specifically, the SCO's multipole moments. An algorithm now exists for calculating the metric in the buffer region to arbitrary order in perturbation theory~\cite{Pound:12b}, and the end result is a local expression for each $h^n_{\mu\nu}$ in terms of the SCO's multipole moments.
\subsubsection{A generalized equivalence principle}
More precisely, the result of the local analysis in the buffer region is a split of $h^n_{\mu\nu}$ into two pieces:
\begin{equation}\label{split}
h^n_{\mu\nu}=h^{Sn}_{\mu\nu}+h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}.
\end{equation}
The first piece, $h^{Sn}_{\mu\nu}$, loosely represents the SCO's bound field, being constructed locally from the SCO's multipole moments. The second piece, $h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$, propagates independently of the SCO and cannot be determined locally in the buffer region; it is determined only from the global boundary conditions imposed on the perturbations $h^n_{\mu\nu}$.
The fields $h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$ together form a smooth vacuum metric $\hat{\sf g}_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}+\sum_n h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$, an effective metric in the neighbourhood of the SCO. This effective metric has proven to be extremely important: at least through second order in $\mu$, a sufficiently slowly spinning and sufficiently spherical\footnote{For a generic SCO, leading-order spin and quadrupole moment contributions to Eq.~\eqref{eq_mot} can be obtained straightforwardly~\cite{Gralla-Wald:08,Pound:10a,Pound:12b,Harte:12}, but order-$(m/M)^2$ subleading spin effects are unknown in the perturbative context~\cite{Pound:12b}.} SCO is known to move on a geodesic of $\hat{\sf g}_{\mu\nu}$~\cite{Pound:12a,Pound:14a}. In terms of the fields $h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$ on the background $g_{\mu\nu}$, the geodesic equation in $\hat{\sf g}_{\mu\nu}$ can be written as
\begin{align}\label{eq_mot}
\frac{D^2 z^\mu}{d\tau^2} &= \frac{1}{2}\left(g^{\mu\nu}+u^\mu u^\nu\right)\left(g_\nu{}^\rho-h^{R}_\nu{}^\rho\right)
\left(h^{R}_{\sigma\lambda;\rho}-2h^{R}_{\rho\sigma;\lambda}\right)u^\sigma u^\lambda+O(\mu^3)\nonumber\\
&\equiv F_1^\mu+F^\mu_2+O(\mu^3),
\end{align}
where $F_n^\mu$ is the $n$th-order self-force, $h^R_{\mu\nu}=h^{R1}_{\mu\nu}+h^{R2}_{\mu\nu}$, $\tau$ is proper time on $z^\mu$ as measured in $g_{\mu\nu}$, $u^\mu=\frac{dz^\mu}{d\tau}$, and a `;' denotes covariant differentiation compatible with $g_{\mu\nu}$. Equation~\eqref{eq_mot} is a statement of a \emph{generalized equivalence principle}: the SCO, regardless of its internal composition, falls freely in a certain geometry $\hat{\sf g}_{\mu\nu}$, which in some sense it feels to be the ambient vacuum around it.
This generalized equivalence principle was first formulated at linear order in $\mu$ by Detweiler and Whiting \cite{Detweiler-Whiting:03}. A variant of it has been found to hold true even in the fully nonlinear, non-perturbative context of a material body with generic multipole structure~\cite{Harte:12}.
\subsubsection{Point particles and punctures}
To utilize the above results in a practical model, one must replace the inner expansion with something more useful in the region $r\sim m$. One does so by simply extending the result~\eqref{split} from the buffer region down to $r=0$. After this extension is performed, $h^{Sn}_{\mu\nu}$ gets called the singular field, because it diverges on $z^\mu$, while $h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$ gets called the regular field, because it is smooth at $z^\mu$. Crucially, this replacement of the physical metric in the SCO's interior with the extension from the buffer region does not alter the motion of the SCO or the metric outside the SCO.
At first order, the extended field $h^1_{\mu\nu}$ is identical to the perturbation produced by a point mass in linearized gravity~\cite{Gralla-Wald:08,Pound:10a}, meaning it can be calculated numerically from the linearized Einstein equation with a point-mass source. Beyond first order, the point particle picture fails, but one can still use this extension procedure to effectively replace the complicated physics inside the SCO with the simple field $h^{Sn}_{\mu\nu}$, which appears as a `puncture' (rather than a partcle) on the manifold. A globally well-defined field equation for the extended $h^n_{\mu\nu}$ is not known in this nonlinear case, but the field equations for $h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$ \footnote{More accurately, numerically practical field equations are formulated for `residual fields' $h^{\mathcal{R}n}_{\mu\nu}\approx h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$, which can be chosen such that their values on $z^\mu$, and the values of any finite number of their derivatives, agree with those of $h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$ and its derivatives on $z^\mu$.} in a region covering the SCO can easily be combined with equations for $h^n_{\mu\nu}$ outside the SCO to obtain a global solution~\cite{Detweiler:12,Pound:12a,Pound:12b,Gralla:12}.
\subsubsection{Representations of motion}\label{rep_motion}
In Sec.~\ref{matching}, we stated that ``One first defines some appropriate worldline $z^\mu$." That simple statement elides several complexities involved in the choice of worldline~\cite{Pound:10a}. In brief, on the orbital timescale $\sim M$, the orbit can be approximated as a geodesic of $g_{\mu\nu}$, and the perturbation can be calculated with the particle/puncture moving on that geodesic. Self-force effects then appear as order-$\mu$ corrections to the geodesic, and these corrections appear as terms in $h^2_{\mu\nu}$ rather than altering the position of the particle/puncture. But on the inspiral timescale $t_{GW}$, the orbit deviates by a large amount from any reference geodesic, and to maintain accuracy, the effect of the self-force must be incorporated into the motion of the particle/puncture.
There are two ways to incorporate this long-term backreaction of the perturbation on the worldline. First, one might solve the equation of motion~\eqref{eq_mot} coupled to the field equations for $h^n_{\mu\nu}$ and $h^{Rn}_{\mu\nu}$, with the particle/puncture moving on $z^\mu$; this is called the `self-consistent' approach~\cite{Gralla-Wald:08,Pound:10a}. Alternatively, on the right-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq_mot}, but not on the left, one might replace $z^\mu$ with an expansion $z^\mu=z_{0(\tau)}^\mu+z_{1(\tau)}^\mu+O(\mu^2)$, where $z^\mu_{0(\tau)}$ is the geodesic of $g_{\mu\nu}$ that is instantaneously tangential to $z^\mu$ at time $\tau$. At each instant $\tau$ on $z^\mu$, $F^\mu_1$ is then calculated from the solution to the linearized Einstein equation with the particle moving on $z^\mu_{0(\tau)}$, while $F^\mu_2$ picks up the effect of the correction $z^\mu_{1(\tau)}$. Call this the `geodesic source + osculation' approach, named after the fact that the source for $h^1_{\mu\nu}$ is at each instant on $z^\mu$ constructed from the osculating geodesic $z^\mu_{0(\tau)}$~\cite{Pound-Poisson:08,Warburton-etal:12}.
\subsection{Self-forced motion in Kerr spacetime: A hierarchy of models}\label{models}
The self-force formalism can, in principle, be carried to any order in its perturbative expansion. But how high must we go to build useful EMRI models?
Geodesics in Kerr are characterized by their energy $E$, angular momentum $L_z$, and Carter constant $Q$, or equivalently, by their three orbital frequencies $f^{}_r$, $f^{}_\theta$, and $f^{}_\phi$. When the self-force is accounted for, its dissipative piece causes slow changes in these `constants' of motion. However, the conservative piece of the self-force also causes long-term changes that cannot be neglected~\cite{Pound-Poisson:08}. The relative importance of the various pieces of the self-force, through second order, was first systematically studied by Hinderer and Flanagan~\cite{Hinderer-Flanagan:08}. They used a two-timescale expansion of accelerated motion in Kerr to study generic behavior on both the orbital and inspiral timescales, leading to the following expansion of the orbital phase:
\begin{equation}
\phi(t,\mu) = \frac{1}{\mu}\left[\phi_0(\tilde t)+\mu\phi_1(\tilde t)+O(\mu^2)\right]
\end{equation}
where $\tilde t\equiv \mu t$ is $\sim M$ when $t\sim t_{GW}$. In this expansion, the leading term, $\phi_0$, called the adiabatic order, is determined by the averaged dissipative piece of $F_1^\mu$; at this order, only the leading averaged rates of change of $E$, $L_z$, and $Q$ are required. The subleading term, $\phi_1$, called the post-1 adiabatic order, is determined by the averaged dissipative piece of $F_2^\mu$, the conservative piece of $F_1^\mu$, and the oscillatory dissipative piece of $F_1^\mu$. A model that captures only $\phi_0$ is likely to suffice for signal detection but not for parameter estimation. A model that captures both $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$ ensures all errors are small, $\sim \mu$, over an inspiral; therefore, it is expected to be sufficient for parameter estimation.
This description assumes the orbital frequencies $f^{}_r$ and $f^{}_\theta$ are incommensurate. When the frequencies are related by a rational ratio, orbital resonances occur and substantially complicate the picture. Because the orbital frequencies continually evolve, the resonance will last only a relatively short time $\sim M/\sqrt{\mu}\ll t_{GW}$.\footnote{Although it is possible for an orbit to become trapped near a resonance, such an event is extremely unlikely to be observed~\cite{vandeMeent:14}.} But during this time, the orbital elements change rapidly, leading to large, $\sim\sqrt{1/\mu}$ shifts in the waveform's phase~\cite{Flanagan-Hinderer:12}. These transient resonances occur generically in most inspirals~\cite{Ruangsri-Hughes:13}. They have interesting mathematical properties~\cite{Gair-etal:12} and observational relevance even outside of gravitational wave astronomy~\cite{Brink-etal:13}, but for the purpose of EMRI modeling, they are of great importance for one reason: even for signal detection, their effects might have to be included, but a leading-order adiabatic evolution does not capture those effects. Correctly modeling resonances is thought to have the same requirements as a post-1 adiabatic approximation~\cite{Flanagan-Hinderer:12}---the complete $F^\mu_1$ and the averaged dissipative effect of $F^\mu_2$. However, for detection, it might instead suffice to use the adiabatic approximation in the sections of waveform between resonances.
We now detail the calculations that have been performed, moving in order of increasing completeness, from adiabatic evolution to the full $F_1^\mu$ to $F^\mu_2$.
\subsubsection{Adiabatic evolution}
Building on seminal work by Mino~\cite{Mino:03}, several authors developed practical adiabatic approximation schemes that express the averaged rates of change $\langle\dot E\rangle$, $\langle\dot L_z\rangle$, and $\langle\dot Q\rangle$ in terms of the solution to the Teukolsky equation~\cite{Drasco-etal:05,Sago-etal:05,Sago-etal:06,Ganz-etal:07}. Compared to obtaining the complete $F^\mu_1$, these schemes are extremely simple, and they have been implemented for generic (inclined and eccentric) orbits in Kerr~\cite{Fujita-etal:09}. However, these calculations do not account for orbital resonances, possibly limiting their usefulness in signal detection. As a first step to overcoming this limitation, the effects of resonances on $\langle\dot E\rangle$, $\langle\dot{L}_z\rangle$, and $\langle\dot Q\rangle$ have been calculated~\cite{Flanagan-etal:12,Isoyama-etal:13}, and ``post-adiabatic'' methods for evolving through resonances are under development.
\subsubsection{First-order self-force}
There are now several active codes capable of calculating first-order effects in both the time domain \cite{Barack-Sago:07,Dolan-Barack:13} and the frequency domain \cite{Shah-etal:12,Akcay-Warburton-Barack:13,Osburn-etal:14}. One of two routes is typically used in these calculations. Either one calculates $h^1_{\mu\nu}$ using a point particle source and then subtracts the contribution of $h^{S1}_{\mu\nu}$ to find $h^{R1}_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_1^\mu$, as in mode-sum schemes~\cite{Barack-Ori:00,Barack-etal:02,Mino-Nakano-Sasaki:03,Barack-Ori:03b}; or one calculates the regular quantities $h^{R1}_{\mu\nu}$ and $F^\mu_1$ directly, as in puncture/effective-source schemes~\cite{Barack-Golbourn:07,Vega-Detweiler:07,Wardell-etal:11}.
Numerous calculations have been performed, and they are best divided into two categories: those for orbits about a Schwarzschild BH, and those for orbits about a Kerr BH. In all cases, calculations have used a geodesic source orbit, meaning they are accurate only on short timescales but can be incorporated into two-timescale or osculating-geodesic long-term evolution schemes.
For orbits in Schwarzschild, inspirals of moderate eccentricity have been simulated~\cite{Warburton-etal:12} using the `geodesic source + osculation' approach. Furthermore, many physical effects have been calculated from the conservative sector of the dynamics on the orbital timescale: orbital precession~\cite{Barack-Sago:11}, the shift in frequency of the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) in Schwarzschild~\cite{Barack-Sago:09,Favata:11,LeTiec-etal:12b}, Detweiler's redshift variable (the ratio of proper time measured along the geodesic in the regular metric to the time measured by an inertial observer at infinity)~\cite{Detweiler:08, Barack-Sago:11}, spin precession~\cite{Dolan-etal:13}, and tidal effects~\cite{Dolan-etal:14}.
For orbits in Kerr (the astrophysically relevant case), no inspirals have yet been simulated. However, calculations have been performed for circular orbits~\cite{Shah-etal:12,Dolan:13}, and from those results, Detweiler's redshift variable and the ISCO shift have been found~\cite{Isoyama-etal:14}. Also, recent work has established how to obtain self-force effects by reconstructing $h^1_{\mu\nu}$ from Teukolsky variables, rather than via the more technically demanding route of directly solving the nonseparable linearized Einstein equation~\cite{Shah-etal:12,Pound-Merlin-Barack:14}; this should spark a new round of calculations for more generic orbits.
Although short-term conservative effects in Schwarzschild and Kerr are not directly relevant to inspiral simulations, they have engendered a fruitful cross-cultural pollination between self-force models and other binary models~\cite{Detweiler:08,Blanchet-etal:10a,Blanchet-etal:10b,LeTiec-etal:11,Favata:11,LeTiec-etal:12b,LeTiec-etal:13,Shah-etal:13}, setting benchmarks for numerical relativity, fixing high-order PN parameters and calibrating effective-one-body theory (EOB)~\cite{Damour:09,Blanchet-etal:10b,Favata:11,Shah-etal:13, Barack-Damour-Sago:10,Barausse-etal:12,Akcay-etal:12,Bini-Damour:13}. More strikingly, the comparisons with numerical relativity have shown that self-force results are surprisingly accurate even in the limit of comparable masses~\cite{LeTiec-etal:11,LeTiec-etal:12b,LeTiec-etal:13}. See Ref.~\cite{LeTiec:14} for a recent review of this synergy between models.
All of the results mentioned in this section have been for the astrophysically relevant case of a gravitational perturbation. Significantly more progress has been made in the case of a scalar field, which has proven to be an important testbed for numerical methods in the self-force program~\cite{Detweiler-etal:03,Haas:07,Barack-Golbourn:07,Vega-Detweiler:07,Canizares-etal:10,Wardell-etal:14}. Fully self-consistent inspirals have been evolved in Schwarzschild in this case~\cite{Diener-etal:12}. And in the geodesic-source approximation, many calculations have been performed for orbits in Kerr~\cite{Warburton-Barack:10,Dolan-Barack-Wardell:11,Warburton-Barack:11}, leading to successful calculations of scalar self-force effects for both inclined~\cite{Warburton:14} and highly eccentric orbits in Kerr~\cite{Thornburg-Wardell:14}. Much of the numerical infrastructure developed for this work, and the physical insight gained from it, should carry over to the gravitational case.
\subsubsection{Second-order self-force}
After several preliminary studies of the second-order problem~\cite{Rosenthal:06a,Rosenthal:06b,Pound:10a,Detweiler:11}, in recent years complete second-order formalisms have been derive
~\cite{Gralla:12,Pound:12a,Pound:12b,Pound:14a}. Because the point-particle description fails beyond linear order, mode-sum regularization can no longer be used. However, puncture schemes arise naturally. As of yet, no numerical implementations of these puncture schemes have been performed, but practical numerical ingredients and plans have been steadily developing~\cite{Pound-Miller:14,Pound:14c}.
\subsection{Summary of progress and current status}\label{status_summary}
The self-force formalism is now well developed and robust, extendable to any order in perturbation theory and to spinning objects of any multipolar structure.
To detect EMRI signals, the adiabatic approximation to the self-forced evolution is the most promising avenue. Excluding resonance effects, adiabatic evolutions have been simulated for generic orbits in Kerr~\cite{Fujita-etal:09}, and a method has been proposed to evolve through resonances without requiring a complete self-force calculation~\cite{Isoyama-etal:13}. However, while they are relatively cheap compared to a full self-force calculation, these adiabatic schemes may be too slow to be used directly to populate a template bank. For the purposes of testing data analysis methods and gleaning broad features of EMRIs, simple `kludge' models can be used instead~\cite{Barack-Cutler:04,Gair-Glampedakis:05,Babak-etal:07,Sopuerta-Yunes:11}. For building a template bank for real data analysis, one possible tool is the use of adiabatic approximations or full self-force data to calibrate the extreme-mass-ratio limit of EOB, which can then be used in EMRI source modeling~\cite{Damour-Nagar:07,Yunes-etal:09,Yunes-etal:11,Harms-etal:14}.
To accurately extract system parameters, we must improve upon these adiabatic models by including both the full first-order self-force and the time-averaged, dissipative effects of the second-order force. Progress toward this end has been steady, but is far from complete. Long-term evolutions incorporating the full first-order self-force have been performed for orbits of moderate eccentricity in a Schwarzschild background~\cite{Warburton-etal:12}. Short-term effects of the first-order self-force have been calculated for generic orbits in Schwarzschild~\cite{Barack-Sago:10} and for circular, equatorial orbits in Kerr~\cite{Shah-etal:12, Dolan:13}. And work has commenced to extend these results to generic orbits in Kerr and to incorporate them into orbital evolutions, either self-consistently or using a `geodesic source + osculation' approach.
The most daunting challenge now remaining is the incorporation of second-order self-force effects into inspiral models. This remains a distant prospect, and as of this writing, no numerical results have yet been obtained. However, the formalism is now at hand, and numerical calculations are underway~\cite{Pound:14c}. Furthermore, there is some evidence that for some types of orbits, particularly quasicircular ones, accurate models could be constructed using post-Newtonian approximations of second-order effects, potentially sidestepping the need for complete second-order calculations for those classes of orbits~\cite{Isoyama-etal:12}.
\section{Conclusions}
We have summarized recent progress in three fundamental aspects of EMRI science: (i) the astrophysical mechanisms and event rates for EMRIs, (ii) the scientific potential of EMRI GW observations for astrophysics, cosmology, and fundamental physics, and (iii) the modeling of the dynamics of EMRIs and their GW signals.
Although there has been a lot of progress in these research topics, there is still a lot of work to be done in order to be ready for a fruitful exploitation of EMRI GW observations with a space-based detector like eLISA. These three areas of research involve great theoretical challenges, which can be seen as part of the price to be paid for the extraordinary scientific results that can be obtained with EMRIs. The case of EMRI modeling involves the solution of the general-relativistic two-body problem in the extreme-mass ratio regime, an interesting problem by itself. As we have described, there is still much work to be done to solve the self-force problem for spinning MBHs, and even more for introducing second-order perturbative effects that are needed for an accurate description of EMRI gravitational waveforms.
In the case of the study of the astrophysical mechanisms and event rates for EMRIs, the astrophysical problem involves a huge range of scales that cannot be handled with direct $N$-body simulations, and clever approximations have to be made. In the case of the scientific potential of EMRIs, there are a lot of possibilities, as we have described. An example to illustrate the amount and complexity of the work that can be required to make progress in this direction is the question of testing alternative theories of gravity with EMRIs. To that end, we would need a good description of EMRIs in those alternative theories of gravity. Taking into account that the basic features of the GW emission mechanism and the properties of BHs may be quite different from those in GR, where EMRI dynamics is already quite challenging, making predictions for EMRI GW observations in alternative theories of gravity can be in general a very difficult problem. However, by trying to solve this kind of problem we may learn new aspects of these alternative theories, especially in the strong-field gravity regime where not much is known.
In conclusion, the challenges originated by these questions about EMRIs and their intrinsic scientific interest require a great deal of human and computational resources. Despite the fact that the L3 ESA mission devoted to the science of the Gravitational Universe white paper~\cite{eLISA:13} is expected to be launched around 2034, the problems we face are of sufficient magnitude to deserve increased attention in both the short and long term.
\ack
PAS' work has been supported by the Transregio 7 ``Gravitational Wave Astronomy'' financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (German Research Foundation). AP acknowledges support from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no. 304978. CFS acknowledges support from contracts 2009-SGR-935 (Catalan Agency for Research Funding, AGAUR) and AYA-2010-15709 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, MICINN). SAH's work on EMRIs has most recently been supported in part by NSF grant PHY-1403261, by the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and with sabbatical support from the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}
\providecommand{\newblock}{}
|
\section{Introduction}
When gas accretes onto a central black hole with a rate larger than a critical accretion
rate $\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$ with corresponding luminosity $L_{\rm{Edd}}$, the radiation force exerted on the gas by the emitted photons will exceed the gravitational force, driving an outflow. This results holds even when the accretion flow is non-spherical \citep{Abramowiczetal1980}.
However, when accretion is through a disk, radiation and outflowing gas can be collimated in the vertical direction, allowing
inflow through the disk plane in excess of $\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$ \citep{ShakuraSunyaev1973}.
The existence of $\sim 2\times10^9$ solar mass black hole only at $0.78$ Gyr after
big bang \citep[][]{Mortlocketal2011} also implies that black holes can grow
with an accretion rate larger than $\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$ \citep[][]{Madauetal2014, VolonteriSilk2014}.
Super-Eddington accretion is also believed to happen in tidal disruption events, when roughly half of solar mass
is dumped to the $\sim10^6-10^7$ solar mass black hole \citep[][]{Rees1988}.
The most extensive evidence for super-Eddington accretion comes from
ultraluminous X-ray (ULX) sources, which have luminosities that exceed
the Eddington limit for $\sim 10 M_\odot$ black holes by factors of up
to $\sim 1000$ \citep{Farrelletal2009}. Therefore it has been
suggested that many of these sources may be intermediate-mass black
holes \citep[][]{ColbertMushotzky1999,MillerColbert2004}.
Alternatively, a number of authors have speculated that ULXs may be
$\sim 10 M_\odot$ black holes accreting and emitting at
super-Eddington rates
\citep[e.g.][]{Begelman2002,SocratesDavis2006,Begelmanetal2006} and
that their emission may be strongly beamed
\citep[e.g.][]{Kingetal2001}. The proposition that most (but not
necessarily all) ULX sources are super-Eddington accretors is
supported by the need to explain the larger number of these sources in
some galaxies, even though the required mass transfer scenarios are
relatively rare and short-lived \citep{Rappaportetal2005}. Also, many
of these sources have distinctive spectral features that differentiate
them from normal X-ray binaries \citep[][]{Gladstoneetal2009,
Suttonetal2013,Waltonetal2014,Ranaetal2014}, which are known to be
accreting below the Eddington rate.
Although alternatives have been proposed \citep[e.g.][]{Begelman2002,SocratesDavis2006,Begelmanetal2006},
accretion disks in the moderately super-Eddington regime have often been modeled as slim disks \citep[][]{Abramowiczetal1988,Katoetal1998,Sadowski2009,AbramowiczFragile2013}.
In this model, the stress responsible for the angular momentum transfer is assumed to be proportional to the total pressure in the disk, as adopted in the standard thin disk model \citep[][]{ShakuraSunyaev1973}.
The cooling is dominated by advection along the \emph{ radial} directions, which is much larger than radiative diffusion along the vertical directions, as the optical depth
due to electron scattering is huge when the accretion rate $\dot{M}>\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$.
There is a characteristic photon trapping radius $r_{\rm{trap}}$ \citep[][]{Begelman1978}, within which photon
diffusion time is longer than inflow time so that the photons are accreted towards the black hole with the gas before they have time to leave the system. Therefore,
the model predicts that the total luminosity emitted by the disk is close to $L_{\rm{Edd}}$ and only depends on the actual accretion rate logarithmically in the super-Eddington regime \citep[][]{ShakuraSunyaev1973}. Therefore, the radiative efficiencies tend to be much lower than standard
thin disks.
Since the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) \citep[][]{BalbusHawley1991,HGB1995,BalbusHawley1998} is now believed to be the physical mechanism responsible for angular momentum transfer, studying the accretion disk properties with self-consistent MRI is the next step to significantly improve our understanding of super-Eddington accretion flows. Because photons control the dynamics in the radiation pressure dominated flows, an accurate numerical algorithm to solve the radiative transfer equation is also another essential ingredient. Properties of the saturation state of MRI in both gas pressure and radiation pressure dominated regimes have been studied extensively with local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Stoneetal1996,Turner2004, Hiroseetal2006, Hiroseetal2009, Hiroseetal2009b, Jiangetal2013b}. The magnetic field is not only able to provide the stress we need to transfer angular momentum, but also generates an additional cooling mechanism \citep[][]{Turner2004, Hiroseetal2009, Hiroseetal2009b, Blaesetal2011,Jiangetal2013c} and coronae above the disk \citep[][]{Jiangetal2014}. Structures of accretion disks in the super-Eddington regime have also been studied with global two (2D) as well three (3D) dimensional magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) simulations, where radiative transfer equation is
solved with flux-limited diffusion (FLD) or M1 closure \citep[][]{Ohsugaetal2011, McKinneyetal2014, Sadowskietal2014}. These global simulations confirm many properties of the slim disk model. Particularly, strong radiation driven outflows are formed in these simulations \citep[][]{WataraiFukue1999,OhsugaMineshige2013}.
However, many questions remain to be answered. Because of the approximations made in FLD and M1, they cannot accurately capture the angular distribution of the photons near the photosphere (Jiang et al. 2014, in preparation). Since we have developed a more accurate numerical algorithm to solve the time dependent radiative transfer equations directly \citep[][]{Jiangetal2012,Davisetal2012,Jiangetal2014b}, we repeat these calculations without adopting previous approximations.
Although the slim disk model correctly determines that advection along the radial direction is more rapid than radiative diffusion along the vertical direction, advection in the vertical direction is not considered. Nor have global numerical simulations identified vertical advection as playing a significant role. In contrast, it has previously been speculated that vertical energy advection associated with buoyant
magnetic field may exceed transport by photon diffusion \citep[][]{SocratesDavis2006} and such transport has been demonstrated in local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Blaesetal2011,Jiangetal2013c}. It is also notable that the standard slim disk models have difficulty fitting the spectra of ULXs \citep[][]{Gladstoneetal2009}, although sophisticated calculations of radiation transfer through global numerical simulations yield promising results \citep{Kawashimaetal2012}.
The simulation we present in this paper is designed to address these questions. We solve the full radiative transfer equation in the Newtonian limit
without adopting any FLD or M1 like approximations \citep[][]{Jiangetal2014b}. Due to the large computational expense of our calculations, we have only completed one simulation with enough resolution to reach
inflow equilibrium for a small radial range. This limits our ability to make detailed, quantitative predictions, but still allows us to identify
the physical mechanisms that govern the flow. Our primary result is that
magnetic buoyancy significantly increases the vertical energy transport in these super-Eddington flows.
Therefore, they achieve radiative efficiencies nearly as high as standard thin disks \citep[][]{ShakuraSunyaev1973}.
A radiation driven outflow along the rotation axis is observed, but we see no evidence of photon bubbles \citep[c.f.][]{Begelman2002}
and beaming of the emission is mild \citep[c.f.][]{Kingetal2001}.
\section{Equations}
The ideal MHD equations coupled with the time dependent radiative transfer equations we solve are \citep[][]{Jiangetal2014b}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}\cdot(\rho \bv)&=&0, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial( \rho\bv)}{\partial t}+{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}\cdot({\rho \bv\bv-\bb\bb+{{\sf P}^{\ast}}}) &=&-\bm{ S_r}(\bP)-\rho{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}\phi,\ \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial t}+{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}\cdot\left[(E+P^{\ast})\bv-\bb(\bb\cdot\bv)\right]&=&-cS_r(E)-\rho\bv\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}\phi, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial\bb}{\partial t}-{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}\times(\bv\times\bb)&=&0.
\label{MHDEquation}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial I}{\partial t}+c\bn\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}} I&=&c\sigma_a\left(\frac{a_rT^4}{4\pi}-I\right)+c\sigma_s(J-I) \nonumber \\
&+&3\bn\cdot\bv\sigma_a\left(\frac{a_rT^4}{4\pi}-J\right)
\nonumber \\
&+&\bn\cdot\bv(\sigma_a+\sigma_s)\left(I+3J \right)
-2\sigma_s\bv\cdot\bH \nonumber \\
&-&(\sigma_a-\sigma_s)\frac{\bv\cdot\bv}{c}J- (\sigma_a-\sigma_s)\frac{\bv\cdot(\bv\cdot{\sf K})}{c}.\nonumber \\
\label{RTequation}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
S_r(E)&=&\sigma_a\left(a_rT^4-E_r\right)\nonumber \\
&+&\left(\sigma_a-\sigma_s\right)\frac{\bv}{c^2}\cdot\left[
\bF_r-\left(\bv E_r+\bv\cdot{\sf P_r}\right)\right], \nonumber\\
\bm{ S_r}(\bP)&=&-\frac{\left(\sigma_s+\sigma_a\right)}{c}\left[
\bF_r-\left(\bv E_r+\bv\cdot{\sf P_r}\right)\right] \nonumber\\
&+&\frac{\bv}{c}\sigma_a\left(a_rT^4-E_r\right).
\label{Radsource}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\rho,\ \bb, \bv$ are density, magnetic field and flow velocity, ${\sf P}^{\ast}\equiv(P+B^2/2){\sf I}$ (with ${\sf I}$
the unit tensor), $P$ is the gas pressure, and the magnetic permeability $\mu=1$. The total gas energy density is
\begin{eqnarray}
E=E_g+\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+\frac{B^2}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_g$ is the internal gas energy density. We adopt an equation of state
for an ideal gas with adiabatic index $\gamma=5/3$, thus
$E_g=P/(\gamma-1)$ for $\gamma\neq 1$ and gas temperature $T=P/R_{\text{ideal}}\rho$, where
$R_{\text{ideal}}$ is the ideal gas constant. Mean molecular weight $\mu$ is assume to be $0.6$. The radiation momentum and energy source
terms are $\bm{ S_r}(\bP),\ S_r(E)$ and $I$ is the specific intensity along the direction with unit vector $\bn$.
Absorption and scattering opacities (attenuation coefficients) are $\sigma_a$ and $\sigma_s$ respectively,
$a_r$ is the radiation constants and $c$ is the speed of light. The radiation energy density $E_r$, radiation flux $\bF_r$ and radiation
pressure ${\sf P_r}$ are defined through the angular quadrature of the specific intensity as
\begin{eqnarray}
J&\equiv& \int Id\Omega,\nonumber \\
\bH&\equiv& \int \bn Id \Omega, \nonumber \\
{\sf K}&\equiv& \int \bn\bn I d\Omega, \nonumber \\
E_r&=&4\pi J, \ \bF_r=4\pi c\bH, \ {\sf P_r}=4\pi{\sf K}.
\label{integrateangle}
\end{eqnarray}
A pseudo-Newtonian
potential \citep[][]{PaczynskiWiita1980} is used to mimic the general relativity effects around a Schwarzschild black hole as
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi=-\frac{GM_{\rm{BH}}}{R-r_s},
\end{eqnarray}
where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M_{\rm{BH}}$ is the black hole mass, $R$ is the distance to the central black hole and
$r_s\equiv 2GM_{\rm{BH}}/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius. Notice that the innermost stable circular orbit of this potential is
$r_{\text{ISCO}}=3r_s$.
This set of equations is written in the mixed frame \citep[][]{Lowrieetal1999,Jiangetal2012}, where the radiation field is
described in the Eulerian frame while the opacities are calculated at the fluid frame. The fluid frame radiation flux $\bF_{r,0}$
is related to $\bF_r$ as $\bF_{r,0}=\bF_r-\left(\bv E_r+\bv\cdot{\sf P_r}\right)$.
The radiative transfer equation and
radiation source terms are accurate to $\mathcal{O}\left(v/c\right)$, consistent with the Newtonian limit we are considering
in this paper. When specific intensity $I$ is integrated over all angles, equation (\ref{RTequation}) is exactly the same
as the radiation moment equations used by \cite{Lowrieetal1999} and \cite{Jiangetal2012}. Furthermore, radiation pressure ${\sf P_r}$
is also directly calculated and we do not need any assumption or independent equation to calculate the Eddington tensor.
We solve the above radiation MHD equations with the recently developed radiative transfer algorithm in Athena as described in \cite{Jiangetal2014b}.
Cylindrical coordinates \citep[][]{SkinnerOstriker2010} with axes ($r,\ \phi,\ z$) are used here, but the angles of specific intensities are kept fixed as in
the cartesian case.
\section{Simulation Setup}
\begin{table}[htp]
\centering
\caption{Simulation Parameters}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Parameters & Value & Definition\\
\hline
$M_{\rm BH}$ & $6.62M_\odot$ & Mass of Central Black Hole \\
$r_s$ & $2GM_{\rm BH}/c^2$ & Schwarzschild radius \\
$\kappa_{\rm es}$ & $0.34$ ${\rm g/cm^2}$ & Electron scattering opacity \\
$L_{\rm{Edd}}$ & $4\pi GM_{\rm BH}c/\kappa_{\rm es}$ & Eddington Luminosity \\
$\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$ & $10L_{\rm Edd}/c^2$ & Eddington Accretion Rate \\
$r_{\rm in}$ & $2r_s$ & Inner radial boundary \\
$r_{\rm out}$ & $50r_s$ & Outer radial boundary \\
$L_z$ & $60r_s$ & Vertical box size \\
$N_r$ & $512$ & number of radial grids \\
$N_z$ & $1024$ & number of vertical grids \\
$N_{\phi}$ & $128$ & number of azimuthal grids \\
$\rho_0$ & $10^{-2}{\rm g/cm^3}$ & fiducial density \\
$T_0$ & $10^7$ K & fiducial temperature \\
$t_s$ & $r_s/c=6.56\times 10^{-5}$ s & light crossing time \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Table:parameters}
\end{table}
Parameters of the simulation setup are summarized in Table \ref{Table:parameters}. The inner radial boundary $r_{\rm in}$ is
inside $r_{\text{ISCO}}$ of Paczy\'nski-Wiita potential, while $r_{\rm out}$ is the outer radial boundary of
the simulation box. The vertical range of the simulation box is from $-L_z/2$ to $L_z/2$ while the range of azimuthal direction is from $0$ to $\pi$.
A factor of $10$ is already included in the definition of Eddington accretion rate $\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$ and all the simulation time
will be reported in unit of light crossing time $t_s$.
Uniform grids are used for all three directions and the resolutions are $N_r,\ N_z,\ N_{\phi}$ as listed in Table \ref{Table:parameters}.
Periodic boundary conditions are used for the azimuthal direction. For the radial and vertical boundaries,
all the gas quantities are copied from the last active zones to the ghost zones except the radial ($v_r$) and vertical ($v_z$)
components of the flow velocity and magnetic field. When $v_r$ in the last active zones of radial boundaries points inward, we set $v_r=0,\ B_{\phi}=0,\
B_z=0$ in the ghost zones and copy $B_r$ from last active zones to the ghost zones.
For other cases, $v_r$ and all components of magnetic field are copied from the last active zones to the ghost zones.
We apply equivalent conditions for the vertical boundaries, except that $v_r$, $B_r$ in the last statement are changed to $v_z$ and $B_z$.
Incoming specific intensities from the ghost zones are set to be zero while outgoing
specific intensities are copied from the last active zones to the ghost zones.
Initially we setup a hydrostatic equilibrium rotating torus following \cite{Hawley2001} and \cite{Katoetal2004} with the center of the torus located at $r_0=25r_s$.
Radial profile of the specific angular momentum of the torus $l$ is assumed to be $l=l_0\left(r/r_0\right)^{0.4}$, where $l_0$ is the Keplerian value of the specific angular
momentum at $r_0$. Density and temperature at the center of the torus are $10\rho_0$ and $100T_0$, where $\rho_0$ and $T_0$ are the fiducial values as
listed in Table \ref{Table:parameters}. A fiducial pressure can be defined as $P_0=R_{\rm ideal}\rho_0T_0$.
Then we replace the gas pressure with gas and radiation pressure by assuming gas and radiation are in thermal equilibrium
with the total pressure equal to the original gas pressure. Specific
intensities are initialized isotropically, which adjust within a few steps to generate the required radiation flux to support the torus according to the radiation energy
density gradient. We assume an initial vector potential proportional to the density, with the magnetic field arranged to guarantee
${\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}\cdot\bb=0$. The ratio between vertically integrated gas pressure and magnetic pressure at $r_0$ is $20$ initially. The scattering opacity
$\sigma_s=\rho\kappa_{\rm es}$ is due to electron scattering while free-free absorption opacity is $\sigma_a=\rho\kappa_{\rm ff}$, where $\kappa_{\rm ff}=3.7\times10^{53}\left(\rho^9/E_g^7\right)^{1/2}$
cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. Density of the torus is perturbed by $1\%$ randomly to seed the MRI turbulence.
\section{Results}
After a few rotation periods of the torus, vigorous turbulence is generated by MRI, which transfers angular momentum
outwards and makes the gas accrete. An accretion disk forms from the mass supplied
by the torus. The steady state structure of the disk is the focus of our analysis.
\subsection{Simulation History}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{Mdot_history.ps}
\caption{Accretion rate history. The Eddington accretion rate $\dot{M}$ and time $t_s$ are defined
in Table \ref{Table:parameters}.
}
\label{Mdothistory}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{STplots.ps}
\caption{Space-time diagram of density (top), gas temperature (middle) and azimuthal component of magnetic field (bottom) at
$r=10r_s$ (left) and $r=20r_s$ (right). Units for $\rho$, $T$ and $B_{\phi}$ are $\rho_0,\ T_0, \ \sqrt{P_0}$.
The white lines at the top panels show the approximate locations of electron scattering photosphere measured from the nearby surfaces of the disk.}
\label{STplots}
\end{figure*}
The history of the accretion rate $\dot{M}$ for this simulation is shown in Figure \ref{Mdothistory}. Here the accretion rate is
calculated as the net mass flux through the cylinder with radius $5r_s$ and height $5r_s$. The first $5000t_s$
is the initial transient phase, when gas from the torus flows towards the black hole and forms the accretion disk.
After that, $\dot{M}$ fluctuates around a mean value $-22.0\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$ between $5000t_s$ and $1.25\times10^4t_s$ because of MRI turbulence,
which shows that the accretion rate through the inner boundary has reached a steady state.
As Keplerian rotation period in the Paczy\'nski-Wiita potential at radius $r$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
t_k=755t_s\left(\frac{r}{20r_s}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{r/r_s-1}{19}\right),
\label{Period}
\end{eqnarray}
duration of the simulation is equivalent to $16.6$ orbits at $20r_s$ and $49.4$ orbits at
$10r_s$.
Time evolution of the disk structures can also be studied with the space-time diagram as shown in Figure \ref{STplots}. At radii $10r_s$ and $20r_s$,
we calculate the azimuthally averaged vertical profiles of $\rho$, $T$ and $B_{\phi}$ at each time. History of the averaged
vertical profile is the space-time diagram for each radius. After the initial $5000t_s$ when the disk reaches the center, the very hot temperature
and low density caused by the initial conditions go away. Density and temperature profiles are self-consistently determined by the MRI turbulence.
Above a certain height at each radius, which is the location of the photosphere for effective absorption opacity $\left(\kappa_{\rm es}\kappa_{\rm ff}\right)^{1/2}$,
gas temperature increases to $10^8\sim 10^9$ K rapidly. This is caused by the dissipation of the buoyantly rising magnetic field from the disk mid-plane,
which is consistent with the corona found in local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Jiangetal2014}.
However, we caution that the exact values of gas temperature in this region will change if Compton scattering is included.
Surface density, as well as the height of effective absorption opacity photosphere, increases with radius, while the corona region shrinks
with radius. This is also consistent with the change of corona properties with surface density as studied with local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Jiangetal2014}.
Starting near the disk mid-plane, $B_{\phi}$ reverses with time and magnetic field rises up buoyantly at each radius, which causes
consistent fluctuations of density and temperature. As the local rotation period
increases with radius, this process takes a longer time at larger radius. This so called butterfly diagram has been observed widely in local shearing box
\citep[][]{Stoneetal1996,MillerStone2000,Shietal2010,Davisetal2010,Jiangetal2014} and global simulations \citep[][]{ONeilletal2011}. This phenomenon is believed
to be caused by a dynamo process in MRI generated turbulence \citep[][]{Brandenburgetal1995,Gressel2010,Blackman2012}.
However, the period of the butterfly diagram in local shearing box simulations is usually found to be $\sim 10$ orbits \citep[][]{ONeilletal2011,Jiangetal2014}. As Keplerian
rotation periods at $10$ and $20r_s$ are only $252.9$ and $755t_s$ respectively (Equation \ref{Period}), Figure \ref{STplots} shows that $B_{\phi}$
takes longer than $10$ local orbital periods to flip in this simulation, especially around $10r_s$. This suggests that properties of MRI turbulence are
modified due to global effects compared with local shearing box simulations.
\subsection{Disk Snapshot}
Snapshots of 3D density $\rho$ and radiation energy density $E_r$ of the disk at time $1.13\times10^4t_s$ are shown
in Figure \ref{Disk3DrhoEr}. Density peaks at the disk mid-plane and decreases with height rapidly.
Close to the central black hole,
density drops quickly with decreasing radius. For a constant accretion rate, this implies that radial velocity increases rapidly in this region.
The main body of the disk shows very turbulent structures with similar spatial distributions between $E_r$ and $\rho$.
However, $\rho$ in the region
near the rotation axis is very small but relatively large $E_r$ fills up this low density region. A valley of $E_r$ is formed between
the rotation axis and disk mid-plane. Azimuthal variations of $\rho$ and $E_r$ can also be seen clearly in the full 3D simulation.
Detailed structures of the disk will be studied quantitatively in the following sections.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{Disk3D_rho_Er2.ps}
\caption{Snapshot of disk structures for density (left) and radiation energy density (right)
at time $1.13\times 10^4t_s$. Units for $\rho$ and $E_r$ are $\rho_0$ and $a_rT_0^4$ respectively. }
\label{Disk3DrhoEr}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Inflow and Outflow}
To see which part of the disk has reached inflow equilibrium, Figure \ref{Inflowequilibrium} shows various mass fluxes through each radius defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{M}_{\rm sum}&=&\oint\rho\bv\cdot d{\boldmath S},\nonumber\\
\dot{M}_{\rm in}&=&\int_{-L_z/2}^{L_z/2}2\pi{\rm min}(v_r,0) r\rho dz, \nonumber\\
\dot{M}_{\rm out}&=&\int_{-L_z/2}^{L_z/2}2\pi{\rm max}(v_r,0) r\rho dz, \nonumber\\
\dot{M}_{\rm z}&=&\int_{0}^{r}2\pi v_z(z=\pm L_z/2) r\rho dr.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\dot{M}_{\rm sum}$ is the total mass flux through the cylinder with radius $r$, $\dot{M}_{\rm in}$ and
$\dot{M}_{\rm out}$ are the inward and outward mass flux along the radial direction respectively, $\dot{M}_{\rm z}$
is the mass flux through the vertical direction. As the time averaged value of $\dot{M}_{\rm sum}$ is almost a constant
for different radii between time $10570t_s$ and $12080t_s$ up to $\sim 20r_s$, this part of disk has reached inflow
equilibrium and will be the focus of our analysis. Figure \ref{Inflowequilibrium} also shows that starting from $\sim 4r_s$,
there is a significant outward mass flux along the radial and vertical directions. At $20r_s$, $\dot{M}_{\rm in}=3.01\dot{M}_{\rm sum}$,
$\dot{M}_{\rm out}=-1.72\dot{M}_{\rm sum}$ while $\dot{M}_{\rm z}=-0.29\dot{M}_{\rm sum}$.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{Inflowequilibrium.ps}
\caption{Averaged radial profiles of mass flux between time $10570t_s$ and $12080t_s$. The red line is the
net mass flux ($\dot{M}_{\rm sum}$). The solid and dashed black lines are the inward and outward mass flux along radial directions ($\dot{M}_{\rm in}$ and $\dot{M}_{\rm out}$), while
the blue line is the total mass flux along the vertical direction within each radius ($\dot{M}_{\rm z}$). The dotted vertical line indicates
the location of $r_{\text{ISCO}}$.
}
\label{Inflowequilibrium}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\vspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{AveStructure.ps}
\vspace{-13cm}
\caption{Left: time and azimuthally averaged density and streamlines for gas velocity. The color bar at the
top of the figure shows the ratio between velocity magnitude and speed of light. The solid red line shows
the location of electron scattering photosphere measured from the top and bottom of the simulation box, while
the dashed red line shows the location of photosphere for effective absorption opacity. Right: time and
azimuthally averaged radiation energy density and streamlines for lab frame flux. The color bar at the top
of the figure represents $|\bF_r/(cE_r)|$.
}
\label{AveStructure}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{AveStructure} shows the time and azimuthally averaged distribution of $\rho,\ \bv,\ E_r,\ \bF_r$ in
the $r-z$ plane. Consistent with the snapshot shown in Figure \ref{Disk3DrhoEr}, the disk clearly has two distinct components, namely the turbulent body of the disk and a strong
outflow region within $\sim 45^{\circ}$ from the rotation axis. Most of the mass is concentrated near the mid-plane of the
disk, where accretion happens.
The outflow starts from a place well inside the electron scattering photosphere and carries the lowest density
gas in the disk. However, a significant amount of radiation energy is
carried along with the outflow. The streamlines pointing towards the inner boundary
are probably an artifact of the cylindrical coordinate we are using.
The emerging flux from the photosphere at each radius is a composition of photons
generated at different radii, which completely changes the radial profiles of the radiation flux compared with the classical one zone
models where the radiation flux from photosphere at each radius is only determined by the photons generated locally.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{TotEnergy.ps}
\caption{Distribution of azimuthally and time averaged total energy (equation \ref{eqn:totE}) in the $r-z$ plane. The color shows the part of gas
with positive total energy while the contours are for the gas with negative total energy.}
\label{TotEnergy}
\end{figure}
In order for the outward moving gas seen in the simulation to be truly astrophysical outflow, the gas has to be unbound from the gravitational potential.
However, with radiative diffusion, the classical Bernoulli number is no longer a constant. One lower bound estimate is to
treat the radiation acceleration as an effective reduction of the gravitational acceleration and
we use the following quantity to determine whether the gas is bound or not:
\begin{eqnarray}
E_t=\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2+\frac{\gamma P}{\gamma-1}-E_{\rm grav}+\frac{E_r}{3},
\label{eqn:totE}
\end{eqnarray}
where $E_{\rm grav}=-\rho \phi$. The first three terms in this equation are the classical Bernoulli constant,
while the last term is to account for the balance of gravity due to radiation force. We azimuthally
average $E_t$ between $10570t_s$ and $12080t_s$, which is shown in Figure \ref{TotEnergy}.
The outflow region seen in Figure \ref{AveStructure} does have positive $E_t$ while
the turbulent part of the disk has negative $E_t$. Although Figure \ref{AveStructure} shows that
the gas with negative $E_t$ beyond $30r_s$ can also move outward, this is just the dynamic motion
of the torus and they cannot reach infinity. They will fall back at a larger radius, which is not captured
by the simulation domain. We have done another simulation with similar setup but without radiation
field. The gas can have similar large scale outward motion but the Bernoulli constant is always negative.
\subsection{Rotation Profile and Force Balance}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{RotationKeplerian.ps}
\caption{Time, azimuthally and vertically averaged, density weighted rotation velocity $V_{\phi}$
scaled with the Keplerian value $V_k$ at each radius for the bound gas.}
\label{rotationprofile}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\vspace{-3cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{VerticalPlot.ps}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{Vertical profiles of time and azimuthally averaged vertical components of accelerations due to
gravity ($a_{\rm grav}$, solid black lines, with a minus sign added), radiation ($a_{\rm rad}$, dash-dotted red lines),
magnetic pressure ($a_{\rm mag}$, blue lines) and gas pressure
gradient ($a_{\rm gas}$, dash-dotted black lines) at radii $10r_s$ (left) and $20r_s$ (right).
The solid red line is the sum of $a_{\rm rad},\ a_{\rm mag}$ and $a_{\rm gas}$.
All the accelerations
are scaled with the magnitude of gravitational acceleration at the disk mid-plane of each radius $a_{r0}$.}
\label{Verticalforce}
\end{figure*}
When both gas and radiation pressure gradients along the radial direction are negligible, gravitational force is balanced by
the centrifugal force and the disk is in Keplerian rotation. This is what usually assumed in standard
thin as well as slim disk model. To check this, Figure \ref{rotationprofile} shows the radial profile of
density weighted rotation velocity for the bound gas, scaled with the Keplerian value
$V_k\equiv \sqrt{r({\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}} \phi)_r}$. Beyond $\sim 8r_s$, the disk is indeed Keplerian.
Within $\sim 8r_s$, $V_{\phi}$ stars to drop below $V_k$ because a strong radiation
pressure gradient is built up in this region. At $r_{\text{ISCO}}$, $V_{\phi}=0.6V_k$. However, we
also caution that the exact number of $V_{\phi}/V_k$ within $\sim 6r_s$, where the flow is effectively optically thin
in this simulation, may change if Compton scattering is included
and inner boundary is treated properly with general relativity.
To see what is the dominant force to balance gravity and drive the outflow, vertical components
of accelerations due to radiation force, gas pressure
gradient and magnetic pressure gradient are calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{\rm rad}&=&-(\bm{ S_r}(\bP))_z/\rho,\nonumber\\
a_{\rm gas}&=&-({\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}} P)_z/\rho,\nonumber\\
a_{\rm mag}&=&-({\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}} (B^2/2))_z/\rho, \nonumber\\
a_{\rm grav}&=&-({\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}} \phi)_z.
\label{eqn:acce}
\end{eqnarray}
Vertical profiles of these accelerations at radii $10$ and $20r_s$ are shown in Figure \ref{Verticalforce}, where
they are scaled with the gravitational acceleration at the disk
mid-plane of each radius $r$: $a_{r0}=GM_{\rm{BH}}/(r-r_s)^2$. Near the disk mid-plane when $z$ is small, the gravitational
acceleration is linearly proportional to $z$, as assumed in local shearing box simulations. This is also the turbulent body of
the disk, where gravity is almost balanced by radiation force vertically. When the vertical height becomes
comparable to the radius, vertical gravitational acceleration decreases with height. This is the outflow region, where
radiative acceleration is much larger than gravitational acceleration. During the transition region between the turbulent
disk and outflow, the radiation acceleration can actually point toward the disk mid-plane, where magnetic pressure becomes
the dominant force. This is the valley of $E_r$ as shown in Figure \ref{Disk3DrhoEr}, which can also be seen clearly in the right panel of
Figure \ref{AveStructure}. As the outflow
carries a significant amount of radiation energy density generated from the inner region, which is actually larger than
the value of $E_r$ from the local disk part, the direction of net radiation flux reverses when the outflow touches the turbulent disk part.
The fact that magnetic pressure is dominant in this transition region means that the outflow is collimated by magnetic field \citep[][]{Ohsugaetal2011},
although it is driven by radiation pressure.
\subsection{Properties of the Turbulence}
\label{sec:turbulence}
The turbulent state of MRI is found to have some empirical scaling relations based on
local shearing box and global isothermal simulations \citep[][]{Blackmanetal2008,Guanetal2009,Sorathiaetal2012},
which are then used as criteria to determine how
MRI is resolved \citep[][]{Hawleyetal2011,Hawleyetal2013}. This is particularly important for our simulation as it is too
expensive to double the resolution to check convergence. However, we caution that the dimensionless numbers from MRI turbulence
in the radiation pressure dominated case may not be the same as in the gas pressure dominated regime \citep[][]{Jiangetal2013b}.
As MRI turbulence is only important for the bound gas, the analysis is restricted to the part with $E_t<0$ and the time average is done
between $10570$ and 12080$t_s$. Spatial average at each radius is done along the azimuthal and vertical directions.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{AlphaPressure.ps}
\caption{Top: radial profile of effective $\alpha$, which is the ratio between the spatially averaged stress and total pressure.
Bottom: radial profile of the ratio between spatially averaged radiation and gas pressure. The vertical dotted line indicates
the location of $r_{\text{ISCO}}$.
}
\label{alphapressure}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{Alphamag.ps}
\caption{Top: radial profile of the ratio between the spatially averaged Maxwell stress and magnetic pressure $\alpha_m$.
Bottom: radial profile of the ratio between the spatial averaged radial and azimuthal components of magnetic pressure.
The vertical dotted line is the location of $r_{\text{ISCO}}$.}
\label{alphamag}
\end{figure}
The first important dimensionless number is the ratio between stress and total pressure, which corresponds to the
parameter $\alpha$ in the standard thin and slim disk models. In the simulation, angular momentum transfer is
dominated by Maxwell and Reynolds stress from the MRI turbulence, which can be directly calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{r\phi}=-B_rB_{\phi}+\rho v_r\delta v_{\phi},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta v_{\phi}$ is the difference between $v_{\phi}$ and the azimuthally averaged $v_{\phi}$ for the same $r$ and $z$.
Then the spatially averaged $W_{r\phi}$ at each radius $r$ can be scaled with the spatially averaged
total pressure $P+E_r/3$ to get an effective $\alpha$ at each radius. The radial profile of the time averaged effective
$\alpha$ is shown in the top panel of Figure \ref{alphapressure}, while the ratio between
the spatially averaged radiation and gas pressure is shown at the bottom panel of the same Figure.
As radiation pressure is $\sim 20$ times the gas pressure around $20r_s$ and the ratio increases to $100$ around $8r_s$,
the total pressure is truly dominated by radiation pressure. Around $20r_s$, the effective $\alpha$ is $\sim 0.04$, which is
a little bit larger than the number found in radiation pressure dominated local shearing box simulations with zero net vertical flux \citep[][]{Jiangetal2013c}.
The effective alpha increases rapidly to $0.09$ around $8r_s$. Within $8r_s$, due to strong pressure support and significant
sub-Keplerian rotation (see Figure \ref{rotationprofile}), the effective $\alpha$ drops to $\sim 0.02$.
A similar radial profile of $\alpha$ is also observed in global GRMHD
simulation for the pure gas pressure dominate case \citep[][]{Nobleetal2010,Pennaetal2013},
although the exact values of $\alpha$ and the location of
the peak are different in our simulation. \cite{Pennaetal2013}
attribute the variation of $\alpha$ to the change of the shearing rate in the turbulent region
and a mean magnetic field component in the laminar flow,
which is consistent with results of shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Pessahetal2008} that show a decline in $\alpha$ with a decreasing shear rate.
The ratio between Maxwell stress and magnetic pressure, $\alpha_m$, is always found to be $\sim 0.4-0.5$ in unstratified isothermal
simulations \citep[][]{Guanetal2009,Sorathiaetal2012}, although a smaller number $\sim 0.3-0.4$ is also reported
for stratified isothermal simulations \citep[][]{Hawleyetal2011}. A similar number is also found for unstratified radiation pressure dominated shearing
box simulations with net vertical flux. For the case with zero net vertical flux, $\alpha_m$ is $\sim0.25-0.3$ \citep[][]{Jiangetal2013b, Jiangetal2013c}.
For our simulation, $\alpha_m$ at each radius is calculated as the ratio between the spatially averaged stress and magnetic pressure.
The radial profile of the time averaged $\alpha_m$ is shown in the top panel of Figure \ref{alphamag}. Between $10$ and $20r_s$, $\alpha_m$ varies between
$0.25$ and $0.3$. It increases rapidly to $0.75$ around $4r_s$, where large radial motion is formed and the rotation is significant sub-Keplerian.
The radial profile of the ratio between time and spatially averaged radial and azimuthal components of magnetic pressure is shown at the bottom panel of
Figure \ref{alphamag}. Between $\sim10-20r_s$, $B_r^2/B_{\phi}^2$ varies between $\sim 0.1-0.15$, which is also similar to the number
in radiation pressure dominated local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Jiangetal2013c}, but smaller than the number found in isothermal runs \citep[][]{Hawleyetal2013}.
Within $10r_s$, radial component of magnetic pressure increases towards the central black hole due to the rapid inflow motion. It becomes the dominant
component within $4r_s$.
\subsection{Radial Profiles}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{Radial_profiles.ps}
\caption{\emph{Top:} Time and azimuthally averaged radial profile of surface density. The fiducial
surface density $\Sigma_0$ corresponds to electron scattering optical depth $6.49\times10^3$.
\emph{Bottom:} Radial profile of time, azimuthally averaged and density weighted inflow velocity,
scaled with averaged sound speed at each radius.
The vertical dotted line indicates the location of $r_{\text ISCO}$.
}
\label{RadialRhoVprofile}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{LuminosityProfile.ps}
\caption{\emph{Top:} Time and azimuthally averaged radial profiles of the vertical
component of radiation flux from the top and bottom surfaces of the simulation box
multiplied by $(10r_s)^2$. \emph{Middle:} Time and azimuthally averaged radial profiles
of total radiative ($L_r$) and kinetic ($L_k$) luminosities within each radius $r$, measured
from the top and bottom boundaries of simulation box. \emph{Bottom:} The ratio of $L_k$
and $L_r$ from the middle panel. The vertical dotted line is the location of $r_{\text{ISCO}}$.
}
\label{Luminosityprofile}
\end{figure}
Azimuthally and time averaged (between $10570$ and $12080t_s$) radial profiles of
surface density are shown at the top panel of Figure \ref{RadialRhoVprofile}, while the bottom panel
of the same figure shows the radial profile of density weighted inflow velocity, scaled with the
average sound speed $\sqrt{\Pi/\Sigma}$ at each radius, where $\Pi$ is the sum of vertically integrated gas
pressure and $zz$ component of the radiation pressure tensor. Within $\sim 8r_s$, the difference between
Paczy\'nski-Wiita and Newtonian potential becomes significant. Density weighted inflow velocity
increases rapidly with decreasing radius and becomes comparable to the average sound speed near
the inner boundary. At the same time, surface density decreases with decreasing radius almost linearly
in this region. As the fiducial surface density $\Sigma_0$ corresponds to electron scattering optical depth
$6.49\times10^3$, the inner region of the disk with $\Sigma=0.05\Sigma_0$ is still optically thick for electron
scattering. But it becomes effectively optically thin within $\sim 6r_s$, which may have
important implications for steep power-law state of luminous black hole X-ray binaries \citep[][]{DexterBlaes2014}.
Note, however, that the radial profiles of these quantities may be modified once general
relativity is used self-consistently and Compton scattering is included.
Beyond $10r_s$, the density weighted inflow velocity is much smaller than
the average sound speed. But both the surface density and inflow velocity change more rapidly with radius.
The radial profile of the radiation flux $F_{r,z}$ measured from the surfaces of the simulation box is shown in Figure \ref{Luminosityprofile}.
We find that $F_{r,z}$ is roughly constant with radius, varying
by less than a factor of $\sim 3$ throughout the inner $20 r_s$ and
peaking near $\sim 7 r_s$. This is notably flatter than what is found
in the standard thin disk model \citep[][]{ShakuraSunyaev1973}. The total radiation
luminosity within $20r_s$ is $10L_{\rm{Edd}}$ for an average accretion rate of $\sim 20\dot{M}_{\rm{Edd}}$ at this region, as shown
in the middle panel of Figure \ref{Luminosityprofile}. Therefore, the radiative efficiency $\eta$, which is defined as
$\eta\equiv L_r/(\dot{M}c^2)$, is $\sim 4.5\%$. This is actually comparable to the efficiency of standard thin disk
model and much larger than the radiative efficiency of slim disk model, which will be smaller by almost a factor of
$10$ for the same accretion rate. The outflow not only carries $29\%$ of net accreted mass flux,
but also carries significant mechanical energy. The total kinetic energy luminosity associated with the outflow measured from
the top and bottom surfaces of the simulation box within $20r_s$ is $\sim 20\%$ of the total radiation luminosity from the
same region, as shown in the middle and bottom panels of Figure \ref{Luminosityprofile}.
\subsection{Energy Transport}
\label{sec:energytransport}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\hspace{-1cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{Corr_RhoB.ps}
\hspace{-0.8cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{Corr_BVz.ps}
\caption{Cross correlations of the fluctuations along azimuthal directions
between density, magnetic pressure (left panel) and vertical velocity,
magnetic pressure (right panel).
}
\label{Buoyancy}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{EVelocity_bd.ps}
\caption{Radial profiles of time, vertically and azimuthally averaged energy transport velocities along radial ($\overline{V_{E,r}}$, red line) and
vertical ($\overline{V_{E,z}}$, blue line) directions as defined in Equation (\ref{eqn:evelocity}), as well as the average photon diffusion speed $c/\tau$ (black line).
The vertical dotted line is the location of $r_{\text{ISCO}}$.
}
\label{Evelocity}
\end{figure}
The fact that the radiative efficiency from the simulation is much larger than the predicted value of
slim disk model suggests that there are additional important energy transport mechanisms that are not
included in the slim disk model.
In this model, photons only leave the disk along the vertical directions via
diffusive process, which has an average speed of $c/\tau$ \citep[][]{MihalasMihalas1984} for an electron scattering optical depth $\tau$
measured from the disk mid-plane to the surface of the disk.
The surface density of the accretion disk in the super-Eddington regime is so large that $\tau$
varies from $4\times10^4$ at $20r_s$ to $200$ at the inner boundary. The inflow velocity in the slim disk model is
much larger than $c/\tau$ within the photon trapping radius $r_{\rm trap}$.
Therefore photons do not have time to escape from the surfaces of the disk before they are
advected towards the black hole, which is the origin of photon trapping effect in the slim disk model.
However, radiative diffusion is not the only vertical cooling mechanism in the very optically thick medium with MRI turbulence. In local shearing
box simulations, fluctuations of magnetic pressure is found to be anti-correlated with the density fluctuation \citep[][]{Blaesetal2011,Jiangetal2013c},
which is buoyant. Because photon diffusion time is much longer than the local dynamical time scale especially near the disk mid-plane,
photons rise vertically with the gas and escape near the disk photosphere. The magnetic buoyancy is closely
related to the butterfly diagram as shown in Figure \ref{STplots}. Then the average energy transport speed is determined
by the turbulent motion of the fluid instead of optical depth. The advective energy transport becomes more important with
increasing optical depth, when radiative diffusion is inefficient.
When radiation reaches the outflow region, which is still within the electron scattering photosphere, the photons advect outwards with
the outflow. Because the velocity of the outflow is so large ($>0.1c$), radiative diffusion is still not the
dominant cooling mechanism in this region.
To assess the importance of magnetic buoyancy, we calculate the cross correlations between fluctuations of density,
magnetic pressure and vertical motion of the gas along the azimuthal direction for each ($r,\ z$) at each time as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\rho,B^2}&=&\frac{\langle(\rho-\overline{\rho})(B^2-\overline{B^2})\rangle}{\sigma_{\rho}\sigma_{B^2}},\nonumber\\
\sigma_{V_z,B^2}&=&\frac{\langle(|v_z|-\overline{|v_z|})(B^2-\overline{B^2})\rangle}{\sigma_{v_z}\sigma_{B^2}},
\label{eqn:evelocity}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_{\rho},\ \sigma_{B^2}$ and $\sigma_{v_z}$ are the standard deviations while
$\overline{\rho},\ \overline{B^2},\ \overline{|v_z|}$ are the mean values of $\rho,\ B^2$ and $|v_z|$
along the azimuthal direction. The average $\langle\cdot\rangle$ is also done along the azimuthal direction.
The averaged cross correlations between time $10570$ and $12080t_s$ are shown in Figure \ref{Buoyancy}.
It is clear that in the turbulent part of the disk, there is a strong anti-correlation between density and magnetic pressure fluctuations, while
the fluctuation of vertical motion is strongly correlated with magnetic pressure fluctuation in the same region. In the outflow region,
the cross correlations have opposite signs as in the turbulent part. But energy transport in the outflow region is dominated by
the mean motion of the flow, not the turbulent fluctuations.
The average advective energy transport velocities along the vertical and radial directions at each radius
in the turbulent part of the disk can be calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{V_{E,z}}&=&\frac{\langle v_z(E_r+P/(\gamma-1))\rangle}{\langle E_r+P/(\gamma-1)\rangle},\nonumber\\
\overline{V_{E,r}}&=&\frac{\langle v_r(E_r+P/(\gamma-1))\rangle}{\langle E_r+P/(\gamma-1)\rangle},
\end{eqnarray}
where the average $\langle\cdot\rangle$ is done along the vertical and azimuthal directions and only for the gas with $E_t<0$ (Equation \ref{eqn:totE}).
Radial profiles of $\overline{V_{E,z}}$, $\overline{V_{E,r}}$ as well as the average diffusive speed $c/\tau$ used in the slim disk model
averaged between time $10570$ and $12080t_s$ are shown in Figure \ref{Evelocity}.
It is clear that within $\sim 5r_s$, most of the energy is advected towards the black hole. While beyond that,
vertical energy advection speed is the dominant one. If $r_{\rm trap}$ is still defined as the radius within which photons are advected towards the black
hole before they have time to escape, $r_{\rm trap}$ should be $5r_s$, instead of $\sim 330r_s$ (Equation 1 of \citealt{Ohsugaetal2002}) as in the slim
disk model for the accretion rate in this simulation.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{Dissipation3.ps}
\caption{Time averaged vertical profiles of azimuthally averaged dissipations at $20r_s$.
Only the part with $E_t<0$ is shown here. The red and solid black lines are
the cooling ($Q_-$) and heating ($Q_+$) rates respectively.
The red line is binned every $0.5r_s$ vertically to reduce the noise.
The blue line is the
critical dissipation rate $Q_c$ while the green and dashed black lines are the
diffusive energy transport along vertical ($d(\bF_{r,0})_z/dz$) and radial ($d(\bF_{r,0})_r/dr$) directions.
}
\label{Dissipation}
\end{figure}
The importance of vertical advective energy transport can also be shown by considering the local heating and
different cooling mechanisms as done in local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Hiroseetal2009,Jiangetal2013c}.
The local heating rate $Q_+$ at each $(r,\ z)$ can be approximated as
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_+=1.5\Omega\overline{W_{r\phi}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega=V_k/r$ is the Keplerian angular velocity and $\overline{W_{r\phi}}$ is the azimuthally averaged stress.
The dominant cooling mechanisms we consider are azimuthally averaged radiation flux gradients
along vertical and radial directions as
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_-\equiv d(\bF_r)_z/dz+d(\bF_r)_r/dr.
\end{eqnarray}
As a comparison,
we also calculate the gradients of fluid frame radiation flux as $d(\bF_{r,0})_z/dz,\ d(\bF_{r,0})_r/dr$. Time averaged vertical profiles of
these heating and cooling mechanisms at $20r_s$ are shown in Figure \ref{Dissipation}. In radiation pressure dominated disks,
if radiative diffusion is the only cooling mechanism, the heating rate should be $Q_c=c\Omega^2/\kappa_{\rm es}$ \citep[]{ShakuraSunyaev1973}.
As shown in Figure \ref{Dissipation}, $d(\bF_{r,0})_z/dz$ roughly tracks $Q_c$, which is larger than $d(\bF_{r,0})_r/dr$. But the actual heating and cooling
rates are much larger than $Q_c$ in this super-Eddington flow and the additional cooling is caused by advection.
The total cooling rate $Q_-$ roughly follows $Q_+$ albeit large fluctuations, as the simulation duration only corresponds to roughly one thermal time at this location.
The radial radiation flux gradient $d(\bF_r)_r/dr$ is dominated by the turbulent fluctuations at this radius, which can be large in localized regions.
But when vertically averaged, there is no net inward radial advective energy flux as shown in
Figure \ref{Evelocity}. Therefore, vertically integrated $d(\bF_r)_z/dz$ is the most important cooling term, which is much larger than the diffusive cooling.
Significant vertical advection also causes more mass concentrated towards the disk mid-plane compared with the slim disk model as shown in Figure \ref{STplots}
and \ref{Disk3DrhoEr}. In radiation pressure dominated disks with electron scattering as the dominated opacity, vertical density profile is not constrained by the hydrostatic
equilibrium. Instead, it is related to the vertical dissipation profile \citep[][]{Hiroseetal2009, Jiangetal2013c}. When photons are able to move away from the disk mid-plane more
easily compared with diffusion, the disk mid-plane is cooler and density scale height becomes smaller.
\section{Discussions and Conclusions}
\subsection{Comparison with the Slim Disk Model}
With a recently developed numerical algorithm to solve the time dependent radiative
transfer equation, we have performed a high resolution global 3D radiation MHD simulation,
maintaining a steady state accretion rate $\sim 220L_{\rm{Edd}}/c^2$ with inflow equilibrium up to $20r_s$.
Surprisingly, the total radiative luminosity emitted from the disk photosphere is $\sim 10L_{\rm{Edd}}$, yielding
a radiative efficiency of $4.5\%$. This efficiency
is significantly larger than the value predicted by slim disk model, where photons are assumed to leave
the disk vertically only via the diffusive process.
With MRI turbulence, vertical advective energy transport caused by magnetic buoyancy is found to be
more important than pure diffusive process, especially near the disk mid-plane where the photon mean free
path is much smaller than the typical size of turbulence eddies. Photons generated deep inside the disk
are advected towards the photosphere and this process is not limited by the large optical depth.
This effectively increases the height of dissipation and
significantly reduces the cooling time scale. The disk is also thinner than what slim disk model assumes
because of this additional cooling mechanism. This is consistent with the model proposed by
\cite{SocratesDavis2006}, except that most dissipation is still inside the electron scattering
photosphere in the simulation.
Consequently, inflow velocity is also reduced. Rapid inflow motion only exists
inside $\sim 8r_s$, where GR effects mimicked by the Paczy\'nski-Wiita potential become significant.
The simulation also shows strong radiation driven outflow near the rotation axis, which was not included
in the original slim disk model \citep[][]{Abramowiczetal1988}.
However, radiative driven outflow from the slim disks has been expected for a long time \citep[][]{WataraiFukue1999}.
Figure \ref{Verticalforce} shows that at each radius, when the height $z$ becomes
comparable to radius $r$, gravitational acceleration starts to drop with height and becomes systematically
smaller than radiation acceleration. This is roughly consistent with the outflow region shown in the 2D plane of
Figure \ref{AveStructure}. Photons generated in the turbulent body of the disk first enter the outflow region and leave
the disk with the outflow.
As the outflow starts from
a place very close to the central black hole and it picks up photons from different radii, the radiation
leaving the photosphere of the disk at each radius is a composition of photons generated at different locations.
The trapping radius in the slim disk model is defined in terms of the radiative diffusion time scale. However, if advective
cooling is more important than radiative diffusion, the trapping radius defined in this traditional way is irrelevant.
We should compare the radial and vertical energy advection speeds to consider photon trapping effect.
As shown in Figure \ref{Evelocity}, the trapping radius defined in this way is only $\sim 5r_s$ in this simulation, which
is well inside the simulation domain.
Unlike the radiation pressure dominated thin disks \citep[][]{Jiangetal2013c}, radiation pressure dominated slim disks
are expected to be thermally stable \citep[][]{Katoetal1998} because of the strong radial advection in the standard slim disk
model. Beyond $\sim 8r_s$ in
our simulation, the disk is still radiation pressure dominated but radial advection is much weaker than vertical advection,
which can also stabilize the disk in principle. Because the duration of the simulation is only about one thermal
time within $20r_s$, this simulation cannot give a definite answer on the thermal stability of super-Eddington disks. However,
this will be a focus of future work.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\hsize]{IntensityAngle.ps}
\caption{Angular distribution of emerging intensities from the top (solid line) and
bottom (dashed line) boundaries, where $\theta$ is the angle between the propagation
direction of the intensities and the rotation axis. The intensities are scaled with
$L_{\rm{Edd}}/(100cr_s^2)$.
}
\label{IntensityAngle}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with Previous Simulations}
Super-Eddington accretion disks for non-spinning black holes
have been studied extensively with 2D axisymmetric
radiation hydro or MHD simulations \citep[][]{Ohsugaetal2005,Ohsugaetal2009,Ohsugaetal2011,OhsugaMineshige2013,Sadowskietal2014}.
Approximate numerical algorithms for radiative transfer such as flux-limited diffusion (FLD) and M1 closure are used in these calculations.
These 2D simulations also find a strong radiation driven outflow in a funnel region near the rotation axis, which is similar
to the azimuthally averaged spatial structures of our 3D simulation shown in Figure \ref{AveStructure}.
However, our 3D simulation differ from previous 2D calculations in many important aspects. In contrast to our results,
radiative efficiencies reported from these calculations are lower, consistent with slim disk model predictions.
This is because radiative diffusion is still the dominant cooling mechanism in these 2D calculations.
Since the vertical advective energy transport found in our simulation is driven by magnetic buoyancy, it is not surprising that this
transport is absent in hydro simulations with a parameterized $\alpha$ viscosity. Even for the 2D MHD
simulations, it is well known that a self-contained dynamo cannot operate in 2D because of the anti-dynamo theorem.
The transient turbulence in 2D is dominated by the channel solution before it dies away, in contrast to
the non-axisymmetric turbulence in 3D \citep[][]{HGB1995}.
The butterfly diagram, as well as the associated magnetic buoyancy, is also different in 2D compared with 3D. In fact,
the anti-correlation between density and magnetic pressure fluctuations shown in Figure \ref{Buoyancy} will
be zero if axisymmetry is assumed. It is notable, however, that the radiative efficiency reported by a recent
3D GR radiation MHD simulation using M1 closure for a rapid spinning black hole with a similar accretion rate \citep[][]{McKinneyetal2014}
is also much smaller than what we find here. The discrepancy requires further investigation.
Because previous 2D and 3D simulations adopt either FLD or M1 as approximate radiative transfer algorithms,
the results can also differ from ours where the full radiative transfer equation is solved, particularly when
radiation forces dominate the dynamics. A small change of the direction of radiation flux can change the flow structures
significantly.
Since the radiation field in the outflow is composed of photons originating from different radii, M1 will merge these photons into a single
beam near the photosphere \citep[][]{Sadowskietal2014}, which may affect the collimation of the radiation driven outflow.
As radiation flux in FLD points towards any gradient of radiation energy density, the valley of $E_r$ shown in the right panel
of Figure \ref{AveStructure} will likely be changed with FLD.
\subsection{Local versus Global Models}
Stratified local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Turner2004,Hiroseetal2009,Hiroseetal2009b,Blaesetal2011,Jiangetal2013c}, which focus on
the region near the disk mid-plane, share many similar properties with the turbulent body of the disk in our simulation.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec:turbulence}, the dimensionless numbers, such as $\alpha$, $\alpha_m$ and $B^2_r/B^2_{\phi}$,
measured in the bound gas are similar to the values reported by \cite{Hawleyetal2013} and \cite{Jiangetal2013c}.
Vertical structures of the disk at each radius, such as radiation pressure supported optically thick part and strong corona above
the photosphere for effective absorption opacity, are also consistent with local shearing box simulations \citep[][]{Jiangetal2013c,Jiangetal2014}.
Significant advective energy transport along the vertical direction is also found in radiation pressure dominated local shearing box
simulations \citep[][]{Jiangetal2013c}.
Global effects that cannot be captured in local shearing box models show up when the height is comparable to the radius, and at the inner
region close to the central black hole. The vertical component of gravitational acceleration due to central black hole is always assumed to be
proportional to $z$ in local shearing box models. This is a good approximation near the disk midplane but grossly overestimates the
gravitational acceleration when $z$ is comparable and larger than the radius $r$. Since this is the region where outflow forms, local shearing box models would significantly underestimate outflow rates. Within $\sim 8r_s$, significant inflow
motion develops and the rotation becomes sub-Keplerian, which also cannot be included in local shearing box models.
\subsection{Implications for ULXs}
Observations with {\emph NuSTAR} \citep[][]{Suttonetal2013,Waltonetal2014,Ranaetal2014}
have confirmed that most ULXs show a broad hard X-ray component with turnover in the $\sim 2-10$ keV range.
This has previously been interpreted as Comptonized emission from optically thick coronae with
a commensurate range of temperatures \citep[][]{Gladstoneetal2009,FengSoria2011,Kawashimaetal2012}.
Since Compton scattering has not been accounted for
in this simulation, we have made no attempt to post-process our simulations to generate detailed spectral predictions. Nevertheless,
the radiation flux shown in the top
panel of Figure \ref{Luminosityprofile} can give a characteristic temperature of the radiation field from the simulation
as $T_f\equiv(F_{r,z}/(a_rc))^{1/4}$.
This effective temperature varies from $0.75$ to $0.92$ keV within $20r_s$ in this simulation. Given that there will be spectral hardening
associated with the dominance of electron scattering opacity in the hot, optically thick regions above the effective photosphere,
our results should be broadly consistent with the observed spectra of ULXs.
Moderate to large degrees of geometric beaming have previously been
invoked to explain ULX luminosities
\citep[e.g.][]{Kingetal2001,King2009}. The angular distribution of the
directly calculated specific intensities indicate how much beaming is
present in our simulation. Our calculation neglects general
relativistic effects, assuming the specific intensities with the same
angle $\bn$ from different locations of the disk will be parallel rays
at infinity. We spatially average $I$ from the top and bottom
boundaries of the disk within $20r_s$ for each angle. We average intensities
with different azimuthal angles to give the distribution
of $I$ with respect to the polar angles $\theta$, which is shown in
Figure \ref{IntensityAngle}. Although we only have four polar angles,
Figure \ref{IntensityAngle} shows that the intensity peaks around
$\theta=40^{\circ}$, but is fairly isotropic when compared to the large
beaming factors typically invoked to explain ULXs. It is possible that the
obscuration may be underestimated for higher inclinations because the
true photosphere is outside our domain for $r \gtrsim 20 r_s$, but the
opening angle of our funnel is about $\sim 30^\circ$ so the beaming is
very unlikely to be larger than a factor of a few, even if additional
obscuration would be present. These results are consistent
with constraints from emission line nebulae, which suggest emission
is approximately isotropic in many ULXs \citep[e.g.][]{PakullMironi2002,Moonetal2011}.
If super-Eddington accretion disks based on a standard slim disk model
are used to explain ULXs without adopting a large beaming factor, a
very large mass accretion rate $\dot{M}$ is required to generate the
observed super-Eddington luminosity because of the low radiative
efficiency. However, even when thin disk efficiencies are assumed,
mass transfer in stellar-mass black hole binaries is only barely able
to explain the observed ULX populations when sophisticated modeling of
the binary evolution is carried out \citep[][]{Rappaportetal2005}.
This strongly suggests that one needs both high radiative efficiency
and super-Eddington luminosities to explain the ULX population.
Vertical radiative advection naturally provides the necessary high
efficiencies. We note that an alternative model that would provide
super-Eddington fluxes and high efficiencies was proposed by
\citet{Begelman2002}. This model relies on non-linear evolution of
photon bubbles to produce low density channels that allow more rapid
photon diffusion. However, we do not see any evidence for such
structures or enhancement of photon diffusion in our simulation. This
is perhaps not surprising, as one might imagine that such structures
have difficulty forming in turbulent MHD flows. Even in higher
resolution local shearing box simulations, no evidence of photon
bubbles has ever been found \citep{Turneretal2005,Blaesetal2007,TaoBlaes2011}. Hence, there is no
evidence from numerical simulations that photon bubbles play a
significant role in super-Eddington accretion flows.
\subsection{Implications for Super-massive Black Hole Growth and Feedback}
If mass estimates based on emission line widths are correct, the
majority of observed quasars are accreting below or, at most, slightly
above the Eddington limit \citep[e.g.][]{Kollmeier2006}.
Nevertheless, our results may still be relevant to earlier stages of
black hole growth, particularly at high redshift, where sustained
super-Eddington accretion may be necessary to explain the large masses
inferred in the early universe \citep[][]{Madauetal2014, VolonteriSilk2014}.
Although the total radiative luminosity is as large as $10L_{\rm{Edd}}$ for
an accretion rate $\sim 220L_{\rm{Edd}}/c^2$, the radiation does not halt
accretion. The outflowing gas and photons leave the system through the
low density funnel near the rotation axis while mass is accreted in
the plane of the disk. Our simulation implies that the
super-Eddington accretion disks onto a non-spinning black hole can
convert $\sim 4-5\%$ of the rest mass energy to radiative and
mechanical energies with a ratio $\sim 5:1$. This not only allows for
rapid black hole growth, but also implies there may be significant
levels of both radiative and mechanical AGN feedback. Such feedback
may play a critical role on the growth of black holes in the early
universe and the evolution of the host galaxies
\citep[][]{CiottiOstriker2007,Ciottietal2010,Choietal2012}.
\subsection{Future Work}
The simulation can be improved in many aspects. General relativity effects are approximated with the Paczy\'nski-Wiita
potential in this simulation. Although this pesudo-Newtonian potential captures several features of non-spinning black holes,
studying the effects of black hole spin and jet formation require GR radiation MHD simulations. Extending our radiative
transfer algorithm to GR and repeating this simulation for a spinning black hole are the next step.
The Compton process is not included in the current simulation, even though it is crucial to determine the gas temperature in the corona
region. The spectrum of the radiation field from the disk will also be significantly affected by the Compton process \citep[][]{Kawashimaetal2012,Schnittmanetal2013}.
Compton cooling will not change the region of the disk near the disk mid-plane, where gas and radiation are in thermal
equilibrium, but it may significantly alter the dynamics and thermodynamics of the coronal and funnel regions of the flow. Adding Compton process to the time dependent radiative transfer equation for specific
intensities is not as straightforward as doing this for radiation moment equations, but we are making progress on schemes to
include Compton scattering in future simulations.
The simulation only reaches inflow equilibrium up to $20r_s$ due to limited computer power.
The small dynamic range makes it hard to see the radial profile of radiation flux, which is an important
observable quantity. As this simulation already shows, the existence of radiation driven outflow makes the
radiation flux at each radius be quite different from predictions of one zone models.
With improved computer power and more efficient code, extending this simulation to a
larger radial range will be done.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Y.F.J thanks Omer Blaes, Julian Krolik, Eliot Quataert
and Jeremy Goodman for helpful discussions.
We also thank the referee for helpful comments to improve the paper.
This work was supported by the
NASA ATP program through grant NNX11AF49G, and by computational resources
provided by the Princeton Institute for Computational Science and Engineering.
Resources supporting this work were also provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC)
Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center.
This work also used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by
National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1053575.
Y.F.J. is supported by NASA through
Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship grant number
PF-140109 awarded by the Chandra X-ray Center,
which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
JMS acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-1333091
\bibliographystyle{astroads}
|
\section{\bf Introduction and the Main Results}
Geometric properties of Bessel functions of the first kind $J_{\nu}$, like univalence, starlikeness, spirallikeness and convexity were studied in the sixties by Brown \cite{brown, brown2,brown3}, and also by Kreyszig and Todd \cite{todd}. Other geometric properties of Bessel functions of the first kind were studied later in the papers \cite{mathematica,publ,lecture,bsk,samy,basz,szasz,szasz2}. Very recently, in \cite{barsza} the close-to-convexity of the derivatives of Bessel functions was considered. Motivated by the above results, in this paper we make a contribution to the subject by obtaining some necessary and sufficient conditions for the starlikeness of Bessel functions of the first kind and their derivatives of the second and third order by using a result of Shah and Trimble \cite[Theorem 2]{st} about transcendental entire functions with univalent derivatives and some Mittag-Leffler expansions for the derivatives of Bessel functions of the first kind, as well as some results on the zeros of these functions.
Our first set of sharp results are about the starlikeness of order $\alpha$ of two normalized Bessel functions of the first kind. We note that these results naturally complement the main results of \cite{bsk,basz,szasz}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th1}
The function
$$z\mapsto f_{\nu}(z)=\left(2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu+1)J_{\nu}(z)\right)^{\frac{1}{\nu}}$$
is starlike of order $\alpha\in[0,1)$ in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_1(\alpha),$ where $\nu_1(\alpha)$ is the unique root of the equation
$(1-\alpha)\nu J_{\nu}(1)=J_{\nu+1}(1),$ situated in $(0,\infty).$ In particular, $f_{\nu}$ is starlike in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_1(0),$ where $\nu_1(0)\simeq0.3908\dots$ is the unique root of the transcendental equation
$\nu J_{\nu}(1)=J_{\nu+1}(1).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{th2}
The function
$$z\mapsto g_{\nu}(z)=2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu+1)z^{1-\nu}J_{\nu}(z)$$
is starlike of order $\alpha\in[0,1)$ in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_2(\alpha),$ where $\nu_2(\alpha)$ is the unique root of the equation
$(1-\alpha)J_{\nu}(1)=J_{\nu+1}(1),$ situated in $(\tilde{\nu},\infty),$ where $\tilde{\nu}\simeq-0.7745\dots$ is the unique root of $j_{\nu,1}=1$ and $j_{\nu,1}$ is the first positive zero of $J_{\nu}.$ In particular, the function $g_{\nu}$ is starlike in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_2(0),$ where $\nu_2(0)\simeq-0.3397\dots$ is the unique root of the transcendental equation
$J_{\nu}(1)=J_{\nu+1}(1).$
\end{theorem}
We note that very recently Antonino and Miller \cite[Example 3]{antonino} as an application of the third-order differential subordinations proved that the function $z\mapsto \int\limits_0^zJ_0(t)dt$ is convex (and hence univalent) in $\mathbb{D}.$ If we consider the function $w_{\nu}:\mathbb{D}\to\mathbb{C},$ defined by
$$w_{\nu}(z)=2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu+1)\int_0^zt^{-\nu}J_{\nu}(t)dt,$$
then in view of the relation
$$1+\frac{zw_{\nu}''(z)}{w_{\nu}'(z)}=\frac{zg_{\nu}'(z)}{g_{\nu}(z)}$$
and the analytic characterizations of starlike and convex functions, Theorem \ref{th2} can be rewritten as follows: the function $w_{\nu}$ is convex of order $\alpha\in[0,1)$ in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_2(\alpha),$ and in particular, the function $w_{\nu}$ is convex (and hence univalent) in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_2(0).$ This generalizes the result of Antonino and Miller \cite[Example 3]{antonino} on $w_0$ and shows actually that if $\nu<\nu_2(0),$ then the above convexity property is no more true.
The next set of sharp main results are based on a result of Shah and Trimble \cite[Theorem 2]{st}, see Lemma \ref{lem} in the next section, and these results are natural companions of the main results in \cite{bdy,barsza}. We note that it would be interesting to see a common generalization of the next three theorems. Following the proof of these theorems it is clear that the monotonicity of the zeros (with respect to the order) of the derivative (of arbitrary order greater than three) of Bessel functions of the first kind would be enough together with Lemma \ref{lem}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thA}
The function $$z\mapsto 2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu)z^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}}J_{\nu}'(\sqrt{z})$$ is starlike and all of its derivatives are close-to-convex (and hence univalent) in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu\geq\dot{\nu},$ where $\dot{\nu}\simeq0.7022\dots$ is the unique root on $(0,\infty)$ of the transcendent equation $$(2\nu-1)J_{\nu}(1)+(\nu-2)J_{\nu+1}(1)=0.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thB}
The function $$z\mapsto 2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu-1)z^{2-\frac{\nu}{2}}J_{\nu}''(\sqrt{z})$$ is starlike and all of its derivatives are close-to-convex (and hence univalent) in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu\geq\nu^{\ast},$ where $\nu^{\ast}\simeq1.9052\dots$ is the unique root on $(1,\infty)$ of the transcendent equation $$(2\nu^2-2\nu-3)J_{\nu}(1)=(\nu^2+\nu-3)J_{\nu+1}(1).$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thC}
The function $$z\mapsto 2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu-2)z^{\frac{5}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}}J_{\nu}'''(\sqrt{z})$$ is starlike and all of its derivatives are close-to-convex (and hence univalent) in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu\geq\nu^{\star},$ where $\nu^{\star}\simeq3.077\dots$ is the unique root on $(2,\infty)$ of the transcendent equation $$(2\nu^3-7\nu^2+3)J_{\nu}(1)+(\nu^3+\nu^2+\nu-1)J_{\nu+1}(1)=0.$$
\end{theorem}
The last main result of this paper is a common generalization of Theorems \ref{thA} and \ref{thB}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thD}
Let $a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $c=0$ and $b\neq a$ or $c>0$ and $b>a.$ Moreover, suppose that $\nu\geq \overline{\nu},$ where $\overline{\nu}=\max\{0,\nu_0\}$ and $\nu_0$ is the largest root of the quadratic $Q(\nu)=a\nu(\nu-1)+b\nu+c.$ Assume also that the following inequalities are valid
\begin{equation}\label{abc}
Q(\nu)+4a\nu +2a+2b>0,\ \ \ (4\nu+3)Q(\nu)>4a\nu+2a+2b.
\end{equation}
Then the function $$z\mapsto 2^{\nu}Q^{-1}({\nu})\Gamma(\nu+1)z^{1-\frac{\nu}{2}}\left(azJ_{\nu}''(\sqrt{z})+b\sqrt{z}J_{\nu}'(\sqrt{z})+cJ_{\nu}(\sqrt{z})\right)$$ is starlike and all of its derivatives are close-to-convex (and hence univalent) in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu\geq\nu^{\circ},$ where $\nu^{\circ}$ is the unique root on $(\overline{\nu},\infty)$ of the transcendent equation $$(2a\nu^2-2a\nu+2b\nu-3a-b+2c)J_{\nu}(1)=(a\nu^2+a\nu-b\nu-3a+2b+c)J_{\nu+1}(1).$$
\end{theorem}
It is worth to mention that when $b=c=0$ and $a=1,$ then Theorem \ref{thD} reduces to Theorem \ref{thB}. In this case $\overline{\nu}=1,$ $\nu^{\circ}$ becomes $\nu^{\star}$ and the inequalities \eqref{abc} become $\nu^2+3\nu+2>0,$ and $4\nu^3-\nu^2-7\nu-2>0.$ These inequalities give $\nu>-1$ and $\nu>1.5687{\dots},$ which are certainly satisfied for $\nu>\nu^{\star}.$
Similarly, we note that when $a=c=0$ and $b=1,$ then Theorem \ref{thD} reduces to Theorem \ref{thA}. In this case $\overline{\nu}=0,$ $\nu^{\circ}$ becomes $\dot{\nu}$ and the inequalities \eqref{abc} become $\nu+2>0,$ and $4\nu^2+3\nu-2>0.$ These inequalities give $\nu>-2$ and $\nu>0.4253{\dots},$ which are certainly satisfied for $\nu>\dot{\nu}.$
\section{\bf Proofs of the main results}
In this section our aim is to present the proof of the main results of this paper. The proofs of Theorems \ref{th1} and \ref{th2} are mainly based on the Mittag-Leffler expansions and some inequalities from the proof of the main result from \cite{bsk}.
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{th1}]
Let us denote by $j_{\nu,n}$ the $n$th positive zero of the function $J_{\nu}.$ From the proof of \cite[Theorem 1]{bsk} we know that for $\nu>0$ and $r=|z|<j_{\nu,1}$ we have that
$$\real \left(\frac{zf_{\nu}'(z)}{f_{\nu}(z)}\right)\geq \frac{rf_{\nu}'(r)}{f_{\nu}(r)}=1-\frac{1}{\nu}\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{2r^2}{j_{\nu,n}^2-r^2}.$$
Since $j_{\nu,1}>j_{0,1}\simeq2.4048{\dots}>1$ when $\nu>0,$ the above inequality is clearly valid when $|z|<1.$ On the other hand, the function $r\mapsto rf_{\nu}'(r)/f_{\nu}(r)$ is clearly decreasing on $(0,1)\subset(0,j_{\nu,1}),$ and consequently for all $z\in\mathbb{D}$ and $\nu>0$ we have
$$\real \left(\frac{zf_{\nu}'(z)}{f_{\nu}(z)}\right)\geq \frac{rf_{\nu}'(r)}{f_{\nu}(r)}=1-\frac{1}{\nu}\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{2r^2}{j_{\nu,n}^2-r^2}\geq1-\frac{1}{\nu}\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{2}{j_{\nu,n}^2-1}=\frac{f_{\nu}'(1)}{f_{\nu}(1)}.$$
Since the function $\nu\mapsto j_{\nu,n}$ is increasing on $(0,\infty)$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$ fixed (see \cite[p. 236]{nist}), it follows that the function $\nu\mapsto f_{\nu}'(1)/f_{\nu}(1)$ is increasing on $(0,\infty),$ and thus $f_{\nu}'(1)/f_{\nu}(1)>\alpha$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_1(\alpha),$ where $\nu_1(\alpha)$ is the unique root of the equation
$$f_{\nu}'(1)=\alpha f_{\nu}(1)\ \ \Longleftrightarrow \ \ \nu\alpha J_{\nu}(1)=J_{\nu}'(1) \ \ \Longleftrightarrow\ \ (1-\alpha)\nu J_{\nu}(1)=J_{\nu+1}(1).$$ Here we used that
$$\frac{zf_{\nu}'(z)}{f_{\nu}(z)}=\frac{1}{\nu}\frac{zJ_{\nu}'(z)}{J_{\nu}(z)}=1-\frac{J_{\nu+1}(z)}{\nu J_{\nu}(z)}.$$
Taking into account the fact that all of the above inequalities are sharp it follows that indeed the function $f_{\nu}$ is starlike of order $\alpha\in[0,1)$ in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_1(\alpha).$
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{th2}]
From the proof of \cite[Theorem 1]{bsk} we know that for $\nu>-1$ and $r=|z|<j_{\nu,1}$ we have that
$$\real \left(\frac{zg_{\nu}'(z)}{g_{\nu}(z)}\right)\geq \frac{rg_{\nu}'(r)}{g_{\nu}(r)}=1-\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{2r^2}{j_{\nu,n}^2-r^2}.$$
Since $\nu\mapsto j_{\nu,1}$ is increasing on $(-1,\infty),$ it follows that $j_{\nu,1}>1$ when $\nu>\tilde{\nu},$ and thus in this case the above inequality is clearly valid when $|z|<1.$ On the other hand, the function $r\mapsto rg_{\nu}'(r)/g_{\nu}(r)$ is clearly decreasing on $(0,1)\subset(0,j_{\nu,1}),$ and consequently for all $z\in\mathbb{D}$ and $\nu>\tilde{\nu}$ we have
$$\real \left(\frac{zg_{\nu}'(z)}{g_{\nu}(z)}\right)\geq \frac{rg_{\nu}'(r)}{g_{\nu}(r)}=1-\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{2r^2}{j_{\nu,n}^2-r^2}\geq1-\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{2}{j_{\nu,n}^2-1}=\frac{g_{\nu}'(1)}{g_{\nu}(1)}.$$
Since the function $\nu\mapsto j_{\nu,n}$ is increasing on $(-1,\infty)$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}$ fixed (see \cite[p. 236]{nist}), it follows that the function $\nu\mapsto g_{\nu}'(1)/g_{\nu}(1)$ is increasing on $(\tilde{\nu},\infty),$ and thus $g_{\nu}'(1)/g_{\nu}(1)>\alpha$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_2(\alpha),$ where $\nu_2(\alpha)$ is the unique root of the equation
$$g_{\nu}'(1)=\alpha g_{\nu}(1)\ \ \Longleftrightarrow \ \ (1-\nu-\alpha)J_{\nu}(1)+J_{\nu}'(1)=0 \ \ \Longleftrightarrow\ \ (1-\alpha)J_{\nu}(1)=J_{\nu+1}(1).$$ Here we used that
$$\frac{zg_{\nu}'(z)}{g_{\nu}(z)}=1-\nu+\frac{zJ_{\nu}'(z)}{J_{\nu}(z)}=1-\frac{zJ_{\nu+1}(z)}{J_{\nu}(z)}.$$
Taking into account the fact that all of the above inequalities are sharp it follows that indeed the function $g_{\nu}$ is starlike of order $\alpha\in[0,1)$ in $\mathbb{D}$ if and only if $\nu>\nu_2(\alpha).$
\end{proof}
Now, for the proof of the remaining theorems we will use the following result of Shah and Trimble \cite[Theorem 2]{st} about transcendental entire functions with univalent derivatives, which was the key tool in the proof of the main results of \cite{bdy,basz}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem}
Let $\mathbb{D}=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:|z|<1\}$ be the open unit disk and $f:\mathbb{D}\to\mathbb{C}$ be a transcendental entire function of the form
$$f(z)=z\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z}{z_n}\right),$$
where all $z_n$ have the same argument and satisfy $|z_n|>1.$ If $f$ is univalent in $\mathbb{D},$ then
$$\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{1}{|z_n|-1}\leq 1.$$
In fact the above inequality holds if and only if $f$ is starlike in $\mathbb{D}$ and all of its derivatives are
close-to-convex there.
\end{lemma}
As we can see below the structures of the next proofs are very similar and all of them use the monotonicity of the zeros with respect to the order of the derivatives of Bessel functions of the first kind.
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thA}]
Let us denote by $j_{\nu,n}'$ the $n$th positive zero of the function $J_{\nu}'.$ By using the infinite product representation \cite[p. 340]{skelton}
$$J_{\nu}'(z)=\frac{\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^{\nu-1}}{2\Gamma(\nu)}\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z^2}{j_{\nu,n}'^2}\right)$$
it follows that
$$2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu)z^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}}J_{\nu}''(\sqrt{z})=z\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z}{j_{\nu,n}''^2}\right)$$
and
$$-\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\nu+\frac{zJ_{\nu}''(z)}{J_{\nu}'(z)}\right)=\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{z^2}{j_{\nu,n}'^2-z^2}.$$
On the other hand, we know that $\nu\mapsto j_{\nu,n}'$ is increasing on $(0,\infty)$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ fixed (see \cite[p. 236]{nist}), and thus the function
$$\nu\mapsto \sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}'^2-1}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\nu+\frac{J_{\nu}''(1)}{J_{\nu}'(1)}\right)$$ is decreasing on $(0,\infty).$
Consequently, we have that the inequality
$$\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}'^2-1}\leq 1$$
is valid if and only if $\nu\geq \dot{\nu},$ where $\dot{\nu}$ is the unique root on $(0,\infty)$ of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq0}\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}'^2-1}=1 \ \ \ \Longleftrightarrow\ \ \ (3-\nu)J_{\nu}'(1)+J_{\nu}''(1)=0.\end{equation}
Since $J_{\nu}$ satisfies the Bessel differential equation, it follows that
$$z^2J_{\nu}''(z)+zJ_{\nu}'(z)+(z^2-\nu^2)J_{\nu}(z)=0,$$
and then
$$J_{\nu}''(1)=(\nu^2-1)J_{\nu}(1)-J_{\nu}'(1)=(\nu^2-\nu-1)J_{\nu}(1)+J_{\nu+1}(1),$$
where we used the recurrence relation $zJ_{\nu}'(z)=\nu J_{\nu}(z)-zJ_{\nu+1}(z).$ Consequently, the equation \eqref{eq0} is equivalent to $$(2\nu-1)J_{\nu}(1)+(\nu-2)J_{\nu+1}(1)=0.$$ Now, applying the inequality \cite[Theorem 6.3]{ismail}
$$j_{\nu,1}'^2>\frac{4\nu(\nu+1)}{\nu+2},$$
where $\nu>0,$ it follows that for $n\in\{2,3,\dots\}$ we have $j_{\nu,n}'>{\dots}>j_{\nu,1}'>1$ if $\nu>(-3+\sqrt{41})/8\simeq0.4253{\dots}.$
Thus, by applying Lemma \ref{lem} the assertion of the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thB}]
Let us denote by $j_{\nu,n}''$ the $n$th positive zero of the function $J_{\nu}''.$ By using the infinite product representation \cite[p. 340]{skelton}
$$J_{\nu}''(z)=\frac{\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^{\nu-2}}{4\Gamma(\nu-1)}\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z^2}{j_{\nu,n}''^2}\right)$$
it follows that
$$2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu-1)z^{2-\frac{\nu}{2}}J_{\nu}''(\sqrt{z})=z\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z}{j_{\nu,n}''^2}\right)$$
and
$$-\frac{1}{2}\left(2-\nu+\frac{zJ_{\nu}'''(z)}{J_{\nu}''(z)}\right)=\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{z^2}{j_{\nu,n}''^2-z^2}.$$
On the other hand, we know that $\nu\mapsto j_{\nu,n}''$ is increasing on $(1,\infty)$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ fixed (see \cite{mercer,wong}), and thus the function
$$\nu\mapsto \sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}''^2-1}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(2-\nu+\frac{J_{\nu}'''(1)}{J_{\nu}''(1)}\right)$$ is decreasing on $(1,\infty).$
Consequently, we have that the inequality
$$\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}''^2-1}\leq 1$$
is valid if and only if $\nu\geq \nu^{\ast},$ where $\nu^{\ast}$ is the unique root on $(1,\infty)$ of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}''^2-1}=1 \ \ \ \Longleftrightarrow\ \ \ (4-\nu)J_{\nu}''(1)+J_{\nu}'''(1)=0.\end{equation}
Since $J_{\nu}$ satisfies the Bessel differential equation, it follows that
$$z^2J_{\nu}'''(z)+3zJ_{\nu}''(z)+(z^2+1-\nu^2)J_{\nu}'(z)+2zJ_{\nu}(z)=0,$$
and then
$$J_{\nu}'''(1)=(1-3\nu^2)J_{\nu}(1)+(\nu^2+1)J_{\nu}'(1)=(\nu^3-3\nu^2+\nu+1)J_{\nu}(1)-(\nu^2+1)J_{\nu+1}(1),$$
where we used the recurrence relation $zJ_{\nu}'(z)=\nu J_{\nu}(z)-zJ_{\nu+1}(z).$ Consequently, the equation \eqref{eq1} is equivalent to $$(2\nu^2-2\nu-3)J_{\nu}(1)=(\nu^2+\nu-3)J_{\nu+1}(1).$$ Now, applying the inequality \cite[Theorem 8.1]{ismail}
$$j_{\nu,1}''^2>\frac{4\nu(\nu-1)}{\nu+2},$$
where $\nu>1,$ it follows that for $n\in\{2,3,\dots\}$ we have $j_{\nu,n}''>{\dots}>j_{\nu,1}''>1$ if $\nu>(5+\sqrt{19})/8\simeq1.5687{\dots}.$
Thus, by applying Lemma \ref{lem} the assertion of the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thC}]
Similarly, as in the proof of the previous theorem, let us denote by $j_{\nu,n}'''$ the $n$th positive zero of the function $J_{\nu}'''.$ By using the infinite product representation \cite[p. 340]{skelton}
$$J_{\nu}'''(z)=\frac{\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^{\nu-3}}{8\Gamma(\nu-2)}\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z^2}{j_{\nu,n}'''^2}\right)$$
it follows that
$$2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu-2)z^{\frac{5}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}}J_{\nu}'''(\sqrt{z})=z\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z}{j_{\nu,n}'''^2}\right)$$
and
$$-\frac{1}{2}\left(3-\nu+\frac{zJ_{\nu}''''(z)}{J_{\nu}'''(z)}\right)=\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{z^2}{j_{\nu,n}'''^2-z^2}.$$
On the other hand, we know that $\nu\mapsto j_{\nu,n}'''$ is increasing on $(2,\infty)$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ fixed (see \cite{koko,lorch}), and thus the function
$$\nu\mapsto \sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}'''^2-1}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(3-\nu+\frac{J_{\nu}''''(1)}{J_{\nu}'''(1)}\right)$$ is decreasing on $(2,\infty).$
Consequently, we have that the inequality
$$\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}'''^2-1}\leq 1$$
is valid if and only if $\nu\geq \nu^{\star},$ where $\nu^{\star}$ is the unique root on $(2,\infty)$ of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{j_{\nu,n}'''^2-1}=1 \ \ \ \Longleftrightarrow\ \ \ (5-\nu)J_{\nu}'''(1)+J_{\nu}''''(1)=0.\end{equation}
Since $J_{\nu}$ satisfies the Bessel differential equation, it follows that
$$z^2J_{\nu}''''(z)+5zJ_{\nu}'''(z)+(z^2+4-\nu^2)J_{\nu}''(z)+4zJ_{\nu}'(z)+2J_{\nu}(z)=0,$$
and then
$$J_{\nu}''''(1)=(\nu^4+9\nu^2-2)J_{\nu}(1)-(6\nu^2+4)J_{\nu}'(1)=(\nu^4-6\nu^3+9\nu^2-4\nu-2)J_{\nu}(1)+(6\nu^2+4)J_{\nu+1}(1).$$
Consequently, the equation \eqref{eq2} is equivalent to $$(2\nu^3-7\nu^2+3)J_{\nu}(1)+(\nu^3+\nu^2+\nu-1)J_{\nu+1}(1)=0.$$ Now, taking into account that the function $\nu\mapsto j_{\nu,1}'''$ is increasing on $(2,\infty)$ it follows that for $\nu>3$ we have $j_{\nu,1}'''>j_{3,1}'''\simeq 1.3762{\dots}>1.$ Thus, for $n\in\{2,3,\dots\}$ we have $j_{\nu,n}'''>{\dots}>j_{\nu,1}'''>1$ if $\nu>3,$ and applying again Lemma \ref{lem} the assertion of the theorem follows. We would like to mention here that we approximated the zero $j_{3,1}'''$ by using the mathematical software Matlab by taking into account that $j_{3,1}'''$ is actually the first positive zero of the equation $$\left((1-\nu)z^2+\nu^3-3\nu^2+2\nu\right)J_{\nu}(z)=\left((2+\nu^2)z-z^3\right)J_{\nu+1}(z)$$ when $\nu=3.$
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thD}] Let us consider the power series
$$\frac{2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu+1)}{Q(\nu)z^{\nu}}\left(az^2J_{\nu}''(z)+bzJ_{\nu}'(z)+cJ_{\nu}(z)\right)=
\sum_{n\geq0}\frac{(2n+\nu)(2n+\nu-1)a+(2n+\nu)b+c}{4^{n}n!{(\nu+1)}_n}(-1)^nz^{2n},$$
where $(a)_n=a(a+1)\dots(a+n-1)=\Gamma(a+n)/\Gamma(a).$ By using the fact that for $\tau>0$ the quotient $\log\Gamma(n+\tau)/(n\log n)$ tends to $1$
as $n$ tends to infinity, we obtain that the growth order of the above entire function is the following
$$\rho=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n\log n}{n\log4+\log\Gamma(n+1)+\log\Gamma(n+\nu+1)-\log((2n+\nu)(2n+\nu-1)a+(2n+\nu)b+c)}=\frac{1}{2}.$$
Thus, if $\lambda_{\nu,n}$ denotes the $n$th positive zero of the function $z\mapsto az^2J_{\nu}''(z)+bzJ_{\nu}'(z)+cJ_{\nu}(z),$ then by applying Hadamard's theorem \cite[p. 26]{lev} we obtain
$$az^2J_{\nu}''(z)+bzJ_{\nu}'(z)+cJ_{\nu}(z)=\frac{Q(\nu)z^{\nu}}{2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu+1)}\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z^2}{\lambda_{\nu,n}^2}\right),$$
and consequently
$$\frac{2^{\nu}\Gamma(\nu+1)}{Q(\nu)}z^{1-\frac{\nu}{2}}\left(azJ_{\nu}''(\sqrt{z})+b\sqrt{z}J_{\nu}'(\sqrt{z})+cJ_{\nu}(\sqrt{z})\right)=z\prod_{n\geq 1}\left(1-\frac{z}{\lambda_{\nu,n}^2}\right),$$
$$-\frac{1}{2}\left(-\nu+z\cdot\frac{az^2J_{\nu}'''(z)+(2a+b)zJ_{\nu}''(z)+(b+c)J_{\nu}'(z)}{az^2J_{\nu}''(z)+bzJ_{\nu}'(z)+cJ_{\nu}(z)}\right)=
\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{z^2}{\lambda_{\nu,n}^2-z^2}.$$
Here we used the fact that when $\nu\geq \overline{\nu},$ where $\overline{\nu}=\max\{0,\nu_0\}$ and $\nu_0$ is the largest root of the quadratic $Q(\nu)=a\nu(\nu-1)+b\nu+c,$ the zeros of the function $z\mapsto az^2J_{\nu}''(z)+bzJ_{\nu}'(z)+cJ_{\nu}(z)$ are real, according to \cite[Theorem 7.1]{ismail}.
On the other hand, we know cf. \cite[Theorem 1]{mercer} that for $a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $c=0$ and $b\neq a$ or $c>0$ and $b>a$ we have that $\nu\mapsto\lambda_{\nu,n}$ is increasing on $(0,\infty)$ for fixed $n\in\mathbb{N}.$ Consequently, under the assumptions, the function
$$\nu\mapsto-\frac{1}{2}\left(-\nu+\frac{aJ_{\nu}'''(1)+(2a+b)J_{\nu}''(1)+(b+c)J_{\nu}'(1)}{aJ_{\nu}''(1)+bJ_{\nu}'(1)+cJ_{\nu}(1)}\right)=
\sum_{n\geq1}\frac{1}{\lambda_{\nu,n}^2-1}$$
is decreasing on $(0,\infty).$ Thus, the inequality
$$\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{\lambda_{\nu,n}^2-1}\leq 1$$
is valid if and only if $\nu\geq \nu^{\circ},$ where $\nu^{\circ}$ is the unique root on $(\overline{\nu},\infty)$ of the equation
$$\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{1}{\lambda_{\nu,n}^2-1}=1 \ \ \ \Longleftrightarrow\ \ \ aJ_{\nu}'''(1)+(4a-a\nu+b)J_{\nu}''(1)+(3b+c-b\nu)J_{\nu}'(1)-(\nu-2)cJ_{\nu}(1)=0.$$
By using from the above proofs the expressions for the values $J_{\nu}'''(1),$ $J_{\nu}''(1)$ and $J_{\nu}'(1),$ the above equation is equivalent to
$$(2a\nu^2-2a\nu+2b\nu-3a-b+2c)J_{\nu}(1)=(a\nu^2+a\nu-b\nu-3a+2b+c)J_{\nu+1}(1).$$
Finally, by using the inequalities in \eqref{abc} together with \cite[Eq. (8.2)]{ismail}
$$\lambda_{\nu,1}>\frac{4(\nu+1)Q(\nu)}{Q(\nu)+4a\nu+2a+2b},$$
it follows that for $n\in\{2,3,\dots\}$ we have $\lambda_{\nu,n}>{\dots}>\lambda_{\nu,1}>1,$ and using Lemma \ref{lem} the proof is done.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{le:crude_approximation}} \label{app:crude_approximation}
In this section we prove Lemma~\ref{le:crude_approximation}, \ie, we describe a $(1/3)$-approximation algorithm for the problem $\max \{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$ using $O(n \ln k)$ value and independence oracle queries. The algorithm we describe (given as Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy}) is a close variant of an algorithm suggested by~\cite{BV14} for the case of a cardinality constraint. We assume in the analysis of the algorithm that $\ee \in (0, 1)$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textsf{Thresholding Greedy}$(f, \MM, \ee)$} \label{alg:LazyGreedy}
\DontPrintSemicolon
Let $S \leftarrow \varnothing$.\\
Let $W, w \leftarrow \max_{u \in \NN} f(u)$.\\
\For{$(w \leftarrow W; w > \ee W / k; w \leftarrow w(1 - \ee))$}
{
\ForEach{$u \in \NN$}
{
\lIf{$S \cup \{u\} \in \II$ and $f(u \mid S) \geq w$}
{
Add $u$ to $S$.
}
}
}
\Return{$S$}.\\
\end{algorithm}
\begin{observation}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy} outputs an independent set and uses $O(n\ee^{-1} \ln (k / \ee))$ value and independence oracle queries.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
The first part of the observation holds since Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy} does not add an element $u$ to $S$ unless $S \cup \{u\} \in \II$ before the addition. The second part of the observation follows by multiplying three values:
\begin{compactitem}
\item Each iteration of the internal loop makes $O(1)$ queries to each oracle.
\item The internal loop repeats $n$ times.
\item The number of iterations performed by the external loop is:
\[
\lceil \ln_{1 - \ee} (\ee / k) \rceil
\leq
1 - \frac{\ln (k / \ee)}{\ln(1 - \ee)}
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln (k / \ee)}{\ee}
\enspace.
\qedhere
\]
\end{compactitem}
\end{proof}
Next, let us analyze the approximation ratio of Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy}. Let $\ell$ be the size of the solution produced by the algorithm, and let $S_i$ be the set $S$ after $i$ elements were added to it. For consistency, we also define $S_0 = \varnothing$. For every $0 \leq i \leq \ell$, let $OPT_i$ be the maximum value independent set containing $S_i$. The following lemma lower bounds the gain of $S_i$ (as a function of $i$) in terms of the loss of $OPT_i$ (again, as a function of $i$).
\begin{lemma} \label{le:improvement_lost_balance}
For every $1 \leq i \leq \ell$, $(1 - \ee) \cdot [f(OPT_{i - 1}) - f(OPT_i)] \leq f(S_i) - f(S_{i - 1})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $u_i = S_i \setminus S_{i - 1}$ be the $i^{th}$ element added by Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy}, and let $w_i$ denote the value of $w$ in the iteration when $u_i$ is picked by the algorithm. By the definition of the algorithm, $f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) \geq w_i$. Let $u^*_i = \arg \max_{u \in OPT_{i - 1} \setminus S_{i - 1}} f(u \mid S_{i - 1})$ be an element with the maximal marginal contribution in $OPT_{i - 1} \setminus S_{i - 1}$. By the definition of $OPT_{i - 1}$, $u^*_i$ can be added to $S_{i - 1}$. Since $u^*_i$ was not added before $u_i$, $f(u^*_u \mid S_{i - 1}) \leq w_i / (1 - \ee)$.
If $u_i \in OPT_i$, then $f(OPT_{i - 1}) = f(OPT_i)$ and the lemma clearly holds since $f(S_i) - f(S_{i - 1}) \geq 0$. Otherwise, consider the set $OPT'_i$ obtained by adding $u_i$ to $OPT_{i - 1}$ and removing an element of $OPT_i \setminus S_i$ from the cycle created (if no cycle is created, we remove no element). Clearly $OPT'_i$ is an independent set containing $S_i$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
&
f(OPT_{i - 1}) - f(OPT_i)
\leq
f(OPT_{i - 1}) - f(OPT'_i)\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
\max_{u \in OPT_{i - 1} \setminus S_{i - 1}} f(u \mid OPT_{i - 1} \setminus \{u\}) \\
\leq{} &
\max_{u \in OPT_{i - 1} \setminus S_{i - 1}} f(u \mid S_{i - 1})
=
f(u^*_i \mid S_{i - 1})
\leq
\frac{w_i}{1 - \ee}\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
\frac{f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1})}{1 - \ee}
=
\frac{f(S_i) - f(S_{i - 1})}{1 - \ee}
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
To get an interesting result from the last lemma, we need to show that $f(OPT_\ell)$ is not too large, \ie, $f(OPT_i)$ decreases significantly as a function of $i$.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:final_opt_final_solution}
$f(OPT_\ell) \leq f(S_\ell) + \ee \cdot f(OPT)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Every element of $OPT_\ell \setminus S_\ell$ can be added to $S_\ell$ (since $S_\ell$ is a subset of the independent set $OPT_\ell$). Since none of them is added by Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy}, we must have $f(u \mid S_\ell) \leq \ee W/k$ for every $u \in OPT_\ell \setminus S_\ell$. Hence,
\begin{align*}
f(OPT_\ell) - f(S_\ell\inConference{&})
\leq
\sum_{u \in OPT_\ell \setminus S_\ell} f(u \mid S_\ell)\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
\sum_{u \in OPT_\ell \setminus S_\ell} \frac{\ee W}{k}
\leq
\ee W
\leq
\ee \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace,
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from the assumption that $f(u) \leq f(OPT)$ for every $u \in \NN$.
\end{proof}
Combining the above lemmata imply the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\inArxiv{Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy} is a $(1/2 - \ee)$-approximation algorithm for $\max\{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$.}
\inConference{Algorithm~\ref{alg:LazyGreedy} has an approximation ratio of at least $(1/2 - \ee)$ for $\max\{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Lemma~\ref{le:improvement_lost_balance} implies:
\begin{align*}
\inConference{&}
(1 - \ee) \cdot [f(OPT_0) - f(OPT_\ell)]\inConference{\\}
={} &
(1 - \ee) \cdot \sum_{i = 1}^\ell [f(OPT_{i - 1}) - f(OPT_i)]\\
\leq{} &
\sum_{i = 1}^\ell [f(S_i) - f(S_{i - 1})]
=
f(S_\ell) - f(S_0)
\leq
f(S_\ell)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Rearranging and using Lemma~\ref{le:final_opt_final_solution} and the observation $f(OPT_0) = f(OPT)$, we get:
\begin{align*}
f(OPT)
\leq\inConference{{} &}
f(OPT_\ell) + \frac{f(S_\ell)}{1 - \ee}\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
[f(S_\ell) + \ee \cdot f(OPT)] + \frac{f(S_\ell)}{1 - \ee}\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
\ee \cdot f(OPT) + \frac{2 - \ee}{1 - \ee} \cdot f(S_\ell)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
f(S_\ell)
\geq{} &
\frac{(1 - \ee)^2}{2 - \ee} \cdot f(OPT)\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\frac{1 - 2\ee}{2} \cdot f(OPT)
=
(1/2 - \ee) \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Lemma~\ref{le:crude_approximation} now follows by choosing $\ee = 1/6$.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:monotone_cardinality}} \label{app:monotone_cardinality}
In this section we prove the folklore result given by Theorem~\ref{th:monotone_cardinality}. Notice that for $\ee \in (0, e^{-k}]$ the the standard greedy algorithm of~\cite{NWF78} fulfills all the requirements the theorem, and for $\ee \geq 1 - e^{-1}$ the theorem is void. Thus, from this point on we assume $\ee \in (e^{-k}, 1 - e^{-1})$. The algorithm we use to prove Theorem~\ref{th:monotone_cardinality} is Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} with the parameters $s = 1$ and $p = \ln \ee^{-1} / k$. Notice that $p \in (0, 1]$ since $\ee > e^{-k}$. We restate Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} with these parameter values as Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedyMonotone}. Since the objective function $f$ is assumed to be monotone in Theorem~\ref{th:monotone_cardinality}, the restatement can safely omit the check on Line~\ref{ln:avoid_negative} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy}.
\begin{algorithm}[h!t]
\caption{\textsf{Random Sampling Algorithm for Monotone Objectives}$(f, k)$} \label{alg:PartialGreedyMonotone}
\DontPrintSemicolon
Initialize: $S_0 \leftarrow \varnothing$.\\
\For{$i$ = $1$ \KwTo $k$}
{
Let $M_i$ be a uniformly random set containing $\lceil \frac{n \cdot \ln \ee^{-1}}{k} \rceil$ elements of $\NN$.\\
Let $u_i$ be the element of $M_i$ with the largest marginal contribution to $S_{i - 1}$.\\
$S_i \leftarrow S_{i - 1} \cup \{u_i\}$.\\
}
\Return{$S_k$}.
\end{algorithm}
First, the following observation follows by plugging our chosen value for $p$ into Observation~\ref{ob:genral_complexity}.
\begin{observation}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedyMonotone} uses $O(n \ln \ee^{-1})$ value oracle queries.
\end{observation}
The following lemma lower bounds the expected improvement in the solution of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedyMonotone} in every iteration.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:gain}
For every $1 \leq i \leq k$, $\mathbb{E}[f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1})] \geq (1 - \ee) \cdot \frac{f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A_i$ be an event specifying the random decisions of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedyMonotone} up to iteration $i$ (excluding). If the lemma holds conditioned on every given event $A_i$, then it holds also unconditionally. Hence, in the rest of the proof we fix an event $A_i$ and prove the lemma conditioned on this event. All the probabilities and expectations in the proof are implicitly conditioned on $A_i$. Notice that $S_{i - 1}$ is a deterministic set when conditioned on $A_i$.
Let $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_k$ be the $k$ elements \inArxiv{with}\inConference{having} the largest marginal contributions to $S_{i - 1}$, sorted in a non-increasing marginal contribution order. Additionally, let $X_j$ be an indicator for the event $M_i \cap \{v_1, v_2, \dotsc, v_j\} \neq \varnothing$. Using this notation, it is possible to lower bound $f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1})$ as follows.
\begin{align*}
f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1}&)
\geq
X_k \cdot f(v_k \mid S_{i - 1}) \inConference{\\ &}+ \sum_{j = 1}^{k - 1} X_j \cdot [f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}) - f(v_{j + 1} \mid S_{i - 1})]
\enspace.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, for every $1 \leq j \leq k$, we can lower bound $\mathbb{E}[X_j]$ as follows. If $j + \lceil pn \rceil > n$, then $\mathbb{E}[X_j] = 1 \geq 1 - (1 - p)^j$. Otherwise,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[X_j]
={} &
1 - \frac{\binom{n - j}{\lceil pn \rceil}}{\binom{n}{\lceil pn \rceil}}
=
1 - \prod_{r = 0}^{j - 1} \frac{n - \lceil pn \rceil - r}{n - r}\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
1 - \prod_{r = 0}^{j - 1} \frac{n - pn}{n}
=
1 - (1 - p)^j
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Combining the two above observations with the linearity of the expectation, we get:
{
\inConference{\allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(\inConference{&}u_i \mid S_{i - 1})]
\geq\inArxiv{{} &}
\mathbb{E}[X_k] \cdot f(v_k \mid S_{i - 1}) \inConference{\\ &} + \sum_{j = 1}^{k - 1} \mathbb{E}[X_j] \cdot [f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}) - f(v_{j + 1} \mid S_{i - 1})]\\
\geq{} &
[1 - (1 - p)^k] \cdot f(v_k \mid S_{i - 1}) \inConference{\\ &} + \sum_{j = 1}^{k - 1} [1 - (1 - p)^j] \cdot [f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}) - f(v_{j + 1} \mid S_{i - 1})]\\
={} &
p \cdot \sum_{j = 1}^k (1 - p)^{j - 1} f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1})
\enspace,
\end{align*}
}
where the second inequality holds since $f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}) - f(v_{j + 1} \mid S_{i - 1})$ is always non-negative.
Consider the sum on the rightmost hand side of the above inequality. Every term of this sum is a multiplication of two non-increasing functions of $j$: $(1 - p)^{j - 1}$ and $f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1})$. This allows us to use Chebyshev's sum inequality to bound this sum as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1})]\inConference{& \\}
\geq{} &
p \cdot \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^k f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}) \cdot \sum_{j = 1}^k (1 - p)^{j - 1}}{k}\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
(1 - (1 - p)^k) \cdot \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^k f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1})}{k}\\
\geq{} &
(1 - e^{-kp}) \cdot \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^k f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1})}{k}\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
(1 - \ee) \cdot \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^k f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1})}{k}
\enspace.
\end{align*}
The lemma now follows by observing that by the definition of the $v_j$'s and the submodularity and monotonicity of $f$,
\begin{align*}
&
\sum_{j = 1}^k f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1})
\geq
\sum_{u \in OPT} f(u \mid S_{i - 1})\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
f(OPT \cup S_{i - 1}) - f(S_{i - 1})
\geq
f(OPT) - f(S_{i - 1})
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
For every $0 \leq i \leq k$, $\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)] \geq \left[1 - e^{-\frac{i \cdot (1 - \ee)}{k}}\right] \cdot f(OPT)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let us denote $\alpha = k^{-1}(1 - \ee)$. Then, by Lemma~\ref{le:gain}, for every $1 \leq i \leq k$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i) - f(S_{i - 1})]
={} &
\mathbb{E}[f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1})]\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\alpha[f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]]
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Rearranging, we get:
\[
f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_i)]
\leq
(1 - \alpha) \cdot [f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]]
\enspace.
\]
Combining the above inequalities gives:
\begin{align*}
f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_i)]
\leq{} &
(1 - \alpha)^i \cdot [f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_0)]]\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
(1 - \alpha)^i \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Rearranging once more, yields:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)]
\geq{} &
\left[1 - (1 - \alpha)^i \right] \cdot f(OPT)\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\left[1 - e^{-i \cdot \alpha} \right] \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The above corollary implies that $\mathbb{E}[f(S_k)] \geq (1 - e^{\ee-1}) \cdot f(OPT)$. Theorem~\ref{th:monotone_cardinality} follows by combining this inequality with the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:inequality}
$1 - e^{\ee-1} \geq 1 - e^{-1} - \ee$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Notice that:
\begin{align*}
1 - e^{\ee-1} \geq 1 - e^{-1} - \ee
\Leftrightarrow{} &
e^{\ee-1} \leq e^{-1} + \ee\inConference{\\}
\Leftrightarrow\inConference{{} &}
\ee - 1 \leq \ln(e^{-1} + \ee)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
By the definition of $\ln$:
\begin{align*}
\ln(e^{-1} + \ee)
={} &
\int_1^{e^{-1} + \ee} \frac{dx}{x}
=
\int_1^{e^{-1}} \frac{dx}{x} + \int_{e^{-1}}^{e^{-1} + \ee} \frac{dx}{x}\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\ln e^{-1} + \ee \cdot \frac{1}{e^{-1} + \ee}
\geq
-1 + \ee
\enspace,
\end{align*}
where the last inequality holds since $\ee < 1 - e^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
We presented fast algorithms for maximizing submodular functions subject to various constraints. Our algorithm for a general matroid constraint has the interesting property that the number of value oracle queries it uses can be reduced at the cost of more independence oracle queries, and vice versa.
As far as we know, such a property did not appear in any previously known algorithm for this problem (or other related problems). Thus, it can be interesting to determine whether this unusual property represents the real nature of the problem's complexity, or is an artifact of our algorithm.
\section{Introduction}
The study of combinatorial optimization problems with a submodular objective has attracted much attention in recent years, as submodular functions arise naturally in various disciplines, \eg, combinatorics, economics, and machine learning.
Many well-known problems in combinatorial optimization are in fact submodular maximization problems, including: {\MC} \cite{GW95,H01,K72,KKMO07,TSSW00}, {\MDC} \cite{FG95,GW95,HZ01}, {\GA} \cite{CK05,CKR06,FV06,FGMS06}, {\MkC} \cite{F98,KMN99}, {\MB} \cite{ABG13,FJ95}, and {\FL} \cite{AS99,CFN77a,CFN77b}.
Furthermore, practical applications of submodular maximization problems are common in social networks \cite{HMS08,KKT03}, vision \cite{BJ01,JB11}, machine learning \cite{KSG08,KG05,KLGVF08,LB10,LB11} (the reader is referred to a comprehensive survey by Bach \cite{Bach13}), and many other areas.
Elegant algorithmic techniques were developed in the course of this line of research which achieved provable, and in some cases even tight, approximation guarantees.
A prime example for the latter is the {\em continuous greedy} algorithm of~\cite{CCPV11} for maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a matroid independence constraint.
Unfortunately, most of these techniques result in algorithms which are efficient in theory but are not practical.
Hence, a natural research question is whether one can obtain {\em faster} algorithms with provable tight guarantees for basic submodular optimization problems.
How does one measure the speed of an algorithm for a submodular maximization problem?
Since an explicit representation of the submodular function might be exponential in the size of its ground set, the algorithm is assumed to access the objective function $f$ via a {\em value oracle}\footnote{Other types of oracles exist, however, value oracles are the most commonly used type in the literature.} which returns the value of $f(S)$ given any subset $S$ of the ground set. Usually, the number of value oracle queries dominates the number of arithmetic operations in the algorithm up to a polylogarithmic factor. Hence, it is natural to use the number of value oracle queries as a measure for the algorithm's speed. The use of this measure is also facilitated by the observation that implementions of the value oracle have a non-neglagible time complexity in many applications.
Badanidiyuru and Vondr\'{a}k \cite{BV14} were the first to consider the question of finding fast algorithms with provable guarantees for maximizing a submodular function in its full generality.
They presented algorithms that achieve an almost tight approximation guarantee of $1-\nicefrac[]{1}{e}-\varepsilon$, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, for both the cardinality and the more general matroid independence constraints. The algorithms they designed use $O\left( \frac{n}{\varepsilon}\log{\left( \frac{n}{\varepsilon}\right)}\right)$ value oracle queries for the cardinality constraint and $O\left( \frac{nk}{\varepsilon ^4}\log ^{2}{\left( \frac{n}{\varepsilon}\right)}\right)$ value oracle queries for a general matroid independence constraint.
Here $k$ denotes the rank of the matroid and $n$ is the size of the ground set.
In the context of a simple constraint such as a cardinality constraint, it is easy to determine whether a given solution $S$ is feasible.
However, when considering more complex constraints, such as a general matroid independence constraint, one usually assumes the existence of an {\em independence oracle}.
This oracle determines whether a given subset $S$ of elements of the ground set is independent in the matroid, \ie, feasible.
In all previous works, as far as we know, the number of value oracle queries dominates the number of independence oracle queries, and thus, the latter is usually overlooked.
This overlook is unfortunate since the implementation of these two {\em distinct} oracles in various applications might have running times of completely different magnitudes.\footnote{For example, the independence oracle can be implemented very efficiently when the constraint is a uniform or partition matroid. However, no linear time implementation is known when the constraint is a matching or linear matroid.}
In particular, minimizing the number of value oracle queries, as implicitly done by previous works, might not be the correct goal.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether the two different goals mentioned above, \ie, minimizing the number of value oracle queries and minimizing the number of independence oracle queries, are related.
\subsection{Our Results}
Our main result is the design of an algorithm for maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a matroid independence constraint.
Our algorithm establishes a {\em tradeoff} between the following two seemingly unrelated quantities: the number of value oracle queries and the number of independence oracle queries performed by the algorithm. The following theorem summarizes the result.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:general_matroid}
There exists an algorithm that given a non-negative monotone submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, a matroid $\MM = (\NN, \II)$ of rank $k$, and parameters $\ee > 0$ and $\lambda \in [1, k]$, finds a solution $S\in \II$ where:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f(S) \geq \left(1 - \nicefrac[]{1}{e} - \ee\right) \cdot \max \left\{ f(T):T\in\II\right\}$.
\item The algorithm performs $O\left(k\lambda + \frac{kn}{\lambda \ee^5} \ln^2\left(\frac{n}{\ee}\right)\right)$ value oracle queries.
\item The algorithm performs $O\left(\frac{k^2}{\ee} + \frac{\lambda n}{\ee^{2}} \ln\left(\frac{n}{\ee}\right)\right)$ independence oracle queries.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
An example, in which the tradeoff between the number of the two distinct oracle queries is perhaps most insightful, is when $k=\Theta \left( \sqrt{n}\right)$.
In this case, if one chooses $\lambda=1$ our algorithm performs $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n^{\nicefrac[]{3}{2}}\right)$ value queries, but only $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n\right)$ independence oracle queries.\footnote{Here $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}$ hides polylogarithmic factors in $n$ and polynomial factors in $\varepsilon ^{-1}$.}
However, if one chooses $\lambda=k$ the algorithm performs only $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n\right)$ value queries while the number of independence oracle queries grows to $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n^{\nicefrac[]{3}{2}}\right)$. This allows flexibility when the two types of queries have different time complexities in the application at hand. Note that in this case when $k=\Theta \left(\sqrt{n}\right)$ the algorithm of \cite{BV14} corresponds to choosing $\lambda =1$ in our algorithm, as it performs $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n^{\nicefrac[]{3}{2}}\right)$ value queries and $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n\right)$ independence oracle queries.
It is important to note that our algorithm not only establishes a surprising tradeoff between the two different types of queries, but can also provide a significant speedup to the running time when compared to the state of the art algorithm of \cite{BV14}.
Consider, for simplicity, the case where both types of oracles have the same running time.
In this case, obtaining a fast algorithm requires reducing the {\em total} number of oracle queries regardless of their types.
While the algorithm of \cite{BV14} requires $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( k^2+nk\right)$ queries, our algorithm requires only $\tilde{O}_{\varepsilon} ( k^2+\sqrt{k}n)$ queries if one sets $\lambda = \sqrt{k}$.
In the above example, where $k=\Theta \left( \sqrt{n}\right)$, it reduces the number of oracle queries from $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n^{\nicefrac[]{3}{2}}\right)$ to $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon}\left( n^{\nicefrac[]{5}{4}}\right)$.
In fact, if $k=O(n^c)$ for some absolute constant $c \leq 2/3$, $\lambda$ can be chosen such that the our algorithm uses $\tilde{O} _{\varepsilon} \left(n^{1+\nicefrac[]{c}{2}}\right)$ oracle queries, whereas \cite{BV14}'s algorithm needs $\tilde{O}_{\varepsilon} \left( n^{1+c}\right)$ oracle queries (for $2/3 < c < 1$ we still get an improvement, but a smaller one).
\paragraph{Additional Results.}
We consider two \inArxiv{well-studied}\inConference{interesting} special cases of the general problem considered above. The first is the case of a cardinality constraint and the second is the case of a partition matroid independence constraint.
Building upon the ideas developed in the context of the main result, we present even faster algorithms for the above two special cases.
The reader should note that in these two cases the implementation of the independence oracle is trivial, and hence, we focus only on minimizing the number of value oracle queries. The following three theorems summarize these results.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:partition_matroid}
There exists an algorithm that given a non-negative monotone submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, a generalized partition matroid $\MM = (\NN, \II)$ of rank $k$, and a parameter $\ee > 0$, finds a solution $S\in\II$ where:
$f(S) \geq \left( 1-\nicefrac[]{1}{e}-\ee\right)\cdot\max \left\{ f(T):T\in\II\right\}$ and the algorithm performs $ O\left( k\sqrt{\frac{n}{\ee^5}}\ln{\left( \frac{n}{\ee}\right)}+\frac{n}{\ee^5}\ln^2\left( \frac{n}{\ee}\right)\right)$ value oracle queries.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:monotone_cardinality}
There exists an algorithm that given a non-negative monotone submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, and parameters $k\geq 1$ and $\ee >0$,
finds a solution $ S\subseteq \NN$ of size $|S|\leq k$ where: $f(S) \geq \left( 1-\nicefrac[]{1}{e}-\ee\right)\cdot\max \left\{ f(T) : T \subseteq \NN, |T|\leq k\right\}$ and the algorithm performs $ O\left(n \ln \left(\frac{1}{\ee}\right)\right)$ value oracle queries.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:non_monotone_cardinality}
There exists an algorithm that given a general non-negative submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, and parameters $k\geq 1$ and $\ee >0$,
finds a solution $ S\subseteq \NN$ of size $|S|\leq k$ where: $f(S) \geq \left( \nicefrac[]{1}{e}-\ee\right)\cdot\max \left\{ f(T) : T \subseteq \NN, |T|\leq k\right\}$ and the number of value oracle queries the algorithm performs is $ \min\left\{O\left(\frac{n}{\ee^2}\ln \left(\frac{1}{\ee}\right)\right), O\left(k\sqrt{\frac{n}{\ee} \ln \left(\frac{k}{\ee}\right)} + \frac{n}{\ee} \ln \left(\frac{k}{\ee}\right)\right)\right\}$.
\end{theorem}
The best previously known result for partition matroids is identical to the one that was known for general matroids, \ie, it uses $O\left( \frac{nk}{\varepsilon ^4}\log ^{2}{\left( \frac{n}{\varepsilon}\right)}\right)$ value oracle queries. We note that Theorem \ref{th:monotone_cardinality} is a folklore result that improves over the best previously formally published result of~\cite{BV14}, who described an algorithm using $O(\frac{n}{\ee} \ln \frac{n}{\ee})$ value oracle queries.
\subsection{Additional Related Work}
The literature on submodular maximization is rich and has a long history. We mention here only a few of the most relevant works.
The classical result of Nemhauser et al.~\cite{NWF78} states that the simple discrete greedy algorithm provides an approximation of $\left( 1-\nicefrac[]{1}{e}\right)$ for maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a cardinality constraint.
This result is known to be tight by the work of Nemhauser et al.~\cite{NW78}.
Feige~\cite{F98} proved the latter holds even when the objective function is restricted to being a coverage function.
Calinescu et al.~\cite{CCPV11} presented the continuous greedy algorithm, which enabled one to achieve the same tight $\left( 1-\nicefrac[]{1}{e}\right)$ guarantee for the more general matroid constraint.
However, when one considers submodular objectives which are not monotone, less is known.
An approximation of $0.309$ was given by Vondr\'{a}k~\cite{V13} for the general matroid independence constraint, which was later improved
to $0.325$ by Oveis Gharan and Vondr\'{a}k~\cite{GV11} using a simulated annealing technique.
Extending the continuous greedy algorithm of~\cite{CCPV11} to general non-negative submodular objectives, Feldman et al.~\cite{FNS11} obtained an improved approximation of $\nicefrac[]{1}{e}-o(1)$ for the same problem.
When considering the special case of a cardinality constraint and a submodular objective which is not necessarily monotone, Buchbinder et al.~\cite{BFNS14} presented a $\nicefrac[]{1}{e}$-approximation algorithm, called ``random greedy'' whose running time is as fast as the discrete greedy algorithm of Nemhauser et al.~\cite{NWF78}.
Furthermore, \cite{BFNS14} also described a slower polynomial time $\left(\nicefrac[]{1}{e} + 0.004\right)$-approximation algorithm, demonstrating that $\nicefrac[]{1}{e}$ is not the right approximation ratio for the problem. On the hardness side, it is known that no polynomial time algorithm can have an approximation ratio better than $0.491$~\cite{GV11}.
\paragraph{Paper Organization.}
Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} gives general preliminaries. Section~\ref{sec:matroid} describes our results for general and partition matroids (Theorems~\ref{th:general_matroid} and~\ref{th:partition_matroid}). Finally, Sections~\ref{sec:random_sampling} and~\ref{sec:lazy_greedy} prove Theorem~\ref{th:non_monotone_cardinality}. The proof of the folklore result given by Theorem~\ref{th:monotone_cardinality} can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:monotone_cardinality}.
\section{Cardinality Constraint via Thresholding} \label{sec:lazy_greedy}
In this section we describe an algorithm for the problem $\max \{f(S) : |S| \leq k\}$ based on a combination of the Random Greedy of~\cite{BFNS14} and the thresholding algorithm of~\cite{BV14}. We prove that this algorithm obeys all the requirements of the following theorem. Theorem~\ref{th:non_monotone_cardinality} follows by combining this theorem with the result proved in Section~\ref{sec:random_sampling}.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:cadinality_lazy}
There exists an algorithm that given a general non-negative submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, and parameters $k\geq 1$ and $\ee >0$,
finds a solution $ S\subseteq \NN$ of size $|S|\leq k$ where: $f(S) \geq \left(\nicefrac[]{1}{e}-\ee\right)\cdot\max \left\{f(T) : T\subseteq \NN, |T|\leq k\right\}$ and the algorithm performs $O(k\sqrt{n\ee^{-1} \ln (k/\ee)} + n\ee^{-1} \ln (k/\ee))$ value oracle queries.
\end{theorem}
\SetKwFunction{FillM}{FillM}
\SetKw{Yield}{yield}
All algorithms considered in this section assume the existence of a set $D \subseteq \NN$ of at least $2k$ dummy elements having a weight of $0$. This assumption can be justified by explicitly adding such a set of elements to the ground set. We may also assume $\ee < e^{-1}$, since the theorem is void otherwise. The first algorithm we consider is Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple}. This algorithm accepts an error parameter $\delta \in (0, e^{-1})$ which we set later. The function {\FillM} described in Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} has a somewhat non-standard semantics. Namely, at the first time it is called it executes from its beginning till reaching the command {\Yield}. At every additional call, {\FillM} starts executing from the place where it stopped on the last call, and continues till reaching the command {\Yield} again.
On a more intuitive level, Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} constructs a solution using $k$ iterations. In each iteration the function {\FillM} is used to fill the set $M$ with the $k$ elements having the largest marginal contributions (up to an approximation error). Then, a uniformly random element of $M$ is added to the solution, and elements of $M$ whose marginal contribution decreased significantly following the addition are removed from $M$.
\SetKwFor{Do}{do}{}{}
\SetKwProg{Function}{Function}{}{}
\begin{algorithm*}[h!t]
\caption{\textsf{Random Lazy Greedy Simple}$(f, k, \delta)$} \label{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\tcp{Initialization}
$M, S_0 \gets \varnothing$.\\
Let $w, W \gets \max_{u \in \NN} f(u)$.\\
\BlankLine
\tcp{Main Loop}
\For{$i$ = $1$ \KwTo $k$}
{
Call \FillM($M$).\\
Uniformly pick a random element $u_i$ from $M$.\\
Let $S_i \gets S_{i - 1} \cup \{u_i\}$.\\
\ForEach{element $u \in M$}
{
\lIf{$f(u \mid S_i) \leq w(1 - \delta)$}{Remove $u$ from $M$.}
}
}
\Return{$S_k$}.\\
\BlankLine
\Function{\FillM($M$)}
{
\For{($w = W$; $w > \delta W / k$; $w \leftarrow w(1 - \delta)$)}
{
\ForEach{$u \in \NN$}
{
\If{$f(u \mid S) > w(1 - \delta)$}
{
Add $u$ to $M$.\\
\lIf{$|M| = k$}{\Yield.}
}
}
}
\Do{forever}
{
Add $k - |M|$ dummy elements of $D \setminus M$ to $M$.\\
\Yield.\\
}
}
\end{algorithm*}
Let us begin by analyzing the approximation ratio of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple}. We need some notation. Let $M_i$ be the set $M$ at the moment the algorithm picks $u_i$ from it. For two sets $A, B \subseteq \NN$, let $f(A : B) = \sum_{u \in A} f(u \mid B)$. Finally, let $O_i \subseteq \NN$ be the (random) subset of size at most $k$ maximizing $f(O_i : S_{i - 1})$.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:m_weight}
For every $1 \leq i \leq k$, $f(M_i : S_{i - 1}) \geq (1 - \delta) \cdot f(O_i : S_{i - 1}) - \delta \cdot f(OPT)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A_i$ be an event determining all the random choices of the algorithm in the first $i - 1$ iterations. We fix an arbitrary such event $A_i$, and prove the lemma conditioned on this event. Notice that if the lemma holds conditioned an arbitrary event $A_i$, then it also holds unconditionally. Observe also that once we fix $A_i$, the sets $M_i$, $O_i$ and $S_{i - 1}$ all become deterministic.
Let $w_i$ be the value of $w$ at the moment Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} chooses $u_i$. There are two cases to consider. Assume first $w_i > \delta W / k$. Since the marginals of elements only decrease as the solution increases, every element $u \in \NN$ with $f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) > w_i$ must be in $M_i$. On the other hand, since elements with low marginals are removed from $M_i$, we also have $f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) > w_i(1 - \delta)$ for every element $u \in M_i$. Let $O'_i = \{u \in O_i \mid f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) > w_i\}$. By the above discussion $O'_i \subseteq M_i$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
f(O_i : S_{i - 1})
={} &
f(O'_i : S_{i - 1}) + f(O_i \setminus O'_i : S_{i - 1})\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
f(O'_i : S_{i - 1}) + w_i \cdot |O_i \setminus O'_i|\\
\leq{} &
f(O'_i : S_{i - 1}) + w_i \cdot |M_i \setminus O'_i|\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
f(O'_i : S_{i - 1}) + \frac{f(M_i \setminus O'_i : S_{i - 1})}{1 - \delta}\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
\frac{f(M_i : S_{i - 1})}{1 - \delta}
\enspace,
\end{align*}
where the second inequality holds since $|M_i| = k \geq |O_i|$ and $O'_i \subseteq O_i \cap M_i$. The last inequality holds since $f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) \geq 0$ for every $u \in O'_i$. This completes the proof of the lemma for the case $w_i > \delta W / k$. Assume, now, $w_i \leq \delta W / k$. In this case every element $u \in \NN$ having $f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) > \delta W / k$ must be in $M_i$. Let $O'_i = \{u \in O_i \mid f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) > \delta W / k\}$. Again $O'_i \subseteq M_i$, and thus,
\begin{align*}
f(O_i : S_{i - 1})
={} &
f(O'_i : S_{i - 1}) + f(O_i \setminus O'_i : S_{i - 1})\\
\leq{} &
f(O'_i : S_{i - 1}) + \frac{\delta W}{k} \cdot |O_i \setminus O'_i|\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
f(M_i : S_{i - 1}) + \delta W
\enspace.
\end{align*}
The lemma now follows \inArxiv{by observing that}\inConference{since} $W \leq f(OPT)$.
\end{proof}
The above lemma can be used to derive a lower bound on the expected improvement in the solution of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} in a given iteration.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:improvement_cardinality_lazy}
For every \inConference{value }$1 \leq i \leq k$, $\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)] \geq \frac{[(1-\delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \delta] \cdot f(OPT) + (k - 1) \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In every given iteration, Algorithms~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} adds every element $u \in \NN$ to its solution with probability at most $1/k$. Hence, for every $u \in \NN$, $\Pr[u \in S_i] \leq 1 - (1 - 1/k)^i$, which implies $\mathbb{E}[f(OPT \cup S_i)] \geq (1 - 1/k)^i \cdot f(OPT)$ by Lemma~\ref{le:distribution}. Hence, by the definition of $O_i$ and the submodularity of $f$:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(O_i : S_{i - 1})]\inConference{&}
\geq\inArxiv{{} &}
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT : S_{i - 1})]\\
\geq{} &
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT \cup S_{i - 1}) - f(S_{i - 1})]\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} \cdot f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Recall that a uniformly random element of $M_i$ is added to $S_{i - 1}$ to form $S_i$. This observation, together with Lemma~\ref{le:m_weight}, give:
\begin{align*}
\inConference{&}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i) - f(S_{i - 1})]
=\inArxiv{{} &}
\frac{\mathbb{E}[f(M_i : S_{i - 1})]}{k}\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\frac{(1 - \delta) \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(O_i : S_{i - 1})] - \delta \cdot f(OPT)}{k}\\
\geq{} &
\inArxiv{
\frac{(1 - \delta) \cdot \left\{(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} \cdot f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]\right\} - \delta \cdot f(OPT)}{k}\\
\geq{} &
}
\frac{[(1 - \delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \delta] \cdot f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove the approximation ratio of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple}.
\begin{corollary}
\inArxiv{Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} is a $(e^{-1} - 2\delta)$-approximation algorithm.}
\inConference{Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} has an approximation ratio of at least $(e^{-1} - 2\delta)$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
\inConference{For simplicity, let us denote $\Phi(i) = (1 - \delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \delta$. }
We first prove by induction on $i$ that for $0 \leq i \leq k$: $\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)] \geq \frac{i}{k} \cdot \inArxiv{[(1 - \delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \delta]}\inConference{\Phi(i)} \cdot f(OPT)$. For $i = 0$, the claim is trivial since: $\mathbb{E}[f(S_0)] \geq 0 = \frac{0}{k} \cdot \inArxiv{[(1 - \delta)(1 - 1/k)^{0 - 1} - \delta]}\inConference{\Phi(0)} \cdot f(OPT)$. Next, assume the claim holds for $i - 1 \geq 0$, and let us prove it for $i$. By Lemma~\ref{le:improvement_cardinality_lazy},
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)]
\geq{} &
\frac{\inArxiv{[(1-\delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \delta]}\inConference{\Phi(i)} \cdot f(OPT) + (k - 1) \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}\\
\geq{} &
\inArxiv{
\frac{[(1-\delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \delta] \cdot f(OPT) + (k - 1) \cdot \frac{i - 1}{k} \cdot [(1 - \delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 2} - \delta] \cdot f(OPT)}{k}\\
}
\inConference{
\frac{\Phi(i) \cdot f(OPT)}{k} \\ & + \frac{(k - 1) \cdot \frac{i - 1}{k} \cdot \Phi(i - 1) \cdot f(OPT)}{k}\\
}
\geq{} &
\frac{i}{k} \cdot \inArxiv{[(1 - \delta)(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \delta]}\inConference{\Phi(i)} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
For $i = k$, we get:
\begin{align*}
\inConference{&}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_k)]
\geq\inArxiv{{} &}
\frac{k}{k} \cdot \inArxiv{[(1 - \delta)(1 - 1/k)^{k - 1} - \delta]}\inConference{\Phi(k)} \cdot f(OPT)\\
\geq{} &
[(1 - \delta)e^{-1} - \delta] \cdot f(OPT)
\geq
[e^{-1} - 2\delta] \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Choosing $\delta = \ee/2$, the above corollary yields the approximation ratio guaranteed by Theorem~\ref{th:cadinality_lazy}. Let us now analyze the number of value oracle queries made by Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple}.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:complexity_simple}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} uses $O(k^2 + n\delta^{-1} \ln (k/\delta)) = O(k^2 + n\ee^{-1} \ln (k/\ee))$ value oracle queries.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The main body of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} uses $O(k)$ value oracle queries per iteration. Hence, it uses $O(k^2)$ value oracle queries in total. The function {\FillM} uses $O(n)$ value oracle queries for every value $w$ takes. The lemma follows by observing that the total number of values $w$ can take is at most:
\[
\lceil \ln_{1 - \delta} (\delta / k) \rceil
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln (k / \delta)}{-\ln(1 - \delta)}
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln (k / \delta)}{\delta}
\enspace.
\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
The $O(k^2)$ term in the guarantee of Lemma~\ref{le:complexity_simple} stems from the fact that Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} scans $M$ at the end of each iteration for elements whose marginal contribution became too small. Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved} is a variant of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple} which attempts to reduce the number of times $M$ is scanned by first selecting a random element from $M$, and then scanning $M$ only if the selected random element happens to have a small marginal contribution.
\begin{algorithm*}[h!t]
\caption{\textsf{Random Lazy Greedy Improved}$(f, k, \delta)$} \label{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\tcp{Initialization}
Let $M, S_0 \gets \varnothing$.\\
Let $w, W \gets \max_{u \in \NN} f(u)$.\\
\BlankLine
\tcp{Main Loop}
Call \FillM($M$).\\
\For{$i$ = $1$ \KwTo $k$}
{
Uniformly pick a random element $u'_i$ from $M$.\\
\lIf{$u'_i$ is a dummy element or $f(u'_i \mid S) > (1 - \delta)w$}
{
$u_i \leftarrow u'_i$.
}
\Else
{
\ForEach{$u \in M$}
{
\lIf{$u$ is not a dummy element and $f(u \mid S) \leq w(1 - \delta)$}
{
Remove $u$ from $M$.
}
}
Call \FillM($M$), and let $\hat{M}$ be the set of elements added to $M$.\\
Uniformly pick a random element $u_i$ from $\hat{M}$.\\
}
Let $S_i \gets S_{i - 1} \cup \{u_i\}$.\\
}
\Return{$S_k$}.\\
\BlankLine
\Function{\FillM($M$)}
{
\For{($w = W$; $w > \delta W / k$; $w \leftarrow w(1 - \delta)$)}
{
\ForEach{$u \in \NN$}
{
\If{$f(u \mid S) > w(1 - \delta)$}
{
Add $u$ to $M$.\\
\lIf{$|M| = k$}{\Yield.}
}
}
}
\Do{forever}
{
Add $k - |M|$ dummy elements of $D \setminus M$ to $M$.\\
\Yield.\\
}
}
\end{algorithm*}
\begin{observation} \label{ob:at_most_1_over_k}
In every given iteration, Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved} adds every element to its solution with probability at most $1/k$.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
Fix an iteration $1 \leq i \leq k$, let $M'_i$ and $w'_i$ be the set $M$ at the moment the algorithm selects $u'_i$ and the value of $w$ at that moment. Finally, let $a_i$ be the number of dummy elements and elements with a marginal larger than $(1 - \delta)w_i$ in $M'_i$. The observation clearly holds for every element counted by $a_i$, since such an element cannot get into $\hat{M}$ on this iteration. For an element $u \in \NN$ which is not counted by $a_i$ to enter the solution in this iteration, two events have to happen. First, the algorithm should not select $u_i \gets u'_i$, which happens with probability $(k - a_i) / k$. Second, $u$ has to be selected from $\hat{M}$, which happens with probability at most: $1 / |\hat{M}| = (k - a_i)^{-1}$ (given that the first event happened).
\end{proof}
Using Observation~\ref{ob:at_most_1_over_k}, it is possible to apply to Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved} the same analysis used above to lower bound the approximation ratio of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedySimple}. For the analysis to work, we need to redefine some notation:
\begin{compactitem}
\item $M_i$ is a random set determined only by the random decisions of the algorithm before iteration $i$. Given these random decisions, $M_i$ is the set of elements that have a positive probability (in fact $1/k$) to become $u_i$.
\item $w_i$ is a random value determined only by the random decisions of the algorithm before iteration $i$. Given these random decisions, $w_i$ is the (unique) value that $w$ will take if {\FillM} is called during this iteration.
\end{compactitem}
\inArxiv{The following lemma completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:cadinality_lazy}.}
\inConference{Theorem~\ref{th:cadinality_lazy} now follows by the next lemma.}
\begin{lemma} \label{le:complexity_improved}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved} uses\inArxiv{, in expectation,} $O(k\sqrt{n\delta^{-1} \ln (k/\delta)} + n\delta^{-1} \ln (k/\delta))$ value oracle queries\inConference{, in expectation}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The function {\FillM} \inArxiv{uses}\inConference{makes use of} $O(n)$ value oracle queries for every value $w$ takes. Thus, it uses in total $O(n\delta^{-1} \ln (k/\delta))$ queries since the total number of values $w$ can take is at most:
\[
\lceil \ln_{1 - \delta} (\delta / k) \rceil
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln (k / \delta)}{-\ln(1 - \delta)}
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln (k / \delta)}{\delta}
\enspace.
\]
The rest of the proof bounds the expected number of value oracle queries made by the main part of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved}. For every $1 \leq i \leq k$, let $X_i$ be the (random) number of non-dummy elements in $M$ at the beginning of iteration $i$ whose marginal is $w(1 - \delta)$ or less (and thus, will force the algorithm to make value oracle queries if selected as $u'_i$). Clearly, the main part of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved} makes, in expectation, $O(k) \cdot \sum_{i = 1}^k \mathbb{E}[X_i/k] = O(1) \cdot \sum_{i = 1}^k \mathbb{E}[X_i]$ value oracle queries. On the other hand, the expected number of elements added to $M$ in iteration $i$ can be lower bounded by:
\[
\sum_{j = 0}^k \left[\Pr[X_i = j] \cdot \frac{j}{k} \cdot j \right]
=
\frac{\mathbb{E}[X_i^2]}{k}
\geq
\frac{(\mathbb{E}[X_i])^2}{k}
\enspace.
\]
Since the main part of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedyImproved} never removes dummy elements from $M$, {\FillM} might add to $M$ up to $2k$ dummy elements and up to $O(n\delta^{-1} \ln (k/\delta))$ other elements. Thus, the following must hold:
{
\inConference{\allowdisplaybreaks}
\begin{align*}
&
\sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{(\mathbb{E}[X_i])^2}{k} = O(n\delta^{-1} \ln (k/\delta)) \inConference{\\}
\Rightarrow\inConference{{} &}
\sum_{i = 1}^k \mathbb{E}[X_i] = O(k\sqrt{n\delta^{-1} \ln (k/\delta)})
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
}
\end{proof}
\subsection{#1}}
\inArxiv{\documentclass[11pt]{article}}
\inConference{
\documentclass[twoside,leqno,twocolumn]{article}
\usepackage{ltexpprt}
\let\algorithm\undefined
\let\endalgorithm\undefined
\newcommand{\qedhere}{}
}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\inArxiv{
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage[ruled,vlined,linesnumbered]{algorithm2e}
}
\inConference{
\usepackage[ruled,vlined,linesnumbered,norelsize]{algorithm2e}
}
\usepackage{paralist}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\begin{document}
\newcommand {\ignore} [1] {}
\inArxiv{
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}[section]
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{observation}[theorem]{Observation}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem{assumption}[theorem]{Assumption}
\newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}
\newtheorem{reduction}{Reduction}
}
\inConference{
\newtheorem{observation}{Observation}
}
\def \aa {\alpha}
\def \bb {\beta}
\def \gg {\gamma}
\def \ee {\varepsilon}
\def \el {\ell}
\def \ss {\sigma}
\def \dd {\delta}
\def \Om {\Omega}
\def \PP {{\cal P}}
\def \QQ {{\cal Q}}
\def \DD {{\cal D}}
\def \NN {{\cal N}}
\def \AA {{\cal A}}
\def \MM {{\cal M}}
\def \II {{\cal I}}
\def \TT {{\cal T}}
\newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
\newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
\newcommand{\MC}{{\texttt{Max Cut}}}
\newcommand{\MDC}{\texttt{Max DiCut}}
\newcommand{\MkC}{\texttt{Max $k$-Coverage}}
\newcommand{\GA}{\texttt{Generalized Assignment}}
\newcommand{\FL}{\texttt{Max Facility Location}}
\newcommand{\MB}{\texttt{Max Bisection}}
\newcommand{\RSet}{{\mathtt{R}}}
\newcommand{\opt}{{\mathtt{opt}}}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\title{Comparing Apples and Oranges:\\Query Tradeoff in Submodular Maximization}
\author{
Niv Buchbinder\thanks{Statistics and Operations Research Dept., Tel Aviv University, Israel. E-mail: \texttt{<EMAIL>}. Research supported by ISF grant 954/11 and BSF grant 2010426.}
\and
Moran Feldman\thanks{School of Computer and Communication Sciences, EPFL, Switzerland. E-mail: \texttt{<EMAIL>}. Research supported in part by ERC Starting Grant 335288-OptApprox.}
\and
Roy Schwartz\thanks{Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. E-mail: \texttt{<EMAIL>}.}
}
\inConference{\date{}}
\maketitle
\input{Abstract}
\inArxiv{
\thispagestyle{empty}
\newpage
\setcounter{page}{1}
}
\input{Introduction}
\input{Preliminaries}
\input{Matroid}
\input{RandomSample}
\input{LazyGreedy}
\input{Conclusion}
\apptocmd{\sloppy}{\hbadness 10000\relax}{}{}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\section{General Matroid Constraint} \label{sec:matroid}
In this section we describe algorithms for the problem $\max \{f(S) : S \in \II\}$, where $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$ is a non-negative monotone submodular function and $M = (\NN, \II)$ is a matroid. Throughout the section we use $k$ to denote the rank of $M$ and assume $f(u) \leq f(OPT)$ for every $u \in \NN$. The last assumption can be justified by observing that every element having $f(u) > f(OPT)$ must be a self-loop, and thus, all such elements can be removed from $\MM$ in linear time.
\subsection{Problem Specific Preliminaries}
Given a non-negative submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, its \emph{multilinear} extension is a function $F : [0, 1]^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$ defined by $F(x) = \mathbb{E}[f(\RSet(x))]$, where $\RSet(x)$ is a random set containing every element $u \in \NN$ with probability $x_u$, independently. We denote by $\partial_u F(x)$ the derivative of $F$ at point $x$ with respect to the coordinate corresponding to $u$. The multilinear extension has been extensively used for maximizing submodular functions subject to a matroid constrained, starting with the continuous greedy algorithm of Calinescu et al.~\cite{CCPV11}. All algorithms based on the multilinear extension approximate its value at various points using sampling. Unfortunately, this sampling is often responsible for the quite poor time complexity of these algorithms. For this reason, we use a more cautious approach to sampling in this work.
Let $b : \NN \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ be a non-negative function such that $\sum_{u \in S} b(u) \leq f(OPT)$ for every independent set $S \in \II$. Let $m_b$ be a number of samples which is sufficent to approximate $\partial_u F(x)$ up to a multiplicative error of $\delta$ and an additive error of $\delta \cdot b(u)$ with high probability\footnote{By ``high probability'' we mean that the complementary event occurs with a polynomially small probability in $n$.}, for every given choice of $u \in \NN$ and $x \in [0, 1]^\NN$. Badanidiyuru and Vondr\'{a}k~\cite{BV14} describe a version of the continuous greedy algorithm which, together with swap rounding~\cite{CVZ10}, provides an approximation ratio of $(1 - e^{-1} - \delta)$ using $O(m_b n\delta^{-2} \ln(\frac{n}{\delta}))$ value oracle queries and $O(n\delta^{-2} \ln(\frac{n}{\delta}) + k^2\delta^{-1})$ independence oracle queries. Badanidiyuru and Vondr\'{a}k~\cite{BV14} assume $b(u) = f(OPT) / k$ for every $u \in \NN$,\footnote{In fact, \cite{BV14} proves explicitly only this case, but the proof can be easily extended to every function $b$ obeying the condition defined above.} and bound $m_b$ using the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma~2.3 of \cite{BV14}]
Let $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_m$ be independent random variables such that for each $1 \leq i \leq m$, $X_i \in [0, 1]$. Let $X = \frac{1}{m} \cdot \sum_{i = 1}^m X_i$ and $\mu = E[X]$. Then
\begin{align*}
&
Pr[X > (1 + \alpha)\mu + \beta] \leq e^{-m\alpha\beta/3}
\enspace,\\
&
Pr[X < (1 - \alpha)\mu - \beta] \leq e^{-m\alpha\beta/2}
\enspace.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
The assumption $f(u) \leq f(OPT)$ for every $u \in \NN$ allowed \cite{BV14} to prove, using the above lemma, that $m_b$ can be set to $k \ln n / \delta^2$. Assume now $\sum_{u \in S} f(u) \leq c \cdot f(OPT)$ for every independent set $S$ and some value $c$, and let us define $b(u) = f(u) / c$. Clearly, $b$ obeys the required condition. Moreover, the above lemma can now be used to show that $m_b$ can be set to $c \ln n / \delta^2$. Thus, we get the following corollary.
\begin{corollary} \label{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee}
If $\max_{S \in \II} \sum_{u \in S} f(u) \leq c \cdot f(OPT)$ for some value $c$, then for every $\delta > 0$ there exists a $(1 - e^{-1} - \delta)$-approximation algorithm for $\max \{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$ using $O(cn\delta^{-4} \ln^2(\frac{n}{\delta}))$ value oracle queries and $O(n\delta^{-2} \ln(\frac{n}{\delta}) + k^2\delta^{-1})$ independence oracle queries.
\end{corollary}
Some of the algorithms we describe need access to a quick constant approximation of $f(OPT)$. The following lemma provides such an approximation.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:crude_approximation}
There exists a $(1/3)$-approximation algorithm for $\max \{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$ using $O(n \ln k)$ value and independence oracle queries.
\end{lemma}
The algorithm described by the above lemma is strongly based on the thresholding algorithm of~\cite{BV14}, and thus, we defer the proof of the lemma to Appendix~\ref{app:crude_approximation}.
\subsection{Intuition and Techniques} \label{sec:intuition}
Corollary~\ref{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee} tells us that there exists a fast algorithm for the problem $\{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$ when $\max_{S \in \II} \sum_{u \in S} f(u)$ is not much larger than $f(OPT)$. Thus, we need to show how to deal with the case of large $\max_{S \in \II} \sum_{u \in S} f(u)$. One interesting candidate algorithm for this case is the residual random greedy algorithm suggests by~\cite{BFNS14}. This algorithm works in $k$ iterations. In each iteration, given that $S$ is the current solution of the algorithm, it finds finds a set $S'$ maximizing $\{f(S') \mid S \cup S' \in \II\}$. Then, it selects a random element $u \in S'$, and adds it to its solution $S$.
Buchbinder et al.~\cite{BFNS14} only managed to show that their residual random greedy is a $1/4$-approximation algorithm. However, it is not difficult to check that this algorithm behaves much better as long as \inConference{the value }$\max_{S \cup S' \in \II} \sum_{u \in S'} f(u \mid S)$ is large. More specifically, the expected increase in the value of $S$ is large compared to the expected decrease in the value of the best independent set containing $S$. This suggests the following natural approach. Execute the residual random greedy as long as $\max_{S \cup S' \in \II} \sum_{u \in S'} f(u \mid S)$ is large. Once $\max_{S \cup S' \in \II} \sum_{u \in S'} f(u \mid S)$ becomes small, apply the measured continuous greedy of~\cite{BV14} to the residual problem.
For technical reasons, we also use the observation that the solution produced by the residual random greedy tends to be very small because the value of $S$ increases fast, in expectation. This observation allows us to ignore (``fail'') cases in which the goal of small $\max_{S \cup S' \in \II} \sum_{u \in S'} f(u \mid S)$ is not obtained quickly enough.
\subsection{Main Algorithm} \label{sec:main}
In this section we explain how to combine our variant of the residual random greedy and the measured continous greedy of~\cite{BV14} into an algorithm for $\max\{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$ having all the properties guaranteed by Theorem~\ref{th:general_matroid}. The following lemma states the properties of our variant of the residual continous greedy that we need. In Section~\ref{ssc:random_greedy}, we describe this variant (which appears as Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}) and prove Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}. In the following, we use $\MM / S$ to denote the matroid obtained from $\MM$ by contracting a set $S \subseteq \NN$.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:random_gredy_properties}
There exists an algorithm that given a non-negative monotone submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, a matroid $\MM = (\NN, \II)$ of rank $k$ and three parameters $\delta \in (0, 1)$, $B \geq 0$ and an integer $0 \leq I \leq k/2$, has the following properties.
\inArxiv{\begin{compactenum}[(i)]}
\inConference{\begin{compactenum}}
\item The algorithm uses $O(In \delta^{-1} \ln (k / \delta))$ independence oracle queries and $O(Ik + n \delta^{-1} \ln (k / \delta))$ value oracle queries.
\item The algorithm declares failure with probability at most $k(BI)^{-1}$.
\item If the algorithm does not fail, it outputs a set $S$ obeying: \label{item:if_succeed}
\begin{compactitem}
\item For every independent set $S'$ of\inConference{ the matroid} $\MM / S$, $\sum_{u \in S'} f(u \mid S) \leq (1 - \delta)^{-2}(3B + \delta) \cdot f(OPT)$.
\item Let $OPT'$ be an independent set of $\MM / S$ maximizing $f(OPT')$. Then, $\mathbb{E}[f(OPT')] \geq [1 - B^{-1}(2 + k/I)] \cdot f(OPT)$, where the expectation is conditioned on the event that the algorithm does not fail.
\end{compactitem}
\end{compactenum}
\end{lemma}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} is our final algorithm for $\max\{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$. The algorithm gets two parameters: $\ee > 0$ and $\lambda \in [1, k]$. The last parameter controls a tradeoff between the number of value and independence oracle queries used by the algorithm. In the rest of this section we show that Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} has all the properties required by Theorem~\ref{th:general_matroid}.
\begin{algorithm*}[th!]
\caption{Combined Algorithm($f, \MM, \ee, \lambda$)} \label{alg:Final}
Call the algorithm guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties} with the parameters $\delta = 1/2$, $B = 20k\lambda^{-1}\ee^{-1}$ and $I = \lceil \lambda / 3 \rceil)$. Let $S$ denote the output set.\\
\If{the algorithm of Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties} did not declare failure}
{
Call the continuous greedy algorithm guaranteed by Corollary~\ref{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee} on the matroid $\MM / S$ and the objective $f(\cdot \mid S)$ with the parameters $c = 240k\lambda^{-1}\ee^{-1} + 2$ and $\delta = \ee/4$. Let $S'$ denote the output set.\\
\Return{$S \cup S'$}. \\
}
\Else
{
\Return{$\varnothing$}.\\
}
\end{algorithm*}
\noindent \textbf{Remark}: For $k = 1$, the problem $\max\{f(S) \mid S \in \II\}$ can be solved optimally using $O(n)$ oracle queries. Thus, we assume throughout this section $k \geq 2$. Notice that this assumption implies $I \leq k/2$, as required by Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}. Additionally, Theorem~\ref{th:general_matroid} is void for $\ee \geq 1 - e^{-1}$, thus, we also assume $\ee \in (0, 1 - e^{-1})$.
We begin the analysis of Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} by bounding the number of oracle queries it uses.
\begin{observation}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} uses at most $O(k\lambda + kn\lambda^{-1}\ee^{-5} \ln^2(\frac{n}{\ee}))$ value oracle queries and $O(k^2\ee^{-1} + \lambda n\ee^{-2} \ln(\frac{n}{\ee}))$ independence oracle queries.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
The observation follows by adding up the guarantees on the number of oracle queries given by Corollary~\ref{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee} and Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}.
\end{proof}
Next, let us lower bound the approximation ratio of Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final}. Let $G$ be the event that the algorithm guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties} did not declare failure.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:if_not_failing}
Conditioned on $G$, Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} is $(1 - e^{-1} - \ee/2)$-competitive.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}, conditioned on $G$, there exists a random set $OPT'$ (depending on $S$ only) which is always independent in $\MM / S$ and obeys:
\begin{align*}
\inConference{&}
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT') \mid G]
\geq\inArxiv{{} &}
\left(1 - \frac{2 + k/I}{B} \right) \cdot f(OPT)\\
\geq{} &
\left(1 - \frac{2 + 3k\lambda^{-1}}{20k\lambda^{-1}\ee^{-1}} \right) \cdot f(OPT)
\geq
\left(1 - \frac{\ee}{4} \right) \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Moreover, Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties} also guarantees that for every independent set $S'$ of $\MM / S$:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{u \in S'} f(u \mid& S)
\leq
4(3B + 0.5) \cdot f(OPT)\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
(240k\lambda^{-1}\ee^{-1} + 2) \cdot f(OPT)
=
c \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Hence, by Corollary~\ref{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee}, given a set $S$, the expected quality of the set produced by the continuous greedy algorithm is at least:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S' \mid S)]
\geq{} &
\left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \frac{\ee}{4}\right) \cdot f(OPT' \mid S)\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \frac{\ee}{4}\right) \cdot f(OPT') - f(S)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Taking now the expectation over all the sets $S$, we get:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S \cup S'\inConference{&}) \mid G]
=\inArxiv{{} &}
\mathbb{E}[f(S' \mid S) \mid G] + \mathbb{E}[f(S) \mid G]\\
\geq{} &
\mathbb{E}\left[\left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \frac{\ee}{4}\right) \cdot f(OPT') - f(S) ~\middle|~ G\right] \inConference{\\ &}+ \mathbb{E}[f(S) \mid G]\\
={} &
\left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \frac{\ee}{4}\right) \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(OPT') \mid G]\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \frac{\ee}{2}\right) \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\inArxiv{Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} is a $(1 - e^{-1} - \ee)$-approximation algorithm.}
\inConference{Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} has an approximation ratio of at least $(1 - e^{-1} - \ee)$.}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ denote the output\inConference{ set} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final}. Lemma~\ref{le:if_not_failing} states that:
\[
\mathbb{E}[f(A) \mid G]
\geq
\left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \frac{\ee}{2}\right) \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\]
On the other hand, by Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}, it is possible to lower bound $\Pr[G]$ by:
\[
\Pr[G]
\geq
1 - \frac{k}{BI}
\geq
1 - \frac{k}{[20k\lambda^{-1}\ee^{-1}] \cdot [\lambda/3]}
\geq
1 - \frac{3\ee}{20}
\enspace.
\]
The corollary now follows by observing that:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(A)]
\geq{} &
\Pr[G] \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(A) \mid G] \inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\left(1 - \frac{3\ee}{20} \right) \cdot \left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \frac{\ee}{2}\right) \cdot f(OPT)\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\left(1 - \frac{1}{e} - \ee\right) \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The above corollary completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:general_matroid}.
\subsection{A variant of the residual random greedy algorithm} \label{ssc:random_greedy}
In this section we describe an algorithm proving Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}. The algorithm we describe is related to the residual random greedy algorithm of~\cite{BFNS14}, with two main modifications. First, the algorithm is sped up using ideas from~\cite{BV14}. Second, the algorithm stops when the total marginal value of all the elements in every independent set becomes small enough. Recall that the last property implies that the measured continuous greedy of~\cite{BV14} can be used efficiently to complete the solution.
The description of our algorithm (give as Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}) assumes $\NN$ contains a known set $D$ of $k$ dummy elements having the following properties:
\begin{compactitem}
\item $f(S) = f(S \setminus D)$ for every set $S \subseteq \NN$.
\item A set $S \subseteq \NN$ is independent if and only if $S \setminus D$ is independent and $|S| \leq k$.
\end{compactitem}
This assumption can be guaranteed \inConference{to hold }by artificially adding such a set $D$ to the ground set, modifying the value and independence oracles accordingly and removing the elements of $D$ from the \inConference{end }solution\inArxiv{ produced by the algorithm}.
Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} performs up to $I$ iterations. In each iteration, the algorithm finds an (almost) maximum weight independent set $M$ in the residual matroid (\ie, the matroid resulting from $\MM$ by contracting the current solution $S$), where the weight of an element is defined as its marginal contribution to $S$. If $M$ has a high enough weight, then a random element from it is added to the current solution $S$ and the algorithm continues to the next iteration. Otherwise, the algorithm terminates.
In order to find $M$ using few value oracle queries, the algorithm maintains a global variable $w_u$ for every element $u \in \NN$. The variable $w_u$ is always an upper bound on $f(u \mid S)$.
\SetKwFunction{LinearGreedy}{LinearGreedy}
\SetKwProg{Function}{Function}{}{}
\begin{algorithm*}[ht]
\caption{\textsf{Random Lazy Greedy}$(f, \MM, \delta, B, I)$} \label{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\tcp{Initialization}
Use the algorithm guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{le:crude_approximation} to calculate a value $\opt$ obeying: $f(OPT) \leq \opt \leq 3 \cdot f(OPT)$.\\
Let $S_0 \leftarrow \varnothing$.\\
Let $W \leftarrow \max_{u \in \NN} f(u)$.\\
\lForEach{$u \in \NN$}
{
Let $w_u \leftarrow W$.
}
\BlankLine
\tcp{Main Loop}
\For{$i$ = $1$ \KwTo $I$}
{
Let $M_i \leftarrow \LinearGreedy()$.\\
\If{$(1 - \delta) \cdot \sum_{u \in M_i} w_u \geq B \cdot \opt$}
{
Add to $M_i$ enough dummy elements to make $S_{i - 1} \cup M_i$ a base.\\
Let $u_i$ be a uniformly random element of $M_i$.\\
Let $S_i \gets S_{i - 1} \cup \{u_i\}$.\\
}
\lElse
{
\Return{$S_{i - 1}$}.
}
}
Declare failure. \\
\BlankLine
\Function{$\LinearGreedy()$}
{
Let $M \leftarrow \varnothing$.\\
\For{$(w \leftarrow W; w > \delta W / k; w \leftarrow w(1 - \delta))$}
{
\ForEach{$u \in \NN$}
{
\If{$w_u = w$ and $S_{i - 1} \cup M \cup \{u\} \in \II$ \label{ln:condition_to_M}}
{
\lIf{$f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) \leq (1 - \delta) w_u$}
{
Update $w_u \leftarrow w_u(1 - \delta)$.
}
\lElse
{
Add $u$ to $M$.
}
}
}
}
\Return{$M$}.\\
}
\end{algorithm*}
We begin the analysis of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} by showing it has the complexity required by Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}.
\begin{observation} \label{ob:random_greedy_complexity}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} makes $O(In \delta^{-1} \ln (k / \delta))$ independence oracle queries and $O(Ik + n \delta^{-1} \ln (k / \delta))$ value oracle queries.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
The algorithm guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{le:crude_approximation} uses only $O(n \ln k)$ oracle queries, which is upper bounded by both guarantees of this observation, and thus, can be ignored. The first part of the observation now follows by multiplying the following values:
\begin{itemize}
\item Every iteration of the internal loop of \inConference{the algorithm }{\LinearGreedy} uses a single independence oracle query, and this loop repeats $n$ times.
\item The number of iterations performed by the external loop of {\LinearGreedy} is:
\[
\lceil \ln_{1 - \delta} (\delta / k) \rceil
\leq
1 - \frac{\ln (k / \delta)}{\ln(1 - \delta)}
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln (k / \delta)}{\delta}
\enspace.
\]
\item The main loop of \inArxiv{the algorithm}\inConference{Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}} repeats \inArxiv{at most}\inConference{up to} $I$ times.
\end{itemize}
The second part of the observation holds since every time a value oracle query is made by Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}, one of two things must happen: either an element is added to $M$ or $w_u$ is decreased for some element $u \in \NN$. Observe that at most $Ik$ elements can be added to $M$, and the number of times $w_u$ can be decreased for every element $u \in \NN$ is at most:
\[
\lceil \ln_{1 - \delta} (\delta / k) \rceil
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln (k / \delta)}{\delta}
\enspace.
\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
To prove the \inArxiv{other}\inConference{rest of the} properties guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}, we first need some notation. Let $i_\ell$ be the (random) largest index for which $S_{i_\ell}$ is defined by the algorithm. For ease of notation, we define for every $0 \leq i \leq I$ the value $r(i) = \min\{i, i_\ell\}$. Notice that $S_{r(i)}$ is always defined, even when $S_i$ is not assigned in a given execution of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}. The following lemma lower bounds the expected value of $S_{r(i)}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:lower_bound_using_B}
For every $0 \leq i \leq I$, $\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i)})] \geq B \cdot (\mathbb{E}[r(i)] / k) \cdot f(OPT)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma by induction on $i$. For $i = 0$:
\inArxiv{\[}\inConference{$}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(0)})]
\geq
0
=
\mathbb{E}[r(0)]
\inArxiv{ \enspace. \]}\inConference{$.}
Next, assume the claim is true for $i - 1 \geq 0$, and let us prove it for $i$. Fix an event $A_i$ specifying the random decisions made by Algorithms~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} before iteration $i$. All the probabilities and expectations from this point till we unfix $A_i$ are implicitly conditioned on $A_i$. Notice that once $A_i$ is fixed the sets $S_{i - 1}$ and $M_i$ become deterministic and so is the question whether $i \leq i_\ell$. Based on the last question, we have two cases. If $i \leq i_\ell$, then the definition of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} guarantees $\sum_{u \in M_i} f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) \geq (1 - \delta) \cdot \sum_{u \in M_i} w_u \geq B \cdot \opt \geq B \cdot f(OPT)$. Since $u_i$ is a random element from $M_i$,\inArxiv{ we get:}
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i)})\inConference{&}]
=\inArxiv{{} &}
f(S_{r(i - 1)}) + \mathbb{E}[f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1})]\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
f(S_{r(i - 1)}) + \frac{\sum_{u \in M_i} f(u \mid S_{i - 1})}{|M_i|}\\
\geq{} &
f(S_{r(i - 1)}) + \frac{B \cdot f(OPT)}{k}\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
f(S_{r(i - 1)}) + \frac{B \cdot [r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Consider now the case $r(i) < i$. In this case,
\begin{align*}
\inConference{&}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i)})]
=\inArxiv{{} &}
f(S_{r(i - 1)})\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
f(S_{r(i - 1)}) + \frac{B \cdot [r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
In conclusion, \inArxiv{the inequality}\inConference{we have} $\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i)})] \geq f(S_{r(i - 1)}) + Bk^{-1} \cdot [r(i) - r(i - 1)] \cdot f(OPT)$ \inArxiv{holds }in both cases. Moreover, since this inequality holds conditioned on every given event $A_i$, it holds also unconditionally. Therefore, unfixing the event $A_i$, we get:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i)})]
={} &
\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i - 1)})] \inConference{\\ &} + \frac{B \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)\\
\geq{} &
\frac{B \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT) \inConference{\\ &} + \frac{B \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT) \inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
\frac{B \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The above lemma implies the following very useful corollary.
\begin{corollary} \label{co:r_bound}
For every $0 \leq i \leq I$, $\mathbb{E}[r(i)] \leq k/B$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Notice that $S_{r(i)}$ is always a feasible solution. Thus, $\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i)})] \leq f(OPT)$. Using the lower bound on $\mathbb{E}[f(S_{r(i)})]$ given by Lemma~\ref{le:lower_bound_using_B}, we get:
\[
\frac{\mathbb{E}[r(i)] \cdot B}{k} \cdot f(OPT) \leq f(OPT)
\Rightarrow
\mathbb{E}[r(i)] \leq \frac{k}{B}
\enspace.
\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove the upper bound on the failure probability of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} given by Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}. Let $G$ denote the event that Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} succeeds (\ie, it does not declare failure).
\begin{observation} \label{ob:fail_probability}
$\Pr[\bar{G}] \leq k(BI)^{-1}$.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
Notice that Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} fails exactly when $i_\ell = I$. Hence, by Markov's inequality:
\[
\Pr[\bar{G}]
=
\Pr[i_\ell = I]
=
\Pr[r(I) = I]
\leq
\frac{\mathbb{E}[r(I)]}{I}
\leq
\frac{k}{BI}
\enspace.
\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
Our final objective in this section is to prove Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} obeys item~\eqref{item:if_succeed} of Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}. The following lemma proves the first part of this item.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:no_too_good_set}
Conditioned on $G$, every independent set $S' \subseteq \NN \setminus S_{r(I)}$ of the matroid $\MM / S_{r(I)}$ must have: $\sum_{u \in S'} f(u \mid S_{r(I)}) \leq (1 - \delta)^{-2}(3B + \delta) \cdot f(OPT)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In this proof, given two sets $A, B \subseteq \NN$, we use the notation $f(A : B) = \sum_{u \in A} f(u \mid B)$ to the denote the total marginal contribution to $B$ of $A$'s elements. Since we are conditioned on $G$, Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} stopped at some iteration $i = r(I) + 1$ after observing $(1 - \delta) \cdot f(M_i : S_{i - 1}) < B \cdot \opt \leq 3B \cdot f(OPT)$. Let $OPT'$ be the set maximizing $f(\cdot : S_{i - 1})$ among the independent subsets of $\MM / S_{i - 1}$. To complete the proof, it is enough to show that $f(M_i : S_{i - 1}) \geq (1 - \delta) \cdot f(OPT' : S_{i - 1}) - \delta \cdot f(OPT)$.
The function {\LinearGreedy} constructs $M_i$ element by element. For every $1 \leq j \leq |M_i|$, let $M_{i, j}$ be the set $M_i$ after $j$ elements are added to it. For consistency, we also define $M_{i, 0} = \varnothing$. Let $OPT'_j$ be a base maximizing $f(\cdot : S_{i - 1})$ among the bases of $\MM / S_{i - 1}$ containing $M_{i, j}$. Clearly, $f(OPT' : S_{i - 1}) = f(OPT'_0 : S_{i - 1})$.
Fix an arbitrary $1 \leq j \leq |M_i|$, and let $v_j = M_{i,j} \setminus M_{i, j - 1}$ be the $j^{th}$ element added to $M_i$. If $v_j \in OPT'_{j - 1}$ then we define $v'_j = v_j$. Otherwise, let $v'_j$ be an arbitrary element of $\NN \setminus M_{i, j}$ belonging to the (single) cycle of $OPT'_{j - 1} \cup \{v_j\}$. Notice that $(OPT'_j \setminus \{v'_j\}) \cup \{v_j\}$ is always a base of $\MM / S_{i - 1}$ containing $M_{i, j}$, and thus, $f(OPT'_j : S_{i - 1}) \geq f(OPT'_{j - 1} \setminus \{v'_j\} \cup \{v_j\} : S_{i - 1})$. Since $M_{i, j - 1} \cup \{v'_j\}$ is independent in $\MM / S_{i - 1}$, at the time point when the algorithm added $v_j$ to $M_i$, the following held:
\begin{align*}
f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1})
\geq{} &
w_{v_j}(1 - \delta)
=
w(1 - \delta)\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
w_{v'_j}(1 - \delta)
\geq
f(v'_j \mid S_{i - 1}) \cdot (1 - \delta)
\enspace,
\end{align*}
which implies:
\begin{align*}
f(OPT'_j : S_{i - 1})&
\geq
f(OPT'_{j - 1} \setminus \{v'_j\} \cup \{v_j\} : S_{i - 1})\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
f(OPT'_{j - 1} : S_{i - 1}) - \delta \cdot f(v'_j \mid S_{i - 1})
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Adding up the above inequality for every $1 \leq j \leq |M_i|$ results in:
\begin{align*}
f(OPT'_{|M_i|} : S_{i - 1})\inConference{&\\}
\geq{} &
f(OPT'_0 : S_{i - 1}) - \delta \cdot \sum_{j = 1}^{|M_i|} f(v'_j \mid S_{i - 1})\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
(1 - \delta) \cdot f(OPT' : S_{i - 1})
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Finally, every element of $u \in OPT'_{|M_i|} \setminus M_i$, must have $f(u \mid S) \leq \delta W / k \leq \delta \cdot f(OPT) / k$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
f(OPT'_{|M_i|} \inConference{&} : S_{i - 1}) \inConference{\\}
\leq{} &
f(M_i : S_{i - 1}) + |OPT'_{|M_i|} \setminus M_i| \cdot \frac{\delta}{k} \cdot f(OPT)\\
\leq{} &
f(M_i : S_{i - 1}) + \delta \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
To prove the second part of item~\eqref{item:if_succeed} of Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}, we need the following lemma from~\cite{B69}, which can be found (with a different notation) as Corollary~39.12a in~\cite{S03}.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:perfect_matching_two_bases}
If $A$ and $B$ are two bases of a matroid $\MM = (\NN, \II)$, then there exists a bijection $\phi : A \setminus B \rightarrow B \setminus A$ such for every $u \in B \setminus A$, $A \cup \{u\} \setminus \{\phi(u)\} \in \II$.
\end{lemma}
Using the above lemma we can now define for every $0 \leq i \leq I$, a random variable $OPT_i$ via the following recursive definition.
\begin{compactitem}
\item $OPT_0$ is an arbitrary base of $\MM$ obtained from $OPT$ by adding enough dummy elements.
\item For $i > 0$, $OPT_i$ depends on $i_\ell$. If $i > i_\ell$, then $OPT_i$ is an undefined set (its value is never used in the proofs below). Otherwise, if $i \leq i_\ell$, then let $\phi : M_i \rightarrow OPT_{i - 1}$ be a one to one function having the following properties:
\begin{compactitem}
\item For every $u \in M_i$, $S_{i - 1} \cup (OPT_{i - 1} \setminus \{\phi(u)\}) \cup \{u\} \in \II$.
\item For every $u \in OPT_{i - 1} \cap M_i$, $\phi(u) = u$.
\end{compactitem}
Then, $OPT_i = OPT_{i - 1} \setminus \{\phi(u_i)\}$.
\end{compactitem}
The existence of a function $\phi$ having the properties given in the above definition follow from Lemma~\ref{le:perfect_matching_two_bases} since both $OPT_{i - 1} \cup S_{i - 1}$ and $M_i \cup S_{i - 1}$ are bases of $\MM$ (the fact that $OPT_{i - 1} \cup S_{i - 1}$ is a base can be easily verified by induction). When there are multiple possible choices for $\phi$, we assume one is picked based on the contents of the sets $OPT_{i - 1}$ and $S_{i - 1}$ alone.
The following lemma and corollary \inArxiv{show}\inConference{imply} that $OPT_{r(I)}$ is a random set having the properties required by the second part of item~\eqref{item:if_succeed} of Lemma~\ref{le:random_gredy_properties}.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:opt_i_bound}
For every $0 \leq i \leq I$, $\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)})] \geq f(OPT) - 2 \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i)] \cdot f(OPT) / k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma by induction on $i$. For $i = 0$:
\[
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)})]
=
f(OPT_0)
=
f(OPT) - \frac{2 \cdot 0}{k} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\]
Next, assume the claim holds for $i - 1 \geq 0$, and let us prove it for $i$. Like in the proof of Lemma~\ref{le:lower_bound_using_B}, we fix an event $A_i$ specifying the random decisions made by Algorithms~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} before iteration $i$. All the probabilities and expectations from this point till we unfix $A_i$ are implicitly conditioned on $A_i$. Notice that once $A_i$ is fixed the sets $S_{i - 1}$, $M_i$ and $OPT_{i - 1}$ become deterministic and so is the question whether $i \leq i_\ell$. Based on the last question, we have two cases. If $i \leq i_\ell$, then every element of $OPT_{r(i) - 1}$ belongs to $OPT_{r(i)}$ with probability $1 - 1 / |OPT_{r(i) - 1}| = 1 - (k - r(i) + 1)^{-1}$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{le:distribution_reverse},
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(OP\inConference{&}T_r(i))]
\geq\inArxiv{{} &}
\left(1 - \frac{1}{k - r(i) + 1}\right) \cdot f(OPT_{r(i - 1)})\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{&}
\left(1 - \frac{2}{k}\right) \cdot f(OPT_{r(i - 1)})\\
\geq{} &
f(OPT_{r(i - 1)}) - \frac{2}{k} \cdot f(OPT)\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{&}
f(OPT_{r(i - 1)}) - \frac{2[r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace,
\end{align*}
where the second inequality holds since $r(i) \leq i \leq I \leq k/2$ and the third inequality holds since $OPT_{r(i - 1)} \subseteq OPT_0$. Consider now the case $i > i_\ell$. In this case:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(OP\inConference{&}T_{r(i)})]
=
f(OPT_{r(i - 1)})\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{&}
f(OPT_{r(i - 1)}) - \frac{2[r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
In conclusion, \inArxiv{the inequality }$\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)})] \geq f(OPT_{r(i - 1)}) - 2k^{-1}[r(i) - r(i - 1)] \cdot f(OPT)$ holds in both cases. Moreover, since this inequality holds conditioned on every given event $A_i$, it holds also unconditionally. Therefore, unfixing the event $A_i$, we get:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(\inConference{&}OPT_{r(i)})]\inConference{\\}
\geq{} &
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i - 1)})] - \frac{2 \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)\\
\geq{} &
f(OPT) - \frac{2 \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT) \inConference{\\ &}- \frac{2 \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i) - r(i - 1)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)\\
={} &
f(OPT) - \frac{2 \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
For every $0 \leq i \leq I$, $\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)}) \mid G] \geq [1 - B^{-1}(2 + k/I)] \cdot f(OPT)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By the law of total expectation:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(OP\inConference{&}T_{r(i)}) \mid G]
\geq
\Pr[G] \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)}) \mid G]\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)})] - \Pr[\bar{G}] \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)}) \mid \bar{G}]
\enspace.
\end{align*}
The term $\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)}) \mid \bar{G}]$ can be upper bounded by $f(OPT)$ because $OPT_{r(i)}$ is always a subset of $OPT$ (possibly, plus dummy elements). Combining this observation with Observation~\ref{ob:fail_probability} and Lemma~\ref{le:opt_i_bound} gives:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT_{r(i)}) \mid G]
\geq{} &
\left[f(OPT) - \frac{2 \cdot \mathbb{E}[r(i)]}{k} \cdot f(OPT) \right] \inConference{\\ &}- \frac{k}{BI} \cdot f(OPT)\\
\geq{} &
\left[1 - \frac{2 + k/I}{B}\right] \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace,
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from Corollary~\ref{co:r_bound}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Generalized Partition Matroids}
In this section we prove Theorem~\ref{th:partition_matroid}, which states that for generalized partition matroids it is possible to improve over the result given by Theorem~\ref{th:general_matroid} for general matroids. In this context, there is no longer an independence oracle, thus, we are only interested in the number of value oracle queries used by our algorithm (and guaranteeing that the time complexity is bounded by the same expression). Throughout this section, $\MM$ is a generalized partition matroid and $h \leq k$ is the number of partitions in $\MM$. We denote by $\NN_j \subseteq \NN$, the set of elements in the $j^{th}$ partition of $\MM$ and by $k_j$ the maximum number of elements that can be taken from this partition (\ie, $\sum_{j = 1}^h k_j = k$ and a set $S \subseteq \NN$ is independent if and only if $|S \cap \NN_j| \leq k_j$ for every $1 \leq j \leq h$).
Swap rounding is an algorithm suggested by~\cite{CVZ10} for rounding fractional points in the matroid polytope $\PP(\MM)$ into an (integral) independent set. Badanidiyuru and Jondr\'{a}k~\cite{BV14} observed that swap rounding has a time complexity of $O(bk^2)$ when the fractional point is a convex combination of $b$ independent sets. The following observation states that this bound can be improved for generalized partition matroids.
\begin{observation} \label{ob:pipage_time}
Given a generalized partition matroid and a fractional point $x \in \PP(\MM)$ which is a convex combination of $b$ independent sets, swap rounding can be used to round $x$ using $O(bk)$ time and no value oracle queries.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
It is possible to represent independent sets $S \in \II$ in such a way that given an index $1 \leq j \leq h$ one can find an element $u \in S \cap \NN_j$ in $O(1)$ time (if such an element exists). The pseudo-code of swap rounding given by~\cite{CVZ10} requires only $O(bk)$ time when the sets composing the fractional point are given in a representation having the above property. Moreover, the standard representation of an independent set as a list of items can be converted into a representation having the above property in $O(k)$ time, hence, all $b$ sets can be converted into such a representation in $O(bk)$ time.
\end{proof}
Plugging the above improved time complexity into the result of \cite{BV14} yields the following improved version of Corollary~\ref{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee}.
\begin{corollary} \label{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee_partition}
If $\max_{S \in \II} \sum_{u \in S} f(u) \leq c \cdot f(OPT)$ for some value $c$, then for every $\delta > 0$ there exists a $(1 - e^{-1} - \delta)$-approximation algorithm for maximizing $f$ subject to a generalized partition matroid $\MM$ using $O(cn\delta^{-4} \ln^2(\frac{n}{\delta}))$ value oracle queries and a time complexity bounded by the same expression.
\end{corollary}
To get an improved result for generalized partition matroids, we also need to improve the implementation of the function {\LinearGreedy} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}. We observe that for such matroids one can handle each partition separately in the function {\LinearGreedy}. The separation allows us to remove the element-wise check whether a given element can be added to the current solution, and replace it with a partition-wise check whether the current solution already has the maximum allowed number of partition elements. Additionally, we replace the element specific variables $w_u$ with sets $T_{j, w}$ containing all the elements $u \in \NN_j$ that logically have $w_u = w$. This change allows us to avoid scanning all the elements of $\NN_j$ in order to find the elements $u \in \NN_j$ having $w_u = w$. Finally, for further acceleration, we introduce for each partition a list $\TT_j$ of the non-empty sets $T_{j, w}$.
The improved implementation of {\LinearGreedy} is given as Algorithm~\ref{alg:new_implementation_greedy_linear}. The initialization part should be executed once before the first call to {\LinearGreedy}.
\SetKwFunction{PartitionGreedy}{PartitionGreedy}
\begin{algorithm*}[h!t]
\caption{\textsf{New Implementation of \FuncSty{LinearGreedy}}} \label{alg:new_implementation_greedy_linear}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\tcp{Initialization}
\For{$j$ = $1$ to $k$}
{
\lFor{$(w \leftarrow W; w > \delta W / k; w \leftarrow w(1 - \delta))$}{$T_{j, w} \gets \varnothing$.}
\lForEach{$u \in \NN_j$}{Add $u$ to $T_{j, W}$.}
Let $\TT_j \gets \{T_{j, W}\}$.
}
\BlankLine
\Function{$\LinearGreedy()$}
{
Let $M \leftarrow \varnothing$.\\
\lFor{$j$ = $1$ to $h$}{Update $M \gets M \cup \PartitionGreedy(j)$}
\Return{$M$}.\\
}
\Function{$\PartitionGreedy(j)$}
{
Let $M_j \leftarrow \varnothing$.\\
\ForEach{$T_{j, w} \in \TT_j$ in decreasing weight order}
{
\ForEach{$u \in T_{j, w}$ \label{line:internal_loop}}
{
\lIf{$|M_j| = k_j$}{\Return{$M_j$}.}
\If{$f(u \mid S_{i - 1}) \leq w(1 - \delta)$}
{
Remove $u$ from $T_{j, w}$ and add it to $T_{j, w(1 - \delta)}$ (if such a set exists).\\
Update $\TT_j$ by removing $T_{j, w}$ if it became empty and adding $T_{j, w(1 - \delta)}$ if it was empty before.\\
}
\lElse
{
Add $u$ to $M_j$.
}
}
}
\Return{$M_j$}.\\
}
\end{algorithm*}
\begin{observation} \label{ob:random_greedy_complexity_partition}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} with the new implementation of {\LinearGreedy} given by Algorithm~\ref{alg:new_implementation_greedy_linear} uses $O(Ik + n\delta^{-1} \ln (k / \delta))$ value oracle queries, and has a time complexity bounded by the same expression.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
Aside from the $n$ value oracle queries used to calculate $W$ and the $O(n \ln k)$ oracle queries used by the algorithm guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{le:crude_approximation}, every access to $f$ is followed by one of two events: either an element is added to $M$ or the ``logical'' $w_u$ of an element $u$ is reduced. The total number of elements that can be added to $M$ is $Ik$, and the total number of values a single ``logical'' $w_u$ can have is
\[
\lceil \ln_{1 - \delta} (\delta / k) \rceil
\leq
1 - \frac{\ln \left(\frac{k}{\delta} \right)}{\ln(1 - \delta)}
\leq
1 + \frac{\ln \left(\frac{k}{\delta} \right)}{\delta}
\enspace.
\]
This completes the proof of the first part of the observation.
Regarding the time complexity, notice that the main part of Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1} uses $O(n + Ik)$ time (excluding the calls to {\LinearGreedy}) and the initialization step introduced in Algorithm~\ref{alg:new_implementation_greedy_linear} uses $O(n + k \ln_{1 - \delta} (\delta / k)) = O(n\delta^{-1} \ln(k / \delta))$ time. Thus, we only need to bound the time complexity of the new implementation of {\LinearGreedy}.
Each iteration of the loop starting on Line~\ref{line:internal_loop} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:new_implementation_greedy_linear} takes $O(1)$ time (notice that $\TT_j$ can be updated in $O(1)$ time if $\TT_j$ is represented as a double linked list). Moreover, this loop always make at least one iteration, and each iteration (except for maybe one per execution of {\PartitionGreedy}) access $f$. Hence, we can bound the time required for {\LinearGreedy} by $O(h) = O(k)$ plus the number of value oracle queries it uses. The observation now follows since {\LinearGreedy} is called only $I$ times by Algorithm~\ref{alg:RandomLazyGreedy1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:Final} with the new implementation of {\LinearGreedy} given by Algorithm~\ref{alg:new_implementation_greedy_linear} makes at most $O(k\lambda + kn\lambda^{-1}\ee^{-5} \ln^2(\frac{n}{\ee}))$ value oracle queries.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The observation follows by adding up the guarantees on the number of value oracle queries given by Corollary~\ref{co:continuous_greedy_guarantee_partition} and Observation~\ref{ob:random_greedy_complexity_partition}.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{th:partition_matroid} now follows immediately by the following choice of $\lambda$:\footnote{For $n \leq 2$ this choice might not be in the valid range $[1, k]$, however, for a constant $n$ the problem can be optimally solved using a constant number of value oracle queries.}
\[
\lambda =
\begin{cases}
k & \text{if $k \leq \sqrt{n\ee^{-5}} \ln(\frac{n}{\ee})$} \enspace,\\
\sqrt{n\ee^{-5}} \ln(\frac{n}{\ee}) & \text{otherwise} \enspace.
\end{cases}
\]
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:preliminaries}
Given a non-negative submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, a set $S \subseteq \NN$ and an element $u \in \NN$, we denote by $f(u \mid S) = f(S \cup \{u\}) - f(S)$ the marginal contribution of $u$ to $S$. The following similar lemmata of~\cite{FMV11} and~\cite{BFNS14} are used in many of our proofs.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma~2.2 of~\cite{FMV11}] \label{le:distribution_reverse}
Let $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}$ be submodular. Denote by $A(p)$ a random subset of $A$ where each element appears with probability $p$ (not necessarily independently). Then, $\mathbb{E}[f(A(p))] \geq (1 - p) f(\varnothing) + p \cdot f(A)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Lemma~2.2 of~\cite{BFNS14}] \label{le:distribution}
Let $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be non-negative and submodular. Denote by $A(p)$ a random subset of $A$ where each element appears with probability at most $p$ (not necessarily independently). Then, $E[f(A(p))] \geq (1 - p) f(\varnothing)$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Random Sampling Algorithms} \label{sec:random_sampling}
In this section we consider an algorithm for the problem $\max \{f(S) : |S| \leq k\}$ based on random sampling. The algorithm has $k$ iterations and two parameters $p \in (0, 1]$ and $1 \leq s \leq \lceil pn \rceil$. In each iteration the algorithm picks a uniformly random sample $M$ of the ground set containing $\lceil pn \rceil$ elements of $\NN$. The elements of $M$ are then assumed to be ordered according to their marginal contribution to the current solution, and a random element out of the top $s$ elements of $M$ is added to the solution. If $s$ is not integral, then each one of the top $\lfloor s \rfloor$ elements of $M$ is added with probability $1/s$ and the $\lceil s \rceil$ element is added with the remaining probability. A formal description of the algorithm is given as Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy}. It is important to observe that the sample $M$ can contain elements that already belong to the solution.
\begin{algorithm*}[h!t]
\caption{\textsf{Random Sampling Algorithm}$(f, k, p, s)$} \label{alg:PartialGreedy}
\DontPrintSemicolon
Initialize: $S_0 \leftarrow \varnothing$.\\
\For{$i$ = $1$ \KwTo $k$}
{
Let $M_i$ be a uniformly random set containing $\lceil pn \rceil$ elements of $\NN$.\\
Let $d_i$ be a uniformly random value from the range $(0, s]$.\\
Let $u_i$ be the element of $M_i$ with the $\lceil d_i \rceil$-th largest marginal contribution to $S_{i - 1}$.\\
\lIf{$f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1}) \geq 0$ \label{ln:avoid_negative}}
{
$S_i \leftarrow S_{i - 1} \cup \{u_i\}$.
}
}
\Return{$S_k$}.
\end{algorithm*}
\begin{observation} \label{ob:genral_complexity}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} uses $O(k + nkp)$ value oracle queries.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} performs $k$ iterations. Each iteration of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} requires $O(|M_i|) = O(1 + pn)$ value oracle queries.
\end{proof}
By setting the parameters of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} to $s = 1$ and $p = \ln \ee^{-1} / k$, we get a folklore algorithm satisfying the properties guaranteed by Theorem~\ref{th:monotone_cardinality} for $\ee \in (e^{-k}, 1 - e^{-1})$ (for $\ee \in (0, e^{-k}]$ the standard greedy algorithm of~\cite{NWF78} fulfills the requirements of the theorem, and for $\ee \geq 1 - e^{-1}$ the theorem is void). For completeness, we prove this folklore result in Appendix~\ref{app:monotone_cardinality}.
In the rest of this section, we use Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} to prove the following theorem. Theorem~\ref{th:non_monotone_cardinality} follows by combining this theorem with the result proved in Section~\ref{sec:lazy_greedy}.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:cardinality_random_nonmonotone}
There exists an algorithm that given a general non-negative submodular function $f : 2^\NN \to \mathbb{R}^+$, and parameters $k\geq 1$ and $\ee >0$,
finds a solution $ S\subseteq \NN$ of size $|S|\leq k$ where: $f(S) \geq \left(\nicefrac[]{1}{e}-\ee\right)\cdot\max \left\{ f(T) : T \subseteq \NN, |T|\leq k\right\}$ and the algorithm performs $O(n \ee^{-2} \ln \ee^{-1})$ value oracle queries.
\end{theorem}
Let $\delta$ be the (single) $\delta > 0$ for which $8 \delta^{-2} \cdot \ln (2\delta^{-1})) = k$. If $\ee \leq \delta$, then the random greedy algorithm of~\cite{BFNS14} can be used to get $(e^{-1})$-approximation using $O(nk) = O(n \delta^{-2} \ln \delta^{-1}) = O(n \ee^{-2} \ln \ee^{-1})$ value oracle queries. On the other hand, if $\ee \geq e^{-1}$, then Theorem~\ref{th:cardinality_random_nonmonotone} is void. Thus, the interesting case, which we assume from now on, is $\ee \in (\delta, e^{-1})$. We set the parameters of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} as follows: $s = k \lceil pn \rceil / n$ and $p = 8k^{-1}\ee^{-2} \cdot \ln (2\ee^{-1})$. Notice that $p \in (0, 1]$ since $\ee \geq \delta$ and $1 \leq s \leq \lceil pn \rceil$ since $\ee \leq e^{-1}$. Plugging our chosen value of $p$ into Observation~\ref{ob:genral_complexity} yields the time complexity given in Theorem~\ref{th:cardinality_random_nonmonotone}.
Let $A_i$ be an event determining all the random decisions of the algorithm up to iteration $i$ (excluding). In the first part of the proof, we fix an iteration $1 \leq i\leq k$ and an event $A_i$. All the probabilities and expectations in this part of the proof are implicitly conditioned in $A_i$. Notice that $S_{i - 1}$ is a deterministic set when conditioned on $A_i$. We denote by $v_1, v_2, \dotsc, v_k$ the $k$ elements with the maximum marginal contribution to $S_{i - 1}$, sorted in a non-increasing marginal contribution order, and let $X_j$ be an indicator for the event $u_i = v_j$.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:good_common}
$\mathbb{E}[\sum_{j = 1}^k X_j] > 1 - \ee$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $E$ be the event that $|M_i \cap \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_k\}| \geq (1 - \ee/2) s$. Observe that when $E$ occurs there is a range of size at least $(1 - \ee/2) s$ of possible values for $d_i$ that make $\sum_{j = 1}^k X_j$ equal to $1$. Hence,
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{j = 1}^k X_j ~\middle|~ E\right]
\geq
\frac{(1 - \ee/2) s}{s}
=
1 - \ee/2
\enspace.
\]
The random variable $|M_i \cap \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_k\}|$ has an hypergeometric distribution, and thus, obeys the Chernoff bounds (see, \eg, Theorem~1.17 of~\cite{D11}). Notice that the expectation of this random variable is $s$, hence,
\begin{align*}
\Pr[\bar{E}]
={} &
\Pr[|M_i \cap \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_k\}| \leq (1 - \ee/2) s]\inConference{\\}
\leq\inConference{{} &}
e^{-\frac{(\ee/2)^2 \cdot s}{2}}
\leq
e^{-\frac{\ee^2 kp}{8}}
=
\ee / 2
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Combining the two above inequalities, we get:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{j = 1}^k X_j\right]
\geq{} &
\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{j = 1}^k X_j ~\middle|~ E\right] \cdot (1 - \Pr[\bar{E}])\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
(1 - \ee/2)^2
>
1 - \ee
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Given two elements $v_{j_1}$ and $v_{j_2}$ with $j_1 < j_2$, we expect $v_{j_1}$ to have at least as high a probability to be $u_i$ as $v_{j_2}$. This is proved formally by the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:non-decreasing}
$\mathbb{E}[X_j]$ is a non-increasing function of $j$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix an arbitrary pair of indexes $1 \leq j_1 < j_2 \leq k$. We have to prove that $\mathbb{E}[X_{j_1}] \geq \mathbb{E}[X_{j_2}]$. For every set $S \subseteq \NN$, let $\sigma(S)$ be the following set:
\[
\sigma(S) = \begin{cases}
S & \text{if \inArxiv{$v_{j_1}, v_{j_2} \in S$ or $v_{j_1}, v_{j_2} \not \in S$}\inConference{$|\{v_{j_1}, v_{j_2}\} \cap S| \in \{0, 2\}$}} \enspace, \\
S \cup \{v_{j_2}\} \setminus \{v_{j_1}\} & \text{if $v_{j_1} \in S$ and $v_{j_2} \not \in S$} \enspace, \\
S \cup \{v_{j_1}\} \setminus \{v_{j_2}\} & \text{if $v_{j_2} \in S$ and $v_{j_1} \not \in S$} \enspace.
\end{cases}
\]
Since $|S| = |\sigma(S)|$, we get $\Pr[M_i = S] = \Pr[M_i = \sigma(S)]$ for every set $S \subseteq \NN$. Moreover, it is not difficult to verify that by the definition of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy}, $\mathbb{E}[X_{j_1} \mid M_i = S] \geq \mathbb{E}[X_{j_2} \mid M_i = \sigma(S)]$. Combining all these observations yields:
\begin{align*}
&
\mathbb{E}[X_{j_1}]
=
\sum_{S \subseteq \NN} \Pr[M_i = S] \cdot \mathbb{E}[X_{j_1} \mid M_i = S]\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\sum_{S \subseteq \NN} \Pr[M_i = \sigma(S)] \cdot \mathbb{E}[X_{j_2} \mid M_i = \sigma(S)]
=
\mathbb{E}[X_{j_2}]
\enspace,
\end{align*}
where the last equality uses the observation that $\sigma$ is a bijection.
\end{proof}
Using the two above lemmata, it is now possible to lower bound the expected gain of Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} in iteration $i$.
\begin{lemma} \label{le:improvement_fixed}
\inArxiv{$}\inConference{\[}\mathbb{E}[f(S_i) - f(S_{i - 1})] \geq (1 - \ee) \cdot \frac{f(OPT \cup S_{i - 1}) - f(S_{i - 1})}{k}\inArxiv{$.}\inConference{\enspace.\]}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i) - f(\inConference{&}S_{i - 1})]\inConference{\\}
={} &
\mathbb{E}[\max\{f(u_i \mid S_{i - 1}), 0\}]\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
\sum_{j = 1}^k \left[\mathbb{E}[X_j] \cdot \max\{f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}), 0\}\right]\\
\geq{} &
\frac{\sum_{j = 1}^k \mathbb{E}[X_j] \cdot \sum_{j = 1}^k \max\{f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}), 0\}}{k}
\enspace.
\end{align*}
where the last inequality holds by Chebyshev's sum inequality since $\max\{f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}), 0\}$ is non-increasing in $j$ by definition and $\mathbb{E}[X_j]$ is non-increasing in $j$ by Lemma~\ref{le:non-decreasing}. By the definition of the $v_j$'s and the submodularity of the objective:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j = 1}^k \max\{f(v_j \mid S_{i - 1}), 0\}
\geq{} &
\sum_{u \in OPT} f(u \mid S_{i - 1})\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
f(OPT \cup S_{i - 1}) - f(S_{i - 1})
\enspace.
\end{align*}
To complete the proof of the lemma recall that, by Lemma~\ref{le:good_common}, $\mathbb{E}[X_j] \geq 1 - \ee$.
\end{proof}
At this point we unfix the event $A_i$. The probabilities and expectations in the rest of this section are no longer implicitly conditioned on $A_i$.
\begin{corollary}
For every $0 \leq i \leq k$, $\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)] \geq (i/k) \cdot [(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
First, notice that since Lemma~\ref{le:improvement_fixed} holds for every given event $A_i$, it holds in expectation also unconditionally. More formally, we get for every $1 \leq i \leq k$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i) - f(\inConference{&}S_{i - 1})]\inConference{\\}
\geq{} &
(1 - \ee) \cdot \frac{\mathbb{E}[f(OPT \cup S_{i - 1})] - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Let us lower bound $\mathbb{E}[f(OPT \cup S_{i - 1})]$. Algorithm~\ref{alg:PartialGreedy} adds each element to its solution with probability at most: $(\lceil pn \rceil/n)/s = 1/k$. Hence, each element belongs to $S_{i - 1}$ with probability at most $1 - (1 - 1/k)^{i - 1}$. Let $h(S) = h(S \cup OPT)$. Since $h$ is a non-negative submodular function, we get by Lemma~\ref{le:distribution},
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(OPT \cup S_i)]
={} &
\mathbb{E}[h(S_i)]
\geq
(1 - 1/k)^i \cdot h(\varnothing)\inConference{\\}
=\inConference{{} &}
(1 - 1/k)^i \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\end{align*}
Combining the two above inequalities yields,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)\inConference{&} - f(S_{i - 1})]\inConference{\\}
\geq{} &
(1 - \ee) \cdot \frac{(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} \cdot f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}\\
\geq{} &
\frac{[(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}
\enspace.
\end{align*}
We are now ready to prove the corollary by induction on $i$. For $i = 0$, the corollary holds since $f(S_0) \geq 0 = (0/k) \cdot [(1 - 1/k)^{-1} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT)$. Assume the corollary holds for $i - 1 \geq 0$, let us prove it for $i$.
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_i)\inConference{&}]
\geq\inArxiv{{} &}
\inArxiv
{
\mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})] + \frac{\left[\left(1 - \frac{1}{k}\right)^{i - 1} - \ee\right] \cdot f(OPT) - \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})]}{k}\\
={} &
}
(1 - 1/k) \cdot \mathbb{E}[f(S_{i - 1})] \inConference{\\ &}+ \frac{[(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT)}{k}\\
\geq{} &
(1 - 1/k) \cdot \frac{i - 1}{k} \cdot [(1 - 1/k)^{i - 2} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT) \inConference{\\ &}+ \frac{[(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT)}{k}\\
\geq{} &
\frac{i}{k} \cdot [(1 - 1/k)^{i - 1} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace.
\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Plugging $i = k$ into the above lemma yields:
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[f(S_k)]
\geq{} &
[(1 - 1/k)^{k - 1} - \ee] \cdot f(OPT)\inConference{\\}
\geq\inConference{{} &}
(e^{-1} - \ee) \cdot f(OPT)
\enspace,
\end{align*}
which completes the proof of the approximation ratio guaranteed by Theorem~\ref{th:cardinality_random_nonmonotone}.
|
\section{Public Release of Spectra}
{The VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS;
\citealt{vipers_main}) has been designed to collect $\sim 10^5$ redshifts
to the same depth of VVDS-Wide \citep{vvds_wide} and zCOSMOS \citep{zcosmos_10k} surveys
($i_{\rm AB}<22.5$), but over a
significantly larger volume and with high sampling (${\rm
\sim 40\%}$ ).
The general aim of the project is to build a sample of the global galaxy population
that matches in several respects those available locally ($z<0.2$) from the 2dFGRS \citep{2df} and SDSS \citep{sdss}
projects, thus allowing combined evolutionary studies of both clustering and galaxy physical properties,
on a comparable statistical footing. Building upon the experience and results of previous
VIMOS surveys VIPERS
arguably provides the most detailed and representative picture
to date of the whole galaxy population and its large-scale structures, when the
Universe was about half its current age. A full description of the survey is given in \citet{vipers_main}.\\
In September 2013, we have released the first
two thirds of the survey (PDR-1, \citet {vipers_PDR}),
comprising redshifts and redshift quality flag for 57204 sources.
We are now releasing the 1D and 2D spectra of such objects.\\
Data are distributed through the public VIPERS site,
{\tt http://vipers.inaf.it}, and can be retrieved either as a single tar file
containing the full release, or
via the VIPERS Database, described in \citet {vipers_PDR}.
Publication through the Virtual Observatory will be done in the near future. \\
For each observed object, we provide the spectrum in form of a FITS binary table,
similar to the format used for SDSS distribution. Files are named using the object IAU identifier.
Each table contains the following columns:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Wavelength}, column name {\it WAVES}, expressed in $\AA$
\item {\bf Observed spectrum}, column name {\it FLUXES}: the monodimensional spectrum as resulting from the reduction pipeline, wavelength calibrated and corrected for the instrument sensitivity function. The absolute flux calibration has been obtained by normalizing the spectrum to the i band photometric magnitude provided by CFHTLS. Units are {\it $erg/cm^2/s/\AA$}.
\item {\bf Cleaned spectrum}, column name {\it EDIT}: to further clean the spectra from fringing correction residuals, as well as poor subtraction of strong sky lines and/or zero orders, we have applied a combination of manual cleaning and automatic cleaning and reconstruction, this last performed
using a PCA based approach (details on this procedure will be given in a forthcoming dedicated paper). The cleaned spectrum is the result of such procedure. Units are {\it $erg/cm^2/s/\AA$}.
\item {\bf Noise spectrum}, column name {\it NOISE}, the noise spectrum computed during the reduction as described in \citet {vipers_PDR}.Units are {\it $erg/cm^2/s/\AA$}.
\item {\bf Sky spectrum}, column name {\it SKY}: the sky spectrum of each slit, in counts.
\item {\bf Spectrum mask}, column name {\it MASK}: monodimensional binary mask indicating
the pixels where the cleaning and reconstruction has been applied: 1 for cleaned and reconstructed pixels.
\end{itemize}
In the header of each file, we report the VIPERS ID of the object, its Right Ascension and declination, the selection $i_{\rm AB}$ magnitude, the spectroscopic redshift and reliability flag, the normalization applied and the exposure time. In a separate file, we also provide the wavelength calibrated 2D image of the slit containing the object. These files are named as the monodimensional spectra with suffix 2D, and the header contains the same information as the 1D spectra file (redshift, flag, coordinates, etc..). \\
When making use of this data set, acknowledge should be given by referring to \citet{vipers_main} and \citet {vipers_PDR}.
}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{\Large Introduction}
\subsection{\large Aim of the work }
In this paper we analyze a theoretical contract in which counterparties want to set a contingent CSA (\emph{credit support annex}) in order to gain the flexibility and the possibility to manage optimally the counterparty risk.
We refer specifically to a contingent risk mitigation mechanism that allows the counterparties to switch from zero to full/perfect collateralization (or even partial) and switch back whenever until maturity $T$ paying some \emph{switching costs }and taking into account the\emph{ running costs } that emerge over time.
The running costs that we model and consider in the analysis of this problem are - by one side - those related to CVA namely\emph{ counterparty risk hedging costs} and - by the other side - the \emph{collateral and funding/liquidity costs} that emerge when collateralization is active.\\
We can summarize the characteristics and the basic idea underlying the problem - that we show to admit a natural formulation as a \emph{stochastic differential game of switching type} - through the so defined \emph{contingent CSA scheme} shown below (Fig. 1.1), in which - by considering also the funding issue in the picture - is present a third party, an \emph{external funder} assumed \emph{default free} ($\lambda =0$) in order to reduce dimension and technical issues.\\
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[ scale=0.5]{csascheme2}
\end{figure}
Here, motivated by the results obtained in the unilateral case\footnote{We refer to the stochastic optimal control formulation highlighted in the third section of Mottola (2013)}, we analyze the problem in a generalized setting allowing for the strategic interplay between the parties of the contingent CSA scheme. \\
This has lead us to study the solution's existence and the equilibrium for the \emph{stochastic differential game of switching type} that we are going to define in \emph{section two}. We can anticipate that our game solution (its existence and uniqueness) remains an open problem, that deserves further studies and research.
We also highlight the basic ideas of the game's numerical solution via iterative optimal stopping
approach. Then further analysis on game equilibrium are taken over in \emph{section three } and some model applications in \emph{section four}.
\subsection{\large Literature review}
The body of literature regarding stochastic differential games theory is very wide. The roots of the theory are founded in the pioneering works of \cite{Jvn44} - for (mainly cooperative) \emph{ zero sum game} - and \cite{Nas50} - for (non cooperative) \emph{non-zero sum game} - and the work of Isaacs (see \cite{Isa99}) who studied for first the \emph{differential games} in a deterministic setting. In the stochastic framework it is worth of mention the seminal work of Eugene Dynkin (\cite{Dyn67}) who firstly analyzed stochastic differential games where the agent control set is given by \emph{stopping times}, so that these ''games on stopping'' are known as \emph{Dynkin games} in his honor.\\
Certainly, it is impossible to mention here all the numerous important contribution in this field of research and to give a systematic account of the theory and of the literature. For a complete treatment of the different type of games we refer to the book of Isaacs on differential games. So we give in the following just a simplified classification restricting ourselves to the literature more related to our stochastic switching control problem.\\ This classification is based on the following main categories:\\
\indent a)\emph{game and equilibrium type}: it includes zero and non-zero-sum games whose solution can be searched mainly in terms of cooperative or non-cooperative (Nash) equilibrium. This depends also on the characteristics of the game which are mainly the system dynamic - that can be \emph{markovian/non markovian} - and controls which can be state controls, stopping controls (as in Dynkin games) or both which are called \emph{mixed control and stopping}. Also the number of player is relevant, here we focus on the case $p=2$.\\
\indent b) \emph{solution approaches}: these are mainly the \emph{analytical approach} that allows - typically under a markovian framework - to formulate the stochastic differential game (SDG) as a system of (second order) \emph{Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations} or \emph{variational inequalities} to solve, proving existence and (possibly) uniqueness of the solution, namely of the equilibrium of the game. The main solution techniques are the ones related to PDE theory, the dynamic programming principle and viscosity solution. \\
Worth of mention, from the analytical point of view, are the important works of \cite{bens77} that for first showed the existence of a Nash equilibrium for a non-zero-sum SDG with stopping $\{\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\}$ as controls, formulating the problem as a system of quasi-variational inequalities (solved through \emph{fixed point} methods), assuming continuous and bounded running rewards and terminal rewards; instead \cite{Fle89} for first showed the existence and uniqueness of the solution/equilibrium for zero-sum SDG through dynamic programming and viscosity solution approach. These techniques have become very popular and used in the recent literature given the deep connection with probabilistic tools, as we have already mentioned in chapter five.\\
In fact, the \emph{probabilistic approach} is the other more general one\footnote{In fact, it allows to deal also with general non markovian dynamics for the system state variables. } that makes use of the martingale (also via \emph{duality methods}) and Snell envelope theory and, in addition, of the deep results of the forward-backward SDE theory in order to derive existence and uniqueness of the optimal control/stopping strategy for the game.\\
The main works worth of mention - other that the already mentioned work of \cite{Civ96} that for first highlights the connection between the solution of zero-sum Dynkin game and that of \emph{doubly reflected BSDE} (other than its analytical solution) - are that of: \cite{Ham98} that shows how the solution of a SDG is related to that of a backward-forward SDE; \cite{Ham00} that extend the analysis through reflected BSDE to ''\emph{mixed game}'' problems; \cite{Elk03} that generalize the existence and uniqueness results for zero and non-zero-sum game with ''\emph{risk sensitive}'' controls; \cite{Ham08} that use Snell envelope technique to show the existence of a Nash equilibrium for non-zero-sum Dynkin game in a non-markovian framework and \cite{Ham10} that tackle the solution of a general switching control problem via systems of interconnected (nonlinear) RBSDE (with \emph{oblique reflection}).\\
To conclude the section we recall also the monographic work of \cite{Pha09} and \cite{Yon99} for a clear and detailed analysis of backward SDE and we remark also that much of these literature and works have been inspired by financial valuation problems. We refer mainly to the \emph{american game option} problem as defined in \cite{Kif00} (also known as \emph{israeli option}). This has given impulse to the literature related mainly to \emph{convertible and switchable bond valuation }whose solution can be related to that of a zero-sum Dynkin game.
\subsection{ \large Some examples od Dynkin games}
Let us briefly remind that stochastic differential games are a family of dynamic, continuous
time versions of \emph{differential games} (as defined by Isaacs) incorporating randomness in both the
states and the rewards. The random states are described typically by adapted diffusion processes
whose dynamics are known (or assumed). To play a game, a player receives a \emph{running reward}
cumulated at some rate till the end of the game and a \emph{terminal reward} granted at the end of
the game. The rewards are related to both the \emph{state process} and the \emph{controls} at the choice of
the players, as deterministic or random functions or functionals of them. A control represents
a player action in attempt to influence his rewards. Assuming his rationality, a player acts in
the most profitable way based on his knowledge represented by his information filtration. Before
starting the formulation and the analysis of our generalized \emph{Dynkin game of switching type}, let us
recall - in a markovian framework - some example for both a non-zero-sum and zero-sum Dynkin
game (with $p = 2$) and the relative equilibrium characterization. For all the details we refer in particular to the works of \cite{bens77} and \cite{Fle89}\\
-\emph{Non-zero-sum Dynkin game}: Given a standard probability space represented by the triple $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P}) $ where we define $W = (W_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T}$ be a standard $d$-dimensional Brownian motion adapted to the space filtration. Assuming as true the usual conditions on the drift function $\mu(.)$ and volatility function $\sigma(.)$, such that the following SDE admits a unique solution
\begin{eqnarray*}
dy(t) &=& \mu(y(t),t)dt+\sigma(y(t),t)dW(t), \;\; t\in[0,T]\\
y(0) &=& y_{0}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let (for $p = 1,2$) $f_{p}(y,t)$ the running reward function and $\phi_{p}(y,t)$, $\psi_{p}(y,t)$ the reward function obtained by the players upon stopping the game be \emph{continuous} and \emph{bounded} in $\mathbb{R}^{d}\times[0,T]$, with $f_{p}\in\mathbb{L}^{2}$ square integrable and $\psi_{p}\leq\phi_{p}$ for all $(y,t)\in \mathbb{R}^{d}\times[0,T]$. Then let $g_{p}(y(T))$ the terminal reward function also continuous and bounded. \\
In a game of this kind, the two players have to decide optimally when to stop the game finding the optimal control given by the stopping times $(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})$ that give the maximum expected reward. So let us set the payoff functional for the two players of this Dynkin game as follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{p}(y,\tau_{1},\tau_{2}) &=&\mathbb{E}\bigg[ \int_{t}^{\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge T} f_{p}(y(s),s)ds+ \mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau_{i}<\tau_{j} \}} \phi_{p}(y(\tau_{i}), \tau_{i}) \\
&+ & \mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau_{i} \geq\tau_{j}, T>\tau_{j} \}} \psi_{p}(y(\tau_{j}), \tau_{j}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau_{1} =\tau_{2}= T \}} g_{p}(y(T)) \bigg] \:\; for\; j\neq i(\:\in\{1,2\}),
\end{eqnarray*}
and for $(t\leq \tau_{i}\leq T)$. Being in a non-zero-sum game with the players that aims to maximize their payoff $J^{p}(.)$ without cooperation, the problem here is to find a \emph{Nash equilibrium point} (NEP) for the game, that is to determine the couple of optimal stopping times $(\tau_{1}^{*},\tau_{2}^{*})$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
J^{1}(y,\tau_{1}^{*},\tau_{2}^{*}) &\geq& J^{2}(y,\tau_{1}^{},\tau_{2}^{*}), \;\: \forall \: \tau_{1},\tau_{2} \in [t,T] \\
J^{2}(y,\tau_{1}^{*},\tau_{2}^{*}) &\geq& J^{1}(y,\tau_{1}^{*},\tau_{2}^{}), \;\: \forall \:\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\in [t,T]
\end{eqnarray*}
namely the supremum of the payoff functional over the stopping time set. In other words, the NEP implies that every player has no incentive to change his strategy given that the other one has already defined optimally his strategy.\\
This type of game, as shown in \cite{bens77}, has an analytical representation given by a system of \emph{variational inequalities} but it admits also a stochastic counterpart through \emph{system of BSDE with reflecting barrier}. We return to its formal definition in the next section in relation to our problem.
The Nash equilibrium defined above can be fairly generalized in the case of \emph{mixed game of control and stopping}. We show this below in relation to zero-sum games.\\
- \emph{Zero-sum mixed game}: A zero-sum game is characterized by the antagonistic interaction of the players that in this case has the same payoff functional but their objective are different because for one player the payoff is a reward (let's think typically at the buyer of a convertible bond) that he wants to \emph{maximize}, while for the other one is a cost that he intends to \emph{minimize}. \\
In the generalized case of mixed games of control and stopping, the set of control will be enriched by the $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-progressively measurable process $(\alpha_{t})_{t\leq T}$ and $(\beta_{t})_{t\leq T}$ that are the intervention function namely the state controls respectively for the player $p_{1}$ and $p_{2}$. In addition, the players have to decide optimally when to stop the game setting the stopping times $\tau$ (for $p_{1}$) and $\sigma$ (for $p_{2}$). Indeed, the system dynamic being controlled by the agents can be expressed as the following \emph{controlled diffusion} (remaining in a markovian framework):
\begin{eqnarray*}
dy(t)^{\alpha,\beta} &=& \mu(t,y_{t}^{\alpha,\beta},\alpha_{t},\beta_{t})dt+\eta(t,y_{t}^{\alpha,\beta},\alpha_{t},\beta_{t})dW(t), \;\; t\in[0,T]\\
y(0)^{\alpha,\beta} &=& y_{0}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The zero-sum game payoff being the same for both the players will be
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma(\alpha,\tau; \beta,\sigma) &:=& \mathbb{E}\bigg[ \int_{t}^{T\wedge\tau\wedge\sigma} f(s,y_{s}^{\alpha,\beta},\alpha_{s},\beta_{s})ds + \mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau\leq\sigma<T \}} \phi(\tau,y_{\tau}^{\alpha,\beta}) \\
&+ & \mathbbm{1}_{\{\sigma <\tau \}} \psi( \sigma,y_{\sigma}^{\alpha,\beta}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau =\sigma= T \}} g(y^{\alpha,\sigma}(T)) \bigg] \:\; (t\leq \tau\leq \sigma <T)
\end{eqnarray*}
where the running and reward functions are intended to be the same as in the non-zero-sum case but clearly now they are the same for both players.\\
The solution of this SDG is typically tackled by studying the upper and lower \emph{value function} of the players, which are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{U}(t,y)&:=& \sup_{\alpha}\inf_{\beta} \sup_{\tau}\inf_{\sigma} \Gamma(\alpha,\tau; \beta,\sigma)\;\;(upper \:value\:p1) \\
\mathcal{L}(t,y)&:=& \inf_{\beta}\sup_{\alpha} \inf_{\sigma}\sup_{\tau} \Gamma(\alpha,\tau; \beta,\sigma)\;\;(lower \:value\:p2)
\end{eqnarray*}
Under some standard condition on the reward function and on controls, the problem has been tackled analytically representing the lower and upper value of the game as a system of nonlinear PDE with two obstacles/barriers, defined as follows
\[
\begin{cases}
\min \bigg\{ u(t,y) - \phi(t,y), \max\bigg\{ \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(t,y) - H^{-}(t,y,u,Du,D^{2}u), u(t,y) - \psi(t,y) \bigg\}\bigg\}=0 \\
u(T,y) = g(y),
\end{cases}\\
\]
\[
\begin{cases}
\min \bigg\{ v(t,y) - \phi(t,y), \max\bigg\{ \frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,y) - H^{+}(t,y,v,Dv,D^{2}v), v(t,y) - \psi(t,y) \bigg\}\bigg\}=0\\
v(T,y) = g(y),
\end{cases}\\
\]\\
where $H^{+}(.)$ and $H^{-}(.)$ are the \emph{hamiltonian operators} (as defined in chapter four) associated to the upper and lower value function of the SDG. To solve the system, the unknown solution function $u$ and $v$ can be shown (under some techinical assumptions) to be \emph{viscosity solutions} of the above two PDE with obstacles and to coincide with the value functions $\mathcal{U}(t,y)$ and $\mathcal{L}(t,y)$ of the game.\\
In particular, when the \emph{Isaacs condition} holds, namely
\begin{equation*}
H^{-}(t,y,u,q,X)=H^{+}(t,y,u,q,X)
\end{equation*}
then the two solutions coincide and the SDG has a value namely
\begin{equation*}
V := \sup_{\alpha}\inf_{\beta} \sup_{\tau}\inf_{\sigma} \Gamma(\alpha,\tau; \beta,\sigma) = \inf_{\beta}\sup_{\alpha} \inf_{\sigma}\sup_{\tau} \Gamma(\alpha,\tau; \beta,\sigma)
\end{equation*}
which is called the \emph{saddle point equilibrium} of the mixed zero-sum game. \\
We mention also that in this case, as in the non-zero-sum case, the SDG has a stochastic representation which is expressed in terms of a \emph{doubly reflected BSDE} ($2RBSDE$)\footnote{Its connection with the analytical representation and viscosity solution of PDE with obstacles, as already mentioned, has been established in the work of \cite{Civ96}. }. In particular, setting the terminal
reward $\xi$, the \emph{early exercise rewards} $\phi_{t} = U_{t}$ and $\psi_{t} = L_{t}$ which represent the two barriers of the value process, therefore the \emph{generator function} $f$, the \emph{value process} $Y_{t}$, $Z_{t}$ which is \emph{the conditional expectation/volatility process} that helps $Y_{t}$ to be $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-measurable and $K$ the \emph{compensator process}, it can be shown that the following $2RSBDE$\footnote{This is established in the work of \cite{Civ96}.} solution
\[
\begin{cases}
Y_{t} = \xi + \int_{t}^{T}f(s,Y_{s},Z_{s})+ (K_{T}^{+}-K_{t}^{+}) - (K_{T}^{-}-K_{t}^{-})- \int_{t}^{T}Z_{s}dW_{s}\;\;\forall t\leq T\\
L_{t}\leq Y_{t}\leq U_{t},\; \forall t\leq T,\;\: \\
\int_{0}^{T}(Y_{s}-L_{s})dK_{s}^{+}= \int_{0}^{T}(U_{s}-Y_{s})dK_{s}^{-}=0
\end{cases}\\
\]\\
\section{ \Large Defaultable Dynkin game of switching type}
\subsection{\large Framework and assumptions}
To begin is convenient to describe the framework in which we work and to give the main
definitions of the processes and variables involved. The framework setting follows strictly the
\emph{reduced-form models} literature and we refer to the classical monograph of \cite{biel04} for details.\\
Let us consider a probability space described by the triple $(\Omega, \mathcal{G}_{t}, \mathbb{P})$ where the full filtration is given by $\mathcal{G}_{t} = \sigma(\mathcal{F}_{t} \vee \mathcal{H}^{A}\vee\mathcal{H}^{B})_{t\geq0}$ for $t\in[0,T]$ and $\mathbb{P}$ the real probability measure defined on this space. On it lie two strictly positive random time $\tau_{i}$ for $i\in \{A,B\}$, which represent the \emph{default times} of the counterparties considered in our model. In addition, we define the \emph{default process } $H^{i}_{t} = \mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau^{i} \leq t\}}$ and the relative filtration $\mathcal{H}^{i}$ generated by $H_{t}^{i}$ for any $t\in \mathbb{R}^{+}$. We are left to mention $\mathcal{F}$ which is the (risk-free) \emph{market filtration} generated by a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion vector $W$ adapted to it, under the real measure $\mathbb{P}$. In addition, we remember that all the processes we consider, in particular $H^{i}$, are \emph{c\'adl\'ag semimartingales} $\mathcal{G}$ adapted and $\tau^{i}$ are $\mathcal{G}$ stopping times.\\
For convenience, let us define the first default time of the counterparties as $\tau = \tau_{A}\wedge\tau_{B} $ which also represent the ending/exstinction time of the underlying contract, with the corresponding indicator process $H_{t} = \mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}}$
As concerns the underlying market model it is assumed arbitrage-free, namely it admits a \emph{spot martingale measure} $\mathbb{Q}$ (not necessarily unique) equivalent to $\mathbb{P}$. A spot martingale measure is associated
with the choice of the savings account $B_{t}$ (so that $B^{-1}$ as discount factor) as a numeraire that, as usual, is given by $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-predictable process
\begin{equation}
B_{t}= \exp \int_{0}^{t}r_{s}ds, \:\:\forall \: t \in \mathbb{R}^{+}
\end{equation}
where the short-term $r$ is assumed to follow an $\mathcal{F}$-progressively measurable stochastic process (whatever it is the choice of the term structure model for itself).\\
We then define the \emph{Az\'ema supermartingale} $G_{t} = \mathbb{P}(\tau > t |\mathcal{F}_{t})$ with $G_{0}=1$ and $G_{t} >0\:\: \forall \: t \in \mathbb{R}^{+} $ as the \emph{survival process} of the default time $\tau$ with respect to the filtration $ \mathbb{F}$.
The process $G$ being a bounded $\mathcal{G}$-supermartingale it admits a unique \emph{Doob-Meyer decomposition} $G = \mu - \nu$, where $\mu$ is the martingale part and $ \nu$ is a predictable increasing process. In particular, $\nu$ is assumed to be absolutely continuous with respect to the \emph{Lebesgue measure}, so that $d\nu_{t} = \upsilon_{t} dt$ for some $\mathcal{F}$-progressively measurable, non-negative process $\upsilon$.
So that, we can define now the default intensity $\lambda$ as the $\mathcal{F}$-progressively measurable process that is set as $\lambda_{t} = G_{t}^{-1}\upsilon_{t}$ so that $dG_{t} = d\mu_{t} - \lambda_{t} G_{t}dt$ and the cumulative default intensity is defined as follows
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{t}=\int_{0}^{t} G_{u}^{-1} d\nu_{u} = \int_{0}^{t} \lambda_{u}du,
\end{equation}
For convenience, we assume that the \emph{immersion property} holds in our framework, so that every c\'adl\'ag $\mathcal{G}$-adapted (square-integrable) martingale is also $\mathcal{F}$-adapted.
In particular, we assume \emph{pre-default valued processes} namely, setting $J := 1-H = \mathbbm{1}_{\{t\leq \tau \}}$ we have that for any $\mathcal{G}$-adapted, respectively $\mathcal{G}$-predictable process $X$ over $[0,T]$, there exists a unique $\mathcal{F}$-adapted, respectively $\mathcal{F}$-predictable, process $\tilde{X}$ over $[0,T]$, called the pre-default value process of $X$, such that $JX = J\tilde{X}$, respectively $J_{-}X = J_{-}\tilde{X}$.\\
As regards counterparty objectives, $\{A,B\}$ are both defaultable and are assumed to behave
rationally with the same objective to minimize the overall costs related to counterparty risk -
quantified through the BCVA - and those related to collateral and funding. The information flow is assumed symmetric.
\subsection{\large Main definitions: BCVA, contingent CSA and funding}
Let us state the main definitions that are needed to model our claim with contingent CSA. Also
here we just state the objects involved, for proofs and details we refer to the already mentioned
work and the reference therein.\\
\textbf{1) BCVA definition}. Following \cite{biel11} (proposition 2.9), the bilateral CVA process of a defaultable claim with bilateral counterparty risk $(X; \mathbf{A};Z; \tau )$ maturing in $T$ satisfies the following relation\footnote{The formulation is seen from the point of view of $B$. Being symmetrical between the party, just the signs change.}
\begin{eqnarray}
BCVA_{t} &=& S_{t}^{rf} - S_{t} \\
&=& CVA_{t} - DVA_{t} \nonumber \\
&=& B_{t}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}^{*}} \bigg[ \mathbbm{1}_{\{t< \tau=\tau_{B}\leq T\}}B_{\tau}^{-1}(1-R_{c}^{B})(S^{rf}_{\tau})^{-} \bigg|\mathcal{G}_{t} \bigg] + \nonumber \\
&-& B_{t}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}^{*}}\bigg[ \mathbbm{1}_{\{t< \tau=\tau_{A}\leq T\}}B_{\tau}^{-1}(1-R_{c}^{A})(S^{rf}_{\tau})^{+}\bigg|\mathcal{G}_{t} \bigg]
\end{eqnarray}
for every $t \in[0,T]$, where $B_{t}$ indicates the \emph{discount factor},$R_{c}^{i}$ for $i\in\{A,B\}$ is the \emph{counterparty recovery rate }(process) and where the \emph{clean price process} $S^{rf}_{t}$ would be simply
represented by the integral over time of the contract dividend flow under the relative martingale pricing measure $\mathbb{Q}$, that is
\begin{equation}
S_{t}^{rf}= B_{t}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}} \bigg( \int_{]t,T]} B_{u}^{-1} dD^{rf}_{u} \big| \mathcal{F}_{t} \bigg)\;\;t\in[0,T]
\end{equation}
and $D^{rf}_{t}$ is the clean dividend process of the default-free contract
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{t}^{rf} &=& X(T) + \sum_{i\in\{A,B\}}\bigg(\int_{]t, T]} d\mathbf{A}^{i}_{u} \bigg) \;\;t\in[0,T]
\end{eqnarray}
where $X$ is the $\mathcal{F}$-adapted final payoff, $\mathbf{A}$ the $\mathcal{F}$-adapted process representing the contract's \emph{promised dividends} and $\tau =\tau^{i} = \infty$. We are left to state the definitions of (bilateral) \emph{risky dividend} and \emph{price process} of a general defaultable claim:
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{t} &=& X \mathbbm{1}_{\{T<\tau\}} + \sum_{i\in\{A,B\}}\bigg(\int_{]t, T]} (1-H_{u}^{i})d\mathbf{A}^{i}_{u} + \int_{]t,T] } Z_{u}dH_{u}^{i}\bigg) \;\;t\in[0,T]
\end{eqnarray}
for $i \in\{A,B\} $ and
\begin{equation}
NPV_{t} = S_{t}= B_{t}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{Q}} \bigg( \int_{]t,T]} B_{u}^{-1} dD_{u} \big| \mathcal{G}_{t} \bigg)\;\;t\in[0,T].\\
\end{equation}
where $Z$ is the \emph{recovery process} that specifies the recovery payoff at default and $H_{t} := \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau \leq t \}}$ the already defined \emph{default process}.\\
\textbf{2) Collateral definition with contingent CSA.} In order to generalize collateralization in
presence of contingence CSA, we recall the definition collateral account/process $Coll_{t}:[0,T]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a stochastic $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-adapted process defined as
\begin{equation}
Coll_{t}=\mathbbm{1}_{\{S^{rf}_{t} > \Gamma_{B} + MTA\}}(S^{rf}_{t} - \Gamma_{B}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\{S^{rf}_{t} < \Gamma_{A} - MTA\}}(S^{rf}_{t} - \Gamma_{A}),
\end{equation}
on the time set $ \{t<\tau\}$, and
\begin{equation}
Coll_{t}=\mathbbm{1}_{\{S^{rf}_{\tau^{-}} > \Gamma_{B} + MTA\}}(S^{rf}_{\tau^{-}} - \Gamma_{B}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\{S^{rf}_{\tau^{-}} < \Gamma_{A} - MTA\}}(S^{rf}_{\tau^{-}} - \Gamma_{A}), \;
\end{equation}
on the set $ \{\tau\leq t <\tau +\Delta t\}$, thresholds $\Gamma_{i}$, for $i \in \{A,B\}$ and positive minimum transfer amount $MTA$. \\
The perfect collateralization case, say $Coll^{Perf}_{t}$, can be shown to be always equal to the
mark to market, namely to the (default free) price process $S^{rf}_{t}$ of the underlying claim,
that is formally
\begin{equation}
Coll_{t}^{Perf}=\mathbbm{1}_{\{S^{rf}_{t} > 0 \}}(S^{rf}_{t} - 0) + \mathbbm{1}_{\{S_{t}^{rf} <0\}}(S^{rf}_{t} - 0) = S^{rf}_{t} \;\; \forall \: t \in [0,T], \; on\:\{t<\tau\}.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
Coll_{t}^{Perf}= S^{rf}_{\tau^{-}} \;\; \forall \: t \in [0,T], on \: \{ \tau\leq t <\tau+\Delta t\}.
\end{equation}
Let us remind that in presence of \emph{perfect/full collateralization} one can easily show that
\begin{eqnarray}
BCVA_{t}^{Coll^{Perf}} &=& S_{t}^{rf} - S_{t} =0\Longrightarrow \nonumber \\
S_{t}&=& S_{t}^{rf} \qquad \forall t\in [0,T]
\end{eqnarray}
Generalizing, the contingent collateral $Coll^{C}_{t}$ can be defined as the $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-adapted process
defined for any time $t\in [0, T]$ and for every switching time $\tau_{j} \in [0; T]$ and $j = 1,\dots,M$,
switching indicator $z_{j} $and default time $\tau$ (defined above as $\min\{\tau_{A}, \tau_{B}\} $), which is formally
\begin{equation}
Coll^{C}_{t} = S^{rf}_{t}\mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=0 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} + 0 \mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=1 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} \;\: on \: \{ t<\tau\}
\end{equation}
on the set $ \{ t<\tau\}$, and
\begin{equation*}
Coll^{C}_{t} = S^{rf}_{\tau^{-}}\mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=0 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} + 0 \mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=1 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} \;
\end{equation*}
on the set $\{ \tau\leq t <\tau+\Delta t\}$.\\
\textbf{2) BCVA definition with contingent CSA.} By the definition of $D_{t}^{C}$ and
$S_{t}^{C}$ as the dividend and price process in presence of the \emph{contingent CSA}
\begin{eqnarray}
D^{C}_{t} &=& D^{rf}_{t}\mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=0 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} + D_{t} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=1 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} \\
S^{C}_{t} &=& S^{rf}_{t}\mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=0 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} + S_{t} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=1 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}}
\end{eqnarray}
for any time $t \in [0, T\wedge \tau]$, switching times $\tau_{j} \in [0, T\wedge \tau]$, $j = 1,\dots,M$ and switching indicator $z_{j} \in \{0,1\}$, we define the bilateral CVA of a contract with contingent CSA of switching type as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
BCVA^{C}_{t} &=& S^{rf}_{t} - S^{C}_{t} \nonumber\\
&=& S^{rf}_{t} - (S^{rf}_{t}\mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=0 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} + S_{t} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=1 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}}) \nonumber\\
&=& 0 \mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=0 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}} + BCVA_{t}\mathbbm{1}_{\{ z_{j}=1 \}} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} \leq t < \tau_{j+1} \}}.
\end{eqnarray}
where the expression for $BCVA_{t}$ is known from the former point.\\
\textbf{4) Funding definition}. As regards funding, in our setting we allow for difference in the funding rates between counterparties. In particular, we assume the existence of the following
funding asset $B^{opp^{i}}_{t}$, $B^{borr^{i}}_{t}$ and $B^{rem^{i}}_{t}$
In particular, under the assumptions of \emph{segregation}
(no collateral \emph{rehypotecation}), collateral made up by cash and BCVA not funded\footnote{This assumption is relevant in order to simplify the problem formulation and to deal with its recursive nature.}, let us
highlight that if counterparty $i \in \{A,B\}$ has to post collateral in the margin account, she
sustains a funding cost, applied by the external funder, represented by the \emph{borrowing rate}
$r^{borr^{i}}_{t} = r_{t} + s_{t}^{i}$ that is the risk free rate plus a credit spread (that is usually different
from the other party) . By the other side, the counterparty receives by the funder the remuneration on the collateral post, that we define in the CSA as a risk free rate plus
some basis points, namely is $r_{t}^{rem^{i}} = r_{t} +bp_{t}^{i}$.
Hence we assume the following dynamics for the funding assets (which can be different
between counterparties)
\begin{eqnarray}
dB^{borr^{i}}_{t} &=& (r_{t} + s_{t}^{i})B^{borr^{i}}_{t}dt, \qquad i\; \in \{A,B\} \\
dB^{rem^{i}}_{t} &=& (r_{t}+bp_{t}^{i} )B^{rem^{i}}_{t}dt,\qquad i \;\in \{A,B\}
\end{eqnarray}
Instead, considering the counterparty that call the collateral, as above the collateral is
remunerated at the rate given (as the remuneration for the two parties can be different)
by $B^{rem}$, but she cannot use or invest the collateral amount (that is segregated), so she
sustains an opportunity cost, that can be represented by the rate $r_{t}^{opp^{i}} = r_{t} + \pi_{t}^{i}$
where $\pi$ is a premium over the risk free rate. Hence, we assume the existence of the following asset
too
\begin{eqnarray}
dB^{opp^{i}}_{t} &=& (r_{t} +\pi_{t}^{i})B^{borr^{i}}_{t}dt, \qquad i\; \in \{A,B\}
\end{eqnarray}
To conclude the section, let us underline that given the symmetrical nature of processes (except for the funding ones) the following relations states:
\begin{eqnarray*}
BCVA_{t}^{A} &=& -BCVA_{t}^{B}\qquad t \;\in [0,\tau\wedge T] \\
BCVA_{t}^{C^{A}} &=& -BCVA_{t}^{C^{B}}\qquad t \;\in [0,\tau\wedge T]\\
Coll_{t}^{C^{A}} &=& -Coll_{t}^{C^{B}} \qquad t \;\in [0,\tau\wedge T].
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{\large Model dynamics, controls and cost functionals}
In our contingent CSA model of multiple switching type (with finite horizon), both counterparties
$A,B$ are free to switch from zero to perfect collateralization every time in $[0, T]$. Hence their
control sets are made up by sequences of \emph{switching times} - say $\tau_{j}\in \mathcal{T}$ - and \emph{switching indicators} $z_{j} \in \mathcal{Z}$ with $\mathcal{T} \subset [0,T]$, that we define formally as follows
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}^{A}=\big\{ \mathcal{T}^{A}, \mathcal{Z}^{A} \big\} = \big\{ \tau_{j}^{A}, z_{j}^{A}\big\}_{j=1}^{M}, \; \forall \tau_{j}^{A} \in [0,T],\; z_{j}^{A} \in \{0,1\}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}^{B}=\big\{ \mathcal{T}^{B}, \mathcal{Z}^{B} \big\} = \big\{ \tau_{j}^{B}, z_{j}^{B}\big\}_{j=1}^{M}, \; \forall \tau_{j}^{B} \in [0,T],\; z_{j}^{B} \in \{0,1\}
\end{equation}
with the last switching $\{\tau^{M}_{i}\leq T \}$ $(M<\infty)$. We recall that $\tau_{j}^{i}$ are by definitions of \emph{stopping times} $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-measurable random variables, while $z_{j}^{i}$ are $\mathcal{F}_{\tau_{j}}$-measurable switching indicators, taking values in our model $\forall \j \in 1\,\dots,M$
\[
\begin{cases}
z_{j} = 1 \Rightarrow & \emph{zero collateral}\; (full \;CVA)\\
z_{j} = 0 \Rightarrow & \emph{full collateral}\; (null \;CVA)\\
\end{cases}
\]
Clearly controls affect also our model dynamic. As regards this point, we assume general
markovian diffusions for $(X; \lambda^{i})$ $i\in \{ A,B\}$, namely the interest rates and the default intensities of counterparties. From the definitions of \emph{contingent CSA} and (bilateral) CVA given in
the last section, we highlight that the switching controls enter and affect the dynamic of these
processes. In fact, as we know, switching to full collateralization implies $BCVA = 0$, that is
$S_{t} = S^{rf}_{t} =Coll_{t}^{perf}$. This means no counterparty risk and so the default intensities' dynamic
$d\lambda_{t}^{i}$ won't be relevant, just $dX$ will be considered while $z = 0$ ( namely until the
collateralization will be kept active). So, formally, we have:\\
$if \: \big\{z_{j}= 1\big \} \: and \: \{\tau_{j}\leq t<\tau_{j+1}\}\Rightarrow \;$
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_{t}^{C} &=& D_{t} \Rightarrow\\
S_{t}^{C} &=& S_{t} \Rightarrow\\
BCVA_{t}^{C} &=& BCVA_{t} \forall\:t\in[0,T\wedge \tau]
\end{eqnarray*}
so that the relevant dynamic to model the BCVA process in this regime is
\begin{eqnarray*}
dX_{t} &=& \mu(t,X_{t})X(t) dt + \sigma(t,X_{t}) X(t) dW_{t}^{x};\quad\qquad X(0)=x_{0} \\
d\lambda_{t}^{A} &=& \gamma(t,\lambda_{t}^{A})\lambda^{A}(t)dt + \nu(t,\lambda_{t}^{A}) \lambda^{A}(t)dW_{t}^{\lambda^{A}}; \qquad \lambda^{A}(0)=\lambda^{A}_{0}\\
d\lambda_{t}^{B} &=& \chi(t,\lambda_{t}^{B})\lambda^{B}(t)dt + \eta(t,\lambda_{t}^{B}) \lambda^{B}(t)dW_{t}^{\lambda^{B}}; \qquad \lambda^{B}(0)=\lambda^{B}_{0}\\
d\langle X,\lambda_{t}^{A}\rangle_{t} &=& d\langle W_{t}^{x},W_{t}^{\lambda^{A}}\rangle_{t} = \rho_{X,\lambda^{A}}dt\\
d\langle X,\lambda_{t}^{B}\rangle_{t} &=& d\langle W_{t}^{x},W_{t}^{\lambda^{B}}\rangle_{t} = \rho_{X,\lambda^{B}}dt\\
\end{eqnarray*}
$if \: \big\{z_{j}= 0 \big \} \; and \; \{\tau_{j}\leq t<\tau_{j+1}\}\Rightarrow $
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_{t}^{C} &=& D_{t}^{rf} \Rightarrow\\
S_{t}^{C} &=& S_{t}^{rf} =Coll_{t}^{Perf} \Rightarrow\\
BCVA_{t}^{C} &=& 0 \forall\:t\in[0,T\wedge \tau]
\end{eqnarray*}
so that the relevant dynamic to model the process in this regime will be just
\begin{equation*}
dX_{t} = \mu(t,X_{t})X(t) dt + \sigma(t,X_{t}) X(t) dW_{t}^{x};\quad X(0)=x_{0}.
\end{equation*}
Here, the drift and volatility coefficient $\mu(t,x)$, $\sigma(t,x)$, $\gamma(t,x)$, $\nu(t,x)$, $\chi(t,x)$ and $\eta(t,x)$ are all continuous, measurable and real valued function $\mathcal{F}$-adapted to the relative brownian filtration.
For a matter of convenience we ease the notation by setting our system dynamic in vectorial form;\\
\begin{center}
$d\mathcal{Y}(t):=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
dt\\
dX_{t} \\
d\lambda^{i}_{t} \\
dZ^{i} \\
\end{array}
\right]$, $ \qquad \mathcal{Y}(0)=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
t=0\\
x_{0} \\
\lambda^{i}_{0} \\
Z_{0}^{i}=1 \\
\end{array}
\right ]$
\end{center}
for $i \in \{A,B\}$. \\
As regards counterparties cost functionals' formulation, we remind that both are assumed
coherently\footnote{Otherwise, it would not have sense for both to sign a contract wich give
flexibility to activate collateralization whenever is optimal.} counterparty risk averse, but in this case they can have different preference/cost functions in which they need to take in account also the optimal control strategy of the other party, namely its response function $b^{-i}(u^{i})$ where $u_{i} := \mathcal{C}^{i}$ and $i\in \{A,B\}$. We are going to discuss more about it in the next section on game formulation. Here, let us be more explicit
about the formulation of counterparties costs for which we assume - for convenience - quadratic
preferences for both generalized to take in account the optimal control strategy of the
other party over time $t \in [0; \tau \wedge T]$, that is formally\footnote{For further details let us refer to section three of Mottola (2013).}:\\
\textbf{a)} \textbf{Running costs}:
\[
F^{A}(\mathcal{Y}_{t},b^{B}(u^{A}),t) = \begin{cases}
\big[(CVA^{A}(s)-DVA^{A}(s)) - \delta^{B}(s,u^{*,A}) \big]^{2} & if \{z_{j}^{i}=1\}\\
\Big( \big( \int_{u}^{T\wedge\tau^{A}_{j+1}} R^{A}(s) [NPV^{A}(v)]du - NPV^{A}(s)\big)- \delta^{B}(s,u^{*,A}) \Big)^{2} & if\; \{z_{j}^{i}=0\} .
\end{cases}\]
$\forall \; s, \tau_{j}\in[t,T\wedge\tau]$ and for counterparty $B$
\[
F^{B}(\mathcal{Y}_{t},b^{A}(u^{B}),t) = \begin{cases}
\big[(CVA^{B}(s)-DVA^{B}(s)) - \delta^{A}(s,u^{*,B}) \big]^{2} & if \{z_{j}^{i}=1\}\\
\Big( \big( \int_{u}^{T\wedge\tau^{B}_{j+1}} R^{B}(s) [NPV^{B}(v)]du - NPV^{B}(s)\big)- \delta^{A}(s,u^{*,B}) \Big)^{2} & if\; \{z_{j}^{i}=0\} .
\end{cases}
\]
$\forall \; s, \tau_{j}\in[t,T\wedge\tau]$ and $i\in \{A,B\}$. Here, all the terms of the running costs are known except the response function $\delta(.)^{i}$ which is assumed non-negative, continuous and $\mathcal{F}$-adapted and
the funding factor term $R^{i}(s)$ which we set to model the expected collateral and funding costs when $z_{j}=0$, that is formally
\[
R^{i}(t) = \begin{cases}
-\exp-(r_{borr}^{i} - r_{rem}^{i})t & if \; z_{j}=0 \;and \;NPV<0 \\
\exp-(r_{opp}^{i} - r_{rem}^{i})t & if \;z_{j}=0 \;and \;NPV>0.
\end{cases}
\]
\textbf{b)} \textbf{Terminal costs}
\[
G^{A}(\mathcal{Y}_{t},b^{B}(u^{A}),t) =
\begin{cases}
(-NPV^{A}(T)-\delta^{B}(T,u^{*,A}))^{2} \Rightarrow& if \; collateral \; is\; active \\
( 0-\delta^{B}(T,u^{*,A}))^{2}\Rightarrow & \;no \;collateral
\end{cases}\]
\[
G^{B}(\mathcal{Y}_{t},b^{A}(u^{B}),t) =
\begin{cases}
(-NPV^{B}(T)-\delta^{A}(T,u^{*,B}))^{2} \Rightarrow & if \; collateral \; is\; active \\
( 0-\delta^{A}(T,u^{*,B}))^{2}\Rightarrow & no \;collateral.
\end{cases}
\]
\textbf{c)} \textbf{Instantaneous switching costs}:
\begin{equation*}
l^{i}\big( \tau_{j}^{i} , z_{j}^{i} \big) = \sum_{j\geq 1}^{M}e^{-r\tau_{j}^{i}} c_{z_{j}^{i}}(t)\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j}^{i} \wedge \tau_{j}^{-i}<T\}} , \;\: \forall\:\:\tau_{j}^{i},z_{j}^{i} \in \{\mathcal{T}^{i}, \mathcal{Z}^{i} \},
\end{equation*}
for $i \in \{A,B\}$, where $c^{i}(.)$ is the $\mathcal{F}$-predictable (deterministic for convenience) instantaneous cost function.
\subsection{\large Game formulation and pure strategies definition}
In this section we pass to give a generalized formulation for our contingent CSA scheme in which
allowing for the strategic interaction between the players - which are the counterparties of this
theoretical contract - we are lead to formulate our problem as a stochastic differential game
whose study of the equilibrium is central for the existence of a solution and the optimal design
of our contingent scheme.\\
In order to formulate the game, firstly, we recall that in our model for the contingent CSA
scheme we assume no fixed times or other rules for switching, that is the counterparty can switch
optimally every time until contract maturity T in order to minimize its objective functional. But
the functionals, as set formally in the former section, now are generalized and not symmetrical
between the parties : as already mentioned, both players are assumed to remain \emph{risk averse}
to the variance of bilateral CVA, collateral and funding costs, but depending on the different
parametrization of the functionals (that we show below) and instantaneous switching costs other
than the difference in default intensities, the problem can be naturally represented by a generalized \emph{non-zero-sum Dynkin game}. This is a non-zero-sum game given that the player payoff
functionals are not symmetrical and generalized in the sense that player controls are not just
simple \emph{stopping times} but sequences of random times that define the optimal times to switch $\tau_{j}$ from
a regime to the other (together with switching indicators sequences $z_{j}$ ).\\
Therefore, given that the \emph{right to switch} is bilateral and we assume no other rules/constraint
on controls set by contract, the other player's optimal strategy - and hence the strategic interaction with the other party - becomes central to define the own optimal switching strategy.
Let us be more formal and, building on the definitions of section 2.3, we define our model's SDG
as a generalized Dynkin game of switching type as follows.\\
\textbf{Definition 2.4.1 (Dynkin game of switching type definition)}.\emph{Let us consider two
players/counterparties $\{A,B\}$ that have signed a general contract with a contingent CSA of
switching type. Given the respective payoff functionals $F^{i}(.)$
(or running reward), the terminal rewards $G^{i}(.)$ and the instantaneous switching cost functions $l^{i}(.)$ where $i \in \{A,B\}$, under rationality assumption and non-cooperative strategic interaction, the players aim to minimize the following objective functional:
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{i}(y,u^{i},u^{-i})&=& \inf_{ u^{i} \in\{\mathcal{C}^{i}_{ad}\}} \mathbb{E} \Bigg[\sum_{j} \int_{t}^{\tau_{j}^{i}\wedge\tau_{j}^{-i}\wedge T} B_{s}\bigg[F^{i}(y_{s},u^{i}, b^{-i}(u^{i}))\bigg]ds \\ \nonumber
&+& l^{i}\big( \tau_{j}^{i}, z_{j}^{i} \big) + G^{i}(y_{T}, b^{-i}(u^{i})) \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \Bigg]\;\; for \:i \in\{A,B\}
\end{eqnarray}
where we mean for $i = A$ then $-i = B$ and viceversa, $B_{t}$ is defined in (1), the system dynamic is defined in section 2.3 by $dy_{t}:= d\mathcal{Y}_{t}$, the controls set are defined in (21)-(22) and we have set for notational convenience $u_{i} :=\{\mathcal{T}^{i},\mathcal{Z}^{i}\}$ for $ i \in\{ A,B\}$.}\\
Let us underline from definition 2.4.1 that the payoffs functions, whose specific formulation has been stated in section 2.3, can differ between $A$ and $B$ for the following terms
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta^{A}(.) &\lesseqgtr& \delta^{B}(.) \\
R^{A}_{t}(.) &\lesseqgtr& R^{B}_{t}(.) \\
c^{A}_{t}(.) &\lesseqgtr& c^{B}_{t}(.)
\end{eqnarray}
where\\
\noindent a) $R^{i}(.)$ is the funding-collateral cost factor defined in the former section;\\
b) $\delta^{i}(.)$ is the running cost function threshold which is generalized her taking as argument the
optimal response and control strategies of the other player;\\
c) $c^{i}_{t}(.)$ are the already known instantaneous costs from switching.\\
\textbf{Remarks 2.4.2.} The game as formulated above in (23) is fairly general; in addition, one could also introduce the possibility for the players to stop the game adding a stopping time (and the related reward/cost function) to the set of controls made up of switching times and indicators. From the financial point of view, this can be justified by a \emph{early termination clause} set in the contingent CSA defined by the parties. Anyway, given the problem recursion, this would add greater complications that we leave for further research.\\
Actually this game is already complicated by the fact that, differently from the (non-zero-sum) Dynkin game as formulated in section 1.3, here the players control strategies affect also each other payoffs. In fact, given that in our general formulation the players can switch optimally whenever over the life of the underlying contract, it is clear that - without setting any other \emph{rules} for the game - the decision of one player to switch to a certain regime impose a different cost function $F_{Z}(.)^{i}$ also for the other player. So if $A$ switches but for $B$ the decision is not optimal, he is able to immediately switch back, taking in account the instantaneous switching costs\footnote{Note from (23) that the indicator $\mathbbm{1}_{\{\tau_{j}^{A}\wedge \tau_{j}^{B}<T \}}$ the instantaneous switching costs enter in the functional whoever of the players decides to switch}.
In this sense, the relative difference between players' payoff (in the different regimes) and the strategic interaction between them over time become central in order to understand and analyze the problem solution/equilibrium. \\
We return on this points later, here is important to mention that in order to highlight this strategic dependence in the game - that is assumed to be played by \emph{rational and non-cooperative} players - we have enriched the running cost function $F_{Z}(.)^{i}$ by a response function $b^{-i}(u^{i})$, which can be intended mainly in two way:\\
\indent a) \emph{as the ''classical'' best response function to the other player strategy, which implies the complete information assumption in the game, that is the players have the same information set about the system dynamic and they are able to calculate (under the real probability measure $\mathbb{P}$) each other payoff;}\\
\indent b) \emph{if the game information is not complete and there is a degree of \emph{uncertainty} over the players payoff and their switching strategy, the function $b^{-i}(u^{i})$ can be intended in generalized terms as a probability distribution assigned by a player to the optimal response of the other one.}\\
We discuss further on the game information flows below. Now, the main issue to tackle is to understand the condition under which this generalized game (23) have sense and it will be played, which means that it will be signed by counterparties. This takes to the problem definition of an equilibrium for this game and to the condition under which its existence and uniqueness are ensured.\\
Before giving the formal definition of the game equilibrium, let us highlight the game pure strategies at a given time $ \{\tau_{j-1}^{i}< t\leq \tau_{j}^{i}\}$ under the assumption of \emph{simultaneous moves} by players.\\\\
\textbf{Definition 2.4.3 (Pure strategies of the game of switching type).} \emph{For any given initial condition ${z_{0}^{A},z_{0}^{B} }$ and $\forall\: z_{j}^{A} \in u^{A}$ and $z_{j}^{B} \in u^{B}$ and $ \{\tau_{j-1}^{i}< t\leq \tau_{j}^{i}\}$, the pure strategies of our Dynkin game of switching type are defined as follows\\
$if\{z_{j-1} = 0\}\:\Longrightarrow$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{z_{j}^{A}&=& 0, \; z_{j}^{B}= 0\}\: \Longrightarrow \: "no\: switch" \\
\{z_{j}^{A} &=& 0, \; z_{j}^{B}=1\} \: \Longrightarrow \: " switch\: to\: 1" \\
\{z_{j}^{A} &=& 1, \; z_{j}^{B}=0\} \: \Longrightarrow \: " switch\: to\: 1"\\
\{z_{j}^{A} &=& 1, \; z_{j}^{B}=1\} \: \Longrightarrow \: " switch\: to\: 1".
\end{eqnarray*}
while if $\{z_{j-1} = 1\}\:\Longrightarrow$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{z_{j}^{A}&=& 0, \; z_{j}^{B}= 0\}\: \Longrightarrow \: "switch\:to \:0" \\
\{z_{j}^{A} &=& 0, \; z_{j}^{B}=1\} \: \Longrightarrow \: " switch\: to\: 0" \\
\{z_{j}^{A} &=& 1, \; z_{j}^{B}=0\} \: \Longrightarrow \: " switch\: to\: 0"\\
\{z_{j}^{A} &=& 1, \; z_{j}^{B}=1\} \: \Longrightarrow \: " no \:switch".
\end{eqnarray*}}
\noindent In the table below we represent the standard game form at a given decision time with the possible (pure) strategies (namely the switching indicators) and the related random payoff between parenthesis.\\
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{3}{}{}\\
\hline
$A,B$& $Switch$ & $No\: Switch$\\
\hline
$Switch$ & $1,1\:(J^{A},J^{B})$ & $1,0 \:(J^{A},J^{B})$ \\
\hline
$No\: Switch$ &$0, 1\:(J^{A},J^{B})$& $0,0 \:(J^{A},J^{B})$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
where we note that the players' strategies can be cast in these two categories:
\begin{enumerate}
\item on the main diagonal of the table we have \emph{accomodation/peace type switching strategies} played
over time;
\item on the opposite diagonal of the table we have \emph{fighting/war type switching strategies } played
over time.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{\large Game equilibrium and stochastic representation through system of RBSDE }
From a static point of view the NEP for the game of definition 2.4.1 can be easily found once the payoff $J^{i}$ are known. But the problem is that game configurations like these has to be played over time taking in account as key factors:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{the payoff value that derives from switching at a given time;}
\item \emph{ the expected value from waiting until the next switching time;}
\item \emph{ the optimal responses, namely the other party optimal switching strategy. This implies - by information flows' symmetry - that each player knows how to calculate (under the real probability measure $\mathbb{P}$) the points a) and b) relative to the other party.}
\end{enumerate}
The resulting equilibrium is an optimal sequence of switching over time for both players that needs a (backward) dynamically recursive valuation. On an heuristic base, we expect that if the relative difference (over time) in players payoff functionals - mainly due to different function parametrization, default intensities $\lambda^{i}$ or switching costs $c_{Z}^{i}$ - remains low, it is more likely that the switching strategies on the main diagonal of the game $\{1,1;0,0\}$ will be played (given that both players would have also similar best responses). This should ease the search for the equilibrium of the game but this makes more likely to incur in \emph{banal solutions} . Otherwise, one should observe a more complicated strategic behavior that needs a careful study depending also on the type of equilibrium that now we try to define.\\
Indeed, given the characteristics of our game namely a non-zero-sum game in which the agents are assumed rational and act in a non-cooperative way in order to minimize their objective function knowing that also the other part will do the same, the equilibrium/solution of this type of games is the celebrated \emph{Nash equilibrium point} (NEP). Actually, - as already shown - in our case the equilibrium is characterized by a sequence of optimal switching over time and being game (23) a generalization of a \emph{Dynkin game}, by similarity, we can state the following definition of a \emph{Nash equilibrium point} for a \emph{Dynkin game of switching type}.\\\\
\textbf{Definition 2.5.1 (NEP for Dynkin game of switching type).} \emph{Let us define the switching control sets for the player $\{A,B\}$ of the generalized Dynkin game (23) as follows
\begin{equation*}
u_{A} := \big\{ \tau_{j}^{A}, z_{j}^{A}\big\}_{j=1}^{M}, \;\;\forall\: \tau^{A}_{j}\in[0,T],\:z^{A}_{j}\in\{0,1\};
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
u_{B} := \big\{ \tau_{j}^{B}, z_{j}^{B}\big\}_{j=1}^{M}, \;\;\forall\: \tau^{B}_{j}\in[0,T],\:z^{B}_{j}\in\{0,1\}.
\end{equation*}
A Nash equilibrium point for this game is given by the pair of sequences of switching times and indicators $\{u^{*}_{A}, u^{*}_{B}\} $ such that for any control sequences $\{ u_{A}, u_{B}\}$ the following condition are satisfied
\begin{equation}
J^{A}(y;u^{*}_{A} ,u^{*}_{B} ) \leq J^{A}(y; u_{A} ,u^{*}_{B} )
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
J^{B}(y; u^{*}_{A} ,u^{*}_{B} ) \leq J^{B}(y; u_{A}^{*} ,u_{B} )
\end{equation}
(the signs will be reversed in the maximization case). }\\\\
\noindent A formal and rigorous proof of the existence (and uniqueness) of a NEP for our game such that it is non trivial or \emph{banal} in the sense that it is never optimal for both the parties to switch
or when the switching control set reduce to a single switching/stopping time - is the big issue
here.\\
In order to approach its solution , as we know from the introduction, one has in general two way: analytic or probabilistic which are deeply interconnected (working in a markovian framework).
In particular, from the theory of BSDE with reflection\footnote{We refer in particular to the classical work of \cite{Elk97}}, we can state the next definition for the stochastic representation of our Dynkin game of switching type as a \emph{system of interconnected (non-linear) reflected BSDE}. Let us denote first with
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M}^{p}= \{ E[\sup_{t\leq T}|\nu_{t}|^{p}]<\infty \}
\end{equation*}
the set of progressively measurable and $p$ integrable processes $\nu_{t}$ and with
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}^{p} = \{E[\int_{0}^{T}|\nu_{s}|^{p}ds] <\infty \}
\end{equation*}
the set of continuous and progressively measurable processes. Hence the following states.\\
\textbf{Definition 2.5.2 (RBSDE representation for game of switching type).}
\emph{Let us define the vector triple $(Y^{i,Z}, N^{i,Z},K^{i,Z})$ for $i\in\{A,B\}$ and $Z\in\{z,\zeta\}$ with $Y^{i}$ and $N^{i}$ assumed progressively measurable and adapted to the market filtration $(\mathcal{F}_{t}^{W})$ and $K$ continuous and increasing. Then, given the standard Brownian motion vector $W_{t}$, the terminal reward $\xi^{i}$, the obstacles $Y^{i,Z}_{t} - c^{i,Z}_{t}$ and the generator functions $F^{i}_{Z}(.,Y^{-i})$ assumed progressively measurable, uniformly Lipschitz and interconnected between the players, the Dynkin game of switching type formulated in (23) has the following representation through system of interconnected non-linear reflected BSDE}
\[
\begin{cases}
Y^{A,z},Y^{A,\zeta} \in \mathcal{K}^{2}; N^{A,z},N^{A,\zeta} \in \mathcal{M}^{2};\:\: K^{A,z}, K^{A,\zeta} \in \mathcal{K}^{2}, \: K \:non\:decreasing\:and\:K_{0} =0,\\
Y_{t}^{A,Z} =\xi^{A}+ \int_{s}^{T} F^{A}_{Z}(y_{s},u^{A},N^{A}_{s};Y^{B}_{s})ds - \int_{s}^{T} N_{s}^{A,Z}dW_{s} + K^{A,Z}_{T} - K^{A,Z}_{s}, \; \: t\leq s\leq T\wedge \tau,\; Z\in\{z,\zeta\} \\
Y_{t}^{A,z} \geq (Y_{t}^{A,\zeta} - c^{A,z}_{t}) ;\;\: \int_{0}^{T}[ Y_{t}^{A,z} - (Y_{t}^{A,\zeta} - c^{A,z}_{t} )]dK^{A,z}_{t}=0;\\
Y_{t}^{A,\zeta} \geq (Y_{t}^{A,z} - c^{A,\zeta}_{t}) ;\;\; \int_{0}^{T}[ Y_{t}^{A,\zeta} - (Y_{t}^{A,z} - c^{A,\zeta}_{t} )]dK^{A,\zeta}_{t}=0;\\\\
Y^{B,z},Y^{B,\zeta} \in \mathcal{K}^{2}; N^{B,z},N^{B,\zeta} \in \mathcal{M}^{2};\:\: K^{B,z}, K^{B,\zeta} \in \mathcal{K}^{2}, \: K \:non\:decreasing\:and\:K_{0} =0,\\
Y_{t}^{B,Z} = \xi^{B}+ \int_{s}^{T} F^{B}_{Z}(y_{s},u^{B},N^{B}_{s};Y^{A}_{s})ds - \int_{s}^{T} N_{s}^{B,Z}dW_{s} + K^{B,Z}_{T} - K^{B,Z}_{s}, \; \: t\leq s\leq T\wedge \tau \;, Z\in\{z,\zeta\} \\
Y_{t}^{B,z} \geq (Y_{t}^{B,\zeta} - c^{B,z}_{t}) ;\;\: \int_{0}^{T}[ Y_{t}^{B,z} - (Y_{t}^{B,\zeta} - c^{B,z}_{t} )]dK^{B,z}_{t}=0;\\
Y_{t}^{B,\zeta} \geq (Y_{t}^{B,z} - c^{B,\zeta}_{t}) ;\;\; \int_{0}^{T}[ Y_{t}^{B,\zeta} - (Y_{t}^{B,z} - c^{B,\zeta}_{t} )]dK^{B,\zeta}_{t}=0\\\\
\end{cases}
\]
From definition 2.5.2, it is evident that the system of RBSDE is a non-standard one given the characteristics of the generator functions (which are the cost function in our game) that are inter-dependent and this is highlighted by the presence of the other player value process $Y^{i}_{t}$ inside $F^{i}_{Z}(.)$ for $i\in\{A,B\}$ . This makes hard to show the existence and uniqueness of the solution of the system for the reason that we highlight below. In particular, the solution of this system of RBSDE is made up of a two-dimensional vector made up by the triple $(Y^{*,Z}, N^{*,Z},K^{*,Z})$ where its dimension is given by the two switching regimes while the optimal switching sequences is determined by the value process crossings of the barriers, represented by the last two lines of the RBSDEs system.\\ Therefore, the other central issue is to show that the the system vector solution $Y^{*,Z}$ coincides with the players value functions' of the non-zero-sum game of switching type (23).\\
As far as we know, these issues have been tackled - in relation to switching problems - in the already mentioned work of \cite{Ham10}. They study general system of m-dimensional BSDE called with \emph{oblique reflection}, which are RBSDE with both generator and barrier interconnected as in our case, showing existence and uniqueness of the solution while the optimal strategy in general does not exist but an \emph{approximating optimal strategy} is constructed (through some technical estimates).\\
Let us briefly recall the main technical assumptions that are imposed in order to derive these results are:\\
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{square integrability for both the generator function $F^{i}(.)$ and terminal reward $\xi$ while the obstacles function are continuous and bounded;}
\item \emph{Lipschitz (uniform) continuity of the generator function respect to its terms;}
\item \emph{both the generator and the obstacles are assumed to be increasing function of the other players utility/value process.}
\end{itemize}
As also mentioned in the above mentioned paper, the condition c) implies from a game point of view that the players are \emph{partners}, namely the interaction and the impact of the other players value processes has a unique positive sign. This is not the case of our non-zero-sum game in which the interaction allowed between the two players is antagonistic and more complicate.\\
Hence, as far as we know, the existence and uniqueness solution of the optimal switching strategy for our
game formulated in definition 2.5.2 is an open problem, whose solution needs further studies.
Probably a solution for the problem exists but it won't be unique, indeed the classifications of solutions behavior'
and the conditions for their existence and uniqueness it is an interesting and hard program to tackle analytically
and also numerically.
Therefore, even though one could assume to simplify the problem in order to work under the same assumptions a)- c) that would ensure the existence and uniqueness of the solution, it would remain to verify that the solution of the system of RBSDE is the \emph{Nash equilibrium point} for the game (23), which is complicated by the fact that the optimal control strategy may not exist\footnote{See \cite{Ham10} for details.}. Formally, one should prove the following theorem which is also an open problem.\\
\textbf{Theorem 2.5.3 (NEP and RBSDE system solution).} \emph{Let us assume the existence and uniqueness of the solution for the system of definition 2.5.2, under the assumption a)- c). Then the system RBSDE value processes $Y^{*}_{A}$, $Y^{*}_{B}$ coincide with the player value functions of the game of switching type, that is
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y^{*}_{A}&=& J^{A}(y,u^{*}_{A},u^{*}_{B}) \\
Y^{*}_{B}&=& J^{B}(y,u^{*}_{B},u^{*}_{A})
\end{eqnarray*}
and are such that condition (27) and (28) are satisfied, which implies the existence and uniqueness of a Nash equilibrium point for the game (23).}\\
\textbf{Remarks 2.5.4.} As we already know, in the markovian framework - thanks to \cite{Elk97}
results - the solution of the system of RBSDE is connected with the viscosity solution of a
generalized system of non-linear PDE with generator and obstacles different and interconnected
between the two players, which is even harder to study analytically. The main alternative is
to try to approach numerically the problem, searching for the conditions under which one can
find the equilibrium. A possibility is to apply the same technique - \emph{Snell envelope} and \emph{iterative
optimal stopping} technique of the work of \cite{Car10} \footnote{We refer also to the fifth section of \cite{Mot13}}. adapted to study our stochastic game's solution. In particular, the algorithm need to be generalized in order to introduce the players' strategic interaction and to compute the \emph{Nash equilibrium point } of the game.\\
Let us give here just a sketch of the numerical solution founded on the \emph{iterative optimal stopping approach} which is well suited to study the solution of our highly nonlinear and recursive problem. Let us pick for exposition convenience two calculation times $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ and a final regime switching condition (given that the program run backward in time while the information grow forward) thanks to the \emph{dynamic programming principle}, both the players need to evaluate at these discretized times
\begin{enumerate}
\item the optimality of an immediate switch at $t_{1}$ to the other regime ($Z \in \{z,\zeta\}$) taking in account the \emph{best response function} of the other player (over each switching time);
\item the optimality to \emph{continue} namely to wait the next switching time $t_{2}$, considering also in this case the \emph{best response} of the other party.
\end{enumerate}
Formally, this means to run the following program:
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{l,A}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{A},b^{B}(u^{A}) ) &=& \min\bigg( \mathbb{E}\big[\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}} F^{A}(s,\mathcal{Y}_{s},u^{A}_{s},b^{B}(u^{A}_{s}) )ds + V^{l,A}(t_{2}, \mathcal{Y}_{t_{2}},u^{A}_{t_{2}},b^{B}(u^{A}_{t_{2}})) |\mathcal{F}_{t_{1}}\big], \nonumber\\
& & SW^{A,Z}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{A}_{t_{1}},b^{B}(u^{A}_{t_{1}}) )\bigg) \nonumber\\
&\simeq& \min\bigg( F^{A,Z}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{A}_{t_{1}},b^{B}(u^{A}_{t_{1}}))\Delta t + \mathbb{E}\big[ V^{l,A}(t_{2}, \mathcal{Y}_{t_{2}},u^{A}_{t_{2}},b^{B}(u^{A}_{t_{2}}))|\mathcal{F}_{t_{1}}\big], \nonumber\\
& & \{V^{l-1, A}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{A}_{t_{1}},b^{B}(u^{A}_{t_{1}}))- c_{t_{1}}^{Z}\}\bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{l,B}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{B},b^{A}(u^{B}) ) &=& \min\bigg( \mathbb{E}\big[\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}} F^{B}(s,\mathcal{Y}_{s},u^{B}_{s},b^{A}(u^{B}_{s}) )ds + V^{l,B}(t_{2}, \mathcal{Y}_{t_{2}},u^{B}_{t_{2}},b^{A}(u^{B}_{t_{2}})) |\mathcal{F}_{t_{1}}\big],\nonumber\\
& & SW^{B,Z}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{B}_{t_{1}},b^{A}(u^{B}_{t_{1}}) )\bigg) \nonumber\\
&\simeq& \min\bigg( F^{B,Z}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{B}_{t_{1}},b^{A}(u^{B}_{t_{1}}))\Delta t + \mathbb{E}\big[ V^{l,B}(t_{2}, \mathcal{Y}_{t_{2}},u^{B}_{t_{2}},b^{A}(u^{B}_{t_{2}}))|\mathcal{F}_{t_{1}}\big], \nonumber\\
& & \{V^{l-1, B}(t_{1},\mathcal{Y}_{t_{1}},u^{B}_{t_{1}},b^{A}(u^{B}_{t_{1}}))- c_{t_{1}}^{Z}\}\bigg)
\end{eqnarray}
where $SW^{i,Z}(.)$ is the so called \emph{intervention/switching operator} that quantifies the switching regime value and it represents the obstacle in our RBSDE's formulation, while $l\in \{1,\dots,M\}$ denotes the number of switching time left.\\
By running the program (29)-(30) backward over time one needs to keep trace - over each switching time - of both the players switching strategies - optimal or not - and the relative payoffs in order to calculate in $t=0$ the players value functions $J^{i}(.)$ and their game strategies (using definition 2.4.3). Then by checking the conditions (27)-(28), the existence (and uniqueness) of the \emph{Nash equilibrium point} for the game (23) can be established.
Definitely the equilibrium existence needs a careful numerical analysis and algorithm implementation that we leave for a future paper.
\subsection{\large Game solution in a special case and further analysis}
In this section we make some further reasoning on the game characteristics in order to possibly
simplify our general formulation (23) and to search for a solution.
In particular, we focus the analysis on the following three main points - already mentioned in
the past section - that have impact on the equilibrium characterization and existence:\\
\noindent a) \emph{information set between the players/counterparties};\\
b) \emph{rules of the game};\\
c) \emph{differences in the objective functionals of the players/counterparties}.\\
\indent a) Firstly, a careful analysis of the game information set is fundamental to characterize and understand the game itself and its equilibrium. In our game formulation (23) we have assumed symmetry in the information available for the players which helps to simplify the analysis, but in general one needs to specify what is the information available to them at all the stage of the game. Given that we have been working under the market filtration $(\mathcal{F}_{t})_{t\geq 0}$, under symmetry we get that both player knows $\forall\: t \in[0,T] $ the values of the market variables and processes that enter the valuation problem, namely
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{F}_{t}^{A} = \mathcal{F}_{t}^{B} =\mathcal{F}_{t} \;\; \forall\: t \in[0,T]
\end{equation*}
So, both players are able to calculate the outcomes/payoff of the game through time. This implies that the players know each other cost functions so that the game is said \emph{information complete}\footnote{They know strategies and payoff at every stage of the game.} and it is easier to solve for a NEP knowing the \emph{best response function}.\\
It is important to underline that the game is played simultaneously at the decision times but it is dynamic and recursive because of the optimal strategy played today will depend not only on the initial condition (that is usually \emph{common knowledge}) but on future decisions taken by both the players. Clearly, this complicates game characteristics of the game imposing a backward induction procedure to search for an equilibrium point.\\
Of course, the assumption to know the counterparty cost function is quite strong for our problem in which the parties of the underlying contract can operate in completely different markets or industries, but it can be not uncommon to verify a \emph{cooperative behavior} between them. In particular, in \emph{cooperative games} the players aim to maximize or minimize the sum of the values of their payoff over times, namely \begin{eqnarray*}
J^{coop}(y,u^{*}) &:=& \inf_{u^{*} \in \{\mathcal{C}_{ad}^{A} \cup \mathcal{C}_{ad}^{B} \}}\bigg[J^{A}(y,u^{A}) + J^{B}(y,u^{B}) \bigg]\\
&:=& \inf_{u^{*} \in \{\mathcal{C}_{ad}^{A} \cup \mathcal{C}_{ad}^{B} \}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{j} \int_{t}^{\tau_{j}^{i}\wedge\tau_{j}^{-i}\wedge T} B_{s} \Big[ F^{A}(y_{s},u^{A}, b^{B}(u^{A})) +\\
&+&F^{B}(y_{s},u^{B}, b^{A}(u^{B})) \Big]ds + \big(l^{A}(\tau_{j}^{A} z_{j}^{A}) + l^{B}( \tau_{j}^{B} , z_{j}^{B}) \big)\bigg]\\
&+& \big(G^{A}(y(T), b^{B}(u^{A})) + G^{B}(y(T), b^{A}(u^{B}))\big) \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \Bigg]\;\; for \:j = 1,\dots,M.
\end{eqnarray*}
This type of equilibrium, depending on the type of game considered, is much more difficult to study in the stochastic framework, given the necessity to find the condition under which players cooperate over time and have no incentives ''to cheat'' playing a different (non cooperative) strategy. This can be an interesting further generalization for our game model that would be important to examine in major depth. Hence this is an other interesting topic to study in relation to our type of game that would be important to examine this issue in major depth.\\
\indent b) Also the rules of the game are important in order to simplify the search for the equilibrium. In our model both the counterparties are able to switch optimally every time over the contract life. Discretizing the time domain, we have been lead to think at the game as played simultaneously through time over the switching time set that can be predefined in the contract or model specific. In terms of game theory, this means that a given decisional node of the game the players make their optimal choice based on the information available (which is \emph{common knowledge}) at that node and at the subsequent node they observe the outcome of the last interaction and update their strategy.\\
An other possibility that may help to simplify things, is to assume that - by contract specifications - the counterparties can switch only at predefined times and that the two sets have null intersection, namely
\begin{equation*}
\big\{ \tau^{A}_{j}\cap \tau^{B}_{j}\big\}_{j=1}^{M} = \varnothing.
\end{equation*}
This happen for example if the right to switch is set as "sequential". So, again in terms of game theory, the strategic interaction and the game become \emph{sequential}: under the assumption of \emph{incomplete information}, this type of games are generally solved via backward induction procedure and one can search for a weaker type of Nash equilibrium.
Clearly, we remind that in our case this type of equilibrium need to be
studied under a stochastic framework which remains a cumbersome and tough task both
analytically and numerically\\
Clearly, we remind that this type of equilibrium should be studied under a stochastic framework which is analytically more difficult and also numerically it can be a cumbersome task. A strategic sequential interaction like that, can be also obtained by setting time rules like the so called \emph{grace periods} within the contract CSA, namely a time delta $\Delta t$ that the other party has to wait - after a switching time - before making its optimal switching decision.\\
\indent c) The last point really relevant in our game analysis concerns the relative differences between counterparties objective functionals. In particular, recalling our model specifications, the main variables that have impact in this sense are:
\begin{itemize}
\item differences in the default intensities processes $\lambda^{A}_ {t} $, $\lambda^{B}_{t} $;
\item differences in the cost function thresholds $ \delta^{A}(.)$, $\delta^{B}(.)$;
\item differences in funding/opportunity costs $R^{A}_{t}(.)$, $R^{B}_{t}(.)$;
\item differences in the (instantaneous) switching costs $c^{z,A}_{t}(.)$, ,$c^{z,B}_{t}(.)$.
\end{itemize}
To be more clear, let us focus on some specific case.\\
\textbf{1) Symmetric case}. Let us simplify things by considering the special case of our game (23) in which symmetry between the party of the contract is assumed.
In this special case, we are able to show the existence of the solution for the game and we also highlight the impact on the equilibrium of just a simple constant threshold $\delta$ in the running cost functions. Under \emph{symmetry}, it is easy to show that the game
solution coincides with that of a stochastic control problem of switching type. In fact, solving the control problem from just one player's perspective is equivalent to a game played by symmetric players with objective functional having the same parameters. In economic terms, the reason to consider a game between two \emph{symmetric} players can
be justified if one thinks to two institutions with similar \emph{business characteristics} other
than risk worthiness, that operate in the same country/region/market with the objective
to optimally manage the counterparty risk and the collateral and funding costs by signing
a contingent CSA in which are defined all the relevant parameters necessary to know each
other objective functional.\\
Hence, let us be more formal and let's consider a game played under these special symmetric conditions, it is not difficult to see that the game payoffs will be the same for both the player: in fact, being $\delta^{A}(.)=\delta^{B}(.)=0$, the square of BCVA and collateral costs functions is the same and also the instantaneous costs are assumed equal. This implies that also the best response functions will be equal for both the player, namely they play the same switching strategy, however the game is played simultaneously or sequentially. So, on the basis of this chain of thought, and imposing the following technical conditions\footnote{We refer here to section 2.1 of \cite{Dje08}.}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textbf{Hp1})] the stochastic factors that drive the dynamic of the system $(X_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T}$ and $(\lambda_{t})_{0\leq t\leq T}$, (that we indicate with the vector $\mathcal{Y}_{t}$ for brevity) are $ \mathbb{R}$-valued processes adapted to the market filtration $\mathbb{F}_{t}^{x,\lambda}= \sigma\{ W_{s}^{x,\lambda},s\leq t\}_{t\in[0,T]}$ assumed right-continuous and complete;
\item[\textbf{Hp2})] the cost functions $F_{Z}^{i}(.) \in \mathcal{M}^{p}$ and $G_{Z}^{i}(.) \in \mathcal{M}^{p}$ while the switching costs $l^{i}_{Z}(.)^{Z}\in \mathcal{K}^{p}$, being deterministic and continuous;
\item[\textbf{Hp3})] the running costs functions need to satisfy the \emph{linear growth condition} and for the switching costs $c_{Z}^{i}$ a technical condition as $\min\{c^{i}_{z}, c^{i}_{\zeta} \} \geq C $ for $i\in\{A,B\} $ $t\leq T\wedge\tau$, switching indicators $\{z,\zeta\}\in Z$ and real constant $C>0$, is imposed in order to reduce the convenience to switch too many times;
\end{itemize}
the following result states.\\
\textbf{Proposition 2.6.1 (NEP Existence and uniqueness in symmetric case.)}. \emph{Assume
symmetric conditions for our Dynkin game of switching type (23), taking relations (24-26) with the equality and set $\delta^{A}(.) =\delta^{B}(.) = 0$. In addition, under the technical (Hp1 -Hp3) exists and is unique a Nash equilibrium for this game and it coincides with the value function of the following stochastic control problem\footnote{The problem is explicitly set in \cite{Mot13}.} that is
\begin{eqnarray}
J(y,u) &=& \inf_{ u \in\{\mathcal{C}_{ad}\}} \mathbb{E} \Bigg[\sum_{j} \int_{t}^{\tau_{j}\wedge T} B_{s}\big[F_{Z}(y_{s},u)\big]ds
+ \sum_{j\geq 1} c_{z_{j}}(t)\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} <T\}} + G(y_{T}) \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \Bigg]
\end{eqnarray}
where the model dynamics $d\mathcal{Y}_{t}$ has been defined in section 2.3 and the following relation for the value function states
\begin{equation}
J^{A}(y, u^{*}_{A} ;u^{*}_{B} ) = J^{B}(y, u^{*}_{A} ;u^{*}_{B} ) = V^{*}(y,u^{*}).\\
\end{equation}
which indicates the irrelevance of the strategic interaction under symmetry.}\\
\emph{Proof.} The proof is easy given the above reasonings. In fact, under the \emph{symmetry conditions} and recalling the notation from the general game formulation (23) we have that the following relations hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^{A}_{Z}(y_{s},u^{A}, b^{B}(u^{A}))&=& F^{B}_{Z}(y_{s},u^{B}, b^{A}(u^{B}))\\
l^{A}_{z_{j}^{A}}(t)\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j}^{A} \wedge \tau_{j}^{B} <T\}} &=& l^{B}_{z_{j}^{B}}(t)\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j}^{B} \wedge \tau_{j}^{A} <T\}} \\
G^{A}(y(T), b^{B}(u^{A})) &=& G^{B}(y(T), b^{A}(u^{B}))
\end{eqnarray*}
and being control sequence optimal for both players we can set $\tau_{j} := \tau^{A}_{j} = \tau^{B}_{j}$ which implies $\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j}^{A} \wedge \tau_{j}^{B} <T\}} = \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} <T\}}$, namely $u^{*}_{A}= u^{*}_{B}$, which implies also the equality of the best response functions $b^{A}(u^{B}) =b^{B}(u^{A}) = 0$, given the assumptions on the thresholds $\delta^{i}(.)$. This means also that the strategic interaction becomes irrelevant and the game solution can be reduced to that of an optimal switching control problem equivalent for both the players, so that game (23) is reduced to the problem (31), namely
\begin{eqnarray*}
J(y,u) &:=& J^{A}(y,u^{A}, u^{B}) = J^{B}(y,u^{B},u^{A}) \Longrightarrow\\
J(y,u) &=& \inf_{ u \in\{\mathcal{C}_{ad}\}} \mathbb{E} \Bigg[\sum_{j} \int_{t}^{\tau_{j}\wedge T} B_{s}\big[F_{Z}(y_{s},u)\big]ds
+ \sum_{j\geq 1} c_{z_{j}}(t)\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \tau_{j} <T\}} + G(y_{T}) \bigg| \mathcal{F}_{t} \Bigg].
\end{eqnarray*}
By the proof of value function's existence and uniqueness $V^{*}(y, u^{*})$ for this problem (for which we refer to \cite{Dje08}), one derives the optimal sequence of switching times and indicators $u^{*}= \{\mathcal{T}^{*}, \mathcal{Z}^{*} \}$. that satisfies conditions (27) and (28) of NEP definition 2.5.1,
being the control strategy optimal for both players (by symmetry). Indeed, given that the two problems
representation are actually the same, the NEP exists and is unique - from the existence and
uniqueness of the value $V^{*}(y; u^{*})$ - and equation (32) is true, as we wanted to show. $\square$\\
2) \textbf{Case $\delta^{A} =\delta^{B} \neq 0$}. In general with different function parametrization between players and incomplete or asymmetric information, the equilibrium is much harder to find and different strategies has to be checked. To give an idea of this, let us consider just a slight modification of the symmetric case conditions, setting for example the cost functions threshold $\delta^{A}= \delta^{B}>0$, and keeping the information incomplete and the game play simultaneous. By the symmetry of BCVA and (running) \emph{collateral/funding costs}, we know that a positive value of one term for $A$, is negative for $B$ and viceversa. So introducing the threshold create different payoffs for the player, as we can easily see below
\begin{equation*}
(BCVA^{A} - \delta)^{2} \gtrless (BCVA^{B} - \delta)^{2}
\end{equation*}
given that if $BCVA^{A}_{t}>0$ then $BCVA^{B}_{t}<0$ and viceversa\footnote{This is true also for the other switching costs related to collateral and funding. Of course one should consider also the weight of the expected payoff value from keeping the strategy for an other period.}. So, even though they knew each other objective functional, there would be some paths and periods in which the strategic behavior of the players is in contrast, say of \emph{war type} and others of \emph{peace type} (as by pure strategy definition 2.4.3), making the analysis more complicate.\\
3) \textbf{Game banal solution case. } Worth of mention the possibility that the game is not played, namely it reveals to be never optimal to switch for both the players. It's relevant to study the conditions under this kind of behavior of the solution come up, given that the scheme would lose its \emph{economic sense}. This \emph{singular game solution} can come up if we formulate to our simultaneous game as a \emph{zero sum game}. This can happen by considering - for example - linear objective functionals with threshold $\delta\approx 0$, in fact - by symmetry of the BCVA and of funding cost function - a positive outcome for one player is negative for the counterpart\footnote{Obviously, when the value of the cost functions compensate each other, no switch take place}. Assuming instantaneous switching costs $c^{z}>0$ for both players and - to simplify - that both know each other cost functions, we get that this game will never be played. The reason is that by the game zero sum structure, the optimal strategy for one is not optimal for the other, so every switch will be followed by the opposite switch at every switching time, like the sequence
\begin{equation*}
\big\{z_{1}=1,z_{2}=0,z_{3}=1,\dots,z_{M}=1\big\}
\end{equation*}
But by rationality and taking in account the positive cost of switching, one can conclude that the game will never be played by a rational agent.\\
So, let us summarize this last logic chain of thoughts in the following proposition.\\
\textbf{Proposition 2.6.2 (Game banal solution in the zero-sum case)}. \emph{Let us assume that game (23) be a zero-sum game with linear functionals set for both the counterparties. Assuming in addition the same funding costs for both players, $\delta \approx 0$ and positive switching costs $c^{z}>0$ (for both), then the optimal strategy is to never play this game (that is a banal solution of the game).}\\
We end the section by remarking the importance of the points highlighted in the construction
of some kind of equilibrium for a Dynkin game of switching type as our one. Although mainly
theoretical, the existence of the equilibrium and the derivation of the conditions under which a
non banal solution exists, are relevant economically and in the contract design phase.\\
Hence, the main task to pursue in future research are a rigorous proof of the existence and of
the equilibrium for this type of game, and the definition of an efficient algorithm to check the
model solutions.\\
\section{\Large Applications and further researches}
Switching type mechanisms like the one we have analyzed can find different applications into the
wild world of finance. The basic underlying idea is to ensure
\emph{flexibility} to agents' investments decisions over time which is a usual objective in \emph{real option theory}. Our problem has been thought
mainly in a risk management view but with the development of new techniques and algorithms,
also the related pricing problem will be tackled efficiently and more financial contract would find
useful and convenient - in a optimal risk management view - this type of contingent mechanisms.
As regards just a possible further application in risk management, it would be important to
deepen the analysis of a switching type collateralization from a \emph{portfolio perspective}, taking for
example the view of a \emph{central clearing}. In particular, it would be relevant to show possibly analytically but mainly with numerical examples, the greater convenience of the switching/contingent
solution respect to a\emph{ non contingent/standard collateral} agreement like the \emph{partial or full} one,
including clauses like, \emph{early termination}, \emph{netting} and others. This is an hard program, which
needs a generalized model formulation in order to include all the CSA clauses and in order to
deal with the high recursion that characterizes the problem.\\
In a pricing view, we remind the example - of the fixed income market - some particular bonds
called \emph{flippable} or \emph{switchable}, that are characterized by options to switch the coupon from fix to
floating rate. Clearly, in this case the valuation is easier given that this securities have a market
and are not traded OTC so one does not need to include in the picture counterparty risk, funding and CSA cash
ows. Anyway, it would be interesting to delve into the valuation of an OTC
contract in witch also the dividend flows can be subject to contingent switching mechanism. As
regards similar case, a problem that can be very interesting and difficult to tackle is the valuation of a
flexi swap in presence of a contingent collateralization like our one.\\
The main characteristics of a flexi-swap are:\\
a) the notional of the flexible swap at period $n$ must lie (inclusively) between predefined bounds $L_{n}$ and $U_{n}$;\\
b) the notional of the flexible swap at period n must be less than or equal
to the notional at the previous period $n-1$;\\
c) The party paying fixed has the option at the start of each period $n$ to
choose the notional, subject to the two conditions above.\\
In other words, we deal with a swap with multiple embedded option that allows one party to change the notional under certain constraints defined in the contract. This kind of interest rate swaps are usually used as hedging instruments of other swaps having notional linked to loans, especially mortgages.\footnote{ In this sense is like there were a third reference represented by the pool of loans.} The underlying idea is that the fixed-rate payer (the option holder) will amortize as much as allowed if interest rates are very low, and will amortize as little as allowed if interest rates are very high.\\
Given a payment term structure $\{T_{n}\}^{N}_{n=0}$ and a set of coupons $X_{n}$ (with unit notional) fixing in $T_{n}$ e paying in $T_{n+1}$ ($n=0,1,\dots,N-1$), the \emph{flexi swap} is a fixed vs floating swap where the fixed payer has to pay a net coupon $X_{n}R_{n}$ in $T_{n+1}$, the notional $ R_{0}$ is fixed upfront at inception and for every $T_{n}$, $R_{n}$ can be amortized if it respects some given constraints defined as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item deterministic constraints : $R_{n} \in [g_{n}^{low}, g_{n}^{high}]$;
\item local constraints function of the current notional: $R_{n} \in [l_{n}^{low}(R_{n-1}) l_{n}^{high}(R_{n-1}) ]$;
\item market constraints (libor, swap denoted with $X_{n}$): $R_{n} \in [m_{n}^{low}(X_{n}), m_{n}^{high}(X_{n}) ]$.
\end{enumerate}
The valuation procedure of this type of swap involves a backward recursion keeping track of the notional in every payment date. But introducing also the switching collateralization, the valuation become an "\emph{intricate puzzle}" given the recursive relation between the optimal switching strategy, the price process of the claim which in addition depends on the optimal notional choice over time. Simplifying modeling assumptions are needed to break the curse of recursion in a defaultable OTC contract like this.\\\\
\section{\Large Conclusions}
In this work, we have generalized the contingent CSA scheme defined in our preceding work to
the bilateral case allowing the strategic interaction between the counterparties of a defaultable
(OTC) contract. The problem in this case has a natural formulation as a stochastic differential
game - a generalized Dynkin game - of switching type, for which - as far as we know - no analytical
solution for a \emph{Nash equilibrium point} is known.\\
We have shown, in particular, that the game solution is strictly related to that of a system of
reflected BSDE with interconnected barriers and generator functions. Only by imposing strong assumptions and simplifications we are able to prove the game solution, in the so called \emph{symmetric case}.
Further research are needed and addressed in the end in the field of stochastic games and RBSDE and some
interesting applications in finance are highlighted in order to show also the importance in practice
of our mainly theoretical problem.
|
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank Colleen Wilson-Hodge for assistance with the GBM direct response
model. We would also like to thank Collin Capano, Kipp Cannon, Thomas Dent, Leo
Singer, Peter Shawhan, Ruslan Vaulin, Xilong Fan and the LIGO Burst and CBC working groups
for helpful discussion and ideas. LB did much of this work under the support
of a the NASA Postdoctoral Program fellowship at GSFC, administered by Oak
Ridge Associated Universities through a contract with NASA. J.V. was supported
by the research programme of the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter
(FOM), which is partially supported by the Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (NWO), and by Science and Technology Facilities Council
(STFC) grant ST/K005014/1. The authors would also like to acknowledge the
support of the NSF through grant PHY-1204371. Finally we thank the Albert
Einstein Institute in Hannover, supported by the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, for
use of the Atlas high-performance computing cluster.
\section{X-ray counterparts with RXTE ASM}
\subsection{ASM instrument and data products}
The All-Sky Monitor (ASM) \citep{Levine:1996du} on the Rossi X-ray Timing
Explorer (RXTE) surveyed the X-ray sky between 1.5--12 keV from 1996--2011. The
instrument consisted of three long-and-narrow shadow-mask X-ray cameras rigidly
attached to a common motorized axis of rotation. Each camera saw a 6$^\circ$ by
90$^\circ$ field-of-view, and together covered about 3\% of the sky at any one
time. As the cameras scanned across the sky while tiling 90-second dwells, they
were able to localize a steady source to about 0.1$^\circ$. The duty cycle of
the ASM along with constraints from the observing schedule of other RXTE
instruments resulted in a randomly chosen location being scanned by an ASM
camera a few times per day.
An ASM camera observation consists of a superposition of the shadow pattern of
all X-ray sources within the field-of-view. The data can be modeled as the
contributions from active sources with known locations along with a diffuse
background. Amplitudes for sources are treated as free parameters, and
estimated using a linear least-squares fit to the data \citep{Levine:1996du},
with errors dominated by photon counting statistics. The amplitude from any
additional position of interest within the field-of-view can also be estimated
by adding the location as a source during the fit. For a weak source, the error
on estimated amplitude is dominated by the diffuse background which typically
contributes a 3$\sigma$ error of $\sim$20 mCrab ($4.8\times10^{-10}$ erg/cm$^2$/s
between 2--10 keV).
\subsection{Modeled search for afterglow light-curves}
The ASM measurements consist of irregularly-spaced flux observations with
varying uncertainties from specific regions in the sky, which makes a search
strategy for an arbitrary flux excess complicated. We use limited knowledge of
the sGRB X-ray afterglow signal to narrow the search to signals that decay like
broken power-laws in flux beginning from the initial time-of-merger $t_0$ as
determined by the GW data.
\Needspace*{2\baselineskip}
Following \cite{Zhang:2005fa}, we model a canonical sGRB X-ray afterglow
by a double-broken power-law with a short region of rapid decline (power law
index $\alpha \approx 3$) lasting 1e2--1e3 seconds, followed by a standard
afterglow decay ($\alpha \approx -1.2$), and finally a break and raid decay
($\alpha \approx -2$) after 10$^4$--10$^5$ seconds. Additionally there may be a
plateau or extended emission somewhere after the rapid decay phase around
10$^2$--10$^3$ seconds. We attempt to create a generic light-curve with minimal free
parameters which covers possible observed light-curve scenarios, in context of
the limited sampling of ASM data, and also allows for the possibility of
delayed or non-standard X-ray emission due to off-axis observation or some
other unobserved phenomenon.
For this we sample double-broken model power-law light-curves with
break times sampled on a grid (figure \ref{fig:afterglowlc}) and freely-varying
power law indices. We label $N$ local measurements of flux excess $d_i$ by ASM
at times $t_i$ with standard deviations $\sigma_i$. A given light-curve
parameterization defines expected relative counts at the measurement times $L_i
= L(t_i)$. We can then define the weighted sum of measurements $c_i$ which
maximizes the signal-to-noise of the summed data, \begin{equation} D = \sum_i
\frac{L_i d_i}{\sigma_i^2}. \end{equation} The measurements $d_i$ are
already assumed to be zero-mean, giving a measured signal-to-noise for the
coherent sum $D$ of, \begin{equation} \rho = \frac{D}{\sqrt{\sum_i L_i^2 /
\sigma_i^2}} \end{equation} The expected signal-to-noise of each
measurement is added in quadrature for the total expected signal-to-noise of
the coherent sum, \begin{equation} \E{\rho} =
\sqrt{\sum_i\frac{L_i^2}{\sigma_i^2}} \end{equation} If we are fortunate to
have an observation soon after the beginning of the afterglow, the first
measurement is likely to dominate the sum due to the rapid decay. If only
late-time measurements are available, the coherent sum naturally bins the data
in order to gain in sensitivity. A positive power-law index for the first
segment of the light-curve can handle situations where the afterglow does not
begin immediately after the burst, for example due to beaming effects.
For each pair of power-law breakpoints ($t_1$, $t_2$), we fit the three
power-law indices ($\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$) using a minimization
routine under the constraints $-3 < \alpha_1 < 2$, $-2 < \alpha_2 < 1$, and $-3
< \alpha_3 < 0$. This allows for a wide variety of afterglow waveforms
including the standard canonical double-broken power-law, an initially rising
light-curve which then decays normally, or an isolated burst of extended
emission that might occur minutes to days after merger. For each set of ASM
measurements from a location of interest [0, 4d] about $t_0$, we record the fit
parameters which give the maximum SNR, as well as a variety of auxiliary
parameters useful for characterizing non-Gaussian noise.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{p1p2}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{lc}
\caption{(top) double-broken
power-law break-point parameters for model afterglow light-curves used when
fitting ASM data. (bottom) typical 2--10 keV sGRB afterglow light-curve with
decay indexes of $-$2, $-$1.2, $-$2 between breakpoints at $3\times10^2$ and
$5\times10^4$ seconds. The amplitude is based on Swift XRT observations of
actual sGRB afterglows, which can vary in intrinsic luminosity by over two
orders of magnitude. Also shown is a family of ad hoc \mbox{X-ray} bursts, which have
a total 2--10 keV energy release of $10^{49}$ erg over their durations. This
amplitude is chosen so that the bursts at peak amplitude rise just above the
afterglow signal, as in the case for the extended emission seen in some sGRB
afterglows. The bursts are also parameterized by a double-broken power-law,
this time with decay indexes of $+$2, $-$1, $-$2 between breakpoints at $T$ and $2T$
where $T$ is the duration. The yellow band represents an intrinsic X-ray
luminosity required to be detectable ($>$20 mCrab) in a single 90s dwell by ASM
for sources between 20 and 80 Mpc.}
\label{fig:afterglowlc}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ASM afterglow coincidence with GW events}
The ASM point source flux estimation is well-suited to follow up locations of
likely host galaxies for GW events. The shadow-mask flux
reconstruction isolates contributions to about 0.1$^\circ$ on the sky. This is
small enough that a large fraction of the sky can be excluded by requiring
known galaxy coincidence, but also large enough so that all but the most
extended nearby galaxies can be targeted by a single location. For each host
location, we generate ASM flux measurements from available camera dwells by
adding that single location as a test source along with other known active
X-ray sources during the fit of each dwell's shadow-mask data. Derived flux
measurements from that location are then searched numerically for the five
parameter light-curve (two breakpoints and three decay factors) which maximize
SNR of the coherent sum. Because the data are sparse, it is difficult to
maximize SNR numerically for freely-varying breakpoints, so they are sampled on
a fixed grid and only the three power-law indices are searched with standard
numerical minimization routines as described above.
We take the maximum signal-to-noise $\rho$ observed across all model
light-curves to weigh each candidate host galaxy according to likelihood. The
conversion from $\rho$ to likelihood is determined by a global SNR distribution
of X-ray background derived from the same methods. The distribution is fit
to a function $f(\rho)$ parameterized by a Gaussian (maximum value 1) with
power-law tail (figure~\ref{fig:asmbg}), and this empirical fit is used to
calculate the likelihood = $1/f(\rho)$ at each SNR measurement. For a given
GW event with a set of possible hosts, we obtain a final rank
for the coincident observation,
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_\mathrm{GW-ASM} =
\sum_\mathrm{host}\left[ P_\mathrm{GW}(\mathrm{host}) \times
f(\rho_\mathrm{host})^{-1}\right]
\end{equation}
where the likelihood $\Lambda_\mathrm{GW-ASM}$ represents the probability of an
afterglow signal in the ASM data, marginalized over all possible hosts. The
hosts must maintain a $P_\mathrm{GW} > 1$ (a threshold representing the case
for a galaxy of typical $\sim$MW mass and no location or distance prior
information), and at maximum 200 hosts are scanned to limit computational
expense. $P_\mathrm{GW}(\mathrm{host})$ is derived, as in equation
\ref{eqn:gwgcprobability}, from the sky and distance overlap of each host with
the prior distributions determined by the GW data and host mass
(luminosity). To convert the likelihood into a more SNR-like quantity, we
define rank $r = \sqrt{2 \Lambda_\mathrm{GW-ASM}}$.
\begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{asmbg}
\caption{All-sky X-ray background from the generic light-curve fitting
procedure. The background distribution is largely Gaussian, but
shows a significant tail which can be captured by a power-law. The
background fit is used to estimate the significance of coincident
signal-to-noise measurements $\rho$ in the analysis.}
\label{fig:asmbg} \end{center} \end{figure}
\subsection{Simulation of X-ray afterglow counterparts}
We simulate a family of X-ray afterglow signals by adding model light-curves
directly to the derived ASM flux measurements for a given location. We assume
that the error estimate for each flux measurement remains dominated by
contributions from the diffuse background, so that Poisson or other systematic
error from the source can be neglected. The model light-curve is then injected
into the data from a reconstructed location at a time of interest (figure \ref{fig:asminjection}). For a given
light-curve shape, we recover the distribution of maximum SNR measurements from
the template search as a function of injected amplitude, or equivalently
injected distance for a standard candle source.
For the case of a GW-ASM coincidence, we begin with a set of simulated NS/NS
coalescence events detected with the GW analysis
procedure. For S6/VSR2+3, a large number of simulations were done at random sky
locations and distances in order to evaluate the overall detection efficiency
of the pipeline \citep{Colaboration:2011nz}. To characterize the sensitivity of
the joint GW-ASM coincidence analysis which assumes signals originating from a
set of host galaxies, we first create an artificial galaxy at the location and
distance of the GW simulation, with a luminosity taken from a
(luminosity-weighted) random draw of galaxies from the catalog within some
compatible volume. We then synthesize ASM data from this fake location and
distance by appropriating the ASM flux measurements from the randomly chosen
galaxy. Reconstructed ASM flux measurements from the remaining true galaxies
within the GW-derived sky region are included in the coincidence analysis as
before, as well as the fake galaxy with the simulated lightcurve added to the
ASM data. We then obtain a distribution of the joint GW-ASM detection statistic
for a given CBC system as a function of distance and intrinsic EM amplitude.
We test performance of the method against a standard X-ray afterglow
typical of Swift XRT observations of those from short GRBs (figure
\ref{fig:afterglowlc}). This light-curve has power-law decay indices of $-2$,
$-1.2$, and $-2$ between breakpoints at $3 \times 10^2$ and $5 \times 10^4$
seconds, and a 1--10 keV luminosity of 10$^{46}$ erg/s at the first
break-point. We also assume a Crab-like spectrum, for convenient conversion
into ASM band counts which are Crab calibrated.
In addition, we inject a representative sample of X-ray burst signals which
occur minutes to days after the merger, motivated by theoretical magnetar
wind-driven scenarios \citep{Zhang:2012wt, Gao:2013rd}. We test a short,
medium, and late-time burst beginning with a rise $\propto t^2$ until $t_1$ =
10$^2$, 10$^3$, and 10$^4$ seconds, decaying as $t^{-1}$ until $t_2 = 2t_1$,
and then falling as $t^{-2}$ afterward. The simple wind-driven emission
scenarios consider a total amount of energy released as the magnetar spins
down, and then either dissipating via internal or external shocks, releasing
some fraction of the dissipated energy in X-rays.
We set the total energy released in X-rays over the entire period of the burst
to be $10^{49}$ ergs in 2--10 keV, resulting in bursts with instantaneous
luminosities slightly greater than that for the standard afterglow at peak. In
this way, they can be thought of representing the extended emission/flares seen
in some sGRB afterglows. As in the standard afterglow model, we assume a
Crab-like spectrum for convenient translation into ASM counts.
\begin{figure} \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{injection} \caption{ASM data
with injected afterglow light-curve at 14 Mpc. The best fit
light-curve provides the optimal coherent sum signal-to-noise
measurement.}
\label{fig:asminjection}
\end{center} \end{figure}
\subsection{GW-ASM coincident background estimation}
The GW-ASM background distribution is found by running the coincidence search
using GW background events derived from time-shift analysis, similar to that
for GBM. The same 10 additional time-shifts (spaced in multiples of 4 days) are
applied between the GW and ASM data to increase statistics. We then obtain the
distribution of the GW-ASM rank statistic expected from accidental coincidence
between GW and ASM background. This distribution, as well as that for the family
of simulated afterglow signals, are shown in figure \ref{fig:asmrank}.
\section{Gamma-ray counterparts with Fermi GBM}
\subsection{GBM instrument and data products}
The Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) \citep{Meegan:2009qu} aboard the Fermi
spacecraft measures photon rates from 8 keV--40 MeV. The instrument consists of
12 semi-directional NaI scintillation detectors and 2 BGO scintillation
detectors which cover the entire sky not occluded by the Earth (about 65\%).
The lower-energy NaI detectors have an approximately $\cos{\theta}$ response
relative to angle of incidence, and relative rates across detectors are used to
reconstruct the source location to a few degrees. The BGO detectors are much
less directional, and can be used to detect and resolve the higher energy
spectrum above $\sim$200 keV.
GBM produces on-board triggers for gamma-ray burst events by looking for
multi-detector rate excess over background across various energy bands and
timescales. In the case of a trigger, individual photon information is sent to
the ground and the event is publicly reported. Those events which have been
confirmed as GRBs have already been studied in coincidence with LIGO-Virgo data
\citep{2012ApJ...760...12A}. In addition to the triggered events, survey data
is available which records binned photon counts over all time. For this offline
analysis of short transients, we use the CTIME (time-resolved) daily data, which is binned at
0.256s over 8 energy channels for each detector. A new GBM data product for
continuous time-tagged events
(CTTE) was introduced in 2012 that provides complete individual photon
information with 2$\mu$s and 128 energy channel resolution. This data product
was not available for un-triggered times during the initial LIGO-Virgo science
runs, but will enhance offline sensitivity to short bursts when the advanced GW
detectors begin operation.
\subsection{Coherent analysis of GBM data}
In this section, we develop a procedure to coherently search GBM detector data
for modeled events \citep{Blackburn:2013ina}. The idea is that by processing
multiple detector data coherently, we can obtain a greater sensitivity than
when considering one detector at a time. Greater computational resources
available offline (vs. on-board) also allow for more careful background
estimation to be done. For this analysis, we can relax to some extent the
strict 2-detector coincidence requirement used to veto spurious events on-board
as the GW trigger means much less time and sky area is
considered. These advantages help to balance out the coarse time resolution of
CTIME data, which reduces offline sensitivity to very short bursts prior to
2013.
\Needspace*{2\baselineskip}
Each detector is subject to a substantial time-varying background from bright
high-energy sources that come in and out of the wide field of view, as well as
location-dependent particle and Earth atmospheric effects. This background must
be estimated and subtracted out to look for any prompt excess. In this
analysis where we are interested in the background estimate for a short
foreground interval [$-T/2$, $+T/2$] where $T \sim$1s, we estimate the
background using a polynomial fit to local data from [$-10T$, $+10T$] (minimum
$\pm5s$), excluding time [$-3T/2$, $+5T/2$] around the foreground interval to
avoid bias from an on-source excess. The polynomial degree is determined by the
interval length to account for more complicated background variability over
longer intervals. It ranges from 2 (minimum) to 1+$0.5\log_2 T$. A separate fit
is done for each detector/channel combination, and determines the background
rate estimation over the foreground interval, as well as its systematic
uncertainty from fitting error. Data from channels with poor fits (large
$\chi^2$) are excluded from the analysis.
High-energy cosmic rays striking a NaI crystal can result in long-lived
phosphorescent light emission. The detector may interpret this is a rapid
series of events, creating a short-lived jump in rates for one or multiple
channels, and severely distorting the background fit if not accounted for.
They are identified with a simple procedure that scans for rapid 1-bin spikes
in the background interval. The affected bins are removed from the background
fitting. Cosmic rays affecting the foreground interval are handled differently,
as described in section \ref{sec:selectioncuts}.
A likelihood ratio combines information about sources and noise into a single
variable. It is defined as the probability of measuring the observed data, $d$,
in the presence of a particular true signal $H_1$ (with some source amplitude
$s > 0$) divided by the probability of measuring the observed data in noise
alone $H_0$ ($s = 0$), \begin{equation} \Lambda(d) = \frac{P(d | H_1)}{P(d |
H_0)}. \end{equation} When signal parameters such as light-curve, spectrum,
amplitude $s$ and sky-location $\alpha, \delta$ are unknown, one can either
marginalize over the unknown parameters, or take the maximum likelihood over
the range to obtain best-fit values.
For binned, uncorrelated Gaussian noise, \begin{align} \label{eqn:lrnumerator}
P(d_i|H_1) &= \prod_i{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{d_i}}
\exp\left(-\frac{(\tilde{d_i}-r_is)^2}{2\sigma_{d_i}^2}\right)} \\
\label{eqn:lrdenominator} P(d_i|H_0) &=
\prod_i{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{n_i}}
\exp\left(-\frac{\tilde{d_i}^2}{2\sigma_{n_i}^2}\right)} \end{align}
where we have used $\tilde{d_i} = d_i - \E{n_i}$ to represent the
background-subtracted measurements in each detector-time-energy bin,
$\sigma_{n_i}$ and $\sigma_{d_i}$ for the standard deviation of the background
and expected data (background+signal), $r_i$ for the
location/spectrum-dependent instrumental response, and $s$ for the intrinsic
source amplitude at the Earth. Maximizing the likelihood ratio is the same as
maximizing the log-likelihood ratio $\mathcal{L} = \ln{\Lambda}$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:loglikelihood} \mathcal{L} =
\sum_i{\left[\ln{\frac{\sigma_{n_i}}{\sigma_{d_i}}}
+\frac{\tilde{d_i}^2}{2\sigma_{n_i}^2}
-\frac{(\tilde{d_i}-r_is)^2}{2\sigma_{d_i}^2}\right]}
\end{equation}
The dependence of the response factors $r_i$ on sky location is complicated, so the
likelihood ratio is calculated over a sample grid of all possible locations.
Assuming a single location, the remaining free parameter is the source
amplitude $s$. The variance in the background-subtracted detector data includes
both background and source contributions, \begin{equation} \label{eqn:sigmadi}
\sigma_{d_i}^2 = \sigma_{n_i}^2 + r_is + \sigma_{r_i}^2s^2 \quad (s \ge 0)
\end{equation} with $\sigma_{r_i}^2$ representing Gaussian-modeled systematic
uncertainty in the instrumental response. Source terms are only included for
physical $s \ge 0$, else their contribution is zero. The background contributes
Poisson error, as well as any systematic variance $\sigma_{b_i}^2$ from poor
background fitting which is also assumed to be Gaussian, \begin{equation}
\label{eqn:sigmani} \sigma_{n_i}^2 = \E{n_i} + \sigma_{b_i}^2.
\end{equation} We find $s_\mathrm{best}$ which maximizes $\mathcal{L}$ by
setting the derivative $d\mathcal{L}/ds$ to zero using Newton's method.
To consider all possible source amplitudes we need to integrate the likelihood
$P(d|s)$ (equation \ref{eqn:lrnumerator}) over a prior on $s$, \begin{equation}
\label{eqn:marginalization} P(d) = \int{P(d|s)P(s)ds} \end{equation} For a
given set of detector data $d$, the likelihood $P(d|s)$ over $s$ is almost the
product of individual Gaussian distributions (not quite Gaussian because
$\sigma_d$ depends on $s$). The product of Gaussian distributions with mean
values $\mu_i$ and standard deviations $\sigma_i$ is itself Gaussian with mean
and variance, \begin{equation} \mu_\mathrm{prod} =
\frac{\sum{\mu_i/\sigma^2_i}}{\sum{1/\sigma^2_i}}, \quad
\sigma^2_\mathrm{prod} = \frac{1}{\sum{1/\sigma^2_i}} \end{equation} In
this case, $\mu_i = \tilde{d_i}/r_i$ and $\sigma_i = \sigma_{d_i} / r_i$. We
estimate the variance of $\mathcal{L}$ over $s$ as, \begin{equation} \ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}}^2 =
\frac{1}{\sum{r_i^2/\sigma_{d_i}^2}}, \quad \sigma^2_{d_i} \text{ evaluated
at } s_\mathrm{best} \end{equation} and choose a scale-free prior with
fixed $\beta = 1$, so that our choice of form for an amplitude prior at the
Earth does not translate back into a luminosity distribution that varies with
distance.
One difficulty with any power-law prior is that it diverges for $s \to 0$. We
enforce a finite and well-behaved prior by multiplying by a prefactor,
\begin{equation} P(s) = \left[1-e^{-\left(s/\gamma\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}}\right)^\beta}\right]
s^{-\beta} \end{equation} so that $P(s)$ reaches a maximum constant value
of $(1/\gamma\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}})^\beta$ for small $s$. The tunable parameter $\gamma$ sets
the number of standard deviations at which the prior begins to plateau, and we
use $\gamma = 2.5$. We then approximate $P(s)$ as constant over a range of
$\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}}$ for any $s>0$, and include a correction to account for clipping of the
Gaussian for non-physical $s<0$, which can be represented by the error
function. The final approximation for the amplitude-marginalized log-likelihood becomes,
\begin{multline} \mathcal{L}(d) = \ln\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}} +
\ln\left[1+\mathrm{Erf}\left(\frac{s_\mathrm{best}}{\sqrt{2}\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}}}\right)\right]
+ \mathcal{L}(d|s_\mathrm{best}) \\ + \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\ln\left[1-e^{-\left(s_\mathrm{best}/\gamma\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}}\right)^\beta}\right]
- \beta\ln{s_\mathrm{best}} & s_\mathrm{best} > 0 \\
-\beta\ln\left(\gamma\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}}\right) & s_\mathrm{best} \leq 0
\end{array}\right. \end{multline} which contains factors from the
Gaussian width, fractional overlap with $s > 0$, maximum likelihood at
$s_\mathrm{best}$, and scaling from $P(s)$ respectively. Finally we are
free to calibrate the log-likelihood by subtracting the expected
$\mathcal{L}(d)$ calculated for no signal at a reference sensitivity:
$\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{ref} = -\beta\ln\gamma +
(1-\beta)\ln\sigma_\mathrm{ref}$. $\ensuremath{\sigma_{\!\mathcal{L}}}$ represents the source amplitude
required for a $1\sigma$ excess in the combined data, and is around 0.05
photons/s/cm$^2 \times (T/1$s$)^{-1/2}$ [50--300 keV] for a typical source
spectrum and background level. Figure \ref{fig:cohresp} shows the coherent
signal-to-noise expected from all detectors for a 0.512s-long event with
normal GRB spectrum and constant amplitude of 1.0 photons/s/cm$^2$, and
compares it to the SNR expected from individual detectors alone in the
50--300 keV band.
\begin{figure*} \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{090305-max.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{090305-2nd.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{090305-coh.pdf}
\caption{Signal-to-noise in GBM data expected from a 0.512s long signal with a
normal GRB spectrum. The signal is normalized to 1.0
photons/s/cm$^2$ in the 50--300 keV band, and the background rates
and Earth position are selected from 10 seconds prior to GRB
090305A. The model response includes contributions from atmospheric
scattering. The first two maps show the signal-to-noise expected
from the best and second-best detectors assuming data collected
across 50--300 keV. The interpretation is as follows: given a
hypothetical source at any sky location ($\phi$, $\theta$), what is
the maximum (left) or second-best (middle) signal-to-noise seen
across {\em all} NaI detectors. Generally one would assume that the
maximum SNR would come from the best-aligned NaI detector (n0, n1,
\dots as shown), and the second-best SNR is from one that is
nearby. The final plot shows the SNR expected from a coherent
analysis of the data using all detectors, also as a function of
source location. The maximum coherent SNR is achieved where
multiple detectors are favorably oriented toward the source. The
coherent analysis samples all sky positions, which means it is
subject to a trials factor, but this is difficult to evaluate
because of the large degree of correlation between nearby sky
locations. The ``best-detector'' SNR similarly has a trials factor
equal to the number of detectors (12). Use of the ``second-best''
detector, which corresponds to the on-board GBM triggering
strategy, implies two detectors above a given SNR threshold, which
means a much lower false-alarm probability at equivalent SNR, as
well as improved rejection of non-Gaussian noise.}
\label{fig:cohresp} \end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{GBM prompt coincidence with GW events}
A GW trigger provides an accurate time of coalescence $t_c$ as
well as an approximate sky location to tens or hundreds of square degrees. This
matches well the time and sky location constraints provided by a prompt
observation by GBM, so that coincidence between the two instruments is
particularly effective. To make use of the coherent analysis described in the
previous section, we must first obtain an expected all-sky GBM response for a
given counterpart. We make use of three representative source spectra using a
set of precomputed response tables. The representative spectra are Band
functions with the parameters listed in table~\ref{tab:bandspectra}.
\begin{table} \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{cccc} spectrum & $E_\mathrm{peak}$
& $\alpha$ & $\beta$ \\ \midrule normal & 230 keV & 1 & 2.3 \\ hard
& 1 MeV & 0 & 1.5 \\ soft & - & 2 & - \end{tabular}
\caption{Model Band spectral parameters used to generate GBM detector response
tables used in the coherent analysis. The soft and hard spectra were originally
designed to produce a representative response over the primary GBM-GRB localization band 50--300
keV, and a number of more realistic response models are currently being
developed which will be more approriate for full-spectral all-sky analysis.
The construction of these all-sky, all-time models is difficult
computationally due to the many degrees of freedom in the detector response.}
\label{tab:bandspectra}
\end{center}
\end{table}
For the soft spectrum, $E_\mathrm{peak}$ and
$\beta$ are undefined. The tables provide channel-dependent expected counts for
the direct and spacecraft-scattered response as a function of source location
to $\sim$1$^\circ$ resolution. Contributions from atmospheric scattering are
available as counts summed over the two CTIME channels covering 50--300 keV as
a function of source and Earth relative position for the two most common
spacecraft rocking angles.
For each GW candidate event, we search a window \mbox{[--30s, 30s]}
relative to $t_c$ for prompt excess between 0.256s and 8s long. Emission
outside of the standard accretion timescale covering the first seconds
following merger is speculative. However, any events detectable in
gravitational waves will be much closer than known sGRB's to date, and
therefore they provide an opportunity to search below threshold for weak and
possibly less-beamed precursor or extended emission. To appropriately tile the
search in time and duration $T$, we use rectangular windows with $T$ spaced by
powers of two (0.256s, 0.512s, 1s, etc.). Their central times are sampled
along the search interval in units of $T/4$ to provide an even mismatch in
signal-to-noise across search windows. For each emission model tested, the
likelihood ratio is then marginalized over all windows and spectra.
The GW data also provides a rough sky-location, which can be
represented as a prior probability distribution over the sky
$P_\mathrm{GW}(\Omega)$. This GW prior is multiplied by the GBM
likelihood ratio, which is also a function of sky position, before
marginalization over sky location is done,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:lgwem} \Lambda_{\mathrm{GW-GBM}} = \int
d\Omega\,P_\mathrm{GW}(\Omega)\,\Lambda_\mathrm{GBM}(\Omega) \end{equation}
where the GBM likelihood ratio depends on source spectrum, on-source time
window, and location. While the sky prior can in principle be improved by
incorporating knowledge of the anisotropic local mass distribution (using a
galaxy catalog), we note that as neither the GW network nor GBM have precise
(sub-degree) sky localization, the gains from sharpening the prior in this way
are small, and catalog incompleteness and luminosity-rate relationships
introduce unnecessary complications. The situation is different when
considering better-localizated X-ray (and optical/ratio) counterparts.
\subsection{GW-GBM coincident background estimation}
The background for GW-GBM analysis is characterized by the probability of
observing a given $\Lambda_\mathrm{GW-EM}$ from random coincidence between GW
and GBM data. We calculate the expected distribution of
$\Lambda_\mathrm{GW-EM}$ by running the coincidence search defined by equation
\ref{eqn:lgwem} on GW background events derived from time-shift analysis. The
time-shift sample represents 100 artificial time-shifts ($\sim$sec) applied to
data between the LIGO Hanford and Livingston sites, as well as a further 10
time-shifts ($\sim$day) applied between the GW and GBM data. Thus we obtain a
background sample representing characteristic noise from $\times 1000$ the
original foreground live-time.
\Needspace*{2\baselineskip}
\subsection{Simulation of prompt gamma-ray counterparts}
GRB simulated signals are injected into the data by using the instrument
response model to predict the signal contribution from a source with a given
spectrum and fluence. In our analysis, we simulate a standard candle signal
following the normal-type Band spectrum with a fluence at the Earth of 1
photon/cm$^2$/s in 50--300 keV assuming a source at 30 Mpc. The signal assumes
normal GRB spectral parameters according to table \ref{tab:bandspectra} and
lasts for one second, corresponding to an isotropically emitted energy of about
$6.6\times 10^{46}$ erg. When simulating a signal at distance $D$, the fluence
is reduced by a factor of $(30\text{ Mpc}/D)^2$.
\section{LIGO-Virgo event generation}
\subsection{Matched filter CBC search}
As two compact objects orbit, they lose orbital energy and angular momentum to
gravitational waves. The orbit responds by shrinking and the orbital period decreases, causing
even more rapid loss of orbital energy to gravitational radiation. This process
ultimately leads in a runaway process to merger. At any moment during the
inspiral, the GW emission is well characterized by high-order
analytic post-Newtonian approximations to general-relativity. By following the
orbit adiabadically through the detector bandwidth, a characteristic chirp
waveform of increasing amplitude is produced that sweeps through the sensitive
band ($\sim$40--2000~Hz) of ground-based GW detectors.
LIGO-Virgo GW data from S6/VSR2+3 has been searched for compact
binary coalescence events with total system mass $<$ 25 M$_\odot$, and the
results have been reported in \cite{Colaboration:2011nz}. The search made use
of matched filtering, correlating the GW data in each detector
against a bank of theoretical templates composed of model inspiral
chirp signals for non-spinning systems with various component masses and
orientations. Matched filtering describes the optimal linear filter for
maximizing signal-to-noise in the presence of stationary Gaussian noise. For
the filter corresponding to a frequency domain signal $\tilde{h}(f)$, the
matched filter produces an expected single-detector signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of,
\begin{equation}
\rho^2 = \int_0^\infty{\frac{4|\tilde{h}(f)|^2}{S_n(f)}df}
\end{equation}
where $S_n(f)$ is the one-sided power spectral density of the stationary noise.
Due to the presence of non-Gaussian noise in the detector data, a $\chi^2$
consistency test \citep{Allen:2004gu} is applied to events which are initially
identified as local maxima in matched-filter SNR. A re-weighted SNR
$\hat{\rho}$ is obtained by downgrading events using an empirically-determined
relationship that takes the level of inconsistency with the model signal into
account \citep{Babak:2012zx},
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:new_snr} \hat{\rho} = \begin{cases} {\displaystyle
\frac{\rho}{[(1+(\chi^2_r)^3)/2]^{1/6}}} & \mbox{for } \chi^2_r > 1, \\ \rho &
\mbox{for } \chi^2_r \leq 1. \end{cases} \end{equation}
Events from two or more detectors are searched for coincidence in
time and mass parameters. Coincident events are ranked by the quadrature sum,
$\rho_c$, of their re-weighted signal-to-noise. This {\em combined SNR} for each event is
compared against an estimated background distribution derived from running the
same coincidence analysis many times while applying unphysical relative
time-shifts between the detector data (as in figure
\ref{fig:ihopedistribution}). When the event has a $\rho_c$ value
above a predetermined threshold corresponding to some low false-alarm rate (e.g. one false alarm from background per
several thousdand years), the
event is considered a GW candidate. Background estimation is performed
separately for various two-week epochs, detector combinations, and mass bins in
order to isolate configurations with varying background levels.
The S6/VSR2+3 analysis identified one outlier event with an estimated
false-alarm-rate of $\sim$1/7000 yr$^{-1}$. The event was ultimately revealed
as a blind simulated signal injected in the data, which served as an end-to-end
test of the detection strategy.\footnote{details at
\url{http://www.ligo.org/science/GW100916/}} Otherwise, no events stood out
clearly from the expected background.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{rate_vs_newsnr_smaller} \caption{The
S6/VSR2-3 science run contained a simulated NS/BH merger signal that was
injected into the data without knowledge of the analysis teams. This plot
from \citep{Colaboration:2011nz} shows the cumulative rate of events
coincident in the H1 and L1 detectors with chirp mass $3.48 \le
\mathcal{M}_c/\ensuremath{\mathrm{M_{\odot}}} < 7.40$ as seen by the matched filter pipeline in four
months of data around the simulation. Chirp mass is a function of the individual
masses: $\mathcal{M}_c=(m_1 m_2)^{3/5}/(m_1+m_2)^{1/5}$, and is the dominant
mass parameter driving binary evolution during inspiral. The injection, shown by the blue
triangle with ranking statistic $\rho_c$ = 12.5, is clearly resolved
against the expected background distributions derived from time-shift
analysis, both with (black) and without (gray) single-detector
contributions from the simulated event in one of the detectors (coincident
with time-shifted noise in another). Additional coincidence with an
EM counterpart can help resolve any astrophysical events
present in the data in regions with otherwise large background ($\rho_c \sim$9.5).}
\label{fig:ihopedistribution}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bayesian parameter estimation}
Bayesian integration is a natural way to determine whether or not a coherent
GW signal is present in the data from a network of instruments,
and if so, what are the likely parameters. While the coincident matched-filter
analysis described in the previous section imposes some consistency on time and
mass, a coherent analysis requires from the start a common physical
gravitational waveform projected onto each instrument, making it particularly
useful for a network of detectors.
If we let $\mathcal{H}_1$ represent the hypothesis that a CBC signal is present
in the data, and let $\mathcal{H}_0$ represent only noise, the likelihood ratio
provides the optimal statistic to distinguish the two,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:inspnestlr}
\Lambda = \frac{P(d|\mathcal{H}_1, I)}{P(d|\mathcal{H}_0, I)}
\end{equation}
where $I$ represents any prior information we have about the system. Given that
our signal hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_1$ represents a large population of possible
signals with different waveforms determined by their set of binary parameters
$\vec{\theta}$, proper evaluation of the likelihoood involves marginalizing over
the parameter space,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:inspmarg}
P(d|\mathcal{H}_1, I) = \int{P(\vec{\theta}|\mathcal{H}_1, I) P(d|\mathcal{H}_1, \vec{\theta}, I) d\vec{\theta}}
\end{equation}
where $P(\vec{\theta})$ represents the prior probability distribution of
parameters $\vec{\theta}$ in our signal population -- for example it may
reflect that we expect systems to be uniformly distributed in volume with
random orientations with respect to the detectors.
In addition to the question of whether or not a signal is present, we are also
interested in determining the physical parameters of the binary system that
are implied by a set of
data. This is represented by the posterior probability distribution over the
parameters $\vec{\theta}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:inspnestposterior}
P(\vec{\theta}|d,\mathcal{H}_1,I) = \frac{P(\vec{\theta}|\mathcal{H}_1,I)P(d|\vec{\theta},\mathcal{H}_1, I)}{P(d|\mathcal{H}_1,I)}
\end{equation}
If we are interested in the probability distribution only over a subset
$\vec{\theta}_A$ of the parameters, where $\vec{\theta} \equiv \{\vec{\theta}_A,
\vec{\theta}_B\}$, we marginalize over those that remain,
\begin{equation}
P(\vec{\theta}_A|d,\mathcal{H}_1, I) = \int{P(\vec{\theta}|d,\mathcal{H}_1, I) d\vec{\theta}_B}
\end{equation}
Nested sampling \citep{2004AIPC..735..395S} is a computationally efficient alternative to MCMC techniques \citep{Christensen:2001cr},
both of which are designed to intelligently sample and integrate the
probability distribution of a high-dimensional parameter space of possible
signals. For the case of CBC, we assume the spin of each neutron
star is small and there are nine relevant physical parameters: two
for the component masses, sky location, and orientation, as well as distance,
time, and phase. We apply a Bayesian coherent follow-up based on nested sampling
\citep{Veitch:2009hd} to a large number of coincident events identified from
the matched filter analysis. The output of the nested sampling routine is a set
of sample vectors which trace the estimated 9-dimensional posterior probability
distribution of system parameters (equation \ref{eqn:inspnestposterior}), as
well as the integrated likelihood obtained by summing over them all (equation~\ref{eqn:inspmarg}).
\subsection{Galaxy targeting}
Extra-galactic events detectable by the initial LIGO-Virgo network are close
enough so that a galaxy catalog can be used to identify probable hosts. While
this is only marginally useful for a search using GW data alone due to the poor
angular resolution of current GW detector networks, it becomes quite important
for EM follow-ups where the EM sky resolution is significantly
better \citep{2013ApJ...767..124N,Hanna:2013yda}. Inclusion of a galaxy catalog
for this offline EM search greatly reduces the computational cost and
false-positive rate of the ASM analysis by reducing an area of $\sim$150 square
degrees to just tens of individual points.
The Gravitational-Wave Galaxy Catalog (GWGC) \citep{White:2011qf} was designed
specifically to aid in GW searches with the initial detector network. It
contains distance, type, location, geometry, and blue-light luminosity
information for $\sim$50k galaxies within 100 Mpc, taken from the HyperLEDA
database and other sources. To choose probable host galaxies from the catalog,
we compare their distance and sky location against the probability distribution
derived from the Bayesian analysis on GW data. Galaxies which occur in regions
of high probability are considered for EM follow-up. At advanced LIGO/Virgo
distances, galaxy catalogs suffer from incompleteness, with only the brighter
galaxies making the flux limits of surveys, and deep surveys often covering
only fractions of the sky. \cite{Hanna:2013yda} outline some of the
considerations necessary to effectively use incomplete catalogs in that regime.
For this initial LIGO/Virgo study, we assume the GWGC is 100\% complete out to
the distance of detectable NS/NS mergers.
The GW posterior probability distribution must be estimated from the discrete
sampling provided by the nested sampling procedure. We estimate the density of
posterior samples at each galaxy location and distance using Gaussian kernel
density estimation (KDE). We treat distance and sky location independently due
to limited sampling of the posterior, typically thousands of points.
For a galaxy with blue-light luminosity $L_{10}$ ($10^{10} L_\odot$) at
distance $r < 100$ Mpc and location $\Omega$, the estimated distribution from
the $N$ posterior samples is,
\begin{gather}
P_\mathrm{GW}(r) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_i^N{\frac{1}{r^2}w(r_i-r, \sigma_r = \text{10--20\%})} \\
\label{eqn:pomega}
P_\mathrm{GW}(\Omega) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_i^N{w(\vec{x}_i-\vec{x},\, \sigma_\Omega=3^\circ)} \\
\label{eqn:gwgcprobability}
P(L_{10}, r, \Omega) = L_{10} P_\mathrm{GW}(r) P_\mathrm{GW}(\Omega)
\end{gather}
where $w(\mu,\sigma)$ represents the 1D and 2D Gaussian kernels, normalized
to give $P = 1$ in the case of a uniform posterior. Figure
\ref{fig:gwgcfiltering} shows an example of the kernel density estimation
applied to the distance parameter, as well as a sample of matching galaxies,
weighted by all three factors in equation \ref{eqn:gwgcprobability}, against
the GW skymap. The distance KDE bandwidth is chosen according to the estimated
individual galaxy distance errors, which are around 10--20\% depending on the
original source catalog. The 3$^\circ$ sky bandwidth is chosen to balance
statistical errors (resulting Poisson errors are at the level of a few~\%) with
resolution of the GW network. Finally, we have undone the $r^2$ distance prior
from the assumption of homogeneously distributed sources during the Bayesian
integration as the galaxies themselves already include this volume effect.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{distance}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{bestgalaxies}
\caption{ Distance (top) and
sky position (bottom, with spherical coordinates $\theta$, $\phi$ in radians) posterior distributions derived from the Bayesian
follow-up of GW data are used to filter a galaxy catalog to
check for likely nearby hosts (bottom). The area of the weighted galaxies
corresponds to their relative probability of being the host. It is directly
proportional to the blue-light luminosity (as a proxy for mass, or merger
rate), and the estimated posterior probability distribution at the
corresponding distance and sky location. For this simulation of a
misaligned NS/NS merger in the Virgo cluster, the maximum probability galaxy
corresponed to the true host.}
\label{fig:gwgcfiltering}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Initial and Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors}
The initial LIGO \citep{Abbott:2007kv} and Virgo \citep{Accadia:2012zzb} gravitational-wave (GW) detectors took their last science
data between July 2009 and October 2010 before going offline for several years
for major upgrades to advanced detector configurations \citep{Harry:2010zz,17216}.
For its sixth science run (S6),
LIGO consisted of two 4km baseline interferometric detectors - one instrument
H1 at Hanford, WA, and another instrument L1 at Livingston, LA. The Virgo 3km
interferometer V1 in Cascina, Italy took concurrent data during their second
(VSR2 covering July 2009 to Jan 2010) and third (VSR3 covering Aug 2010 to Oct
2010) science runs. Together, they represent the most sensitive worldwide
network of GW detectors to date. Figure \ref{fig:gwsensitivity}
shows typical strain sensitivity of each instrument as a function of frequency,
as well as the distance at which an optimally oriented merger of two compact
objects (black holes or neutron stars) would produce a nominal signal-to-noise
of eight in each detector.
Compact binary coalescence (CBC) is the most anticipated GW
source for first and second-generation ground-based detectors. These systems
are very strong emitters of gravitational waves, and we are confident of their
existence through the discovery of a handful of galactic NS/NS binary systems
where one object is a radio pulsar which is modulated by the orbit -- the most
famous of these systems is the Hulse-Taylor pulsar PSR1316+16
\citep{Weisberg:2004hi}. The number and lifetime of these systems can be used
to obtain an estimate of about one NS/NS merger event per Mpc$^3$ per million
years \citep{Abadie:2010cf}, with up to two orders of magnitude uncertainty due
largely to our limited knowledge of the pulsar luminosity function and limited
statistics. The merger rate translates into an estimate of $\sim$0.02
detectable NS/NS merger events per year for the initial detector network, and
$\sim$40 per year for the advanced detectors once they reach design
sensitivity. NS/BH systems are also of interest for electromagnetic (EM)
follow-up and are stronger GW emitters. However we have not
yet observed any NS/BH binary systems, and have generally poor knowledge of the
black hole mass distribution.
While no NS/NS or NS/BH binary coalescence events have been
detected during S6/VSR2+3 using GW data alone
\citep{Colaboration:2011nz}, it is conceivable that an EM
counterpart might allow us to resolve a rare event otherwise too weak to
distinguish from background in the first generation detectors. In the rapidly
approaching advanced detector era, searching for EM counterparts
can play an important role in increasing our confidence of detection for
otherwise marginal events and will provide astrophysical context for
GW detections.
Advanced LIGO is likely to begin taking its first science data in 2015, with
Virgo following a year later \citep{Aasi:2013wya}. As they reach design
sensitivity, the advanced detectors are expected to begin an era of regular
detection of GW events, making the search for EM counterparts triggered by GW
detections an enticing possibility. In this study, we demonstrate strategies
for searching high-energy archival EM data for counterparts using
representative GW background events from real data taken during the most recent
LIGO-Virgo science runs and high-energy EM survey data recorded at the same time. We
then measure EM detection efficiencies under various plausible emission models
and the probability of accidental coincidence given realistic GW background and
sky-localization accuracy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace{.2in}
\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{H1L1V1_representative_strain.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=2.9in]{horizon.pdf} \caption{Typical detector
strain noise spectral density for the LIGO S6 and Virgo VSR2+3 runs, as
well as the best equal-mass binary coalescence horizon distance achieved
for each run as a function of total system mass. The horizon distance is
the distance at which an optimally oriented binary merger would produce an
expected signal-to-noise of 8. Figures reproduced from
\citep{Colaboration:2011nz}}
\label{fig:gwsensitivity}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\Needspace*{3\baselineskip}
\subsection{High-energy photon survey instruments}
The two instruments chosen for this EM follow-up study include the
Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) \citep{Meegan:2009qu} aboard the Fermi
spacecraft, and the soft X-ray All-Sky Monitor (ASM) \citep{Levine:1996du}
aboard RXTE. Both are particularly well suited to an offline follow-up of
GW events because of their large, regular coverage of the
entire sky (table \ref{tab:instruments}), and because they save a large amount of archival survey data which
allows for sensitive offline searches.
The high-energy sky itself offers the advantage of being relatively clean
compared to optical wavelengths, which is important for maintaining a low
probability of false-coincidence given the large GW sky-location uncertainty.
The use of offline survey data for follow-up has many practical differences
from other {\em triggered} searches in the EM spectrum for GW counterparts.
\citep{2012ApJS..203...28E,2014ApJS..211....7A,2012ApJ...759...22K}. The offline search does
not rely on rapid GW data analysis and continuous coordination with EM
observational facilities. An important consequence is that the offline coincidence
can generally be applied to many more events, allowing the follow-up of weaker, more
marginal candidates.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
Instrument & Energy & FOV & Resolution & Cadence \\
\midrule
Fermi GBM & 8 keV -- 40 MeV & 65\% & $>$5$^\circ$ & 1.5 hr \\
RXTE ASM & 1 keV -- 10 keV & 3\% & 0.1$^\circ$ & 1.5 hr \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{High-energy photon survey instruments used to search for EM counterparts. Field-of-View (FOV) is represented as a percentage of the entire sky.}
\label{tab:instruments}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\Needspace*{3\baselineskip}
\subsection{Short GRBs and afterglows as counterparts to GWs}
Gamma-ray bursts (GRB) are flashes of gamma rays observed approximately once
per day. Their isotropic distribution in the sky was the first evidence of an
extra-galactic origin, and indicated that they were extremely energetic events.
The duration of prompt gamma-ray emission shows a bi-modal distribution which
naturally groups GRBs into two categories \citep{Kouveliotou:1993yx}. Long GRBs
emit 90\% of their prompt radiation on timescales longer than 2 seconds. They
have been associated with the collapse of rapidly rotating massive stars
\citep{Hjorth:2011zx}. Short GRBs (sGRB) with prompt emission $<$2s and a generally
harder spectrum are thought to arise from the merger of two neutron stars, or a
neutron star and black hole \citep{Nakar:2007yr}. It is this favored progenitor
model which makes short GRBs and associated afterglow emission a promising
counterpart to GW observations.
The Swift satellite has revolutionized our understanding of short GRBs over the
last several years by the rapid observation of X-ray afterglows, providing the
first localization, host identification, and red-shift information. The beaming
angle for short GRBs is highly uncertain, although limited observations of jet
breaks in some afterglows imply half-opening angles of $\theta_j \sim$ 3--14$^\circ$
\citep{Liang:2007rn,Fong:2012aq}. The absence of an observable jet break
sets a lower limit on the opening angle which is generally weak (due to limits
in sensitivity), though in the case of GRB 050724A, late-time Chandra
observations were able to constrain $\theta_j \gtrsim 25^\circ$
\citep{Grupe:2006uc}. The observed spatial density of short GRBs and limits on
beaming angle result in a NS/NS merger event rate roughly consistent with that
derived from galactic binary pulsar measurements.
Although the beaming factor
of $\sim$$\theta_j^2/2$ means most merger events seen by the advanced GW
detectors will not be accompanied by a gamma-ray burst, this is somewhat
compensated by the fact that the ones that are beamed toward us have stronger
GW emission. Current estimates for coincident GW-sGRB
observation for advanced LIGO-Virgo are a few per year assuming a NS/NS
progenitor model \citep{Metzger:2011bv,Coward:2012gn}. The rate increases by a
factor of 8 if all observed short GRBs are instead due to NS/BH (10 $M_\odot$)
mergers which are detectable in gravitational waves to twice the distance.
Coincident rates for the initial detectors go down by a factor a thousand due
to their factor of ten worse sensitivity.
About 80\% of short GRBs seen by Swift are accompanied by some kind of X-ray
afterglow \citep{Gehrels:2013xd}, which are often observable for about a day.
The observed X-ray afterglows are thought to occur from synchrotron emission at
the shock front where the outgoing jet meets the local inter-sellar medium. Simulations show
that such afterglow emission becomes very weak off-axis, with little
possibility of detection at twice the opening angle \citep{vanEerten:2011zu}.
Searches for orphan afterglow signals, without the presence of detected prompt
GRB emission, are quite difficult to confirm due to various sources of
transient background. However with incomplete coverage of the gamma-ray sky,
it is quite possible that the first GW-EM association will be with an afterglow
signal.
In addition to the jet-driven burst and afterglow, other EM emission associated
with a compact merger can be a promising channel for GW-EM coincidence,
particularly if the EM radiation is less-beamed or even isotropic. A few short
GRBs ($\sim$10\%) have shown clear evidence of high-energy flares which preceed
the primary burst by 1--10 seconds, and possibly up to 100s
\citep{Troja:2010zm}. The precursors can be interpreted as evidence of some
activity during or before merger, such as the resonant shattering of NS crusts
\citep{Tsang:2011ad}, which depends on the NS equation-of-state and could
radiate isotropically. A class of short GRBs ($\sim$25\%) also contain a period
of extended soft X-ray emission on a timescale of $\sim$10--100s after the
initial spike, which is difficult to explain with the standard jet scenario. It
has been proposed that the extended emission could arise from a relativistic
wind powered by a short-lived rapidly-rotating protomagnetar star surviving
post-merger
\citep{2008MNRAS.385.1455M,2013ApJ...763L..22Z,Gao:2013rd,Nakamura:2013hda},
which could also be considerably more isotropic than the jet afterglow. Since
short GRBs themselves may be subject to a large beaming factor, the more
numerous nearby NS/NS mergers seen in gravitational waves will provide a unique
opportunity to search for these potentially weak exotic EM phenomena, and
isolate them from jet behavior.
Detection of the characteristic signature of a compact binary coalescence in
gravitational waves prior to an associated sGRB will provide unambiguous
support for the compact merger progenitor model. Along with this critical piece
of the sGRB puzzle, gravitational waves provide a largely complimentary set of
information: component masses (whether black holes are involved) and spins,
system inclination, luminosity distance; while the EM counterpart
provides information about EM energetics, a precise location, local and host
environment, and red-shift. This makes joint GW-EM detections particularly
valuable and a key goal in GW astronomy.
\subsection{Methodology of GW-EM coincidence search}
GW-EM coincidence can be approached from a variety of angles. In this
analysis, we use a collection of all-sky, all-time GW events to
conduct a targeted search in high-energy EM archival survey data. Another
strategy demands real-time analysis and localization of the GW data
\citep{2012A&A...541A.155A,Cannon:2011vi,Singer:2014qca}, suitable for targeted
observation with narrow-field instruments with the goal of catching a
short-lived afterglow signal. This rapid EM follow-up approach was succesfully
tested in initial LIGO/Virgo for a handful of online GW events using both a
collection of ground-based optical telescopes \citep{2014ApJS..211....7A} and
Swift-XRT \citep{2012ApJS..203...28E}. The online strategy places heavy demands
on both the rapid processing and interpretation of GW data, as well as the
capability of pointed telescopes to effectively cover the large GW-determined
sky location \citep{Abbott:2011ys,2012ApJ...759...22K,Singer:2013xha}. In
return they provide the deepest observations, with sufficient sensitivity to
observe, for example, the faint but promising optical/IR kilonova merger
counterpart \citep{Metzger:2011bv,Kasliwal:2013yqa}.
Known EM transients can also trigger specialized searches in the GW data
itself, where the precise time, sky-location, and potentially model information
from the EM event may greatly constrain the space of GW signals to look for.
The reduced search can be performed at a lower threshold in the GW data due to
both computational and statistical (false-alarm probability) considerations
\citep{Was:2012zq}. In the case of known GRBs, such searches have been used to
place minimum distance limits dependent on GW emission model
\citep{Briggs:2012ce,Aasi:2014iia}, and for two short GRBs have been able to
uniquely exlude the possibility of a binary merger progenitor from a plausible
nearby host \citep{Abbott:2007rh,Abadie:2012bz}.
For this anaysis, the offline coincidence between GW and EM
observation is done in time and sky location, providing an ability to exclude
non-coincident background from either search. Timing for a GW
signal is very good, and the time of coalescence is accurate to
milliseconds. The coincidence search window in time is
determined by the expected delay between coalescence and the emission of
EM radiation, which ranges from seconds for prompt gamma-rays to
hours for afterglow emission. Sky localization using gravitational waves is
based primarily on triangulation across a light-travel baseline of 10--30 ms
\citep{Fairhurst:2010is}, but can be improved by including the signal amplitude
and phase \citep{2014PhRvD..89h4060S,Singer:2014qca}. For the initial detector network, sky
position for a merger event can be determined to several tens of square degrees
\citep{Fairhurst:2009tc}.
Figure \ref{fig:flowchart} shows an outline of the GW-EM coincidence pipeline.
We begin with GW events found by a standard matched-filter
analysis for coincident CBC signals across two or all three of the GW detectors
\citep{Colaboration:2011nz}. The original results of this analysis identified a
loud signal that had been injected into the data as a blind test of the
pipeline (as seen in figure \ref{fig:ihopedistribution}), but did not find any
other outliers that stood out above the coincident background of the GW
instruments. The matched filter analysis gives some information about sky
location (from timing) and distance (from amplitude), but better parameters are
obtained through a coherent Bayesian follow-up \citep{Veitch:2009hd,Veitch:2014wba} which
calculates the posterior probability of all possible physical signals (with
varying component masses, location, distance, inclination, etc) using their
coherent overlap with the data from all detectors. This is particularly useful
for the relatively common case of a signal detected in H1 and L1, but too weak
to be detected in Virgo, thus missing V1 timing information. The Bayesian
analysis is still able to use the Virgo data to exclude regions of the sky
where, for example, Virgo is particularly sensitive relative to the LIGO
instruments.
The sky location and distance estimates can be further refined by assuming that
compact mergers arise from a known galaxy, for which we have reasonably
complete catalogs out to the LIGO horizon \citep{White:2011qf}. Each galaxy in
the catalog can be assigned a host probability which is proportional to its
blue-light luminosity (as a proxy for its mass, which we assume is proportional
to the rate of compact binary mergers), as well as its overlap with the
GW-derived posterior distributions in distance and sky-location. This reduces
the search from several hundred square degrees to a handful of essentially
point-source locations (given the angular resolution of ASM), at the risk of
the true host being absent from the catalog.
The offline search for an EM counterpart from GBM or ASM is then
triggered by the time of coalescence, and the GW-derived skyamp or the list of
possible host galaxies with corresponding probabilities. We search over the
parameter space of expected EM signals, and set nominal thresholds
above which we consider GW-EM candidate coincident events.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{flowchart-small} \caption{Flowchart
for GW-EM coincidence analysis. We begin with GW
compact binary coalescence events detected with a standard
matched-filter analysis (ihope) \citep{Babak:2012zx}. A coherent Bayesian follow-up using the LALInference package \citep{Veitch:2014wba} estimates
distance and sky location parameters using data from multiple
detectors. From this, we obtain a list of possible nearby host
galaxies from the galaxy catalog (GWGC) and their relative probabilities. We search nearby GBM
data for prompt gamma-ray bursts consistent with the GW skymap, as
well as ASM light-curve data at the positions of potential host
galaxies for a family of parameterized afterglow signals beginning
at the coalescence time. From this we gather a filtered list of
GW-EM candidate events.}
\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Results and conclusions}
\subsection{Selection cuts and background rejection}
\label{sec:selectioncuts}
We have tested the end-to-end GW-EM pipelines for both GBM and ASM on a
selection of real GW background noise events from the LIGO-Virgo S6/VSR3 joint
science run, as well as simulated GW-EM events injected in coincidence in both
the GW and EM data streams. By comparing the properties of GW background and
simulations, we identify a number of selection cuts that help reduce the
non-Gaussian background present in the EM data. The ASM selection cut is based
on the reduced $\chi^2$ of the ASM data after the best-fit double-broken
power-law light-curve has been subtracted (figure \ref{fig:asm1}). However, due
to the sporadic coverage of the ASM measurements, it is difficult to select on
any morphological properties of the light-curves themselves, beyond the weak
requirement that the measurements be consistent with one or more of the
possible templates.
We place a nominal threshold of 18 on $\Lambda_\mathrm{GW-ASM}$, the GW-ASM
coincident likelihood ratio. Because the likelihood is largely determined by
the Gaussian-like shape of the ASM background distribution, we represent this
as a threshold of 6 on the alternative rank parameter $r=\sqrt{2\Lambda}$. The
distribution of $r$ for the GW background events, as well as a variety of
simulations is shown in figure \ref{fig:asmrank}. With the ASM coincidence
requirement applied, the loudest GW background event drops from a combined SNR
of 11.0 to 9.13 (figure \ref{fig:cumhist}), a reduction of $\sim$17\%. ASM is
generally sensitive to afterglow signals within the LIGO horizon, however
detectability varies widely since it is highly dependent on exactly when, or if
ever, the ASM observation(s) occur relative to the peak in the light curves
(figure \ref{fig:asm2}). Similarly, detections may fail if the GW localization
is not sufficient to pick out the correct galaxy host among the top 200
candidates, which happens about 7\% of the time at 10 Mpc, and 32\% of the time
at 30 Mpc.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{rankcdf} \caption{Cumulative
distribution of ASM rank (monotonic with GW-ASM likelihood ratio)
for background events, as well as a variety of GW-ASM afterglow
simulations, volume-weighted to resemble a spatially homoegeneous
distribution in distance up to 40 Mpc. The standard afterglow
follows the parameterization in figure \ref{fig:afterglowlc} with
an intrinsic luminosity of $10^{46}$ erg/s at the first breakpoint
at 300s. The other three simulated afterglows represent X-ray
bursts at various timescales, with characteristic onset and
duration of 100, 1000, and 10000s, and a total integrated energy
release of $10^{49}$ erg.}
\label{fig:asmrank}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the GBM detector, most short background events are due to phosphorescent
events in the NaI detectors, which can arise from cosmic rays. While we
implemented a rough cut to exclude such events from contaminating the
background fits during the analysis, we implement a further selection to remove
remaining particle events from the foreground interval. The particle events are
unique in that they show up in a single detector, and are generally soft in
reconstructed energy. Thus we implement two cuts based on the ratio of detected
channel 0 SNR in the loudest and second-loudest NaI detectors, as well as
between channel 0 and channel 1 in the loudest detector. With these cuts we are
able to remove most of the remaining soft particle background.
We also implement a sky-coincidence cut between the GW sky location and GBM by
comparing the GBM likelihood ratio with and without the GW sky prior folded in.
Since the sky prior typically covers a fractionally small region of the sky for
a well-localized event (100s of square degrees), we expect an appropriately
normalized coincident observation to have a correspondingly higher likelihood
ratio than one that assumes an isotropic all-sky prior. We expect a factor that can
be roughly in line with the fractional reduction in sky area ($\sim$400), but
since this can be moderated by many effects (averaging windows, systematic
errors in reconstructed location), we choose an empirical factor of $e^2$ as a
coincidence requirement. This cut is still able to reject a large fraction of
the background where we do not expect any systematic increase in likelihood
ratio due to incorporation of a GW sky prior (figure \ref{fig:gbm2}).
Finally we place a nominal threshold of 30 on the coincident GBM likelihood
ratio, which corresponds roughly to that of the weakest un-triggered GRBs
detectable by this method (figure~\ref{fig:gbminjection}). After this threshold and the previously mentioned
selection cuts, there is only one coincident GW-GBM event remaining, which has
a combined SNR $\rho_c$ of 8.1 (figure \ref{fig:cumhist}), $\sim$26\% lower than the
previous loudest event.
\begin{figure} \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{snrvschisq}
\caption{Reduced $\chi^2$ vs max-SNR in ASM data of background and
simulations (all waveforms) for GW-ASM events. The scatter points
represent full end-to-end implementation of the coincident GW-ASM
pipeline, including joint simulation of NS/NS and afterglow signals
from nearby host galaxies. We cut at $\chi^2 > 3$ (gray shade) to
remove loud background events inconsistent with one of the template
waveforms. For example, they may have excess flux before the
merger time, or sporadic flux afterward inconsistent with a
power-law decay. The cut is relaxed at high SNR due to template
mismatch.} \label{fig:asm1} \end{center} \end{figure}
\begin{figure} \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{snrvsdistance} \caption{Best-fit SNR of
ASM injections versus distance for joint GW-ASM NS/NS-afterglow injections
split by model waveform. The ASM SNR is highly variable mainly due to the
uncertain time-to-first observation. Missed detections in ASM are due to
several factors including lack of ASM data or poor sky localization due to
antenna pattern effects. Rather than cut directly on SNR, ASM events are
selected using the derivate {\em rank} parameter (figure \ref{fig:asmrank})
which folds in SNR information from all possible host locations and their
probabilities, as well as information about the ASM background distribution.
For reference, we show a shaded region at $\mathrm{SNR}<6$ which encompases the
majority of ASM background (figure \ref{fig:asm1}).} \label{fig:asm2}
\end{center} \end{figure}
\begin{figure} \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{gbm-skycoinc} \caption{Sky
coincidence cut for GW-EM search. We require the likelihood ratio
of GBM signal vs no-signal to be a factor of $e^2$ greater when
the GW skymap prior is used, versus an all-sky prior. The
sky-coincidence is effective at removing loud GBM background,
although some signal injections
are also rejected due to poor GW or GBM sky localization.}
\label{fig:gbm2} \end{center} \end{figure}
\begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{gbminjection}
\caption{GBM log-likelihood
ratio after folding in GW sky prior information, as a function of
injection distance for a standard-candle weak GRB simulation calibrated
to a flux of 1 photon/s/cm$^2$ in 50--300 keV at 30 Mpc (about
$6.6\times10^{46}$ erg). The shaded region shows a nominal likelihood-ratio
threshold of 30.}
\label{fig:gbminjection}
\end{center}\end{figure}
The cumulative histograms of signal-to-noise of the time-shift
GW background events before and after EM coincidence are shown
in figure \ref{fig:cumhist}. This can be qualitatively compared to the
published background distribution shown in figure \ref{fig:ihopedistribution}.
\Needspace*{2\baselineskip}
The original low-threshold GW events used in this analysis were subject
to a single detector SNR threshold of 5.5. This means that for a
double-coincident H1L1 event, the absolute minimum network SNR is
$\sqrt{2\times5.5^2} = 7.78$, before any reduction by the $\chi^2$ consistency
check (equation \ref{eqn:new_snr}). Near this threshold, one must be careful
when assuming simple range scaling relationships between combined SNR
thresholds and effective range of the analysis because of the upstream cuts.
Past the knee in the original GW background distribution $\rho_c \gtrsim 9$,
the inverse relationship between distance and combined SNR should be robust, so
we can estimate a factor of $\gtrsim 15\%$ increase in range for this sample at
equivalent false-alarm rate given events where EM coincidence can provide at
least a factor of 1/1000 background rejection. While the background sample used
in this study reliably probes about three orders of magnitude in rate, the
extended background studies from \cite{Colaboration:2011nz} and represented in
figure \ref{fig:ihopedistribution} show that for H1L1 events near the end of
the LIGO S6 with chirp mass $3.48 \le \mathcal{M}_c < 7.40$, the background
distribution scales roughly as $\sim$$100^{-\rho_c}$ in combined SNR over eight
orders of magnitude in rate. For the special case in which both a prompt
gamma-ray {\em and} X-ray afterglow counterpart are observable, the accidental
coincidence factors measured here give a large joint rate of background
rejection around $\sim$10$^7$, which implies a factor of $\sim$1.5 increased
range to such events if maintaining a fixed false-alarm-rate given an original
threshold of $\rho_c > 10$ \citep{Camp:2013cwa} before EM coincidence.
\subsection{Efficiency for simulated signals}
The efficiency of the EM pipelines to our standard-candle signal injections is
shown in figure \ref{fig:emeff}. The efficiency fractions are calculated from
the end-to-end simulation of a joint NS/NS inspiral signal with corresponding
prompt and afterglow EM counterpart, and the process is triggered by a
low-threshold ($\rho_c \gtrsim 8.5$) GW candidate. The presence of a GW trigger
is required, and the represented fraction does not include efficiency factors
from the analysis of GW data itself. However, the EM follow-up
efficiency is still generally influenced by the quality of the GW sky localization.
GBM views the entire unocculted sky (65\%) when not in the South Atlantic
Anomaly ($\sim$15\%), and this duty-cycle dominates the efficiency factor out
to 40 Mpc. This is not surprising as our injeciton amplitude was chosen to be
moderately detectable at 30 Mpc (and still several hundred times weaker than a
typical sGRB).
\Needspace*{2\baselineskip}
The chance of detecting an X-ray afterglow signal with ASM is much more
variable (figure \ref{fig:asm2}) due primarily to the large variability in
delay between onset of the afterglow and the first available measurement. The
ASM follow-up is also more sensitive to the sky localization accuracy from the
GW trigger due to the choice to follow-up only the most probable 200 individual
galaxy host locations. Increased distance both increases the sky area
uncertainty (due to decreased GW SNR), and increases the area-density of
galaxies on the sky. We do not observe ASM counterparts above threshold beyond
$\sim$30 Mpc. For the X-ray burst model waveforms, longer duration bursts (at
equivalent total fluence) were relatively easier to detect as they better
matched the ASM cadence.
\begin{figure} \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{collect-bg}
\caption{Cumulative distribution of combined SNR ($\rho_c$)
for time-shifted background events observed in GW data before and after selection cuts
are made on the requirement of an EM coincidence from either GBM or
ASM.
An additional 10 time-shifts are applied between GW and EM data, resolving
the expected distribution after coincidence to 0.1 events. The coincidence rejection factors are $\sim$$10^{-3}$ and
$10^{-4}$ for ASM and GBM respectively. The corresponding loudest
events are at a combined SNR of 11.0, 9.1, and 8.1. However below a
combined SNR of $\sim$9, the effects of other analysis cuts take
effect. Additional factors of background rejection from tighter
time and sky coincidence could further dig into the noise
distribution as suggested in \cite{Camp:2013cwa}, but demonstrating
that robustely would require a much larger, or lower-threshold GW
background set than was used this study.}
\label{fig:cumhist}
\end{center} \end{figure}
\begin{figure} \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.4in]{collect-inj} \caption{Fraction of
EM counterpart injections to simulated GW triggers
which pass thresholds in the EM analysis, as a function of source
distance. The EM efficiency is limited by coverage, EM sensitivity,
and the success of GW sky localization. The gamma-ray simulation shown is a weak prompt signal
lasting 1 second with a standard-candle amplitude of 1
photon/s/cm$^2$ in 50--300 keV at 30 Mpc, and following a normal
band spectrum according to table \ref{tab:bandspectra}. This
corresponds to a total energy release of $6.6\times10^{46}$~erg. The
ASM X-ray afterglow injection represents a typical X-ray short GRB afterglow shown
in figure \ref{fig:afterglowlc}, and the X-ray burst injections with varying
durations are as shown in figure~\ref{fig:afterglowlc}.}
\label{fig:emeff}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\Needspace*{3\baselineskip}
\subsection{Discussion}
In this paper, we introduced a strategy to search for high-energy
EM counterparts to GW binary colescense events in
archival satellite survey data. We designed an end-to-end GW candidate follow-up
pipeline and tested it on a large number of background binary colescence GW
events from time-shifted initial LIGO/Virgo data during their most recent
science runs (S6/VSR2+3). The representative noise events were subject to a
fully-coherent Bayesian parameter estimation analysis in order to obtain sky and
distance posterior probability distributions. These distributions were used to
obtain a set of probable hosts from a catalog of nearby galaxies.
Two custom follow-up methods were designed to search for both a prompt
gamma-ray counterpart in offline data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor
(GBM) within $\pm$30s of the GW coalesence time and consistent with the GW sky
location, as well as a generic family of X-ray afterglow lightcurves in data
from the RXTE All-Sky Monitor (ASM) at the locations of possible host galaxies,
and parametrized by a generic broken power-law with characteristic timescales
of minutes to days. The requirement of a GBM or ASM coincident counterpart reduced
the number of background events by factors of $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-3}$
respectively, reducing the GW ampltiude of the loudest suriving background
event by $\sim$15--20\%.
Both EM pipelines were tested on a set of joint GW-EM simulated signals, where
GW simulations corresponded to NS/NS mergers at random times and sky
locations/orientations. The GBM follow-up pipeline maintained sensitivity to
weak coincident prompt bursts with a normal GRB specturm and a fluence
corresponding to an isotropic-equivalent energy release of
$E_\mathrm{iso}\sim6.6\times10^{46}$ erg over 1s, detecting about 55\% of the
brightest counterparts (due to Earth occultation) and about 20\% of
counterparts placed at 40 Mpc (the most distant simulations due to GW
sensitivity). The simulated signal was several hundred times weaker than a
typical sGRB, implying a wide range of possible GRB luminosities that could be
probed using GW triggers up to advanced LIGO distances. The ASM follow-up
pipeline was able to detect a typical sGRB afterglow signal with about 40\%
efficiency at 10 Mpc.
The strategy of targeted offline follow-up of GW candidates in EM data
presented here is one of a couple possibilities for joint GW-EM observation --
others being rapid online GW analysis to alert pointed telescopes, and using
known EM events like GRB alerts to do a targeted specialized search in GW data.
All of these strategies will likely be in use in the advanced detector era.
The main benefits of having archival EM data at hand is that survey data is
continuously available, and not rate or schedule limited. Thousands or even
millions of GW candidates can be followed-up offline, provided
there is a low-enough probability of accidental coincidence. In the case of a
confident GW detection, automated archival EM searches
will also be able to look for subthreshold/untriggered bursts
\citep{Gruber:2012ny,Blackburn:2013ina}, potentially exotic EM emission
scenarios (e.g. soft flares which are difficult to target on-board due to large
background variation), and in the case of no counterpart, place upper limits on
the EM emission thorough software simulations.
While Fermi will continue operating in the foreseeable future, the RXTE mission
ended in early 2012 after 16 years of operation. In the advanced LIGO era,
the MAXI mission
\citep{2009PASJ...61..999M} on board the ISS has a similar wide-field soft
X-ray camera and continuously surveys the X-ray sky at a sensitivity several
times better than RXTE-ASM. Another promising candidate for X-ray follow-up is ISS\mbox{-}Lobster \citep{Camp:2013cwa} -- a
NASA-proposed wide field ($30^\circ \times 30^\circ$) soft X-ray imaging
telescope which would also be able to survey the sky (as well as do directed
observations). The wide field imager on ISS-Lobster would be $\sim$100 times as
sensitive as RXTE-ASM, matching well the expected factor of 10 increase in GW
horizon distance for advanced LIGO. Moreover the ability of ISS-Lobster to
repoint for an online GW trigger would allow it to begin
observing a rapidly fading afterglow signal as soon as it appears on the right
side of the Earth. Both Fermi-GBM and ISS\mbox{-}Lobster would be able to
search for counterparts with or without the help of a galaxy catalog due to
their extremely wide field-of-view.
|
\section{Introduction}
The attribution of thermodynamic properties to black holes is incompatible with classical general relativity (GR) \cite{Bek, Hawk}. The derivation of Hawking radiation requires a quantum treatment of matter degrees of freedom. For this reason, the origin of black hole thermodynamics is commonly sought at the quantum gravity level.
In this article, we focus on the thermodynamic level of description for black holes. Thermodynamics is a theory for macroscopic
coarse-grained variables and it can be consistently formulated without any reference to the underlying physics. In particular, thermodynamics applies even if the underlying physics is fully quantum.
For this reason, we believe that it is possible to formulate a thermodynamic description of black holes that {\em incorporates the quantum effects of matter} within a classical theory of gravity. In Ref. \cite{SavAn14}, we showed that
the thermodynamics of gravitating systems in equilibrium is holographic at the classical level, in the sense that all thermodynamic properties are fully specified by variables defined on the system's boundary.
In Ref. \cite{AnSav12}, we constructed a consistent thermodynamic description of solutions to Einstein's equations that correspond to radiation in a box.
In this work, we employ these solutions in order to describe
a black hole of mass $M$ inside a box, in thermal equilibrium with its Hawking radiation.
We find that the breakdown of classical GR takes place in a thin shell around the horizon. Since the principles of thermodynamics are insensitive to the microscopic underlying dynamics, we identify the shell's physical characteristics by employing the maximum entropy principle. We find that the shell is characterized by high temperature (of order $1/\sqrt{M}$) and its invariant thickness is of order $\sqrt{M}$. Hence, the width of the shell around the horizon is {\em much larger} than the Planck scale. This is unlike most existing models that postulate a shell or membrane of Planck-length around the horizon---for example \cite{hooft85,STU93}. The invariant width of the shell derived here is also larger than the
invariant distance of $M^{1/3}$ from the horizon characterized by strong gravitational interactions
due to the “atmosphere” of high angular-momentum particles, derived in Ref. \cite{CEIMP96}.
The electromagnetic (EM) field is an excellent example by which to demonstrate our perspective. The quantum EM field has a consistent statistical mechanical description, while the classical EM field has none. Nonetheless, the thermodynamics of the classical EM field is well defined: the equation of state follows from the classical action, and the entropy functional is inferred from the equation of state. The only imprint of quantum theory is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant that appears as a phenomenological parameter in the entropy functional. In analogy, when seeking an integrated description of black hole thermodynamics and GR at the macroscopic level, we expect that quantum effects are incorporated into phenomenological parameters of the thermodynamic potentials.
The structure of this article is the following. In Sec. 2, we describe the background for studying a black hole inside a box. In Sec. 3, we present the properties of the solutions to the Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation inside the box. In Sec. 4, we derive the condition for the breakdown of the Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation showing that it is restricted into a thin shell around the horizon. In Sec. 5, we implement the maximum-entropy principle, using minimal modeling assumptions, in order to identify the properties of the shell. In Sec. 6, we discuss the physical origins of the breakdown of Einstein's equations, and its relation to quantum vacuum fluctuations of matter fields. In Sec. 7, we summarize and discuss our results.
\section{The equilibrium black hole.}
A black hole in an asymptotically flat spacetime is not an equilibrium system because it radiates. However, a black hole enclosed within a perfectly reflecting spherical box is an equilibrium system because it involves two competing processes: emission of Hawking quanta, and their re-absorption after reflection from the boundary. One expects that the equilibrium state corresponds to the black hole coexisting with its Hawking radiation. This system has been studied before \cite{Dav78, York85}, albeit with simplifying assumptions.
Since the Hawking emission of massive particles is exponentially suppressed \cite{Hawk}, radiation is well described by the thermodynamic equations for ultra-relativistic particles:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho = b T^4, \hspace{1cm} P = \frac{1}{3}\rho, \hspace{1cm} s = \frac{4}{3} b^{1/4} \rho^{3/4},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho$ is the energy density, $P$ is the pressure, $T$ is the temperature and $s$ is the entropy density; $b$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant that takes the value $\frac{\pi^2}{15}$ for pure EM radiation. (We use Planck units, $\hbar = c = G = 1$.) Particle numbers are not preserved in the processes of black hole formation and evaporation; thus, they do not define thermodynamic variables and the associated chemical potentials vanish.
Assuming spherical symmetry, the metric outside the box is a Schwarzschild solution with Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass $M$. An observer outside the box has access to several macroscopic variables that are constant in absence of external intervention. Such variables are the mass $M$, the area $4 \pi R^2$ of the box,
the boundary temperature $T_R$ and the boundary pressure $P_R$. The internal energy of a spherically symmetric system coincides with the ADM mass $M$ \cite{SavAn14}. A change $\delta R$ of the boundary radius corresponds to work $-P_R (4 \pi R^2) \delta R/\sqrt{1 - 2M/R}$ as measured by a local static observer, or $-P_R (4 \pi R^2)$ to an observer at infinity. The first law of thermodynamics then becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta M = T_{\infty} \delta S - P_R (4 \pi R^2) \delta R
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{\infty} = T_R/\sqrt{1 - 2M/R}$ is the temperature at infinity.
The first law above implies that the thermodynamic state space of the system consists of the variables $M$ and $R$.
This physical system is characterized by two phases, the radiation phase and the black-hole phase. For fixed $R$, and for sufficiently small values of $M$, the box contains only radiation; for higher values of $M$ the box contains a black hole coexisting with
its Hawking radiation. A heuristic description of the two phases is the following.
For $2M/R << 1$, gravity is negligible in the radiation phase, the system is homogeneous with constant density $\rho = m /(\frac{4}{3} \pi R^3)$ and the entropy is
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{rad} = \frac{4}{3} \pi R^3 s = \frac{4}{3} \left(\frac{4}{3} \pi b\right)^{1/4} M^{3/4} R^{3/4}.
\end{eqnarray}
For $2M/R$ approaching unity, almost all the mass is contained in the black hole of radius $ 2M$, hence, the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the black hole entropy applies, $S_{BH} = 4 \pi M^2$. The black hole phase is entropically favored if $S_{BH} > S_{rad}$, i.e., for
\begin{eqnarray}
M^5 R^{-3} > \frac{4 b}{3^5 \pi^3}.
\end{eqnarray}
The radiation phase was studied in Ref. \cite{AnSav12}. In what follows, we construct the thermodynamics of the black-hole phase through the following steps: (i) we derive the geometry inside the box using classical GR; (ii) since radiation cannot coexist in equilibrium with a horizon in GR,
we identify the spacetime region where Einstein' s equations break down; (iii) we find an effective macroscopic description for the physics of this region by using the maximum-entropy principle.
\section{Classical geometry inside the box.}
The region inside the box where the black hole coexists with its Hawking radiation corresponds to a static solution to Einstein's equations with radiation,
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 = - (1 - \frac{2M}{R}) \sqrt{\frac{\rho(R)}{\rho(r)}} dt^2 + \frac{dr^2}{1 - \frac{2m(r)}{r}} + r^2 d\Omega^2, \label{ds2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ d \Omega^2 = (d \theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d \phi^2)$ and
$(t, r, \theta, \phi) $ are the standard coordinates. The mass function $m(r)$ satisfies $
\frac{dm}{dr} = 4 \pi r^2 \rho$, and
the energy density $\rho(r)$ satisfies the Oppenheimer-Volkoff (OV) equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d \rho}{dr} = -\frac{4 \rho}{r^2} \frac{(m+ \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 \rho)}{1 - \frac{2m}{r}}. \label{OV}
\end{eqnarray}
We change the variables to
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi := \ln \frac{r}{R}, \\
u := \frac{2m(r)}{r}, \label{udef} \\
v := 4 \pi r^2 \rho, \label{vdef}
\end{eqnarray}
to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{du}{d\xi} = 2v - u \label{equ} \hspace{1cm}
\frac{dv}{d\xi} = \frac{2v (1 - 2 u - \frac{2}{3}v)}{1-u}. \label{equv}
\end{eqnarray}
Eq. (\ref{equv}) is to be integrated from the boundary ($\xi = 0$, or $r = R$) inwards, because the thermodynamic variables $M$ and $R$ are defined at the boundary. We denote the values of $u$ and $v$ at the boundary as $u_R$ and $v_R$, respectively. Thus, $u_R = 2M/R$ and $v_R = 4 \pi b R^2 T_R^4$.
There are two classes of solutions to Eq. (\ref{equv}) that are distinguished by their behavior as $r \rightarrow 0$ \cite{box, AnSav12}. The first class contains solutions with a conical singularity at the center. They satisfy $\rho(0) = 0$ and $m(0) = -M_0$, for some constant $M_0 > 0$. The solutions in the second class are regular (everywhere locally Minkowskian). They satisfy $m(0) = 0 $ and $\rho(0) = \rho_c$, for some constant $\rho_c >0$.
The integration of Eq. (\ref{equv}) from the boundary inwards does not encounter a horizon ($u = 1$), except for the trivial case of $v_R = 0$ that corresponds to a Schwarzschild horizon and no radiation inside the box \cite{AnSav12}. However, there is a sub-class of singular solutions with $u \simeq 1$ near a surface $r = r_* $.
These solutions arise for $v_R << u_R$, i.e., for low density at the boundary.
We call these geometries Approximate-Horizon (AH) solutions.
Next, we study the properties of the AH solutions.
Plots of $u$ and $v$ as a function of $r$ are given in Fig. 1.
A typical AH solution is characterized by three regions
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item In region $I$, $u$ increases and $v$ decreases with decreasing $r$. $P$ is the local minimum of $v$.
\item
In region $II$, $u$ keeps increasing with decreasing $r$ until it reaches a maximum {\em very close to unity} at $O_*$ ($r = r_* \simeq 2M$); $v$ also increases with decreasing $r$ in region $II$ and equals $\frac{1}{2}$ at $O_*$. By Eq. (\ref{vdef}), the density
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_*\simeq \frac{1}{32 \pi M^2}, \label{ro*}
\end{eqnarray}
and the local temperature
\begin{eqnarray}
T_* = \frac{1}{(32\pi b)^{1/4} \sqrt{ M}} \label{t*}
\end{eqnarray}
at $O_*$ depend only on $M$, within an excellent approximation.
\item Region $III$ corresponds to decreasing $u$; $v$ increases dramatically shortly after $O_*$, but then drops to zero at $r = 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{plot3.eps} \caption{ \small $u$ and $v$ as functions of $r$ for an AH solution with $u_R = 0.15$ and $v_R = 0.01$. Note that we have to use a logarithmic scale for $v$ due to its rapid increase near $O_*$.}
\end{figure}
An approximate evaluation of the AH solutions is described in Appendix A. Every $AH$ solution is characterized by the parameter
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_* = 1 - u(r_*) << 1 \label{estar0}
\end{eqnarray}
that defines the maximal blue-shift at $O_*$. In Appendix A, we express $\epsilon_*$ as a function of the boundary variables,
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_* = \frac{16}{9} u_R (1 - u_R) \sqrt{2 v_R}. \label{estar0a}
\end{eqnarray}
Solving Eq. (\ref{estar0a}) for $v_R$ and using Eq. (\ref{vdef}), we relate the boundary temperature $T_R$ to $\epsilon_*$,
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{R} = \frac{3 \sqrt{\epsilon_*}}{4 \sqrt{2M} (8 \pi b)^{1/4}\sqrt{1 - u_R}}. \label{bt0}
\end{eqnarray}
In the Appendix A, we also prove a relation between radial coordinate at $O_*$ and $\epsilon_*$,
\begin{eqnarray}
r_* = 2M \left( 1 + \frac{3 \epsilon_*}{8} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
and a relation between the value of the mass function at $O_*$, $m_* := m(r_*)$ and $\epsilon_*$,
\begin{eqnarray}
m_* =
M \left( 1 - \frac{5 \epsilon_*}{8} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
In the vicinity of $O_*$, the metric Eq. (\ref{ds2}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 = - N_*^2 dt^2 + \frac{dx^2}{\epsilon_* + \frac{x^2}{3M^2 \epsilon_*}}
+ r_*^2 d \Omega^2 \label{ds2b}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x = r - r_*$, and $N_* = \frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\epsilon_*}$ is the lapse function. Interestingly, the proper acceleration at $O_*$ equals $(4M)^{-1}$, i.e., it coincides with the surface gravity of a Schwarzschild black hole of mass $M$.
\section{Breakdown of the OV equation.}
The regions $I$ and $II$ of an AH solution describe the geometry of
the black hole phase at some distance from the horizon. Since the OV equation cannot account for the presence of a horizon, it must break down somewhere
in region $II$, and close to $O_*$. It must be substituted by a different equation that is compatible with the formation of an horizon. However, any such modification must be very drastic: the OV equation is compatible with a horizon only for matter configurations with negative pressure \cite{ST}.
It is conceivable that the equation of state for radiation is modified near $O_*$ in order to incorporate quantum effects of non-gravitational origin, such as QED vacuum polarization.
However, such modifications are unlikely to lead to the negative pressures that are necessary for the formation of a horizon.
For a solar mass black hole, $\rho_* \sim 10^{16}\rho_{H_2O}$, where $\rho_{H_2O}$ is the density of water. Hence,
$\rho_*$ is of the same order of magnitude with the density at the center of a neutron star. The corresponding local temperature $T_*$ is of the order of $10^{12}{}^oK$, which is a typical temperature for quark-gluon plasma. No existing model of strong/nuclear interactions suggests the possibility of
negative pressure in these regimes. For super-massive black holes, $\rho_* \sim 10^2 \rho_{H_2O}$; negative pressures are even more implausible in this regime. For this reason, we expect that quantum effects at high densities
may cause quantitative changes in the thermodynamics of self-gravitating radiation, but they are not strong enough
to generate a black hole phase. In further support of this assertion, we note that any contribution from quantum effects would have strong and complex dependence on the mass $M$, involving masses and thresholds from high energy physics. The resulting thermodynamics would not manifest the simplicity and universality of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.
Since high densities or temperature cannot lead to the formation of a horizon, the main
cause for
the breakdown of the OV equation in region $II$ is the extreme blue-shift $\epsilon_*^{-1/2}$.
At extreme blue-shifts, the
description of matter in terms of hydrodynamic variables (e.g, energy density) fails because the hydrodynamic description is not fundamentally continuous but presupposes a degree of coarse-graining.
In Minkowski spacetime, the energy density $\rho$ is defined as $\rho = U/L^3$, where $U$ is the energy in a cube of size $L$. $L$ defines the degree of spatial coarse-graining and it cannot be arbitrarily small \footnote{ For thermal radiation at temperature $T$, the requirement that the energy fluctuations are much smaller than the mean energy in a volume $L^3$ implies that $L T >> 1$. At higher temperatures, the Compton wave-length of the electron defines an absolute lower limit to $L$. }.
The energy density can be treated as a continuous field only when
measured at scales much larger than $L$. The hydrodynamic description fails when the fluid dynamics generate length-scales of order $L$. Then, either the consideration of fluctuations or a microscopic treatment is necessary.
In curved spacetimes, the coarse-graining scale $L$ is defined with respect to the local rest frame, so it represents a proper length.
By Eq. (\ref{ds2b}), the coarse-graining scale $L$ corresponds to a radial distance $\Delta r \sim L \sqrt{\epsilon_*}$ near $O_*$. Hence, if $|r_* - 2 m_*| \sim L \sqrt{\epsilon_*}$, or, equivalently, if
\begin{eqnarray}
M \sqrt{\epsilon_*} \sim L \label{bdown}
\end{eqnarray}
the hydrodynamic fluctuations obscure any distinction of $O_*$ from a genuine horizon. We note that Eq. (\ref{bdown}) does not require $L$ to be a constant. A temperature dependence of $L$ is equivalent to a dependence on the mass $M$, because the local temperature at $O_*$ depends only on $M$. Then, Eq. (\ref{bdown}) still provides an estimate of $\epsilon_*$ as a function of $M$.
An alternative justification of Eq. (\ref{bdown}) is the following. In a hydrodynamic system, local densities and temperature are meaningfully defined only if they vary at scales significantly larger than the coarse-graining scale $L$; the variation within a shell of volume $L^3$ must be a small fraction of the averaged value.
Tolman's law implies that the product of the local temperature $T$ and the lapse function $N$ is constant. Using Eq. (\ref{lapse}) for the lapse at $O_*$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\frac{\nabla_rT}{T}\right| = \frac{2}{3M \epsilon_*}.
\end{eqnarray}
The coordinate distance $\Delta r$ corresponding to proper length $L$ near $O_*$ is $\Delta r = L \sqrt{\epsilon_*}$.
When the variation of temperature in a cell of proper length $L$ is of the same order of magnitude as the temperature, the hydrodynamic description breaks down. The relevant condition is $|\nabla_r T/T| \Delta r \sim 1$, which implies Eq. (\ref{bdown}).
In Sec. 6, we will show that in the regime that corresponds to the thermodynamically stable black hole, contributions to the stress-energy tensor from QFT in curved spacetime (the trace anomaly) become important. The present analysis is compatible with this result, because in this regime quantum fluctuations of the stress-energy tensor are very strong, and thus, no classical hydrodynamic variables can be defined---see, Sec. 6.3.
\section{Maximum-entropy principle.}
The fundamental thermodynamic variables of the system are the ADM mass $M$ and the box radius $R$. However, the solutions to Einstein equations depend on {\em three} independent parameters, which can be chosen as the mass $M$, the box radius $R$, and the blue-shift parameter $\epsilon_*$. By Eq. (\ref{bt0}), the dependence on $\epsilon_*$ is equivalent to a dependence on the boundary temperature $T_R$. The equilibrium configuration is determined by the {\em maximum-entropy principle}: the value assumed by any unconstrained parameter in a thermodynamic system is the one that maximizes the entropy subject to the system's constraints \cite{Callen}.
The thermodynamic constraints for an {\em isolated} box is the constancy of $M$ and $R$; the blue-shift parameter $\epsilon_*$ is unconstrained. Hence,
the equilibrium configuration for fixed $M$ and $R$ corresponds to the value of $\epsilon_*$ that maximizes the entropy functional. We expect that the entropy functional has one local maximum for each phase.
The radiation phase maximum has the larger value of $\epsilon_*$. For $ \sqrt{\epsilon_*} >> L/M$, the OV equation holds everywhere and we recover the thermodynamics of self-gravitating radiation \cite{AnSav12}.
Smaller values of $\epsilon_*$ correspond to the black hole phase. For
$\sqrt{\epsilon_*} \sim L/M$, the OV equation breaks down near the surface $O_*$. This breakdown is accompanied by a formation of a horizon $H$ near $O_*$, at $r = r_H < r_*$.
The violation of the OH equations is restricted to a thin shell around $O_*$ with a radial width $\delta r := r_* - r_H$ of order $\epsilon_* M$. All properties of the shell depend on $\epsilon_*$, and they are fully specified once $\epsilon_*$ is fixed by the maximum-entropy principle.
We model the spacetime geometry of the black-hole phase as follows. In the region between the bounding box and the surface $O_*$, the metric is described by an AH solution. A horizon is formed at $r = r_H < r_*$ and a thin shell where the OV equation does not apply extends from $r_H$ to $r_*$.
We write
\begin{eqnarray}
r_H = 2M( 1 - \lambda \epsilon_*),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda > \frac{5}{8}$ is an unspecified constant of order unity.
The simplification involved in this model is that we assume the breakdown of the OV equation to occur sharply at $O_*$, rather than considering a gradual degradation. This approximation should not affect the order-of-magnitude estimate of the shell's properties. Note that we need not assume that the shell extends up to the horizon $r = r_H$. This would be problematic because points of the horizon are causally disconnected from the interior. For the subsequent analysis, it suffices that the shell extends up to a distance from the horizon that is much smaller than $r_* - r_H$.
The total entropy within the box is a sum of three terms,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{tot} = S_H + S_{sh} + S_{rad},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $S_H$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the horizon:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_H = \pi r^2_H \simeq 4 \pi M^2 - 8 \pi \lambda \epsilon_* M^2.
\end{eqnarray}
\item
The entropy $S_{sh}$ of the thin shell is
expected to depend only on the local temperature at $O_*$ (hence, on $M$) and on the shell width $\delta r$. For $\delta r = 0$, there is no shell, so $S_{sh} = 0$. It follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{sh}(M, \delta r) = \frac{\partial S_{sh}}{\partial \delta r}(M, 0) \delta r + O[(\delta r)^2],
\end{eqnarray}
so we write
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{sh} \simeq \epsilon_* M B,
\end{eqnarray}
where $B$ is a function of $M$ to be determined later.
\item The entropy of radiation $S_{rad}$ is the volume integral of the entropy density $s$ in the regions I and II,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{rad} = \frac{4}{3} (4 \pi b)^{1/4} \int_{r_*}^R \frac{r^{1/2} v^{3/4}}{\sqrt{1-u}} dr. \label{srad}
\end{eqnarray}
In the Appendix B, we show that
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{rad} = \frac{1}{12} (8 \pi b)^{1/4} (2M)^{3/2} \sqrt{\epsilon_*} [1 + O(\epsilon_*)]. \label{srad2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
Hence, in the regime of small $\epsilon_*$, the total entropy is
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{tot} = 4 \pi M^2 + \frac{1}{12} (8 \pi b)^{1/4} (2M)^{3/2} \sqrt{\epsilon_*} - (8 \pi \lambda M^2 - B) \epsilon_* + O(\epsilon_*^{3/2}), \label{stot2}
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., it is approximated by a polynomial of second order with respect to $\sqrt{\epsilon_*}$.
In an isolated box, the values of $M$ and $R$ are constrained, while $\epsilon_*$ may fluctuate. Hence, the equilibrium configuration is defined as the maximum of the total entropy $S_{tot}$ with respect to $\epsilon_*$.
The maximum occurs for
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{\epsilon_*} = (8 \pi b)^{1/4} \frac{\sqrt{2M}}{12(8 \pi \lambda M - B) }.
\end{eqnarray}
By Eq. (\ref{bt0}), the corresponding boundary temperature is
\begin{eqnarray}
T_R = \frac{1}{16(8 \pi \lambda M - B)\sqrt{1-u_R}}. \label{t0a}
\end{eqnarray}
The boundary temperature should coincide with the Hawking temperature $T_{\infty} = \frac{1}{8 \pi M}$, blue-shifted by a factor $\sqrt{1-u_R}$. It is a non-trivial check of our model that the $R$ dependence of Eq. (\ref{t0a}) is compatible with such an identification for
$ B = (8 \lambda - \frac{1}{2}) \pi M$. Then, the entropy functional, Eq. (\ref{stot2}) is expressed solely in terms of known parameters,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{tot}(M, R, \epsilon_*) = 4 \pi M^2
+ \frac{(2 \pi b)^{\frac{1}{4}} M^{\frac{3}{2}}}{3} \sqrt{\epsilon_*} - \frac{\pi M^2}{2} \epsilon_* , \label{stot}
\end{eqnarray}
and the equilibrium configuration corresponds to
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{\epsilon_*} = \frac{(2 \pi b)^{1/4} }{3 \pi \sqrt{M} }. \label{estar}
\end{eqnarray}
Eq. (\ref{estar}) implies that $N_* T_* = T_{\infty}$, i.e., Tolman's law is satisfied for the Hawking temperature at infinity. This agrees with the results of Refs. \cite{SavAn14, KM75}, where Tolman's law is derived solely from the maximum-entropy principle and it is independent of the dynamics of GR.
The equilibrium configuration Eq.
(\ref{estar}) must also satisfy the condition
$L \gtrsim \sqrt{\epsilon_*} M $ for the existence of a black hole phase. By Eq. (\ref{estar}),
$ L \gtrsim \sqrt{M}$, i.e., the coarse-graining scale $L$ defines an upper bound to the mass of a black hole that can be nucleated in a box.
This bound is not particularly restrictive: it is satisfied even by super-massive black holes for $L$ in the atomic scale.
The width $\delta r$ of the shell in the equilibrium configuration is
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta r = \left(\frac{3}{8} + \lambda \right) \frac{2\sqrt{2\pi b} }{9 \pi^2},
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., it is of the order of the Planck length. However, the proper width $l$ of the shell is by no means Planckian. Eq. (\ref{ds2b}) implies that $l \sim \delta r/ \sqrt{\epsilon_*} \sim \sqrt{M}$.
The entropy of the shell in the equilibrium configuration is
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{sh} = (8 \lambda - \frac{1}{2}) \frac{\sqrt{2\pi b}}{9 \pi} M.
\end{eqnarray}
We estimate the internal energy $E$ of the shell by treating the shell as a single thermodynamic object of temperature $T_{sh} = (\partial S_{sh}/\partial E)^{-1}$. In thermal equilibrium, $T_{sh}$ should coincide with the local temperature $T_*$ of radiation, Eq. (\ref{t*}). Hence, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
E = \frac{(8\lambda - \frac{1}{2}) (2\pi b)^{1/4}}{9 \pi} \sqrt{M},
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., the internal energy of the shell is proportional to $\sqrt{M}$
modulo a constant of order unity.
\section{Physical origins of the shell}
The results of the previous section follow solely from thermodynamic arguments. Here, we examine the physical origins of the breakdown of Einstein's equations near $O_*$. First, we examine the classical geometry of the shell by interpolating between the approximate and the true horizon $H$. Then, we examine the possibility that the breakdown of the geometry is due to quantum vacuum fluctuations. We show that the conformal anomaly becomes comparable to the classical stress energy tensor near $O_*$, for $\epsilon_* \sim M^{-1}$, a result that is non-trivially compatible with the condition (\ref{estar}) that follows from the maximum entropy principle. We also argue that the thermodynamic approach presented here can, in principle, resolve existing problems in the consistent formulation of the quantum back-reaction to the black hole geometry.
\subsection{The classical geometry of the shell}
The thermodynamic analysis of Sec. 5 estimates the proper length of the shell to be of order $\sqrt{M}$, and hence, much larger than the Planck length. This implies that, in spite of the breakdown of Einstein's equations near $O_*$, a description of the shell in terms of a classical geometry is still possible.
For this reason, we consider
a spherically symmetric metric, with a mass function that interpolates between the horizon $H$ at $r = r_H$ and the approximate horizon $O_*$ at $r = r_*$. We assume a power-law interpolation,
\begin{eqnarray}
m(r) = \frac{1}{2}r_H + k (r - r_H)^{a+1}, \mbox{for } r_H < r < r_*, \label{interp}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$k$ and $a$ are positive constants.
We require that $m(r)$, Eq. (\ref{interp}) is joined with an AH solution at $O_*$, such that the metric and its first derivatives are continuous. This implies
that $m(r_*) = m_*$, Eq. (\ref{m*}) and that $m'(r_*) = \frac{1}{2}$. The horizon is defined by the condition $2m(r_H) = r_H$. We further require that
$m'(r_H) = 0$. This means that the effective `density' on the horizon vanishes, because otherwise any matter on the horizon would be causally disconnected from other matter. The last condition implies that $a >0$.
Then, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
k = \frac{1}{2 (a + 1) (2M (1 + a^{-1}) \epsilon_*)^a} \\
r_H = 2M (1 - \frac{5}{8}\epsilon_* - \frac{1}{a} \epsilon_*).
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the width of the shell is $\delta r = r_* - r_H = 2 M \epsilon_* a^{-1}$.
The proper length $l$ of the shell is
\begin{eqnarray}
l = \int_{r_H}^{r_*} \frac{dr}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{2m(r)}{r}}} = \int_0^{\delta r} dx \frac{\sqrt{r_H+x}}{\sqrt{x}\sqrt{1 - kx^a}} \nonumber \\ \simeq
\sqrt{r_H} \int_0^{\delta r} \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x}\sqrt{1 - kx^a}} = C(a) \sqrt{2M \delta r},
\label{properl}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
C(a) = \int_0^1 \frac{dy}{\sqrt{y} \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{2(a+1)}\left(\frac{y}{a+1}\right)^a}}
\end{eqnarray}
is a constant of order unity: for example, $C(\frac{1}{2}) = 2.16, C(1) \simeq 2.04, C(2) \simeq 2$.
For $\epsilon_*$ given by Eq. (\ref{estar}), the proper length $l$ is indeed of the order of $\sqrt{M}$.
Comparing Eq. (\ref{interp}) with the OV equation, we can estimate an effective "equation of state" that parameterizes the properties of the shell. The OV equation in the shell is well approximated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dP}{dz} \simeq - \frac{(\rho + P)}{2z } (1 + 32 \pi M^2 P), \label{OV7}
\end{eqnarray}
where $z = r - r_H$. Numerical solution of Eq. (\ref{OV7}) leads to an effective equation of state, i.e., a relation between $\rho$ and $P$, as shown in Fig. 2. We note that for $a \geq 1$, the effective equation of state is reasonably well approximated by a linear relation of the form $P = -w \rho$, where $w > 0$.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[height=5cm]{plot6.eps} \caption{ \small The effective equation of state inside the shell, the absolute value of the pressure $-P$ as a function of the density $\rho$, for different values of the interpolation exponent $a$.}
\end{figure}
Near the horizon ($z = 0$), a linear equation of state with negative pressure is a good approximation for all $a$
\begin{eqnarray}
P = - \frac{1}{2a+1} \rho, \label{eqst}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting Eq. (\ref{eqst}) into the continuity equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dN}{N} = - \frac{dP}{\rho+P},
\end{eqnarray}
we derive the lapse function near the horizon
$N \sim \rho^{1/a} \sim \sqrt{r -r_H}$. $N$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
N = \kappa x,
\end{eqnarray}
where $x = \sqrt{\frac{r-r_H}{8M}}$ and $\kappa$ is the surface gravity of the horizon. Then, the geometry near the horizon
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2 = - \kappa^2 x^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + (2M)^2 d\Omega^2, \label{shellm}
\end{eqnarray}
is of the Rindler type with acceleration $\kappa$.
We have no analytic expression for $\kappa$, but we expect it to be of order $1/M$. Indeed, if Eq. (\ref{eqst}) were a good approximation to the effective equation of state throughout the shell, we would obtain
$\kappa = \frac{3\sqrt{a}}{16 M}$.
\subsection{Relation to the trace anomaly}
In Sec. 4, we gave a general argument that the usual hydrodynamic notion of the stress-energy tensor fails near the $O_*$, and, thus, the classical Einstein equations are not reliable near $O_*$. We did not discuss the physical mechanisms underlying this breakdown. The leading candidate is, of course, quantum phenomena that are expected to be amplified near a high-blue-shift surface.
Since radiation is scale invariant at the classical level, the stress energy tensor satisfies $T^{\mu}_{\mu} = 0$. Thus, the size of the quantum effects in curved spacetime is quantified by the trace anomaly \cite{confan},
\begin{eqnarray}
\Theta = \langle \hat{T}_{\mu}^{ \mu}\rangle_R,
\end{eqnarray}
i.e., the renormalized expectation value of the trace of a composite operator $ \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}$ that represents the quantum stress-energy tensor.
For a conformally invariant quantum field,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Theta = \alpha {\cal H} + \beta {\cal G} + \gamma \square R, \label{tranomaly}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H} = R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} - 2 R_{\mu \nu}R^{\mu \nu} + \frac{1}{3}R^2. \label{htran}\\
{\cal G} = R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} - 4 R_{\mu \nu}R^{\mu \nu} + R^2 \label{gtran}
\end{eqnarray}
are expressed in terms of the Riemann tensor $R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma}$, the Ricci tensor $R_{\mu \nu}$ and the Ricci scalar $R$; $\square = \nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\mu}$.
The coefficients $\alpha, \beta$ and $\gamma$ depend upon the spin of the field. Different methods give the same values to all coefficients except $\gamma$. In what follows, we will choose the value of $\gamma$ given by dimensional regularization, $\gamma = \frac{2}{3} \alpha$. For the EM field, the coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha = \frac{1}{160 \pi^2} \hspace{2cm} \beta = - \frac{31}{2880\pi^2}. \label{alphabeta}
\end{eqnarray}
For a macroscopic black hole, we expect the quantum effects to be significant near the high blue-shift surface $O_*$. We write the metric as $ds^2 = - f(r)dt^2 + h(r) dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2$, and we express the functions $f$ and $h$ as Taylor series in $(r-r_*)$, using Eqs. (\ref{fh*1}---\ref{fh*5}).
The dominant contribution to the curvature tensors near $O_*$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{trtr} &=& - \frac{1}{2} fh R, \hspace{0.3cm}R_{tt} = - \frac{1}{2}fR, \hspace{0.3cm} R_{rr} = \frac{1}{2}hR,
\\
R &=& \frac{f''}{fh} - \frac{(f')^2}{2f^2h} - \frac{f'h'}{2fh^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
All other components of the Riemann tensor are smaller by a factor of $\epsilon_*$.
Substituting into Eqs. (\ref{htran}---\ref{gtran}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H} &=& \frac{1}{3}R^2 \\
{\cal G} &=& 0 \\
\square R &=& \frac{1}{h}R'' + \left(\frac{f'}{2fh} - \frac{h'}{2h^2}\right) R'.
\end{eqnarray}
We calculate the Ricci scalar and its derivatives at $O_*$,
\begin{eqnarray}
R_*= 0 \hspace{0.5cm} R_*' = \frac{16}{27} (2M)^{-3} \epsilon_*^{-2} \hspace{0.5cm} R_*'' = -\frac{64}{27}(2M)^{-4} \epsilon_*^{-3}.
\end{eqnarray}
It follows that in the vicinity of $O_*$, the trace anomaly $\Theta$ is of the order of $(M^4 \epsilon_*^2)^{-1}$. For concreteness, we compute the value of $\Theta$ at $O_*$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Theta_* = -\frac{160}{81} \frac{\gamma}{(2M)^4 \epsilon_*^2} = - \frac{320}{243} \frac{\alpha}{(2M)^4 \epsilon_*^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
By Eq. (\ref{ro*}), we find the ratio
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Theta_*}{\rho_*} = - \frac{640\pi \alpha}{243M^2 \epsilon_*^2}. \label{thetaro}
\end{eqnarray}
When $\Theta_*/\rho_* $ becomes of order unity, Einstein's equations fail near $O_*$ due to the quantum effects associated to the trace anomaly. By Eq. (\ref{thetaro}), the violation of Einstein's equations occurs for
$\epsilon_* \sim M^{-1}$. Remarkably, this estimation is in agreement with the value of $\epsilon_*$ determined from the maximum entropy principle, Eq. (\ref{estar}).
Hence, the configuration that maximizes entropy is also characterized by the onset of
violations to Einstein's equations due to the trace anomaly.
We conclude that {\em two very different types of argument suggest the same order of magnitude for $\epsilon_*$}, and, implicitly, the same order of magnitude for the width of the shell.
Substituting the value Eq. (\ref{estar}) into Eqs. (\ref{thetaro}) and (\ref{alphabeta}), we find for pure EM radiation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Theta_*}{\rho_*} = -\frac{5}{2},
\end{eqnarray}
which suggests that the approximation of a sharply defined shell is only good for order of magnitude estimations. A realistic treatment ought to take into account the gradual deterioration of Einstein's equations as $\epsilon$ becomes smaller.
\subsection{Problems in formulating back-reaction }
In the previous section, we showed that the trace anomaly is of the correct magnitude to account for the breakdown of the classical Einstein equations near the horizon. The question then arises how to formulate the constitutive equations for the system that incorporate the contribution of the trace anomaly. This is the well-known back-reaction problem for QFT in curved spacetime.
A common proposal for the treatment of back-reaction involves the use of the semi-classical Einstein equations
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{\mu \nu} = 8\pi \left( T_{\mu \nu} + \langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R \right). \label{backreaction}
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq. (\ref{backreaction}), one includes the expectation value of the renormalized quantum stress-energy tensor as source of the gravitational field in addition to a classical distribution of matter. This is clearly an approximation and not a fundamental theory \cite{PaGl}, since Eq. (\ref{backreaction}) equates a classical observable with a quantum expectation value.
We believe that this approach does not work for the problem at hand, for the following reasons.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The approximation involved in Eq. (\ref{backreaction}) requires that the higher moments of the stress-energy tensor are negligible in comparison to the mean value $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R $. This is not true, in general. The ratio of energy-density variance to the mean value of the energy density may become of order unity and larger \cite{HuPh97}; in particular, this is the case for the stress-energy fluctuations in Schwarzschild spacetime \cite{HuPh0103}. This behavior is not particular to curved spacetimes , but rather, it is a general feature of the quantum definition of the stress-energy tensor. As such, it persists even in the non-relativistic regime \cite{AnHu15}. One proposed resolution to this problem is to include the quantum fluctuations as a stochastic force in the semiclassical Einstein equations---see, \cite{stochgrav} and references therein.
In fact, the existence of strong quantum fluctuations in the stress-tensor near $O_*$ is compatible with our analysis in Sec. 4 of the breakdown of classical hydrodynamics on $O_*$. Classical hydrodynamics presupposes a coarse-grained level of description at which quantum fluctuations are negligible; thus it is incompatible with a regime where quantum fluctuations dominate.
In conventional thermodynamics, the fluctuations of hydrodynamic variables are assumed to be negligible---as long as the observables are averaged within a sufficiently large volume. Typically, the relative size of fluctuations decreases with $N^{-1/2}$, where $N$ is the number of particles in the averaging volume. However, this option is not available when considering {\em vacuum} fluctuations encoded in the trace anomaly.
In our opinion, a thermodynamically consistent treatment of such fluctuations requires the definition of a coarse-grained version of the quantum stress-energy tensor operator $\hat{T}^{coarse}_{\mu \nu}$, possibly significantly different from the standard definitions of $\hat{T}_{\mu \nu}$ in the context of QFT in curved spacetime. The key conditions in the definition of $\hat{T}^{coarse}_{\mu \nu}$ are (i) $\hat{T}^{coarse}_{\mu \nu}$ should be a quasi-classical variable, i.e., a coarse-grained variable that satisfies classical evolution equations \cite{GeHa}, and (ii) the associated fluctuations should be relatively small so that thermodynamic variables can be properly defined. For examples of quasi-classical hydrodynamic variables defined in quantum systems, see, Ref. \cite{quasi} and for a discussion of back-reaction in relation to quasi-classical variables, see Ref. \cite{Ana01}.
\item The trace anomaly, Eq. (\ref{tranomaly}) involves terms up to fourth order of the metric, while Einstein equations involve up to second order derivatives. The space of solutions of Eq. (\ref{backreaction}) contains therefore additional variables that correspond to the values of the third and fourth derivative of the metric. However, such variables do not have an obvious physical significance; in particular, they have no interpretation in terms of known thermodynamic variables. We have no criterion for assigning values to them at the boundary, and thus the solutions to the back-reaction equations are severely under-determined.
\item Einstein's equations for a static spacetime correspond to the maximum of the entropy for fixed boundary conditions \cite{SavAn14}. An {\em ad hoc} modification of Einstein's equations (especially one that involves higher derivatives of the metric) is not guaranteed to satisfy this property. This is problematic, because it implies that the geometry obtained from the solution of Eq. (\ref{backreaction}) may not be stable under microscopic fluctuations.
\end{enumerate}
Nonetheless, it is instructive to compute the renormalized expectation value of the stress-energy tensor $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R$. Closed expressions for $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R$ for static spacetimes have been computed in the bibliography \cite{Page82, BrOt86, FrZe87}, as well as expressions particular to static spherically symmetric spacetimes \cite{AHS95}. In what follows, we employ the expression for a thermal stress-energy tensor by Page \cite{Page82}. This is obtained from a Gaussian path-integral approximation to the field propagator \cite{BePa81}.
The quantum expectation value of the stress energy tensor consists of two terms. One term contains a logarithm of the lapse function $N$, the other one does not. The presence of the logarithmic term implies that $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R$ is not invariant under a constant conformal transformation $g_{\mu \nu}\rightarrow c g_{\mu \nu}$ for some constant $c$. For massless fields, this implies an ambiguity in the definition of $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R$, equivalent to the introduction of an undetermined renormalization mass $\mu$. It turns out that $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R$ contains a term proportional to $\log(N\mu)$.
We calculate $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}\rangle_R$ at $O_*$ as in \cite{Page82} and obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\rho}_* = - \langle \hat{T}_{t}^t\rangle_R = \frac{1}{(2M)^4 \epsilon_*^2} \left[ 8 \alpha [\frac{32}{243} - \frac{32}{81} \log(3 \mu \sqrt{\epsilon_*}/4)] + \beta \frac{96}{81} + \gamma \frac{64}{81} \right] \label{rrr}
\\
\bar{P}^r_* = \langle \hat{T}_{r}^r\rangle_R = \frac{1}{(2M)^4 \epsilon_*^2} \left[ - 8 \alpha \frac{16}{243} \log(3 \mu \sqrt{\epsilon_*}/4)+ \beta \frac{32}{81} + \gamma \frac{32}{243} \right] \\
\bar{P}^{\theta}_* = \langle \hat{T}_{\theta}^{\theta}\rangle_R = \frac{1}{(2M)^4 \epsilon_*^2} \left[8 \alpha[\frac{16}{243} -\frac{40}{243}\log(3 \mu \sqrt{\epsilon_*}/4)] + \beta \frac{32}{81} - \gamma \frac{160}{243}\right]. \label{pth}
\end{eqnarray}
The renormalization mass $\mu$ is expected to be smaller than the Planck scale , while in the physically relevant regime, $\epsilon_* \sim M^{-1}$. Thus, the logarithmic terms in Eqs. (\ref{rrr}---\ref{pth}) are of order $\log (\mu/\sqrt{M})$. For a solar mass black hole and taking $\mu = 1$, $\log (\mu/\sqrt{M}) \simeq -44$. Thus, for macroscopic black holes, the assumption that
$\log (\mu/\sqrt{M}) < - 10$ is very conservative. Given values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as in Eq. (\ref{alphabeta}), this assumption implies that the logarithmic term dominates and renders all expectation values $\bar{\rho}_*, \bar{P}^r $ and $\bar{P}^{\theta}$ positive.
If we interpret the expectation values of the stress-energy tensor as thermodynamic densities and pressures, these correspond to an anisotropic fluid with different pressures in the radial and in the tangential direction.
However, these densities and pressures are positive. Therefore, even if they are included into the TOV equation (generalized for anisotropic fluid), they cannot lead to the formation of a horizon. Hence, the semi-classical Einstein Eqs. (\ref{backreaction}) for back-reaction {\em cannot} describe an equilibrium black hole. A different method is needed that will provide a resolution to the problems of the semi-classical Einstein equations that we listed earlier.
We believe that the best method for the treatment of quantum back-reaction for equilibrium gravitating systems is to incorporate the quantum effects, including the trace anomaly, into the thermodynamic description of the system. This means that we should redefine the entropy functional in order to include contributions from the quantum effects associated to the trace anomaly. Then, we can construct an equation of state that takes these corrections into account and employ the classical Einstein's equations for this new equation of state. It is essential that this description is thermodynamically consistent; the
constitutive equations of the system including back-reaction should correspond to maximum entropy solutions given boundary conditions similar to the ones employed in this paper.
\section{Conclusions.}
We showed that the horizon of an equilibrium black hole is surrounded by a thin shell where the Einstein equations break down. The existence of the shell follows from the requirement that classical GR coexists with the quantum effect of Hawking radiation in a consistent thermodynamic description.
The shell has
proper width $l \sim \sqrt{M}$, temperature $T_{sh} \sim 1/\sqrt{M}$, internal energy $E \sim \sqrt{M}$ and entropy $S_{sh} \sim M$. The proper width of the shell is much larger than the Planck length. Hence, the breakdown of the equations of GR is fundamentally not due to quantum gravity effects, but due to the quantum properties of matter (radiation).
The shell's properties are independent of the box radius $R$. This strongly suggests that these properties persist even when the box is removed and the system evolves slowly out of equilibrium, i.e., to Schwarzschild black holes.
We emphasize the robustness of our conclusions. We made no assumptions about the quantum characteristics of the underlying theory (unitarity, CTP symmetry, holography). We placed no restrictions on the origin of the new physics near the horizon. In deriving the properties of the shell, we used {\em only} thermodynamic principles and classical GR. Nonetheless, the results are consistent with QFT in curved spacetime, in the sense that the regime in which quantum effects become significant is consistent with the shell properties derived by the maximum entropy principle.
|
\section{Introduction}
The properties of the galaxies change as a function of environment. Galaxies in low-density regions tend to be blue, star-forming objects with disk morphology, whereas those living in denser regions tend to be red, passive objects with more spheroidal morphologies (\citealt{dressler80, bamford09}). The environment also seems to affect the probability of a galaxy hosting an Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN), at least in the high-luminosity end (\citealt{k04, popesso06}). By looking at a multi-cluster system at z~$\sim$~0.165, our main goal is to understand better the role played by the environment in the transformation of galaxies from actively star-forming to passive, with the subsequent morphological change, and the relation between AGN activity and environment.
\section{OMEGA survey}
The OSIRIS Mapping of Emission-Line Galaxies in A901/2 (OMEGA) survey has been designed to study AGN and star formation activity as a function of environment in the A901/2 multi-cluster system at z$\sim$0.165. This system, which spans$\sim$0.5 $\times$ 0.5 deg$^2$ ($\sim$5x5~Mpc$^2$) contains a wide variety of environments and has been extensively studied by the STAGES collaboration (\citealt{gray09}). Besides that, there is already data from this system in different wavelengths, including \textit{XMM-Newton}, \textit{GALEX}, \textit{Spitzer}, 2dF, GMRT, Magellan, and the 17-band COMBO-17 photometric redshift survey.
Despite the wealth of data aleready available, it is crucial to have optical diagnostics such as emission line spectra to really understand the roles of obscured and unobscured star formation, and the fraction of low-luminosity AGN with no X-Ray emission.
To obtain these missing optical diagnostics we have used the OSIRIS instrument in Narrow-band Tunable Filter mode at the GTC to map the H$\alpha$ and [N II] emission lines in the A901/2 multi-cluster system. These two lines contain a lot of information, since the H$\alpha$ line is a very good star formation indicator (\citealt{ken98}), and in combination with the [N II] line can provide diagnostics about the AGN activity in the galaxies, using the WHAN diagram introduced by \citealt{cid10}.
To map these two emission lines in the whole system, we divided the $\sim$0.5 $\times$ 0.5 deg$^2$ field into 20 circular fields of 8 arcmin diameter each (OSIRIS field of view). For each field a series of `monochromatic' images was taken with a fixed wavelength step between them. For an optimal deblending of the two lines this step was set to 7\AA. The wavelength across the field of view also changes as a function of distance to the optical center, following expression (29) in \citealt{gonzalez14}. In this way, H$\alpha$ and [N II] are mapped by taking sufficient steps in wavelength based on the mean redshift of each field. In this work we present the results from the analysis of the two densest fields.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{triangle_for_paper_42713_total_aper.eps}
\caption{Parameter-parameter likelihood distributions with one- (solid), two- (dashed) and three- (dash-dotted) sigma contours obtained for the four-parameter model of the spectrum of galaxy 42713. On the top right we show the spectrum together with the model using the median values of the parameters' probability distribution, which are also plotted as a red cross on the two-dimensional distributions.}
\label{mcmc}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Analysis and first results}
To build up the low-resolution spectra out of these images we performed aperture photometry using two different apertures: one matching the seeing of the images and another one encompassing the full extent of the galaxies. An example of one of these spectra is shown in Figure \ref{mcmc}.
As our main goal is to measure the fluxes in the two lines we need to model our data. Our model is a composite of three gaussians (because there is another weaker [N II] line at $\lambda$) and the continuum.
To exploit all the information contained in our data we use an algorigthm based on Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques, which not only provides the maximum likelihood of the model parameters but also generates their full probability densitiy distributions. In our case we employ the software {\tt emcee} (\citealt{mcmcham}). An example of the performance of the algorithm is shown in figure \ref{mcmc}. From the output of the MCMC runs we selected a sample based on the probability of a detection in H$\alpha$, and a redshift consistent with one or the two lines being within the wavelength range.
From the analysis of the two densest fields we use the WHAN diagnostic diagram (\citealt{cid10}) in Figure \ref{whan} to evaluate the probability of the galaxies hosting an AGN, star formation or both. By looking at the spatial distribution of these sources we find that both AGN and star-forming galaxies tend to avoid the densest regions. The H$\alpha$ Luminosity Function, shown in Figure \ref{half}, when compared with other studies, shows fewer high star-forming objects than the field, but more than in dense clusters. Using the SFR vs Stellar Mass relation, there is also evidence of a widespread suppression of the star formation in the cluster galaxies compared with the field ones. Besides that, our SFR estimates based on the H$\alpha$ flux agree well with other SFR indicators.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{F2122_ewhan_cuts.eps}
\caption{A diagnostic plot of [N II]/H$\alpha$ vs.\@ EW (H$\alpha$), the so-called WHAN diagram (\citealt{cid10}). We only show detections, using $R_{PSF}$ aperture measurements, where both H$\alpha$ and [N II] fall in the OMEGA probed wavelength range: a total of 57 ELGs. From these we find 9 3$\sigma$-detected AGN hosts and 17 SF galaxies.}
\label{whan}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{halpha_lumfunc_28april.eps}
\caption{The cumulative H$\alpha$ LF for the highest density regions of A901/2 (both corrected and uncorrected for contamination and completeness). For comparison we show the H$\alpha$ LF from the cluster A1689 at $z=0.18$ (\citealt{balogh02}) and the field from the GAMA survey at $z=0.1$--$0.2$ (\citealt{guna13}), according to the legend. The studied regions of OMEGA have SFRs that fall in between those of the cluster A1689 and the field.}
\label{half}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusions and future work}
The analysis of only one tenth (2 fields out of 20) of the data of the OMEGA survey has shown that Tunable Filter observations are a very powerful tool to obtain emission line fluxes in a large number of galaxies in single redshift windows. The results found in this work make the analysis of the whole data set very promising as we will be able to show the environmental effects on AGN and star formation activity in $\sim$ 1000 objects in the multi-cluster system at z=0.165.
A complete version of the data reduction, analysis and first results of this survey can be found in Chies-Santos et al. in prep.
|
\section{Introduction}
Two-dimensional supramolecular structures with a planar honeycomb (HON) pattern on metal surfaces are very often encountered in molecular assemblies~\cite{bartels,barth}. Such systems are composed of triangular- or mixed triangular and rectangular-shaped organic molecules connected by hydrogen bonds. Ordered HON formations are obtained in triangular-molecule-assemblies of trimesic acid (TMA)~\cite{dmitriev,griessl,li,ye}, BTB~\cite{kampschulte,gutzler}, 1,3,5-tris(pyridine-4-ylethynyl)benzene~\cite{ciesielski}, melamine~\cite{silly,mura}, etc. Sometimes the triangular molecules are used as nodes, while PCTDI~\cite{theobald,weber,silly1}, NTCDI~\cite{perdigao}, ditopic imidic linkers~\cite{palma} or some other rectangular-shaped molecules form hexagon sides during the assembly of the HON structure.
Theoretical studies of the stability of certain structures, the adsorption energies, the most probable ocupation sites or the interaction parameters of H-bonded molecular structures are usually performed by the density functional theory methods~\cite{mura,martsi,rochefort}. To obtain density-temperature phase diagrams or predict new ordering motifs, the statistical models of phase transitions might also be used~\cite{weber,balbas,misiunas,simenas,simenas1} as an alternative or a supporting simulation. Since the triangular molecules are symmetric and their layout is planar, they possess a three-fold symmetry with respect to $120^{\circ}$ rotation. Thus, the HON phase (Fig. 1a), organized by triangular molecules, H-bonded by their vertices (tip-to-tip bonding) on the triangular lattice, might be considered as the three-state system. If the ``leg'' of the molecule is superposed with the direction of the lattice vector, there are just two molecular states, which differ by 60 degrees rotation, and the vacancy state. For such a definition of the states, the HON phase corresponds to a phase on a tripartite lattice with the sites of each sublattice occupied by different occupation variables (e. g. +1, $-1$, and 0).
This phase is a popular ground state structure of well-known three-state models: the Potts model~\cite{wu}, the Blume-Capel (BC) model~\cite{bc,bcafm} and the Blume-Emery-Griffiths (BEG) model~\cite{beg}. The HON phase is obtained in these models for the antiferromagnetic (AFM) nearest-neighbor interaction and the certain range of a single-ion anisotropy parameter which corresponds to a chemical potential, if the lattice-gas formalism is used (e.g. in case of molecular ordering). In a limiting range of the HON phase existence (for low values of chemical potential or high molecular concentrations), the centers of honeycombs are to be filled and the three-state model might be related to the triangular AFM Ising (TAFI) model, characterized by~\cite{wannier,baxter} the frustrated phase and finite entropy at zero temperature.
Nevertheless, for a description of the tip-to-tip ordering of triangular (e.g. TMA~\cite{misiunas}) molecules, the mentioned three-state models are unsuitable. The AFM Potts model cannot be used, since it takes into account a non-zero contribution to the energy of interacting non-equivalent states. Obviously, the interaction of a vacancy with a molecule in any of the two non-zero molecular states ($\pm1$) has to be neglected. The AFM BC model is inappropriate, because only one of the two AFM interactions (tip-to-tip (Fig. 1b) and side-to-side (Fig. 1c)) has to be considered in a tip-to-tip ordering scheme, while the AFM BC model (as well as more general AFM BEG model) does not segregate between them accounting both as the same interaction. Moreover, the ferromagnetic (FM) interaction of two molecules in the same state, instead of giving no contribution to the energy (no H-bond), increases the energy.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(color online) Schematic representation of interactions and ordering in the BL model using triangular TMA molecules as an example: (a) a fragment of the HON phase, (b) tip-to-tip double H-bond interaction ($-\epsilon_H-\epsilon_{vdW}$), (c) side-to-side interaction ($-\epsilon_{vdW}$). The C, O and H atoms of TMA molecule are shown by black, red and white circles, respectively. In (b) and (c) the sites of sublattices A, B and C are shown by gray, pink and open dots, respectively.}
\label{fig1.eps}
\end{figure}
There is one statistical lattice model which perfectly fits for a description of the ordering of planar triangular molecules. The model was proposed~\cite{bell} in 1970 by Bell and Lavis (BL) to consider a two-dimensional bonded fluid. This model emphasizes the orientational property of the hydrogen bond on the triangular lattice, and therefore is often considered~\cite{barbosa,fiore} as a lattice version of the Mercedez-Benz models~\cite{MB}.
According to the BL model, the H-bonded pair of molecules is created, if the bonding directions of two nearest-neighbor (NN) molecules point towards each other. Otherwise, there is just van der Waals interaction between the NN molecules. At lower temperature, the phase transition (``long-range sublattice order'') occurs in the BL model between a disordered ``liquid'' and a ``solid'' or ``ice'' phase. From a magnetic point of view the BL model is clearly antiferromagnetic, since the H-bond occurs only when two molecules are in different states (molecular orientations). Thus, the mentioned phase transition is between the disordered paramagnetic (PM) and the HON phases.
The thermodynamic properties of the BL model were studied in some detail using mean-field~\cite{bell}, renormalization group~\cite{young}, cluster variation~\cite{bruscolini}, recursive
approach to the Bethe lattice~\cite{barbosa} and Monte Carlo~\cite{patrykiejew,fiore,misiunas} methods.
It was shown~\cite{young,barbosa} that the BL model can be mapped into the AFM BEG model if an anisotropic interaction is added to the BEG model Hamiltonian. Thus, though the properties and resulting phase diagrams
might have some similarities, there are some important differences between the BEG and BL models (see Ref.~\cite{barbosa} for more detail).
At least two important problems of the BL model were not thoroughly studied in previous papers. The first deals with a recent finding~\cite{zukovic} of the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT)-type phase between the disordered and long-range ordered (HON) phase in the AFM BC model. This frustrated phase does not cease to exist even in the AFM BC model with exclusions~\cite{ibenskas}. In absence of van der Waals interactions, the BL model has the same edges of the single ion anisotropy (chemical potential) for the HON phase existence as the AFM BC model. With an increase of molecular density, both BL and AFM BC models approach the two-state (TAFI) model limit. Moreover, the two peaks are observed in the temperature dependence of the specific heat of the BL model at higher molecular densities - the same finding as for the AFM BC model. The question then arises: how similar are the phase transitions of those two models? Do the peaks of the specific heat frame the planar phase or their origin is different?
It should be noted, that the relation between the frustrated phase of the TAFI model and the planar-type of ordering is well-known. The magnetic field (chemical potential) breaks the ground state degeneracy of the TAFI model and stimulates the occurrence of the $\sqrt3\times\sqrt3$ structure at low values of temperature~\cite{schick}. The system splits into three sublattices with ferrimagnetic spin magnetizations $m_{\mathrm{A}}=m_{\mathrm{B}}\neq m_{\mathrm{C}}$ (A, B and C are the three sublattices of the triangular lattice). The phase transition to this phase is shown~\cite{alexander} to belong to the three-state Potts universality class. The mapping of the TAFI model in a field to the solid-on-solid model~\cite{blote1} leads to a prediction of the BKT phase transition point~\cite{KT} at $T=0$.
With added next-nearest-neighbor (NNN) FM interaction, both the three-state AFM Potts model~\cite{ono} and the TAFI model~\cite{landau,blote,takayama,miyashita} are known to have BKT-type phase transitions in the same universality class as the six-state clock model~\cite{jose,tobochnik,noh}. Under simple transformation the six-state clock model is mapped to the TAFI model~\cite{miyashita}. The six-state model can exhibit either a first-order transition, two BKT-type transitions, or successive Ising, three-state Potts, or Ashkin-Teller-type
transitions~\cite{cardy}. The competition of the NN AFM interactions and NNN FM interactions in the TAFI model leads to a two-peaked temperature dependence of a specific heat~\cite{landau} framing the planar phase in a similar manner as for the $q$-state clock models~\cite{lapili}.
The second unsolved problem of the BL model is related to the order and the universality class of the phase transition from the disordered to the HON phase. The previous results are rather controversial. The first-order phase transition was initially obtained~\cite{bell} using a mean-field approximation. Later, the calculation based on the renormalization group approach for partial BL model had predicted~\cite{young} the transition being in the FM rather than the AFM three-state Potts universality class~\cite{baxter} (note, that a (weak) first order phase transition was later determined~\cite{adler} for the three-state AFM Potts model). The authors~\cite{young} of this prediction even assumed that the second-order phase transition found in their work might be a consequence of the low dimensionality of the BL model. In Refs.~\cite{bruscolini,barbosa} the BL model was solved by the cluster variation method and a weak first-order phase transition was again obtained. Later Fiore et al~\cite{fiore} performed Monte Carlo (MC) calculations and attributed the transition to the Ising universality class, claiming that the first order phase transition obtained in previous papers was the artifact arising due to the Bethe-like (cluster) methods used for calculation.
Here we thoroughly study these two problems using MC simulation and finite size scaling. We found that despite many similarities (same ground state HON structure; same limits of the HON phase and proximity of the frustrated phase edge) the BKT-type planar phase does not occur in the BL model. The low temperature peak of the specific heat is shown to be caused by the Schottky anomaly. The obtained critical exponents clearly demonstrate that the transition to the HON phase belongs to the three-state Potts universality class.
\section{Model and details of simulation}
The BL model is based on the assumption that each molecule has three bonding directions at $120^{\circ}$ angle to each other. The molecule has three states: two orientational states and a vacancy state. In each of orientational states the molecule has bonding directions pointing towards three of the six NN sites of the triangular lattice. The H-bond is formed if two NN molecules point towards each other. The interaction energy of a pair of molecules at NN sites is $-\epsilon_H-\epsilon_{vdW}$ and $-\epsilon_{vdW}$ for H-bonded and H-unbonded pair, respectively, and the subscripts H and vdW denote H-bond and van der Waals interactions, respectively (see Fig. 1).
Several alternative representations of the BL model Hamiltonian are known. The spin-1 variables and mapping scheme to the BEG model were suggested by Young and Lavis~\cite{young}. This scheme was later employed by Barbosa et al~\cite{barbosa} who used convenient lattice-gas variables to separately describe occupational and orientational ordering (see, also~\cite{fiore}). In Ref.~\cite{misiunas} the description in terms of bond vectors and corresponding energy functionals was used. Gorbunov et al~\cite{gorbunov} employed Kronecker variables to express the Hamiltonian of the BL model. Here we use the lattice-gas Hamiltonian suggested by Barbosa et al~\cite{barbosa} in a form
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}= -\sum_{i,j}n_in_j(\epsilon_{vdW}+\epsilon_H\tau_i^{ij}\tau_j^{ji})+\mu\sum_{i}n_i,
\end{equation}
where the occupation variable $n_i$ is 1 if the site $i$ is filled by the molecule and 0 if the site is empty. This variable is related as $n_i=s_i^2$ to the spin-1 model variable ($s_i=\pm1$ and 0) further used to characterize the order parameter. Another variable $\tau_i^{ij}$ is responsible for the orientational ordering: it corresponds to presence ($\tau_i^{ij}=1$) or absence ($\tau_i^{ij}=0$) of the H-bonding in the direction from site $i$ to site $j$. Here $\mu$ stands for the chemical potential which we write here with a plus sign as in the BEG model. The first sum is performed over all pairs of nearest neighbors $i$ and $j$.
Further, the temperature, chemical potential, and van der Waals interaction are normalized
to H-bond interaction, $\epsilon_H$: $k_BT/\epsilon_H$, $\mu/\epsilon_H$ and $\xi=\epsilon_{vdW}/\epsilon_H$.
The MC simulation was performed using Metropolis
algorithm and Glauber dynamics, i.e. the calculations were carried out with fixed chemical potential $\mu$ and varying molecular coverage. Single-flip algorithm was chosen, because of a poor performance~\cite{coddington} of traditional cluster algorithms when applied to frustrated systems.
To check, if the simple single-flip technique is appropriate to study such partly frustrated systems as the BL model at $\mu\rightarrow0$, we also
performed some calculations using Wang-Landau sampling~\cite{wang} which is considered more reliable to address the frustrated systems. The test calculations of specific heat temperature dependence at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.1$ demonstrated a perfect agreement between the single-flip and Wang-Landau methods.
We used the triangular lattices with periodic boundary conditions of sizes $L\times L$ with $L=24, 48, 72, 96, 120$ and 144 for thermal averaging MC calculations and finite size scaling. We discarded $10^5-10^6$ MC steps (MCS) for thermalization and collected averages of $(3-4)\times10^6$ MCS (for the edges of the HON phase existence we used to take up to $1.4\times10^7$ MCS). Our simulations were performed starting from higher temperature in the PM phase and using random initial particle configuration. Then the temperature was gradually decreased in small steps with simulations at a new temperature starting from the final configuration of the previous temperature.
We estimated the thermalization period by observing the time evolution of the order parameters and
energy at different temperatures. Before gathering statistics for thermal averaging, we also
made additional checks at multiple temperatures near phase transition points to be sure
that the sample is in the equilibrium. The thermalization time did not exceed $2\times10^5$ MCS
for lattice size $L=144$.
In order to estimate statistical errors, we used the data from $n\approx 5$ independent simulation runs starting from different initial states. The observation $x_i$ of each run was used to obtain a mean value $\langle x\rangle$ at that particular temperature. The error bar of $\langle x\rangle$ can be obtained from $\sigma=s/\sqrt{n-1}$
and $s^2=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(x_i-\langle x\rangle)^2$. In Figs the errors roughly correspond to the size of a data point symbol.
To find the phase transition order and detail the thermal averaging results, we also performed energy and magnetization histogram calculations using single-histogram reweighting technique~\cite{reweight}. For these calculations we used larger lattice sizes (up to $L=192$) than for the thermal averaging and collected entries from $2\times10^7$ MCS for each histogram. In our simulations of thermodynamic parameters the phase transition point was first located by the thermal averaging and then recalculated by the histogram method. The results were considered reliable if the data obtained by both methods matched.
We also performed the analysis of the autocorrelation time of energy at $T_c$ and some values of $\mu$. The integrated autocorrelation time ranges from $\tau\sim10^3-10^4$ MCS at $0<\mu/\epsilon_H<1.4$ ($L=144$) to
$\tau\sim10^6$ MCS at the first-order phase transitions close to the gas phase, $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.48$ ($L=72$).
We used two AFM order parameters to study the PM-to-HON phase transition properties. One of them was the staggered magnetization (average difference of sublattice occupancy by non-zero variables) suggested for studies of the HON phase in the AFM BC model~\cite{zukovic}
\begin{eqnarray}
m_s &=& \langle M_s\rangle/L^2 =
\frac{3}{2L^2}\Big\langle\mathrm{max}\Big(\sum_{i\in\mathrm{A}}s_{i}, \sum_{j\in\mathrm{B}}s_{j},\sum_{k\in\mathrm{C}}s_{k}\Big)\nonumber\\ &-& \mathrm{min}\Big(\sum_{i\in\mathrm{A}}s_{i}, \sum_{j\in\mathrm{B}}s_{j},\sum_{k\in\mathrm{C}}s_{k}\Big)\Big\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
Here A, B and C correspond to three sublattices of the triangular lattice. For some calculations we also used another order parameter which was simply the difference
\begin{equation}
m_{10}=3\langle M_{10}\rangle/L^2=\langle\rho_{\pm 1}-\rho_{0}\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\pm1}$ means the sublattice occupancy by dominating non-zero (either +1 or $-1$) variable and $\rho_{0}$ - the sublattice occupancy by dominating zero variable.
We calculated temperature dependences of the specific heat $C_v=(\langle{\cal H}^2\rangle-\langle{\cal H}\rangle^2)/L^2k_BT^2$, susceptibility $\chi_x=(\langle M_x^2\rangle-\langle M_x\rangle^2)/L^2k_BT$, logarithmic derivatives of $\langle M_s\rangle$ and $\langle M_s^2\rangle$
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{1s}=\frac{\partial\ln\langle M_s\rangle}{\partial\beta}=
\frac{\langle M_s{\cal H}\rangle}{\langle\ M_s\rangle}-\langle {\cal H}\rangle,\\\nonumber
D_{2s}=\frac{\partial\ln\langle M_s^2\rangle}{\partial\beta}=\frac{\langle M_s^2{\cal H}\rangle}{\langle M_s^2\rangle} -\langle {\cal H}\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
and Binder order parameter and energy cumulants, $U_B^{m}=1-\langle M_s^4\rangle/3\langle M_s^2\rangle^2$ and $U_B^E=1-\langle {\cal H}^4\rangle/3\langle {\cal H}^2\rangle^2$, respectively. Here the subscript $x$ corresponds to $s$ and 10.
Close to the second order phase transition point $T_c$ and for sufficiently large $L$, the order parameter, susceptibility and specific heat can be expressed by the scaling functions $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ in a following way
\begin{eqnarray}
m_x&=&L^{-\beta/\nu}X(tL^{1/\nu}),\\\nonumber
\chi_x&=&L^{\gamma/\nu}Y(tL^{1/\nu}),\\\nonumber
C_v&-&C_{v0}=L^{\alpha/\nu}Z(tL^{1/\nu}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\nu$ are the critical exponents of specific heat, magnetization, susceptibility and correlation length, respectively, and $C_{v0}$ is the background contribution to the specific heat. The maxima of $C_v$ and $\chi_x$ at $T_c$ should scale as $\sim L^{\alpha/\nu}$ and $\sim L^{\gamma/\nu}$, respectively. Further, in order to obtain
$\alpha/\nu$ and $\gamma/\nu$ values, we combine the scaling of the functions (5) close to $T_c$ with calculation of these critical exponents by scaling the maximum of $C_v$ and $\chi_x$ at $T_c$. The extrema of functions $D_{1s}$ and $D_{2s}$ scale as $\sim L^{1/\nu}$~\cite{ferrenberg}.
At the first order phase transition point, the extrema of all these functions
scale as $\sim L^{d}$ ~\cite{challa}, where $d$ is the dimensionality of the system.
In case of the BKT-type phase transitions, the correlation length diverges as $\xi=\xi_0\exp\{a[(T_{\mathrm{BKT}}-T)/T_{\mathrm{BKT}}]^{-1/2}\}$
and the spin-correlation function decays as $\langle s_is_j\rangle\sim r_{ij}^{-\eta}$, where $\eta$ is the critical exponent of the correlation function~\cite{KT}. The order parameter at the BKT-type phase transition point scales as $m_x(L)\sim L^{-\eta/2}$.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(color online) Temperature dependence of the specific heat at $\xi=0$ and $L=120$ and different values of chemical potential: (a) $\mu/\epsilon_H=-0.1, 0.1$ and 0.3 and (b) 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.15 and 1.4. Inset in (a): $C_v(T)$ dependence at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$ for different values of $L$. The points are obtained by thermal averaging and the curves are obtained by reweighted energy histogram method. The black curves used to fit the low temperature peaks at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.1$ and 0.3 in (a) are the results of the 2-level model (see text).}
\label{fig2.eps}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(color online) The BL model at $\xi=0$ and $L=120$: (a) Occupancy of the A (B) sublattice by +1 (-1) states (higher branch) and -1 (+1) states (lower branch) for $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.9$, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.02, 0 and -0.02. (b) Phase diagram obtained from temperature dependence of the specific heat. The solid circles are $T_c$ points, red crosses - points of Schottky anomaly, triangle - tricritical point. The denotation HON corresponds to sublattice occupancies $\rho_{\mathrm{A}}=\rho_{\mathrm{B}}$, $\rho_{\mathrm{C}}>0$ and HON$_0$ (``perfect'' HON phase) corresponds to
$\rho_{\mathrm{A}}=\rho_{\mathrm{B}}\approx1$, $\rho_{\mathrm{C}}\approx0$.}
\label{fig3.eps}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(color online) Snapshots of the HON structure fragment at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$ and below $T_c$ point: (a) $k_BT/\epsilon_H= 0.35$, (b) 0.2, (c) 0.06. The sublattices A and B are almost occupied by +1 (blue tripod-shaped symbol) and -1 (gray tripod-shaped symbol) states, respectively, and the system undergoes gradual emptying of the sublattice C with decrease of temperature.}
\label{fig4.eps}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
Ground state calculations demonstrate that the ordered low density structure (HON phase) is obtained between the values of chemical potential $\mu/\epsilon_H=6\xi$ (frustrated phase-HON phase boundary) and $\frac{3}{2}(1+\xi)$ (HON-gas phase boundary). If the van der Waals interactions are neglected ($\xi=0$), the limits of the HON phase are between 0 and 3/2, and this range coincides with the range the HON phase occupies in a similar triangular AFM BC model~\cite{bcafm}.
The AFM BC model demonstrates~\cite{zukovic} two consecutive phase transitions: from the disordered (PM) to the BKT-type phase and from the BKT-type phase to the HON phase.
In Figs. 2a and 2b we present temperature dependences of the specific heat of the BL model for $\xi=0$ and different values of chemical potential $\mu$.
At higher values of $\mu$, one peak of specific heat related to the disordered-to-HON phase transition at $T_c$ is observed. The magnitude of the peak decreases with decrease of $\mu$. The second peak at low temperature starts to emerge for $\mu/\epsilon_H\leq 0.5$ (see $C_v(T)$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$ and 0.1 in Fig. 2a). This low-temperature anomaly exists at some higher $\mu$ values as well, but it cannot be seen due to its relative smallness and proximity to the peak at $T_c$. The temperature dependence of high temperature $C_v$ peak depends on $L$ as shown in inset of Fig. 2a, but the low temperature anomaly is clearly $L$-independent.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{(color online) Temperature dependences of order parameters at $\xi=0$ and $L=120$: (a) $m_s$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=-0.1 - 0.9$ and $m_{10}$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$, (b) $m_s$ and (c) $m_{10}$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ and different values of $L$, and (d) temperature dependences of exponents $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{10}$ obtained at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ using order parameters $m_s$ and $m_{10}$, respectively. In (a-c) the points are the results of thermal averaging and curves are obtained from reweighted magnetization histograms.}
\label{fig5.eps}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{(color online) Temperature dependences of susceptibility at $\xi=0$ and $L=120$: (a) $\chi_s$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.9, 0.7, 0.5$ and 0.3 and $\chi_{10}$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ close to $T_c$, (b) $\chi_s(T)$ and (c) $\chi_{10}(T)$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ and different values of $L$, (d) $\chi_{10}$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7, 0.3$ and 0.1 close to Schottky anomaly point $T_S$ ($\chi_{10}(T_S)\ll\chi_{10}(T_c)$). The points are the results of thermal averaging and the curves are obtained by reweighted magnetization histograms.}
\label{fig6.eps}
\end{figure}
The low-temperature peak is due to the Schottky anomaly. It appears at $\mu\rightarrow0$, because of the scarcity of spin configurations and the proximity of the ground state and exited energy levels. The situation is analogous to that seen in the 1D Ising model at finite temperature. The occurrence of the Schottky peak in the BL model at low $T$ might be described by a simple 2-level energy model. Below the phase transition point $T_c$, the two sublattices become occupied by the molecules in +1 and $-1$ states, respectively. The third sublattice is partly occupied by molecules at $T<T_c$, but it gradually empties with a decrease of temperature (see Fig. 3a and series of snapshots in Fig. 4). The coverage of this sublattice depends on $\mu$ and is higher at small $\mu/\epsilon_H\lesssim0.5$ (note, that at large $\mu$ the coverage of the third sublattice is low and it empties almost immediately at $T_c$). The peak of the Schottky anomaly coincides with the absence of molecules in a third sublattice and establishment of a ``perfect'' HON phase (HON$_0$ in the phase diagram of Fig 3b). Thus, above this peak there are roughly two levels of local energy only: 0 (if the center of the hexagon, formed of alternating $\pm1$ variables in other two sublattices, is empty) and $\mu/\epsilon_H$ (if the center of the hexagon is filled). Note, that the energy does not depend on a state of a non-zero variable in the hexagon center. The specific heat of the 2-level system is equal to $C_v/k_B=\delta^2\exp(-\delta)/[1+\exp(-\delta)]^2$, where $\delta=\Delta/k_BT$ and $\Delta$ corresponds to the difference between two energy levels.
We tried to fit the $C_v(T)$ dependence of the BL model in the vicinity of the low temperature peak by the 2-level model and obtained a very reasonable agreement at low values of $\mu$ (see Fig. 2a). Our curves for $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.1$ and 0.3 are described by the 2-level model formula with $\Delta/\epsilon_H=0.095$ and 0.29, respectively (to fit the peak heights we multiplied the specific heat of the 2-level model by 0.6).
In Figs. 5a and 6a the temperature dependences of order parameters $m_s$ (2) and $m_{10}$ (3) and their corresponding susceptibilities are presented at different values of $\mu$. It is seen that $m_s(T)$ dependence steepens and the peak of the susceptibility $\chi_s(T_c)$ becomes sharper and decreases in height with increase of $\mu$. In Fig. 6a we limit ourselves by the value of chemical potential $\mu/\epsilon_H\leq0.9$. With further increase of $\mu$, the peak height decreases up to $\mu_c/\epsilon_H\approx1.1$ and then starts to increase again. Here $\mu_c$ marks the value of chemical potential at the top of the $(T,\mu)$ phase diagram (Fig. 3b), and $T_c$ starts to decrease at $\mu>\mu_c$. The peaks of $\chi_s(T_c)$ and $C_v(T_c)$ are very sharp and high at $\mu>\mu_c$ (see the peak at $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.4$ in Fig. 2b). The reason is that the phase transitions in the interval of chemical potential above $\mu>\mu_c$ are close to the tricritical region. The $L$-dependences of $m_s$ and $\chi_s$ close to $T_c$ are presented in Figs. 5b and 6b, respectively. They are further used for the finite size analysis.
In order to check if the BKT-type phase exists between two anomalies of the specific heat, we performed the calculation of the critical exponent of the correlation function, $\eta$.
To obtain $\eta_s$, the slopes of $\ln m_s(L)$ vs $\ln L$ at different temperature around the $T_c$ point were calculated. It should be noted, that the order parameter identical to $m_s$ (2) was used to obtain the BKT-type critical line for the AFM BC model~\cite{zukovic,ibenskas}. As is seen from $\eta_s(T)$ dependence at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ (Fig. 5d), there is no plateau which would indicate the existence of the critical line of the BKT-type points in the BL model. We calculated $\eta$ for $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$ as well, but the result was the same. In comparison, in the AFM BC model the plateau of $\eta(T)$ dependence, corresponding to the BKT-type transitions, was found~\cite{zukovic} for $\eta$ in between 0.12 and 0.29. The limits of the planar phase for a classical planar rotator model with sixfold symmetry breaking fields~\cite{jose} were in between 1/9 and 1/4.
\begin{figure*}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.7\columnwidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{(color online) Finite-size scaling of (a) specific heat, (b) both susceptibilities and (c) order parameter $m_s$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ The results are fitted using formulas (5), $t=(T_c-T)/T_c$ and the background of $C_v$ is assumed to be zero. Large symbols correspond to the results of thermal averaging; lines correspond to the results obtained close to $T_c$ by the reweighted histogram method.}
\label{fig7.eps}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\caption{The critical exponents of the BL model.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{llllllllll}
$\xi$ & $\mu/\epsilon_H$ & $\alpha$ & $\gamma$ & $\beta$ & $1/\nu_{[\mathrm{D_{1s}}]}$ & $1/\nu_{[\mathrm{D_{2s}}]}$ & $1/\nu_{[C_v]}$\\
\hline
& & $\pm0.01$ &$\pm0.02$&$\pm0.005$ & $\pm0.02$& $\pm0.02$& $\pm0.02$ \\
0 & 0.05 & 0.11 & & & 0.99 & 1.06 & 1.00\\
& 0.10 & 0.16 & 1.67 & 0.119 & 1.10 & 1.09& 1.11\\
& 0.30 & 0.29 & 1.58 & 0.112 & 1.20 & 1.20& 1.20\\
& 0.50 & 0.33 & 1.53 & 0.112 & 1.20 & 1.21& 1.21\\
& 0.70 & 0.34 & 1.51 & 0.108 & 1.22 & 1.22& 1.19 \\
& 0.70$^a$ & & 1.47 & 0.11 & 1.18 & 1.19& \\
& 0.90 & 0.35 & 1.47 & 0.111 & 1.18 & 1.18& 1.20 \\
& 1.15 & 0.40 & 1.47 & 0.109 & 1.24 & 1.24& 1.20\\
& 1.40 & 0.47 & 1.34 & 0.108 & 1.22 & 1.23& 1.20\\
& 1.45 & 0.57 & 1.15 & & 1.38 & 1.41& 1.35 \\
& 1.48$^b$ & 1.79$\nu$ & 2.12$\nu$ & & 2.11 & 2.18 & 2.00\\
\hline
0.1 & 0.70 & 0.18 & 1.64 & 0.116 & 1.11 & 1.09 &\\
& 0.90 & 0.30 & 1.51 & 0.106 & 1.22 & 1.21 &\\
& 1.10 & 0.33 & 1.48 & 0.108 & 1.20 & 1.20 &\\
& 1.30 & 0.35 & 1.47 & 0.106 & 1.22 & 1.23 &\\
& 1.40 & 0.35 & 1.49 & 0.106 & 1.18 & 1.18 &\\
\hline
Ising & & 0 & 7/4 & 1/8 & 1 & & &\\
Potts & & 1/3 & 13/9 & 1/9 & 6/5 & & &
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
The exponents $\alpha$, $\gamma$ and $\beta$ were obtained by scaling (5) of the functions $C_v$, $\chi_s$, $m_s$, respectively, close to $T_c$. The $1/\nu$ [$C_v$] is obtained from scaling of the $C_v(T)$. To adjust the values of $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, we performed the scaling of the maxima of $C_v$ and $\chi_s$, respectively. The $1/\nu [D_{1s}]$ and $1/\nu [D_{2s}]$ were obtained by scaling of the extrema of functions $D_{1s}$ and $D_{2s}$.\\$^a$ The scaling of $\chi_{10}$, $D_{1s}$ and $D_{2s}$ was performed using order parameter $m_{10}$.
$^b$ The exponents have no sense for the first order phase transition, here we present their ratios.
\end{table}
The order parameter $m_s$ (2) does not show the Schottky anomaly at low temperature, since $m_s$ is constructed of non-zero variables. At the same time, the order parameter $m_{10}$ (3), which accounts for the emptying of the ``zero`` sublattice, is quite sensitive to the low temperature anomaly at small values of $\mu$. Its susceptibility, $\chi_{10}$, demonstrates (Fig. 6d) either a small peak (at $\mu/\epsilon_H<0.5$) or some kind of ''shoulder`` (at higher $\mu/\epsilon_H$), both of them being around two orders of magnitude smaller than the main peak at $T_c$ (cf Figs. 6a and d). Both $m_{10}(T)$ and $\chi_{10}(T)$ do not depend on $L$ in the vicinity of the Schottky anomaly, contrary to their behavior close to $T_c$ (Figs. 5c and 6c).
Consider the $m_{10}(T)$ dependence at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ (Fig. 5a) in more detail. Such a behavior of $m_{10}(T)$ contributes to two anomalies of its susceptibility: the peak at $T_c$ (the same point as given by the order parameter $m_s$, see Fig. 6a) and the small shoulder at the Schottky anomaly point, $k_BT/\epsilon_H\leq 0.2$ shown in Fig. 6d. Roughly, at this temperature point the $m_{10}(T)$ curve saturates in Fig. 5a indicating perfect emptying of the C sublattice.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig8.eps}
\caption{(color online) (a) The log-log dependences of $X=\chi_s, \chi_{10}, D_{1s}$, $D_{2s}, C_v$ vs $L$ at $T_c$; (b) temperature dependence of the Binder cumulant of magnetization $m_s$ at $T_c$. The parameters: $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ and $L=120$.}
\label{fig8.eps}
\end{figure}
We performed the calculation of the critical exponent of the correlation function, $\eta_{10}$, using temperature and $L$ dependence of the order parameter $m_{10}$ (Fig. 5c). And again, as for the order parameter $m_s(T)$, no plateau of the BKT-type transitions was found in the $\eta_{10}(T)$ dependence (Fig. 5d).
Further, to determine the universality class of the disordered-to-HON transition, using formulas (5) we performed the finite size scaling of thermodynamic parameters at $T_c$. The scaled curves of specific heat, susceptibility $\chi_s$ and magnetization $m_s$ for $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ are shown in Fig. 7a, b and c, respectively. The data used was obtained from both thermal averaging and histograms reweighting. The values of critical exponents of model (1) for different values of $\mu$ are presented in a Table I. We have found that the transition has to be attributed to the three-state FM Potts universality class in a whole range of $\mu$ values, except for the boundaries of the HON phase.
\begin{figure*}[]
\includegraphics*[width=2.0\columnwidth]{fig9.eps
\caption{(color online) Energy histograms: (a) at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$ and $L=120$ close to phase transition ($k_BT_c/\epsilon_H=0.3728$) temperature, (b) at $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.45$ and (c) 1.48 for different lattice sizes at $T_c$. Insets in (b): lattice size dependence of interface tension and latent heat at $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.45$.}
\label{fig9.eps}
\end{figure*}
Our conclusion is mostly based on values of $\alpha/\nu$ and $1/\nu$, because the difference between the 3-state Potts ($\alpha=1/3$, $\nu=5/6$, $\beta=1/9$ and $\gamma=13/9$~\cite{baxter}) and Ising ($\alpha=0$, $\nu=1$, $\beta=1/8$ and $\gamma=7/4$) values for other ratios of critical exponents is of the order of the calculation error (cf $\gamma/\nu=1.733$ and 1.75 in Potts and Ising universality class, respectively).
The scaling of the $C_v$ maximum gives the value of the exponents ratio $\alpha/\nu$ either equal (see Fig. 8a) or rather close to the Potts value, 0.4. The finite size scaling of $C_v$ using formula (5) gives the exponent $\alpha$ close to 1/3 in the range $0.3\lesssim\mu/\epsilon_H\lesssim1$ (see Table I), i.e. almost up to the top of phase diagram in Fig. 3b. No tendency towards the Ising value, $\alpha\rightarrow 0$, is noticed in this range. The scaling of the $\chi_s$ maximum at $T_c$ gives a nice linear $\ln\chi_s$ vs $\ln L$ dependences (Fig. 8a): the susceptibility exponent $\gamma_s$, obtained using order parameter $m_s$, shows some deviation from Ising-Potts values, especially close to the HON-frustrated phase boundary (see also Table I); the ratio $\gamma_{10}/\nu=1.74$, obtained from the order parameter $m_{10}$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$, does not allow to differentiate between the Ising and Potts values. However, the scaling of both $\chi_s$ and $\chi_{10}$ (Fig. 7b) clearly shows that the exponent $1/\nu$ has to be close to the Potts value, 1.2. This result is corroborated by the scaling of the specific heat (Fig. 7a and Fig. 8a), magnetization $m_s$ (Fig. 7c) and parameters $D_{1s}$ and $D_{2s}$ (Table I and Fig. 8a). All these parameters steadily scale with the value of $1/\nu\approx1.2$ in the range $0.3<\mu/\epsilon_H<1.4$.
The scaling of the order parameter $m_s$ is not accurate enough to unambiguously discriminate between the values of $\beta$ characteristic to the Potts and Ising universality class. Nevertheless, the scaling with the Potts model pair of ratios ($1/\nu=1.2$, $\beta/\nu=0.133$) is much better than that with the corresponding Ising model pair ($1/\nu=1$, $\beta/\nu=0.125$) for all values of $\mu$. For $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ the exponent ratios are equal to $1/\nu=1.2$, $\beta/\nu=0.130$ (Fig. 7c). A slight deviation of our results from the generic relation for critical exponents ($2-\alpha=2\beta+\gamma$) is mostly due to a systematic deviation of exponent $\gamma_s$.
In Fig. 8b we present Binder magnetization cumulant, $U_B^m$ at $T_c$. The crossing of this cumulant at $U_B^m\approx 0.61$ was considered~\cite{fiore} as the indication of the Ising behavior. However, the crossing of $U_B^m$ in the three-state Potts model also occurs at approximately the same value (see e.g.~\cite{tome}). We obtained the crossing at $U_B^m=0.615\pm0.005$.
The values of the critical exponents start to vary close to both edges of the HON phase. While
approaching the disordered-to-HON edge ($\mu/\epsilon_H\rightarrow 3/2$), we observe an increase of the exponent ratios $\alpha/\nu$, $1/\nu$ and $\gamma/\nu$ towards the value close to 2 (see Table I at $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.48$). This clearly indicates the first order phase transition. In order to determine the behavior at the tricritical region, we calculated the energy histograms presented in Fig. 9. The histogram at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$ (Fig. 9a) shows a peak which moves with $T$ along the phase transition region. Such a behavior of the histograms is characteristic for almost all range of chosen $\mu$ values. It evidences a typical second order phase transition. However, close to the disordered-to-HON edge ($\mu/\epsilon_H>1.4$), the histograms are two-peaked with a high saddle point. At $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.45$ (Fig. 9b) the two-peaked histogram transits into the one peaked histogram with an increase of $L$: the latent heat $\Delta E$ and interface tension $2\sigma$ approach zero, and the transition is still of the second order. Here $\Delta E=|E_{+}-E_{-}|$, where $E_{+}(L)$ and $E_{-}(L)$ are the energies at right and left peaks of the energy distribution, respectively, and $2\sigma=\ln[P_{\mathrm{max}}(L)/P_{\mathrm{min}}(L)]/L$, where $P_{\mathrm{max}}(L)$ and $P_{\mathrm{min}}(L)$ are the probability density of energy at the maximum and saddle point, respectively. However, at $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.48$ (Fig. 9c) the histograms clearly indicate that the transition is of the first-order. We believe that the tricritical point is around $\mu/\epsilon_H=1.47$. The tricritical points of this model were already found at $\xi=0.1$ and 0.25~\cite{barbosa,fiore}. The location of the tricritical point and behavior of the BL model at $\xi=0$ at the disordered-to-HON boundary, in general, is analogous to that of the AFM BC model~\cite{zukovic,ibenskas} at the same boundary.
An interesting situation is observed at another edge. At $\xi=0$, the ground state boundary between the HON and frustrated phase is at $\mu=0$. This value also marks the termination of the three-state model (1), because the third (vacant or partly vacant) sublattice becomes completely occupied at $\mu<0$. The phase existing at $\mu\leq0$ is only partly frustrated, since it retains some preference of $+1 (-1)$ states at sublattices A (B).
As shown in Table I and Fig. 10, the critical exponents $\alpha$ and $1/\nu$ (the latter obtained both from fitting of specific heat and parameters $D_{1s}$, $D_{2s}$) demonstrate systematic approach to the Ising model values starting from $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$ and all the way down towards $\mu=0$. The $\alpha$ decreases from 1/3 at $\mu/\epsilon_H\geq0.5$ to 0.29 ($\mu/\epsilon_H=0.3$), 0.16 (0.1) and 0.11 (0.05), and the $1/\nu$ decreases from 1.2 at $\mu/\epsilon_H\geq0.5$ to 1 at lower values of $\mu$. However, the peaks at $T_c$ are too small and very large lattice sizes are needed to perform a reliable scaling analysis for $\mu/\epsilon_H<0.05$. The critical index $\gamma$ is less reliable at this edge, since the susceptibility fits rather badly starting from $\mu/\epsilon_H\leq0.05$. Nevertheless, our results for $\alpha$ and $1/\nu$ obtained at $0.05<\mu/\epsilon_H<0.3$ (see Table and Fig. 10) imply that close to the HON-to-frustrated phase boundary the phase transition demonstrates the approach to crossover from the three-state Potts to the Ising universality class.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{fig10.eps}
\caption{(color online) Finite-size scaling of (a) specific heat at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.1$ and 0.05, (b) susceptibility $\chi_s$ at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.1$. The log-log dependences of $C_v$ (c), $\chi_s$ (d) and $D_{1s}$, $D_{2s}$ (e) vs $L$ at $T_c$. The results are fitted using formulas (5), $t=(T_c-T)/T_c$ and the background of $C_v$ is assumed to be zero. Large symbols correspond to the results of thermal averaging; lines correspond to the results obtained close to $T_c$ by the reweighted histogram method.}
\label{fig10.eps}
\end{figure}
Note also, that the $T_c$ point exists for some very small $\mu<0$ values. The HON phase is still intact at finite temperature, though the ground state belongs to the frustrated phase (see Figs. 3a, b for $\xi=0$ and $\mu/\epsilon_H=-0.02$; also the phase diagrams for $\xi=0.1$ and 0.25 in Refs.~\cite{barbosa,fiore}). The existence of the HON phase at very low negative $\mu<0$ is neither spurious, nor finite size effect. It is seen comparing the $m_s(T)$ function at $\mu/\epsilon_H=-0.02$ (reentrance) and $\mu/\epsilon_H=-0.1$ (frustrated phase) at low temperature and different values of $L$. At the bump of $m_s(T)$ dependence (Fig. 5a), where a certain HON order is established at finite temperature, there is no finite size dependence for $\mu/\epsilon_H=-0.02$, but the dependence is obvious for $\mu/\epsilon_H=-0.1$.
In order to determine if the van der Waals interaction might affect the values of the critical exponents, we performed some calculations for other values of $\xi$. We did not find any important differences to compare with the $\xi=0$ case. As seen from the values of the critical exponents given in Table I, the transitions to the HON phase at $\xi\neq0$ also belong to the three-state Potts universality class.
\section{Conclusions}
Two peaks in $C_v(T)$ dependences of the BL model at low values of chemical potential might imply that there is some intermediate phase separating the disordered (PM) and HON phases. The intermediate planar phase was found in a similar triangular AFM BC model~\cite{zukovic} and the planar rotator ($p$-state clock) model~\cite{jose,lapili} at not very large values of $p$. Our analysis of the BL model demonstrates that the high temperature peak of $C_v$ represents the second order phase transition in the three-state Potts universality class and the low-temperature peak is due to Schottky anomaly.
\begin{figure}[]
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{fig11.eps}
\caption{(color online) Temperature dependence of order parameters of the BL model (1 and 2), AFM BC model (3) and $p$-state planar rotator model for $p=128$ (4). The curves 1-3 are obtained for $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.7$ and $L=120$ and the curve 4 - for $L=72$~\cite{lapili}.}
\label{fig11.eps}
\end{figure}
In the work of Lapili et al~\cite{lapili} a distinction of phase transitions, characteristic to the Ising-Potts systems, on one hand, and the systems with planar phases, on the other, is given based on the form of the order parameters. Let us analyze the form of temperature dependences of the order parameters in all mentioned models.
In Fig. 11 we present the temperature dependences of the BL model order parameters, $m_s$ and $m_{10}$, as well as those of the triangular AFM BC model (planar phase at intermediate temperatures) and a typical dependence for the planar phase existing all the way down from $T_0=T_2$ (the PM-planar phase transitions point) to $T=0$. The $m_s(T)$ demonstrates a typical Ising-Potts dependence. At the same time, the $m_{10}(T)$ might look similar to a planar phase order parameter. Under scrutiny, the differences are seen.
For a system, which has the planar phase in between the HON phase at low $T$ and the PM phase at high $T$, the $m_{10}(T)$ should behave in an intricate way similar to that of the AFM BC model (curve 3 in Fig. 11).
Along with the BKT-type transition from the PM to the frustrated phase at $T_0=T_2$ (high $T$), it has to have the frustrated-to-HON transition at $T_1$ (low $T$) and correspondingly demonstrate concaveness of the order parameter at low $T$. We do not find such features in a behavior of the parameter $m_{10}$. At first glance, the $m_{10}(T)$ dependence might look more alike the planar phase order parameter (curve 4) which has the planar phase from $T_2$ down to $T=0$. But differently from the behavior of this order parameter, the $m_{10}(T)$ straightly saturates at the Schottky peak point $T_{S}$.
We did not find the BKT-type phase transition at $T_c$ and further studied the universality class of this transition. In the ground state phase diagram the HON phase is confined ($0<\mu/\epsilon_H<3/2$ at $\xi=0$) between the frustrated phase (similar to that found in the TAFI model) at high particle densities and disordered gas phase at low densities. In contrast to previous MC calculation~\cite{fiore}, which claimed the transition being in the Ising universality class, our calculations demonstrate that the transition at $0.3<\mu/\epsilon_H<1.2$
belongs to the three-state Potts universality class. We determined that the universality of the phase transition changes by approaching both edges of the HON phase. At high densities the critical exponents $\alpha$ and $1/\nu$ systematically decrease from the three-state Potts values (0.33 and 1.2) at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.5$ towards 0.11 and close to 1, respectively, at $\mu/\epsilon_H=0.05$. Such a behavior implies the approach to crossover from the three-state Potts to the Ising universality class. At another boundary of the HON phase, the critical exponents start to deviate from those of the Potts model at $\mu/\epsilon_H>1.0-1.1$, i. e. closer to the top of the ($T,\mu$) phase diagram in Fig. 3b. At very low particle densities, the transition at $T_c$ is found to be of the first order with the tricritical point being at $\mu/\epsilon_H\approx1.47$. Close to this edge, the behavior is very similar to that found in the triangular AFM BC model.
|
\section{Introduction and main results}\label{Sec1}
We let $n\ge2$ and $\p=\(p_1,\dotsc,p_n\)$ be such that $p_i>1$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n1/p_i>1$. In this paper, we are interested in the solutions of problems of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Eq1}
\left\{\begin{aligned}&-\Delta_{\p} u=f\(x,u\)\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n,\\
&u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\),
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{\p} u:=\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_{x_i}\(\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i-2}\partial_{x_i}u\)$ is the anisotropic Laplace operator, $D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ is the completion of $C^\infty_c\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ with respect to the norm $\left\|u\right\|_{D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}:=\sum_{i=1}^n\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{1/p_i}$, and $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is a Caratheodory function such that
\begin{equation}\label{Eq2}
\left|f\(x,s\)\right|\le\Lambda\left|s\right|^{p^*-1}\quad\text{for all }s\in\mathbb{R}\text{ and a.e. }x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
for some real number $\Lambda>0$. Here, $p^*$ denotes the critical Sobolev exponent and is defined as
$$p^*:=\frac{n}{\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}-1}=\frac{np}{n-p}\qquad\text{with}\quad\frac{1}{p}:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}\,.$$
\smallskip
The problem \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$ appears in the study of extremal functions for a class of anisotropic Sobolev inequalities. Early references on anisotropic Sobolev inequalities are Nikol{\cprime}ski{\u\i}~\cite{Nik}, Troisi~\cite{Tro}, and Trudinger~\cite{Tru}. We also refer to Cianchi~\cite{Cia1} for a more recent work on the topic. Here we are interested in an inequality which appeared first in Troisi~\cite{Tro}.
Among different equivalent versions (see Theorem~\ref{Th4} below), this inequality can be stated as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq3}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\le C\(\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{p^*/p}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p\)$ and for all functions $u\in C^\infty_c\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$. The inequality \eqref{Eq3} enjoys an anisotropic scaling law (see \eqref{Eq9} below). As a corollary of the work of El~Hamidi--Rakotoson~\cite{ElHRak}, we obtain in Theorem~\ref{Th5} below that there exist extremal functions for the inequality \eqref{Eq3} provided that $p_i<p^*$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
\smallskip
In the presence of anisotropy, namely when the $p_i$ are not all equal, there is no explicit formula for the extremal functions of \eqref{Eq3}. This motivates to find a priori estimates for these functions, and more generally for the solutions of equations of type \eqref{Eq1}. The main difficulties in this work come from the non-homogeneity of the problem and the lack of radial symmetry.
\medskip
As a more general motivation, the solutions of problems of type \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$ turn out to play a central role in the blow-up theories of critical equations in general domains. Possible references in book form on this subject and its applications in the isotropic regime are Druet--Hebey--Robert~\cite{DruHebRob}, Ghoussoub~\cite{Gho}, and Struwe~\cite{Str2}. A first step in the direction of a blow-up theory in the anisotropic regime was taken in El~Hamidi--V\'etois~\cite{ElHVet} where we extended the bubble tree decompositions of Struwe~\cite{Str1}. Now, if one wants to go further and investigate a pointwise blow-up theory, then it is essential to know the asymptotic behavior of the solutions of \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$. The results in this paper can be seen as a crucial step in this direction.
\medskip
Anisotropic equations of type \eqref{Eq1} have received much attention in recent years. In addition to the above cited references~\cites{ElHRak,ElHVet} and without pretending to be exhaustive, we mention for instance the works by Cianchi~\cite{Cia2} on symmetrization properties, C\^irstea--V\'etois~\cite{CirVet} on the fundamental solutions, Cupini--Marcellini--Mascolo~\cite{CupMarMas} on the local boundedness of solutions, Fragal\`a--Gazzola--Kawohl~\cite{FraGazKaw} on the existence and non-existence of solutions in bounded domains, Lieberman~\cite{Lie} on gradient estimates, Namlyeyeva--Shishkov--Skrypnik~\cite{NamShiSkr} on singular solutions, and V\'etois~\cite{Vet2} on vanishing properties of solutions. More references can be found for instance in~\cites{Vet2}.
\medskip
Throughout this paper, we denote
\begin{equation}\label{Eq4}
p_+:=\max\(\left\{p_i\in\p\right\}\)\quad\text{and}\quad p_*:=\frac{n-1}{\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}-1}=\frac{p\(n-1\)}{n-p}\,.
\end{equation}
The exponent $p_*$ is known to play a critical role in several results on the asymptotic behavior of solutions of second order elliptic equations (see the historic paper of Serrin~\cite{Ser}, see also for instance the more recent paper of Serrin--Zou~\cite{SerZou} and the references therein).
\medskip
Our first result is as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th1}
Assume that $p_+<p_*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true and $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}. Then there exists a constant $C_0=C_0\(n,\p,\Lambda,u\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th1Eq1}
\left|u\(x\)\right|^{p_*}+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u\(x\)\right|^{p_i}\le C_0\bigg(1+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p_*p_i}{p_*-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
where $p_*$ is as in \eqref{Eq4}.
\end{theorem}
We point out that the decay rate in \eqref{Th1Eq1} is the same as the one obtained in C\^irstea--V\'etois~\cite{CirVet} for the fundamental solutions in $\mathbb{R}^n$, namely the solutions of the equation $-\Delta_{\p}u=\delta_0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, where $\delta_0$ is the Dirac mass at the point 0.
\medskip
In case all $p_i$ are equal to $p$, as part of a more general result, Alvino--Ferone--Trombetti--Lions~\cite{AlvFerTroLio} proved that the best constant in the inequality \eqref{Eq3} is attained by the functions
\begin{equation}\label{Eq5}
u_{a,b}\(x\):=\bigg(a+b\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\bigg)^{\frac{p-n}{p}}
\end{equation}
for all $a,b>0$. Moreover, Cordero-Erausquin--Nazaret--Villani~\cite{CorNazVil} proved that the functions \eqref{Eq5} are the only extremal functions of \eqref{Eq3}. In case where the norm of the gradient in \eqref{Eq3} is replaced bv the Euclidean norm, the existence of radially symmetric extremal functions was found by Aubin~\cite{Aub}, Rodemich~\cite{Rod}, and Talenti~\cite{Tal}. Since $p/\(p_*-p\)=\(n-p\)/\(p-1\)$, the decay rate in \eqref{Eq5} coincides with the one in \eqref{Th1Eq1}.
\medskip
In case of the Laplace operator ($p_i=2$), Caffarelli--Gidas--Spruck~\cite{CafGidSpr} (see also Chen--Li~\cite{ChenLi}) proved that every positive solution of \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=u^{p^*-1}$ is of the form \eqref{Eq5}. This result can be extended to the case where all $p_i$ are equal to $p\in\(1,n\)$ for positive solutions satisfying the one-dimensional symmetry $u\(x\)=u\big(\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\big)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Indeed, this result has been proved by Guedda--V\'eron~\cite{GueVer} in case of positive, radially symmetric solutions for the $p$--Laplace equation $-\divergence\(\left|\nabla u\right|^{p-2}\nabla u\)=u^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n$, and it can easily be seen that both cases lead to the same ordinary differential equation. We also mention that radial symmetry results have been established for positive solutions in $D^{1,p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ in the case of $p$--Laplace equations (see Damascelli--Merch\'an--Montoro--Sciunzi~\cite{DamMerMonSci}, Damascelli--Ramaswamy~\cite{DamRam}, Sciunzi~\cite{Sci}, and V\'etois~\cite{Vet3}).
\medskip
Theorem~\ref{Th1} has been proved in V\'etois~\cite{Vet3} in case of the $p$--Laplace operator. We also refer in case of the Laplace operator ($p_i=2$) to Jannelli--Solimini~\cite{JanSol}, where the decay estimate \eqref{Th1Eq1} has been proved to hold true for solutions of \eqref{Eq1} with right-hand side $f\(x,u\)=\sum_{i=1}^Na_i\(x\)\left|u\right|^{q_i^*-2}u$, where $q_i^*:=2^*\(1-1/q_i\)$, $q_i\in\(n/2,\infty\]$, $\left|a_i\(x\)\right|=\text{O}\big(\left|x\right|^{-n/q_i}\big)$ for large $\left|x\right|$, and $a_i$ belongs to the Marcinkiewicz space $M^{q_i}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,N$.
\medskip
The next results concern the case $p_+\ge p_*$, namely $p_i\ge p_*$ for some index $i$. In particular, we are now exclusively in the case where the exponents $p_i$ are not all equal.
\medskip
In the limit case $p_+=p_*$, we prove the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th2}
Assume that $p_+=p_*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true and $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}. Then for any $q>p_*$, there exists a constant $C_q=C\(n,\p,\Lambda,u,q\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th2Eq}
\left|u\(x\)\right|^{q}+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u\(x\)\right|^{p_i}\le C_q\bigg(1+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Beyond this limit case, namely when $p_*<p_+<p^*$, we find the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th3}
Assume that $p_*<p_+<p^*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true and $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}. Then there exist a real number $q_0=q_0\(n,\p\)<p_+$ such that the two following assertions hold true.
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a constant $R_0=R_0\(n,\p,\Lambda,u\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th3Eq1}
u\(x\)=0\quad\text{for all }x\in\mathbb{R}^n\text{ such that }\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0}\left|x_i\right|\ge R_0\,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{I}_0$ is the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i>q_0$. Moreover, $\mathcal{I}_0\ne\emptyset$ due to $q_0<p_+$.
\item For any $q>q_0$, there exists a constant $C_q=C\(n,\p,\Lambda,u,q\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th3Eq2}
\left|u\(x\)\right|^{q}+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u\(x\)\right|^{p_i}\le C_q\bigg(1+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{I}_0^c:=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\mathcal{I}_0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
We are able, moreover, to give an explicit definition in terms of $n$ and $\p$ of a real number $q_0$ satisfying the above result (see Section~\ref{Sec7}).
\medskip
The dependence on $u$ of the constants $C_0$, $C_q$, and $R_0$ in the above results will be made more precise in Remarks~\ref{Rem2} and~\ref{Rem3}.
\medskip
As a remark about the support of solutions, by a result in V\'etois~\cite{Vet2}, we have that for any nonnegative solution $u$ of \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)$ as in \eqref{Eq2} (see~\cite{Vet2} for the general assumptions), if $u\(x\)=0$ for some $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, then we have $u\equiv0$ on the affine subspace $\left\{y\in\mathbb{R}^n:\,y_i=x_i\quad\forall i=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\mathcal{I}_-\right\}$, where $\mathcal{I}_-$ is the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i=\min\(\left\{p_j\in\p\right\}\)$.
In case all $p_i$ are equal to $p$, we obtain that either $u>0$ or $u\equiv0$, thus recovering the same result as Vazquez~\cite{Vaz} found for the $p$--Laplace operator. In the presence of anisotropy, as shows for instance Theorem~\ref{Th3}, this result does not hold true in general on the whole $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\medskip
We also point out that in the limit case $p_+=p^*$, we are able to construct quasi-explicit examples of solutions of \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$ for anisotropic configurations of type $\p=\(p_-,\dotsc,p_-,p_+,\dotsc,p_+\)$ by using the method of separation of variables (see V\'etois~\cite{Vet1}). These solutions turn out to vanish in the $i$-th directions corresponding to $p_i=p_+$, exactly like what we prove to be true in Theorem~\ref{Th3} in case $p_*<p_+<p^*$.
\medskip
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{Sec2}, we present different equivalent versions of the anisotropic Sobolev inequality, and we study the existence and scaling properties of extremal functions for these inequalities.
\medskip
Section~\ref{Sec3} is concerned with preliminary properties satisfied by the solutions of \eqref{Eq1}, namely global boundedness results and a weak decay estimate.
\medskip
In Sections \ref{Sec4} and \ref{Sec5}, we perform a Moser-type iteration scheme inspired from the one developed in C\^irstea--V\'etois~\cite{CirVet} for the fundamental solutions. In order to treat a large part of the proofs in a unified way, we consider a general family of domains defined as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6}
\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda\):=\bigg\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n:\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\hspace{-2pt}<\hspace{-2pt}\(1+\lambda\)R_1\text{ and }\bigg|\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}-R_2\bigg|\hspace{-2pt}<\hspace{-2pt}\lambda R_2\bigg\},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda\in\(0,1\)$, $R_1,R_2>0$, $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ are two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and $\q=\(q_i\)_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ is such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. On these domains, we prove that the solutions of \eqref{Eq1} satisfy reverse H\"older-type inequalities of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Eq7}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\gamma\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda\)\)}^\gamma\le C\max_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\Big(\(\lambda'-\lambda\)^{-p_i}\\
R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_i}\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)\)}^{\gamma_i}\Big)^\frac{n}{n-p}
\end{equation}
for all $\gamma>p_*-1$ and $\lambda<\lambda'\in\(0,1/2\]$, where $\delta_i:=1$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_i:=2$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$, $\gamma_i:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma+p_i-p$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, and $C=C\(n,\p,\q,u,\gamma\)$ (see Lemma~\ref{Lem4} for more details on the dependence of the constant with respect to $u$ and $\gamma$). Since the right-hand side of \eqref{Eq7} involves different exponents $\gamma_i$ in the anisotropic case, the number of exponents in the estimates may grow exponentially when iterating this inequality. We overcome this issue in Section~\ref{Sec5} by controlling the values of the exponents with respect to the number of iterations.
\medskip
In Section~\ref{Sec6}, we prove a vanishing result which will give Point (i) in Theorem~\ref{Th3}. We prove this result by applying our iteration scheme with $R_1=R_2^{1/\varepsilon}$ for small real numbers $\varepsilon>0$ and $\mathcal{I}_1$, $\mathcal{I}_2$ being the sets of all indices $i$ such that $p_i<p_0$, $p_i=p_0$, respectively, for some large enough real number $p_0\in\p$ (see \eqref{Lem8Eq1} for the exact condition on $p_0$). Passing to the limit into our iteration scheme, we obtain a pointwise estimate of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Eq8}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_{\q}(\mathcal{I}_1,R^{1/\varepsilon},\mathcal{I}_2,R,1/4))}\le\big(CR^{-\frac{1}{p_\varepsilon}}\big)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p,u\)$ (see Lemma~\ref{Lem8}). When $R$ is large enough, the right-hand side of \eqref{Eq8} converges to 0 as $\varepsilon\to0$, and we thus obtain our vanishing result.
\medskip
In Section~\ref{Sec7}, we prove Theorems~\ref{Th1},~\ref{Th2}, and we complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th3} by proving the decay estimates \eqref{Th3Eq2}. The proofs of these results rely again on our iteration scheme, this time applied with $\mathcal{I}_1=\emptyset$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ being the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i\le\overline{p}_0$ for some real number $\overline{p}_0$ (see \eqref{Eq15}).
\medskip
Finally, in Appendix~\ref{App}, we prove a weak version of Kato's inequality which is used in Sections~\ref{Sec3} and~\ref{Sec4}.
\medskip\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments.} The author wishes to express his gratitude to Fr\'ed\'eric Robert for helpful comments on the manuscript.
\section{Application to the extremal functions of a class of\\anisotropic Sobolev inequalities}\label{Sec2}
As mentioned in the introduction, one of our main motivation in this paper is to apply our results to the extremal functions of a class of anisotropic Sobolev inequalities which originates from Troisi~\cite{Tro}. In this section, we first present in Theorem~\ref{Th4} below different equivalent versions of these inequalities, and we then prove in Theorem~\ref{Th5} that all these inequalities have extremal functions, and that with a suitable change of scale, these extremal functions are solutions of \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$.
\medskip
We state the equivalent versions of the anisotropic Sobolev inequalities as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th4}
The following inequalities hold true.
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a constant $C=C\big(n,\p\big)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th4Eq1}
\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\)^{n/p^*}\le C\prod_{i=1}^n\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{1/p_i}\quad\forall u\in C^\infty_c\(\mathbb{R}^n\).
\end{equation}
\item For any $\overrightarrow{\theta}=\(\theta_1,\dotsc,\theta_n\)$ such that $\theta_i>0$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, there exists a constant $C_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}=C\big(n,\p,\overrightarrow{\theta}\big)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th4Eq2}
\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\)^{p/p^*}\le C_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\sum_{i=1}^n\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}\quad\forall u\in C^\infty_c\(\mathbb{R}^n\).
\end{equation}
In particular, we get \eqref{Eq3} in case $\theta_i=p_i$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
As a remark, the inequalities \eqref{Th4Eq1} and \eqref{Th4Eq2} enjoy an anisotropic scaling law. Indeed, it can easily be seen that every integral in these inequalities are invariant with respect to the change of scale $u\mapsto u_\lambda$, where
\begin{equation}\label{Eq9}
u_\lambda\(x\)=\lambda u\(\lambda^{\(p^*-p_1\)/p_1}x_1,\dotsc,\lambda^ {\(p^*-p_n\)/p_n}x_n\)
\end{equation}
for all $\lambda>0$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th4}]
We refer to Troisi~\cite{Tro}*{Theorem~1.2} for the proof of the inequality \eqref{Th4Eq1}. Then the inequality \eqref{Th4Eq2} follows from \eqref{Th4Eq1} by applying an inequality of weighted arithmetic and geometric means. As a remark, we can also obtain \eqref{Th4Eq1} from \eqref{Th4Eq2} by applying the change of scale \eqref{Pr1Eq2} below.
\endproof
Regarding the extremal functions of \eqref{Th4Eq1} and \eqref{Th4Eq2}, we prove the following result. The existence part in this result will be obtained as a corollary of the work of El~Hamidi--Rakotoson~\cite{ElHRak} and Proposition~\ref{Pr1} below.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th5}
If $p_+<p^*$, then there exist extremal functions $u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, $u\ne0$, of \eqref{Th4Eq1} and \eqref{Th4Eq2}. Moreover, for any extremal function $u$ of \eqref{Th4Eq1} or \eqref{Th4Eq2}, there exist $\mu_1,\dotsc,\mu_n>0$ such that the function $x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto u\(\mu_1x_1,\dotsc,\mu_nx_n\)$ is a constant-sign solution of \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$. In particular, every extremal function of \eqref{Th4Eq1} or \eqref{Th4Eq2} satisfies the a priori estimates in Theorems~\ref{Th1},~\ref{Th2}, and~\ref{Th3}.
\end{theorem}
As a remark, due to the scaling law \eqref{Eq9}, every extremal function of \eqref{Th4Eq1} or \eqref{Th4Eq2} generates in fact an infinite family of extremal functions.
\medskip
Preliminary to the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th5}, we prove the following result.
\begin{proposition}\label{Pr1}
Let $\overrightarrow{\theta}=\(\theta_1,\dotsc,\theta_n\)$ be such that $\theta_i>0$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$. Then the following assertions hold true.
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any extremal function $u$ of \eqref{Th4Eq2}, $u\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ is an extremal function of \eqref{Th4Eq1}, where
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq1}
\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\(x\):=\left(\lambda_{\overrightarrow{\theta},1}x_1,\dotsc,\lambda_{\overrightarrow{\theta},n}x_n\right),\quad\lambda_{\overrightarrow{\theta},i}:=\theta_i^{1/\theta_i}\prod_{j=1}^ n\theta_j^{-p/\(n\theta_i\theta_j\)}\,,
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
\item For any extremal function $u$ of \eqref{Th4Eq1}, $u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}^{-1}$ is an extremal function of \eqref{Th4Eq2}, where $\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ is as in \eqref{Pr1Eq1} and
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq2}
\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\(x\):=\left(\mu_{\overrightarrow{\theta},1}\(u\)x_1,\dotsc,\mu_{\overrightarrow{\theta},n}\(u\)x_n\right),\quad\mu_{\overrightarrow{\theta},i}\(u\):=\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{j=1}{\prod}}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}u\right|^{p_j}dx\)^{p/\(n\theta_ip_j\)}}{\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{1/p_i}}\,,
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\proof[Proof of Proposition~\ref{Pr1}]
We begin with proving Point (i). We fix an extremal function $u_0$ of \eqref{Th4Eq2}. Since $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq3}
\prod_{i=1}^n\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx\)^{p/\(np_i\)}\le\frac{p}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}.
\end{equation}
For any function $u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, simple calculations give
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq4}
\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}=\(\prod_{j=1}^ n\theta_j^{-p/\(n\theta_j\)}\)\sum_{i=1}^n\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq5}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|u\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big|^{p^*}dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\,.
\end{equation}
By invertibility of $\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ and since $u_0$ is an extremal function of \eqref{Th4Eq2}, it follows from \eqref{Pr1Eq4} and \eqref{Pr1Eq5} that
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq6}
\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big|^{p^*}dx\big)^{p/p^*}}=\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,.
\end{equation}
Now, we claim that
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq7}
\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\le\frac{n}{p}\cdot\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\prod}}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{p/\(np_i\)}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,.
\end{equation}
We prove this claim. For any function $u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, $u\ne0$, by applying the change of scale \eqref{Pr1Eq2}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq8}
\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}=\prod_{j=1}^n\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}u\right|^{p_j}dx\)^{p/\(np_j\)}
\end{equation}
for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$, and
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq9}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big|^{p^*}dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, it follows from \eqref{Pr1Eq8} and \eqref{Pr1Eq9} that
\begin{equation}\label{Pr1Eq10}
\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}=\frac{n}{p}\cdot\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\prod}}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{p/\(np_i\)}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,,
\end{equation}
and hence we obtain \eqref{Pr1Eq7}. It follows from \eqref{Pr1Eq3}, \eqref{Pr1Eq6} and \eqref{Pr1Eq7} that $u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ is an extremal function of \eqref{Th4Eq1}. This ends the proof of Point (i).
Now, we prove Point (ii). We fix an extremal function $u_0$ of \eqref{Th4Eq1}. By \eqref{Pr1Eq10} and since $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{Pr1Eq11}
\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u_0}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|u_0\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u_0}\big|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}&=\frac{n}{p}\cdot\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\prod}}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{p/\(np_i\)}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\nonumber\\
&\le\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,.
\end{align}
It follows from \eqref{Pr1Eq4} and \eqref{Pr1Eq11} that $u_0\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u_0}\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}^{-1}$ is an extremal function of \eqref{Th4Eq2}. This ends the proof of Point (ii).
\endproof
Now, we can prove Theorem~\ref{Th5} by using Proposition~\ref{Pr1}.
\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th5}]
We prove the results for the sole inequality \eqref{Eq3}. The results for \eqref{Th4Eq1} and \eqref{Th4Eq2} then follow from Proposition~\ref{Pr1}.
First, in case $p_+<p^*$, the existence of extremal functions of \eqref{Eq3} follows from the work of El~Hamidi--Rakotoson~\cite{ElHRak}. Indeed, it has been proven in~\cite{ElHRak} that there exist minimizers for
\begin{equation}\label{Th5Eq1}
\mathcal{I}:=\inf_{\underset{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx=1}{u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\,.
\end{equation}
This infimum is connected with \eqref{Eq3} by the change of scale $u\mapsto\mu_{\p,u}^{-1}\cdot u\circ\rho_{\p,u}$, where
$$\rho_{\p,u}\(x\):=\mu_{\p,u}\cdot\tau_{\p}\(x\),\quad\mu_{\p,u}:=\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\)^{p/\(np^*\)},$$
and $\tau_{\p}\(x\)$ is as in \eqref{Pr1Eq1} for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, $u\ne0$. More precisely, simple calculations give
\begin{equation}\label{Th5Eq2}
\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(\mu_{\p,u}^{-1}\cdot u\circ\rho_{\p,u}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx=\(\prod_{j=1}^np_j^{-p/\(np_j\)}\)\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}u\big|^{p_i}dx}{\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\)^{p/p^*}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Th5Eq3}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\mu_{\p,u}^{-1}\cdot u\circ\rho_{\p,u}\big|^{p^*}dx=1\,,
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{Th5Eq4}
\mathcal{I}\le\(\prod_{j=1}^np_j^{-p/\(np_j\)}\)\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}u\big|^{p_i}dx}{\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\)^{p/p^*}}\,.
\end{equation}
In particular, for any minimizer $u$ of \eqref{Th5Eq1}, since $\mu_{\p,u}=1$ and $\rho_{\p,u}=\tau_{\p}$, it follows from \eqref{Th5Eq2}--\eqref{Th5Eq4} that $u\circ\tau_{\p}^{-1}$ is an extremal function of \eqref{Eq3}.
Next, we prove that the extremal functions of \eqref{Eq3} do not change sign. We let $C_0$ be the best constant and $u$ be an extremal function of \eqref{Eq3}. By writing $u=u_+-u_-$, where $u_+:=\max\(u,0\)$ and $u_-:=\max\(-u,0\)$, we obtain
\begin{multline}\label{Th5Eq5}
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx=\(\frac{1}{C_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\)^{p/p_*}=\(\frac{1}{C_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}u_-^{p^*}dx+\frac{1}{C_0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}u_+^{p^*}dx\)^{p/p_*}\\
\le\(\(\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_-\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{p^*/p}+\(\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_+\right|^{p_i}dx\)^{p^*/p}\)^{p/p_*}.
\end{multline}
It follows from \eqref{Th5Eq5} that either $u_-=0$ or $u_+=0$, and hence we obtain that the function $u$ has constant sign.
Finally, from the Euler-Lagrange equation satisfied by $u$, namely
$$-\sum_{i=1}^np_i\partial_{x_i}\(\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i-2}\partial_{x_i}u\)=\lambda\(u\)\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u,\quad\text{where}\quad\lambda\(u\):=\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}p_i\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}u\big|^{p_i}dx}{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx}\,,$$
we derive that the function
$x\in\mathbb{R}^n\mapsto\mu u\(\mu_1x_1,\dotsc,\mu_nx_n\)$ with $\mu_i:=\(\lambda\(u\)/p_i\)^{1/p_i}$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ is a solution of \eqref{Eq1} with $f\(x,u\)=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$. This ends the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th5}.
\endproof
\section{Preliminary results}\label{Sec3}
From now on, we are concerned with the general case of an arbitrary solution of \eqref{Eq1}.
\medskip
For any $s\in\(0,\infty\)$ and any domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, we define the weak Lebesgue space $L^{s,\infty}\(\Omega\)$ as the set of all measurable functions $u:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ such that
$$\left\|u\right\|_{L^{s,\infty}\(\Omega\)}:=\sup_{h>0}\big(h\cdot\meas\(\left\{\left|u\right|>h\right\}\)^{1/s}\big)<\infty\,,$$
where $\meas\(\left\{\left|u\right|>h\right\}\)$ is the measure of the set $\left\{x\in\Omega:\,\left|u\(x\)\right|>h\right\}$. The map $\left\|\cdot\right\|_{L^{s,\infty}\(\Omega\)}$ defines a quasi-norm on $L^{s,\infty}\(\Omega\)$. We refer, for instance, to the book of Grafakos~\cite{Gra} for the material on weak Lebesgue spaces.
\medskip
The first result in this section is as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem1}
Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true. Then any solution of \eqref{Eq1} belongs to $W^{1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)\cap L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, and hence by interpolation, to $L^s\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ for all $s\in\(p_*-1,\infty\]$.
\end{lemma}
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem1}]
The $L^\infty$--boundedness of the solutions follows from a straightforward adaptation of El~Hamidi--Rakotoson~\cite{ElHRak}*{Propositions~1 and~2}, the first proposition being in turn adapted from Fragal\`a--Gazzola--Kawohl~\cite{FraGazKaw}*{Theorem~2}.
Once we have the $L^\infty$--boundedness of the solutions, we obtain the $L^\infty$--boundedness of the derivatives by applying Lieberman's gradient estimates~\cite{Lie}.
The proof of the $L^{p_*-1,\infty}$--boundedness of the solutions follows exactly the same arguments as in V\'etois~\cite{Vet3}*{Lemma~2.2}. One only has to replace $\left|\nabla u\right|^p$ by $\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}$.
\endproof
For any solution $u$ of \eqref{Eq2}, by Proposition~\ref{Pr2} in Appendix~\ref{App}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Eq10}
-\Delta_{\p}\left|u\right|\le f\(x,u\)\cdot\sgn\(u\)\le\Lambda\left|u\right|^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
where $\sgn\(u\)$ denotes the sign of $u$ and the inequality is in the sense that for any nonnegative, smooth function $\varphi$ with compact support in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we have
$$\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\left|u\right|\right|^{p_i-2}\(\partial_{x_i}\left|u\right|\)\(\partial_{x_i}\varphi\)dx\le\Lambda\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*-1}\varphi\,dx\,.$$
\medskip
We prove the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem2}
For any real number $\Lambda>0$ and any nonnegative, nontrivial solution $v\in D^{1,p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ of the inequality $-\Delta_{\p}v\le\Lambda v^{p^*-1}$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we have $\left\|v\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\ge\kappa_0$ for some constant $\kappa_0=\kappa_0\(n,p,\Lambda\)>0$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By testing the inequality $-\Delta_{\p}v\le\Lambda v^{p^*-1}$ with the function $v$, and applying the anisotropic Sobolev inequality, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem2Eq}
\Lambda\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}v^{p^*}dx\ge\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}v\right|^{p_i}dx\ge K\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}v^{p^*}dx\)^{\frac{n-p}{n}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $K=K\(n,\p\)$. The result then follows from \eqref{Lem2Eq} with $\kappa_0:=\(K/\Lambda\)^{\frac{n-p}{p^2}}$.
\endproof
As a last result in this section, we prove the following decay estimate. This result is not sharp, but it turns out to be a crucial ingredient in what follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem3}
Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $\kappa_0$ be as in Lemma~\ref{Lem2}, $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true, and $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}. For any $\kappa>0$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq1}
r_\kappa\(u\):=\inf\big(\big\{r>0\,:\,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(\mathbb{R}^n\backslash B_{\p}\(0,r\)\)}<\kappa\big\}\big),
\end{equation}
where $B_{\p}\(0,r\)$ is the open ball of center 0 and radius $r$ with respect to the distance function $d_{\p}$ defined as
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq2}
d_{\p}\(x,y\):=\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i-y_i\right|^{\frac{\delta p_i}{p^*-p_i}}\quad\text{with}\quad\delta:=\frac{p^*-p_+}{p_+},
\end{equation}
for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Then for any $\kappa\in\(0,\kappa_0\)$ and $r>r_\kappa\(u\)$, there exists a constant $K_0=K_0\big(n,\p,\Lambda,\kappa,r,r_\kappa\(u\),\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\big)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq3}
\left|u\(x\)\right|\le K_0\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p_i}{p^*-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for all }x\in\mathbb{R}^n\backslash B_{\p}\(0,r\).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem3}]
This proof is adapted from V\'etois~\cite{Vet3}*{Lemma~3.1}
We fix $\Lambda>0$, $\kappa\in\(0,\kappa_0\)$, $\kappa'>\kappa_0$, $r>0$, and $r'\in\(0,r\)$. We claim that in order to obtain Lemma~\ref{Lem3}, it is sufficient to prove that there exists a constant $K_1=K_1\(n,\p,\kappa,\kappa',r,r'\)$ such that for any solution $u$ of \eqref{Eq1} such that $r_\kappa\(u\)\le r'$ and $\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\le\kappa'$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq4}
d_{\p}\(x,B_{\p}\(0,r''\)\)\left|u\(x\)\right|^\delta\le K_1\quad\text{for all }x\in\mathbb{R}^n\backslash B_{\p}\(0,r\),
\end{equation}
where $r'':=\(r+r'\)/2$. Indeed, for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^n\backslash B_{\p}\(0,r\)$, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq5}
d_{\p}\(x,0\)\le d_{\p}\(x,B_{\p}\(0,r''\)\)+r''\le d_{\p}\(x,B_{\p}\(0,r''\)\)+\frac{r''}{r}d_{\p}\(x,0\),
\end{equation}
and hence by putting together \eqref{Lem3Eq4} and \eqref{Lem3Eq5}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq6}
d_{\p}\(x,0\)\left|u\(x\)\right|^\delta\le\frac{r}{r-r''}\cdot K_1=\frac{2r}{r-r'}\cdot K_1.
\end{equation}
By definition of $d_{\p}$, \eqref{Lem3Eq3} then follows from \eqref{Lem3Eq6}. This proves our claim.
We prove \eqref{Lem3Eq4} by contradiction. Suppose that for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists a Caratheodory function $f_\alpha:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true, a solution $u_\alpha$ of \eqref{Eq1} with $f=f_\alpha$ such that $r_\kappa\(u_\alpha\)\le r'$ and $\left\|u_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\le\kappa'$, and a point $x_\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^n\backslash B\(0,r\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq7}
d_{\p}\(x_\alpha,B_{\p}\(0,r''\)\)\left|u_\alpha\(x_\alpha\)\right|^\delta>2\alpha\,.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{Lem3Eq7} and Pol\'a\v{c}ik--Quittner--Souplet~\cite{PolQuiSou}*{Lemma~5.1} that there exists $y_\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^n\backslash B_{\p}\(0,r''\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq8}
d_{\p}\(y_\alpha,B_{\p}\(0,r''\)\)\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^\delta>2\alpha\,,\quad\left|u_\alpha\(x_\alpha\)\right|\le\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq9}
\left|u_\alpha\(y\)\right|\le2^{1/\delta}\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|\quad\text{for all }y\in B_{\p}\big(y_\alpha,\alpha\,\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{-\delta}\big).
\end{equation}
For any $\alpha$ and $y\in\mathbb{R}^n$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq10}
\widetilde{u}_\alpha\(y\):=\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{-1}\cdot u_\alpha\(\tau_\alpha\(y\)\),
\end{equation}
where
$$\tau_\alpha\(y\):=y_\alpha+\big(\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{\frac{p_1-p^*}{p_1}}y_1,\dots,\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{\frac{p_n-p^*}{p_n}}y_n\big).$$
It follows from \eqref{Lem3Eq9} and \eqref{Lem3Eq10} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq11}
\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\(0\)\right|=1\quad\text{and}\quad\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\(y\)\right|\le2^{1/\delta}\quad\text{for all }y\in B_{\p}\(0,\alpha\).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by \eqref{Eq1}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq12}
-\Delta_{\p}\widetilde{u}_\alpha=\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{1-p^*}\cdot f_\alpha\(\tau_\alpha\(y\),\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|\cdot\widetilde{u}_\alpha\)\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
and \eqref{Eq2} gives
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq13}
\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{1-p^*}\cdot\left|f_\alpha\(\tau_\alpha\(y\),\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|\cdot\widetilde{u}_\alpha\)\right|\le\Lambda\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|^{p^*-1}.
\end{equation}
By Lieberman's gradient estimates~\cites{Lie}, it follows from \eqref{Lem3Eq11} and \eqref{Lem3Eq13} that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for any $R>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq14}
\left\|\nabla\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right\|_{L^\infty(B_{\p}\(0,R\))}\le C
\end{equation}
for large $\alpha$. By Arzela--Ascoli Theorem and a diagonal argument, it follows from \eqref{Lem3Eq11} and \eqref{Lem3Eq14} that $\(\widetilde{u}_\alpha\)_\alpha$ converges up to a subsequence in $C^0_{\loc}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ to some Lipschitz continuous function $\widetilde{u}_\infty$ such that $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\(0\)\right|=1$. Moreover, by testing \eqref{Lem3Eq12}--\eqref{Lem3Eq13} with $\widetilde{u}_\alpha$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq15}
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|^{p_i}dx\le\Lambda\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|^{p^*}dx=\Lambda\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|u_\alpha\right|^{p^*}dx\le\Lambda\(\kappa'\)^{p^*}.
\end{equation}
Since $\left|\partial_{x_i}\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|\right|=\left|\partial_{x_i}\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^n$, it follows from \eqref{Lem3Eq15} that $\(\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|\)_\alpha$ converges weakly up to a subsequence to $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|$ in $D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$. Passing to the limit into \eqref{Lem3Eq12}--\eqref{Lem3Eq13}, we then obtain that $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|$ is a weak solution of the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq16}
-\Delta_{\p}\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|\le\Lambda\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
In particular, since $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\(0\)\right|=1$, it follows from Lemma~\ref{Lem2} that $\left\|u_\infty\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\ge\kappa_0$, and hence there exists a real number $R>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq17}
\left\|u_\infty\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(B\(0,R\)\)}>\kappa\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq18}
\left\|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}(B_{\p}\(0,R\))}=\left\|u_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}\(B_{\p}\(y_\alpha,R\cdot\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{-\delta}\)\)}.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{Lem3Eq8} and since $r_\kappa\(u_\alpha\)<r''$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq19}
B_{\p}\big(y_\alpha,R\cdot\left|u_\alpha\(y_\alpha\)\right|^{-\delta}\big)\cap B_{\p}\(0,r_\kappa\(u_\alpha\)\)=\emptyset
\end{equation}
for large $\alpha$. By definition of $r_\kappa\(u_\alpha\)$, it follows from \eqref{Lem3Eq18} and \eqref{Lem3Eq19} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem3Eq20}
\left\|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}(B_{\p}\(0,R\))}\le\kappa
\end{equation}
for large $\alpha$, which is in contradiction with \eqref{Lem3Eq17}. This ends the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem3}.
\endproof
\section{The reverse H\"older-type inequalities}\label{Sec4}
The following result is a key step in the Moser-type iteration scheme that we develop in the next section.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem4}
Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true, $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}, and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma~\ref{Lem3}. Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and $\q=\(q_i\)_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. Then there exists a constant $c_0=c_0\(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0\)>1$ such that for any $R_1,R_2>0$, $\lambda<\lambda'\in\(0,1/2\]$, and $\gamma>p_*-1$ such that $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$ and $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)\cap\supp\(u\)$ is bounded, where $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda\)$ is as in \eqref{Eq6}, we have
\begin{multline}\label{Lem4Eq1}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\gamma\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda\)\)}^\gamma\le c_0\gamma^{p^*}\max_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\Big(\min\(1,\gamma-p_*+1\)^{-p_i}\(\lambda'-\lambda\)^{-p_i}q_i^{p_i}\\
\times R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_i}\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)\)}^{\gamma_i}\Big)^\frac{n}{n-p},
\end{multline}
where $\delta_i:=1$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_i:=2$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$, and $\gamma_i:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma+p_i-p$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$.
\end{lemma}
Preliminary to the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem4}, we prove the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem5}
Let $v$ be a nonnegative solution in $D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ of
\begin{equation}\label{Lem5Eq1}
-\Delta_{\p}v\le\Lambda v^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
for some real number $\Lambda>0$, where the inequality must be understood in the weak sense as in \eqref{Eq10}. Let $\beta>-1$ and $\eta\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ be such that $0\le\eta\le1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, $\eta v$ has compact support, and $\eta^{\(\beta+p_-\)/p_+}\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, where $p_-:=\min\(\left\{p_i\in\p\right\}\)$ and $p_+:=\max\(\left\{p_i\in\p\right\}\)$. Then there exists a constant $C=C\(n,\p\)$ such that
\begin{multline}\label{Lem5Eq2}
\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\(\eta v\)^{\frac{n\(\beta+p\)}{n-p}}dx\)^{\frac{n-p}{n}}\le C\(\left|\beta\right|^p+1\)\bigg(\Lambda\(\beta+1\)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_-}v^{\beta+p^*}dx\\
+\sum_{i=1}^n\min\(1,\beta+1\)^{-p_i}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\eta\right|^{p_i}\eta^{\beta+p_--p_i}v^{\beta+p_i}dx\bigg).
\end{multline}
\end{lemma}
The finiteness of the integrals in \eqref{Lem5Eq2} is ensured by the fact that $v\in L^\infty\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, $\eta v$ has compact support, and $\eta^{\(\beta+p_-\)/p_+}\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$.
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem5}]
For any $\varepsilon>0$, we define $v_\varepsilon:=v+\varepsilon\overline\eta$, where $\overline\eta$ is a cutoff function on a neighborhood of the support of $\eta v$ such that $\overline\eta^{\beta+1}\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$. Since $v\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)\cap L^\infty\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, $\eta^{\(\beta+p_-\)/p_+}\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, and $\(\beta+p_-\)/p_+\le\(\beta+p_-\)/p_-=1+\beta/p_-$, we get $\(\eta v_\varepsilon\)^{\min\(1,1+\beta/p_-\)}\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$. By a generalized version of the anisotropic Sobolev inequality (see C\^irstea--V\'etois~\cite{CirVet}*{Lemma~A.1}), we then obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem5Eq3}
\left\|\eta v_\varepsilon\right\|_{L^{\frac{n\(\beta+p\)}{n-p}}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}^{\beta+p}\le C\(\beta+p\)^p\prod_{i=1}^n\left\|\(\eta v_\varepsilon\)^{\frac{\beta}{p_i}}\partial_{x_i}\(\eta v_\varepsilon\)\right\|_{L^{p_i}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}^{\frac{p}{n}}<\infty
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p\)$. For any $i=1,\dotsc,n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem5Eq4}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\(\eta v_\varepsilon\)^\beta\left|\partial_{x_i}\(\eta v_\varepsilon\)\right|^{p_i}dx\le2^{p_i-1}\(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\eta\right|^{p_i}\eta^\beta v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_i}dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i} v_\varepsilon\right|^{p_i}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^\beta dx\).
\end{equation}
Since $v\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)\cap L^\infty\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, $\overline\eta^{\beta+1}\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, $\eta^{\(\beta+p_-\)/p_+}\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, and $\(\beta+p_-\)/p_+\le\beta+p_-$, we get $\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}\in D^{1,\p}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$. For any $i=1,\dotsc,n$, since $v_\varepsilon\equiv v+\varepsilon$ on the support of $\eta v$, testing \eqref{Lem5Eq1} with $\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}$ gives
\begin{multline}\label{Lem5Eq5}
\(\beta+1\)\sum_{j=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^\beta dx\le\Lambda\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v^{p^*-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\\
-\(\beta+p_i\)\sum_{j=1}^n\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j-2}\(\partial_{x_j}v\)\(\partial_{x_j}\eta\)\eta^{\beta+p_i-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\,.
\end{multline}
For any $i,j=1,\dotsc,n$, Youngs inequality yields
\begin{multline}\label{Lem5Eq6}
-\(\beta+p_i\)\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j-2}\(\partial_{x_j}v\)\(\partial_{x_j}\eta\)\eta^{\beta+p_i-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}\\
\le\frac{p_j-1}{p_j}\cdot\(\beta+1\)\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^{\beta}+\frac{1}{p_j}\cdot\frac{\(\beta+p_i\)^{p_j}}{\(\beta+1\)^{p_j-1}}\left|\partial_{x_j}\eta\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i-p_j}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_j}.
\end{multline}
It follows from \eqref{Lem5Eq5} and \eqref{Lem5Eq6} that
\begin{multline}\label{Lem5Eq7}
\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{p_j}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^\beta dx\le\Lambda\(\beta+1\)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v^{p^*-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\\
+\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{p_j}\cdot\(\frac{\beta+p_i}{\beta+1}\)^{p_j}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}\eta\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i-p_j}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_j}dx\,.
\end{multline}
In particular, by \eqref{Lem5Eq4} and \eqref{Lem5Eq7}, we obtain
\begin{multline}\label{Lem5Eq8}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\(\eta v_\varepsilon\)^\beta\left|\partial_{x_i}\(\eta v_\varepsilon\)\right|^{p_i}dx\le C\bigg(
\Lambda\(\beta+1\)^{-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v^{p^*-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\\
+\sum_{j=1}^n\min\(1,\beta+1\)^{-p_j}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}\eta\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i-p_j}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_j}dx+\varepsilon^{\beta+p_i}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\overline\eta\right|^{p_i}\eta^{\beta+p_i}\overline\eta^{\beta}dx\bigg)
\end{multline}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p\)$. Finally, since $\eta^{p_i}\le\eta^{p_-}$, we get \eqref{Lem5Eq2} by plugging \eqref{Lem5Eq8} into \eqref{Lem5Eq3} and passing to the limit as $\varepsilon\to0$. This ends the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem5}.
\endproof
Now, we can prove Lemma~\ref{Lem4} by using Lemma~\ref{Lem5}.
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem4}]
We denote $\beta:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma-p$. In particular, $\gamma>p_*-1$ is equivalent to $\beta>-1$. In connexion with the sets $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda\)$, we define test functions of the form
\begin{equation}\label{Lem4Eq2}
\eta\(x\):=\bigg[\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\bigg(R_1^{-1}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\bigg)\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\bigg(R_2^{-1}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\bigg)\bigg]^{\max\(1,\frac{p_+}{\beta+p_-}\)}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, where $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'},\,\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\in C^1\(0,\infty\)$ satisfy $0\le\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'},\,\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\le1$ in $\(0,\infty\)$, $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=1$ in $\[0,1+\lambda\]$, $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=0$ in $\[1+\lambda',\infty\)$, $\left|\overline\eta'_{\lambda,\lambda'}\right|\le2$ in $\[1+\lambda,1+\lambda'\]$, $\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=1$ in $\[1-\lambda,1+\lambda\]$, $\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=0$ in $\[0,1-\lambda'\]\cup\[1+\lambda',\infty\)$, and $\left|\widetilde\eta'_{\lambda,\lambda'}\right|\le2/\(\lambda'-\lambda\)$ in $\[1-\lambda',1-\lambda\]\cup\[1+\lambda,1+\lambda'\]$. With these properties of $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}$ and $\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}$, we obtain
$$0\le\eta\le1\text{ in }\mathbb{R}^n,\,\eta=1\text{ in }\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda\),\text{ and }\eta=0\text{ in }\mathbb{R}^n\backslash \Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\).$$
Since $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)\cap\supp\(u\)$ is bounded by assumption, we get that $\eta u$ has compact support. Moreover, since $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, we get $\eta^{\(\beta+p_-\)/p_+}\in C^1\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Lem4Eq3}
\left|\partial_{x_i}\eta\(x\)\right|^{p_i}\eta\(x\)^{\beta+p_--p_i}\le\(\frac{4q_i}{\lambda'-\lambda}\max\(1,\frac{p_+}{\beta+p_-}\)\)^{p_i}R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}
\end{equation}
for all $x\in\supp\(\eta\)$, where $\delta_i:=1$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_i:=2$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$. By applying Lemma~\ref{Lem5} with $v=\left|u\right|$ and $\eta$ as in \eqref{Lem4Eq2}, and using \eqref{Lem4Eq3}, we obtain
\begin{multline}\label{Lem4Eq4}
\(\int_{\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda\)}u^\gamma dx\)^{\frac{n-p}{n}}\le C\(\left|\beta\right|^p+1\)\bigg(\Lambda\(\beta+1\)^{-1}\int_{\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)}u^{\beta+p^*}dx\\
+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\min\(1,\beta+1\)^{-p_i}\(\lambda'-\lambda\)^{-p_i}q_i^{p_i}R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}\int_{\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)}u^{\beta+p_i}dx\bigg)
\end{multline}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p\)$.
Now, we estimate the first integral in the right-hand side of \eqref{Lem4Eq4}. We claim that there exists a constant $C'=C\(n,\p,K_0\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem4Eq5}
u\(x\)^{p^*-p_{i_0}}\le C'R_2^{-\frac{p_{i_0}}{q_{i_0}}}\quad\text{for all }x\in\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\),
\end{equation}
where $K_0$ is the constant given by Lemma~\ref{Lem3} and $i_0\in\mathcal{I}_2$ is such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem4Eq6}
\frac{q_{i_0}\(p^*-p_{i_0}\)}{p_{i_0}}=\max_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\(\frac{q_i\(p^*-p_i\)}{p_i}\)\,.
\end{equation}
We prove this claim. For any $x\in\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)$, since $\lambda'\le1/2$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem4Eq7}
\frac{R_2}{2}\le\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\le n\cdot|x_{i\(x\)}|^{q_{i\(x\)}}\le n\cdot d_{\p}\(x,0\)^{\frac{q_{i\(x\)}(p^*-p_{i\(x\)})}{\delta p_{i\(x\)}}},
\end{equation}
where $i\(x\)\in\mathcal{I}_2$ is such that $|x_{i\(x\)}|^{q_{i\(x\)}}=\max\(\left\{\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}:\,i\in\mathcal{I}_2\right\}\)$, and the distance function $d_{\p}$ and the real number $\delta$ are as in \eqref{Lem3Eq2}. Since $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$ by assumption, \eqref{Lem4Eq5} follows from \eqref{Lem4Eq6}, \eqref{Lem4Eq7}, and Lemma~\ref{Lem3}. In particular, \eqref{Lem4Eq5} implies
\begin{equation}\label{Lem4Eq9}
\int_{\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)}u^{\beta+p^*}dx\le C'R_2^{-\frac{p_{i_0}}{q_{i_0}}}\int_{\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'\)}u^{\beta+p_{i_0}}dx\,.
\end{equation}
Finally, \eqref{Lem4Eq1} follows from \eqref{Lem4Eq4}, \eqref{Lem4Eq9}, and the fact that $\beta+1=\frac{n-p}{n}\(\gamma-p_*+1\)$ and $\beta+p_i=\gamma_i$. This ends the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem4}.
\endproof
\section{The iteration scheme}\label{Sec5}
In this section, we describe the iteration scheme which leads to the proofs of our main results.
\medskip
Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and $\q=\(q_i\)_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. The idea is to apply Lemma~\ref{Lem4} by induction. For any $\gamma>p_*-1$, Lemma~\ref{Lem4} provides an estimate of the $L^\gamma$--norm of $u$ with respect to the set of $L^{\gamma_{i_1}}$--norms of $u$, where $\gamma_{i_1}:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma+p_{i_1}-p$ for all $i_1\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. If $\gamma_{i_1}>p_*-1$, then another application of Lemma~\ref{Lem4} gives estimates of the $L^{\gamma_{i_1}}$--norms of $u$ with respect to the set of $L^{\gamma_{i_1i_2}}$--norms of $u$, where $\gamma_{i_1i_2}:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma_{i_1}+p_{i_2}-p$, etc... By induction, we define
\begin{equation}\label{Eq11}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j+1}}:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_j}+p_{i_{j+1}}-p
\end{equation}
for all $j\in\mathbb{N}$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_{j+1}\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, with the convention that $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_j}:=\gamma$ if $j=0$. In particular, we obtain the formula
\begin{equation}\label{Eq12}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}=\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^k\gamma+\sum_{j=1}^k\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^{k-j}\(p_{i_j}-p\)
\end{equation}
for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. The stopping condition in our induction argument is $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{Eq13}
p_\varepsilon:=\(1+\varepsilon\)p_0\,,\quad p_0:=\max\(p_*,\left\{p_i\,:\,i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\right\}\),
\end{equation}
and $\varepsilon$ is a fixed real number in $\(0,1\)$. Note that $\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)>\frac{n}{p}\(p_*-p\)=p_*-1$ so that we can apply Lemma~\ref{Lem4} as long as our stopping condition is not satisfied. For any $k\ge1$, we let $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ be the set of all sequences of indices for which our induction argument stops after exactly $k$ iterations, namely
\begin{multline}\label{Eq14}
\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\Big\{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\(\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\)^k\,:\quad\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_j}\ge\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\text{ for all }j=0,\dotsc,k-1\\
\text{and}\quad\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\Big\}.
\end{multline}
The following result provides a control on the number of iterations in our induction argument.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem6}
Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and $\q=\(q_i\)_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$, $\gamma\ge\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$, and $\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\(\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\)^k$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem6Eq1}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}>\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\quad\text{if }k<k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-\quad\text{and}\quad\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\quad\text{if }k\ge k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+\,,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in \eqref{Eq11}, $p_\varepsilon$ is as in \eqref{Eq13}, and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ are the smallest and largest natural numbers, respectively, such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem6Eq2}
\frac{n}{p}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-1}\varepsilon p_0<\gamma<\frac{n}{p}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}\(p_\varepsilon-p_-\),
\end{equation}
where $p_-:=\min\(\left\{p_i\in\p\right\}\)$. In particular, we have $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}=\emptyset$ for all $k<k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k>k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$, where $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ is as in \eqref{Eq14}.
\end{lemma}
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem6}]
Since $p_-\le p_{i_j}\le p_0$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, it follows from \eqref{Eq12} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem6Eq3}
-\sum_{j=1}^k\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^{k-j}\(p-p_-\)\le\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}-\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^k\gamma\le\sum_{j=1}^k\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^{k-j}\(p_0-p\).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by a simple calculation, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem6Eq4}
\sum_{j=1}^k\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^{k-j}=\frac{n}{p}\(1-\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^k\)<\frac{n}{p}\,.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{Lem6Eq3} and \eqref{Lem6Eq4} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem6Eq5}
-\frac{n}{p}\(p-p_-\)<\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}-\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^k\gamma<\frac{n}{p}\(p_0-p\).
\end{equation}
Finally, \eqref{Lem6Eq1} follows from \eqref{Lem6Eq5} together with the definitions of $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$.
\endproof
Now, we can prove the main result of this section.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem7}
Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true, $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}, and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma~\ref{Lem3}. Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and $\q=\(q_i\)_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. Then there exists a constant $c_1=c_1\(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0\)>1$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in\(0,1\)$, $\gamma>\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$, and $R_1,R_2>0$ such that $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$ and $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,1/2\)\cap\supp\(u\)$ is bounded, we have
\begin{multline}\label{Lem7Eq1}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le c_1^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max\(q_i\)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}\(p_\varepsilon-p_*\)^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}\\
\times\max_{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}\(\(\prod_{j=1}^kR_{\delta_{i_j}}^{-\frac{1}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\frac{p_{i_j}}{q_{i_j}}}\)\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k}\),
\end{multline}
where $\delta_{i_j}:=1$ if $i_j\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_{i_j}:=2$ if $i_j\in\mathcal{I}_2$, $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in \eqref{Eq11}, $p_\varepsilon$ is as in \eqref{Eq13}, $\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_k\)$ is as in \eqref{Eq6}, and
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq2}
\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\frac{1}{4}\big(1+2^{k-k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-1}\big)\quad\text{and}\quad\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\bigcup_{k=k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
with $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ as in Lemma~\ref{Lem6}, and $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ as in \eqref{Eq14}.
\end{lemma}
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem7}]
Applying Lemma~\ref{Lem4} by induction with the stopping condition $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$ gives
\begin{multline}\label{Lem7Eq3}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le\max_{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{k,\gamma}\times\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\times\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma}\times\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\\
\times\(\prod_{j=1}^kR_{\delta_{i_j}}^{-\frac{1}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\frac{p_{i_j}}{q_{i_j}}}\)\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k}\Big),
\end{multline}
where $\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ are as in \eqref{Lem7Eq2}, and
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{A}_{k,\gamma}:=\big(c_0\cdot\max\big(q_i^{\frac{np_i}{n-p}}\big)\big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma}\overset{k-1}{\underset{j=0}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j},\quad\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}:=\prod_{j=1}^k\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}^{\frac{p}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j},\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}:=\prod_{j=1}^k\min\(1,\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}-p_*+1\)^{-\frac{p_{i_j}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j},\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\prod_{j=1}^k\(\lambda_{j,\gamma,\varepsilon}-\lambda_{j-1,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)^{-\frac{p_{i_j}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j}.
\end{align*}
Now, we fix $\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and estimate each of the terms in the right-hand side of \eqref{Lem7Eq3}.
\proof[Estimate of $\mathcal{A}_{k,\gamma}$]
By using the fact that $k\le k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ and applying \eqref{Lem6Eq2}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq4}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j=\frac{n-p}{p}\[\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k-1\]<\frac{n}{p}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-1}<\frac{\gamma}{\varepsilon p_0}\,.
\end{equation}
Since $c_0>1$, $q_i>1$, and $p_i\le p_0$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, it follows from \eqref{Lem7Eq4} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq5}
\mathcal{A}_{k,\gamma}<c_0^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_0}}\max\(q_i\)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}.
\end{equation}
\proof[Estimate of $\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}$]
For any $j=1,\dotsc,k$, since $p_i\le p_0$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, by \eqref{Eq12}, \eqref{Lem6Eq2}, and \eqref{Lem6Eq4}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq6}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}\le\(\frac{n-p}{n}\)^{j-1}\gamma+\frac{n}{p}\(p_0-p\)\le C\max\bigg(1,\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j}\bigg)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p\)>1$. It follows from \eqref{Lem7Eq6} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq7}
\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le C^{\frac{p}{\gamma}\overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{\frac{p}{\gamma}\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j\)}.
\end{equation}
A simple calculation gives
$$\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j\)=\frac{n^2}{p^2}\[\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--1}-\frac{p}{n}\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--1\)-1\]<\frac{n^2}{p^2}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--1},$$
and hence by definition of $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq8}
\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j\)\le\frac{n}{p}\cdot\frac{\gamma}{p_\varepsilon-p_-}<\frac{n}{p}\cdot\frac{\gamma}{p_*-p_-}\,.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{Lem7Eq4}, \eqref{Lem7Eq7}, and \eqref{Lem7Eq8} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq9}
\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le C^{\frac{p^*}{\varepsilon p_0}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{\frac{n}{p_*-p_-}}.
\end{equation}
\proof[Estimate of $\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}$]
Since $p_*-1=\frac{n}{p}\(p_*-p\)$ and $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}>\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq10}
\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le\min\Big(1,\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p_*\)\Big)^{-\frac{1}{\gamma}\overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}p_{i_j}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j}.
\end{equation}
Since $p_{i_j}\le p_0$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, it follows from \eqref{Lem7Eq4} and \eqref{Lem7Eq10} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq11}
\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le\min\Big(1,\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p_*\)\Big)^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}.
\end{equation}
\proof[Estimate of $\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$]
By \eqref{Lem7Eq2} and since $k\le k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ and $p_{i_j}\le p_0$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq12}
\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le2^{\frac{1}{\gamma}\overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}p_{i_j}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4\)}\le2^{\frac{p_0}{\gamma}\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4\)}.
\end{equation}
We find
\begin{align*}
\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4\)&=\frac{n}{p}\[\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}\(3+\frac{n}{p}\)-k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-3-\frac{n}{p}\]\\
&<\frac{n}{p}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}\(3+\frac{n}{p}\),
\end{align*}
and hence by \eqref{Lem6Eq2}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq13}
\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4\)<\frac{\gamma}{\varepsilon p_0}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}\(3+\frac{n}{p}\).
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{Lem7Eq12} and \eqref{Lem7Eq13} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem7Eq14}
\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le2^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}\(3+\frac{n}{p}\)}.
\end{equation}
\proof[End of proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem7}]
The estimate \eqref{Lem7Eq1} follows from \eqref{Lem7Eq3}, \eqref{Lem7Eq5}, \eqref{Lem7Eq9}, \eqref{Lem7Eq11}, and \eqref{Lem7Eq14}.
\endproof
\section{The vanishing result}\label{Sec6}
In this section, we prove a vanishing result which will give Point (i) in Theorem~\ref{Th3}. We define
\begin{equation}\label{Eq15}
\overline{p}_0:=\max\(p_*,\left\{p_i\in\p\,:\,i\in\Theta\right\}\),
\end{equation}
where $p_*$ is as in \eqref{Eq4} and $\Theta$ is the set of all indices $i$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Eq16}
\big(p_i-p_--\frac{n}{p}\(p_i-p_*\)\big)\sum_{j=1}^n\max\(\frac{p_i-p_j}{p_j},0\)\ge\(p_*-1\)\(p_i-p_-\)
\end{equation}
with $p_-:=\min\(\left\{p_i\in\p\right\}\)$. We define $\mathcal{I}_0$ as the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i>\overline{p}_0$.
\medskip
When $p_+>p_*$, one easily sees that the condition \eqref{Eq16} does not hold true for $p_i=p_+$, and hence we have $\overline{p}_0<p_+$ and $\mathcal{I}_0\ne\emptyset$.
\medskip
We prove the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th6}
Assume that $p_*<p_+<p^*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true and $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}. Then there exists a constant $R_0=R_0\(n,\p,\Lambda,u\)$ such that $u\(x\)=0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\sum_{i\in \mathcal{I}_0}\left|x_i\right|\ge R_0$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{Th6} is based on the following result, which we obtain by applying the iteration scheme in Section \ref{Sec5}.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem8}
Assume that $p_*<p_+<p^*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true, $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}, and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma~\ref{Lem3}. Let $\overline{p}_0$ be as in \eqref{Eq15} and $p_0\in\p$ be such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq1}
p_0>\overline{p}_0\quad\text{and}\quad R_i\(u\)<\infty\text{ for all indices }i\text{ such that }p_i>p_0\,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq2}
R_i\(u\):=\sup\(\left\{\left|x_i\right|\,:\,x\in\supp\(u\)\right\}\).
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{I}_1$, $\mathcal{I}_2$ be the sets of indices $i$ such that $p_i<p_0$, $p_i=p_0$, respectively. For any $\varepsilon,\lambda\in\(0,1\)$ and $R>1$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq3}
A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda\):=\Omega_{\q}\(\mathcal{I}_1,R^{1/\varepsilon},\mathcal{I}_2,R,\lambda\)\quad\text{with}\quad q_i:=\left\{\begin{aligned}&\frac{p_\varepsilon p_i}{p_\varepsilon-p_i}&&\text{if }i\in\mathcal{I}_1\,,\\&p_\varepsilon&&\text{if }i\in\mathcal{I}_2\,,\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where $p_\varepsilon:=\(1+\varepsilon\)p_0$. If $A_\varepsilon\(R,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq4}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty\(A_\varepsilon\(R,1/4\)\)}\le \big(c_2R^{-\frac{1}{p_\varepsilon}}\big)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $c_2=c_2(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)},R_0\(u\))$, where
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq5}
R_0\(u\):=\max\(\left\{R_i\(u\):i\in\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\(\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\)\right\}\).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem8}]
As is easily seen, we have $1<q_i<s_0$ for some constant $s_0=s_0\(\p\)$. Moreover, by \eqref{Lem8Eq1}, we obtain that $p_\varepsilon-p_*>p_0-p_*>0$ and $A_\varepsilon\(R,1/2\)\cap\supp\(u\)$ is bounded. By Lemma~\ref{Lem7}, we then get that there exists a constant $\widetilde{c}_1=\widetilde{c}_1\(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0\)$ such that for any $\gamma>\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq6}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le \widetilde{c}_1^{\,\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max_{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}\Big(R^{-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k}\Big)
\end{equation}
provided that $A_\varepsilon\(R,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$, where $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in \eqref{Eq11}, $\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ are as in \eqref{Lem7Eq2}, and
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq7}
\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\frac{1}{\varepsilon\gamma p_\varepsilon}\sum_{j=1}^k\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(p_\varepsilon-p_{i_j}\)\,.
\end{equation}
We claim that for any $\nu\in\(0,1\)$ and $\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, there exists a constant $c_\nu=c\big(n,\p,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)},R_0\(u\),\nu\big)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq8}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k}\le c_\nu^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq9}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}:=\max\bigg(0\,,\frac{1}{\varepsilon\gamma p_\varepsilon}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k\(1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1+\nu}\)\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}\bigg).
\end{equation}
We separate two cases:
\renewcommand{\labelitemi}{$-$}
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1: $p_*-1+\nu\le\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$ (in which case $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}=0$).
\item Case 2: $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<p_*-1+\nu$ (in which case $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}>0$).
\end{itemize}
We begin with proving \eqref{Lem8Eq8} in Case 1. By interpolation (see, for instance, Grafakos~\cite{Gra}*{Proposition~1.1.14}), and by Lemmas~\ref{Lem1} and~\ref{Lem3}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{Lem8Eq10}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}&\le\(\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}-p_*+1}\)^{\frac{1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{1-\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\nonumber\\
&\le C\nu^{\frac{-1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\le C\nu^{\frac{-1}{p_*-1}}
\end{align}
for some constant $C=C\big(n,\p,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\big)$. Moreover, since $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$ and $k\le k^+_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, by \eqref{Lem6Eq2}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq11}
\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k\le\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_0}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\).
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{Lem8Eq8} follows from \eqref{Lem8Eq10} and \eqref{Lem8Eq11}.
Now, suppose that we are in Case 2. By \eqref{Eq11} and since $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1}}\ge\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$ and $p_\varepsilon>p_*$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq12}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\ge\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)+p_--p_\varepsilon>\frac{n}{p}\(p_*-p\)+p_--p_*=p_--1\,.
\end{equation}
By H\"older's inequality, we then get
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq13}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le\left|A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\cap\supp\(u\)\right|^{\frac{1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}-\frac{1}{p_*-1+\nu}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1+\nu}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}.
\end{equation}
Direct computations yield
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq14}
\left|A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\cap\supp\(u\)\right|\le CR^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\cdot\underset{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}{\sum}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\big(n,\p,R_0\(u\)\big)$, where $R_0\(u\)$ is as in \eqref{Lem8Eq5}. Similarly to \eqref{Lem8Eq10} and \eqref{Lem8Eq11}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq15}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1+\nu}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le C\nu^{\frac{-1}{p_*-1}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\big(n,\p,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\big)$, and
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq16}
\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k<\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_0}\cdot\frac{p}{n-p}\(p_*-1+\nu\).
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{Lem8Eq8} follows from \eqref{Lem8Eq13}--\eqref{Lem8Eq16}.
By \eqref{Lem8Eq6} and \eqref{Lem8Eq8}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq17}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}\(A_\varepsilon\(R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le\(\widetilde{c}_1c_\nu\)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max_{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}}
\end{equation}
for all $\nu\in\(0,1\)$, where $\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}$ are as in \eqref{Lem8Eq7} and \eqref{Lem8Eq9}.
We claim that there exists a constant $\nu_0=\nu_0\(n,\p\)$ such that for any $\nu\in\(0,\nu_0\)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq18}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le-\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\(1-\frac{n}{\gamma p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\).
\end{equation}
We prove this claim. By \eqref{Eq12}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{Lem8Eq19}
\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}&=\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k+\frac{1}{\gamma}\sum_{j=1}^k\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k\(\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\)-\frac{n}{\gamma p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\bigg).
\end{align}
In case $p_*-1+\nu\le\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)$, since $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}=0$, we deduce \eqref{Lem8Eq18} directly from \eqref{Lem8Eq19}. In the remaining case $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<p_*-1+\nu$, by \eqref{Lem8Eq9} and \eqref{Lem8Eq19}, we obtain
\begin{multline}\label{Lem8Eq20}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le-\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k\bigg(\frac{n}{p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\\
-\(1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1+\nu}\)\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}\bigg)-\frac{n}{\gamma p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\bigg)\,.
\end{multline}
If $\nu$ is small enough so that $p_*-1+\nu<\frac{n}{p}\(p_0-p\)$, i.e. $\nu<\frac{n}{p}\(p_0-p_*\)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq21}
1-\frac{1}{p_*-1+\nu}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}<\frac{p}{n\(p_0-p\)}\sum_{i\in\(\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\)^c}\frac{p_0-p_i}{p_i}<0\,,
\end{equation}
where $\(\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\)^c:=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\(\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\)$.
It follows from \eqref{Lem8Eq12}, \eqref{Lem8Eq20}, and \eqref{Lem8Eq21} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem8Eq22}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le-\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k\varphi_\nu\(p_\varepsilon\)-\frac{n}{\gamma p}\(p_\varepsilon-p\)\bigg)
\end{equation}
for all $\nu\in(0,\frac{n}{p}\(p_0-p_*\))$, where
\begin{align*}
\varphi_\nu\(q\):&=q-p_--\bigg(1-\frac{\frac{n}{p}\(q-p\)+p_--q}{p_*-1+\nu}\bigg)\underset{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}{\sum}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}\\
&=q-p_--\frac{q-p_--\frac{n}{p}\(q-p_*\)}{p_*-1+\nu}\underset{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}{\sum}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}
\end{align*}
for all $q\in\mathbb{R}$. By \eqref{Lem8Eq1} and by definition of $\overline{p}_0$, we obtain $\varphi_0\(p_0\)>0$. Moreover, it can easily be seen that $\varphi_0\(p_*\)\le0$. Observing that $\varphi_0$ is a quadratic polynomial with positive leading coefficient, we then get that $\varphi_0$ is increasing in $\[p_0,\infty\)$. By continuity of $\varphi_\nu$ with respect to $\nu$, it follows that $\varphi_\nu\(p_\varepsilon\)\le0$ provided that $\nu<\nu_0$ for some constant $\nu_0=\nu_0\(n,\p\)$. By \eqref{Lem8Eq22}, we then get \eqref{Lem8Eq18}.
Finally, we fix $\nu=\nu_0/2$, and we obtain \eqref{Lem8Eq4} by passing to the limit as $\gamma\to\infty$ into \eqref{Lem8Eq17} and \eqref{Lem8Eq18} and using the fact that $p_\varepsilon>p_0$ and $R>1$. This ends the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem8}.
\endproof
Now, we can conclude the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th6}.
\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th6}]
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose that there exists a solution $u$ of \eqref{Eq1} such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th6Eq1}
p_0:=\max\(\left\{p_i\in\p\,:\,R_i\(u\)=\infty\right\}\)>\overline{p}_0\,,
\end{equation}
where $R_i\(u\)$ is as in \eqref{Lem8Eq2}. Then we can apply Lemma~\ref{Lem8}. For any $\varepsilon\in\(0,1\)$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, it follows from \eqref{Lem8Eq4} that
\begin{equation}\label{Th6Eq2}
\left|u\(x\)\right|\le \big(c_2R_\varepsilon\(x\)^{-\frac{1}{p_\varepsilon}}\big)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\quad\text{where}\quad R_\varepsilon\(x\):=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{p_\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
provided that $\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p_\varepsilon p_i}{p_\varepsilon-p_i}}<\frac{5}{4}R_\varepsilon\(x\)^{1/\varepsilon}$ and $A_\varepsilon\(R_\varepsilon\(x\),1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$, where $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ are as in Lemma~\ref{Lem8}, and $r$ is as in Lemma~\ref{Lem3}. One easily gets that there exists a constant $R_r=R\(n,\p,r\)>1$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in\(0,1\)$ and $R>R_r$, we have $A_\varepsilon\(R,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$. By passing to the limit as $\varepsilon\to0$ into \eqref{Th6Eq2}, we then obtain that $u\(x\)=0$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that
$$\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{p_0}>\max\(R_r,c_2^{\,p_0}\),$$
and hence $R_i\(u\)<\infty$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$, which is in contradiction with \eqref{Th6Eq1}. This ends the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th6}.
\endproof
\begin{remark}\label{Rem2}
As one can see from the above proof, the constant $R_0$ that we obtain in Theorem~\ref{Th6} depends on $n$, $\p$, $\Lambda$, $\kappa$, $r$, $r_\kappa\(u\)$, and $\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}$.
\end{remark}
\section{The decay estimates}\label{Sec7}
In this section, we prove Theorem~\ref{Th1} in case $p_+<p_*$ and Theorem~\ref{Th7} below in case $p_*\le p_+<p^*$. The latter implies Theorem~\ref{Th2} in case $p_+=p_*$ and allows us to complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th3} in case $p_*<p_+<p^*$.
\medskip
We let $\overline{p}_0$ and $\mathcal{I}_0$ be as in Section~\ref{Sec6}. We define $q_0$ as the largest real number such that for any $q>q_0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Eq17}
\big(q-p_--\frac{n}{p}\(q-p_*\)\big)\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}<\(p_*-1\)\(q-p_-\),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{I}_0^c:=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\mathcal{I}_0$. It easily follows from the definition of $\overline{p}_0$ and the fact that $\overline{p}_0<p_+$ in case $p_+>p_*$ that
$$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&q_0=\overline{p}_0=p_*&&\text{in case }p_+\le p_*\,,\\
&\overline{p}_0\le q_0<p_+&&\text{in case }p_+>p_*\,.
\end{aligned}\right.$$
\medskip
We prove the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th7}
Assume that $p_*\le p_+<p^ *$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true and $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}. Let $q_0$ be defined as above. Then for any $q>q_0$, there exists a constant $C_q=C\(n,\p,\Lambda,u,q\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th7Eq}
\left|u\(x\)\right|^q+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u\(x\)\right|^{p_i}\le C_q\bigg(1+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
We conclude the proofs of Theorems~\ref{Th2} and~\ref{Th3} as follows.
\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th2}]
In case $p_+=p_*$, since $q_0=\overline{p}_0=p_*$, we get that \eqref{Th7Eq} holds true for all $q>p_*$. Since in this case we have $\mathcal{I}_0^c=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, this is exactly the result in Theorem~\ref{Th2}.
\endproof
\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th3}]
In case $p_*<p_+<p^ *$, Points (i) and (ii) in Theorem~\ref{Th3} follow directly from Theorems~\ref{Th6} and~\ref{Th7} and the fact that $\overline{p}_0\le q_0<p_+$.
\endproof
Now, it remains to prove Theorems~\ref{Th1} and~\ref{Th7}. By another application of the iteration scheme in Section \ref{Sec5}, we prove the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem9}
Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a Caratheodory function such that \eqref{Eq2} holds true, $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1}, and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma~\ref{Lem3}. Let $q=p_*$ in case $p_+<p_*$ and $q\in\(q_0,p^*\)$ in case $p_*\le p_+<p^*$. For any $\lambda\in\(0,1\)$ and $R>1$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq1}
A_q\(R,\lambda\):=\Omega_{\q}\(\emptyset,1,\mathcal{I}^c_0,R,\lambda\)\quad\text{with}\quad q_i:=\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}\text{ for all }i\in\mathcal{I}^c_0\,.
\end{equation}
If $A_q\(R,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$, then
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq2}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty\(A_q\(R,1/4\)\)}\le c_qR^{-\frac{1}{q}},
\end{equation}
for some constant $c_q=c\big(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)},R_0,q\big)$, where $R_0$ is as in Theorem~\ref{Th6}.
\end{lemma}
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem9}]
By Theorem~\ref{Th6}, we obtain that $A_q\(R,\lambda\)\cap\supp\(u\)$ is bounded. By Lemma~\ref{Lem7}, we then get that for any $\varepsilon\in\(0,1\)$, there exists a constant $c_{q,\varepsilon}=c\(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0,q,\varepsilon\)$ such that for any $\gamma>\frac{n}{p}\(\overline{p}_\varepsilon-p\)$, where $\overline{p}_\varepsilon:=\(1+\varepsilon\)\overline{p}_0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq3}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le c_{q,\varepsilon}\max_{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}\Big(R^{-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k}\Big),
\end{equation}
provided that $A_q\(R,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$, where $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in \eqref{Eq11}, $\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ are as in \eqref{Lem7Eq2}, and
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq4}
\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}:=\frac{1}{\gamma q}\sum_{j=1}^k\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^j\(q-p_{i_j}\).
\end{equation}
\proof[End of proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem9} in case $p_*\le p_+<p^*$ and $q_0<q<p^*$]
In this case, we follow in large part the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem8}. We set $\varepsilon:=\(q-\overline{p}_0\)/\overline{p}_0$ so that $q=\overline{p}_\varepsilon$. Since $q<p^*$ and $\overline{p}_0\ge p_*$, we get $\varepsilon<\(p^*-p_*\)/p_*\le1$. Similarly to \eqref{Lem8Eq8}, we then obtain that for any $\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\nu\in\(0,1\)$, there exists a constant $c_\nu=c\big(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)},R_0,\nu\big)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq5}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k}\le c_\nu^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq6}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}:=\max\bigg(0\,,\frac{1}{q\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k\(1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1+\nu}\)\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}\bigg).
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{Lem9Eq3} and \eqref{Lem9Eq5} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq7}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le c_{q,\varepsilon}c_\nu^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max_{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}}
\end{equation}
for all $\nu\in\(0,1\)$, where $\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}$ and $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}$ are as in \eqref{Lem9Eq4} and \eqref{Lem9Eq6}.
In the same way as in the proof of \eqref{Lem8Eq18}, we then obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq8}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}\le-\frac{1}{q}\(1-\frac{n}{\gamma p}\(q-p\)\)
\end{equation}
provided that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq9}
q-p_--\frac{q-p_--\frac{n}{p}\(q-p_*\)+\nu}{p_*-1+\nu}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}>0\,.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{Eq17}, we get that \eqref{Lem9Eq9} holds true provided that $\nu<\nu_0$ for some constant $\nu_0=\nu_0\(n,\p\)$.
Finally, we fix $\nu=\nu_q/2$, and we obtain \eqref{Lem9Eq2} by passing to the limit as $\gamma\to\infty$ into \eqref{Lem9Eq7} and \eqref{Lem9Eq8}. This ends the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem9}.
\endproof
\proof[Proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem9} in case $p_+<p_*$ and $q=p_*$] In this case, we have $\overline{p}_0=p^*$ and $\mathcal{I}_0^c=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$. We claim that there exists a constant $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0\(n,\p\)\in\(0,1\)$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in\(0,\varepsilon_0\)$ and $\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq10}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k}\le c_\varepsilon R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $c_\varepsilon=c\big(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)},\varepsilon\big)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq11}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}:=\frac{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k.
\end{equation}
We assume that $\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*>p$, i.e. $\varepsilon<\frac{p-1}{n-1}$, and we separate two cases:
\renewcommand{\labelitemi}{$-$}
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1: $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\le\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)$,
\item Case 2: $\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)<\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}\(\(1+\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)$.
\end{itemize}
We begin with proving \eqref{Lem9Eq10} in Case 1. By a generalized version of H\"older's inequality (see for instance Grafakos~\cite{Gra}*{Exercise 1.1.11}), we obtain
\begin{multline}\label{Lem9Eq12}
\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le\frac{p_*-1}{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\left|A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\right|^{1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1}}\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}.
\end{multline}
Direct computations give
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq13}
\left|A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\right|\le CR^{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{p_*-p_i}{p_*p_i}}=CR^{\frac{p_*-1}{p_*}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p\)$. Since $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\le\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)$ and $u\in L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)$, it follows from \eqref{Lem9Eq12} and \eqref{Lem9Eq13} that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq14}
\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le C\varepsilon^{-1}R^{\frac{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\big(n,\p,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\big)$. Moreover, since $k\le k^+_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, by \eqref{Lem6Eq2}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq15}
\frac{1}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k<\frac{1}{\varepsilon\(n-1\)}\,.
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{Lem9Eq10} follows from \eqref{Lem9Eq14} and \eqref{Lem9Eq15}.
Now, suppose that we are in case 2. By interpolation, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq16}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le\left\|u\right\|^\theta_{L^{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\left\|u\right\|^{1-\theta}_{L^{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1+\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)},
\end{equation}
where $\theta\in\(0,1\)$ is such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq17}
\frac{\theta}{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}+\frac{1-\theta}{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1+\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}=\frac{1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\,.
\end{equation}
Similarly to \eqref{Lem9Eq14}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq18}
\left\|u\right\|^{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}_{L^{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le C\varepsilon^{-1}R^{\frac{n}{p}\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\big(n,\p,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\big)$. On the other hand, Lemma~\ref{Lem4} gives
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq19}
\left\|u\right\|^{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1+\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}_{L^{\frac{n}{p}\(\(1+\varepsilon\)p_*-p\)}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le C\max_{i=1,\dotsc,n}\Big(\varepsilon^{-p_i}R^{\frac{p_i-p_*}{p_*}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\varepsilon\(n-1\)+p_i-1}\(A_q\(R,1/2\)\)}^{\varepsilon\(n-1\)+p_i-1}\Big)^{\frac{n}{n-p}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0\)$. We define $\varepsilon_0:=\(p_*-p_+\)/\(p_*+2n-2\)$ so that for any $\varepsilon\in\(0,\varepsilon_0\)$ and $i=1,\dotsc,n$, we have
$$\varepsilon\(n-1\)+p_i-1<\frac{n}{p}\(\(1-\varepsilon\)p_*-p\).$$
Similarly to \eqref{Lem9Eq14}, we then get
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq20}
\left\|u\right\|^{\varepsilon\(n-1\)+p_i-1}_{L^{\varepsilon\(n-1\)+p_i-1}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k+1,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le CR^{\frac{p_*-p_i-\varepsilon\(n-1\)}{p_*}}
\end{equation}
for some constant $C=C\big(n,\p,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\big)$. By putting together \eqref{Lem9Eq16}--\eqref{Lem9Eq20}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq21}
\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le C\varepsilon^{-s}R^{\frac{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*}}
\end{equation}
for some constants $C=C\big(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}\big)$ and $s=s\(n,\p\)>0$. Then \eqref{Lem9Eq10} follows from \eqref{Lem9Eq15} and \eqref{Lem9Eq21}.
By \eqref{Lem9Eq3} and \eqref{Lem9Eq10}, we obtain that for any $\varepsilon\in\(0,\varepsilon_0\)$, there exists a constant $\widetilde{c}_\varepsilon=c\big(n,\p,\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)},\varepsilon\big)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq22}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\gamma\(A_q\(R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}\)\)}\le \widetilde{c}_\varepsilon\max_{\(i_1,\dotsc,i_k\)\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}$ and $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}$ are as in \eqref{Lem9Eq4} and \eqref{Lem9Eq11}.
From \eqref{Eq12}, we derive
$$\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}=\frac{1}{p_*}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}\(\frac{n}{n-p}\)^k\(p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\)-\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma}\bigg),$$
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{Lem9Eq23}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}=-\frac{1}{p_*}\bigg(1-\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma}\bigg).
\end{equation}
Finally, we fix $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_0/2$, and we obtain \eqref{Lem9Eq2} by passing to the limit as $\gamma\to\infty$ into \eqref{Lem9Eq22} and \eqref{Lem9Eq23}. This ends the proof of Lemma~\ref{Lem9} in case $p_+<p_*$ and $q=p_*$.
\endproof
Now, we can prove Theorems~\ref{Th7} and~\ref{Th1}.
\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th7}] As is easily seen, it is sufficient to prove \eqref{Th7Eq} for $q\in\(q_0,p^*\)$. Let $u$ be a solution of \eqref{Eq1} and $q>q_0$. We define
$$u_R\(y\):=R^{\frac{1}{q}}\cdot u\(\tau_R\(y\)\),\quad\text{where}\quad\tau_R\(y\):=\big(R^{\frac{q-p_1}{qp_1}}y_1,\dotsc,R^{\frac{q-p_n}{qp_n}}y_n\big)$$
for all $R>1$ and $y\in\mathbb{R}^n$. By Lemma~\ref{Lem9}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Th1Eq13}
\left\|u_R\right\|_{L^\infty\(A_q\(1,1/4\)\)}\le c_q\,.
\end{equation}
provided that $A_q\(R,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$, where $r$ be as in Lemma~\ref{Lem3}. One easily gets the existence of a constant $R_r=R\(n,\p,r\)>1$ such that $A_q\(R,1/2\)\cap B_{\p}\(0,\max\(r,1\)\)=\emptyset$ for all $R>R_r$. Moreover, by \eqref{Eq1}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Th1Eq14}
-\Delta_{\p}u_R=R^{\frac{q-1}{q}}\cdot f\big(\tau_R\(y\),R^{-\frac{1}{q}}\cdot u_R\big)\quad\text{in }\mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
and \eqref{Eq2} gives
\begin{equation}\label{Th1Eq15}
\big|R^{\frac{q-1}{q}}\cdot f\big(\tau_R\(y\),R^{-\frac{1}{q}}\cdot u_R\big)\big|\le\Lambda\cdot R^{\frac{q-p^*}{q}}\cdot\left|u_R\right|^{p^*-1}.
\end{equation}
Since $q-p^*\le0$, by \eqref{Th1Eq13}--\eqref{Th1Eq15} and Lieberman's gradient estimates~\cite{Lie}, we get that there exists a constant $c'_q=c\(n,\p,\Lambda,c_q\)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th1Eq16}
\left\|\nabla u_R\right\|_{L^\infty\(A_q\(1,1/8\)\)}\le c'_q\,.
\end{equation}
For any $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, it follows from \eqref{Th1Eq13} and \eqref{Th1Eq16} that
$$\left|u\(x\)\right|^q+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u\(x\)\right|^{p_i}\le c''_qR\(x\)^{-1}\quad\text{where}\quad R\(x\):=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}$$
for some constant $c''_q=c\(n,\p,\Lambda,c_q\)$, provided that $R\(x\)>R_r$. This ends the proof of Theorem~\ref{Th7}.
\endproof
\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{Th1}]
We fix $q=p^*$ in this case and we follow the same arguments as in the above proof of Theorem~\ref{Th7}.
\endproof
\begin{remark}\label{Rem3}
As one can see from the above proofs, the constants $C_0$ and $C_q$ that we obtain in \eqref{Th1Eq1} and~\eqref{Th7Eq} depend on $n$, $\p$, $q$, $\Lambda$, $\kappa$, $r$, $r_\kappa\(u\)$, $\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\)}$, and $\left\|u\right\|_{W^{1,\infty}\(\mathbb{R}^n\backslash\Omega_r\)}$, where $\Omega_r:=\big\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n:\,\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}>R_r\big\}$ for some constant $R_r=R\(n,\p,r\)$.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}
In secret sharing a dealer wishes to distribute a secret to a network of players such that only authorised sets of players can access the secret, and unauthorised sets of players cannot. After the initial protocols for sharing classical secrets \cite{Shamir79,Blakley79}, ones for sharing quantum secrets were later developed \cite{HBB99,CGL99}, and have found uses including secure multiparty computation \cite{BCG06}. However, these protocols rely on trusted channels between the dealer and the players. In practice, channels may be corrupted either by unavoidable noise, or malicious attacks.
One way to resolve this situation would be to use the quantum authentication protocol \cite{BCGST02}. However this protocol is highly impractical in that it uses error correcting codes and which would require encoding each qubit sent from the dealer into a highly entangled state (or perform entangling measurements, which would allow the generation of large entangled states), the size of which scale with the security parameter. This difficulty, on a par with the coherences needed for quantum computing, renders this approach infeasible in the near future.
In this work we present a protocol which is universal (it works for all quantum secret sharing protocols and access structures) and is implementable with current experimental setups, for example by using graph states. This is possible because our protocol uses only single copy encodings. As in the authentication scheme \cite{BCGST02}, our protocol uses an initial shared secret key between the dealer and receivers. We begin by introducing an interactive protocol, which will serve as a basis for the non-interactive protocol which follows. We then give an example of an explicit graph state implementation for sharing a secret between five players such that any three can access the secret and fewer cannot. We finish with a discussion on possible variants of the protocol including the possibility of abort, and the merits of graph state implementations \cite{MS08,KFMS10,MM13,MMP13}.
\section{Protocols}\label{intro}
In quantum secret sharing, a secret $|\psi\rangle=\alpha|0\rangle + \beta |1\rangle$ is encoded by the dealer $d$ into some logical basis $|\psi_L\rangle_P =\alpha|0_L\rangle_P + \beta |1_L\rangle_P$ on $|P|$ systems, and distributed to the players $P$. A set of players $B\subset P$ are \emph{authorised} if they can access the secret. This is equivalent to there existing a pair of logical operators $X_L$, $Z_L$ which are nontrivial only over the systems $B$, and act over the logical basis in the appropriate way $X_L|i_L\rangle = |i\oplus 1 _L\rangle$, $Z_L|i_L\rangle = (-1)^i |i _L\rangle$ (where $\oplus$ symbolises sum modulo two) \cite{MM13}. These are used by $B$ to access the secret. A set of players $B\subset P$ are \emph{unauthorised} if they can get no information at all about the quantum secret state. The choice of the logical basis determines the authorised and unauthorised sets. All our protocols are built on the existence of these schemes (which exist for all access structures \cite{CGL99}), and we will use this notation in our protocols.
For our first protocol, we use a general entangled based picture of secret sharing \cite{MM13}.
In this picture the dealer and the players share an entangled EPR state
\begin{eqnarray} \label{EQN: EPR}
|\Phi\rangle_{dP}=\frac{|0\rangle_d|0_L\rangle_P+|1\rangle_d|1_L\rangle_P}{\sqrt{2}},
\end{eqnarray}
which is then used to teleport the secret to the players. The interactive protocol presented below essentially verifies that the dealer and a give set of authorised players $B$ share this state (or the associated reduced state), in which case the teleportation will be successful. More explicitly, the dealer generates many ($S$) copies of the entangled EPR state (\ref{EQN: EPR}) and uses all but one to test the state (steps 3. and 4 in the protocol below), and one to teleport (step 5.). By randomly choosing when to test and when to use the state for teleportation any malicious actions cannot help but be detected. We will see after that this can be translated to a non-interactive protocol by replacing communication by a shared random key.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Interactive Protocol}
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=2pt, partopsep=0pt,itemsep=0mm]
\item Dealer $d$ generates $S$ EPR states, $|\Phi\rangle_{dP}^{\otimes S}$, and sends the shares of each one to $P$. \label{PInt: IntAuthProc step1}
\item After $P$ received all their parts, $d$ chooses $r\in [1,...S]$ at random and sends $r$ to $P$.
\item For EPR pairs $i\neq r$, $d$ chooses $t_i\in [0,1]$ and measures $X_{d}$ if $t_i=0$ or measures $Z_{d}$ if $t_i=1$, and denotes the result $y_i$, and sends $t_i$ and $y_i$ to $P$. \label{PInt: Testa}
\item For EPR pairs $i\neq r$, accessing set $B$ measure $X_{L,B}$ if $t_i=0$ or measures $Z_{L,B}$ if $t_i=1$. Denoting result by $y_i'$ if $y_i=y_i'$ ACCEPT, if $y_i\neq y_i'$ REJECT.\label{PInt: Test}
\item For $i=r$, $d$ uses EPR pair $r$ to teleport the secret state onto the logical basis, denoting the bell basis measurements $x$, and sends $x$ to all $P$. Upon receiving $x$, $B$ decodes using $X_{L,B}$ and $Z_{L,B}$.\label{PInt: Teleportation}
\end{enumerate}
\bigskip
This protocol is effectively a quantum authentication protocol from the dealer to authorised set $B$. In \cite{BCGST02} a framework for quantum authentication is laid out, along with definitions of completeness, soundness and security, which we will adopt here. A general quantum authentication scheme for sending messages from $A$ to $B$ is described by a randomly chosen classical key $k\in \mathcal{K}$ that is shared by $A$ and $B$, and associated encoding operations $A_k$ and $B_k$ respectively. At the end of the protocol $B$ has a system which encodes the message, and a classical register which encodes the decision whether to accept or reject in orthogonal states $|ACC\rangle$ and $|REJ\rangle$.
A quantum authentication scheme is \emph{$\epsilon$-secure} if for all states $|\psi\rangle$ it satisfies the two conditions.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Completeness}. For all keys $k\in \mathcal{K}$
\begin{equation}
B_k(A_k(|\psi\rangle \langle \psi|)) = |\psi\rangle\langle \psi| \otimes |ACC\rangle\langle ACC|.
\end{equation}
\item {\bf Soundness}. For all (possibly malicious) channels $O$, describing the expected state on Bob's side after the protocol as $\rho_B = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}\sum_{k\in \mathcal{K}}B_k(O(A_k(|\psi\rangle \langle \psi|)))$, and denoting the two projections $P_{fail}^{|\psi\rangle} := (I-|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|) \otimes |ACC\rangle\langle ACC|$, then
\begin{equation} \label{EQN: Security Prob Fail}
Tr \left(P_{fail}^{|\psi\rangle} \rho_B \right)\leq \epsilon.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
We say that our protocols are $\epsilon$-secure if all authorised sets $B$ can authenticate the secret with $\epsilon$-security, and unauthorised sets of players get no information. The latter is guarenteed by the use of the original secret sharing logical operators in our protocol, as is the completeness, we will prove the soundness now.
The left hand side of equation (\ref{EQN: Security Prob Fail}) is equal to the probability of accepting multiplied by the fidelity to $B$'s resulting state (averaged over keys) to the space orthogonal to the ideal state $|\psi\rangle$. That is, it represents a failing in the protocol, so we want to make it arbitrarily small (with some security parameter $S$). In order to prove soundness, we will bound this by considering statements about the entangled states themselves, before the teleportation.
We first introduce the operator $\Pi_{dB} := 1/4(I_d \otimes I_B + X_d \otimes X_{L,B} + Z_d X_d \otimes Z_{L,B} X_{L,B} + Z_d \otimes Z_{L,B} )$, which is a projector onto a space where all states are maximally entangled between $d$ and $B$. More specifically every state in this subspace can be expressed in the form
$\frac{|0\rangle_d|0_{L(i)}\rangle_B + |1\rangle_d |1_{L(i)}\rangle_B}{\sqrt{2}}$, where $\{|0_{L(i)}\rangle_B,|1_{L(i)}\rangle_B\}$ are some basis of $B$ such that $i$ represents a possible logical bases, $X_{L,B}|j_{L(i)}\rangle_B=|{j\oplus1}_{L(i)}\rangle_B$, $Z_{L,B}|j_{L(i)}\rangle_B= (-1)^j |j_{L(i)}\rangle_B$ and we will use many such bases in (\ref{EQN: logical expansion}) such that $\langle j_{L(i)}|k_{L(m)}\rangle_B=\delta_{j,k}\delta_{i,m}$.
Consider the state $\rho_{dB}^r$ which is used to teleport in protocol step \ref{PInt: Teleportation} (conditioned on accepting on all other pairs, see (\ref{EQN: Conditional state})). Any such state can be purified to $|\Psi\rangle_{dBE}$, which can be expanded
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN: logical expansion}
|\Psi\rangle_{dBE}&=&(\Pi_{dB}\otimes I_E + (I_{dB}-\Pi_{AB})\otimes I_E))|\Psi\rangle_{dBE}\nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{F}\left(\sum_i \alpha_i (|0\rangle_d|0_{L(i)}\rangle_B + |1\rangle_d |1_{L(i)}\rangle_B) |\psi_i\rangle_E\right) \nonumber \\
&&+ \sqrt{1-F}|\xi\rangle_{dBE},
\end{eqnarray}
where $F=Tr(\Pi_{dB} \rho_{dB}^r)$. If this state is then used to teleport a state $|\psi\rangle$ from $d$ to $B$, followed by $B$ doing a logical decoding to ancilla system $B'$ (for example $B$ performs a logical swap onto $B'$) the state recovered $\rho_{B'}$ has fidelity $f:= \langle \psi|\rho_{B'}|\psi \rangle$ with the original state satisfying $f\geq F$. Furthermore,
\begin{align}
Tr \left(P_{fail}^{|\psi\rangle} \rho_B \right) &= Tr \left(((I-|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|) \otimes |ACC\rangle\langle ACC|) \rho_B \right) \nonumber \\
&\leq Tr \left(\Pi_{dB}^\perp \otimes |ACC\rangle\langle ACC| \rho_{dB_{AR}} \right),
\end{align}
where $\Pi_{dB}^\perp$ is the projector onto the space orthogonal to $\Pi_{dB}$ and $\rho_{dB_{AR}} = 1/S \sum_{r=1}^S p_{ACC}^r \rho_{dB}^r\otimes |ACC\rangle \langle ACC | +p_{REJ}^r \rho_{dB}^{r,REJ} \otimes |REJ \rangle \langle REJ|$, $ p_{ACC}^r$ and $p_{REJ}^r$ are the probability of accepting and rejecting respectively when using $r$, and $\rho_{dB}^{r,REJ}$ is the state conditioned on rejecting.
Denoting the POVM element associated to accepting the test step \ref{PInt: Test} for pair $i$ as $M_{ACC_i}=1/2\left(\frac{I_{d_i} \otimes I_{B_i} + X_{d_i} \otimes X_{L,B_i}}{2} + \frac{I_{d_i}\otimes I_{B_i} + Z_{d_i}\otimes Z_{L,B_i}}{2}\right)$, we have $M_{ACC_i}\leq \ \frac{\left(I_{d_i}\otimes I_{B_i} + \Pi_{d_i,B_i}\right)}{2}$. Then, if we call the total state shared over all copies of the dealer and the players $B$, $\rho_{d_1,B_1,...d_S,B_S}$, it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{EQN: Conditional state}
\rho_{dB}^r = \frac{1}{p_{ACC}^r} Tr_{r^c}\left(\bigotimes_{i\neq r }M_{ACC_i} \rho_{d_1,B_1,...d_S,B_S}\right),
\end{equation}
where $Tr_{r^c}$ indicates trace over all systems but $r$. Putting this together we have,
\begin{align} \label{EQN: proof Interactive}
Tr \left(\Pi_{dB}^\perp \rho_{dB} \right) &= \frac{1}{S} \sum_{r=1}^S Tr \left(\Pi_{d_r,B_r}^\perp \otimes_{i\neq r} M_{ACC_i}\rho_{d_1,B_1,...d_S,B_S} \right) \nonumber \\
& \leq Tr \left(Q \rho_{d_1,B_1,...d_S,B_S}\right),
\end{align}
where $Q= \sum_{r=1}^S \Pi_{d_r,B_r}^\perp \otimes_{i\neq r} \frac{\left(I_{d_i}\otimes I_{B_i} + \Pi_{d_i,B_i}\right)}{2}$. It can easily be seen that $Q$ has maximum eigenvalues of $1/S$, reached by projection $\Pi_{d_j,B_j}^\perp \otimes_{i\neq j} \Pi_{d_i,B_i}$ for any $j$. With this, we arrive at the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{TH: Int}
The interactive protocol defined above is $\epsilon$-secure, with scaling $\epsilon = 1/S$.
\end{theorem}
Note here that the scaling of the protocol is inverse linear, as compared to exponential in \cite{BCGST02}. This can be understood as the cost of making the protocol practical. To get the exponential scaling in \cite{BCGST02} they require entangled measurements or encodings over $S$ systems (which quickly becomes infeasible), whereas our protocol requires $S$ \emph{copies} of the single round encodings, which adds no difficulty in standard optical implementations, and is implementable with current technology.
\bigskip
The protocol above suffers from two main issues. Firstly, interaction is needed between the dealer and the players. Although this could be allowed in principle, it is more interesting if limited or no interaction is needed. Second, largely due to the interaction, memory is required by the dealer and players $B$ between steps \ref{PInt: IntAuthProc step1} and \ref{PInt: Teleportation}. The dealer must keep their part of the EPR pairs until the players have recieved their shares, and $B$ must keep their shares until $r$ is announced by the dealer and further until $d$ announces their result $x$ for the teleportation. These problems can be overcome by replacing communication and the entanglement between the dealer and players with shared random keys, as was done in \cite{BCGST02}, but with an extra twist - they should be shared using a classical secret sharing protocol, so that the access structure is maintained. In this way, the protocol below requires no interaction after the initial sharing of a random key and the dealer's use of the channel, and similarly no memory is required by $B$ or $d$ and no entanglement is needed between $d$ and $P$ (it is of the `prepare and measure' type). To encode the randomly chosen $r$, we define string $q=(q_1,...q_S)$ such that $q_i=0$ if $i\neq r$, $q_i=1$ if $i=r$, where $r$ is randomly chosen in $[1,..S]$.
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Non-interactive Protocol}
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=2pt, partopsep=0pt,itemsep=0mm]
\item $d$ and $P$ share random strings $q,t,y,x$ via a classical secret sharing scheme over P (i.e. $d$ knows each string, but it is shared via a classical secret sharing scheme with the relevant access structure over $P$ so that only authorised sets can access it, and only when they collaborate to do so, and unauthorised sets get no information at all).
\item Going through round by round $i=1...S$. If $q_i=0$ the dealer proceeds to step \ref{PNonInt: test}, if $q_i=1$ the dealer proceeds to step \ref{PNonInt: use}. \label{PNonInt: Choose}
\item \label{PNonInt: test}
For $q_i = 0$
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt, partopsep=0pt,itemsep=0mm]
\item Dealer prepares and distributes state $H_L^{t_i}Z_L^{y_i}\frac{|0_L\rangle_{P}+|1_L\rangle_{P}}{\sqrt{2}}$.
\item After receiving the state from the dealer, authorised set $B$ collaborate to find $q_i$ (which is $0$), $t_i$, and $y_i$.
\item Authorised set $B$ measures $X_{L,B}$ if $t_i=0$ or measures $Z_{L,B}$ if $t_i=1$ . The result is denoted $y_i'$. \\If $y_i\neq y_i'$ REJECT. If $y_i=y_i'$ ACCEPT.
\item If $i = S$, END, otherwise return to step \ref{PNonInt: Choose}.
\end{enumerate}
\item \label{PNonInt: use}
For $q_i=1$
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=0pt, partopsep=0pt,itemsep=0mm]
\item $d$ encodes and distrubutes the state $X_L^{x_0}Z_L^{x_1}|\psi_L\rangle_P$.
\item After recieving the state from the dealer, authorised set $B$ collaborate to find $q_i$ (which is $1$), $t_i$, $y_i$ and $x$.
\item $B$ decodes using $X_{L,B}, Z_{L,B}$.
\item If $i = S$, END, otherwise return to step \ref{PNonInt: Choose}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\bigskip
Replacing the communication by shared random strings in this way does not effect the security \cite{BCGST02,SP00}, and we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{TH: NonInt}
The non- interactive protocol defined above is $\epsilon$-secure, with $\epsilon = 1/S$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Example}\label{QSS}
In recent years graph states have emerged as a useful framework in which to do secret sharing \cite{MS08,KFMS10,MMP13,MM13}.
As an example, we now illustrate how secret sharing over untrusted channels works for the case of five players, such that any set of three or more players can access the secret and any fewer have none (the so called $(3,5)$ threshold secret sharing scheme of \cite{MS08}). To begin, we introduce some notation. A graph state $|G\rangle_{1,...,n}$ is a state on $n$ qubits which is associated to graph $G$ through graph state stabiliser operators $K_i:=X_i\otimes_{j \in N(i)} Z_j$ where $i$ is associated to a vertex in the graph and $N(i)$ are the set of its neighbours, and the eigenequations $K_i|G\rangle_{1,...n}= |G\rangle_{1,...n}$ $\forall i$.
In our example the logical states are given by $|0_L\rangle_P=|G_P\rangle_P$ for the graph $G_P$ in Fig.~\ref{FIG: (3,5)}a), and $|1_L\rangle_P=Z_1Z_2Z_3Z_4Z_5 |G_P\rangle_P$ with $P=\{1,2,3,4,5\}$. The entangled state used in the interactive protocol step \ref{PInt: IntAuthProc step1} is
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Phi\rangle_{dP}=\frac{|0\rangle_d|0_L\rangle_P+|1\rangle_d|1_L\rangle_P}{\sqrt{2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
It is not difficult to see that this is itself a graph state associated to the graph in Fig.~\ref{FIG: (3,5)}b), $|\Phi\rangle_{dP}=|G_{dP}\rangle_{dP}$.
The choice of logical operators depends on the set $B\subset P$ who are trying to access the secret. Notice that during the protocol the dealers' action does not require knowledge of $B$ - this is essential to secret sharing, so that the players can decide for themselves who access the secret.
If players $B=\{1,2,3\}$ wish to act as the authorised set, they can use logical operators $X_L=X_1 Z_2 X_3$ and $Z_L=Z_1 X_2 Z_3$. The logical operators measured in the test step of the protocol (step \ref{PInt: Test} for the interactive and step \ref{PNonInt: test} for the non-interactive) are graph state stabilisers of the graph $G_{dB}$ given in Fig.~\ref{FIG: (3,5)}c), $X_d \otimes X_{L,B} = K_d K_1 K_3 $, $Z_d \otimes Z_{L,B} = K_2$. This is no coincidence, and is a general feature of graph state protocols, which gives a simple decomposition of states into the graph state basis as the natural expansion for (\ref{EQN: logical expansion}). To decode the secret after teleportation, players $1$ and $3$ measure in the Bell basis, and the secret is passed onto the qubit of player $2$. This is the same decoding procedure for the standard secret sharing protocol \cite{MS08}.
If players $B=\{1,3,4\}$ wish to act as the authorised set, they can use logical operators $X_L=Z_1 X_3 X_4$ and $Z_L=X_1 X_3 X_4$. The logical operators measured in the test step of the protocol (\ref{PInt: Test} for the interactive and \ref{PNonInt: test} for the non-interactive) are graph state stabilisers of the graph $G_{dB}$ given in Fig.~\ref{FIG: (3,5)}d), $X_d \otimes X_{L,B} = K_d K_3 K_4 $, $Z_d \otimes Z_{L,B} = K_1 K_3 K_4$. In this case, to decode the secret after teleportation, players $3$ and $4$ measure in the Bell basis, and the secret is passed onto the qubit of player $1$.
Logical operators can similarly be defined for all sets of three players, and it is easy to see that any two players cannot access the secret by themselves \cite{MS08}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
a) \begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1, -, font=\footnotesize,scale=0.8]
\tikzstyle{nonode}=[circle, draw, fill=black!10, inner sep=0pt, minimum width=10pt]
\draw \foreach \x/\name in {0/2,72/1,144/5,216/4,288/3}
{(\x+19:1) node[nonode] {\footnotesize{$\name$}} -- (\x+91:1)};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2cm}
b) \begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1, -, font=\footnotesize,scale=0.8]
\tikzstyle{nonode}=[circle, draw, fill=black!10, inner sep=0pt, minimum width=10pt]
\node[nonode] (d) at (0,0) {\footnotesize{$d$}};
\draw \foreach \x/\name in {0/2,72/1,144/5,216/4,288/3}
{(d) -- (\x+19:1) node[nonode] {\footnotesize{$\name$}} -- (\x+91:1)};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2cm}
c)\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1, -, font=\footnotesize,scale=0.8]
\tikzstyle{nonode}=[circle, draw, fill=black!10, inner sep=0pt, minimum width=10pt]
\node[nonode] (d) at (0,0) {\footnotesize{$d$}};
\draw \foreach \x/\name in {0/2,288/3}
{(d) -- (\x+19:1) node[nonode] {\footnotesize{$\name$}} -- (\x+91:1)};
\draw (d) -- (91:1) node[nonode] {\footnotesize{$1$}};
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2cm}
d)\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=1, -, font=\footnotesize,scale=0.8]
\tikzstyle{nonode}=[circle, draw, fill=black!10, inner sep=0pt, minimum width=10pt]
\node[nonode] (d) at (0,0) {\footnotesize{$d$}};
\draw (235:1) -- (307:1);
\draw \foreach \x/\name in {72/1,216/4,288/3}
{(d) -- (\x+19:1) node[nonode] {\footnotesize{$\name$}}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Graphs for sharing a secret amongst five players such that any majority can access the secret \cite{MS08}.a) Graph $G_P$ associated to logical encoding. b) Graph $G_{dP}$ for the entangled state between $d$ and $P$ used in step 1 of the protocol. c) Graph $G_{dB}$ associated to the test for players $B=\{1,2,3\}$. d) Graph $G_{dB}$ associated to the test for players $B=\{1,3,4\}$.}\label{FIG: (3,5)}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
Several variations of these protocols are also possible. In particular, if the quantum secret is precious, the dealer may not want to send the information when the channel is not trusted - i.e. when it fails the test part of the protocols above. To address this one can adapt the protocol to allow for the players to announce abort when they fail the test. It is possible to show an adapted theorem for security, which is only slightly modified. We present the protocol and the theorem in the appendix \ref{SCN: App Abort protocol}. One subtle issue with how this may be used however, is that the protocol is now interactive (albeit limited to when the players announce abort). When the accessing set $B$ announce abort they declare themselves, which may be an issue in some uses of secret sharing as a primitive (one may try to develop ways to overcome this for example using an anonymous announcement of abort).
Another alternative protocol with abort can be found if, instead of randomly choosing in a fixed number ($S$) of rounds, at each round we randomly choose to test or use the channel. This allows for slightly different security statements, as used in \cite{PCW12} for entanglement verification. We consider this simplified unbounded aborting protocol in appendix \ref{SCN: App Abort protocol}.
Using graph state schemes as in the example shown here has several advantages. Firstly they are a common framework for many quantum information processing tasks, including measurement based quantum computation and error correction. This allows these protocols to naturally fit into more general and elaborate network scenarios integrating several of these tasks. Furthermore, this relationship allows us to understand the connection between different protocols. The measurements used for the test part of our protocol are exactly those used for the $CQ$ protocols to establish secure key between the dealer and authorised players \cite{MM13}. This relationship is general - whenever complementary bases are used to establish a secure key, successful key generation implies the channel works \cite{CW05,MM13}.
Secondly graph states are very well suited to implementation. Many schemes exist for the generation and manipulation of graph states in different technologies including linear optics \cite{Browne05}, continuous variables \cite{Rigas12,Ukai11} and ion traps \cite{Wunderlich09,Lanyon13}. Optical implementations of graph states are ideal for the secret sharing protocols presented here, and experiments in this direction are well advanced, indeed optics has been used to implement sophisticated quantum information processing tasks including measurement based quantum computing \cite{WRR05}, blind quantum computation \cite{BKBFW12}, and error correction \cite{BHT14}. These experiments contain all the key steps needed for our protocols.
All of the results here easily extend to the qudit case, including use for qudit graph state secret sharing \cite{KFMS10,MM13}, which allows our scheme to be used to cover all access structures. One simply extends the states and operators to their natural qudit versions. This is done explicitly in the appendix \ref{SCN: Qudit}. Furthermore, the proofs also follow through for secret sharing protocols using mixed state encodings, as well as the hybrid protocols of \cite{BCT09},\cite{JMP11} where classical secret sharing is used in addition to allow for access structures otherwise forbidden, in this case however authenticated classical channels between the dealer and the players must also be secure.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.} We thank Anthony Leverrier, Eleni Diamanti and Andr\'{e} Chailloux for many useful discussions and helpful comments. This work was supported by the Ville de Paris Emergences program, project CiQWii.
|
\section{Introduction}
Fluctuation-induced interactions between polarizable particles such as the London force \cite{London} and its retarded companion, the Casimir-Polder force \cite{VdW int. electrica}, play an ubiquitous role in fundamental physics, chemistry and applied technologies including nanotechnology and ultra-cold atomic systems \cite{Serry,Klimchitskaya2009,Casimir_review}. A quantitative understanding of such forces is a key parameter in the design of new experiments and technological applications.
An important line of research addresses the dependence of these interactions on geometry and shape of the polarizable objects. Examples include the effect of surface curvature \cite{Derivative_Expansion_PFA_energy}, sharp edges and tips \cite{edges_and_tips}, orientation dependence \cite{Orientation_dependence}, and confinement \cite{Object_in_spherical_cavity, cylinder_in_cylindrical_cavity}. The non-additivity of fluctuation induced forces complicates the study of these effects. To overcome this problem, a multiscattering formalism for Casimir forces has been developed \cite{EGJK,Rahi-Emig,Multiscattering_Lambrecht} and applied successfully \cite{Real_metallic_cylinders,Real_Cylinder_and_plane,Cylinder_and_plane,Cylinders_and_Plates,spheres_and_plates,inclined_cylinders}, including the case of a sphere outside a cylinder \cite{Ehsan,Teo_Sphere_Cylinder}.
Here we are interested mainly in confined geometries where the particles (atoms or a metallic sphere) are placed inside the a perfectly conducting cylindrical cavity. In such situation the force on an object at short distance from the confining walls is modified by curvature and the force between two particles at large distances (compared to the confinement scale) is different from the force in free space. Boundary effects on the force between a pair of atoms at zero temperature have been studied originally by Mahanty and Ninham \cite{2_atoms_in_PM_capacitor_zeroT}, showing a reduced force in the non-retarded limit and an increased force in the retarded limit. At any finite temperature, an exponentially reduced force was found
\cite{2_atoms_in_PM_capacitor_highT}. More recently, there have been studies of the Casimir-Polder interaction for an atom inside a cylindrical cavity \cite{Ellingsen1,PFA_Atom_Cylinder}, and a compact object inside a spherical cavity \cite{Object_in_spherical_cavity}. Recent studies of the modification of the force between two atoms inside quasi one-dimensional structures have displayed an exponential reduction of the interaction for a rectangular waveguide \cite{Atoms_in_rectangular_cavity} and a huge amplification of the interaction for two concentric metallic cylinders\cite{Shahmoon+2014}.
Here we show that the scattering approach can be used to obtain both a large and a short distance expansion for the force between an atom that is placed either inside or outside a cylindrical cavity. Our results apply to the zero temperature and the classical high temperature limit. Going beyond the small particle limit, we consider the interaction of a macroscopic perfect metal sphere with the wall of a confining cylindrical shell. The comparison of our numerical results with a gradient expansion of the interaction demonstrates nice agreement at small separations. For the interaction between two atoms that are placed on the axis of a confining cylindrical shell we derive exact results in the asymptotic limit of large separations both at zero and high temperatures. The observed exponential decay is explained in terms of evanescent modes and related to existing prediction in the literature.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{Multiscattering formalism of Casimir energy} we briefly review the multiscattering approach used to obtain Casimir interactions. In Sec.~\ref{Casimir energy of an atom inside a metallic Cylinder} we analyze the retarded and non-retarded Casimir interaction between an atom and a perfect metal cylindrical cavity, both in the high and low temperature limits. Interior and exterior cases are considered. In Sec.~\ref{PFA of the Casimir energy of a sphere inside a metal Cylinder} the proximity force approximation (PFA) for a perfect metal sphere inside a perfect metal cylindrical cavity is given. In Sec.~\ref{Casimir energy of a sphere inside a metal Cylinder - Numerical study}, the Casimir interaction for the latter geometry is computed numerically and compared to the PFA and a gradient expansion. In Sec.~\ref{Effect of confinement and non--pairwise behavior of Casimir energy}, the confinement of two atoms is studied by computing their
interaction along the axis of a perfect metal cylindrical cavity. We conclude with a discussion of our results, and a summary of relevant matrix elements is given in App.~\ref{Appendix}.
\section{Scattering approach}
\label{Multiscattering formalism of Casimir energy}
We employ the scattering approach \cite{EGJK,Rahi-Emig} to compute the Casimir interactions. This approach relates the interaction between objects to their electromagnetic scattering properties. The Casimir free energy at temperature $T$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_T_finite}
E = k_{B}T{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}}'\log\det [ \mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}(\kappa_{n})],
\end{equation}
where $\kappa_{n} = 2\pi n k_{B}T/\hbar c$ are Matsubara wave numbers. The prime indicates that the zero Matsubara frequency contribution has a weight of $1/2$. At zero temperature, the primed sum is replaced by an integral along the imaginary frequency axis, yielding the Casimir energy
\begin{equation}\label{zero T Casimir energy}
E_{0} = \frac{\hbar c}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}d\kappa \log\det [ \mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}(\kappa)].
\end{equation}
The high temperature or classical limit is reached when the distance between the interacting objects becomes much larger than the thermal wavelength $\lambda_{T} = \hbar c/(k_{B}T)$. The Casimir free energy is then given by the zero Matsubara frequency term of Eq.~\eqref{Energy_T_finite},
\begin{equation}\label{high T Casimir energy}
E_{cl} = \frac{k_{B}T}{2}\log\det [ \mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}(0) ] \, .
\end{equation}
Following the notation of~\cite{Rahi-Emig,Object_in_spherical_cavity}, the blocks forming the matrix $\mathcal{N}$ for a geometry consisting of a finite number of objects are given by
\begin{equation}
\left(\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}\right)_{\alpha\beta} = \delta_{\alpha\beta} + (1 - \delta_{\alpha\beta})\mathcal{T}_{\alpha}\mathcal{X}_{\alpha\beta},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ label the interacting bodies. $\mathcal{T}_{\alpha}$ is the T-matrix of object $\alpha$ (either the cavity or an object inside), and it encodes all information about shape and material composition of the object. We are interested in a situation where objects are entirely enclosed within the cavity formed by an external object which will be a cylindrical shell. The T-matrix of the external object relevant to this situation of internal scattering is different from the T-matrix of the same object for external scattering. The latter case is relevant to objects placed outside the cylinder. For perfectly conducting boundary conditions, the T-matrix for internal scattering is the inverse of the T-matrix for external scattering. The translation matrices $\mathcal{X}_{\alpha\beta}$ describe the interaction of the fluctuating multipole moments on object $\alpha$ and $\beta$. They contain all information about the relative position and orientation of the objects. If $\mathcal{X}_{\alpha\beta}$ connects two separate objects (both either inside or outside of a cavity), we have $\mathcal{X}_{\alpha\beta} = \mathcal{U}_{\alpha\beta}$, where the matrix $\mathcal{U}_{\alpha\beta}$ relates regular waves to outgoing waves \cite{Rahi-Emig}. When $\mathcal{X}_{\alpha\gamma}$ connects a body $\alpha$ to the external cavity $\gamma = C$ ($C$ will denote the cavity in the following) enclosing it, we have $\mathcal{X}_{\alpha C} = \mathcal{V}_{\alpha C}$ where the matrix $\mathcal{V}_{\alpha C}$ connects regular waves (with respect to the origin of coordinates) of the object $\alpha$ to regular waves of the cavity $C$ \cite{Rahi-Emig}. Finally, if $\mathcal{X}_{C \beta}$ connects the enclosing cavity $C$ with a body $\beta$ placed in its interior, we have $\mathcal{X}_{C\beta} = \mathcal{W}_{C\beta}$, relating now regular waves of the cavity $C$ to regular waves of $\beta$, with $\mathcal{W}^{ij}_{C\beta} =\mathcal{V}^{\dagger\,ij}_{\beta C}\frac{C_i}{C_j}$ where the generalized indices $i$, $j$ label the multipole waves including polarization, and $C_i$ are normalization constants \cite{Rahi-Emig}.
For the configuration of one object $S$ inside or outside the cavity $C$, the matrix $\mathcal{N}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{N_Matrix_1object_Internal_to_a_Cavity}
\mathcal{N} = \mathcal{T}_S\mathcal{X}_{SC}\mathcal{T}_C\mathcal{X}_{CS} \, .
\end{equation}
The T-matrix of object $S$ and the cavity $C$ are usually given in different vector multipole basis. Therefore, we have to apply a change of basis to one of the T-matrices in order to apply the above formula. Since here the cavity is a cylindrical shell and the particle $S$ has spherical symmetry (atom or sphere),
we shall use the conversion matrices $D_{l,m,P,n,k_{z},Q}$ of spherical vector waves $\phi_{l, m,P}$ into cylindrical vector waves $\phi_{n,k_{z},Q} $ defined by \cite{Ehsan}
\begin{equation}\label{TMM_general}
\phi_{l, m,P} = \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\sum_{Q=M,N}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dk_{z}}{2\pi}D_{l,m,P,n,k_{z},Q}\, \phi_{n,k_{z},Q}\ \, ,
\end{equation}
where $Q$ denotes electric ($N$) or magnetic ($M$) polarizations.
By the use of these conversion matrices, the T-matrix of object $S$ (given in spherical wave basis) can be transformed to the cylindrical vector basis as~\cite{Rahi-Emig}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{T}_{S\,\, n\,k_{z}\,P,n'\,k'_{z}\,P'} & = & \sum_{l, m, Q}\sum_{l', m',Q'}
\frac{C^{c}_{P}}{C^{s}_{Q}}
D^{\dagger}_{n\,k_{z}\,P,l m Q} \nonumber\\
& &\times\mathcal{T}_{S\,\,l\,m\,Q,l'\,m'\,Q'}
D_{l'\,m'\,Q',n'\,k'_{z}\,P'},\label{Sph_2_Cyl}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used $C^{c}_{M} = -\frac{1}{2\pi} = - C^{c}_{N}$ and $C^{s}_{M} = \kappa = - C^{s}_{N}$ to obtain $C^{c}_{P}/C^{s}_{Q} = (2\pi\kappa)^{-1}\left( 1 - 2\delta_{P,Q} \right)$ \cite{Rahi-Emig} (see also App.~\ref{Appendix}). Now the matrix $\mathcal{N}$ for a compact object inside a cylindrical cavity can be expressed in spherical vector wave basis as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Nmatrix_sphere_in_cylindrical_cavity}
&& \mathcal{N}_{l'm',l m} = \frac{1}{4\pi^{2}\kappa}\mathcal{T}_{S\,\,l'm',lm}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dk_{z}D_{lm,nk_{z}}\\
& & \times \mathcal{V}_{SC\,\,nk_{z},n'k'_{z}}\mathcal{T}_{C\,\,n'k'_{z},n''k''_{z}}\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}_{CS \,\,n''k''_{z},\tilde{n}\tilde{k}_{z}}D^{\dagger}_{\tilde{n}\tilde{k}_{z},l m},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with summation over repeated indices.
Note that the polarization indices are not explicitly shown. Details about the matrices used in Eq.~\eqref{Nmatrix_sphere_in_cylindrical_cavity} can be found in App.~\ref{Appendix}. The energies defined by Eqs.~\eqref{Energy_T_finite}, \eqref{zero T Casimir energy} and \eqref{high T Casimir energy} are finite for all positions of the internal object inside the cylinder. Therefore, a regularization is not needed, in contrast to the interaction of two exterior objects where the energy for infinite distance is usually subtracted.
\section{Casimir energy of an atom and a metallic Cylinder}
\label{Casimir energy of an atom inside a metallic Cylinder}
In this section we calculate the Casimir energy of an atom that is placed outside or inside a perfect metal cylindrical cavity. We obtain analytical results in asymptotic regimes, and numerical results for intermediate distances. Our results are based on two assumptions: (1) The atom is described by its electric and magnetic dipolar polarizabilities $\alpha_E$ and $\alpha_M$, respectively, and has no higher multipole polarizabilities, and (2) the polarizabilities are small compared to all geometric length scales, i.e., $\alpha_P^{1/3} \ll d, R, \ell$. These assumptions are frequently made in the literature, leading to the Casimir-Polder interaction between a flat surface and an atom \cite{VdW int. electrica}. The second assumptions justifies to consider only one scattering at the atom so that the energy is linear in $\alpha_P$, and hence we keep only the linear term in
\begin{equation}
\label{Taylor_Series_on_small_N_in}
\log\Det{\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}} = - \Tr{\mathcal{N}} +{\cal O}(\mathcal{N}^2) \, .
\end{equation}
The first assumption implies that the trace runs only over dipolar waves $(l=1)$, yielding
\begin{eqnarray}\label{N_Matrix_1_atoms_inside_a_cylindrical_cavity_zeroT_indices}
\Tr{{\mathcal{N}}} & =& \frac{1}{4\pi^{2}\kappa}\mathcal{T}_{S\,1,m,P;1, m',P'} D_{1,m',P';n,k_{z},P''}\nonumber\\
& & \times \mathcal{X}_{SC,\,\,n,k_{z},P'';n',k'_{z},Q}\mathcal{T}_{C\,\,n',k'_{z},Q;n'',k''_{z},Q'}\nonumber\\
& & \times \mathcal{X}_{CS,\,\,n'',k''_{z},Q';\tilde{n},\tilde{k}_{z},Q''}D^{\dagger}_{\tilde{n},\tilde{k}_{z},Q'';1,m,P},
\end{eqnarray}
where summation over all discrete indices and integration over all wave vectors along the $z$-axis is assumed.
Here $\mathcal{T}_S$ represents the atom (for the T-matrix of an atom, see App.~\ref{Appendix}.)
In the following we shall apply these general results to a perfectly conducting cylindrical cavity.
\subsection{Retarded Casimir-Polder energy of an atom inside a cylinder}
\subsubsection{Zero temperature limit}
The Casimir energy at zero temperature of the atom placed at a distance $d<R_c$ from the axis of the cylindrical shell of radius $R_c$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
E_{0} = - \frac{\hbar c}{R_{c}^{4}}\left(f_{0}^{E}(\delta)\alpha_{E} + f_{0}^{M}(\delta)\alpha_{M}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\delta = d/R_{c}$. The dependence on $\delta$ is determined by the following auxiliary functions
\begin{equation}\label{AuxI}
\mathcal{I}_{\alpha,m}^{P}(\delta) = \int_{0}^{\infty}dt\,t^{\alpha}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}
I_{n+m}^{2}(t\delta)\mathcal{T}_{C\,\,n,P;n,P}(t),
\end{equation}
with the Bessel function $I_n$ and where $\mathcal{T}_C$ is the T-matrix that describes the scattering inside the perfectly conducting cylindrical shell where the integration variable $t$ stands for the rescaled expression $\sqrt{\kappa^2 + k_z^2}$.
The diagonal matrix elements are given by (see App.~\ref{Appendix})
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_{C\,\,n,M;n,M}(t) &= - \frac{K'_{n}(t)}{I'_{n}(t)} \, ,\\
\mathcal{T}_{C \,\,n,N;n,N}(t) &= - \frac{K_{n}(t)}{I_{n}(t)} \, .
\end{align}
The amplitudes $f_{0}^{E}(\delta)$ and $f_{0}^{M}(\delta)$ are then given by
\begin{align}
\label{fE0}
f_{0}^{E}(\delta) & = \frac{1}{4\pi}\left( \mathcal{I}_{3,1}^{M}(\delta) - \mathcal{I}_{3,1}^{N}(\delta) - 2 \mathcal{I}_{3,0}^{N}(\delta) \right)\, ,\\
\label{fM0}
f_{0}^{M}(\delta) & = - \frac{1}{4\pi}\left( \mathcal{I}_{3,1}^{M}(\delta) - \mathcal{I}_{3,1}^{N}(\delta) + 2 \mathcal{I}_{3,0}^{M}(\delta) \right)\, .
\end{align}
Using the uniform asymptotic expansion for Bessel functions as employed in \cite{PFA_Atom_Cylinder}, we
obtain for {\it small} atom-surface distance $\ell=R_c-d$ the expansion
\begin{align}
\label{short_distance_limit_fE0}
f_{0}^{E} & = \frac{3}{8\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^4 + \frac{13}{60\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^3 + \frac{311}{1680\pi}\left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^2 + \cdots \, ,\\
\label{short_distance_limit_fM0}
f_{0}^{M} & = -\frac{3}{8\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^4 - \frac{17}{60\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^3 - \frac{431}{1680\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^2 + \cdots \, .
\end{align}
The leading term agrees with the Casimir-Polder interaction between an atom and a planar surface \cite{VdW int. electrica}. The sub-leading terms describe curvature corrections. The first correction term for the $E$ polarization
has been obtained in Ref.~\cite{PFA_Atom_Cylinder}.
When the atom is close to the center of the cylinder ($\delta\ll 1$), one can expand the functions $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha,m}^{P}(\delta)$ for small $\delta$ and perform the integral over $t$ and infinite sum over $n$ numerically. The result is
\begin{align}
\label{fE0delta0}
f_{0}^{E}(\delta) &= \phantom{-} 0.594032 + 3.67884\,\delta^{2} +{\cal O}(\delta^4)\, , \\
\label{fM0delta0}
f_{0}^{M}(\delta) &= - 0.805032 - 4.15129\,\delta^{2}+{\cal O}(\delta^4) \, .
\end{align}
Note that for atoms without magnetic response ($\alpha_{M} = 0$ and $\alpha_{E} > 0$), the Casimir-Polder interaction is attractive, while for (fictive) atoms without electric response ($\alpha_{E}=0$ and $\alpha_{M}>0$), the interaction is repulsive. This is in agreement with the interaction between an atom and a flat surface. Hence, surface curvature does not change the sign of the interaction.
The analytical results for the atom placed either close to the cylindrical surface or close to its axis are shown in Fig.~\ref{zeroT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_inside_PM_Cylinder} together with numerical results valid for all distances $\delta$. This comparison shows that the two limiting results provide an accurate estimate of the interaction over a wide range of separations.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{RatioPFA_T=0_atom_inside.pdf} \caption{(Color online). Amplitudes of the interior Casimir-Polder interaction between an atom and a cylindrical shell as function of $\delta = d/R_{c}$. Shown are the limiting analytical results for short distances (dotted curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{short_distance_limit_fE0}, \eqref{short_distance_limit_fM0}), and when the atom is close to the axis of the cylinder (dashed curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{fE0delta0}, \eqref{fM0delta0}). The thick curves correspond to the full numerical result for $f_{0}^{E}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{fE0}) and $f_{0}^{M}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{fM0}).}
\label{zeroT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_inside_PM_Cylinder}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{High temperature limit}
When $d\gg \lambda_{T}$, the Casimir energy can be approximated by its high temperature limit, given by Eq.~\eqref{high T Casimir energy}. For an atom inside a cylindrical cavity, this expressions reduces to
\begin{equation}
E_{cl} = - \frac{k_{B}T}{2}\Tr{{\mathcal{N}}(0)}\, ,
\end{equation}
which can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{E_Casimir_atomo_interno_a_cilindro_high_T}
E_{cl} = - \frac{k_{B}T}{R_{c}^{3}}\left( f_{cl}^{E}(\delta)\alpha_{E} + f_{cl}^{M}(\delta)\alpha_{M} \right),
\end{equation}
The amplitudes $f_{cl}^{E}(\delta)$ and $f_{cl}^{M}(\delta)$ can be expressed in terms of $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha,m}^{P}(\delta)$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{AuxI} as
\begin{align}
\label{fEcl}
f_{cl}^{E}(\delta) & = - \frac{1}{\pi}\left( \mathcal{I}_{2,1}^{N}(\delta) + \mathcal{I}_{2,0}^{N}(\delta) \right)\, ,\\
\label{fMcl}
f_{cl}^{M}(\delta) & = - \frac{1}{\pi}\left( \mathcal{I}_{2,1}^{M}(\delta) + \mathcal{I}_{2,0}^{M}(\delta) \right)\, .
\end{align}
Using again the uniform asymptotic expansion for Bessel functions, we obtain the asymptotic behavior of $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha,m}^{P}(\delta)$ when the atom is close to the surface of the cavity. This yields the amplitudes for $\ell \ll R_c$,
\begin{align}
\label{short_distance_limit_fEcl}
f_{cl}^{E} &= \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^3 + \frac{1}{8} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^2 +
\frac{1}{8} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right) + \cdots \, ,\\
\label{short_distance_limit_fMcl}
f_{cl}^{M} &= - \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^3 - \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right)^2
- \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\ell}\right) + \cdots \, .
\end{align}
The leading terms describe the atom-planar surface interaction, and the additional terms are curvature corrections.
When the atom is close to the axis of the cylindrical cavity, a small $\delta$ expansion and subsequent
numerical summation and integration yields the amplitudes
\begin{align}
\label{fEcldelta0}
f_{cl}^{E}(\delta) & = \phantom{-} 1.00274 + 4.00376\,\delta^{2} +{\cal O}(\delta^4)\, , \\
\label{fMcldelta0}
f_{cl}^{M}(\delta) & = - 1.79579 - 5.06599\,\delta^{2}+{\cal O}(\delta^4) \, .
\end{align}
We have also evaluated numerically the amplitudes of Eqs.~\eqref{fEcl} and \eqref{fMcl}. The results, and the approximations for small $\ell$ and small $\delta$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{highT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_inside_PM_Cylinder}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{RatioPFA_highT_atom_inside.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Equivalent of Fig.~\ref{zeroT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_inside_PM_Cylinder}
for the classical limit. Shown are the analytical results for short surface distances $\ell$ (dotted curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{short_distance_limit_fEcl}, \eqref{short_distance_limit_fMcl}), and when the atom is close to the axis of the cylinder (dashed curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{fEcldelta0}, \eqref{fMcldelta0}). The thick curves represent the full numerical result for
$f_{cl}^{E}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{fEcl}) and $f_{cl}^{M}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{fMcl}).}
\label{highT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_inside_PM_Cylinder}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Non-retarded London energy of an atom inside the cylinder}
\label{sec:London_atom_cyl}
So far we have considered the retarded limit where the distance $d \gg d_{10}$ is much bigger than the retardation length $d_{10}=c/\omega_{10}$ set by the transition frequency of a two-state atom (see App.~\ref{Appendix} for its polarizability). Next we shall assume the opposite limit where $d\ll d_{10}$ which can be realized to leading order by taking the limit $c\to\infty$. The resulting interaction is known as London force. In the following we consider finite temperatures so that to leading order in $d/d_{10}$ one has
\begin{equation}
\label{E_London_finite_T}
E^{L}_{T} = - \lim_{c\to\infty}k_{B}T{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}}'\Tr{{\mathcal{N}}(\kappa_{n})} \, .
\end{equation}
Here for need to substitute for the polarizability of the atom the frequency dependent expression of Eq.~\eqref{eq:polarizability_two_state}. Then the matrix $\mathcal{N}(\kappa_{n})$ depends on the combinations $d\kappa_n$, $R_c \kappa_n$ and $d_{10}\kappa_n= 2\pi n k_B T/(\hbar \omega_{10})$. The first two combinations scale as $1/c$ and hence tend to zero whereas the latter obviously remains finite for $c\to\infty$. Hence the non-retarded interaction is given by the Matsubara sum taken over two times the classical interaction energy $E_{cl}$ of Eq.~\eqref{E_Casimir_atomo_interno_a_cilindro_high_T} with $\alpha_P$ replaced by $\alpha_P/[1+(2\pi n k_B T/(\hbar \omega_{10}))^2]$. The sum over $n$ can be carried out easily, and one obtains the following result for the London interaction valid for all temperatures
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:London_limit_general}
E^{L}_{T}(\delta) = \frac{\hbar\omega_{10}}{2k_{B}T}\coth\left(\frac{\hbar\omega_{10}}{2k_{B}T}\right)E_{cl}(\delta).
\end{equation}
This shows that the effect of geometry (curvature) in the non-retarded limit is fully determined by the
geometry dependence in the classical limit.
Note that, in the zero and high temperature limits of the London energy we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:London_limit_0+cl}
E^{L}_{0}(\delta) = \frac{\hbar\omega_{10}}{2k_{B}T}E_{cl}(\delta), \quad E^{L}_{cl}(\delta) = E_{cl}(\delta).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Retarded Casimir-Polder energy of an atom outside a cylinder}
\subsubsection{Zero temperature limit}
The Casimir potential at zero temperature of an atom outside a perfectly conducting cylinder at a distance $d$ from the cylinder axis can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E_atom_outside}
E_{0} = - \frac{\hbar c}{R_c^{4}}\left(g_{0}^{E}(\delta)\alpha_{E} + g_{0}^{M}(\delta)\alpha_{M}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\delta = d/R_c$. The dependence on $\delta$ is determined by the integrals
\begin{equation}
\label{AuxK}
\mathcal{K}_{\alpha,m}^{P}(\delta) = \int_{0}^{\infty}dt\,t^{\alpha}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}
K_{n+m}^{2}(\delta t)\mathcal{T}_{C\,n,P;n,P}( t) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{T}_C$ is the diagonal T--matrix that described the scattering outside the cylinder. The matrix elements are given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_{C \,n,M;n,M}(t) & = - \frac{I'_{n}(t)}{K'_{n}(t)}\, , \\
\mathcal{T}_{C\,n,N;n,N}(t) & = - \frac{I_{n}(t)}{K_{n}(t)}\, .
\end{align}
Then the amplitudes $g_{0}^{E}(\delta)$ and $g_{0}^{M}(\delta)$ are given by
\begin{align}
\label{gE0}
g_{0}^{E}(\delta) & = \frac{1}{4\pi}\left( \mathcal{K}_{3,1}^{M}(\delta) - \mathcal{K}_{3,1}^{N}(\delta) - 2 \mathcal{K}_{3,0}^{N}(\delta) \right) \, , \\
\label{gM0}
g_{0}^{M}(\delta) & = - \frac{1}{4\pi}\left( \mathcal{K}_{3,1}^{M}(\delta) - \mathcal{K}_{3,1}^{N}(\delta) + 2 \mathcal{K}_{3,0}^{M}(\delta) \right) \, .
\end{align}
Using again the uniform asymptotic expansion for Bessel functions, we find for {\it small} atom-surface distance $\tilde\ell=d-R_c$ the expansion
\begin{align}
\label{short_distance_limit_gE0}
g_{0}^{E} & = \frac{3}{8\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^4 - \frac{13}{60\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^3 + \frac{311}{1680\pi}\left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^2 + \cdots \, ,\\
\label{short_distance_limit_gM0}
g_{0}^{M} & = -\frac{3}{8\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^4 + \frac{17}{60\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^3 - \frac{431}{1680\pi} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^2 + \cdots \, .
\end{align}
which is consistent with \cite{PFA_Atom_Cylinder}. Comparison with Eqs.~\eqref{short_distance_limit_fE0}, \eqref{short_distance_limit_fM0} shows that the interior and exterior cases are related by $R_c \to -R_c$. While an interior atom sees negative surface curvature, an exterior atom experiences positive curvature.
In the large distance limit, $d\gg R_{c}$, we obtain the following asymptotic amplitudes
\begin{align}
\label{large_distance_limit_gE0}
g_{0}^{E} & = \frac{1}{3\pi\ln(d/R_{c})} \left(\frac{R_c}{d}\right)^4 \, , \\
\label{large_distance_limit_gM0}
g_{0}^{M} & = - \frac{1}{6\pi\ln(d/R_{c})} \left(\frac{R_c}{d}\right)^4 \, ,
\end{align}
yielding for the Casimir potential
\begin{equation}
E_{0} = -\frac{\hbar c(2 \alpha_{E} - \alpha_{M})}{6 \pi \, d^{4}\ln(d/R_c)} \, .
\end{equation}
Numerical and analytical results are compared in Fig.~\ref{zeroT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_outside_PM_Cylinder}, where the convergence of the numerical data to the various limits is shown.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{RatioPFA_T=0_atom_outside.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Amplitudes of the exterior Casimir-Polder interaction between an atom and a cylindrical shell as function of $1/\delta = R_{c}/d$. Shown are the limiting analytical results for short distances (dotted curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{short_distance_limit_gE0}, \eqref{short_distance_limit_gM0}), and when the atom is far away from the cylinder (dashed curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{large_distance_limit_gE0}, \eqref{large_distance_limit_gM0}). The thick curves correspond to the full numerical result for $g_{0}^{E}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{gE0}) and $g_{0}^{M}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{gM0}).}
\label{zeroT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_outside_PM_Cylinder}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{High temperature limit}
We consider now high temperatures so that $d \gg \lambda_{T}$.
Similar to the interior case, the Casimir potential can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{E_Casimir_atomo_externo_a_cilindro_high_T}
E_{cl}(r_{c}) = - \frac{k_{B}T}{R_c^{3}}\left(g_{cl}^{E}(\delta)\alpha_{E} + g_{cl}^{M}(\delta)\alpha_{M}\right).
\end{equation}
The functions $g_{cl}^{E}(\delta)$ and $g_{cl}^{M}(\delta)$ can be written in terms of the functions $\mathcal{K}_{\alpha,m}^{P}(\delta)$ as
\begin{align}
\label{gEcl}
g_{cl}^{E}(\delta) & = - \frac{1}{\pi}\left( \mathcal{K}_{2,1}^{N}(\delta) + \mathcal{K}_{2,0}^{N}(\delta) \right) \, , \\
\label{gMcl}
g_{cl}^{M}(\delta) & = - \frac{1}{\pi}\left( \mathcal{K}_{2,1}^{M}(\delta) + \mathcal{K}_{2,0}^{M}(\delta) \right) \, .
\end{align}
The asymptotic expansion of Bessel functions yields again the asymptotic behavior of $\mathcal{K}_{\alpha,m}^{P}$ when the atom is close to the surface of the cavity.
In this limit we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{short_distance_limit_gEcl}
g_{cl}^{E} &= \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^3 - \frac{1}{8} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^2 +
\frac{1}{8} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right) + \cdots \, ,\\
\label{short_distance_limit_gMcl}
g_{cl}^{M} &= - \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^3 + \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right)^2
- \frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{R_c}{\tilde\ell}\right) + \cdots \, .
\end{align}
This results is again related to the corresponding one for the interior case in Eqs.~\eqref{short_distance_limit_fEcl},~\eqref{short_distance_limit_fMcl} by $R_c \to -R_c$.
In the large distance limit, $d\gg R_{c}$, we find the asymptotic expressions
\begin{align}
\label{large_distance_limit_gEcl}
g_{cl}^{E} & = \frac{\pi}{8\ln(d/R_{c})} \left(\frac{R_c}{d}\right)^3 \, , \\
\label{large_distance_limit_gMcl}
g_{cl}^{M} & = - \frac{63\pi}{128}\left(\frac{R_c}{d}\right)^5 \, ,
\end{align}
which yield the Casimir potential
\begin{equation}
E_{cl} = -\frac{k_{B}T\pi\alpha_{E}}{8 d^{3}\ln(d/R_{c})}.
\end{equation}
Note that the leading asymptotic interaction is dominated by the electric response of the atom only.
The results of all full numerical computation of the interaction at all distances is shown in
Fig.~\ref{highT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_outside_PM_Cylinder} together with the analytically studied limits.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{RatioPFA_highT_atom_outside.pdf}
\caption{(Color online). Equivalent of Fig.~\ref{zeroT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_outside_PM_Cylinder}
for the classical limit. Shown are the analytical results for short surface distances $\tilde\ell$ (dotted curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{short_distance_limit_gEcl}, \eqref{short_distance_limit_gMcl}), and when the atom is far away from the cylinder (dashed curves, see Eqs.~\eqref{large_distance_limit_gEcl},~\eqref{large_distance_limit_gMcl}). The thick curves represent the full numerical result for
$g_{cl}^{E}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{gEcl}) and $g_{cl}^{M}(\delta)$ (Eq.~\eqref{gMcl}).}
\label{highT_Retarded_Casimir_energy_atom_outside_PM_Cylinder}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Non-retarded London energy of an atom outside the cylinder}
In the non-retarded limit with $d \ll d_{10}$ for the exterior case of an atom outside the cylinder exactly the same relations as in the interior case hold, see Eqs.~\eqref{eq:London_limit_general}, \eqref{eq:London_limit_0+cl}.
\section{Casimir energy of a metal sphere inside a metal Cylinder}
\subsection{Proximity force approximation}
\label{PFA of the Casimir energy of a sphere inside a metal Cylinder}
In this section we come back to an interior situation. Instead of an atom, we place a macroscopic metallic sphere inside the cylinder. We assume that both the cylinder and the sphere are perfectly conducting, and have radii $R_c$ and $R_s$, respectively. The sphere--center to cylinder--axis separation is $d\le R_c-R_s$. Before computing the exact interaction in the next section, we consider here the proximity force approximation (PFA). In general, the PFA energy $E_{\mathrm{PFA}}$ for two surfaces is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pfa-general}
E_{\mathrm{PFA}} = \int dA\, E_{\parallel}(h)\,,
\end{equation}
where $E_{\parallel}(h)$ is the energy per unit area for two parallel plates
of distance $h$. In the above expression the integration is performed along one surface with $h$ the local distance to the other surface. After integration, the result is expanded for small distances, and only the leading order is retained. To this order, the precise direction along which $h$ is measured, is unimportant.
Assuming the origin at the axis of the cylinder (oriented along the $x$-axis), the position of a surface element on the cylinder is $(x_{c}, y_{c}=R_{c}\sin(\phi_{c}), z_{c}=R_{c}\cos(\phi_{c}))$, and the position of a surface element on the sphere is
$(x_{s}=R_{s}\sin(\theta_{s})\cos(\phi_{s}), y_{s}=R_{s}\sin(\theta_{s})\sin(\phi_{s}), z_{s}=d+R_{s}\cos(\theta_{s}))$. The distance between the two surface elements then is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:distance-h}
h= z_{c} -z_{s} \,.
\end{equation}
The center-to-axis distance $d$ is related to the minimal surface-to-surface distance $\ell$ between the sphere and the cylinder by $d = R_{c} -(\ell + R_{s})$. Hence Eq.~\eqref{eq:distance-h} can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:distance-h-2}
h = \ell + R_{s}\left[ 1 - \cos(\theta_{s}) \right] - R_{c}\left[ 1 - \cos(\phi_{c}) \right]\,.
\end{equation}
Next we express $\phi_{c}$ in terms of $\theta_{s}$ and $\phi_{s}$, using $y_{c}=y_{s}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:angles-relation}
\sin(\phi_{c}) = \frac{R_{s}}{R_{c}}\sin(\theta_{s})\sin(\phi_{s})\,.
\end{equation}
Using Eq.~\eqref{eq:angles-relation} in Eq.~\eqref{eq:distance-h-2}
and making use of the fact that at short separations, the surface elements of the sphere and cylinder for which $\theta_{s}\ll 1$ and $\phi_{c}\ll 1$ contribute most to the interaction, the local distance $h$ can be approximated by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:distance-h-3}
h(\theta_{s},\phi_{s}) \approx \ell + \frac{R_{s}\theta_{s}^{2}}{2}
\left[ 1 - \frac{R_{s}}{R_{c}}\sin^{2}(\phi_{s})\right]\,.
\end{equation}
We express Eq.~\eqref{eq:pfa-general} in terms of surface coordinates of the sphere,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pfa}
{E}_{\mathrm{PFA}} = R_{s}^2\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\phi_{s}\int_{0}^{\pi}d\theta_{s}\sin \theta_{s}\, E_{\parallel}(h)\,,
\end{equation}
For small $\theta_s$ we use $\sin \theta_s\approx \theta_s$ and change the
integration variable $\theta_s$ to $H$ which is defined by the right hand side of
Eq.~\eqref{eq:distance-h-3} so that
\begin{equation}
\theta_{s}\,d\theta_{s}=\frac{dH} {R_{s}\big[1-\frac{R_{s}}{R_{c}} \sin^2(\phi_{s})\big]}\, .
\end{equation}
This yields
\begin{equation}
{E}_\mathrm{PFA}= R_{s}
\left[
\int _0^{2\pi}\frac{d\phi_{s}}{1-\frac{R_{s}}{R_{c}}\sin^2(\phi_{s})}
\right]
\int_{\ell}^{\infty}{d}H\, E_{\parallel}(H)\,,
\end{equation}
where we have moved the upper integration limit for $H$ to infinity since this does not change the leading behavior of the integral for small $\ell$.
The integration over $\phi_s$ can be carried out easily and we obtain the PFA energy
\begin{equation}\label{PFA_forallT}
{E}_\mathrm{PFA}= \frac{2\pi R_{s}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{R_{s}}{R_{c}}}}
\int_{\ell}^{\infty}{d}H\, E_{\parallel}(H)\,.
\end{equation}
In particular, for perfect conductors, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{PFA_quantum}
{E}_\mathrm{PFA,0} = - \hbar c\frac{R_{s}}{\ell^{2}}\frac{\pi^{3}}{720\sqrt{ 1 - \frac{R_{s}}{R_{c}}}}
\end{equation}
for zero temperature, and
\begin{equation}\label{PFA_thermal}
{E}_\mathrm{PFA,cl} = - k_{B}T\frac{R_{s}}{\ell}\frac{\zeta(3)}{4\sqrt{ 1 - \frac{R_{s}}{R_{c}}}}
\end{equation}
in the classical high temperature limit with $d\gg\lambda_T$.
\subsection{Numerical result}
\label{Casimir energy of a sphere inside a metal Cylinder - Numerical study}
Now we compute the interaction for the geometry of the previous section numerically at all distances, using the scattering approach. Again, we consider zero temperature and the classical high temperature limit. We obtain the Casimir energy numerically from the matrix $\mathcal{N}$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{Nmatrix_sphere_in_cylindrical_cavity} using Eqs.~\eqref{zero T Casimir energy}, \eqref{high T Casimir energy}. The T-matrix elements for a perfectly conducting cylinder and sphere are given in App.~\ref{Appendix}. In order to perform the numerical calculations, we have restricted the vector spherical multipoles to $l \leq 20$ in the zero temperature case and to $l \leq 30$ in the high temperature case. The cylindrical multipoles are limited to $|n| \leq 500$. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{Ratio_PFA_numerics_zeroT} ($T=0$) and Fig.~\ref{Ratio_PFA_numerics_highT} (classical limit) as function of $\ell/R_c < 1-R_s/R_c$ for different radii of the sphere. The data for the numerically computed Casimir
energy are normalized to the PFA [see Eqs.~\eqref{PFA_quantum}, \eqref{PFA_thermal}].
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{Ratio_PFA_numerics_zeroT_te.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Numerical result for the zero temperature Casimir energy (normalized to PFA) for a sphere inside a cylinder for different ratios of the radii, ranging from $r_{s} = R_{s}/R_{c} = 0.1$ (bottom blue) to $r_{s} = 0.9$ (top green) in steps of $0.1$, as a function of $\ell/R_{c} < 1-r_s$. The
curves terminate at the positions where the sphere is located at the axis of the cylinder ($\ell/R_{c} = 1-r_s$). The straight lines originating from unity represent the first correction to PFA, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:PFA_correction}.}
\label{Ratio_PFA_numerics_zeroT}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{Ratio_PFA_numerics_highT_te.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Same as Fig.~\ref{Ratio_PFA_numerics_zeroT} for the classical high temperature limit.}
\label{Ratio_PFA_numerics_highT}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The multipole expansion for Casimir interactions works best at large separations, and an increasing number of multipoles is required when the surfaces of the bodies approach each other. This is clearly visible in the numerical data that should converge to unity for $\ell \to 0$ when normalized to the PFA but fail to do so below $\ell/R_c \lesssim 0.05$. However, for $\ell/R_c \gtrsim 0.05$ we expect our numerical results to be reliable, and they clearly show strong deviations from the PFA when the sphere is moved towards the axis of the cylinder (reached for $\ell/R_c=1-R_s/R_c$). The sign of the corrections to the PFA depend on the ratio of the radii, $r_s=R_s/R_c$, in both the zero and the high temperature limit.
Corrections to the PFA can be computed in some cases by a derivative expansion \cite{Derivative_Expansion_PFA_energy}. This expansion can be used in the limit where the radii of curvature of the surfaces are much larger than their shortest distance, i.e., in the present geometry for $R_s$, $R_c \gg \ell$. By using the expansion for perfect conductors at $T=0$, we obtain for the Casimir interaction at small $\ell \ll R_c$,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PFA_correction}
\mathcal{E}_{0} = \mathcal{E}_\mathrm{PFA,0}
\left[ 1 + \left( -1 -\frac{3}{2} r_s + r_s\sqrt{1-r_s} +\frac{2\beta+(2-3\beta)r_s+\beta r_s^2}
{1-r_s} \right) \frac{1}{r_s} \frac{\ell}{R_c} + \ldots\right]
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
with $\beta=(2/3)(1-15/\pi^2)$\cite{Derivative_Expansion_PFA_energy}. The first correction to the PFA vanishes for $r_s=0.4881$ where it changes sign which is consistent with the numerical results in Fig.~\ref{Ratio_PFA_numerics_zeroT}. The numerical results approach the prediction of the derivative expansion at small surface-to-surface distance $\ell$ better for small $r_s$. Presumably, for larger $r_s$ more multipoles need to be included in the numerical evaluation to obtain sufficient accuracy at short distances.
In the classical limit, there exists no derivative expansion for perfect metals due to a non-analytic behavior of the kernel for small momenta \cite{Fosco_2012a}.
\section{Casimir interaction of two atoms inside a cylindrical cavity}
\label{Effect of confinement and non--pairwise behavior of Casimir energy}
It is widely known that Casimir interactions are not pairwise additive: The energy of a system of a given number of objects is not the sum of the Casimir energies of all pairs. As a consequence, new phenomena can appear, as the non--monotonicity of the Casimir force for two cylinders~\cite{SJohnson}, and for spheres or atoms in the presence of a perfect metal plate~\cite{Emig_Pablo}. Similar effects can be expected for the interaction of objects inside cavities due to the confinement of field fluctuations.
In particular, it is known that the Casimir force between two atoms which are confined between two dielectric parallel plates increases several orders of magnitude~\cite{2_atoms_in_dielectric_capacitor}. When the dielectric plates are replaced by perfect metal plates, the effect is even more pronounced: At zero temperature, the Casimir potential of the atoms decays no longer $\sim d^{-7}$ as in free space but $\sim d^{-5}$~\cite{2_atoms_in_PM_capacitor_zeroT}. In the high temperature limit, the Casimir potential was found to decay exponentially~\cite{2_atoms_in_PM_capacitor_highT}. It is expected that the confinement effects increase with the degree of spatial confinement so that a cavity, e.g., a cylindrical shell should produce more pronounced consequences.
In this section we study the Casimir potential for two atoms inside a perfectly conducting cylindrical shell. We assume that the atoms have both electric and magnetic dipole polarizabilities. The Casimir energy of
this 3-body problem is given by Eq.~\eqref{Energy_T_finite} with the block matrix
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathcal{I} & - \mathcal{T}_{A_1}\mathcal{X}_{A_1A_2} & - \mathcal{T}_{A_1}\mathcal{X}_{A_1C}\\
- \mathcal{T}_{A_2}\mathcal{X}_{A_2A_1} & \mathcal{I} & - \mathcal{T}_{A_2}\mathcal{X}_{A_2C}\\
- \mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{X}_{CA_1} & - \mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{X}_{CA_2} & \mathcal{I}
\end{array}\right) \, ,
\end{equation}
where the matrix labels $A_1$, $A_2$ and $C$ stand for atom $1$, atom $2$, and the cylindrical shell.
For example, the matrix $\mathcal{X}_{CA_1}$ describes the translation between the cylindrical shell and atom $1$. The determinant of this matrix can be rearranged using the relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\Det{\begin{array}{cc}
A & B\\
C & D
\end{array}} & = & \Det{A}\Det{ D - C\,A^{-1}\,B }\nonumber\\
& = & \Det{D}\Det{ A - B\,D^{-1}\,C } \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The Casimir energy at zero temperature can then be written as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:E3}
E_{3} = \frac{\hbar c}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}d\kappa \log \left\{ \Det{\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}_{A_1C}}\Det{\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}_{A_2C}}\Det{\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{R}_{A_2A_1}} \right\}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}_{A_1C} & = \mathcal{T}_{A_1}\mathcal{X}_{A_1C}\mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{X}_{CA_1}\, ,\\
\mathcal{N}_{A_2C} & = \mathcal{T}_{A_2}\mathcal{X}_{A_2C}\mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{X}_{CA_2}\, ,\\
\label{R_Matrix_2_objects_inside_a_cylindrical_cavity}
\mathcal{R}_{A_2A_1} & = \mathcal{T}_{A_1}\left( \mathcal{X}_{A_1A_2} + \mathcal{X}_{A_1C}\mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{X}_{CA_2} \right)\left(\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}_{A_2C}\right)^{-1}
\mathcal{T}_{A_2}\left( \mathcal{X}_{A_2A_1} + \mathcal{X}_{A_2C}\mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{X}_{CA_1} \right)\left( \mathcal{I} - \mathcal{N}_{A_1C} \right)^{-1}\, .
\end{align}
The first two matrices describe the interaction of each atom with the cavity, and the third matrix describes the interaction between the two atoms, taking into account the presence of the cavity. In the absence of the cavity, the latter matrix reduces to $\mathcal{R}_{A_2A_1} = \mathcal{T}_{A_1}\mathcal{X}_{A_1A_2}\mathcal{T}_{A_2}\mathcal{X}_{A_2A_1}$ which describes two atoms in free space.
It is convenient to express the matrix $\mathcal{R}_{A_2A_1}\equiv \mathcal{R}$ in spherical multipole basis which reads
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{l m,l'' m''} = \mathcal{T}_{A_1\,l m,l m}\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_{A_1A_2\, l m,l' m'}(d,\textbf{X}_{12})\mathcal{T}_{A_2\,l' m',l' m'}\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_{A_2 A_1\,l' m',l'' m''}(d,\textbf{X}_{21}),
\end{equation}
where here and in the following repeated indices are summed over. Here $d$
is the distance between the atoms and the axis of the cylindrical cavity, and $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_{A_\alpha A_\beta\,l m,l' m'}(d,\textbf{X}_{\alpha\beta})$ are the modified translation matrices for the translation by the vector $\textbf{X}_{\alpha\beta}\equiv \pm h \hat{\bf z}$ along the cylinder axis from atom $\alpha$ to atom $\beta$. They are defined by
\begin{align}
\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_{A_\alpha A_\beta\,l m,l' m'}(d,\textbf{X}_{\alpha\beta}) &=\left( \mathcal{U}_{A_\alpha A_\beta\, l m,l'' m''}(\textbf{X}_{\alpha\beta}) + D_{l m,n k_{z}}\mathcal{V}_{A_\alpha C \,n k_{z}, n' k_{z}}\mathcal{T}_{C\,n' k_{z},n' k_{z}}\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}_{C A_\beta \,n' k_{z}, n'' k_{z}}D^\dagger_{n'' k_{z},l'' m''}\frac{C^{c}}{C^{s}} \right) \nonumber \\
&\times \left(\mathcal{I} -\mathcal{N}_{A_\beta C}\right)^{-1}_{l'' m'',l' m'} \, ,
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $\mathcal{N}_{A_\beta C}=\mathcal{T}_{A_\beta}\mathcal{X}_{A_\beta C}\mathcal{T}_C\mathcal{X}_{CA_\beta}$ describes the Casimir interaction of an atom with the cylindrical cavity, and the constants $C^c$ and $C^s$ are defined below Eq.~\eqref{Sph_2_Cyl}.
The translation matrices $\mathcal{U}$ are defined in App.~\ref{Appendix}.
Note that the polarization indices and the integral over $k_z$ are not shown explicitly.
In the following, we are interested in the interaction between the two atoms (and not the change of energy when the atoms are moved away from the cylinder axis). This interaction is given by the last determinant of Eq.~\eqref{eq:E3} and hence by the matrix $\mathcal{R}$.
Under the two assumptions formulated in the beginning of Sec.~\ref{Casimir energy of an atom inside a metallic Cylinder}, we need to retain only the contribution linear in $\mathcal{R}$ so that the Casimir energy is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Energy_2_atoms_in_cavity}
E_{T} = k_{B}T{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}}'\Tr{\tilde{\mathcal{R}}(\kappa_{n})}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$ is defined by the (symbolic) expression
\begin{align}
\label{R_Matrix_2_atoms_inside_a_cylindrical_cavity}
\tilde{\mathcal{R}} & =
\mathcal{T}_{A_2}\left( \mathcal{U}_{A_2A_1} + D\mathcal{V}_{A_2C}\mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}_{CA_1}D^{\dagger} \right)\nonumber\\
& \times\mathcal{T}_{A_1}\left( \mathcal{U}_{A_1A_2} + D\mathcal{V}_{A_1C}\mathcal{T}_{C}\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}_{CA_2}D^{\dagger} \right),
\end{align}
that is the simplification of $\mathcal{R}$ correct to linear order in the polarizabilities of the atoms. The matrix $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$ has four contributions that can be understood as distinct scattering processes. The two terms containing $\mathcal{U}$ describe direct scattering between the two atoms not involving the cylindrical cavity. The other two terms containing $\mathcal{T}_{C}$ correspond to indirect scattering between the atoms with a reflection at the cylindrical cavity.
In the following, we consider the zero and high temperature classical limit of the interaction between the atoms that are located on the cylinder axis and have separation $h$. In these two limits, the Casimir interaction energies can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{ZeroT_energy_2a_1PMC}
E_{0} & = - \frac{\hbar c}{4\pi R_{c}^{7}} \left[ e^{EE}_{0}(\eta)\alpha^{E}_{1}\alpha^{E}_{2} + e^{MM}_{0}(\eta)\alpha^{M}_{1}\alpha^{M}_{2} + \right.\nonumber\\
& \left. + e^{EM}_{0}(\eta)\left(\alpha^{E}_{1}\alpha^{M}_{2} + \alpha^{M}_{1}\alpha^{E}_{2}\right) \right],\\
\label{HighT_energy_2a_1PMC}
E_{cl} &= - \frac{k_{B}T}{R_{c}^{6}} \left[ e^{EE}_{cl}(\eta)\alpha^{E}_{1}\alpha^{E}_{2} + e^{MM}_{cl}(\eta)\alpha^{M}_{1}\alpha^{M}_{2}\right] \, ,
\end{align}
respectively, with $\eta = h/R_c$. Here $\alpha_j^P$ are the dipolar electric ($P=E$) and magnetic ($P=M$) polarizabilities of the atoms. Note that there are no terms proportional to $\alpha^{E}_{i}\alpha^{M}_{j}$ in the high temperature limit. Below, we shall give analytical and numerical results for the amplitude functions $e_0$ and $e_{cl}$ in various limiting cases.
\subsection{Retarded limit}
We first consider the situation where the distance between the atoms is much bigger than the retardation length, $h \gg d_{10}$. This corresponds to the so-called Casimir--Polder or retarded limit.
\subsubsection{Zero temperature}
Indeed, when thermal effects are unimportant and the distance $h \ll R_c$, the atoms interact as in free space, and we obtain the usual Casimir--Polder potential for two atoms at zero temperature, corresponding to
\begin{equation}\label{eEE_eMM_0_free}
e^{EE}_{0}(\eta) = e^{MM}_{0}(\eta) = \frac{23}{\eta^{7}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eEM_0_free}
e^{EM}_{0}(\eta) = - \frac{7}{\eta^{7}} \,.
\end{equation}
In the opposite limit where $h \gg R_c \gg d_{10}$ the atoms experience the confinement by the cylindrical shell,
leading to an exponential decay of their interaction. For $\eta\gg 1$, we obtain the limiting amplitude functions
\begin{align}
\label{eMM_0_as}
e^{MM}_{0} & = \frac{\sqrt{\pi^{9}{j'_{1,1}}^{21}}{Y_{1}'}^{4}(j'_{1,1})}{8\left( {j'_{1,1}}^{2} - 1 \right)^{2}}\frac{e^{-2j'_{1,1}\eta}}{\eta^{1/2}} = 286.20 \frac{e^{-2j'_{1,1}\eta}}{\eta^{1/2}}\, ,\\
\label{eEE_0_as}
e^{EE}_{0} & = \frac{3\sqrt{\pi^{9}{j'_{1,1}}^{17}}{Y_{1}'}^{4}(j'_{1,1})}{32 \left( {j'_{1,1}}^{2} - 1 \right)^{2}}\frac{e^{-2j'_{1,1}\eta}}{\eta^{5/2}} = 63.32 \frac{e^{-2j'_{1,1}\eta}}{\eta^{5/2}} \, , \\
\label{eEM_0_as}
e^{EM}_{0} & = -\frac{8\sqrt{2} \pi^{2} {j'_{1,1}}^{4} {Y_{1}'}^{2}(j'_{1,1})}{ {j'_{1,1}}^{2} - 1}\frac{e^{-j'_{1,1}\eta}}{\eta^{5}} = - 189.59 \frac{e^{-j'_{1,1}\eta}}{\eta^{5}}\, ,
\end{align}
where $j'_{1,1}=1.84118$ is the lowest zero of the derivative of the Bessel functions of first kind, $J'_1(x)$, and $Y'_1(x)$ is the derivative of a Bessel function of second type.
The electromagnetic fluctuations inside the confining cylinder are effectively massive with a mass $\sim R_c$ that produces the exponential decay of the interaction for $h \gg R_c$.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{LogLogPlot_zeroT_2atoms_in_cylinder_EE.pdf} \includegraphics{LogLogPlot_zeroT_2atoms_in_cylinder_EM.pdf} \includegraphics{LogLogPlot_zeroT_2atoms_in_cylinder_MM.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Log--log plot of the numerical results for the functions $e_{0}(\eta)$ as a function of $\eta = h/R_{c}$ for the three combinations of polarizations (solid curves). The dashed curves represent the large distance limits ($\eta \gg 1$) given by Eqs.~\eqref{eMM_0_as}, \eqref{eEE_0_as} and \eqref{eEM_0_as}, and the dotted curves correspond to the short distance limits ($\eta \ll 1$) given by Eqs.~\eqref{eEE_eMM_0_free} and \eqref{eEM_0_free}).}
\label{ZeroTCasimir_energy_2_atoms_inside_PMCylinder_separated}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We have evaluated the amplitude functions $e_{0}(\eta)$ for intermediate values of $\eta$ numerically. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{ZeroTCasimir_energy_2_atoms_inside_PMCylinder_separated} for the three possible combinations of the polarizations. Shown in the plots are also the limiting analytical results of Eqs.~\eqref{eEE_eMM_0_free}, \eqref{eEM_0_free}, \eqref{eMM_0_as}, \eqref{eEE_0_as}, \eqref{eEM_0_as}. One can clearly observe the crossover between the two limiting expressions for $h \ll R_c$ and $h \gg R_c$.
\subsubsection{High temperature limit}
\label{HighT_Casimir_energy_2atoms_in_cavity}
Next, we consider the retarded regime in the high temperature classical limit.
In this case, the electric and magnetic polarizations do not couple, as indicated already in Eq.~\eqref{HighT_energy_2a_1PMC}. For short distances, $h \ll R_c$, we recover the classical limit of the Casimir--Polder potential, corresponding to
\begin{equation}
\label{eEE_eMM_cl_free}
e^{EE}_{cl}(\eta) = e^{MM}_{cl}(\eta) = \frac{3}{\eta^{6}} \, .
\end{equation}
In the large distance limit, $h \gg R_{c} \gg d_{10}$, the potential decays again exponentially due to the confinement,
\begin{align}
\label{eEE_cl_as}
e^{EE}_{cl} & = \frac{\pi^{4}j_{0,1}^{6}Y_{0}^{4}(j_{0,1})}{8}e^{-2j_{0,1}\eta} = 159.23 e^{-2j_{0,1}\eta}\, , \\
\label{eMM_cl_as}
e^{MM}_{cl} & = \frac{\pi^{4}{j'_{1,1}}^{10} {Y'_{1}}^{4}(j'_{1,1})}{16\left({j'_{1,1}}^{2} - 1\right)^{2}}e^{-2j'_{1,1}\eta} = 59.50 e^{-2j'_{1,1}\eta}\, ,
\end{align}
where $j_{0, 1}=2.40483$ is the lowest zero of the Bessel function of the first kind $J_{0}(x)$.
To obtain information about intermediate distances, we have evaluated the amplitude functions $e_{cl}(\eta)$ also numerically. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{HighTCasimir_energy_2_atoms_inside_PMCylinder_separated}, together with the analytical results for large and small distances. The plots show that the limiting analytical results merge at $\eta$ of order unity and yield an accurate description of the interaction between the atoms for the entire range of separations.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{LogLogPlot_highT_2atoms_in_cylinder_EE.pdf}
\includegraphics{LogLogPlot_highT_2atoms_in_cylinder_MM.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Log--log plot of the numerical results for the functions $e_{cl}(\eta)$ as a function of $\eta = h/R_{c}$ for the two combinations of polarizations (solid curves). The dashed curves represent the large distance limits ($\eta \gg 1$) given by Eqs.~\eqref{eEE_cl_as} and \eqref{eMM_cl_as}, and the dotted curves correspond to the short distance limits ($\eta \ll 1$) given by Eq.~\eqref{eEE_eMM_cl_free}}.
\label{HighTCasimir_energy_2_atoms_inside_PMCylinder_separated}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Non--retarded limit}
Finally, we consider the non--retarded limit where $h$, $R_c \ll d_{10}$ but $\eta=h/R_c$ is arbitrary. In this limit, the interaction between the atoms is usually referred to as London force. Formally, this case corresponds to an infinite velocity of light, $c\to\,\infty$. Here we consider arbitrary temperatures $T$.
Following the steps carried out in Sec.~\ref{sec:London_atom_cyl}, we can carry out the Matsubara sum and obtain the
London potential
\begin{equation}
\label{London_energy_2a_1PMC}
E^{L}_{T}(\eta) = f\left(\frac{\hbar\omega_{10}}{k_{B}T}\right)E_{cl}(\eta),
\end{equation}
where the coefficient function $f(t)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
f(t) = \frac{t}{4}\frac{t + \sinh(t)}{\cosh(t)-1}
\end{equation}
and $E_{cl}(\eta)$ is the high temperature limit of the Casimir energy given by Eqs.~\eqref{HighT_energy_2a_1PMC}, \eqref{eEE_eMM_cl_free}. Similar to the interaction between a single atom and a cylinder, the non-retarded interaction at finite temperature is related to the classical limit of the retarded interaction.
Note that in the zero and high temperature limit of the London potential we have
\begin{align}
E^{L}_{0}(\eta) & = \frac{\hbar\omega_{10}}{4k_{B}T}E_{cl}(\eta) \, ,\\
E^{L}_{cl}(\eta) & = E_{cl}(\eta) \, .
\end{align}
\section{Discussion}
\label{Discussion}
We have studied how curvature and in particular confinement can effectively modify Casimir interactions between an atom and a curved surface and between atoms confined in perfectly conducting cylindrical cavities. For the interaction between a single atom and a cylindrical shell we have developed both large and short distance expansions that apply in the zero and high temperature limits, and for an interior and exterior atom. The expansions agree nicely with a full numerical evaluation at arbitrary atom-surfaces distances. Our results are relevant to understand the scattering of atoms at curved surfaces as, e.g., nanotubes. We have considered both the retarded and non-retarded limits. For the latter, we have shown that it is simply related to the classical (high temperature) limit of the Casimir-Polder potential.
A problem with a higher degree of complexity is the interaction of a macroscopic spherical particle with a confining cylindrical shell. We have considered the limit of perfect conductivity for both the particle and the shell. By computing the interaction numerically from a large number of mulipole moments, we were able to
compare to the proximity force approximation (PFA) and its correction as predicted by a gradient expansion.
We found nice agreement, confirming that the gradient expansion makes reliable predictions also for interior
problems.
We have shown that the Casimir-Polder interaction of two atoms is modified when the atoms are confined by perfectly conducting cylindrical shell, and their distance is comparable or larger than the radius of the shell. This is due to the fact that Casimir interactions are not pairwise additive. We have considered the limits of zero and high temperature, both in the retarded and non-retarded cases. In all situations, the interaction is substantially reduced compared to free space and decays exponentially over the scale of the radius of the shell. Although we assumed a perfectly conducting cylindrical shell, we expect that our conclusion remain qualitatively unchanged for general dielectric materials.
Our findings are partially complementary to other studies of the fluctuation induced interactions between confined atoms or molecules. Previous work for two atoms placed between two parallel perfect metal plates~\cite{2_atoms_in_PM_capacitor_zeroT} showed that at zero temperature the interaction energy is reduced from the free space case with an exponential decay in the non-retarded limit, and increased in the retarded case with a change from $h^{-7}$ to $L^{-2}h^{-5}$ when $h$ is much bigger than the distance $L$ between the plates. For the same geometry, an exponential decay was also found at any finite temperature \cite{2_atoms_in_PM_capacitor_highT}. An exponential reduction of the interaction between the atoms has been also observed when they are confined in a rectangular waveguide and their distance is large compared to the diameter of the waveguide \cite{Atoms_in_rectangular_cavity}. Contrary to that, a recent study of two atoms placed inside a transmission line consisting of two concentric
metallic cylinders demonstrated a huge amplification of the interaction between the atoms due to the one-dimensional character of {\it propagating} fluctuations in this geometry \cite{Shahmoon+2014}.
If confinement leads to reduction or amplification of inter-molecular fluctuation forces has important consequences for the (non-)additivity of these forces, and hence the electromagnetic response of confined gases. Therefore, it is important to understand the mechanism that determines the effect of confinement on the interaction. In general, a massive fluctuation mode leads to an exponential decay of the associated interaction energy. In waveguides, massive modes are realized by evanescent modes due to the existence of finite cutoff frequencies for these modes. Clearly, all modes in our cylindrical shell, and also in the rectangular waveguide of Ref.~ \cite{Atoms_in_rectangular_cavity} are massive, explaining an exponential reduction of the interaction. However, for two parallel conducting plates, there exists a massless mode only for TM polarization \cite{Milonni}. Since this propagating mode contributes for two particles with electric polarizability only in the retarded limit, the interaction is not
exponentially suppressed but enhanced in this limit. Hence the situation resembles that of the transmission line. It would be interesting to establish corresponding results for non-equilibrium effects in confined geometries.
\acknowledgments
The research leading to these results has received funding from the People
Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA grant agreement nº 302005.
P.~R.-L. acknowledge helpful discussions with A.~A. Saharian.
P.~R.-L.’s research has also been supported by Projects MOSAICO, UCM (Grant No. PR34/07-15859), MODELICO (Comunidad de Madrid), ENFASIS (Grant No.FIS2011-22644, Spanish Government) in the Departamento de F\'isica Aplicada I and GISC of the Facultad de Ciencias F\'isicas of the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, by "Ministerio de Econom\'ia y Competitividad" (Spain) Grant No. FIS2012-38866-C05-01 in the Departamento de Matem\'aticas and GISC of the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under EP/H049797/1 in the Department of Physics of the Loughborough University.
|
\section{Introduction}
Most searches for supersymmetry with R-parity violation (RPV), see {\it e.g.}\ \cite{Barbier:2004ez} for a review, adopt
one of the following approaches: either one looks for the effects of the
relevant operators at low energies in precision measurements, or one
focuses on the decay of the (effectively) lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP)
through RPV operators. This is the result of the strict
bounds on most such couplings, which imply that RPV decay widths are
typically subdominant, unless they are the only viable option. For the same reason, possibly spectacular
signatures, such as resonant single superparticle productions, are
only viable for a limited number of operators and for a
constrained range of couplings. In most cases, the LSP,
with no other alternative decays available, is the best candidate to look at.
The plethora of RPV operators implies that there is a broad range of potential
signals \cite{Barbier:2004ez}, which
also depend on the nature of the LSP. In the presence of RPV, any
sparticle may in principle be the LSP, since bounds on stable massive
charged particles no longer apply. However, the lightest chargino is not
usually considered, because common lore
says that the structure of the gaugino mass matrices is such that
the lightest neutralino is always lighter than the lightest chargino.
In this paper we point out that this is not necessarily true. As
discussed by Kribs {\it et al.}\ \cite{Kribs:2008hq}, in the general
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) the chargino could in
principle be lighter than the lightest neutralino in a corner of
the parameter space. Even when heavier, the small mass difference that
is possible and even natural in certain scenarios, implies
that the chargino, as the next-to-lightest sparticle (NLSP), can have
dominant decays through RPV operators.
Models with almost-degenerate electroweak gauginos, where such chargino decays
can be expected, arise for example
in the context of anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking ~\cite{Randall:1998uk,Giudice:1998xp}. The current absence of any
supersymmetry (SUSY) signal at the LHC, and the question of the naturalness of the
remaining parameter space, has led to the
consideration of so-called Natural SUSY models. Here only the
higgsinos, the stops, the left-handed sbottom, and, to a more limited
extent, the gluino, are light enough to be probed at the
LHC~\cite{Brust:2011tb,Papucci:2011wy}. Higgsino dominance of
light neutralinos and charginos also leads to small mass differences, although we have recently shown that, given current direct and indirect constraints, the degeneracy is considerably less severe than for winos~\cite{Bomark:2013nya}.
In R-parity conserving (RPC) models, if the degeneracy is severe
enough, such spectra can lead to rather characteristic experimental
signals in high-energy collisions, with charginos that live long
enough to create displaced vertices, or even pass through the detector
before decaying
\cite{Chen:1996ap,Feng:1999fu,Gherghetta:1999sw}.
Here we instead study the consequences
of lifting the RPC. In particular, we are here interested in the trilinear RPV operators in the superpotential:
\begin{equation}
W \sim\lambda_{ijk} L_iL_j\bar{E}_k+\lp{ijk}L_iQ_j\bar{D}_k+\lpp{ijk}\bar{U}_i\bar{D}_j\bar{D}_k.
\end{equation}
We do not include bilinear RPV operators of the form $\mu_iH_uL_i$. These will induce mixing between the charginos and the charged leptons, and allow decays for the lightest chargino of the form $\tilde\chi^\pm_1\to \nu_iW^\pm,l_i^\pm Z$. These decays have already been discussed for AMSB scenarios motivated by neutrino masses in \cite{deCampos:2008av}.
Direct chargino decays
via subsets of RPV operators have been considered in the past,
especially in the context of LEP physics, see {\it
e.g.}~\cite{Dreiner:1996dd}.
Nevertheless, a detailed discussion that also takes into account the
rich flavour structure of the RPV operators is still
lacking. Here, we investigate the consequences of direct RPV chargino
decays in the context of LHC searches, and we show that this can
lead to dramatic signals, such as resonant three-lepton final
states due to $LL\bar E$ operators. In addition, the presence of
heavy quarks in $LQ\bar{D}$ and $\bar{U}\bar{D}\bar{D}$ operators
results in enhanced detection prospects in this case as well.
One may object to breaking R-parity, since it ensures the existence of
a stable sparticle, realising one of the central motivations for
weak-scale supersymmetry: the existence of dark matter. However, as
pointed out in recent years \cite{TY, BM, LOR}, the gravitino may be
the {\it real} LSP, with a naturally long lifetime, due to its tiny
gravitational coupling. For a wide range of parameters gravitinos are
essentially stable on cosmological time-scales and can act as dark
matter. Despite this, we will refer to the neutralino and chargino as
the {\it effective} LSP to avoid a very convoluted language.\footnote{Note also that this is not compatible with the standard
anomaly-mediated breaking scenario, where the gravitino is heavy
compared to the other sparticles, which have loop-suppressed masses.}
In this paper, we present an update on how near-degenerate electroweak gauginos arise in
general supersymmetry breaking models described by the MSSM, and to what extent they are compatible with the recent discovery of a new boson at the LHC, when interpreted as the light SM-like Higgs state of the MSSM~\cite{ATLAS:2012gk,CMS:2012gu}, and other direct and indirect constraints. We study the possibility of a light chargino with the
{\tt MultiNest~2.17} \cite{Feroz:2007kg,Feroz:2008xx} code for parameter sampling, which enables a detailed analysis of the posterior probability distribution in the supersymmetric parameter space of interest, taking into account the available experimental constraints.
We then study the effect of RPV operators on these models in the
context of searches at the LHC.
We should note that the interesting properties of chargino decays that
we find within our scenario,
also apply to extensions of the theory
beyond the MSSM. In this respect direct chargino decays can
be a powerful tool to probe the gaugino sector and distinguish
between different possibilities. Significant
deviations from gaugino unification can arise naturally in
well-motivated scenarios, for instance due to the presence of F-terms
\cite{Ellis:1985jn,Martin:2009ad}; in such schemes, the specific
gaugino hierarchies to be expected are
fixed to a large extent by the group theory, and the argument can be reversed:
if direct chargino decays via RPV operators are detected at
significant rates, we will have crucial information
on the structure of the gaugino sector and on the underlying GUT symmetries of the theory.
We begin in Section \ref{sec:massdiff} by discussing the parameters
that affect the neutralino--chargino mass difference in the MSSM. We
then describe the parameter scan that we have performed in
Section~\ref{sec:scan}. In Section~\ref{sec:current} we look at the consequences of current bounds on the RPV couplings and competition with the RPC
chargino decays. In Section~\ref{sec:vertex} we disucss the impact of current LHC searches for displaced vertices on our scenario. Finally, we describe the consequences of our results for LHC searches for RPV chargino decays in Section~\ref{sec:lhc}, before we conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Neutralino--chargino mass difference}
\label{sec:massdiff}
In the MSSM, the free mass parameters in the neutralino mass matrix at tree level are $M_1$, $M_2$ and $\mu$. In addition, $\tan\beta$ also enters as a free parameter. With the exception of $M_1$, the same set of parameters enters in the tree-level chargino mass matrix. Any complex phases for the mass parameters are very constrained, in particular due to limits on the electric dipole moments \cite{Feng:2008cn,Ellis:2008zy,Cheung:2009fc,Altmannshofer:2009ne}. However, there are no {\it a priori} grounds not to give arbitrary signs to these parameters, although by a rotation of basis we can choose $M_2$ to always be positive.
For small $M_1$ the lightest neutralino will be a bino, which is
historically the most popular choice. Since $M_1$ does not enter in the
chargino mass matrix, in this case there is no degeneracy
between chargino and neutralino. When $\mu$ or $M_2$ is the smallest parameter
we may have a neutralino that is dominantly a higgsino or a wino,
and in both cases there may be degeneracy with the chargino.
In the wino limit, $M_2<|M_1|,\mu$, the tree-level mass difference
\begin{equation}
\Delta m\equiv m_{\tilde\chi_1^{\pm}}-m_{\tilde\chi_1^0},
\end{equation}
expanded in $1/\mu$ is \cite{Feng:1999fu,Gherghetta:1999sw}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta m &=& \frac{M_W^2}{\mu^2}\frac{M_W^2}{M_1-M_2}\tan^2\theta_W\sin^2{2\beta}+2\frac{M_W^4M_2\sin{2\beta}}{(M_1-M_2)\mu^3}\tan^2\theta_W\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{M_W^6\sin^3{2\beta}}{(M_1-M_2)^2\mu^3}\tan^2\theta_W(\tan^2\theta_W-1)+{\mathcal O}\left(\frac{1}{\mu^4}\right).
\label{eq:dmwinotree}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that while this can give a negative $\Delta m$ for negative $M_1$, these tree-level terms are all small for large $\tan\beta$, and for $\tan\beta\to\infty$ the lowest contributing order is in fact $1/\mu^4$. This means that loop effects can be significant. The leading loop correction from gauge bosons---assuming there are no very light sfermions---is positive and in the wino limit is given by \cite{Cheng:1998hc,Feng:1999fu}
\begin{equation}
\Delta m_{\rm 1-loop}= \frac{\alpha_2M_2}{4\pi}[f(M_W/M_2)-\cos^2\theta_Wf(M_Z/M_2)-\sin^2\theta_Wf(0)],
\label{eq:dmwino1loop}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
f(a)=2\int_0^1(1+x)\ln{(x^2+(1-x)a^2)}\,dx.
\end{equation}
In the limit where $M_2\gg M_W$, this gives $\Delta m_{\rm
1-loop}\simeq 165$ MeV.\footnote{Note that, apart from a numerical
factor, this electroweak correction is, as expected, $\alpha M_W$, which just happens to be of the order of the pion mass.} The possibility of getting a mass difference $\mathrel{\rlap{\raise 2.5pt \hbox{$<$}}\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}} 165$ MeV then rests on the contribution from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmwinotree}) being negative and significant compared to the expression (\ref{eq:dmwino1loop}). This could be the case for negative $M_1$.
In the higgsino limit, $|M_1|,M_2>\mu,M_W$, the tree-level mass difference from an expansion in $1/M_2$ is \cite{Giudice:1995qk}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta m = \left[\frac{M_2}{M_1}\tan^2\theta_W+1+{\rm sgn}\,\mu\left(\frac{M_2}{M_1}\tan^2\theta_W-1\right)\sin{2\beta}\right]\frac{M_W^2}{2M_2}+{\mathcal O}\left(\frac{1}{M_2^2}\right).\label{eq:dmhiggsino}
\end{equation}
This expansion breaks down for $\mu\to 0$, however, LEP limits on the chargino mass ensure that we can keep out of that region of parameter space.
For positive $M_1$ and $M_2$, $\Delta m$ in the higgsino limit is always
positive. It becomes small for very large $M_1,M_2\gg M_W$, but
numerically this does not lower the mass difference below 300 MeV,
unless (i) both masses are greater than ${\mathcal O}(10~{\rm TeV})$,
or (ii) $\tan\beta\simeq 1$ and either mass is very large.
For a negative $M_1$, however, we may have a negative $\Delta m$, but
this occurs for very special choices of the parameters, namely: relatively
small $|M_1|$, combined with large $M_2$ and small $\tan\beta$, see~\cite{Bomark:2013nya}. In
addition to the above, we have loop corrections that mainly stem from top--stop and
$\gamma(Z)$--higgsino loops. The former can have either sign depending
on the stop mixing, while the latter is small unless $\tan\beta$ is
large. Both are included in the scan that will be performed in the next Section.
\section{Parameter scan}
\label{sec:scan}
\subsection{Scan set-up}
To search for these degenerate models, we employ a bayesian scan over the MSSM parameter space, using the three parameters $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$ to represent the gaugino mass for the $U(1)$, $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ sectors, respectively, at the electroweak scale. $M_1$ and $M_3$ are allowed to take negative values. For the Higgs sector we use the parameters $\mu$, $m_{A^0}$ and $\tan\beta$, deriving $m_{H_u}$ and $m_{H_d}$ from EWSB. These are the relevant parameters for the problem at hand. Furthermore, we use a common mass parameter $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for the first and second generation squarks, while a separate parameter $m_{\tilde{q}_3}$ is used for squarks of the third generation. Finally, the sleptons are governed by a common mass scale $m_{\tilde{l}}$, and we use a common value $A_0$ for the trilinear couplings. We do not scan over the RPV couplings directly, as the sheer number of couplings makes this unfeasible. However, in Section~\ref{sec:imp} we discuss in detail the allowed values of these couplings, and study how they affect the chargino lifetime and branching fractions for the set of posterior samples produced by the scan.
For all mass parameters we use logarithmic priors in order to incorporate a prior belief in naturalness~\cite{Cabrera:2008tj}, while for $\tan\beta$ a flat prior is used. The SM parameters $m_t$, $m_b$, $M_Z$, $\alpha$ and $\alpha_s$ are included as nuisance parameters with gaussian priors. A summary of the parameters used, along with ranges and priors, is given in Table~\ref{tab:ScanPar}. For comparison, we also perform a scan with flat priors for all parameters except the SM nuisance parameters. This scan is performed with less statistics compared to the main scan, as it is only used to check the prior dependence of our results.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Parameter & Range & Prior & Reference \\
\midrule
$M_1$ & $[-4000,4000]$ & log & - \\
$M_2$ & $[0,4000]$ & log & - \\
$M_3$ & $[-4000,4000]$ & log & - \\
$\mu$ & $[-4000,4000]$ & log & - \\
$m_{A^0}$ & $[0,4000]$ & log & - \\
$m_{\tilde{l}}$ & $[0,7000]$ & log & - \\
$m_{\tilde{q}}$ & $[0,7000]$ & log & - \\
$m_{\tilde{q}_3}$ & $[0,7000]$ & log & - \\
$A_0$ & $[-7000,7000]$ & log & - \\
$\tan\beta$ & $[2,60]$ & linear & - \\
\midrule
$m_t$ & $173.4 \pm 1.0$ & gaussian & \cite{CMS:2012fya} \\
$m_b^{\overline{MS}}(m_b)$ & $4.18 \pm 0.03$ & gaussian & \cite{Beringer:1900zz} \\
$M_Z$ & $91.1876 \pm 0.0021$ & gaussian & \cite{Beringer:1900zz} \\
$\alpha^{-1}$ & $127.944 \pm 0.014$ & gaussian & \cite{Beringer:1900zz} \\
$\alpha_s$ & $0.1184 \pm 0.0007$ & gaussian & \cite{Beringer:1900zz} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\caption{List of scan parameters with ranges and priors. Dimensionful
parameters are given in GeV. All non-SM parameters are given at the
scale $Q = 1.0$\;TeV, except $\tan\beta$ and $\mu$ which are
given at the EWSB scale, and the pseudoscalar Higgs pole mass $m_{A^0}$. Log priors are set to zero over the ranges $(-25,25)$ and $(0,25)$ GeV for signed and non-negative parameters, respectively.}\label{tab:ScanPar}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The scan uses {\tt MultiNest 2.17} \cite{Feroz:2007kg,Feroz:2008xx} to
explore the parameter space described above. For each point in the parameter space,
the sparticle spectrum is calculated by {\tt SoftSusy
3.3.5}~\cite{softsusy}, including the effects discussed in Section
\ref{sec:massdiff} for the chargino--neutralino mass difference, while
Higgs masses are calculated using {\tt FeynHiggs 2.9.4}~\cite{feynhiggs1,feynhiggs2,feynhiggs3,feynhiggs4}.
We apply constraints from electroweak precision observables and
B-physics, using {\tt SoftSusy} and {\tt MicrOMEGAS
2.4.5}~\cite{micromegas1,micromegas2,micromegas3} to calculate the
relevant quantities. In addition, the relevant constraints from LEP data on the
chargino mass and the LHC Higgs mass measurement are included. We note that most limits on the chargino mass from LEP are void due to the small $\Delta m$.
The values and distributions used for these constraints are summarised in Table~\ref{tab:Constraints}. Note that although the CMS limit on BR$(B_s \rightarrow \mu\mu)$~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013bka}, is slightly more constraining than the corresponding LHCb limit~\cite{Aaij:2013aka,Aaij:2013aka_sup}, since the latter provides a likelihood covering a wider range of branching ratio values, we use that in our scan.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Observable & Constraint & Likelihood & Reference/Comment\\
\midrule
$M_W$ & $80.385 \pm 0.021$ & gaussian & \cite{Aaltonen:2013iut} \\
$a_\mu^{\rm exp}-a_\mu^{\rm SM}$ & $(26.1 \pm 8.0) \times 10^{-10}$ & gaussian & \cite{Hagiwara:2011af,Gnendiger:2013pva} \\
BR$(B_s \rightarrow \mu\mu)$ & $2.9^{+1.1}_{-1.0} \times 10^{-9}$ & from experiment & \cite{Aaij:2013aka,Aaij:2013aka_sup} \\
BR$(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ & $(3.55 \pm 0.33) \times 10^{-4}$ & gaussian & \cite{Amhis:2012bh} \\
R$(B \rightarrow \tau \nu)$ & $1.63 \pm 0.54$ & gaussian & \cite{Amhis:2012bh} \\
$m_h$ & $125.0 \pm 2.0$ & gaussian & \cite{CMS:2014ega} \\ %
$m_{\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1}$ & $ > 45$ & lower limit, hard cut & \cite{Decamp:1991uy} \\
$m_{\tilde\chi_1^\pm}-m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}$ & $ < 1.0$ & upper limit, hard cut & see text\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\caption{List of the constraints used in the full likelihood for the scans. All masses are given in GeV. Experimental and theoretical errors have been added in quadrature.} \label{tab:Constraints}
\end{center}
\end{table}
No dark matter constraints have been applied; with R-parity violation
the most natural dark matter candidates would be gravitinos or axions,
thus the standard WIMP relic abundance, direct and indirect detection
constraints do not apply. Nor have we applied constraints from direct
LHC searches for coloured sparticles. These can be avoided by pushing all the squark masses and the gluino mass up, albeit at the price of a loss of naturalness. Even the most restrictive of these bounds (for squark and gluino masses) affect the chargino--neutralino mass difference only through
small loop corrections. Direct limits on chargino--neutralino production depend intimately on the RPV coupling in question, and will be discussed in Section~\ref{sec:imp}.
As a check, scans have also been performed with a modified version of the public code {\tt SuperBayeS 1.5.1} \cite{deAustri:2006pe,Trotta:2008bp}, where the relevant quantities are calculated by {\tt SoftSusy}\footnote{Due to problems with loop contributions to the neutralino and chargino masses in {\tt SoftSusy 2.0.18}, which is the version included in {\tt SuperBayeS}, we have updated its {\tt SoftSusy} version to {\tt 3.3.7}.} and {\tt DarkSusy 5.0}~\cite{darksusy}. The conclusions from these scans agree very well with the ones reached with the setup described above.
In order to focus the scan on light charginos,
we also demand a chargino or neutralino LSP and impose an upper limit on
the chargino--neutralino mass difference. These constraints on the likelihood, which are not
from observables, are in effect restricting us to a subset of the MSSM parameter space, a
model where the lightest chargino and neutralino have a small mass difference and one of them is the LSP. Despite being the result of a somewhat convoluted definition, there is in principle nothing that sets this model apart at the electroweak scale from other constrained models based on the MSSM field content, {\it e.g.} mSUGRA; the constraints are only different.
\subsection{Results of scan}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:m2mu} we show the marginalised posterior probability distribution in the
$M_2-\mu$ plane (left), with a higher resolution plot for smaller parameter values (right). The colour scale represents the magnitude of the probability distribution relative to its maximum point and contours of the 68\% and 95\% credible regions (C.R.) are shown in black and white, respectively. We see in principle four distinct areas, two each with wino and higgsino LSP but with different sign of $\mu$. However, the $g-2$ requirement for the muon results in a preference for a positive value of $\mu$ (same sign as $M_2$), and the resulting area of parameter space with negative $\mu$ is very small and outside the 68\% and 95\% C.R.\ contours, except for a tiny area with a wino LSP (small $M_2$).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{M2__mu__2dhist__wide.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{M2__mu__2dhist__zoom.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Marginalized posterior in the $M_2-\mu$ plane. The 68\% and 95\% C.R.\ contours are shown in black and white, respectively.}\label{fig:m2mu}
\end{figure}
From the scan it is clear that a wino LSP is preferred in the MSSM, $M_2<|\mu|$, when we restrict ourselves to models with small $\Delta m$. This is a consequence of the general difficulty in achieving a small mass difference from Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmhiggsino}) for the higgsinos at tree level, made worse by the relatively high Higgs mass that favours large $\tan\beta$. In addition, adding the constraint on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, further favours small $M_2$. We pointed out a very similar situation in the MSSM restricted to Natural SUSY models in~\cite{Bomark:2013nya}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:NewLimits} (left) we show the marginalised posterior distribution in the $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}-\Delta m$ plane. We see that the points naturally accumulate around the 150 MeV
mass difference given by the wino radiative correction of order $\alpha_2M_2/4\pi$. However, there is still a significant part of the preferred parameter space that has negative mass difference. To compare the wino and higgsino cases, in Fig.~\ref{fig:NewLimits} (right), we plot only the posterior points with a higgsino LSP.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{mChi01__delta_m__2dhist.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{mChi01__delta_m__2dhist__higgsino.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Marginalized posterior in $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}$ versus $\Delta m$ for all neutralinos (left) and for higgsino-like neutralinos only (right). The 68\% and 95\% C.R.\ contours are shown in black and white, respectively.}\label{fig:NewLimits}
\end{figure}
The preference for a wino scenario, $M_2<|\mu|$, is even stronger in the scan using flat priors. Following the shift in priors, the posterior distributions for the mass parameters are weighted towards higher absolute values. This increases the importance of the wino radiative correction in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmwino1loop}), thus strengthening the preference for $\Delta m$ values around 150 MeV.
Also, the range of preferred chargino and neutralino masses is widened, with the 68\% and 95\% C.R.~in the $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}-\Delta m$ plane extending up to $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0} \sim 650$ GeV and $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0} \sim 1100$ GeV, respectively, for $\Delta m \sim 165$ MeV.
\section{Implications for collider searches}
\label{sec:imp}
The propensity for a mass difference $\Delta m \sim m_{\pi^\pm}$ in the degenerate scenario means that in R-parity conserving models the relevant decay modes of the chargino are $\tilde\chi_1^\pm\to\tilde\chi_1^0(e^\pm\nu,\mu^\pm\nu)$ and $\tilde\chi_1^\pm\to\tilde\chi_1^0\pi^\pm$, where the latter is dominant~\cite{Chen:1996ap}. If R-parity is violated we must also consider the three-body decays of the chargino to three fermions via a virtual sfermion. Depending on the size and flavour of the RPV couplings, and to some extent the sfermion masses, as well as $\Delta m$, this might instead be the dominant decay channel.
Here we discuss the implication of RPV chargino decays
for collider searches, starting by describing the parameter space
where these are dominant and the consequences of current bounds on the
RPV couplings. Then, we continue with a discussion of the possibility
of displaced vertices and the limits that can be set from the absence
of massive metastable particles at the LHC. Finally, we turn to the possibility of direct searches for chargino resonances at the 13 TeV LHC.
\subsection{RPV chargino decays and current bounds}
\label{sec:current}
If the mass difference between the chargino and the neutralino is small
but still larger than $m_{\pi^\pm}$, the most important R-parity
conserving decay channel for the chargino is
$\tilde\chi^\pm_1\rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1\pi^\pm$. The decay width
of this channel has been given in~\cite{Chen:1996ap}. The competing
R-parity violating decay widths were given in~\cite{Dreiner:1996dd,
Richardson:2000nt}.
We begin by studying the effect of the $LL\bar
E$ operators on our set of posterior samples. Figure~\ref{fig:charginoBR} shows the resulting posterior distribution in the planes of relevant chargino branching ratios versus the mass difference $\Delta m$.
Here we have assumed a
dominant RPV coupling of $\lambda_{121}$. The current best
experimental limit on this coupling, from charged-current
universality, is at the weak scale $\lambda_{121} < 0.049 \times
\frac{m_{\tilde e_R}}{100\,{\rm
GeV}}$~\cite{Barger:1989rk,Allanach:1999ic}. In the discussion
below we take the upper bounds for all couplings from~\cite{Allanach:1999ic}. For each posterior point we choose the largest allowed value of the coupling. We remind the reader that the effect of changing the size of the coupling is a simple scaling of the RPV widths as $\lambda^2$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{delta_m__BR_RPC_lept__2dhist__LLE121_limit.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{delta_m__BR_RPC_hadr__2dhist__LLE121_limit.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{delta_m__BR_mu+_e+_e-__2dhist__LLE121_limit.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{delta_m__BR_numu_nue_e+__2dhist__LLE121_limit.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Posterior distribution of $\Delta m$ versus the branching ratio for various chargino decay channels. The 68\% and 95\% C.R.\ contours are shown in black and white, respectively.}\label{fig:charginoBR}
\end{figure}
The top panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:charginoBR} show the RPC decays to leptons (left) and hadrons (right). The latter dominate down to mass differences of $\sim 0.15$\,GeV, near the pion threshold. The two-pronged structure of these plots in the 95\% C.R.\ contour shows the difference between a wino and higgsino LSP, where the higgsinos prefer leptonic decays. We note that, given the discovery of a long-lived chargino with a displaced vertex in the detector, the nature of the decay products could potentially be used to discriminate between wino and higgsino.
The RPV decays shown in the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:charginoBR} demonstrate that below the pion threshold there is a roughly equal splitting between the decay to three charged leptons, $e^+\mu^+e^-$, and the decay to two neutrinos $\nu_e\nu_\mu e^+$, with the three charged leptons slightly dominant. The other allowed modes, to $\bar\nu_e \mu^+\nu_e$ and $ e^+\bar\nu_{\mu}\nu_e$, both require the propagator to come from the $\bar{E}$ field which, due to its right chirality, does not couple to winos, while the coupling to higgsinos is suppressed by the small electron mass. This equitable distribution ends when the chargino becomes sufficiently light, at which point the decay to three charged leptons alone is completely dominant. This is a consequence of these charginos being higgsinos, and therefore the decay to three charged leptons is governed by the muon Yukawa coupling while the decay to two neutrinos comes from the electron Yukawa. Note though, that this scenario is outside of the 95\% C.R.\ contour of the posterior distribution.
The decay pattern we see here has important phenomenological consequences since it is relatively easy to reconstruct the chargino from three charged leptons.
Our initial choice of value for $\lambda$ maximized the RPV effect,
however, lowering $\lambda$ will affect branching ratios only in the
region between the pion mass threshold and $\Delta m = 0$ where RPC
and RPV processes compete. Here we find, fixing the sfermion mass and
changing the RPV coupling, that the total RPV decays on
average\footnote{Marginalized over the posterior sample.} reach a
branching ratio of $\sim 0.5$, when $\lambda_{121}\sim 0.05$, compared
to $\sim 1$ when $\lambda_{121}\sim 1$. For much lower values of
$\lambda_{121}$ the RPC decay is completely dominant. The scaling with
the sfermion mass, from the sfermion propagator in the RPV decays, is
$m_{\tilde f}^{-4}$. Thus an increase of the sfermion mass of a factor
4.5 has the same effect as a reduction in the coupling from 1 to 0.05.
Note also that the RPV width goes as $m_{\tilde\chi_1^\pm}^5$ while the RPC decay only depends on $\Delta m$, so for higher chargino masses the RPV decay will tend to be more dominant.
When flat priors are used, the posterior probability for having sizeable branching ratios for RPV decays increases slightly. This is mainly due to the increased probability for small $\Delta m$ values resulting from stronger wino dominance.
Also, the above-mentioned dependence of the RPV widths on $m_{\tilde\chi_1^\pm}$ and $m_{\tilde f}$ becomes more important as the range of probable values for these masses widens when using flat priors. The net result of this is a preference for RPV widths that are typically larger by a factor of a few compared to the scan with log priors.
Very similar results are found for the remaining RPV couplings.
Changing the fermion masses changes the higgsino coupling.
However, using for example $\lambda_{323}$ (the operator
with the heaviest leptons
allowed by SU(2) invariance)
we find only negligible differences
with respect to the branching ratio distributions.
Turning to the $LQ\bar D$ and $\bar U \bar D \bar D$ operators we find
that $LQ\bar D$ sees the same behaviour as $LL\bar E$, with an
equipartition of RPV branching ratios below the pion threshold between
the final states $\ell_i^+ d_j \bar d_k$ and $\nu_i u_j \bar d_k$. The
exception to this is $L_iQ_3 \bar D_k$ where the phase space
suppression of the final state top quark implies that $\ell_i^+ b \bar d_k$ is dominant; the remaining parameter space where the chargino is heavy enough to easily decay to an on-shell top quark is small, see Fig.~\ref{fig:NewLimits}.
For $\bar U \bar D \bar D$ the generally heavy squark propagators, needed for the high Higgs mass, suppresses the RPV decays resulting in dominant RPC decays down to mass differences of $\Delta m \simeq 0.01$\,GeV even for $\lambda''=1$, and results in much longer chargino lifetimes when $\Delta m\in [10~{\rm MeV},m_\pi]$. More on this below.
\subsection{Displaced vertices from chargino decays}
\label{sec:vertex}
In the region $\Delta m < m_{\pi}$, where RPV processes can dominate, the parameters $\lambda$ and $m_{\tilde f}$ will influence the lifetime of the chargino and it is interesting to ask whether such models can give rise to detectable displaced vertices from late chargino decays.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Lifetime} we show the posterior distribution in the plane of chargino lifetime and $\Delta m$, with the same
assuptions on the RPV coupling as above.\footnote{The limit used for
$\lambda''_{323}$ is the perturbative limit \cite{Allanach:1999ic}
and is not dependent on the sfermion masses.} We see that for the
$\lambda_{121}$ coupling and low mass differences (left figure)
lifetimes of $10^{-11}-10^{-7}$\,s are within the 68\% C.R.\
contours. For the $\lambda''_{323}$ coupling (right figure) the
dominance of RPC decays mentioned above drives the lifetime up even
further. The visible break is the change in RPC decays from pions to leptons at $\Delta m = m_\pi$.
Compared to the results in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lifetime}, the scan with flat priors prefers lifetimes shorter by a factor of a few in the region $\Delta m \mathrel{\rlap{\raise 2.5pt \hbox{$<$}}\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}} 200$ MeV, corresponding to the previously noted shift towards larger RPV widths.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{delta_m__Chi1+_lt_tot__2dhist__LLE121_limit.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{delta_m__Chi1+_lt_tot__2dhist__UDD323_limit.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The posterior distribution of $\Delta m$ versus chargino lifetime with the $L_1L_2\bar E_1$ coupling $\lambda_{121} $ (left) and the $\bar U_3 \bar D_2 \bar D_3$ coupling $\lambda''_{323}$ (right). The 68\% and 95\% C.R.\ contours are shown in black and white, respectively.}\label{fig:Lifetime}
\end{figure}
Values of $c\tau>1$\,cm or $\tau> 3.3\times 10^{-11}$\,s, will give rise to a substantial number of kinked tracks in the inner detector of for example ATLAS~\cite{Barr:2002ex}, and should be detectable in the LHC experiments if a sufficient number of charginos are produced. Recent searches in ATLAS have set limits down to lifetimes of 0.06 ns ($c\tau = 1.8$\,cm)~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2013-069} in AMSB models where the chargino is dominantly wino. We have checked our posterior sample against these limits, assuming a dominant $\lambda_{121}$ coupling, and find that in the conservative interpretation, where we assume that the charginos have a pure wino production cross section, the competitive region $\Delta m \in[0,m_\pi]$ is moderated, excluding parts of the parameter space with lifetime longer than $0.1$\,ns and chargino masses below 150\,GeV.
Nevertheless, significant parts of the parameter space remain within the 68\% C.R.\ with a 50\% branching ratio to three charged leptons. This surviving region prefers somewhat heavier charginos than the posterior sample following the scan, relatively high $\tan\beta$, and sees lifetimes in the region $0.1-0.01$\,ns, which can be within the future reach of the LHC experiments looking for displaced vertices. We study three such points, {\tt RPV\_C1}, {\tt RPV\_C2} and {\tt RPV\_C3}, as benchmark points in the next section. Details of these points are given in Table~\ref{tab:benchmark}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Point & {\tt RPV\_C1} & {\tt RPV\_C2} & {\tt RPV\_C3} \\
\midrule
$m_{\tilde\chi_1^\pm}$ & 252.1 & 327.7 & 526.4 \\
$\Delta m$ & 0.119 & 0.108 & 0.182 \\
Wino & 0.990 & 0.986 & 0.989 \\
Higgsino & 0.142 & 0.166 & 0.148 \\
\midrule
$M_1$ & 944.1 & -1082.0 & -728.4\\
$M_2$ & 235.4 & 311.4 & 502.3\\
$M_3$ & 1627.6 & 560.6 & 3418.6\\
$\mu$ & 668.0 & 668.5 & 913.2 \\
$m_{A^0}$ &3430.3 & 2775.5 & 3220.5\\
$m_{\tilde l}$ & 503.5 & 434.6 & 757.6\\
$m_{\tilde q}$ & 2156.2 & 2517.0 & 4742.9\\
$m_{\tilde q_3}$ & 6429.4 & 4951.8 & 1424.6\\
$A_0$ & -25.8 & 2775.5 & 1498.1\\
$\tan\beta$ & 47.1 & 55.4 & 46.2\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\caption{Summary of the properties of the benchmark points studied. All masses are in GeV.} \label{tab:benchmark}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The dependence of these conclusions on which RPV coupling is dominant,
for a particular class of operators, say $LL\bar E$, is very weak
because of the assumptions in the scan, namely that of common
weak-scale sfermion soft masses. For the $LQ\bar D$ operators the
situation is similar to $LL\bar E$, with somewhat shorter
lifetimes predicted. This is because the dominant RPV decay channels, $\ell_i^+
d_j \bar d_k$ and $\nu_i u_j \bar d_k$, have the same slepton
propagators as the dominant $LL\bar E$ decays; at the same time the
upper bound on the coupling size is less restrictive, since, for most
couplings, this depends
on large squark masses. After applying the ATLAS limits from displaced
vertices, we still have significant regions of the parameter space
with dominant decays to $\ell_i^+ d_j \bar d_k$ and $\nu_i u_j \bar
d_k$ within the 68\% confidence region. One exception here is
$\lambda'_{111}$ where the bound on the coupling from neutrino-less double beta decay is sufficiently strong to exclude most points with dominant RPV decays, except points that also have very large slepton masses.
For $\bar U \bar D \bar D$ the heavy squark propagators reduce the
decay width for RPV decays, leading to longer chargino lifetimes as compared to $LL\bar E$ and $LQ\bar D$. As a result, the displaced vertices search excludes all regions of the preferred parameter space, the 95\% C.R., where RPV decays from $\bar U \bar D \bar D$ are substantial, having above 1\% branching ratio.
The restrictions on the individual RPV couplings, from above by the indirect bounds taken from \cite{Allanach:1999ic}, and from below by the ATLAS lifetime bounds, when seen together, are quite severe for all the preferred regions in the parameter space discussed in Section~\ref{sec:scan}. As an example we list maximum values for the $LL\bar E$ couplings in Table~\ref{tab:maxlambda} for the benchmark points {\tt RPV\_C1}, {\tt RPV\_C2} and {\tt RPV\_C3}. The minimum values for {\tt RPV\_C1} vary in the range 0.222--0.228. Since the ATLAS bound extends up to chargino masses of 500 GeV, it is difficult to find points with low fine-tuning that completely escape this bound. For comparison, a benchmark point {\tt RPV\_C2} with higher chargino mass has minimum values in the range 0.055--0.059, where the less severe bounds are in part also caused by lower slepton masses. The point {\tt RPV\_C3} has no such lower bound, since it has a chargino mass above 500 GeV and is thus outside the reach of the ATLAS search. From these results, we conclude that certain combinations of couplings and points with dominant RPV decays are unlikely in the context of natural models; in particular a dominant $\lambda_{133}$ coupling is hard to realize.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\toprule
Point/Coupling & $\lambda_{121}$ & $\lambda_{122}$ & $\lambda_{123}$ & $\lambda_{131}$ & $\lambda_{132}$ & $\lambda_{133}$ & $\lambda_{231}$& $\lambda_{232}$ & $\lambda_{233}$\\
\midrule
{\tt RPV\_C1} & 0.244 & 0.244 & 0.260 & 0.309 & 0.309 & 0.013 & 0.349 & 0.349 & 0.372\\
\midrule
{\tt RPV\_C2} & 0.215 & 0.215 & 0.221 & 0.272 & 0.272 & 0.011 & 0.307 & 0.308 & 0.316\\
\midrule
{\tt RPV\_C3} & 0.369 & 0.369 & 0.388 & 0.467 & 0.467 & 0.016 & 0.527 & 0.528 & 0.554\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\caption{Maximum allowed values of the $LL\bar E$ couplings for the benchmark points discussed in the text.} \label{tab:maxlambda}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{LHC resonance searches}
\label{sec:lhc}
To study the possibility of observing RPV chargino decays at the LHC we generate events at 13 TeV using {\tt PYTHIA 8.1.80}~\cite{Pythia8}, with {\tt FASTJET 3.0.6}~\cite{FastJet} for jet reconstruction
using the $k_t$-algorithm~\cite{ktJet1,ktJet2} with jet radius $R=0.4$.\footnote{In order to calculate decay widths and branching rations for the sparticles, including RPV operators, we use {\tt PYTHIA 6.4.25}~\cite{PYTHIA}, modified to include the
$\tilde\chi_1^\pm\to\tilde\chi_1^0\pi^\pm$ decay.} We use the single dominant coupling
approximation.\footnote{We note that large R-violating hierarchies can be
expected in many models, similarly to the large hierarchies in the
Yukawa couplings that generate fermion masses.} As the search for RPV decays of charginos is similar to the corresponding decays of neutralinos, we refer to~\cite{Bomark:2011ye} for details on the analysis. Here we will mostly focus on the differences that appear when charginos are involved.
\subsubsection*{$LL\bar E$ operators}
The most obvious difference between neutralinos and charginos, as discussed in the previous section, is that for $LL\bar E$ operators, the chargino has a large branching ratio for $\tilde\chi^\pm_1\to
lll,l\nu\nu$ via a virtual sneutrino or slepton, raising the possibility to observe a resonance of three charged leptons. Since for $\lambda_{ijk}$
$SU(2)$ invariance requires $i\neq j$, there are always at least two
different flavours in the final state leptons. Thus, the pure
leptonic combinations that are most relevant for collider searches
are $e^+e^-\mu^+$ ($\lambda_{121}$), and $\mu^+\mu^-e^+$ ($\lambda_{122}$). The
remaining $LL\bar E$ operators have some tau flavour in them, which necessarily smears out any resonance peak.
We employ the cuts used in~\cite{Bomark:2011ye}, which require many
high $p_T$ leptons and missing energy:
\begin{itemize}
\item Three isolated leptons with $p_T>70,20,20$\,GeV within the detector's geometric acceptance.
\item Missing transverse energy $E_T^{\rm miss}>100$\,GeV.
\end{itemize}
We simulate LHC data for benchmark points {\tt RPV\_C1} and {\tt RPV\_C3} taken from our scan, with the largest possible value of the RPV couplings allowed for the slepton masses of those points. These couplings were given in Table~\ref{tab:maxlambda}.\footnote{Since for our benchmark points the RPV decay is clearly dominating, relatively small changes to $\lambda$ will not affect the result, larger changes would decrease the signal as $\lambda^2$.} A full PYTHIA simulation of neutralino and chargino pair production is performed, meaning that both the lightest neutralino and chargino will decay through the RPV couplings. The presented signal distributions are therefore a superposition stemming from both types of decays.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:TriLep} we show the resulting tri-lepton invariant
mass distributions for the benchmark point {\tt RPV\_C3} with the $L_1L_2\bar E_1$, $L_1L_2\bar E_3$, $L_2L_3\bar E_2$ and $L_1L_3\bar E_3$ operators (from top left to bottom right) for signal and dominant background,\footnote{For the tri-lepton distributions we use WZ production for the background (see below for a discussion of the backgrounds) while for the distributions including tau-jets we use ZZ production since WZ will not give tau-jets in addition to the three leptons required to pass the cuts.} normalized to 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. The $\tau$ in these plots refers to hadronic jets stemming from
taus. As expected, $L_1L_2\bar E_1$ shows a clearly identifiable
peak at the chargino mass of 526 GeV above the combinatorial background. For $L_1L_2\bar E_3$ and $L_2L_3\bar E_2$ we see clearly identifiable features in the distributions with taus as well as identifiable kinks in the purely leptonic distributions. For these couplings the chargino should be observable as a resonance up to quite high masses at 13--14 TeV.
Due to the large content of taus, $L_1L_3\bar E_3$ appears more challenging; there is a small kink in the $e\tau \tau$ distribution, but one should bear in mind that these plots are produced from $10^6$ generated events (before cuts) and this is an unrealistically high number as compared to experimental expectations, so it remains an open question whether these smaller features can actually be observed.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{TriLeppt3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Various flavour combinations of tri-lepton invariant masses for the $L_1L_2\bar E_1$, $L_1L_2\bar E_3$, $L_2L_3\bar E_2$ and $L_1L_3\bar E_3$ couplings. The thin dashed lines give the dominant background and the distributions are normalized to 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.}\label{fig:TriLep}
\end{figure}
From preliminary studies by ATLAS of the tri-lepton reach in supersymmetry models at 14 TeV~\cite{ATLAS13TeVTriLepton}, the main background to the tri-lepton resonance is expected to be di-boson production, in the absence of a $Z$-boson veto, and tri-boson and $t\bar t$ with said veto. Comparing the total NLO cross section of 175 pb for di-boson production at 13 TeV~\cite{Campbell:2011bn}, to the total neutralino and chargino pair-production cross section for {\tt RPV\_C1} and {\tt RPV\_C3} of 0.99 pb and 49.9 fb, respectively, calculated using {\tt Prospino 2.1}~\cite{Beenakker:1999xh}, both benchmark points seem promising for early discovery.\footnote{We note here that some of the four-lepton searches in \cite{Aad:2014iza} may be sensitive to chargino masses as low as in {\tt RPV\_C1}, however, it is difficult to fully understand their impact without a detailed simulation of each search, which is outside the scope of the present paper. {\tt RPV\_C3} should be safely outside of their reach. }
In order to quantify this further, we can use the selection efficiency
of the di-boson background and signal for the $ee\mu$ final state
under the cuts given above,\footnote{In order to explore the many
possible RPV couplings we have kept our cuts very
generic. Improvements for specific couplings can certainly be
made. However, we feel a more detailed study of cuts and
sensitivity, than our rough estimate, would be better done within
the experiments.} which we find to be $5.7\times 10^{-5}$ for the background,
and 0.24 and 0.47 for {\tt RPV\_C1} and {\tt RPV\_C3},
respectively.\footnote{Calculated using leading order matrix elements
in the Monte Carlo simulation.} Using an $S/\sqrt{B}$ criterion to
test sensitivity, where $S$ is the number of signal events and $B$ the
background, and requiring a minimum of five signal events, a simple
event counting experiment will need 21 pb$^{-1}$ and 0.45 fb$^{-1}$ of
data to reach discovery level for the two benchmarks. This is clearly
an early discovery opportunity for Run II of the LHC.
Because of the very low SM background, in order to observe the chargino peak above
the combinatorics of the events with supersymmetric origin, slightly
more statistics would be needed. Results for the $e\mu\mu$ state are
very similar.
More detailed studies could be performed
by the LHC experiments, to take into account the missing energy
resolution and the lepton reconstruction efficiency, which
should be high at the transverse momenta of
interest, and to include a full
background analysis. Here we took into account only the most
significant background. These however go beyond the scope of this
paper.
Looking for the tri-lepton peak is crucial for identifying the scenario giving rise to a multi-lepton excess. It would tell us that we have a charged particle that decays to a specific combination of three leptons, thus violating lepton number, as well as the mass of that particle, and potentially the spin of the particle through angular distributions of the decay products. As already mentioned, the distributions of Fig.~\ref{fig:TriLep} may help with these identifications also for those operators that do not give rise to a clear peak.
As in the case of neutralino decays discussed in~\cite{Bomark:2011ye}, there are also interesting features in the di-lepton invariant mass distributions. The advantage with di-lepton distributions is that we can employ same-sign subtraction to practically remove the combinatorial background and hence reveal features otherwise invisible. The combinatorial background consists of lepton pairs that come from different parts of the event and are hence expected to be uncorrelated. As a result, the charges of these lepton pairs should be uncorrelated and therefore, taking for example the difference, $m_{e^+e^-}-m_{e^-e^-}-m_{e^+e^+}$ for the $ee$ invariant mass, should remove the combinatorial background.
As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:DiLep}, where the resulting di-lepton
invariant mass distributions for $L_1L_2\bar E_3$ and $L_2L_3\bar E_1$
(signal and WZ background for 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity) are shown, this works as expected. For neutralino
decays, these distributions were discussed in detail
in~\cite{Bomark:2011ye}; here we focus on those features that are
relevant for decaying charginos. The most striking feature can be seen
in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:DiLep} where the $e\mu$ invariant
mass distribution becomes negative. This effect is due to the
structure of the couplings; the two distinct flavours in the lepton
superfield doublets $L$ will give rise to contributions in the
same-sign invariant mass distributions from the chargino decays. After same-sign subtraction
this will show up as a negative contribution in the distribution, and
interfere with the positive contributions from both decaying charginos and neutralinos.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{LLE123231pt3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Di-lepton invariant masses for $L_1L_2\bar E_3$ (left) and $L_2L_3\bar E_1$ (right). The thin dashed lines give the dominant background and the distributions are normalized to 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.}\label{fig:DiLep}
\end{figure}
Following~\cite{Bomark:2011ye}, the cleanness of the di-lepton distributions can be used to extract a substantial amount of information about the scenario at hand, including the chargino/neutralino mass and the flavours of the couplings, also in the difficult cases where the decays are dominated by taus. In addition one could hope to establish the ratio of neutralino to chargino decays in the final distribution.
To illustrate this, let us look at the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ distributions
in the right-hand panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:DiLep}. The negative perturbation in the
$\mu\mu$ channel shows that we have a decaying chargino, while the
absence of a clear cutoff as in the $e\mu$ channel indicates that one
of the muons comes from a decaying tau. This means that our coupling
must have an $L_2L_3$ component. The large peak in the $e\mu$ channel
indicates that the last component of the RPV operator must be $\bar
E_1$, and it also gives us the chargino/neutralino mass. Finally, the
positive perturbation in the $ee$ distribution is caused by neutralino and chargino
decays with an $ee$ pair where one of the electrons comes from a
decaying tau and the other from the $\bar E_1$ operator.
We can now compare the height of the perturbation in the $ee$ distribution
to the one of the negative perturbation in the $\mu\mu$ distribution. Since
the contribution from chargino decays is the same in both distributions,
the difference in height between the positive and negative perturbations, when compared to the (negative) height of the $\mu\mu$ distribution, reveals the ratio of neutralino to chargino decays in our event
sample. In this case charginos are slightly more common than neutralinos.
\subsubsection*{$LQ\bar D$ operators}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:ljj} (left) we show the distribution of the invariant mass of $ljj$ combinations for the {\tt RPV\_C3} benchmark point with the $L_1Q_1\bar D_1$ operator for signal only, with arbitrary normalization. Since light quark flavour, and thus charge, is impossible to determine experimentally from jet physics, chargino resonances decaying through the $LQ\bar D$ operators have already received significant attention in searches for leptoquarks and neutralinos with RPV decays. We will therefore limit our discussion here. In terms of chargino masses the same cross section limits should apply as for neutralinos.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{LQDpt3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Lepton plus dijet invariant mass distributions for $L_1Q_1\bar D_1$ (left), and the same for $L_1Q_3\bar D_1$ including same-sign subtraction (right). Signal only, normalized to 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.}\label{fig:ljj}
\end{figure}
One exception that is worth mentioning are operators of the type $L_iQ_3\bar D_k$ that cause relatively light neutralinos to always decay to neutrino plus jets, $\nu_i b \bar d_k$, while heavier neutralinos can decay to $l^-_i t\bar d_k$. Light charginos will always have the possibility to decay to charged lepton plus jets, $l^-_i b \bar d_k$, thus improving the detectability significantly with both a lepton and a b-tag, and potential charge identification, for the resonance reconstruction. This can be further improved by same-sign subtraction for the electron and b-jet pair in order to reduce combinatorial background. We show the resulting distribution of
\begin{equation}
m_{e^-\bar bj}+m_{e^+bj}-m_{e^+\bar bj}-m_{e^-bj},
\end{equation}
for the $L_1Q_3\bar D_1$ operator in Fig.~\ref{fig:ljj} (right). Here the chargino contribution has been subtracted, showing up as the downward fluctuation in the distribution at $\sim 530$ GeV.
We also note that models with large $\lambda'_{111}$ and $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}$ from 500 GeV to 1 TeV were recently studied \cite{Allanach:2014lca} as a possible explanation of the deviations from the Standard Model seen in the $eejj$ channel in CMS data~\cite{Khachatryan:2014dka}, however, this requires sleptons with masses around 2 TeV, which are very disfavoured in our search due to the naturalness bias and the constraint on $(g-2)_\mu$ that we have applied. Even so, it is worth pointing out that a degenerate chargino--neutralino pair is not impossible in this scenario, and that such a chargino can be searched for as a resonance in the $l^+ d \bar d$ channel.
\subsubsection*{$\bar U\bar D\bar D$ operators}
For the $\bar U\bar D\bar D$ operators the situation is similar to the $LQ\bar D$ operators. The chargino decays as $\tilde\chi^+_1\to u_iu_jd_k,\bar d_i\bar d_j\bar d_k$. For light flavours a chargino resonance will look just like a neutralino (or gluino) resonance decaying into three quarks, $\tilde\chi_1^0\to u_i d_j d_k$, and will be equally challenging to reconstruct, although some improvement could be had from the sophisticated use of jet clustering algorithms \cite{Butterworth:2009qa}. Experimental bounds on three-jet resonances do exist \cite{Chatrchyan:2013gia}, but these have been interpreted only in terms of gluino production and RPV decay, where the production cross sections are much higher. As we have seen in Section~\ref{sec:vertex}, RPV decays of charginos through $\bar U\bar D\bar D$ operators should be heavily suppressed compared to RPC decays in scenarios that feature naturalness, and will thus be even more difficult to discover.
We end by pointing out that for the operators $\bar U_3 \bar D_j \bar D_k$, a neutralino decay requires a top quark in the final state, while the chargino can also decay to three down quarks, of which at least one is a bottom quark. As discussed above in Section~\ref{sec:vertex} it seems difficult to realise a scenario where the chargino is much lighter than 500 GeV and decays dominantly through RPV couplings. Thus, this inherent difference may have only marginal applicability since the decay to top quarks will not be very kinematically suppressed at such high masses. The final states unique to the chargino are the decays to two b-quarks and one light quark, with the experimental signature $bbj$, and the decays to two top quarks and a light down quark, $ttj$, which are possible for the $\bar U_3 \bar D_1 \bar D_3$ and $\bar U_3 \bar D_2 \bar D_3$ operators.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Following the lack of missing-energy signals at the LHC, there is now
additional motivation to depart from the MSSM and
study in more detail alternative realisations of supersymmetry. A
promising scenario in this respect is provided by R-parity violation,
where missing energy is substituted by multi-lepton or multi-jet
events. While especially the latter can often be hard to distinguish from the
SM backgrounds, there are channels where the signals can be
spectacular. Further motivation for such schemes is
provided by the fact that R-parity violation can be perfectly
compatible with supersymmetric dark matter, with a gravitino LSP that
is stable on cosmological scales, and rapid decays of the remaining
superparticles inside the detector, thus being detectable.
Within this framework, we previously studied neutralino
decays at the LHC, paying particular attention to the rich flavour
structure of the theory. Here, we extend these studies to
direct RPV chargino decays, which
can take place in scenarios with a wino or higgsino effective LSP, where the lightest chargino and
neutralino have a small mass difference $\Delta m$.
In order to investigate the properties of these scenarios, we employ a bayesian scan over the MSSM
parameter space, taking into account the
relevant constraints. We perform our main scan with logarithmic priors, checking that the central conclusions remain unchanged with linear priors. In addition to concrete experimental signatures
related to RPV chargino decays,
we also identify distinct differences between a
wino and a higgsino LSP. For instance the first is somewhat preferred in the region of
small $\Delta m$, while the second has a larger RPC branching ratio to leptons, which, if
a long-lived chargino is discovered, can be used to probe the gaugino
sector of the theory.
For the RPV decays we find the following interesting possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item
For $LL\bar{E}$ operators, spectacular signatures, such as three
charged-lepton resonances, with explicit lepton number
violation in the final state, can be expected. We have shown that this
can be the case for substantial patches of the supersymmetric
parameter space, even in the MSSM, which is the most
conservative scenario. In extensions of the theory, the
parameter space where such signatures could arise would be enhanced.
In addition, similarly to neutralino decays, there are
interesting features in the di-lepton invariant mass distributions,
where employing same-sign subtraction practically removes
the combinatorial background, thus revealing features that would otherwise
be invisible.
\item
For $LQ\bar{D}$ operators, the expected physics is similar to RPV neutralino decays, but with some quite
interesting differences. Particularly for $LQ_3\bar{D}$, there is a distinct difference between
RPV neutralino and chargino decays, since the first involves
neutrinos plus jets or a charged lepton and a top quark, while the
latter involves charged leptons plus jets or neutrinos and top quarks.
For charginos therefore, a signal with both a lepton and a b-tag and
potential charge identification has enhanced detectability.
\item
For $\bar{U}\bar{D}\bar{D}$ operators we do not expect significant chargino RPV decays for positive $\Delta m$. For small (below pion mass) and negative mass differences charginos below 500 GeV seem excluded by searches for long-lived charged particles. For heavier charginos detection through RPV decays seems very difficult, the use of sophisticated jet clustering methods is in general required. However, we note that the operators $\bar{U}_3 \bar{D}_j\bar{D}_k$ have a particularly interesting behaviour: while neutralino RPV decays will always contain a top quark, the chargino can decay to three jets including at least one b-jet. Furthermore, for the operators $\bar{U}_3 \bar{D}_j\bar{D}_3$ one can also get $bbj$ and $ttj$ final states, opening the possibility to search for rare multi-top events and events with same sign top pairs.
\end{itemize}
Overall, signals from direct RPV chargino decays complement
previous studies, and looking for them is
necessary in order to make a complete search for supersymmetry at the
LHC. Moreover, since these signatures are directly correlated to the
flavour and group structure of the theory, which determines the particle mass
correlations and level of unification at high scales, it is hoped that
any observable signal will help to distinguish between different possible
realisations of supersymmetry.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
The CPU intensive parts of this work was performed on the Abel Cluster, owned by the University of Oslo
and the Norwegian metacenter for High Performance Computing (NOTUR), and operated by the Research Computing Services group at USIT, the University of Oslo IT-department. The computing time was given by NOTUR allocation NN9284K, financed through the Research Council of Norway. N.-E. Bomark is funded in part by the Welcome Programme of the Foundation for Polish Science. The use of the CIS computer cluster at the National Centre for Nuclear Research is gratefully acknowledged.
|
\chapter{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\section{Background}
This paper is concerned with a number of regularity properties of Cuntz semigroups, which are invariants naturally associated to \ca{s}.
To put our results into perspective, we first review the $C^*$-motivation behind our work, as well as the importance of these semigroups in the context of the Elliott classification program.
\subsection{The Elliott classification program}
\label{subsct:classification}
The Cuntz semigroup $\W(A)$ of a \ca{} $A$ is an important invariant in the structure theory of \ca{s}, particularly in connection with the classification program of simple, nuclear \ca{s} initiated by George Elliott.
In itself, nuclearity is a finite-dimensional approximation property that includes a large number of our stock-in-trade \ca{s}.
The original Elliott Conjecture asserts that simple, separable, unital, nuclear \ca{s} can be classified by an invariant $\mathrm{Ell}(\freeVar)$ of a $K$-theoretic nature.
Without going into much detail, the Elliott invariant $\mathrm{Ell}(A)$ for a \ca{} $A$ consists of the ordered $K_0$-group, the topological $K_1$-group, the trace simplex $T(A)$ and the (natural) pairing between traces and projections.
\begin{conj}[Elliott's Classification Conjecture]
\index{terms}{Elliott's Classification Conjecture}
For \ca{s} $A$ and $B$ as above, we have $\mathrm{Ell}(A)\cong\mathrm{Ell}(B)$ if and only if $A\cong B$.
\end{conj}
The Elliott program has had tremendous success in the classification of wide classes of algebras (see for example \cite{Ror92StructureUHF2} and \cite{EllTOm08Regularity}).
However, the first counterexamples to the conjecture as stated above appeared in the work of R{\o}rdam (\cite{Ror03FinInfProj}) and Toms (\cite{Tom05IndependenceK-SR}).
Both examples allowed to repair the conjecture by adding a minimal amount of information to the invariant (in this case, the real rank).
Soon after that though, Toms produced in \cite{Tom08ClassificationNuclear} two simple AH-algebras that agreed not only on the Elliott invariant, but also on a whole collection of topological invariants (among them the real and stable rank).
The distinguishing factor for the said algebras is precisely the Cuntz semigroup $W(A)$.
This is an object that was introduced by Cuntz in \cite{Cun78DimFct} as equivalence classes of positive elements in matrices over a \ca{} $A$, in very much the same way the semigroup $V(A)$ (as a precursor of $K_0(A)$) is constructed via Murray-von Neumann equivalence classes of projections in matrices over $A$. For a large class of simple \ca{s} (see \ref{subsc:ssa}), the Elliott invariant and the Cuntz semigroup, suitably interpreted, determine one another in a functorial way.
One of the key features of the Cuntz semigroup is its ordering, which is in general not algebraic.
As a matter of fact, it is one order property -- almost unperforation -- that is used to distinguish the algebras mentioned above.
Many of the classes of algebras considered in the classification program admit an inductive limit decomposition, and hence it is desirable that any addition to the original Elliott invariant behaves well with respect to inductive limits.
This is not the case of the Cuntz semigroup, when considered as an invariant from the category of \ca{s} to the category of semigroups.
This shortcoming can be remedied by passing to stable algebras and considering as a target category a suitable category $\CatCu$ of ordered semigroups (see below).
This was carried out by Coward, Elliott and Ivanescu in \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv}, where they defined $\Cu(A)$ using Hilbert modules (and showed it is naturally isomorphic to $W(A\otimes K)$).
In this way, the assignment $A\mapsto \Cu(A)$ defines a sequentially continuous functor.
To this date, there is no counterexample to the conjecture of whether the Elliott invariant, together with the Cuntz semigroup, constitutes a complete invariant for the class of unital, simple, separable, nuclear \ca{s}.
It is therefore natural to ask what is the largest possible class for which the Elliott Conjecture can be proved to hold.
It is important to point out that the Cuntz semigroup alone has become a useful tool in the classification of certain classes of nonsimple algebras.
A remarkable instance of this situation is found in the work of Robert in \cite{Rob12LimitsNCCW}, where the Cuntz semigroup is used to classify, up to approximate unitary equivalence, \starHom{s} out of an inductive limit of $1$-dimensional noncommutative CW-complexes with trivial $K_1$-groups into a stable rank one algebra.
As a consequence, Robert classifies all (not necessarily simple) inductive limits of $1$-dimensional NCCW-complexes with trivial $K_1$-groups using the Cuntz semigroup.
\subsection{Strongly self-absorbing \texorpdfstring{\ca{s}}{C*-algebras}. \texorpdfstring{$\mathcal Z$}{Z}-stability}
\label{subsc:ssa}
Toms and Winter, \cite[Definition~1.3]{TomWin07ssa}, termed a \ca{} $D$ strongly self-absorbing if $D\neq\C$ and if there is an isomorphism $\varphi\colon D\to D\otimes D$ that is approximately unitarily equivalent to the inclusion in the first factor (or, as it turns out, in the second).
\index{terms}{C*-algebra@\ca{}!strongly self-absorbing}
\index{terms}{strongly self-absorbing \ca{}}
\index{terms}{Jiang-Su algebra}
Such \ca{s} are automatically simple, nuclear (Effros-Rosenberg), and are either purely infinite or stably finite with a unique trace (Kirchberg).
The only known examples of strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} are:
The Cuntz algebras $\mathcal{O}_2$ and $\mathcal{O}_\infty$, every UHF-algebra of infinite type, the tensor products $\mathcal{O}_\infty\otimes U$ where $U$ is a UHF-algebra of infinite type, and the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$.
All these algebras satisfy the Universal Coefficient Theorem (UCT).
The Elliott classification program predicts that they are in fact the only strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} satisfying the UCT. This has been verified very recently in \cite{TikWhiWin15}.
It remains an important open problem to determine whether there is a strongly self-absorbing \ca{} outside the UCT class, as this would provide a nuclear, non-UCT \ca.
If $D$ is strongly self-absorbing, a \ca{} $A$ is called $D$-stable provided that $A\cong A\otimes D$.
Winter showed that all strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} are $\mathcal{Z}$-stable (see \cite{Win11ssaZstable}, \cite{DadRor09ssa}).
It follows from this result that $\mathcal{Z}$ is an initial object in the category of strongly self-absorbing \ca{s}.
The Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ has the same Elliott invariant as the complex numbers, and it has become prominent in the classification program.
In fact, tensoring a \ca{} with $\mathcal{Z}$ is inert at the level of $K$-theory and traces (although it may change the order of the $K_0$-group, except under some additional assumptions).
It is thus reasonable to expect that classification can be achieved within the class of simple, separable, unital, nuclear, $\mathcal{Z}$-stable algebras.
In this way, $\mathcal{Z}$-stability postulates itself as a regularity property for \ca{s}. For the said algebras that furthermore fall in the UCT class and have finite nuclear dimension, classification is now complete by the work of many authors (see \cite{GonLinNiu15}, \cite{EllGonLinNiu15}, \cite{TikWhiWin15} and the references therein).
All classes of simple, nuclear \ca{s} for which the Elliott Conjecture has been verified consist of $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{s}; see \cite{TomWin08ASH}.
One may therefore wonder what role the Cuntz semigroup plays in these results, if any.
As proved in \cite{AntDadPerSan14RecoverElliott} (see also \cite{Tik11CuFunctions}, \cite{BroPerTom08CuElliottConj}), for the class of unital, simple, separable, nuclear and $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{s} (this is the class alluded to above), the Elliott invariant and the Cuntz semigroup of any such algebra tensored with the circle define naturally equivalent functors.
Thus, for this class, $\mathrm{Ell}(\freeVar)$ is a classifying functor if and only if so is $\Cu(C(\T,\freeVar))$.
\subsection{The regularity Conjecture}
This conjecture, which is also known as the Toms-Winter conjecture (see \cite[Remarks~3.5]{TomWin09Villadsen} and \cite[Conjecture~0.1]{Win12NuclDimZstable}) links three seemingly unrelated regularity properties that a simple, separable, nuclear, nonelementary \ca{} $A$ may enjoy.
The first of these properties is that $A$ has finite nuclear dimension.
We will not define nuclear dimension here.
Instead let us just say that it is a strengthening of the definition of nuclearity that uses completely positive order-zero maps (that is, completely positive maps that preserve orthogonality of elements).
The second regularity property is $\mathcal{Z}$-stability, and the third one is strict comparison of positive elements, which may be roughly stated by saying that comparison of positive elements (modulo Cuntz subequivalence) is determined by the states on the Cuntz semigroup.
This is equivalent to saying that the Cuntz semigroup is almost unperforated.
\begin{conj}[Toms-Winter]
\index{terms}{Regularity Conjecture}\index{terms}{Toms-Winter Conjecture}
Let $A$ be a simple, separable, nuclear, nonelementary \ca.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The \ca{} $A$ has finite nuclear dimension.
\item
The \ca{} $A$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable.
\item
The Cuntz semigroup $\W(A)$ is almost unperforated.
\end{enumerate}
\end{conj}
Important work by many authors has led to a partial confirmation of this conjecture:
Winter proved in \cite{Win12NuclDimZstable} that~(i) implies~(ii), and R{\o}rdam showed in \cite{Ror04StableRealRankZ} that~(ii) implies~(iii).
If $A$ has no tracial states then it is purely infinite and the conjecture has been confirmed in that case using \cite{KirPhi00Crelle1}, \cite{Ror04StableRealRankZ}, and \cite{MatSat14}.
It was shown that~(iii) implies~(ii) in the case that $T(A)$ is a Bauer simplex whose extreme boundary is finite-dimensional (see \cite{KirRor12arXivCentralSeq}, \cite{Sat12TraceSpace}, and \cite{TomWhiWin12arXivZStable}, and the precursor \cite{MatSat12StrComparison}).
It was proved that~(ii) implies~(i) in the case that $A$ has a unique tracial case (\cite{SatWhiWin14arXivNuclDim}), which was very recently generalized to the case that $T(A)$ is any Bauer simplex; see \cite{BosBroSatTikWhiWin14}.
It follows that the Toms-Winter conjecture is verified for all \ca{s} $A$ such that $T(A)$ is a Bauer simplex with finite-dimensional extreme boundary.
For every Elliott invariant of a simple, separable, nuclear $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} there exists a model given as an inductive limit whose building blocks are either Cuntz algebras over the circle, or subhomogeneus algebras whose primitive ideal spaces have dimension at most $2$.
Therefore, if classification and the regularity conjecture hold we would get deep insight into the structure of simple, nuclear \ca{s}.
\section{The categories \texorpdfstring{$\CatW$}{W} and \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}}
\label{subsect:W and Cu}
As we have mentioned in \ref{subsct:classification}, Coward, Elliott and Ivanescu introduced a category of ordered semigroups $\CatCu$ such that $\Cu(A)$ is an object in $\CatCu$ for every \ca{} $A$.
The axioms defining this category capture the continuous nature of the Cuntz semigroup.
The first axiom asks for every increasing sequence to admit an order-theoretic supremum, while the second axiom requires that every element $a$ is the supremum of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ such that $a_n\ll a_{n+1}$ for each $n$.
(See \autoref{pgr:axiomsW} for the definition of `$\ll$' and further details).
Given a \ca{} $A$, a positive element $a$ in $A$ and $\varepsilon>0$, one always has that $[(a-\varepsilon)_+]\ll [a]$ in $\Cu(A)$.
A projection $p$ in $A$ always satisfies $[p]\ll [p]$.
The elements $s$ satisfying $s\ll s$ play an important role and are termed \emph{compact}.
We may think with advantage that they are equivalence classes of projections.
The third and fourth axioms express compatibility between addition, suprema, and the relation~$\ll$.
It is then natural to ask what continuity properties are already reflected in $W(A)$ and how $\Cu(A)$ is obtained out of them.
Attempts in this direction may be found in \cite{AntBosPer11CompletionsCu}.
We introduce here a new category of semigroups $\CatW$ parallel to the category $\CatCu$ and show that $W(A)$ is an object of this category.
One of the key ingredients is that the objects in $\CatW$ are semigroups equipped with an additional relation, sufficiently compatible with addition, referred to as an auxiliary relation (\cite{GieHof+03Domains}).
We show that $W(A)$ can be endowed with such a relation; this is also the case with $\Cu(A)$, as was already noted in \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv}, where one takes $\ll$ as an auxiliary relation.
Another ingredient in our approach consists of considering the larger category $\CatLocCa$ of local \ca{s}.
Essentially, these are pre-\ca{s} that admit functional calculus on finite sets of positive elements.
We give a full picture of the exact relation between the functors $W(\freeVar)$ and $\Cu(\freeVar)$ (see \autoref{prp:limitsW}, and Theorems~\ref{prp:functorW}, \ref{prp:CureflectivePreW},~\ref{prp:commutingFctrs}).
\begin{thm*} The following conditions hold true:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The category $\CatW$ admits arbitrary inductive limits and the assignment $A\mapsto W(A)$ defines a continuous functor from the category $\CatLocCa$ of local \ca{s} to the category $\CatW$.
\item
The category $\CatCu$ is a full, reflective subcategory of $\CatW$.
Therefore, $\CatCu$ also admits arbitrary inductive limits.
\item
There is a diagram, that commutes up to natural isomorphisms:
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@M+3pt{
\CatLocCa \ar@/_1pc/[d]_{\gamma} \ar[r]^{\W}
& \CatW \ar@/^1pc/[d]^{\gamma} \\
\CatCa \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[r]^{\Cu}
& \CatCu \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \\
}
\]
where $\gamma\colon\CatW\to\CatCu$ is the reflection functor and $\gamma\colon\CatLocCa\to \CatCa$ is the completion functor that assigns to a local \ca{} its completion (which is a \ca{}).
In particular, the assignment $A\mapsto\Cu(A)$ is also a continuous functor from the category of \ca{s} to the category $\CatCu$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm*}
Notice that condition (i) above sets up the right framework for the functor $\W$ to be continuous, by enlarging the source category to $\CatLocCa$ and identifying the range category $\CatW$.
Condition (iii) generalizes \cite[Theorem~2]{CowEllIva08CuInv} from sequential to arbitrary inductive limits.
A key concept in the proof is that of a $\Cu$-completion of a semigroup $S$ in the category $\CatW$.
This may be thought of as a pair $(T,\alpha)$, where $T\in \CatCu$ and $\alpha\colon S\to T$ is a morphism that, suitably interpreted, is an embedding with dense image.
\subsection{The range problem. Additional axioms}
\index{terms}{Range problem}
It is an important problem to determine which semigroups in the category $\CatCu$ come as Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s}.
For example, we know that, for any finite dimensional, compact Hausdorff space, the semigroup $\Lsc(X,\N\cup\{\infty\})$ of lower semicontinuous functions is an object of $\CatCu$ (\cite{AntPerSan11PullbacksCu}), but if fails to be the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca{} whenever the dimension of $X$ is larger than $2$ (\cite{Rob13CuSpaces2D}).
There are two additional axioms that the Cuntz semigroup of any \ca{} satisfies, and which are not derived from the original set of axioms used to define the category $\CatCu$.
The first of such axioms was established by R{\o}rdam and Winter (\cite{RorWin10ZRevisited}) and indicates how far the partial order in $\Cu(A)$ is from being algebraic.
It is usually referred to as the \emph{almost algebraic order} axiom.
Given $a',a$ and $b$, the axiom says:
\[
\text{If }a'\ll a\leq b, \text{ then there is }c\text{ such that }a'+c\leq b\leq a+c.
\]
It is worth pointing out that, if $a\ll a$, then the above implies that whenever $a\leq b$, there is an element $c$ with $a+c=b$.
Thus, this axiom is a generalization of the fact that the order among Cuntz classes of projections is algebraic.
The second axiom was established by Robert (\cite{Rob13Cone}) and is a condition of a Riesz decomposition type, usually referred to as the \emph{almost Riesz decomposition} axiom.
Given $a',a,b$ and $c$, the axiom reads as follows:
\[
\text{If }a'\ll a\leq b+c, \text{ then there are } b'\leq b,a \text{ and } c'\leq c,a \text{ such that } a'\leq b'+c'.
\]
In \autoref{dfn:addAxioms}, we introduce a strengthening of the almost algebraic order axiom, and we prove that it is satisfied by the Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ of any \ca{} $A$.
It is equivalent to the original formulation if the semigroup is weakly cancellative, that is, if $a+c\ll b+c$ implies $a\ll b$.
(As shown in \cite{RorWin10ZRevisited}, $\Cu(A)$ is weakly cancellative when $A$ has stable rank one.) With this new formulation, the axiom passes to inductive limits.
We also introduce corresponding versions of these axioms for the category $\CatW$ and show that they are satisfied by $W(A)$, for any local \ca{} $A$.
The $\Cu$-completion process, as described above, relates exactly each one of the $\CatW$-axioms with its $\CatCu$-counterpart.
All the axioms considered pass to inductive limits.
Although it may be premature to recast the category $\CatCu$ by adding the axioms of almost algebraic order and almost Riesz decomposition (as new axioms may emerge in the near future), it is quite pertinent to add them to our basket of assumptions in many results of the paper.
\subsection{Softness and pure noncompactness}
While compact elements in a $\CatCu$-semigroup may be thought of as `projections', the class of purely noncompact elements can be placed at the other end of the scale, that is, as far as possible from projections.
This may be phrased by saying that the element in question only becomes compact in a quotient when it is zero or properly infinite.
It was shown by Elliott, Robert, and Santiago that the purely noncompact elements in $\Cu(A)$ are, in the almost unperforated case, the ones that can be compared by traces, \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}.
It is natural to seek for a result of this nature in the framework of the category $\CatCu$ alone.
For this, given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we need to consider the set $F(S)$ of functionals on $S$, that is, extended states on $S$ that respect suprema of increasing sequences.
Note that, in this way, any element $a$ in $S$ induces a linear, lower semicontinuous, $[0,\infty]$-valued function $\hat{a}$ on $F(S)$ by evaluation.
It is to be noted that $F(\Cu(A))$ is homeomorphic to the trace simplex of non-normalized traces on $A$ (when $A$ is exact), as shown in \cite[Theorem 4.4]{EllRobSan11Cone}.
Indeed, given a trace $\tau$, its corresponding functional $d_\tau$ maps the class $[x]$ of a positive element $x$ in $A\otimes\K$ to $\lim_n\tau(x^{1/n})$.
The key notion in the abstract setting of $\CatCu$-semigroups is that of a soft element.
By definition, $a\in S$ is soft if any $a'\ll a$ satisfies $(n+1)a'\leq na$ for some $n$.
As it turns out, the subset $S_\soft$ of soft elements is a submonoid of $S$.
If $S$ is furthermore simple and stably finite, then $S_\soft$ is also a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Our definition of softness is inspired by \cite{GooHan82Stenosis}.
For almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroups, soft elements are the ones whose comparison theory is completely determined by functionals.
Namely, given $a$, $b\in S$ with $a$ soft, then $a\leq b$ precisely when $\hat{a}\leq \hat{b}$.
This generalizes \cite[Theorem~6.6]{EllRobSan11Cone}.
It is worth mentioning that, in the presence of the almost algebraic order axiom, softness is equivalent to a suitable weakening of pure noncompactness.
The concept of softness is, however, easier to state and to use.
\subsection{Algebraic semigroups}
A particularly interesting class of $\CatCu$-se\-mi\-groups is that of algebraic semigroups.
These are $\CatCu$-semigroups where the compact elements are dense, and they are modelled after \ca{s} of real rank zero, where the structure of projections determines a great deal of the structure of the algebra.
We show that this is also the case at the semigroup level.
Of particular significance is the fact that axioms of interest have a translation into properties of the compact elements (see \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}):
\begin{thm*}
Let $S$ be an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $S_c$ be the submonoid of compact elements.
Then:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ satisfies the axiom of almost algebraic order if and only if $S_c$ is algebraically ordered.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is weakly cancellative if and only if $S_c$ is a cancellative semigroup.
\item
If $S_c$ has Riesz decomposition, then $S$ satisfies the axiom of almost Riesz decomposition.
Conversely, if $S$ satisfies the axioms of almost algebraic order and almost Riesz decomposition and is weakly cancellative, then $S_c$ has Riesz decomposition.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm*}
\subsection{Near unperforation}
The notion of near unperforation allows us to analyse almost unperforation from a new perspective. A \pom{} $S$ is \emph{nearly unperforated} if $a\leq b$ whenever $2a\leq 2b$ and $3a\leq 3b$.
(This is not our original definition, but a useful restatement.)
Nearly unperforated semigroups are always almost unperforated, so this becomes a strengthened notion.
In the simple case, a converse is available (see \autoref{prp:nearUnperfSimpleCu}):
\begin{thm*}
Let $S$ be a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup that satisfies the almost algebraic order axiom. Then $S$ is nearly unperforated precisely when it is almost unperforated and weakly cancellative.
\end{thm*}
R\o rdam proved in \cite{Ror04StableRealRankZ} that a simple, $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} is either purely infinite or has stable rank one.
He also showed that the Cuntz semigroup of every $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} is almost unperforated. While there are examples of simple, almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroups that fail to be weakly cancellative, the above theorem shows that this is no longer the case for nearly unperforated semigroups.
Thus, as a corollary, if $A$ is a simple $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca, $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated. We have also verified that the Cuntz semigroup of (not necessarily simple) $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{s} is nearly unperforated in a variety of situations. For example, if further $A$ has real rank zero and stable rank one, or also if $A$ has no $K_1$-obstructions (see \autoref{sec:nearUnp}). It then remains an interesting open problem to decide whether $\Cu(A)$ is always nearly unperforated for any $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} $A$.
We conjecture this is always the case.
\section{Tensor products}
Tensor products with the Jiang-Su algebra or, more generally, by a strongly self-absorbing \ca, are of particular relevance in connection with the current status of the classification program.
The tensor product construction at the level of (ordered) semigroups has a long tradition (for completeness, we have included a review of the necessary definitions and results in \autoref{sec:appendixPom}).
It is therefore a very natural question to ask how $\Cu(A\otimes B)$ and $\Cu(A)\otimes\Cu(B)$ are related.
The first step towards a solution to this question resides in carrying out a construction of the tensor product within the category $\CatCu$, so as to `equip' the usual semigroup tensor product with the necessary continuous structure.
Our approach has a categorical flavor, and at the same time allows for computations of examples.
A central notion is that of a bimorphism $\varphi\colon S\times T\to R$, that is, a biadditive map that is required to satisfy certain additional conditions depending on the category where the objects $S$, $T$ and $R$ live.
Thus, for example, if we focus on the category $\CatCu$, we speak of $\CatCu$-bimorphisms and we shall be asking that $\varphi$ is continuous in each variable (that is, preserves suprema of increasing sequences) and is jointly preserving the relation $\ll$, that is, $s'\ll s$ and $t'\ll t$ imply $\varphi(s',t')\ll\varphi(s,t)$.
This requirement breaks away from the usual conventions in existing (semigroup) tensor products, and makes our construction technically more demanding.
One asks a tensor product in $\CatCu$ of $S$ and $T$ to be a pair $(Q,\varphi)$, where $Q$ is an object in $\CatCu$ and $\varphi\colon S\times T\to Q$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism with certain universal properties involving different types of morphisms.
We can also regard the tensor product as an object that represents the bimorphism bifunctor $\CatCuBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)$.
We use $\CatCuMor(\freeVar,\freeVar)$ and $\CatWMor(\freeVar,\freeVar)$ below to denote the corresponding morphism sets, which are positively ordered semigroups in a natural way.
We prove (see \autoref{prp:tensProdCu}):
\begin{thm*}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatCu$-semigroups.
There is a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$ and a $\CatCu$-bimorphism $\varphi\colon S\times T\to S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$ such that the pair ($S\otimes_{\CatCu} T$, $\varphi$) represents the bimorphism functor $\CatCuBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)$ that takes values in the category of positively ordered semigroups.
Thus, for every $\CatCu$-semigroup $R$, the $\CatCu$-bimorphism $\varphi$ induces a positively ordered semigroup isomorphism of the following (bi)morphism sets:
\[
\CatCuMor(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,R)\to \CatCuBimor(S\times T,R).
\]
\end{thm*}
In outline, the construction of the object $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$ in the theorem above uses the reflection functor $\gamma\colon\CatW\to \CatCu$ as described in \ref{subsect:W and Cu}, and so the tensor product in $\CatCu$ comes as a completion of the corresponding object in $\CatW$.
In fact, recalling that $\CatCu$ is a reflective subcategory of $\CatW$, we have (see \autoref{thm:tensProdCompl}):
\begin{thm*}
Let $S$ and $T$ be semigroups in the category $\CatW$.
There is then a $\CatW$-semigroup $S\otimes_{\CatW}T$ and a $\CatW$-bimorphism that, for every $\CatCu$-semigroup $R$, induces a commutative diagram where every row and column are semigroup isomorphisms:
\[
\xymatrix{
\CatW(S\otimes_{\CatW} T,R) \ar[r]_{}^{\cong}
& \CatWBimor(S\times T,R) \\
\CatCuMor(\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatW} T),R) \ar[u]_{}_{\cong} \ar[r]^<<<<{\cong}
& \CatCuBimor(\gamma(S)\times \gamma(T),R). \ar[u]^{\cong}
}
\]
In particular, we can identify $\gamma(S)\otimes_{\CatCu}\gamma(T)$ with $\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatW}T)$.
\end{thm*}
Applied to \ca{s}, the results above yield:
\begin{thm*}
The following conditions hold true:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
Let $A$ and $B$ be local \ca{s}.
Then
\[
\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B)=\gamma(W(A)\otimes_{\CatW}W(B)).
\]
\item
Let $D$ be a strongly self-absorbing \ca\ of real rank zero that satisfies the UCT.
Then
\[
\Cu(A\otimes D)\cong \Cu(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Cu(D)\,,
\]
for any \ca{} $A$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm*}
\section{Multiplicative structure of \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semigroups. Solid \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semirings}
As noted in \ref{subsc:ssa}, the class of $D$-stable \ca{s}, where $D$ is strongly self-absorbing, is relevant for the theory, and thus a description of their Cuntz semigroup is of particular interest.
Towards this end, we identify which semigroups should play the role of strongly self absorbing \ca{s}.
If $D$ is such an algebra, then the isomorphism $D\otimes D\cong D$ induces a $\CatCu$-bimorphism $\Cu(D)\times \Cu(D)\to \Cu(D)$, which in turn can be used to equip $\Cu(D)$ with a unital semiring structure (see \autoref{sec:poRg} for the definition of a semiring).
This is also compatible with the continuous properties of $\Cu(D)$ and leads us to introduce the notion of a $\CatCu$-semiring.
In the case of the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$, its Cuntz semigroup may be identified with $Z:=\N\sqcup (0,\infty]$, where the product is the obvious one in either $\N$ or $(0,\infty]$ and mixed terms multiply into $(0,\infty]$.
In a similar vein, if $A$ is a $D$-stable \ca, there is a natural $\CatCu$-bimorphism $\Cu(D)\times \Cu(A)\to \Cu(A)$ which is moreover compatible with the multiplicative structure of $\Cu(D)$.
This leads us to define the notion of a $\CatCu$-semimodule $S$ over a $\CatCu$-semiring $R$.
We refer to this situation by saying that $S$ has an $R$-multiplication.
Of particular importance is the structure of $\CatCu$-semimodules over semirings that come from strongly self-absorbing algebras, or from the Jacelon-Razak algebra $\mathcal R$, whose Cuntz semigroup is $[0,\infty]$ (see \cite{Jac13Projectionless} and also \cite{Rob13Cone}).
As Robert points out for $\Cu(\mathcal R)$ (see \cite{Rob13Cone}), having a $\Cu(\mathcal R)$-multiplication is in fact a property of the semigroup rather than an additional structure.
Denote by $R_q$ the Cuntz semigroup of a UHF-algebra of infinite type (and supernatural number $q$).
We then prove the following (see Theorems~\ref{prp:ZModTFAE}, \ref{prp:RqModTFAE}, \ref{prp:RModTFAE}, and \ref{prp:PIModTFAE}):
\begin{thm*}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has $Z$-multiplication if and only if $S$ is almost divisible and almost unperforated.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has $R_q$-multiplication if and only if $S$ is $p$-divisible and $p$-unperforated whenever $p$ is an integer that divides $q$.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has $[0,\infty]$-multiplication if and only if $S$ is unperforated, divisible and every element of $S$ is soft.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has $\{0,\infty\}$-multiplication if and only if $2x=x$ for every $x\in S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm*}
Condition (i) above allows us to prove a semigroup version of the Toms-Winter conjecture:
\begin{thm*}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
We have $S\cong Z\otimes_\CatCu S$.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm*}
A key ingredient in the above theorem is the fact that $Z\otimes_\CatCu Z\cong Z$, where the isomorphism is induced by the natural product.
This naturally poses the question of which is the right notion for a `strongly self-absorbing $\CatCu$-semigroup'.
We adopt here the terminology of a solid ring, as introduced in \cite{BouKan72Core}, and call a unital $\CatCu$-semiring $R$ \emph{solid} if the multiplication induces an isomorphism $R\otimes_{\CatCu}R\cong R$.
Every such semiring is automatically simple and, in the stably finite case, has a unique normalized functional.
\begin{thm*}
Let $D$ be a strongly self-absorbing \ca{} satisfying the UCT.
Then $\Cu(D)$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, and so $\Cu(D)\otimes_\CatCu\Cu(D)\cong\Cu(D)$.
\end{thm*}
As solid $\CatCu$-semirings have good structural properties, it is natural to analyse the tensor product of a $\CatCu$-semigroup with one of these semirings.
This process may be termed a \emph{regularization}, as the final object enjoys regularity properties (for example, it absorbs the $\CatCu$-semiring $Z$ tensorially).
We explore two such constructions, closely related to \ca{s}: the rationalization and the realification of a semigroup.
The \emph{rationalization} of a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is, by definition, its tensor product with a semigroup of the form $R_q$, where $R_q$ is, as mentioned above, the Cuntz semigroup of a UHF-algebra of infinite type, so that $q=(p_i)$ is a supernatural number of infinite type.
The tensor product $R_q\otimes_\CatCu S$ can be realized as the inductive limit $S_q$ constructed as $S \stackrel{\cdot p_1}{\longrightarrow} S \stackrel{\cdot p_2}{\longrightarrow} S \stackrel{\cdot p_3}{\longrightarrow} \dots$.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, Robert introduced in \cite{Rob13Cone} the \emph{realification} of $S$, which is a $\CatCu$-semigroup denoted by $S_R$.
Robert indicates that his construction may be thought of as the tensor product with $[0,\infty]$.
This semigroup is, by definition, the subsemigroup of lower semicontinuous, linear, $[0,\infty]$-valued functions defined on $F(S)$ that can be obtained as pointwise suprema of functions of the type $\frac{1}{n}\hat{s}$, for $s\in S$.
Robert obtains in \cite[Theorem~3.2.1]{Rob13Cone} a more abstract characterization of $S_R$.
We make the connection of $S_R$ with the tensor product construction precise and we show that we indeed have $S_R\cong [0,\infty]\otimes_\CatCu S$.
It then follows from our results and \cite[Theorem~5.1.2]{Rob13Cone} that $\Cu(\mathcal{R}\otimes A)\cong\Cu(\mathcal{R})\otimes_\CatCu\Cu(A)$ for any \ca{} $A$.
In contrast to strongly self-absorbing \ca{s}, where a complete classification is not available yet, solid $\CatCu$-semirings do admit a very satisfactory classification, as follows (see \autoref{thm:solidSemirgClassification}):
\begin{thm*}
Let $S$ be a nonzero $\CatCu$-semiring that satisfies the almost algebraic order and the almost Riesz decomposition axioms.
Then exactly one of the following statements hold:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
We have $S\cong\{0,1,\ldots, k,\infty\}$ for some $k\geq 0$.
\item
We have $S\cong \overline{\N}$.
\item
We have $S\cong [0,\infty]$.
\item
We have $S\cong Z$.
\item
We have that $S$ is algebraic, and there exists a solid ring $R\not\cong\Z$ with non-torsion unit such that $S_c=R_+$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm*}
Since there is a classification theory for solid rings (see \cite{BouKan72Core}, \cite{BowSch77Rings}), it is therefore possible to give a complete list of solid $\CatCu$-semirings.
Now denote by $Q=\Q_+\sqcup (0,\infty]$ the Cuntz semigroup of the universal UHF-algebra.
As a consequence of our classification theorem, we obtain that $Z$ and $Q$ can be (uniquely) characterized as initial and final objects in the category of nonelementary, solid $\CatCu$-semirings satisfying the almost algebraic order axiom, and whose unit is compact.
Likewise, $[0,\infty]$ is the unique solid $\CatCu$-semiring that contains no nonzero compact elements.
This is an exact parallell of Winter's result that strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} are $\mathcal{Z}$-stable and in fact, our methods allow us to recover this result.
It would be interesting to know whether the Cuntz semigroup of any strongly self-absorbing \ca{} $D$ is always solid.
This is clearly the case if $D$ is purely infinite simple.
As $D$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable by Winter's result, \cite{Win11ssaZstable}, and monotracial in the stably finite case, it follows that $\Cu(D)$ may be identified with $V(D)\sqcup (0,\infty]$.
With our classification theorem of solid $\CatCu$-semirings at hand, this would shed light on whether there could exist a non-UCT strongly self-absorbing example.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Joan Bosa, Nate Brown, Joachim Cuntz, George Elliott, Martin Engbers, Klaus Keimel, Henning Petzka, Leonel Robert, Luis Santiago, Aaron Tikuisis, Fred Wehrung, Stuart White and Wilhelm Winter for valuable comments.
We are grateful to Ken Goodearl for several discussions on tensor products of semigroups.
We also thank Snigdhayan Mahanta for pointing out the notion of a solid ring, and Eusebio Gardella for carefully reading the first chapters of a draft of this paper.
We also thank the anonymous referees for a careful reading and valuable comments that led to a substantial improvement of the manuscript.
This work was initiated at the Centre de Recerca Matem\`{a}tica (Bellaterra) during the program `The Cuntz Semigroup and the Classification of \ca{s}' in 2011.
The authors would like to thank the CRM for financial support and working conditions provided.
Part of this research was conducted while the third named author was visiting the Universitat Aut\`{o}noma de Barcelona (UAB) in 2012 and 2013, and while he was attending the Thematic Program on Abstract Harmonic Analysis, Banach and Operator Algebras at the Fields Institute in January-June 2014.
He would like to thank both Mathematics departments for their kind hospitality.
The two first named authors were partially supported by DGI MICIIN (grant No.\ MTM2011-28992-C02-01), and by the Comissionat per Universitats i Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya.
The third named author was partially supported by the Danish National Research Foundation through the Centre for Symmetry and Deformation (DNRF92), and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 878).
\chapter{Pre-completed Cuntz semigroups}
\label{sec:catW}
In the first part of this chapter, we introduce the categories $\CatPreW$ and $\CatW$ of (abstract) pre-completed Cuntz semigroups and we develop their general theory.
An object of $\CatPreW$ or $\CatW$ is a \pom\ (see \autoref{pgr:pom} for the definition) equipped with an auxiliary relation such that certain axioms are satisfied; see \autoref{pgr:axiomsW} and \autoref{dfn:catW}.
We show that $\CatW$ is a full, reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$ (see \autoref{prp:WreflectivePreW}) and that both categories have inductive limits;
see \autoref{prp:limitsPreW} and \autoref{prp:limitsW}.
In the second part, we associate to every local \ca\ $A$ its \emph{pre-completed Cuntz semigroup} $W(A)$, which naturally belongs to the category $\CatW$.
It is given as the original definition of the Cuntz semigroup (equivalence classes of positive elements in matrices over $A$), together with a natural auxiliary relation; see \autoref{prp:WfromCAlg}.
We show that the assignment $A\mapsto W(A)$ extends to a continuous functor from local \ca{s} to the category $\CatW$; see \autoref{prp:functorW}.
This is inspired by \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv}, where the analogous results are shown for the completed Cuntz semigroup; see \autoref{sec:catCu}.
\section{The categories \texorpdfstring{$\CatPreW$}{PreW} and \texorpdfstring{$\CatW$}{W}}
We refer to \autoref{sec:pom} for the basic theory of \pom{s}.
\begin{pgr}[Axioms for the category $\CatW$]
\label{pgr:axiomsW}
\index{terms}{auxiliary relation}
\index{terms}{countably-based}
\index{terms}{basis (of a $\CatPreW$-semigroup)}
\index{terms}{compact containment}
\index{terms}{way-below \seeonly{compact containment}}
\index{terms}{relation!compact containment}
\index{terms}{relation!way-below \seeonly{compact containment}}
\index{terms}{W1-W4@\axiomW{1}-\axiomW{4}}
\index{terms}{element!compact}
\index{symbols}{$\prec$ \quad(auxiliary relation)}
\index{symbols}{$\ll$ \quad(compact containment)}
\index{symbols}{a$^\prec$@$a^\prec$ \quad(set of $\prec$-predecessor of $a$)}
Let $S$ be a \pom.
Following \cite[Definition~I-1.11, p.57]{GieHof+03Domains}, an \emph{auxiliary relation} on $S$ is a binary relation $\prec$ such that the following conditions hold:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
We have that $a\prec b$ implies $a\leq b$, for any $a,b\in S$.
\item
We have that $a\leq b\prec c\leq d$ implies $a\prec d$, for any $a,b,c,d\in S$.
\item
We have $0\prec a$, for any $a\in S$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $S$ be a \pom\ and fix an auxiliary relation $\prec$ on $S$.
We say that $S$ is \emph{countably-based} if there exists a countable subset $B\subset S$ such that for any $a',a$ in $S$ satisfying $a'\prec a$, there exists $b\in B$ such that $a'\leq b\prec a$.
A subset $B$ with these properties is called a \emph{basis} for $S$;
see \cite[Proposition~III-4.2, p.~241]{GieHof+03Domains}.
A particularly interesting auxiliary relation is the following:
Given elements $a$ and $b$ in a \pom\ $S$, we say that $a$ is \emph{compactly contained in} $b$ (or $a$ is \emph{way-below} $b$), denoted $a\ll b$, if whenever $(b_n)_{n\in\N}$ is an increasing sequence in $S$ for which the supremum $\sup_n b_n$ exists, then $b\leq \sup_n b_n$ implies that there is $k$ such that $a\leq b_k$.
If $a\in S$ satisfies $a\ll a$, we say that $a$ is \emph{compact}, and we shall denote the set of compact elements by $S_c$.
Note that the compact containment relation is usually defined by considering suprema of arbitrary upwards directed sets;
see \cite[Definition~I-1.1, p.49]{GieHof+03Domains}.
The definition given here is a sequential version.
In \autoref{rmk:catCu} we will see that both notions agree under a suitable separability assumption.
We will use the following axioms to define the objects in the categories $\CatPreW$ and $\CatW$.
Given an element $a\in S$, we use the notation $a^\prec:=\left\{ x\in S : x\prec a \right\}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\axiomW{1}]
For each $a\in S$, there exists a sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $a^\prec$ satisfying $a_k\prec a_{k+1}$ for each $k$ and such that for any $b\in a^\prec$ there exists $k$ with $b\prec a_k$.
\item[\axiomW{2}]
For each $a\in S$, we have $a=\sup a^\prec$.
\item[\axiomW{3}]
If $a',a,b',b\in S$ satisfy $a'\prec a$ and $b'\prec b$, then $a'+b'\prec a+b$.
\item[\axiomW{4}]
If $a,b,c\in S$ satisfy $a\prec b+c$, then there exist $b',c'\in S$ such that $a\prec b'+c'$, $b'\prec b$, and $c'\prec c$.
\end{itemize}
Axiom \axiomW{1} implies that for each $a\in S$, the set $a^\prec$ is upward directed and contains a cofinal increasing sequence with respect to $\prec$. For a general auxiliary relation $\prec$, the set $a^\prec$ need not be upward directed. For instance, consider $S=\N^2$ with pointwise order and addition. Define an auxiliary relation by $x\prec y$ if $x\leq y$ and $x\neq y$ or $x=0$.
Given $a,b\in S$, axiom \axiomW{3} means that the set
\[
a^\prec+b^\prec = \left\{ a'+b' : a'\prec a, b'\prec b\right\},
\]
is contained in $(a+b)^\prec$.
Axiom \axiomW{4} means that $a^\prec+b^\prec$ is cofinal in $(a+b)^\prec$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:catW}
\index{terms}{PreW-semigroup@$\CatPreW$-semigroup}
\index{terms}{W-semigroup@$\CatW$-semigroup}
\index{terms}{W-morphism@$\CatW$-morphism!generalized}
\index{terms}{category@category!$\CatPreW$}
\index{terms}{category@category!$\CatW$}
\index{symbols}{PreW@$\CatPreW$ \quad (category of $\CatPreW$-semigroups)}
\index{symbols}{W@$\CatW$ \quad (category of $\CatW$-semigroups)}
\index{symbols}{W(S,T)@$\CatWMor(S,T)$ \quad ($\CatW$-morphisms)}
\index{symbols}{W[S,T]@$\CatWGenMor{S,T}$ \quad (generalized $\CatW$-morphisms)}
A \emph{$\CatPreW$-semigroup} is a pair $(S,\prec)$, where $S$ is a \pom\ and $\prec$ is a fixed auxiliary relation on $S$, satisfying axioms \axiomW{1}, \axiomW{3} and \axiomW{4} from \autoref{pgr:axiomsW}.
If $(S,\prec)$ also satisfies axiom \axiomW{2}, then it is called a \emph{$\CatW$-semigroup}.
We often drop the reference to the auxiliary relation and simply write $S$ for a $\CatPreWW$-semigroup.
Given $\CatPreW$-semigroups $S$ and $T$, a \emph{generalized $\CatW$-morphism} $f\colon S\to T$ is a $\CatPom$-morphism that is continuous in the following sense:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\axiom{M}]
For every $a\in S$ and $b\in T$ with $b\prec f(a)$, there exists $a'\in S$ such that $a'\prec a$ and $b\leq f(a')$.
\end{itemize}
We denote the collection of all such maps by $\CatWGenMor{S,T}$.
A $\CatW$-morphism is a generalized $\CatW$-morphism that preserves the auxiliary relation and we denote the set of all such maps by $\CatWMor(S,T)$.
We let $\CatPreW$ be the category that has as objects all $\CatPreW$-semigroups, and whose morphisms are the $\CatW$-morphisms.
We let $\CatW$ be the full subcategory of $\CatPreW$ whose objects are $\CatW$-semigroups.
Note that we call the morphisms in both categories $\CatW$-morphisms.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:catW}
(1)
The order of the axioms \axiomW{1}-\axiomW{4} has been chosen so that they roughly correspond to the axioms \axiomO{1}-\axiomO{4} for $\CatCu$-semigroups; see \autoref{pgr:axiomsCu}.
Indeed, one should think of the W-axioms as a version of the O-axioms formulated in such a way that the semigroup is not required to have suprema of increasing sequences.
(2)
Let $S$ be a \pom{} with an auxiliary relation $\prec$ such that \axiomW{1} is satisfied.
It is easy to check that $S$ satisfies \axiomW{2} if and only if for every $a,b\in S$ we have that $a^\prec\subset b^\prec$ implies $a\leq b$.
Note that the converse of this statement is always true, that is, if $a\leq b$ then $a^\prec\subset b^\prec$.
This means that in the presence of \axiomW{2}, the partial order may be derived from the auxiliary relation.
For a $\CatCu$-semigroup, the converse is also true, since then the auxiliary relation is the compact containment relation which is defined in terms of the partial order.
(3)
In a $\CatW$-semigroup, the relation $\ll$ is stronger than $\prec$.
The class of $\CatW$-semigroups where $\prec$ is equal to $\ll$ was studied in \cite{AntBosPer11CompletionsCu}.
(4)
Let $f\colon S\to T$ be a $\CatPom$-morphism between $\CatW$-semigroups.
If $f$ is continuous, then for each $a\in S$ we have
\[
f(a)=\sup f(a^\prec).
\]
Indeed, by \axiomW{2} in $T$, we have $f(a)=\sup f(a)^\prec$.
Continuity of the map $f$ implies that $f(a^\prec)$ is cofinal in $f(a)^\prec$ in the sense that for every $t'\in f(a)^\prec$ there exists $a'\in a^\prec$ with $t'\leq f(a')$.
However, let us remark that we do not assume that $f$ preserves the auxiliary relation, so that we do not necessarily have $f(a^\prec)\subset f(a)^\prec$.
Nevertheless, it follows from this version of cofinality that the suprema of the sets $f(a^\prec)$ and $f(a)^\prec$ agree.
The converse of this statement in the context of $\CatCu$-semigroups is given in \autoref{prp:CuWMor}.
\end{rmks}
\begin{pgr}[$\CatW$-completions]
\label{pgr:WreflectivePreW}
\index{terms}{W-completion@$\CatW$-completion}
We will now show that the category $\CatW$ is a reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$.
This means that the inclusion functor $\CatW\to\CatPreW$ admits a left adjoint.
We use the idea of universal completions described in \cite[\S~2]{KeiLaw09DCompletion}.
Note that in this reference, what we call $\CatW$-completion appears under the name of universal $\CatW$-ification.
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:Wification}
\index{terms}{W-completion@$\CatW$-completion}
Let $S$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
A \emph{$\CatW$-completion} of $S$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup $T$ together with a $\CatW$-morphism $\alpha\colon S\to T$ satisfying the following universal property:
For every $\CatW$-semigroup $R$ and for every $\CatW$-morphism $f\colon S\to R$, there exists a unique $\CatW$-morphism $\tilde{f}\colon T\to R$ such that $f=\tilde{f}\circ\alpha$.
\end{dfn}
It is clear that $\CatW$-completions are unique whenever they exist.
We will now prove their existence by giving an explicit construction.
Let $(S,\prec)$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
In order to enforce \axiomW{2}, we consider the binary relation $\preceq$ on $S$ given by $a\preceq b$ if and only if $a^\prec\subset b^\prec$, for any $a,b\in S$.
It is clear that $\preceq$ is a pre-order on $S$.
By symmetrizing $\preceq$, we obtain an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $S$ such that for any $a,b\in S$ we have
\[
a\sim b \quad \text{ if and only if }\quad
a\preceq b\preceq a\quad \text{ if and only if }\quad
a^\prec=b^\prec.
\]
We let $\mu(S)=S/\!\sim$ denote the set of equivalence classes, and we denote the class of an element $a\in S$ by $[a]$.
By construction, the pre-order $\preceq$ induces a partial order on $\mu(S)$ by setting $[a]\leq[b]$ if and only if $a^\prec\subset b^\prec$, for any $a,b\in S$.
It is easy to check that the addition on $S$ induces an addition on $\mu(S)$ and that this endows $\mu(S)$ with the structure of a \pom.
We define an auxiliary relation on $\mu(S)$ by setting $[a]\prec[b]$ if and only if $[a]\leq [b']$ for some $b'\in b^\prec$.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:Wification}
Let $S$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
Then $\mu(S)$ with the addition, order and auxiliary relation defined above becomes a $\CatW$-semigroup.
Moreover, the map
\[
\beta\colon S\to \mu(S),\quad
a\mapsto[a],\quad
\txtFA a\in S,
\]
is a $\CatW$-morphism defining a $W$-completion of $S$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
In order to prove that $\mu(S)$ is a $\CatPreW$-semigroup, the only detail that needs some verification is that $\mu(S)$ satisfies \axiomW{2}, and for this we use the second observation in \autoref{rmk:catW}.
Thus assume that $a,b\in S$ satisfy $[a]^\prec\subset [b]^\prec$.
By definition, this means that $[a']\prec [b]$ for any $a'\in S$ satisfying $[a']\prec [a]$.
This in turn implies that $a'\prec b$ whenever $a'\in S$ satisfies $a'\prec a$.
Therefore $a^\prec\subset b^\prec$, which means $[a]\leq [b]$, as desired.
It is clear that $\beta$ is a $\CatW$-morphism.
Thus, we only need to prove that $\beta$ satisfies the universal property in \autoref{dfn:Wification}.
In order to verify this, let $R$ be a $\CatW$-semigroup and let $f\colon S\to R$ be a $\CatW$-morphism.
It is clear that there is at most one map $\tilde{f}\colon\mu(S)\to R$ satisfying $f=\tilde{f}\circ\beta$.
To show existence, we define
\[
\tilde{f}\colon \mu(S)\to R,\quad
[a]\mapsto f(a),\quad
\txtFA a\in S.
\]
Let us show that $\tilde{f}$ has the desired properties.
Suppose $[a]\leq [b]$ for some $a,b\in S$.
Let $x\in R$ satisfy $x\prec f(a)$.
Since $f$ is continuous, we can choose $a'\in S$ such that $a'\prec a$ and $x\leq f(a')$.
Now, since $[a]\leq [b]$, we have $a'\prec b$ and thus
\[
x\leq f(a')\prec f(b).
\]
Thus, $f(a)^\prec\subset f(b)^\prec$, and since $R$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup, this ensures $f(a)\leq f(b)$.
It follows that $\tilde{f}$ is a well-defined, order-preserving map satisfying $f=\tilde{f}\circ\beta$.
Similarly, one proves that $\tilde{f}$ is continuous, and preserves addition and the auxiliary relation.
Hence, $\tilde{f}$ is a $\CatW$-morphism.
\end{proof}
Now, by the arguments in \cite[\S~2]{KeiLaw09DCompletion} regarding universal $W$-ifications, the above construction of the $\CatW$-completion induces a reflection functor $\mu\colon\CatPreW\to\CatW$:
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:WreflectivePreW}
The category $\CatW$ is a full, reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$.
\end{prp}
\begin{pgr}[Inductive limits in $\CatPom$]
\label{pgr:limPom}
Recall that an inductive system $\mathcal{S}$ in a category $\CatC$ consists of a directed set $I$, a family $(A_i)_{i\in I}$ of objects in $\CatC$, and a family of morphisms $(f_{i,j}\colon A_i\to A_j)_{i\leq j\in I}$ such that $f_{i,i}=\text{id}_{A_i}$ for all $i\in I$ and $f_{i,k}=f_{j,k}\circ f_{i,j}$ whenever $i\leq j\leq k$ in $I$.
A morphism from $\mathcal{S}$ to an object $X$ in $\CatC$ is a collection $(g_i\colon A_i\to X)_{i\in I}$ such that $g_j\circ f_{i,j}=g_i$ whenever $i\leq j$ in $I$.
An inductive limit of $\mathcal{S}$ is an object $X$ in $\CatC$ together with a morphism $(g_i)_{i\in I}$ from $\mathcal{S}$ to $X$ satisfying the following universal property:
For every object $Y$ and morphism $(h_i)_{i\in I}$ from $\mathcal{S}$ to $Y$, there exists a unique morphism $h\colon X\to Y$ such that $h_i=h\circ g_i$ for each $i\in I$.
If it exists, the inductive limit is unique up to isomorphism and will be denoted by $\varinjlim (A_i,f_{i,j})$, or simply $\varinjlim A_i$.
Let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i, j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatPom$, indexed over $I$.
We define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on the disjoint union $\bigsqcup_{i\in I} S_i$, by setting for any $a\in S_i$ and any $b\in S_j$:
\[
a\sim b\quad \text{ if and only if there exists } k\geq i,j \text{ such that } \varphi_{i,k}(a)=\varphi_{j,k}(b).
\]
The set of equivalence classes is denoted by $\CatPomLim S_i$.
We denote the equivalence class of an element $a\in S_i$ by $[a]$.
Given $a\in S_i$ and $b\in S_j$, we define
\[
[a]+[b]=[\varphi_{i,k}(a)+\varphi_{j,k}(b)],\quad
\text{ for any } k\geq i,j.
\]
It is clear that this is a well-defined addition on $\CatPomLim S_i$.
We also define a partial order by setting for $a\in S_i$ and $b\in S_j$:
\[
[a]\leq[b]\quad
\text{ if and only if there exists } k\geq i,j \text{ such that } \varphi_{i,k}(a)\leq\varphi_{j,k}(b).
\]
This gives $\CatPomLim S_i$ the structure of a \pom, and it is well-known that this is the inductive limit in the category $\CatPom$.
The $\CatPom$-morphism from $S_i$ to the inductive limit is denoted by $\varphi_{i,\infty}$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:limAuxRel}
Let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatPreW$.
We define a relation $\prec$ on the inductive limit $\CatPomLim S_i$ of the underlying \pom{s} by setting for any $a\in S_i$ and $b\in S_j$:
\[
[a]\prec[b]\quad
\text{ if and only if there exists } k\geq i,j \text{ such that } \varphi_{i,k}(a)\prec\varphi_{j,k}(b).
\]
\end{dfn}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:limitsPreW}
\index{terms}{inductive limits@inductive limits!in $\CatPreW$}
\index{symbols}{PreWLim@$\CatPreWLim$ \quad (inductive limit in $\CatPreW$)}
The category $\CatPreW$ has inductive limits.
More precisely, let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatPreW$.
Let $S=\CatPomLim S_i$ be the inductive limit of the underlying \pom{s}, together with $\CatPom$-morphisms $\varphi_{i,\infty}\colon S_i\to S$.
The relation $\prec$ on $S$ as defined in \autoref{dfn:limAuxRel} is an auxiliary relation and $(S,\prec)$ is a $\CatPreW$-semigroup, denoted by $\CatPreWLim S_i$.
Moreover, the maps $\varphi_{i,\infty}$ are $\CatW$-morphisms and $\CatPreWLim S_i$ is the inductive limit of the system $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ in $\CatPreW$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We first show that $\prec$ is an auxiliary relation.
Condition~(i) and~(ii) from \autoref{pgr:axiomsW} are easily verified.
To show condition~(iii), let $[a],[b],[c],[d]\in S$ satisfy $[a]\leq [b]\prec [c]\leq [d]$.
We have to show $[a]\prec [d]$.
We may assume that there is an index $i$ such that all four elements are represented in $S_i$.
Since $[a]\leq [b]$, we can choose $j\geq i$ with $\varphi_{i,j}(a)\leq\varphi_{i,j}(b)$.
Similarly, we can choose $k\geq i$ and $l\geq i$ satisfying $\varphi_{i,k}(b)\prec\varphi_{i,k}(c)$ and $\varphi_{i,l}(c)\leq\varphi_{i,l}(d)$.
Choose $n\geq j,k,l$.
Using that the connecting maps preserve the order and the auxiliary relation, we obtain
\[
\varphi_{i,n}(a)\leq\varphi_{i,n}(b)\prec\varphi_{j,n}(c)\leq\varphi_{i,n}(d),
\]
which implies $[a]\prec [d]$, as desired.
Next, we show that $(S\prec)$ is a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
In order to verify \axiomW{1}, let $a\in S_i$ for some $i$.
Since $S_i$ satisfies \axiomW{1}, there is a cofinal $\prec$-increasing sequence $(a_k)_{k\in\N}$ in $a^{\prec}$.
Then $[a_k]\prec [a]$ for all $k$.
Further, if $[b]\prec [a]$ for some $j$ and $b\in S_j$, then we can choose $n\geq i,j$ with $\varphi_{j,n}(b)\prec\varphi_{i,n}(a)$.
Using that $\varphi_{i,n}$ is continuous, we can choose $k$ and $a'\prec a$ such that $\varphi_{j,n}(b)\leq \varphi_{i,n}(a')\prec\varphi_{i,n}(a_k)$.
Thus $[b]\prec [a_k]$.
This shows that $[a]^\prec$ is upward directed and contains a cofinal $\prec$-increasing sequence.
It is routine to check \axiomW{3}.
In order to show that $(S,\prec)$ satisfies \axiomW{4}, suppose that $[c]\prec [a]+[b]$ for some elements $[a],[b]$ and $[c]$ in $S$.
We may assume that all three elements are represented in $S_i$, for some index $i$.
Choose $j\geq i$ such that $\varphi_{i,j}(c)\prec\varphi_{i,j}(a)+\varphi_{i,j}(b)$.
Since $S_j$ satisfies \axiomW{4}, we can choose $d,e\in S_j$ with
\[
\varphi_{i,j}(c)\leq d+e,\quad
d\prec\varphi_{i,j}(a),\quad
e\prec\varphi_{i,j}(b).
\]
Using that $\varphi_{i,j}$ is continuous, we can choose $a',b'\in S_i$ such that
\[
a'\prec a,\quad
b'\prec b,\quad
d\leq\varphi_{i,j}(a'),\quad
e\leq\varphi_{i,j}(b').
\]
Then $[a']\prec [a]$, $[b']\prec [b]$, and $[c]\leq [a']+[b']$, which shows that the elements $[a']$ and $[b']$ have the desired properties to verify \axiomW{4} in $S$.
The natural maps $\varphi_{i,\infty}\colon S_i\to S$ preserve the auxiliary relation.
It is also easy to see that they are continuous using arguments similar to the proof of \axiomW{1}.
Finally, in order to show that $S$ is the inductive limit in the category $\CatPreW$, let $T$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup and let $\lambda_i\colon S_i\to T$ be $\CatW$-morphisms such that $\lambda_j\circ\varphi_{i,j}=\lambda_i$ whenever $i\leq j$.
Since $S$ is the limit in the category $\CatPom$, there is a unique $\CatPom$-morphism $\alpha\colon S\to T$ such that $\alpha\circ\varphi_{i,\infty}=\lambda_i$ for each $i$.
In order to show that $\alpha$ is continuous, let $x\in T$ and $y\in S$ satisfy $x\prec\alpha(y)$.
Choose $i\in I$ and $a\in S_i$ such that $y=[a]$.
Then $\alpha([a])=\lambda_i(a)$ and since $\lambda_i$ is a $\CatW$-morphism, we can choose $a'\in S_i$ such that $a'\prec a$ and $x\leq \lambda_i(a')$.
We have $[a']\prec [a]$ and $x \leq \lambda_i(a') = \alpha([a'])$, which shows that $[a']$ is the desired element to verify that $\alpha$ is continuous.
In order to show that $\alpha$ preserves the auxiliary relation, let $a\in S_i$ and $b\in S_j$ satisfy $[a]\prec [b]$.
Choose $k\geq i,j$ such that $\varphi_{i,k}(a)\prec \varphi_{j,k}(b)$ in $S_k$.
Using that $\lambda_k$ preserves the auxiliary relation at the third step, we deduce
\begin{align*}
\alpha([a])
=\alpha(\varphi_{k,\infty}\circ\varphi_{i,k}(a))
&=\lambda_k(\varphi_{i,k}(a)) \\
&\prec\lambda_k(\varphi_{j,k}(b))
=\alpha(\varphi_{k,\infty}\circ\varphi_{j,k}(b))
=\alpha([b]),
\end{align*}
as desired.
Thus, $\alpha$ preserves the auxiliary relation and is hence a $\CatW$-morphism.
\end{proof}
Given an inductive system $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ in $\CatW$, the inductive limit $\CatPreWLim S_i$ from \autoref{prp:limitsPreW} need not be a $\CatW$-semigroup.
However, since $\CatW$ is a reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$, it follows from general category theory that $\CatW$ has inductive limits and that the reflection functor $\mu\colon\CatPreW\to\CatW$ is continuous;
see for example \cite[Proposition~3.2.2, p.106]{Bor94HandbookCat1}.
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:limitsW}
\index{terms}{inductive limits@inductive limits!in $\CatW$}
\index{symbols}{WLim@$\CatWLim$ \quad (inductive limit in $\CatW$)}
The category $\CatW$ has inductive limits.
More precisely, let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatW$.
Then the inductive limit in $\CatW$ is the $\CatW$-completion of the inductive limit in $\CatPreW$:
\[
\CatWLim S_i = \mu(\CatPreWLim S_i).
\]
\end{cor}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{The pre-completed Cuntz semigroup of a \texorpdfstring{C*-algebra}{{C}*-algebra}}
\begin{pgr}[Local \ca{s}]
\label{pgr:localCa}
\index{terms}{pre-C*-algebra@\preCa}
\index{terms}{C*-algebra@\ca{}!pre-}
\index{terms}{local C*-algebra@local \ca}
\index{terms}{C*-algebra@\ca{}!local}
\index{symbols}{M$_\infty$@$M_\infty(A)$}
\index{symbols}{$\CatLocCa$ \quad (category of local \ca{s})}
A \emph{\preCa} $A$ is a \starAlg\ over the complex numbers together with a $C^*$-norm $\|\freeVar\|$, that is, $\|a^*a\|=\|a\|^2$ for all $a\in A$.
It is known that such a norm is automatically submultiplicative and that the involution becomes isometric;
see \cite[Theorem~9.5.14, p.956]{Pal01BAlg2}.
Every \preCa\ $A$ naturally embeds as a dense sub-\starAlgß\ in its completion $\overline{A}$, which is a \ca.
In this paper, we will say that $A$ is a \emph{local \ca} if there is a family of complete, ${}^*$-invariant subalgebras $A_i\subset A$ such that for any $i_1,i_2$ there is $i_3$ such that $A_{i_1}\cup A_{i_2}\subset A_{i_3}$ and such that $A=\bigcup_i A_i$.
Note that each $A_i$ is a \ca.
Viewing a \preCa\ $A$ inside its completion $\overline{A}$, it is a local \ca\ if and only if for any finite subset $F\subset A$, the \ca\ $C^*(F)$ generated inside $\overline{A}$ is contained in $A$.
The main point is that local \ca{s} are closed under continuous functional calculus.
We say that a pre-\ca\ $A$ is \emph{separable} if it contains a countable dense subset (equivalently, $\overline{A}$ is separable).
If $A$ is a local \ca, then so is every matrix algebra $M_k(A)$, and there is a natural dense embedding $\M_k(A)\subset M_k(\bar{A})$.
The \ca{s} $M_k(\bar{A})$ sit (as upper left corners) inside the stabilization $\bar{A}\otimes\K$, where $\K$ denotes the compact operators, and we may consider the union
\[
M_\infty(A):=\bigcup_k M_k(A)\subset \bar{A}\otimes\K.
\]
This is a dense embedding, hence $\overline{M_\infty(A)}=\bar{A}\otimes\K$, and one sees that $M_\infty(A)$ is again a local \ca.
A \starHom\ between local \ca{s} is automatically continuous and even norm-decreasing.
We let $\CatLocCa$ be the category whose objects are local \ca{s}, and whose morphisms are \starHom s.
\index{terms}{category@category!$\CatLocCa$}
We remark that there are other definitions of a local \ca\ in the literature, in particular in \cite[3.1]{Bla98KThy}, \cite{Mey99Cyclic}, \cite{CunMeyRos07TopBivarK} and \cite[Definition~I.1.1(a)]{BlaHan82DimFct}.
Some of these definitions seem to be more general than the one given here.
It is conceivable that the theory of pre-completed Cuntz semigroups can be carried out in this more general framework, but we will not pursue this here.
\end{pgr}
\begin{pgr}[Cuntz comparison in a local \ca]
\label{pgr:CuntzComparison}
\index{terms}{Cuntz subequivalent}
\index{terms}{relation!Cuntz subequivalence}
\index{terms}{Cuntz equivalent}
\index{terms}{relation!Cuntz equivalence}
\index{symbols}{$\precsim$ \quad (Cuntz subequivalence)}
\index{symbols}{$\sim$ \quad (Cuntz equivalence)}
Let $A$ be a local \ca{}, and let $A_+$ be the subset of positive elements.
Given $x,y\in A_+$ we say that $x$ is \emph{Cuntz sub-equivalent} to $y$, in symbols $x\precsim y$, if there exists a sequence $(z_n)_n$ in $A$ such that $x=\lim_n z^*_nyz_n$.
We say $x$ is \emph{Cuntz equivalent} to $y$, in symbols $x\sim y$, if $x\precsim y$ and $y\precsim x$.
These relations were introduced in \cite{Cun78DimFct}.
R{\o}rdam's fundamental results on Cuntz comparison, \cite[Proposition~2.4]{Ror92StructureUHF2} (see also \cite[Proposition~2.17]{AraPerTom11Cu}), remain valid in local \ca{s}, that is, for any $x,y\in A_+$ the following conditions are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $x\precsim y$.
\item
For every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that $(x-\varepsilon)_+\precsim(y-\delta)_+$.
\item
For every $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $\delta>0$ and $r\in A$ such that $(x-\varepsilon)_+=r(y-\delta)_+r^*$.
\end{enumerate}
Here, $(a-\varepsilon)_+$ denotes the standard $\varepsilon$-cutdown of a positive element obtained as $(a-\varepsilon)_+=f_\varepsilon(a)$ where $f_\varepsilon(t)=\text{max}\{0,t-\varepsilon\}$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:originalW}
\index{symbols}{W(A)@$\W(A)$ \quad (precompleted Cuntz semigroup)}
Given a local \ca\ $A$, the (original) definition of the Cuntz semigroup of $A$ is
\[
W(A):=M_\infty(A)_+/\!\!\sim,
\]
the set of Cuntz equivalence classes of positive elements in matrix algebras over $A$.
The equivalence class of an element $x\in M_\infty(A)_+$ is denoted by $[x]$.
Given $x,y\in M_\infty(A)_+$, we set $[x]\leq [y]$ if $x\precsim y$, and we define
$[x]+[y]=[(\begin{smallmatrix}x & 0 \\ 0 & y \end{smallmatrix})]$.
This defines a partial order and a well-defined abelian addition on $W(A)$.
The zero element in $W(A)$ is given by the class of the zero element $0\in A$.
This equips $W(A)$ with the structure of a \pom.
Next, we will endow $W(A)$ with an auxiliary relation, making it a $\CatW$-semigroup.
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:WfromCAlg}
\index{terms}{Cuntz semigroup!pre-completed}
Let $A$ be a local \ca.
We define a relation $\prec$ on the \pom\ $W(A)=M_\infty(A)_+/\!\sim$ by setting for any $a,b\in M_\infty(A)_+$:
\[
[a]\prec[b]\quad
\text{ if and only if there exists } \varepsilon>0 \text{ such that } [a]\leq[(b-\varepsilon)_+].
\]
We call $W(A)=(W(A),\prec)$ the \emph{pre-completed Cuntz semigroup} of $A$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:WfromCAlg}
Let $A$ be a local \ca.
Then the relation $\prec$ defined in \autoref{dfn:WfromCAlg} is an auxiliary relation and $(W(A),\prec)$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup.
If $A$ is separable, then $W(A)$ is countably-based.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
By abusing notation, let us define a relation $\prec$ on positive elements in $M_\infty(A)$ by setting $a\prec b$ if there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $a\precsim (b-\varepsilon)_+$.
R{\o}rdam's results on Cuntz comparison show that $a\precsim b$ if and only if for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that $(a-\varepsilon)_+\precsim(b-\delta)_+$;
see \autoref{pgr:CuntzComparison} and \cite[Proposition~2.4]{Ror92StructureUHF2},
Thus, given any positive elements $a,b$ and $c$, we see that $a\prec b\precsim c$ implies $a\prec c$.
It follows that $\prec$ as in \autoref{dfn:WfromCAlg} is well-defined.
Given $a,b\in M_\infty(A)_+$, we have $(a-\varepsilon)_+\precsim a$ for each $\varepsilon>0$, which shows that $[a]\prec [b]$ implies $[a]\leq [b]$.
It follows from this and the considerations in the previous paragraph that $\prec$ is an auxiliary relation on $W(A)$.
The axioms \axiomW{1}-\axiomW{4} are now straightforward to check, for example using \cite[Lemma 2.5]{KirRor00PureInf}.
Finally, if $A$ is separable, then $W(A)$ countably-based; the argument can be found in the proof of \cite[Lemma~1.3]{AntPerSan11PullbacksCu}; see also \cite[Proposition~5.1.1]{Rob13Cone}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:WfromCAlg}
(1)
Usually, by $W(A)$ we denote the pre-completed Cuntz semigroup of $A$, considered as a $\CatW$-semigroup which is understood to be equipped with an auxiliary relation.
It should be clear from the context when by $W(A)$ we only mean the underlying \pom.
(2)
It is not known whether the auxiliary relation on $W(A)$ can be deduced from its structure as a \pom, but it seems unlikely that this is the case without assuming certain regularity properties on the \ca.
Thus, we consider the auxiliary relation on $W(A)$ as an additional structure, not just as a property.
This is in contrast to $\CatCu$-semigroups, where the auxiliary relation (the way-below relation) is defined in terms of the order structure; see \autoref{sec:catCu}.
The case when the auxiliary relation in $W(A)$ is just the way-below relation was studied in \cite{AntBosPer11CompletionsCu}.
The class of such semigroups was denoted by PreCu.
See also \autoref{rmk:catW}(3).
\end{rmks}
We want to extend the assignment $A\mapsto W(A)$ to a functor from the category of local \ca{s} to the category $\CatW$.
Thus, we need to show that a \starHom\ $\varphi\colon A\to B$ induces a $\CatW$-morphism between the respective $W$-semigroups.
We will first prove a related result for c.p.c.\ order-zero maps.
As shown in \cite[Corollary~4.5]{WinZac09CpOrd0}, a c.p.c.\ order-zero map between \ca{s} induces a $\CatPom$-morphism between the respective $\CatW$-semigroups.
In the result below we establish that this map is also continuous, hence a generalized $\CatW$-morphism.
Note that a c.p.c.\ order-zero map $\varphi\colon A\to B$ naturally extends to a c.p.c.\ order-zero map between the local \ca{s} $M_\infty(A)$ and $M_\infty(B)$.
By abuse of notation, we will denote this extension also by $\varphi$.
\begin{prp}[{Winter, Zacharias, \cite[Corollary~4.5]{WinZac09CpOrd0}}]
\label{prp:mor_from_cpc0}
Let $A$ and $B$ be local \ca{s}.
Then every c.p.c.\ order-zero map $\varphi\colon A\to B$ naturally induces a generalized $\CatW$-morphism
\[
W(\varphi)\colon W(A)\to W(B),\quad
[x]\mapsto[\varphi(x)],\quad
\txtFA x\in M_\infty(A)_+.
\]
If $\varphi$ is a \starHom, then $W(\varphi)$ also preserves the auxiliary relation and thus is a $\CatW$-morphism.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \cite[Corollary~4.5]{WinZac09CpOrd0} that $W(\varphi)$ is a well-defined map that preserves addition, order and the zero element.
Given $a\in M_\infty(A)_+$ and $\varepsilon>0$, let us first show
\begin{align}
\label{prp:mor_from_cpc0:eq1}
(\varphi(x)-\varepsilon)_+
\leq\varphi((x-\varepsilon)_+).
\end{align}
We let $\widetilde{A}$ denote the minimal unitalization of $A$ (with $\widetilde{A}=A$ if $A$ is unital), and similarly for $\widetilde{B}$.
We can extend $\varphi$ to a c.p.c.\ map $\tilde{\varphi}\colon\widetilde{A}\to\widetilde{B}$.
Choose $k$ such that $a\in M_k(A)$, and consider the amplification of $\tilde{\varphi}$ to a map $M_k(\widetilde{A})\to M_k(\widetilde{B})$, which we also denote $\tilde{\varphi}$.
We have $\tilde{\varphi}(1_{M_k(\widetilde{A})})\leq 1_{M_k(\widetilde{B})}$, which we use to deduce
\[
\tilde{\varphi}(x) - \varepsilon 1_{M_k(\widetilde{B})}
\leq \tilde{\varphi}(x) - \varepsilon\tilde{\varphi}(1_{M_k(\widetilde{A})})
=\tilde{\varphi}(x-\varepsilon 1_{M_k(\widetilde{A})})
\leq \tilde{\varphi}((x-\varepsilon 1_{M_k(\widetilde{A})})_+).
\]
Using that $\tilde{\varphi}(x) - \varepsilon 1_{M_k(\widetilde{B})}$ commutes with $\tilde{\varphi}((x-\varepsilon 1_{M_k(\widetilde{A})})_+)$ for the second step, we obtain
\[
(\varphi(x)-\varepsilon)_+
= (\tilde{\varphi}(x) - \varepsilon 1_{M_k(\widetilde{B})})_+
\leq \tilde{\varphi}((x-\varepsilon 1_{M_k(\widetilde{A})})_+)
=\varphi((x-\varepsilon)_+),
\]
as desired.
To show that $W(\varphi)$ is continuous, let $b\in W(B)$ and $a\in W(A)$ satisfy $b\prec W(\varphi)(a)$.
We need to find $a'\in W(A)$ such that $a'\prec a$ and $b\leq W(\varphi)(a')$.
Choose $x\in M_\infty(A)_+$ with $a=[x]$.
By definition of $\prec$ on $W(B)$, we can choose $\varepsilon>0$ such that $b\leq[(\varphi(x)-\varepsilon)_+]$.
Set $a':=[(x-\varepsilon)_+]$.
Then $a'\prec a$ in $W(A)$.
Using \eqref{prp:mor_from_cpc0:eq1} at the second step, we deduce
\[
b\leq[(\varphi(x)-\varepsilon)_+]\leq [\varphi((x-\varepsilon)_+)]=f(a'),
\]
as desired.
Finally, if $\varphi$ is a \starHom, then $\varphi((x-\varepsilon)_+)=(\varphi(x)-\varepsilon)_+$ for each $x\in M_\infty(A)_+$ and $\varepsilon>0$, which implies that $W(\varphi)$ preserves the auxiliary relation.
\end{proof}
It follows that $\W$ is a functor from the category $\CatLocCa$ of local \ca{s} with \starHom s to the category $\CatW$.
\begin{pgr}[Inductive limits in $\CatLocCa$]
\index{terms}{inductive limits@inductive limits!in $\CatLocCa$}
\label{pgr:LimCatLocCa}
\index{symbols}{C*LocLim@$\CatLocCaLim$ \quad (inductive limit in $\CatLocCa$)}
Let $((A_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in the category $\CatLocCa$, indexed over the directed set $I$.
To construct the inductive limit in $\CatLocCa$, we first consider $((A_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ as an inductive system in the category of $^*$-algebras, and we let $A_\alg$ denote the corresponding inductive limit.
This $^*$-algebra can be equipped with the pre-norm defined by
\[
\|x\| :=\inf \left\{ \|\varphi_{i,j}(x)\| : j\in I, j\geq i \right\},
\]
for $x\in A_i$.
The set $N:=\left\{ x\in A_\alg : \|x\|=0 \right\}$ is a two-sided ${}^*$-ideal.
Set
\[
\CatLocCaLim A_i := A_\alg / N,
\]
which is a local \ca\ satisfying the universal properties of an inductive limit.
Observe that for each $i,j\in I$ satisfying $i\leq j$, the map $\varphi_{i,j}$ induces a natural \starHom\ $M_\infty(A_i)\to M_\infty(A_j)$, which we denote by $\tilde{\varphi}_{i,j}$.
The limit of the inductive system $((M_{\infty}(A_i))_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ is naturally isomorphic to $M_\infty(\CatLocCaLim A_i)$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:functorW}
The functor $W\colon\CatLocCa\to\CatW$ is continuous.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $((A_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatLocCa$.
We let $A_{alg}$ be the algebraic inductive limit, we set $A:=A_{alg}$ for convenience, and we let $N$ denote the ${}^*$-ideal defined in \autoref{pgr:LimCatLocCa} so that the inductive limit in $\CatLocCa$ is given by $A/N$ with \starHom s $\varphi_{i,\infty}\colon A_i\to A/N$.
As explained in \autoref{pgr:LimCatLocCa}, we may replace each $A_i$ by $M_\infty(A_i)$.
Then every Cuntz class in $W(A_i)$ is realized by a positive element in $A_i$.
It follows that also every class in $W(A/N)$ is realized by a positive element in $A/N$, that is, $W(A/N)=(A/N)_+/\!\!\sim$.
The following diagram shows the algebras and maps to be constructed.
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@C=15pt{
A_i \ar[r]^-{\varphi_{i,j}}
& A_j \ar[r]
& \ldots \ar[r]
& A \ar@{->>}[r]
& A/N
\\
& & & & W(A/N)
\\
W(A_i) \ar[r]^{\psi_{i,j}}
& W(A_j) \ar[r] \ar[drr]_{\psi_{j,\infty}} \ar[urrr]^{W(\varphi_{j,\infty})}
& \ldots \ar[r]
& {\CatPreWLim W(A_i)} \ar@{}[d]|{\verteq} \ar@{->>}[r] \ar[ur]^{\omega}
& {\CatWLim W(A_i)}\ar[u]_{\tilde{\omega}} \ar@{}[d]|{\verteq}
\\
& & & S \ar@{->>}[r]_-{\beta}
& \mu(S)
}
\]
For $i\leq j$, set $\psi_{i,j}:=W(\varphi_{i,j})$ and consider the induced $\CatW$-inductive system $((W(A_i))_{i\in I},(\psi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$.
Let $S$ be the inductive limit in $\CatPreW$; see \autoref{prp:limitsPreW}.
Denote the $\CatW$-morphisms into the limit by $\psi_{i,\infty}\colon W(A_i)\to S$.
Let $\omega\colon S\to W(A/N)$ be the unique $\CatW$-morphism that is induced by the maps $W(\varphi_{i,\infty})\colon W(A_i)\to W(A/N)$.
The limit in the category $\CatW$ is given as the $\CatW$-completion of the limit in $\CatPreW$; see \autoref{prp:limitsW}.
By \autoref{prp:Wification}, there exists a $\CatW$-morphism $\tilde\omega\colon \CatWLim W(A_i)\to W(A/N)$ such that $\tilde w([s])=w(s)$ for all $s\in S$.
Thus it is enough to prove that $\tilde\omega$ is a surjective order-embedding.
Since every positive element in $A/N$ is the image of a positive element in some $A_i$, we conclude that $\tilde\omega$ is surjective.
In order to show that $\tilde\omega$ is an order-embedding, let $s,t\in S$ satisfy $\omega(s)\leq\omega(t)$.
We need to show $s^\prec\subset t^\prec$.
Let $s'$ be an element in $S$ with $s'\prec s$.
Choose $i$ and elements $a',a\in W(A_i)$ such that $a'\prec a$ in $W(A_i)$ and $s'=\psi_{i,\infty}(a')$ and $s=\psi_{i,\infty}(a)$.
We may assume that $t$ is also realized by an element in $W(A_i)$ (by passing to a larger index, if necessary).
This means that we can choose $b\in W(A_i)$ with $t=\psi_{i,\infty}(b)$.
Let $x,y\in (A_i)_+$ with $a=[x]$ and $b=[y]$.
By definition of the relation $\prec$ in $W(A_i)$, we can choose $\varepsilon>0$ such that $a'\leq[(x-\varepsilon)_+]$.
Note that $\omega(s)$ and $\omega(t)$ are the Cuntz classes of $\varphi_{i,\infty}(x)$ and $\varphi_{i,\infty}(y)$ in $A/N$, respectively.
By assumption, $\varphi_{i,\infty}(x)\precsim\varphi_{i,\infty}(y)$.
Using R{\o}rdam's lemma (see \autoref{pgr:CuntzComparison}), we can choose $\delta>0$ and $r\in A/N$ such that
\[
\left( \varphi_{i,\infty}(x)-\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right)_+
=r \left( \varphi_{i,\infty}(y)-\delta \right)_+r^*.
\]
Choose $j$ and $\bar{r}\in A_j$ such that $r=\varphi_{j,\infty}(\bar{r})$.
We may assume $j\geq i$.
Then
\[
\varphi_{i,\infty}\left( (x-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})_+ \right)
= \varphi_{j,\infty}\left( \bar{r}\varphi_{i,j}((y-\delta)_+)\bar{r}^* \right).
\]
Using the description of the limit in $\CatLocCa$ (see \autoref{pgr:LimCatLocCa}), this implies that we can choose $k\geq j$ such that
\[
\left\| \varphi_{i,k}\left( (x-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})_+ \right)
-\varphi_{j,k}\left( \bar{r}\varphi_{i,j}((y-\delta)_+)\bar{r}^* \right) \right\|
\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}.
\]
Using \cite[Lemma~2.2]{Ror92StructureUHF2} at the second step, we deduce
\begin{align*}
\left( \varphi_{i,k}(x)-\varepsilon \right)_+
&=\left( \varphi_{i,k}\left( (x-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})_+ \right) -\frac{\varepsilon}{2} \right)_+ \\
&\precsim \varphi_{j,k}\left( \bar{r}\varphi_{i,j}((y-\delta)_+)\bar{r}^* \right) \\
&\precsim \left( \varphi_{j,k}(y) -\delta \right)_+.
\end{align*}
Then $\psi_{i,\infty}( [ (x-\varepsilon)_+ ] ) \leq \psi_{i,\infty}( [ (y-\delta)_+ ] )$.
Using this at the third step, we obtain
\[
s'
= \psi_{i,\infty}(a')
\leq \psi_{i,\infty}( [(x-\varepsilon)_+] )
\leq \psi_{i,\infty}( [(y-\delta)_+] )
\prec \psi_{i,\infty}( [y] )
= t.
\]
Hence, $s'\prec t$ as desired.
\end{proof}
\chapter{Completed Cuntz semigroups}
\label{sec:catCu}
\index{terms}{completed Cuntz semigroup}
In the first part of this chapter, we recall the definition of the category $\CatCu$ of (abstract) completed Cuntz semigroups, as introduced in \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv}.
We show that $\CatCu$ is a full, reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$;
see \autoref{prp:CureflectivePreW}.
The reflection of a $\CatPreW$-semigroup $S$ in $\CatCu$ is called its \emph{$\Cu$-completion}.
Since $\CatPreW$ has inductive limits, the same holds for $\CatCu$.
This generalizes \cite[Theorem~2]{CowEllIva08CuInv} and it provides a new description of inductive limits in $\CatCu$;
see \autoref{prp:limitsCu}.
In the second part, we consider the functor $\Cu\colon\CatCa\to\CatCu$, as introduced in \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv}.
It associates to a \ca\ $A$ the set of Cuntz equivalence classes of positive elements in the stabilization of $A$, that is, $\Cu(A)=(A\otimes\K)_+/\!\!\sim$.
It turns out that $\Cu(A)$ is an object in $\CatCu$ and we call it the \emph{completed Cuntz semigroup} of $A$.
The main result of this chapter, \autoref{prp:commutingFctrs}, states that for every \ca\ $A$, its completed Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ is naturally isomorphic to the $\Cu$-completion of its pre-completed Cuntz semigroup $W(A)$.
Moreover, all involved functors are continuous.
\section{The category \texorpdfstring{\CatCu}{Cu}}
\begin{pgr}[Axioms for the category $\CatCu$]
\label{pgr:axiomsCu}
\index{terms}{rapidly increasing sequence}
\index{terms}{O1-O4@\axiomO{1}-\axiomO{4}}
Given a \pom\ $S$, the following axioms were introduced in \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv};
see also \cite{Rob13Cone}.
Recall the definition of the compact containment relation $\ll$ from \autoref{pgr:axiomsW}.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\axiomO{1}]
Every increasing sequence $(a_n)_{n\in\N}$ in $S$ has a supremum $\sup_n a_n\in S$.
\item[\axiomO{2}]
Every element $a\in S$ is the supremum of a sequence $(a_n)_n$ such that $a_n\ll a_{n+1}$ for all $n$.
\item[\axiomO{3}]
If $a',a,b',b\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$ and $b'\ll b$, then $a'+b'\ll a+b$.
\item[\axiomO{4}]
If $(a_n)_n$ and $(b_n)_n$ are increasing sequences in $S$, then $\sup_n(a_n+b_n)=\sup_n a_n+\sup_n b_n$.
\end{itemize}
A sequence as in \axiomO{2} is called \emph{rapidly increasing}.
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}[{The category $\CatCu$; Coward, Elliott, Ivanescu, \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv}}]
\label{dfn:catCu}
\index{terms}{Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup}
\index{terms}{Cu-morphism@$\CatCu$-morphism}
\index{terms}{Cu-morphism@$\CatCu$-morphism!generalized}
\index{terms}{category@category!$\CatCu$}
\index{symbols}{Cu@$\CatCu$ \quad (category of $\CatCu$-semigroups)}
\index{symbols}{Cu(S,T)@$\CatCuMor(S,T)$ \quad ($\CatCu$-morphisms)}
\index{symbols}{Cu[S,T]@$\CatCuGenMor{S,T}$ \quad (generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms)}
A \emph{$\CatCu$-semigroup} is a \pom\ that satisfies axioms \axiomO{1}-\axiomO{4} from \autoref{pgr:axiomsCu}.
Given $\CatCu$-semigroups $S$ and $T$, a \emph{$\CatCu$-morphism} $f\colon S\to T$ is a $\CatPom$-morphism that preserves compact containment and suprema of increasing sequences.
We denote the collection of such maps by $\CatCuMor(S,T)$.
We let $\CatCu$ be the category whose objects are $\Cu$-semigroups and whose morphisms are $\Cu$-morphisms.
A \emph{generalized $\CatCu$-morphism} between $\Cu$-semigroups is a $\CatCu$-morphism that does not necessarily preserve compact containment, that is, a $\CatPom$-morphism that preserves suprema of increasing sequences.
We denote the set of generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms by $\CatCuGenMor{S,T}$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:catCu}
\index{terms}{directed complete partially ordered set (dcpo)}
\index{terms}{w-continuous@$\omega$-continuous}
(1)
In lattice theory, a partially ordered set $M$ is called a \emph{directed complete partially ordered set}, often abbreviated to \dcpo, if each upward directed set in $M$ has a supremum;
see \cite[Definition~0-2.1, p.~9]{GieHof+03Domains}.
If the existence of suprema is only required for increasing sequences, then $M$ is called an $\omega$-\dcpo.
A \dcpo\ $M$ is called \emph{continuous} if each element $a$ in $M$ is the supremum of the elements compactly contained in $a$;
see \cite[Definition~I-1.6, p.~54]{GieHof+03Domains}.
Recall from \autoref{pgr:axiomsW} that we use a sequential version of compact containment.
An $\omega$-\dcpo\ is called \emph{$\omega$-continuous} if every element $a$ is the supremum of a sequence $(a_k)_k$ where $a_k$ is sequentially compactly contained in $a_{k+1}$ for each $k$.
Thus, axioms \axiomO{1} and \axiomO{2} mean exactly that the \pom\ in question is a $\omega$-continuous $\omega$-\dcpo.
(2)
Let $S$ be a \pom, considered with the derived auxiliary relation $\ll$.
Recall from \autoref{pgr:axiomsW} that $S$ is called \emph{countably-based} if there exists a countable subset $B\subset S$ such that, whenever $a',a\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$, there exists $b\in B$ with $a'\leq b\ll a$.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{1} and \axiomO{2} from \autoref{pgr:axiomsCu}, then this is equivalent to the condition that every $a\in S$ is the supremum of a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ with $a_k\in B$ for each $k$.
Assume now that $S$ is a countably-based \pom\ satisfying \axiomO{1} and \axiomO{2}.
Then $S$ is a continuous \dcpo.
In order to verify that $S$ is a \dcpo, let $X$ be an upward directed subset of $S$ and let $B$ be a (countable) basis for $S$.
Set $X':=\{b\in B : b\ll x\text{ for some }x\in X\}$.
Then $X'$ is countable and upward directed.
Indeed, if $b_1$, $b_2\in X'$, find $x\in X$ satisfying $b_1,b_2\ll x$.
By \axiomO{2} and the assumption that $S$ is countably-based, we can choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(x_k)_k$ in $B$ such that $x=\sup x_k$.
Choose $n\in\N$ with $b_1,b_2\ll x_n\ll x$.
Then $x_n\in X'$.
As $X'$ is countable and upward directed, there is an increasing sequence $(c_k)_k$ in $X'$ such that $\sup_k c_k$, which exists by \axiomO{1}, is the supremum of $X'$.
Next, let us verify that $\sup X'$ is the supremum of $X$.
If $x\in X$ and $x'\in B$ satisfy $x'\ll x$, then $x'\in X'$ and thus $\sup X'\geq x'$.
Since $S$ is countably-based, it follows that $\sup X'\geq x$ for every $x\in X$.
Moreover, if $y\in S$ satisfies $y\geq x$ for every $x\in X$, then $y\geq x'$ for every $x'\in X'$, and consequently $\sup X'=\sup X$.
This shows that $S$ is a \dcpo.
It is left to the reader to verify that $S$ is also continuous.
(3) \index{terms}{Scott-topology}
A $\CatPom$-morphism between $\CatCu$-semigroups preserves suprema of increasing sequences if and only if it is sequentially continuous for the so-called \emph{Scott-topology};
see \cite[Definition~II-2.2, p.~158]{GieHof+03Domains}.
\end{rmks}
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, it is easily checked that the pair $(S,\ll)$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup.
The next result implies that under this identification, the notions of (generalized) $\CatCu$-morphisms and (generalized) $\CatW$-morphisms agree.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:CuWMor}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatCu$-semigroups, and let $f\colon S\to T$ be a $\CatPom$-morphism.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The map $f\colon S\to T$ preserves suprema of increasing sequences.
\item
The map $f\colon S\to T$ is continuous in the sense of \autoref{dfn:catW}.
\item
We have $f(a)=\sup f(a^\ll)$ for each $a\in S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
For the implication `\implStatements{1}{2}', let $a\in S$ and $b\in T$ satisfy $b\ll f(a)$.
Using \axiomO{2} for $S$, we choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ with $a=\sup_k a_k$.
Since $f(a)=\sup_k f(a_k)$ by assumption, we can choose $k$ such that $b\leq f(a_k)$.
Then $a_k$ has the desired properties.
The implication `\implStatements{2}{3}' was shown in \autoref{rmk:catW}(4).
Finally, to show the implication `\implStatements{3}{1}', let $(a_k)_k$ be an increasing sequence in $S$.
Set $a:=\sup_k a_k$.
We clearly have $f(a)\geq\sup_k f(a_k)$.
For the converse inequality, we choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(c_n)_n$ in $S$ satisfying $a=\sup_n c_n$.
It follows from the assumption that $f(a)=\sup_n f(c_n)$.
Now, given any $b\in T$ satisfying $b\ll f(a)$, we can choose an index $n$ such that $b\leq f(c_n)$.
Since $c_n\ll a=\sup_k a_k$, we can choose an index $k$ with $c_n\leq a_k$.
Then
\[
b\leq f(c_n)\leq f(a_k)\leq \sup_k f(a_k).
\]
Thus, for every $b$ satisfying $b\ll f(a)$ we have $b\leq\sup_kf(a_k)$.
Using \axiomW{2} we have $f(a)=\sup\{b\in T : b\ll f(a)\}$.
It follows $f(a)\leq \sup_kf(a_k)$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}[$\CatCu$-completions]
\label{pgr:CufullW}
Consider the functor $\CatCu\to\CatW$ that maps a $\CatCu$-se\-mi\-group $S$ to the $\CatW$-semigroup $(S,\ll)$, and that sends a $\CatCu$-morphism $f\colon S\to T$ to the same map $f$, considered as a $\CatW$-morphism.
It follows from \autoref{prp:CuWMor} that this functor is fully faithful.
This means that we may consider $\CatCu$ as a full subcategory of $\CatW$, and we will therefore usually not distinguish between a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ and the associated $\CatW$-semigroup $(S,\ll)$.
\end{pgr}
We will now show that $\CatCu$ is a reflective subcategory of $\CatW$, using again the idea of a universal completion as described in \cite[\S~2]{KeiLaw09DCompletion}.
We first show that every $\CatPreW$-semigroup $S$ can be suitably completed to a $\CatCu$-semigroup $\gamma(S)$;
see \autoref{prp:CuificationExists}.
We then show that this has the desired universal properties;
see \autoref{thm:Cuification}.
The proof of the following result is inspired by the so-called round ideal completion, which associates to a partially ordered set with an auxiliary relation a continuous \dcpo;
see \cite[Theorem~2.4]{Law97RoundIdeal}.
The construction given here is a sequential version that also takes the additive structure into account.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:CuificationExists}
Let $(S,\prec)$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
Then there exist a $\CatCu$-semi\-group $\gamma(S)$ and a $\CatW$-morphism $\alpha\colon S\to\gamma(S)$ satisfying the following conditions:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The map $\alpha$ is an `embedding' in the sense that $a'\prec a$ whenever $\alpha(a')\ll\alpha(a)$, for any $a',a\in S$.
\item
The map $\alpha$ has `dense image' in the sense that for every $b',b\in \gamma(S)$ with $b'\ll b$ there exists $a\in S$ such that $b'\leq\alpha(a)\leq b$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, if $S$ is countably-based, then so is $\gamma(S)$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
To construct $\gamma(S)$, first consider the set $\overline{S}$ of $\prec$-increasing sequences in $S$.
We write such sequences as $\vect{a}=(a_k)_k=(a_1,a_2,\ldots)$.
For $\vect{a}$ and $\vect{b}$ in $\overline{S}$, we define their sum as $\vect{a}+\vect{b}=(a_k+b_k)_k$.
We define a binary relation $\subset$ on $\overline{S}$ by setting for any $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$:
\[
\vect{a}\subset\vect{b}\quad
\text{ if and only if for every } k\in\N \text{ there exists } n\in\N \text{ such that } a_k\prec b_n.
\]
It is easy to check that $\subset$ is a pre-order on $\overline{S}$.
We obtain an equivalence relation by setting for any $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$:
\[
\vect{a}\sim\vect{b}\quad
\text{ if and only if }\quad \vect{a}\subset\vect{b} \text{ and } \vect{b}\subset\vect{a}.
\]
We denote the set of equivalence classes by
\[
\gamma(S):=\overline{S}/\!\!\sim.
\]
For an element $\vect{a}\in\overline{S}$, we denote its class in $\gamma(S)$ by $[\vect{a}]$.
The relation $\subset$ induces a partial order $\leq$ on $\gamma(S)$ by setting $[\vect{a}]\leq[\vect{b}]$ if and only if $\vect{a}\subset\vect{b}$, for any $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$.
Since $0\prec 0$ in $S$, the sequence $\vect{0}=(0,0,\ldots)$ is an element of $\overline{S}$.
We denote its class in $\gamma(S)$ by $0$.
For each $\vect{a}\in\overline{S}$, we have $\vect{0}\subset\vect{a}$, and therefore $0\leq[\vect{a}]$.
It follows from axiom \axiomW{3} for $S$ that $\vect{a}\subset\vect{b}$ implies $\vect{a}+\vect{c}\subset\vect{b}+\vect{c}$, for any $\vect{a},\vect{b},\vect{c}\in\overline{S}$.
Thus, the addition on $\overline{S}$ induces an addition on $\gamma(S)$.
Together with the partial order and the zero element, this gives $\gamma(S)$ the structure of a \pom.
We define a binary relation $\ssubset$ on $\overline{S}$ by setting for any $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$:
\[
\vect{a}\ssubset\vect{b}\quad
\text{ if and only if there exists } n\in\N \text{ such that } a_k\prec b_n \text{ for all } k\in\N.
\]
It is easy to check that $\ssubset$ is an auxiliary relation on $\overline{S}$.
This induces an auxiliary relation $\prec$ on $\gamma(S)$ by setting $[\vect{a}]\prec[\vect{b}]$ if and only if $\vect{a}\ssubset\vect{b}$, for any $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$.
We will now check that $\gamma(S)$ satisfies axioms \axiomO{1}-\axiomO{4}.
To show \axiomO{1}, let an increasing sequence $\vect{a}^{(1)}\subset\vect{a}^{(2)}\subset\ldots$ in $\overline{S}$ be given.
We employ a standard diagonalization argument, which is also used to show existence of suprema in the inductive limit construction in $\CatCu$;
see for example \cite[Theorem~4.34]{AraPerTom11Cu}.
Write $\vect{a}^{(k)}=(a^{(k)}_1,a^{(k)}_2,\ldots)$ for each $k$.
We inductively choose indices $n_k\in\{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ such that
\[
a^{(i)}_{n_i+j}\prec a^{(k)}_{n_k}\quad
\text{ for all }\quad i,j \text{ with } i+j\leq k.
\]
We start with $n_1:=0$.
Since $\vect{a}^{(1)}\subset\vect{a}^{(2)}$, we can choose $n_2$ such that $a^{(1)}_{n_1+1}=a^{(1)}_1\prec a^{(2)}_{n_2}$.
Now assume $n_i$ has been chosen for $i\leq k$.
Since $\vect{a}^{(1)},\ldots,\vect{a}^{(k)}\subset\vect{a}^{(k+1)}$, we can choose $n_{k+1}$ such that
\[
a^{(1)}_{n_1+k}, a^{(2)}_{n_2+k-1}, \ldots,
a^{(k-1)}_{n_{k-1}+2}, a^{(k)}_{n_k+1}
\prec a^{(k+1)}_{n_{k+1}}
\]
This completes the inductive step.
After reindexing the sequences, we may assume $n_i=i$ and therefore $a^{(i)}_{i+j}\prec a^{(i+j)}_{i+j}$ for all $i,j\geq 1$.
Set $b_j:=a^{(j)}_j$ for each $j$, and set $\vect{b}:=(b_1,b_2,\ldots)\in\overline{S}$.
It is straightforward to check that $\vect{b}$ is the supremum of the sequence $(\vect{a}^{(k)})_k$ in $\overline{S}$, that is, $\vect{a}^k\subset\vect{b}$ (for each $k$) and if $\vect{a}^k\subset \vect{b}'$ (for each $k$) then $\vect{b}\subset\vect{b}'$.
It follows
\[
[\vect{b}] = \sup_k [\vect{a}^{(k)}],
\]
in $\gamma(S)$, which verifies \axiomO{1}.
It is left to the reader to prove axiom \axiomO{4} for $\gamma(S)$.
Next, we show that $\ssubset$ induces the compact containment relation $\ll$ on $\gamma(S)$.
To that end, we first show that the analog of \axiomO{2} holds for $\ssubset$, that is, for every $\vect{a}=(a_n)_n$ in $\overline{S}$ there exist elements $\vect{a}^{(k)}\in\overline{S}$ for $k\in\N$ such that
\[
\vect{a}=\sup_k \vect{a}^{(k)},\quad
\text{ and }\quad
\vect{a}^{(1)} \ssubset\vect{a}^{(2)} \ssubset\vect{a}^{(3)} \ssubset\ldots.
\]
Given $\vect{a}\in\overline{S}$, by \axiomW{1} for $S$, for each $k$ there is a sequence $a_{[k,1]}\prec a_{[k,2]}\prec\ldots$ with $a_k\prec a_{[k,1]}$ and $a_{[k,i]}\prec a_{k+1}$ for all $i$.
Set
\[
\vect{a}^{(k)}:=(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_k,a_{[k,1]},a_{[k,2]},\ldots).
\]
It is straightforward to check that this sequence has the desired properties.
Now let $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$ satisfy $[\vect{a}]\ll[\vect{b}]$.
As explained in the previous paragraph, we can choose a sequence of elements $\vect{b}^{(k)}\in\overline{S}$ such that $\vect{b}=\sup_k\vect{b}^{(k)}$ and such that $b^{(k)}_k=b_k$ and $b^{(k)}_i\prec b_{k+1}$ for each $k,i\in\N$.
Then
\[
[\vect{a}]\ll[\vect{b}]=\sup_k[\vect{b}^{(k)}],
\]
which implies that we can choose $k$ with $[\vect{a}]\leq[\vect{b}^{(k)}]$.
This mean $\vect{a}\subset\vect{b}^{(k)}$, and it follows easily that $\vect{a}\ssubset\vect{b}$.
Conversely, let $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$ satisfy $\vect{a}\ssubset\vect{b}$.
In order to show $[\vect{a}]\ll[\vect{b}]$ in $\gamma(S)$, let $(\vect{c}^{(k)})_k$ be an increasing sequence in $\overline{S}$ satisfying $[\vect{b}]\leq \sup_k[\vect{c}^{(k)}]$.
By the argument above, $\overline{S}$ is closed under suprema of increasing sequences. We can therefore define $\vect{c}=\sup_k\vect{c}^{k}$, giving $[\vect{c}]=\sup_k[\vect{c}^k]$.
Then
\[
\vect{b}\subset \vect{c}=\sup_k\vect{c}^{(k)}.
\]
After reindexing, we may assume $\vect{c}=(c^{(k)}_k)_k$.
Since $\vect{a}\ssubset\vect{b}$, we can choose an index $n$ such that $a_i\prec b_n$ for all $i$.
Since $\vect{b}\subset\vect{c}$, we can choose $m$ such that $b_n\prec c_m=c^{(m)}_m$.
It follows that $\vect{a}\subset\vect{c}^{(m)}$ and therefore $[\vect{a}]\leq[\vect{c}^{(m)}]$.
Thus, for any $\vect{a},\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$ we have shown that
\[
\vect{a}\ssubset\vect{b}\text{ in } \overline{S}\quad
\text{ if and only if }\quad
[\vect{a}]\ll[\vect{b}]\text{ in } \gamma(S).
\]
It easily follows that \axiomO{2} holds in $\gamma(S)$.
To verify \axiomO{3} for $\gamma(S)$, we first show the analog for $\overline{S}$.
In order to verify this, let $\vect{a}',\vect{a},\vect{b}',\vect{b}\in\overline{S}$ satisfy $\vect{a}'\ssubset\vect{a}$ and $\vect{b}'\ssubset\vect{b}$.
Choose indices $m$ and $n$ such that $a_k'\prec a_m$ and $b_k'\prec b_n$ for all $k$.
Set $d:=\max\{m,n\}$.
Using \axiomW{3} for $S$, we deduce
\[
a_k'+b_k'\prec a_d+b_d,
\]
for all $k$.
This shows $\vect{a}'+\vect{b}'\ssubset\vect{a}+\vect{b}$.
It easily follows that $\gamma(S)$ satisfies \axiomO{3}.
This completes the proof that $\gamma(S)$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
We define the map $\alpha\colon S\to\gamma(S)$ as follows:
Given $a\in S$, we apply \axiomW{1} to choose a sequence $a_1\prec a_2\prec\ldots$ that is cofinal in $a^\prec$.
Set $\alpha(a):=[(a_1,a_2,\ldots)]$.
It is straightforward to check that $\alpha(a)$ does not depend on the choice of the cofinal sequence in $a^\prec$ and that $\alpha$ is a $\CatW$-morphism satisfying conditions (i) and (ii) of the statement.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:Cuification}
\index{terms}{Cu-completion@$\CatCu$-completion}
Let $S$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
A \emph{$\CatCu$-completion} of $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup $T$ together with a $\CatW$-morphism $\alpha\colon S\to T$ satisfying the following universal property:
For every $\CatCu$-semigroup $R$ and for every $\CatW$-morphism $f\colon S\to R$, there exists a unique $\CatCu$-morphism $\tilde{f}\colon T\to R$ such that $f=\tilde{f}\circ\alpha$.
\end{dfn}
Any two $\CatCu$-completions of a $\CatW$-semigroup are isomorphic in the following sense:
If $\alpha_i\colon S\to T_i$ are two $\CatCu$-completions, then there is a unique isomorphism $\varphi\colon T_1\to T_2$ such that $\alpha_2=\varphi\circ\alpha_1$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Cuification}
Let $S$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup, let $T$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $\alpha\colon S\to T$ be a $\CatW$-morphism.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The map $\alpha$ satisfies the conditions of \autoref{prp:CuificationExists}, namely:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The map $\alpha$ is an `embedding' in the sense that $a'\prec a$ whenever $\alpha(a')\ll\alpha(a)$, for any $a',a\in S$.
\item
The map $\alpha$ has `dense image' in the sense that for every $b',b\in T$ with $b'\ll b$ there exists $a\in S$ such that $b'\leq\alpha(a)\leq b$.
\end{enumerate}
\item
The map $\alpha$ is a $\CatCu$-completion of $S$.
\item
For every $\CatCu$-semigroup $R$ and every generalized $\CatW$-morphism $f\colon S\to R$, there exists a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\tilde{f}\colon T\to R$ such that $f=\tilde{f}\circ\alpha$.
Moreover, $f$ is a $\CatW$-morphism if and only if $\tilde{f}$ is a $\CatCu$-morphism.
Moreover, if $g_1,g_2\colon T\to R$ are generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms such that $g_1\circ\alpha\leq g_2\circ\alpha$, then $g_1\leq g_2$.
(We consider the pointwise ordering among morphisms.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The implication `\implStatements{3}{2}' is clear.
To show the implication `\implStatements{1}{3}', let $R$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $f\colon S\to R$ be a generalized $\CatW$-morphism.
It follows from conditions (i) and (ii) that for every $t\in T$, the set $\left\{ a\in S : \alpha(a)\ll t \right\}$ is $\prec$-upwards directed and contains a cofinal sequence.
Thus, we may define
\[
\tilde{f}\colon T\to R,\quad
\tilde{f}(t) := \sup \left\{f(a) : \alpha(a)\ll t \right\},\quad
\txtFA t\in T.
\]
Let us show that $\tilde{f}$ is a generalized $\Cu$-morphism.
Let $t_1,t_2\in T$.
If $t_1\leq t_2$, then it follows from condition (ii) of an auxiliary relation (see \autoref{pgr:axiomsW}) that
\[
\left\{ a\in S : \alpha(a)\ll t_1 \right\}
\subset \left\{ a\in S : \alpha(a)\ll t_2 \right\},
\]
and therefore $\tilde{f}(t_1)\leq\tilde{f}(t_2)$.
Similarly, it follows from axiom \axiomW{3} for $S$ that there is an inclusion
\[
\left\{ a\in S : \alpha(a)\ll t_1 \right\}
+ \left\{ a\in S : \alpha(a)\ll t_2 \right\}
\subset \left\{ a\in S : \alpha(a)\ll t_1+t_2 \right\},
\]
which is moreover cofinal by \axiomW{4}.
It follows that $\tilde{f}(t_1+t_2)=\tilde{f}(t_1)+\tilde{f}(t_2)$.
It is easy to check that $\tilde{f}$ is continuous in the sense of \autoref{dfn:catW}.
By \autoref{prp:CuWMor}, this implies that $\tilde{f}$ preserves suprema of increasing sequences.
Thus, $\tilde{f}$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism.
To show $f=\tilde{f}\circ\alpha$, let $a\in S$ be given.
Using at the second step that $\alpha$ preserves the auxiliary relations and satisfies condition (i), and at the third step that $f$ is continuous, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\tilde{f}\circ\alpha(a)
=\sup \left\{ f(a') : \alpha(a')\ll\alpha(a) \right\}
=\sup \left\{ f(a') : a'\prec a \right\}
=f(a).
\end{align*}
We claim that if $f$ is additionally assumed to preserve the auxiliary relation, then so does $\tilde{f}$.
To see this, let $t',t\in T$ satisfy $t'\ll t$.
Choose $x\in T$ such that $t'\ll x\ll t$.
By condition (ii) for $\alpha$, we can choose $a\in S$ with $x\leq\alpha(a)\leq t$.
Then $t'\ll\alpha(a)$, and since $\alpha$ is continuous, we can choose $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\prec a$ and $t'\leq\alpha(a')$.
We deduce
\[
\tilde{f}(t')
\leq \tilde{f}(\alpha(a'))
=f(a')
\ll f(a)
= \tilde{f}(\alpha(a))
\leq \tilde{f}(t).
\]
Finally, assume $g_1,g_2\colon T\to R$ are generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms satisfying $g_1\circ\alpha\leq g_2\circ\alpha$.
Given $t\in T$, choose an increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ with $t=\sup_k\alpha(a_k)$.
Then
\[
g_1(t)
=g_1(\sup_k\alpha(a_k))
=\sup_k (g_1\circ\alpha)(a_k)
\leq\sup_k(g_2\circ\alpha)(a_k)
=g_2(t),
\]
which shows $g_1\leq g_2$.
Let us show the implication `\implStatements{2}{1}'.
By \autoref{prp:CuificationExists}, we can choose a $\CatCu$-semigroup $\gamma(S)$ and a $\CatW$-morphism $\tilde{\alpha}\colon S\to\gamma(S)$ satisfying (1).
We have seen that (1) implies (2).
Thus, $\tilde{\alpha}$ is a $\CatCu$-completion satisfying (1).
Since every two $\CatCu$-completions of $S$ are isomorphic, it follows that every $\Cu$-completion satisfies (1), as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:Cuification}
(1)
Let $S$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
By \autoref{prp:CuificationExists} and \autoref{thm:Cuification}, we can choose a $\CatCu$-completion $\alpha\colon S\to\gamma(S)$.
Given a $\CatCu$-semi\-group $R$, assigning to a (generalized) $\CatCu$-morphism $f\colon \gamma(S)\to R$ the (generalized) $\CatW$-morphism $f\circ\alpha$ is an isomorphism of the following morphism sets:
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@C=15pt@M+3pt{
\CatWGenMor{S,R} & \CatCuGenMor{\gamma(S),R} \ar[l]_{\cong}\\
\CatWMor(S,R) \ar@{^{(}->}[u]
& \CatCuMor(\gamma(S),R) \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[l]_{\cong}.
}
\]
(2)
Given a $\CatPreW$-semigroup $S$, let $\alpha\colon S\to\gamma(S)$ be its $\CatCu$-completion, as constructed in \autoref{prp:CuificationExists}.
As remarked in \autoref{rmk:catW}(2), $S$ satisfies \axiomW{2} if and only if $a^\prec\subset b^\prec$ implies $a\leq b$.
It follows that $\alpha$ is an order-embedding if and only if $S$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup.
(3)
More generally, let $\alpha\colon S\to T$ be a $\CatW$-morphism from a $\CatW$-semigroup $S$ to a $\CatCu$-semigroup $T$.
Then $\alpha$ is a $\CatCu$-completion if and only if $\alpha$ is an order-embedding that has `dense image' in the sense of condition (ii) from \autoref{thm:Cuification}.
Necessity follows from (2) above.
For the converse, assume $\alpha$ is an order-embedding.
Let $a',a\in S$ such that $\alpha(a')\ll\alpha(a)$.
Since $\alpha$ is continuous, we can choose $x\in S$ with $x\prec a$ and $\alpha(a')\leq\alpha(x)$.
Since $\alpha$ is an order-embedding, $a'\leq x$ and then $a'\prec a$, as desired.
\end{rmks}
By \autoref{pgr:CufullW}, the category $\CatCu$ is a full subcategory of $\CatPreW$.
Moreover, for every $\CatPreW$-semigroup $S$, there exists a $\CatCu$-completion.
As described in \cite[\S~2]{KeiLaw09DCompletion}, this induces a reflection functor $\gamma\colon\CatPreW\to\CatCu$ (see also \autoref{rmk:Cuification}(1)).
\index{symbols}{$\gamma(S)$ \quad (reflection from $\CatPreW$ in $\CatCu$)}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:CureflectivePreW}
The category $\CatCu$ is a full, reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$.
\end{thm}
As noticed before \autoref{prp:limitsW}, it follows from general category theory that the category $\CatCu$ has inductive limits and that the reflection functor $\gamma\colon\CatPreW\to\CatCu$ is continuous.
Thus, we obtain the following generalization of \cite[Theorem~2]{CowEllIva08CuInv}.
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:limitsCu}
\index{terms}{inductive limits@inductive limits!in $\CatCu$}
\index{symbols}{CuLim@$\CatCuLim$ \quad (inductive limit in $\CatCu$)}
The category $\CatCu$ has inductive limits. More precisely, let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatCu$.
Then the inductive limit in $\CatCu$ is the $\CatCu$-completion of the inductive limit in $\CatPreW$:
\[
\CatCuLim S_i = \gamma(\CatPreWLim S_i).
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:reflectors}
The reflection functors $\mu\colon\CatPreW\to\CatW$ from \autoref{pgr:WreflectivePreW} and $\gamma\colon\CatPreW\to\CatCu$ from \autoref{prp:CureflectivePreW} commute in the sense that the composed functor $\gamma\circ\mu\colon\CatPreW\to\CatCu$ is naturally isomorphic to $\gamma$.
The situation is shown in the following diagram:
\[
\xymatrix{
\CatPreW \ar[r]^{\mu} \ar@/_1.5pc/[rr]^{\gamma}
& \CatW \ar[r]^{\gamma}
& \CatCu \\
}
\]
More precisely, starting with a $\CatPreW$-semigroup $S$, let us first consider the universal $\CatW$-morphism $\beta_S\colon S\to\mu(S)$ from $S$ to its $\CatW$-completion.
There is a universal $\CatW$-morphism $\alpha_{\mu(S)}\colon\mu(S)\to\gamma(\mu(S))$ to the $\CatCu$-completion of $\mu(S)$.
The composition $\alpha_{\mu(S)}\circ\beta_S\colon S\to\gamma(\mu(S))$ is a $\CatCu$-completion of $S$.
Since any two $\CatCu$-completions are isomorphic, there is an isomorphism $\gamma(S)\cong\gamma(\mu(S))$ which intertwines $\alpha_S$ and $\alpha_{\mu(S)}\circ\beta_S$.
\end{rmk}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{The completed Cuntz semigroup of a \texorpdfstring{{C}*-algebra}{{C}*-algebra}}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:CufromCAlg}
Let $A$ be \ca.
In \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv}, a new definition of the Cuntz semigroup is introduced as $\Cu(A)=(A\otimes\K)_+/\!\!\sim$, the set of Cuntz equivalence classes of positive elements in the stabilization of $A$.
(See \autoref{pgr:CuntzComparison} for the definition of Cuntz equivalence.)
The relation of Cuntz subequivalence induces a partial order on $\Cu(A)$.
Using an isomorphism $M_2(\K)\cong\K$ we get an isomorphism $\psi\colon M_2(A\otimes\K)\to A\otimes\K$, which is used to obtain a well-defined addition $[x]+[y]=[\psi(\begin{smallmatrix}x & 0 \\ 0 & y \end{smallmatrix})]$.
With this structure, $\Cu(A)$ becomes a \pom.
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:CufromCAlg}
\index{terms}{Cuntz semigroup!completed}
\index{symbols}{Cu(A)@$\Cu(A)$ \quad (completed Cuntz semigroup)}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
We call
\[
\Cu(A) :=(A\otimes\K)_+/\!\!\sim
\]
the \emph{completed Cuntz semigroup} of $A$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{prp}[{\cite[Theorem~1]{CowEllIva08CuInv}}]
\label{prp:CufromCAlg}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
Then the \pom\ $\Cu(A)$ satisfies \axiomO{1}-\axiomO{4} from \autoref{pgr:axiomsCu} and is therefore a $\Cu$-semigroup.
If $A$ is separable, then $\Cu(A)$ is countably-based.
\end{prp}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:CufromCAlg}
(1)
We will show in \autoref{prp:commutingFctrs} that $\Cu(A)$ is isomorphic to the $\CatCu$-completion of $\W(A)$.
This is why we call $\Cu(A)$ the \emph{completed} Cuntz semigroup, and $W(A)$ the \emph{pre-completed} Cuntz semigroup of $A$.
(2)
Another way of looking at $\Cu(A)$ is to identify it with $W(A\otimes\K)$.
In fact, the \starHom\ $A\otimes\K\to M_\infty(A\otimes\K)$ given by embedding an element in the upper-left corner induces a bijection of Cuntz equivalence classes, respecting the given order and addition.
Thus, as a \pom, $\Cu(A)$ is nothing but $W(A\otimes\K)$.
The auxiliary relation $\prec$ on $W(A\otimes\K)$ as defined in \autoref{dfn:WfromCAlg} is precisely the compact containment relation, which is deduced from the order structure.
Indeed, it was shown in \cite{CowEllIva08CuInv} that for every $b\in (A\otimes\K)_+$ and $\varepsilon>0$ we have $[(b-\varepsilon)_+]\ll [b]$ in $W(A\otimes\K)$.
It follows in particular that $[p]\ll [p]$ for any projection $p$, so projections are a natural source of compact elements in $\Cu(A)$ (sometimes the only source; see \cite{BroCiu09IsoHilbert}).
Given $a,b\in (A\otimes\K)_+$, we have by definition that $[a]\prec [b]$ if and only if $[a]\leq [(b-\varepsilon)_+]$ for some $\varepsilon>0$.
It follows that
\[
[a]\prec [b]\text{ in } \W(A\otimes\K)\quad
\text{ if and only if}\quad
[a]\ll [b]\text{ in } \Cu(A)=W(A\otimes\K).
\]
\end{rmks}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:morphisms}
Let $\varphi\colon A\to B$ be a \starHom\ (respectively a c.p.c.\ order-zero map).
Then $\varphi$ naturally extends to a \starHom\ (respectively a c.p.c.\ order-zero map) between the stabilizations, which we denote by $\bar{\varphi}\colon A\otimes\K\to B\otimes\K$.
By \autoref{prp:mor_from_cpc0}, this induces a (generalized) $\CatW$-morphism $W(\bar{\varphi})\colon W(A\otimes\K)\to W(B\otimes\K)$.
Using the identification $\Cu(A)=W(A\otimes\K)$ (see \autoref{rmk:CufromCAlg}(2)), and \autoref{prp:CuWMor}, the map $W(\bar{\varphi})$ corresponds to a (generalized) $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\Cu(\varphi)\colon\Cu(A)\to\Cu(B).
\]
One obtains a functor $\Cu\colon\CatCa\to\CatCu$;
see \cite[Theorem~2]{CowEllIva08CuInv}.
We have seen that c.p.c.\ order-zero maps between \ca{s} naturally induce generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms between their respective completed Cuntz semigroups.
Another source of generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms are lower-semicontinuous $2$-quasitraces.
For each \ca\ $A$, these are in natural one-to-one correspondence with the generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms from $\Cu(A)$ to the extended positive real line, $[0,\infty]$, also called the functionals on $\Cu(A)$; see \autoref{pgr:fctl}.
We refer the reader to \cite[Section~2.9]{BlaKir04PureInf} and \cite[Section~4]{EllRobSan11Cone} for details.
\end{pgr}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:connectionFunctors}
\index{symbols}{C*@$\CatCa$ \quad (category of \ca{s})}
Let us clarify the connection between the functors
\[
\W\colon\CatLocCa\to\CatW\quad
\text{ and }\quad
\Cu\colon\CatCa\to\CatCu.
\]
The category $\CatCa$ of \ca{s} with \starHom{s} is a full, reflective subcategory of $\CatLocCa$.
Indeed, assigning to a local \ca\ $A$ its completion $\overline{A}$ extends to a functor $\gamma\colon\CatLocCa\to\CatCa$ which is left adjoint to the inclusion of $\CatCa$ in $\CatLocCa$.\index{terms}{category@category!$\CatCa$}
On the other hand, we have the functor $\gamma\colon\CatW\to\CatCu$ from \autoref{prp:CureflectivePreW}.
In \autoref{prp:commutingFctrs}, we will show that the functors $\W$ and $\Cu$ are intertwined by these completion functors.
\end{pgr}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:CuntzCompCompletion}
Let $A$ be a local \ca, considered as a dense subalgebra of its completion $\overline{A}$.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
For $x,y\in A_+$, we have $x\precsim y$ in $A$ if and only if $x\precsim y$ in $\overline{A}$.
\item
For every $x\in \overline{A}_+$ and $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $y\in A$ such that $(x-\varepsilon)_+\precsim y\precsim x$ in $\overline{A}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
(1):
The forward implication is obvious.
To show the converse implication, assume $x\precsim y$ in $\overline{A}$.
Then $x=\lim_k z_k^*yz_k$ for some sequence $(z_k)_k$ in $\overline{A}$.
Since $A$ is dense in $\overline{A}$, we may approximate each $z_k$ arbitrarily well by elements from $A$.
A diagonalization argument shows that $x\precsim y$ in $A$.
(2):
Let $x$ and $\varepsilon$ be as in the statement.
Since $A$ is dense in $\overline{A}$, we can choose $z\in A$ with $\|x-z\|<\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}$.
By \cite[Proposition~2.2]{Ror92StructureUHF2}, we have $(z-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2})_+\precsim x$ in $\overline{A}$.
Similarly, since $\|x-(z-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2})_+\|<\varepsilon$, we obtain $(x-\varepsilon)_+\precsim (z-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2})_+$.
Thus, the element $y:=(z-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2})_+$ has the desired properties.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:commutingFctrs}
The compositions $\gamma\circ\W$ and $\Cu\circ\gamma$ are naturally isomorphic as functors $\CatLocCa\to\CatCu$.
This means that the following diagram commutes (up to natural isomorphism):
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@M+3pt{
\CatLocCa \ar@/_1pc/[d]_{\gamma} \ar[r]^{\W}
& \CatW \ar@/^1pc/[d]^{\gamma} \\
\CatCa \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[r]^{\Cu}
& \CatCu \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \\
}
\]
In particular, if $A$ is a \ca, then its completed Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ is naturally isomorphic to the $\CatCu$-completion $\gamma(W(A))$ of its pre-completed Cuntz semigroup $W(A)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a local \ca.
Set $B:=M_\infty(A)$, which is again a local \ca.
Let $\iota\colon B\to\overline{B}$ be the natural inclusion map into the completion.
Note that there is a natural isomorphism $\overline{B}\cong\gamma(A)\otimes\K$.
We have $W(A)=B_+/\!\!\sim$ and $\Cu(\gamma(A))=\overline{B}_+/\!\!\sim$, and the \starHom\ $\iota$ induces a $\CatW$-morphism $W(\iota)\colon W(A)\to\Cu(\gamma(A))$.
By \autoref{prp:CuntzCompCompletion}, $W(\iota)$ is an order-embedding with `dense image' in the sense of \autoref{thm:Cuification} (ii).
It then follows from \autoref{rmk:Cuification}(3) that $W(\iota)$ is a $\Cu$-completion of $W(A)$.
By uniqueness of $\Cu$-completions combined with \autoref{prp:CuificationExists}, we obtain $\Cu(\gamma(A))\cong \gamma(W(A))$.
\end{proof}
By \autoref{prp:functorW}, the functor $\W\colon\CatLocCa\to\CatW$ is continuous.
Since $\gamma\colon\CatW\to\CatCu$ is also continuous, we obtain from \autoref{prp:commutingFctrs} the following generalization of \cite[Theorem~2]{CowEllIva08CuInv}.
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:functorCu}
The functor $\Cu\colon\CatCa\to\CatCu$ is continuous.
More precisely, given an inductive system of \ca{s} $((A_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$, there are natural isomorphisms:
\[
\Cu(\CatCaLim A_i) \cong \gamma(\CatWLim \W(A_i)) \cong \CatCuLim\Cu(A_i).
\]
\end{cor}
\chapter{Additional axioms}
\label{sec:addAxioms}
In this chapter, we consider additional axioms for (pre)completed Cuntz semigroups.
For $\CatCu$-semigroups, these are denoted by \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}, and they are satisfied by all completed Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s};
see \autoref{prp:o5o6}.
We work with a slightly stronger version of \axiomO{5} than the one that has previously appeared in the literature.
The advantage is that the new \axiomO{5} passes to inductive limits in $\CatCu$;
see \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToLim}.
We also introduce axioms \axiomW{5} and \axiomW{6} for pre-completed Cuntz semigroups, which are the exact counterparts of \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Indeed, a $\CatPreW$-semigroup satisfies \axiomW{5} if and only if its $\CatCu$-completion satisfies \axiomO{5}, and analogously for \axiomW{6} and \axiomO{6};
see \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}.
\vspace{5pt}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
The axiomatic description of $\Cu(A)$ as an object in $\CatCu$ had a positive impact in the study of the Cuntz semigroup as an invariant.
For instance, the structure as a $\omega$-continuous $\omega$-\dcpo\ provides $\Cu(A)$ with nice topological properties.
However, the category $\CatCu$ of (abstract) Cuntz semigroups is still far bigger than the subcategory of concrete Cuntz semigroups that are isomorphic to $\Cu(A)$ for some \ca\ $A$.
For example, it is shown in \cite[Theorem~1.3]{Rob13CuSpaces2D} that the semigroup $\Lsc(S^2,\overline{\N})$ of lower-semicontinuous functions from the sphere to $\overline{\N}=\{0,1,2,\ldots,\infty\}$ is not the Cuntz semigroup of any \ca.
In order to get a better understanding of the class of concrete Cuntz semigroups, it has been useful to determine additional axioms satisfied by Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s}.
\begin{dfnChapter}
\label{dfn:addAxioms}
\index{terms}{O5@\axiomO{5}}
\index{terms}{almost algebraic order}
\index{terms}{O6@\axiomO{6}}
\index{terms}{almost Riesz decomposition}
\index{terms}{weak cancellation}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\axiomO{5}]
We say that $S$ has \emph{almost algebraic order}, or that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, if for every $a',a,b',b,c\in S$ that satisfy
\[
a+b\leq c,\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b,
\]
there exists $x\in S$ such that
\[
a'+x\leq c\leq a+x,\quad
b'\leq x.
\]
\item[\axiomO{6}]
We say that $S$ has \emph{almost Riesz decomposition}, or that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{6}, if for every $a',a,b,c\in S$ that satisfy
\[
a'\ll a\leq b+c,
\]
there exist elements $e$ and $f$ in $S$ such that
\[
a'\leq e+f,\quad
e\leq a,b,\quad
f\leq a,c.
\]
\item[\axiom{C}]
We say that $S$ has \emph{weak cancellation}, or that $S$ is \emph{weakly cancellative}, if for every $a,b,x\in S$ we have that $a+x\ll b+x$ implies $a\ll b$.
\end{itemize}
\end{dfnChapter}
\begin{rmksChapter}
\label{rmk:addAxioms}
(1)
The axiom \axiomO{5} of almost algebraic order was first considered in \cite[Lemma~7.1]{RorWin10ZRevisited}.
It also appeared in \cite[Corollary~4.16]{OrtRorThi11CuOpenProj} and \cite[2.1]{Rob13Cone}.
Note, however, that the version of \axiomO{5} given here is formally stronger than the original versions in the literature.
Nevertheless, \axiomO{5} is satisfied by every Cuntz semigroup coming from a \ca{}
(see \autoref{prp:o5o6}), and the proof is essentially the same as the original one in \cite[Lemma~7.1]{RorWin10ZRevisited}, with additional care in the choice of the complement.
The new \axiomO{5} has the advantage that it passes to inductive limits in the category $\CatCu$;
see \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}.
This seems unlikely for the original \axiomO{5}, although we have no example where the original \axiomO{5} does not pass to an inductive limit.
In \autoref{rmk:functorToo5o6}, we show that for weakly cancellative $\CatCu$-semigroups, the new \axiomO{5} is equivalent to the original version of the axiom.
(2)
Axiom \axiomO{6} was introduced in \cite[\S 4]{Rob13Cone}.
It was shown to hold for completed Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s} in \cite[Proposition~5.1.1]{Rob13Cone}.
(3)
The axiom of weak cancellation was introduced in \cite[after Lemma~1]{RobSan10ClassificationHom}.
The definition given there is equivalent to \autoref{dfn:addAxioms}.
It is also equivalent to the property that $a+c\leq b+c'$ for $c'\ll c$ implies $a\leq b$, which was shown to hold in completed Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s} with stable rank one;
see \cite[Theorem~4.3]{RorWin10ZRevisited}.
\end{rmksChapter}
The spirit of $\CatW$-semigroups is that the order relation $\leq$ is derived from the auxiliary relation $\prec$.
It is therefore natural to formulate versions of axioms \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6} only in terms of the auxiliary relation, without using the partial order.
That the axioms \axiomW{5} and \axiomW{6} of \autoref{dfn:w5w6} are the `correct' analogs is justified by \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}.
We also formulate the axiom of weak cancellation for $\CatPreW$-semigroups, simply by replacing the compact containment relation by an arbitrary auxiliary relation.
It should cause no confusion that we call this axiom `weak cancellation' as well.
\begin{dfnChapter}
\label{dfn:w5w6}
\index{terms}{W5@\axiomW{5}}
\index{terms}{W6@\axiomW{6}}
Let $(S,\prec)$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
We define the axioms \axiomW{5}, \axiomW{6} and weak cancellation for $S$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\axiomW{5}]
We say that $S$ satisfies \axiomW{5} if for every $a',a,b',b,c,\tilde{c}\in S$ that satisfy
\[
a+b\prec c,\quad
a'\prec a,\quad
b'\prec b,\quad
c\prec\tilde{c},
\]
there exist elements $x'$ and $x$ in $S$ such that:
\[
a'+x\prec \tilde{c},\quad
c\prec a+x',\quad
b'\prec x'\prec x.
\]
\item[\axiomW{6}]
We say that $S$ satisfies \axiomW{6} if for every $a',a,b,c\in S$ that satisfy
\[
a'\prec a\prec b+c,
\]
there exist elements $e$ and $f$ in $S$ such that
\[
a'\prec e+f,\quad
e\prec a,b,\quad
f\prec a,c.
\]
\item[\axiom{C}]
We say that $M$ satisfies \emph{weak cancellation}, or that $M$ is \emph{weakly cancellative}, if for every $a,b,x\in S$ we have that $a+x\prec b+x$ implies $a\prec b$.
\end{itemize}
\end{dfnChapter}
\begin{thmChapter}
\label{prp:axiomsPassToCu}
Let $S$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup, and let $\gamma(S)$ be its $\CatCu$-com\-ple\-tion.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The semigroup $S$ satisfies \axiomW{5} if and only if $\gamma(S)$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
\item
The semigroup $S$ satisfies \axiomW{6} if and only if $\gamma(S)$ satisfies \axiomO{6}.
\item
The semigroup $S$ is weakly cancellative if and only if $\gamma(S)$ is.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thmChapter}
\begin{proof}
Given an element $s\in S$, we will denote its image in $\gamma(S)$ by $\bar{s}$.
First, let us show that weak cancellation passes from $S$ to its $\CatCu$-completion.
Let $a,b,c\in\gamma(S)$ satisfy $a+c\ll b+c$.
Using that $\alpha$ has dense image in the sense of \autoref{thm:Cuification}, we can find elements $s,t\in S$ such that $\bar{s}\ll b$, $\bar{t}\ll c$, and $a+c\ll\bar{s}+\bar{t}$.
We can choose an increasing sequence $(r_n)_n$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_n\bar{r}_n$.
Then $\bar{r}_n+\bar{t}\ll\bar{s}+\bar{t}$ for each $n$.
Since $\alpha$ is an embedding in the sense of \autoref{thm:Cuification}, we obtain the same inequality for the pre-images in $S$.
Since $S$ is weakly cancellative, we have $r_n\prec s$ for each $n$.
Then
\[
a=\sup_n\bar{r}_n\leq\bar{s}\ll b,
\]
which verifies that $\gamma(S)$ is weakly cancellative.
The converse follows directly from the properties of $\alpha$.
Using similar methods one proves \enumStatement{2}.
In order to verify that \axiomO{5} for $\gamma(S)$ implies \axiomW{5} for $S$, let $a',a,b',b,c,\tilde{c}\in S$ satisfy
\[
a+b\prec c,\quad
a'\prec a,\quad
b'\prec b,\quad
c\prec\tilde{c}.
\]
Choose $b_0,c_0\in S$ such that $b'\prec b_0\prec b$ and $c\prec c_0\prec\tilde{c}$.
Then
\[
\bar{a}+\bar{b}\leq\bar{c}_0,\quad
\bar{a}'\ll\bar{a},\quad
\bar{b}_0\ll\bar{b}.
\]
Applying \axiomO{6}, we obtain $y\in\gamma(S)$ with
\[
\bar{a}'+y\leq \bar{c}_0\leq \bar{a}+y,\quad
\bar{b}_0\leq y.
\]
Then $\bar{c}\ll\bar{a}+y$ and $\bar{b}'\ll y$.
Therefore, we can choose $x\in S$ satisfying $\bar{x}\leq y$, $c\prec a+x$, and $b'\prec x$.
Then we can find $x'\in S$ such that $x'\prec x$, $c\prec a+x'$, and $b'\prec x'$.
It follows that $x'$ and $x$ have the desired properties to verify \axiomW{5}.
In order to prove the other implication of \enumStatement{1}, let us assume that $S$ satisfies \axiomW{5}.
We have to show that $\gamma(S)$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
Let $a',a,b',b,c\in\gamma(S)$ satisfy
\[
a+b\leq c,\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b.
\]
Choose a rapidly decreasing sequence $(a_n)_n$ in $S$ such that $a'\ll \bar{a}_{n+1}\ll \bar{a}_{n}\ll a$ for all $n$.
Choose $s'$ and $s$ in $S$ such that $b'\ll\bar{s}'\ll\bar{s}\ll b$.
Finally, choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(c_n)_n$ in $S$ such that $c=\sup_n \bar{c}_n$.
We can moreover assume $\bar{a}_1+\bar{s}\ll \bar{c}_1$, and so $a_1+s\prec c_1$.
We will inductively find elements $x_n$ and $x_n'$ in $S$ satisfying:
\begin{align}
\tag{$R_n$}
x_{n-1}'\prec x_n'\prec x_n,\quad
a_{n+1}+x_n\prec c_{n+1},\quad
c_n\prec a_n+x_n'.
\end{align}
To make sense of ($R_1$), we set $x_0':=s'$.
Then:
\[
a_1+s\prec c_1,\quad
a_2\prec a_1,\quad
x_0\prec s,\quad
c_1\prec c_2.
\]
By \axiomW{5}, we can choose $x_1'$ and $x_1$ in $S$ fulfilling ($R_1$).
For the inductive step, assume $x_n'$ and $x_n$ have been constructed satisfying $(R_n)$.
Applying \axiomW{5} to $a_{n+1}+x_n\prec c_{n+1}$ and $a_{n+2}\prec a_{n+1}$, $x_n'\prec x_n$ and $c_{n+1}\prec c_{n+2}$, we can find $x_{n+1}'$ and $x_{n+1}$ fulfilling ($R_{n+1}$).
We obtain a rapidly increasing sequence $(x_n')_n$ in $S$.
Using the existence of suprema in $\gamma(S)$, we may set $x:=\sup_n \bar{x}_n'$.
For each $n$, we have:
\[
a'+\bar{x}_n'
\leq \bar{a}_{n+1}+\bar{x}_n'
\leq \bar{a}_{n+1}+\bar{x}_n
\leq \bar{c}_{n+1},\quad
\bar{c}_n\leq \bar{a}_n+\bar{x}_n'\leq a+\bar{x}_n.
\]
Therefore:
\[
a'+x
=\sup_n(a'+\bar{x}_n')
\leq\sup_n \bar{c}_{n+1}
=c
=\sup_n \bar{c}_n
\leq\sup_n(a+\bar{x}_n')
=a+x.
\]
Moreover, $x\geq \bar{x}_1'\geq b'$, which shows that $x$ has the desired properties.
\end{proof}
\begin{thmChapter}
\label{prp:axiomsPassToLim}
Let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatPreW$.
If each $S_i$ satisfies \axiomW{5} (respectively \axiomW{6}, weak cancellation), then so does the inductive limit in $\CatPreW$.
Similarly, axiom \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation) passes to inductive limits in $\CatCu$.
\end{thmChapter}
\begin{proof}
Let us verify that weak cancellation passes to inductive limits in $\CatPreW$.
Set $S:=\CatPreWLim S_i$ and let $a,b,c\in S$ satisfy $a+c\prec b+c$.
We can choose an index $i$ and elements $x,y,z\in S_i$ with $a=[x],b=[y]$, and $c=[z]$.
By definition of $\prec$ on $S$ (see \autoref{dfn:limAuxRel}), we can find $j\geq i$ such that $\varphi_{i,j}(x+z)\prec\varphi_{i,j}(y+z)$ in $S_j$.
Using that $S_j$ is weakly cancellative, we deduce $\varphi_{i,j}(x)\prec\varphi_{i,j}(y)$ in $S_j$.
It follows $a\prec b$ in $S$, as desired.
It is shown analogously that the other axioms pass to inductive limits in $\CatPreW$.
Now, let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatCu$.
Assume that each $S_i$ is weakly cancellative.
Considering $S_i$ as a $\CatPreW$-semigroup that is isomorphic to its own $\CatCu$-completion, we obtain from \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu} that $S_i$ is weakly cancellative as a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
It follows that the limit in $\CatPreW$, $S:=\CatPreWLim S_i$, is weakly cancellative.
By \autoref{prp:limitsCu}, the limit in $\CatCu$ is isomorphic to the $\CatCu$-completion of $S$.
Using the `only if' implication of part (3) of \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}, we deduce that $\CatCuLim S_i$ is weakly cancellative.
The argument for \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6} is completely analogous.
\end{proof}
\begin{prpChapter}
\label{prp:o5o6}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
\end{prpChapter}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem~1]{CowEllIva08CuInv}, $\Cu(A)$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Axiom \axiomO{6} is verified in \cite[Proposition~5.1.1]{Rob13Cone}.
The proof of \axiomO{5} is based on that of \cite[Lemma~7.1]{RorWin10ZRevisited}.
Let $a',a,b',b,c\in\Cu(A)$ satisfy $a+b\leq c$, $a'\ll a$, and $b'\ll b$.
We may assume that $A$ is stable.
Let $\tilde{x}, \tilde{y}, z\in A_+$, with $\tilde{x}\perp\tilde{y}$, be such that $a=[\tilde{x}]$, $b=[\tilde{y}]$, and $c=[z]$.
Choose $\varepsilon>0$ such that $a'\ll[(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_+]$ and $b'\ll[(\tilde{y}-\varepsilon)_+]$.
Since $\tilde{x}+\tilde{y}\precsim z$, by \cite[Section~2]{Ror92StructureUHF2} and \autoref{pgr:CuntzComparison}, we can choose $\delta>0$ and $r\in A$ such that
\[
(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_++(\tilde{y}-\varepsilon)_+=(\tilde{x}+\tilde{y}-\varepsilon)_+=r^*(z-\delta)_+r.
\]
Set $v:=(z-\delta)_+^{1/2}r$, set $x:=v(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_+v^*$ and set $y:=v(\tilde{y}-\varepsilon)_+v^*$.
Then $x\perp y$ and
\begin{align*}
(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_+
\sim(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_+^2
=(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_+^{1/2}v^*v(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_+^{1/2}
\sim v(\tilde{x}-\varepsilon)_+v^*
=x,
\end{align*}
and similarly $(\tilde{y}-\varepsilon)_+\sim y$.
We have shown that there exist $\delta>0$ and orthogonal positive elements $x,y$ in $\Her((z-\delta)_+)$, the hereditary sub-\ca{} generated by $(z-\delta)_+$, such that $a'\ll[x]\leq a$ and $b'\ll[y]\leq b$.
For $\eta>0$, let $f_\eta\colon\R^+\to[0,1]$ be the function that takes value $0$ at $0$, value $1$ on $[\eta,\infty)$ and which is linear on $[0,\eta]$.
Set $e:=f_{\delta}(z)$.
Then $e\sim z$ and $e$ acts as a unit on $x$ and $y$.
Choose $\beta>0$ such that $a'\leq[(x-\beta)_+]$.
Set $w:=e-f_\beta(x)$, which is positive since $e$ commutes with $x$ and therefore with $f_{\beta}(x)$.
Set $s:=[w]$, which we will show to have the desired properties to verify \axiomO{5}.
Then we have $w\in\Her(z)$ and $(x-\beta)_+\perp w$.
Moreover, the element $x+w$ is strictly positive in $\Her(z)$.
We deduce
\begin{align*}
a'+s
&\leq [(x-\beta)_+]+[w]
=[(x-\beta)_+ + w]
\leq [z]
=c \\
c
&=[z]
=[x+w]
\leq [x]+[w]
\leq a + s.
\end{align*}
Moreover, $x+w\geq\delta' e$ for some $\delta'>0$.
Therefore, since $x\perp y$,
\[
y
=y^{1/2}ey^{1/2}
\leq \frac{1}{\delta'} y^{1/2}(x+w)y^{1/2}
=\frac{1}{\delta'} y^{1/2}wy^{1/2}
\precsim w,
\]
and thus $b'\leq [y]\leq[w]=s$.
This shows that $s$ has the desired properties to verify \axiomO{5} for $\Cu(A)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prpChapter}
\label{prp:w5w6}
Let $A$ be a local \ca.
Then $W(A)$ is a $\CatW$-sem\-i\-group satisfying \axiomW{5} and \axiomW{6}.
\end{prpChapter}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:WfromCAlg}, $\W(A)$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup.
Let $\overline{A}$ denote the completion of $A$.
Since $\overline{A}$ is a \ca{}, it follows from \autoref{prp:o5o6} that $\Cu(\overline{A})$ satisfies \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
By \autoref{prp:commutingFctrs}, the $\CatCu$-completion of $\W(A)$ is isomorphic to $\Cu(\overline{A})$.
Therefore, \axiomW{5} and \axiomW{6} for $\W(A)$ follow from \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}.
\end{proof}
Though \axiomO{5} holds for all complete Cuntz semigroups coming from \ca{s}, we note that,
under the additional hypothesis of weak cancellation, it is equivalent to the original
formulation of the axiom:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\axiomO{5'}]
If $a\leq b$ and $a'\ll a$, then there is $x\in S$ such that $a'+x\leq b\leq a+x$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{lmaChapter}
\label{prp:o5o5'}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, then it also satisfies \axiomO{5'}.
The converse holds if $S$ is weakly cancellative.
\end{lmaChapter}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that \axiomO{5} implies \axiomO{5'} in general.
To show the converse, assume that $S$ is a weakly cancellative $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5'}.
By \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}, it is enough to verify \axiomW{5}.
Suppose we are given $a',a,b',b,c,\tilde{c}\in S$ satisfying
\[
a+b\ll c,\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b,\quad
c\ll\tilde c.
\]
Choose $c^\sharp\in S$ with $c\ll c^\sharp\ll \tilde c$.
Applying \axiom{O5'} to $a'\ll a\leq c^\sharp$, we obtain $x\in S$ such that $a'+x\leq c^\sharp\leq a+x$.
Then
\[
b+a\leq c\ll c^\sharp\leq x+a,
\]
which by weak cancellation implies $b\ll x$.
Choose $x'\in S$ such that $x'\ll x$, $b'\ll x'$, and $c\ll a+x'$.
Then the elements $x$ and $x'$ have the desired properties to verify \axiomW{5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmksChapter}
\label{rmk:functorToo5o6}
Let $\CatW_{5,6}$ be the full subcategory of $\CatW$ consisting of $\CatW$-sem\-i\-groups satisfying \axiomW{5} and \axiomW{6}.
It follows from \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToLim} that $\CatW_{5,6}$ is closed under inductive limits in $\CatW$ and therefore has inductive limits itself.
By \autoref{prp:w5w6}, the functor $\W$ from \autoref{prp:functorW} takes values in $\CatW_{5,6}$.
Similarly, the full subcategory $\CatCu_{5,6}$ of $\CatCu$ consisting of $\CatCu$-semigroups satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6} is closed under inductive limits.
By \autoref{prp:o5o6}, the functor $\Cu$ takes values in $\CatCu_{5,6}$.
By \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}, the reflector $\gamma\colon\CatW\to\CatCu$ maps $\CatW_{5,6}$ to $\CatCu_{5,6}$.
\end{rmksChapter}
Given a $\CatPreW$-semigroup $(S,\prec)$, we say that an element $s\in S$ is \emph{full}\index{terms}{element!full} if, whenever there are $t',t\in S$ satisfying $t'\prec t$, then there is $n\in\N$ such that $t'\leq ns$.
We say that an element $s$ \emph{cancels from sums} if $a+s\leq b+s$ implies $a\leq b$ for any $a,b$.
\begin{prpChapter}
\label{prp:wc}
Let $(S,\prec)$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup satisfying \axiomW{5}.
If $S$ contains a full element $e$ such that $e\prec e$ and $e$ cancels from sums, then $S$ has weak cancellation.
Similarly, if a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} contains a full compact element that cancels from sums, then it has weak cancellation.
\end{prpChapter}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $a,b,c\in S$ satisfy $a+c\prec b+c$.
Using \axiomW{4}, we can choose $b',c'\in S$ such that
\[
b'\prec b,\quad
c'\prec c,\quad
a+c\leq b'+c'.
\]
Apply \axiomW{1} to find $c''\in S$ with $c'\prec c''\prec c$.
Since $e$ is full, we can choose $n\in\N$ satisfying $c''\leq ne$.
By \axiomW{5}, applied to $c''+0\prec ne$, $c'\prec c''$, and using that $e\prec e$, we can find elements $x',x\in S$ such that $x'\prec x$ and $c'+x\prec ne\prec c''+x'$.
Now
\[
a+ne\leq a+c''+x'\leq a+c+x'\leq b'+c'+x\prec b+ne,
\]
from which we deduce $a\prec b$, as desired.
The analogous result for $\CatCu$-semigroups follows from \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}.
\end{proof}
\chapter{Structure of \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semigroups}
\label{sec:misc}
This chapter contains general results about the structure of $\CatCu$-sem\-i\-groups.
\section{Ideals and quotients}
In this section, we study ideals and quotients of $\CatCu$-semigroups.
We show that \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation pass to ideals and quotients;
see \autoref{prp:axiomsQuotient}.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we denote the set of ideals in $S$ by $\Lat(S)$.
We show that $\Lat(S)$ has a natural structure as a complete lattice;
see \autoref{pgr:Lat}.
The subset of singly-generated ideals forms a sublattice, denoted by $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$.
We show that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup;
see \autoref{prp:LatCu}.
In \autoref{sec:CuSrgSmod}, we will see that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ is naturally isomorphic to the tensor product $S\otimes_\CatCu\{0,\infty\}$;
see \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty}.
Then, we consider the case of a concrete Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ of a \ca{} $A$.
We show that there is a natural isomorphism between $\Lat(\Cu(A))$ and the lattice of ideals in $A$, which we denote by $\Lat(A)$;
see \autoref{prp:LatCa}.
This isomorphism identifies the $\CatCu$-semigroup $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(\Cu(A))$ with the subset of $\Lat(A)$ consisting of ideals that contain a full, positive element.
In the case that $A$ is separable, every ideal in $A$ is $\sigma$-unital and hence contains a positive, full (even strictly positive) element.
It follows that in this case, $\Lat(A)$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup;
see \autoref{prp:LatSepCa}.
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:ideals}
\index{terms}{order-hereditary}
\index{terms}{ideal}
\index{terms}{order-ideal}
\index{symbols}{$\leq_I$}
\index{symbols}{$\sim_I$}
\index{symbols}{S/I@$S/I$ \quad (quotient semigroup)}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
A subset $I$ of $M$ is \emph{order-hereditary} if for every $a,b\in M$ we have that $a\leq b$ and $b\in I$ imply $a\in I$.
An \emph{ideal} (also called \emph{order-ideal}) in $M$ is a subsemigroup which is order-hereditary.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we shall also require that an \emph{ideal} in $S$ is closed under suprema of increasing sequences.
Given an ideal $I$ in a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we define a binary relation $\leq_I$ on $S$ as follows:
For elements $a,b\in S$, we set $a\leq_I b$ if and only if there exists $c\in I$ such that $a\leq b+c$.
By symmetrizing, we define a relation $\sim_I$ on $S$:
For elements $a,b\in S$, we set $a\sim_I b$ if and only if both conditions $a\leq_I b$ and $b\leq_I a$ are met.
It is easy to see that $\sim_I$ is a congruence relation on $S$.
Recall that a congruence is (by definition) an additive equivalent relation; see \autoref{pgr:tensorMonConstr}.
We denote the set of congruence classes by
\[
S/I := S/\!\!\sim_I.
\]
The partial order on $S$ induces a partial order on $S/I$, giving the latter the structure of a \pom.
Given an element $a\in S$, we denote its congruence class in $S/I$ by $a_I$.
In the next result, we verify that $S/I$ satisfies \axiomO{1}-\axiomO{4}.
\end{pgr}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:quotientCu}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $I$ be an ideal in $S$.
Then $S/I$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Moreover, the map
\[
\pi_I\colon S\to S/I,\quad
a\mapsto a_I,\quad
\txtFA a\in S,
\]
is a surjective $\CatCu$-morphism.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ and $I$ be as in the statement.
As explained in \autoref{pgr:ideals}, we have that $S/I$ is a \pom.
It is also easy to see that $\pi_I$ is a surjective $\CatPom$-morphism.
The following claims are easily verified.
Claim 1:
Given $x,y\in S/I$, we have $x\leq y$ if and only if there exist representatives $a,b\in S$ such that $x=a_I$, $y=b_I$, and $a\leq b$.
Claim 2:
Given an increasing sequence $(x_k)_k$ in $S/I$, there exists an increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ such that $x_k=(a_k)_I$ for each $k$.
To verify \axiomO{1} for $S/I$, let $(x_k)_k$ be an increasing sequence in $S/I$.
By claim~2, we can choose an increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ such that for each $k$, the element $x_k$ is represented by $a_k$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{1}, the sequence $(a_k)_k$ has a supremum in $S$ which we denote by $a:=\sup_ka_k$.
We claim that $a_I$ is the supremum of the sequence $(x_k)_k$ in $S/I$.
We have $x_k\leq a_I$ for each $k$.
Conversely, let $y\in S/I$ satisfy $x_k\leq y$ for all $k$.
Choose $b\in S$ with $y=b_I$.
Then, for each $k$, we can choose $c_k\in I$ such that $a_k\leq b+c_k$.
Set
\[
c :=\sum_{k=0}^\infty c_k = \sup_n \sum_{k=0}^n c_k,
\]
which is an element in $I$.
We obtain
\[
a_k \leq b+c_k \leq b+c,
\]
for each $k$.
By definition of $a$, this implies
\[
a=\sup_ka_k\leq b+c.
\]
Since $c\in I$, we get $a\leq_I b$ and therefore $x\leq y$, as desired.
It also follows from the above argument that $\pi_I$ preserves suprema of increasing sequences.
In order to show that $\pi_I$ preserves the way-below relation, let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $a\ll b$ in $S$.
To show $a_I\ll b_I$ in $S/I$, let $(x_k)_k$ be an increasing sequence in $S/I$ satisfying $b_I\leq \sup_k x_k$.
By claim 2, we can choose an increasing sequence $(b_k)_k$ in $S$ such that $x_k=(b_k)_I$ for each $k$.
Then
\[
b_I \leq \sup_k x_k = (\sup_k b_k)_I,
\]
whence we can choose $c\in I$ such that $b\leq (\sup_k b_k) +c$.
Using that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{4}, we obtain
\[
a \ll b \leq (\sup_k b_k) +c = \sup_k (b_k +c).
\]
Therefore, there exists $n\in\N$ such that $a\leq b_n+c$, and hence $a_I\leq(b_n)_I=x_n$, as desired.
To verify \axiomO{2} for $S/I$, let $x\in S/I$.
Choose $a\in S$ such that $x=a_I$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{2}, we can choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_k a_k$.
For each $k$, set $x_k:=(a_k)_I$.
It follows that $(x_k)_k$ is a rapidly increasing sequence in $S/I$ with $x=\sup_k x_k$.
This finishes the proof of \axiomO{2} for $S/I$.
Finally, it is straightforward to verify the axioms \axiomO{3} and \axiomO{4} for $S/I$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:axiomsQuotient}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $I$ be an ideal in $S$.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation), the so does the ideal $I$ and the quotient $S/I$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to verify that each of the axioms passes to ideals.
To show that \axiomO{5} passes to quotients, let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup and let $I$ be an ideal in $S$.
Assume that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
To verify \axiomO{5} for $S/I$, let $a',a,b',b,c\in S/I$ satisfy
\[
a+b\leq c,\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b.
\]
Choose $s,t,r\in S$ such that
\[
a=s_I,\quad
b=t_I,\quad
c=r_I,\quad
s+t\leq r.
\]
Since the quotient map is continuous, we can find $s',t'\in S$ satisfying
\[
s'\ll s,\quad
t'\ll t,\quad
a'\leq (s')_I,\quad
b'\leq (t')_I.
\]
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we can choose $x\in S$ such that
\[
s'+x\leq r\leq s+x,\quad
t'\leq x.
\]
Then $x_I$ has the desired properties to verify \axiomO{5} for $S/I$.
The proofs that \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation pass to quotients can be obtained with the same technique and are left to the reader.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:quotientsW}
It is possible to define the notion of ideals and quotients in the category $\CatPreW$.
We do not pursue this idea.
\end{rmk}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:axiomsExtension}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $I$ be an ideal in $S$.
Assume that $I$ and $S/I$ satisfy \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation).
Under what assumptions does this imply that $S$ itself satisfies the respective axiom?
\end{prbl}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:Lat}
\index{terms}{ideal!lattice}
\index{symbols}{Lat(S)@$\Lat(S)$ \quad (lattice of ideals)}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
We denote the set of all ideals in $S$ by $\Lat(S)$.
Inclusion of ideals defines a partial order on $\Lat(S)$.
Let $(I_\lambda)_\lambda\subset\Lat(S)$ be a family of ideals.
It is easy to check that the intersection $\bigcap_\lambda I_\lambda$ is again an ideal.
Clearly, this is the largest ideal contained in each $I_\lambda$.
Therefore, the family $(I_\lambda)_\lambda$ has an infimum in $\Lat(S)$, given by $\bigwedge_\lambda I_\lambda = \bigcap_\lambda I_\lambda$.
On the other hand,
the family $(I_\lambda)_\lambda$ has a supremum in $\Lat(S)$ given by
\[
\bigvee_\lambda I_\lambda
= \bigcap \left\{ J\in\Lat(S) : I_\lambda\subset J \text{ for all } \lambda \right\}.
\]
This shows that $\Lat(S)$ is a complete lattice.
Set $M:=\{a\in S : a\leq y_1+\cdots+y_n,\text{ for some }y_1,\dots,y_n\in \bigcup_\lambda I_\lambda\}$, that is, $M$ is the order-hereditary submonoid generated by $\bigcup_\lambda I_\lambda$.
We claim that the supremum of the family $(I_\lambda)_\lambda$ is also given by
\[
\bigvee_\lambda I_\lambda
= \left\{ \sup_n a_n : (a_n)_n \text{ rapidly increasing sequence in } M \right\}.
\]
To see this, let us temporarily denote the right hand side in the equation above by $P$.
Using that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{3} and \axiomO{4}, it follows easily that $P$ is closed under addition.
To show that $P$ is order-hereditary, let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $a\leq b$ and $b\in P$.
By definition of $P$, we can choose an increasing sequence $(b_n)_n$ in $M$ such that $b=\sup_nb_n$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{2}, we can choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_k a_k$.
For each $k$, we have
\[
a_k \ll a \leq b=\sup_nb_n,
\]
whence we can choose $n(k)\in\N$ with $a_k\leq b_{n(k)}$.
Since $M$ is order-hereditary, this implies $a_k\in M$, and hence $a\in P$, as desired.
Finally, a standard diagonalization argument shows that $P$ is closed under suprema of increasing sequences.
Thus, $P$ is an ideal of $S$ that contains $I_\lambda$ for each $\lambda$.
Since $P$ is clearly the smallest ideal with this property, we have $P=\bigvee_\lambda I_\lambda$.
It follows that an element $a\in S$ is contained in $\bigvee_\lambda I_\lambda$ if and only if for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$ we have that $a'$ is contained in $M$.
For finitely many ideals $I_1,\dots,I_n$, it is easy to check that their supremum can also be described as
\[
I_1\vee\cdots\vee I_n = \left\{a\in S : a\leq y_1+\cdots y_n\text{ with }y_i\in I_i \right\}.
\]
Given $a\in S$, we denote by $\Idl(a)$ the ideal generated by $a$, that is:
\[ \index{symbols}{Idl(a)@$\Idl(a)$ \quad (ideal generated by $a$)}
\Idl(a)=\left\{ x\in S : x\leq \infty\cdot a \right\}.
\]
We claim that $\Idl(a')\ll\Idl(a)$ in $\Lat(S)$ for any $a',a\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$.
To prove the claim, let $(I_k)_{k\in\N}$ be an increasing sequence in $\Lat(S)$ with $\Idl(a)\subset\bigvee_k I_k$.
Then $a'\ll a\in \bigvee_k I_k$ and therefore $a'\in\bigcup_k I_k$.
Thus, there is $n\in\N$ such that $a'\in I_n$.
But this implies $\Idl(a')\subset I_n$, which proves the claim.
Let $a\in S$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{2}, we can choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_n)_n$ in $S$ with $a=\sup_n a_n$.
It follows that $\Idl(a)$ is the supremum of the rapidly increasing sequence $(\Idl(a_n))_n$ in $\Lat(S)$.
However, it is no longer true that general ideals in a $\CatCu$-semigroup can be written as a supremum of a rapidly increasing sequence of ideals.
We define
\[
\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)
:= \left\{ \Idl(a) : a\in S \right\} \subset \Lat(S),
\]
which is the set of singly-generated ideals in $S$. Note that, for $a$, $b\in S$, we have $\Idl(a)\vee\Idl(b)=\Idl(a+b)$, so that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ becomes an abelian semigroup with $\vee$ as addition.
\index{symbols}{Latf(S)@$\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ \quad (singly-generated ideals)}
Given an ideal $I$ in $S$, the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $I\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$, that is, $I$ is generated by a single element.
\item
The ideal $I$ is generated by countably many elements.
\item
The ideal $I$ has a maximal element, denoted by $\bigvee I$, and then
\[
I = \Idl\left( \bigvee I \right) = \left\{ x\in S : x\leq \bigvee I \right\}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
It is clear that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, and that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}.
To show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}, assume that $I$ is an ideal that is generated by a countable set of elements, say $\{a_0,a_1,a_2,\ldots\}\subset S$.
Then the element
\[
s:=\infty\cdot\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k
= \sup_n \sum_{k=0}^n na_k,
\]
is contained in $I$.
Since $a_k\leq s$ for each $k$, it is clear that $I=\Idl(s)$.
Since, moreover, $\infty\cdot s=s$, we also have $s=\bigvee I$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:LatCu}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{6}, then so does $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$.
Moreover, the map
\[
S\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S),\quad
a\mapsto \Idl(a),\quad
\txtFA a\in S,
\]
is a surjective $\CatCu$-morphism.
If $S$ is countably-based, then
\[
\Lat(S)=\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S).
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We denote the map $S\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ from the statement by $\Idl$.
Let $a,b\in S$.
It is easy to see that $\Idl(a+b)=\Idl(a)+\Idl(b)$.
Moreover, we have $\Idl(a)\subset \Idl(b)$ if and only if $\infty\cdot a \leq \infty\cdot b$.
It follows that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ is an algebraically ordered submonoid of $\Lat(S)$.
We also get that the map $\Idl$ is a $\CatPom$-morphism.
To verify \axiomO{1} for $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$, let $(I_n)_n$ be an increasing sequence of singly-generated ideals.
The supremum $\bigvee_n I_n$ in $\Lat(S)$ is a countably-generated ideal.
As observed in \autoref{pgr:Lat}, this implies that $\bigvee_n I_n\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$.
It follows that $\bigvee_n I_n$ is the supremum of $(I_n)_n$ in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$, which verifies \axiomO{1}.
In \autoref{pgr:Lat}, we have already observed that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ satisfies \axiomO{2} and that the map $\Idl$ preserves the way-below relation.
Then it is easy to check that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ satisfies \axiomO{3} and \axiomO{4}, and that $\Idl$ is a surjective $\CatCu$-morphism.
Moreover, since the order on $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ is algebraic, \axiomO{5} holds trivially.
Next, let us assume that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{6}.
In order to show that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ satisfies \axiomO{6}, let $I',I,J,K\in \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ satisfy
\[
I'\ll I\subset J+K.
\]
Choose $a\in S$ with $I=\Idl(a)$.
Since $I'\ll I$, we can find $a'\in S$ such that
\[
a'\ll a,\quad
I'\subset \Idl(a'),\quad
I=\Idl(a).
\]
Moreover, since $I\subset J+K$, we can choose $b,c\in S$ with
\[
a\leq b+c,\quad
J=\Idl(b),\quad
K=\Idl(c).
\]
Using that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{6}, we can find $e,f\in S$ such that
\[
a'\leq e+f,\quad
e\leq a,b,\quad
f\leq a,c.
\]
It is now easy to check that the ideals $\Idl(e)$ and $\Idl(f)$ have the desired properties to verify \axiomO{6} for $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$.
Finally, assume $S$ is countably-based.
Given an ideal $I$ in $S$, it is straightforward to check that $I$ is generated by countably many elements.
As observed in \autoref{pgr:Lat}, this implies $I\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:LatCu}
In \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty}, we will show that there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S) \cong S\otimes_\CatCu \{0,\infty\}.
\]
\end{rmk}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:idealsCa}
Let $A$ be a \ca, and let $I$ be an ideal in $A$.
(By an ideal in a \ca, we always mean a closed, two-sided ideal.)
The inclusion map $\iota\colon I\to A$ induces a $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\Cu(\iota)\colon\Cu(I)\to\Cu(A).
\]
It is shown in \cite[Proposition~3.1.1]{Ciu08PhD} that $\Cu(\iota)$ is an order-embedding.
We may therefore identify $\Cu(I)$ with a subsemigroup of $\Cu(A)$.
(The assumption that the \ca{} is separable is not needed in the proof of \cite[Proposition~3.1.1]{Ciu08PhD}.)
In fact, the argument is not difficult and we include it for completeness.
First, we show that $\Cu(\iota)$ is an order-embedding.
We may assume that $A$ and $I$ are stable.
Let $x,y\in I_+$ such that $x$ is Cuntz-subequivalent to $y$ in $A$, and let $\varepsilon>0$.
Then, using R{\o}rdam's lemma (see \autoref{pgr:CuntzComparison}), we can find $\delta>0$ and $r\in A$ such that
\[
(x-\varepsilon)_+ = r(y-\delta)_+r^*.
\]
Let $f_\delta\colon\R\to[0,1]$ be the function that takes value $0$ on $(-\infty,\delta/2)$, that takes value $1$ on $[\delta,\infty)$, and that is linear on $[\delta/2,\delta]$.
By functional calculus, we obtain
\[
(y-\delta)_+=f_\delta(y)(y-\delta)_+f_\delta(y).
\]
This implies
\[
(x-\varepsilon)_+ = (rf_\delta(y)) (y-\delta)_+ (rf_\delta(y))^*.
\]
Since $f_\delta(y)\in I$ and since $I$ is an ideal, we have $rf_\delta(y)\in I$.
Then, using R{\o}rdam's lemma in the other direction, it follows that $x$ is Cuntz subequivalent to $y$ in $I$, as desired.
Let us also show that $\Cu(I)$ is an ideal in $\Cu(A)$.
First, it is clear that $\Cu(I)$ is a submonoid of $\Cu(A)$.
To show that it is an order-hereditary subset, let $a,b\in\Cu(A)$ satisfy $a\leq b$ and $b\in\Cu(I)$.
Choose $x\in A_+$ and $y\in I_+$ with $a=[x]$ and $b=[y]$.
By definition, we can find a sequence $(r_k)_k$ in $A$ such that $x=\lim_kr_kyr_k^*$.
Since $I$ is an ideal, we have $r_kyr_k^*\in I$ for each $k$.
As $I$ is also closed, we get $x\in I$ and so $a\in\Cu(I)$, as desired.
Finally, in order to show that $\Cu(I)$ is closed under suprema of increasing sequences, let $(a_k)_k$ be an increasing sequence in $\Cu(I)$ with $a:=\sup_ka_k \in \Cu(A)$.
Choose representatives $x_k\in I_+$ for $k\in\N$ and $x\in A_+$ such that $a=[x]$ and $a_k=[x_k]$ for each $k$.
We need to show $a\in I$.
Let $\varepsilon>0$.
Then
\[
[(x-\varepsilon)_+]\ll[x]=a=\sup_k a_k,
\]
which implies that there exists $n\in\N$ such that $[(x-\varepsilon)_+]\leq a_k$.
We have already observed that this implies that $(x-\varepsilon)_+\in I$.
Since this holds for every $\varepsilon>0$, we get $x\in I$, and hence $a\in\Cu(I)$, as desired.
We let $\Lat(A)$ denote the collection of ideals of $A$, equipped with the partial order given by inclusion of ideals.
It is well-known that $\Lat(A)$ is a complete lattice.
We let $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$ denote the subset of ideals in $A$ that contain a full, positive element.
We remark that every $\sigma$-unital ideal of $A$ belongs to $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$, but the converse does not hold.
Indeed, in \cite[Lemma~2.2]{BroGreRie77StableIso} an example of a simple \ca{} without strictly positive element is given.
It is easy to see that $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$ is a sublattice of $\Lat(A)$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:LatCa}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
Then the map
\[
\Lat(A)\to\Lat(\Cu(A)),\quad
I\mapsto\Cu(I),\quad
\txtFA I\in\Lat(A),
\]
is a natural isomorphism of complete lattices.
Moreover, it maps the sublattice $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$ of ideals in $A$ that contain a full, positive element onto the sublattice $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(\Cu(A))$ of singly-generated ideals in $\Cu(A)$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
For the case that $A$ is a separable \ca, a proof of the statement can be found in \cite[Proposition~3.1.2]{Ciu08PhD}.
Our proof is based on the ideas given by Ciuperca, and we include it for completeness.
We may assume that $A$ is stable, so that $\Cu(A)=A_+/\!\!\sim$.
Let us denote the map of the statement by $\varphi\colon\Lat(A)\to\Lat(\Cu(A))$.
Consider the map
\[
c\colon A\to \Cu(A),\quad
x\mapsto [xx^*],\quad
\txtFA x\in A,
\]
which assigns to an element $x\in A$ the Cuntz class of $xx^*$.
Given an ideal $I$ in $A$, we easily see
\[
\varphi(I)
=\left\{ [x]\in\Cu(A) : x\in I_+ \right\}
= \left\{ [xx^*]\in\Cu(A) : x\in I \right\}
= c(I).
\]
Let us define a map, which will turn out to be the inverse of $\varphi$, as
\[
\psi\colon \Lat(\Cu(A)) \to\Lat(A),\quad
\psi(J) :+ c^{-1}(J) = \left\{ x\in A : [xx^*]\in J \right\},
\]
for all $J\in\Lat(\Cu(A)))$.
Given an ideal $J$ in $\Cu(A)$, let us check that $\psi(J)$ is an ideal of $A$.
To show that $\psi(J)$ is closed under addition, let $x,y\in\psi(J)$.
We have
\[
(x+y)(x+y)^*
\leq (x+y)(x+y)^*+(x-y)(x-y)^*
= 2xx^* + 2yy^*,
\]
and therefore $[(x+y)(x+y)^*]\leq [xx^*]+[yy^*]$.
Since $J$ is an ideal and $[xx^*],[yy^*]\in J$, we get $[(x+y)(x+y)^*]\in J$ and so $x+y\in\psi(J)$.
It is straightforward to check that $\psi(J)$ is closed under scalar multiplication.
To show that $\psi(J)$ is an ideal, let $x\in\psi(J)$ and $y\in A$.
We have
\[
(xy)(xy)^*
= x(yy^*)x^*
\precsim xx^*,\quad
(yx)(yx)^*
= y(xx^*)y^*
\precsim xx^*,
\]
which again implies $xy,yx\in\psi(J)$.
It is left to the reader to check that $\psi(J)$ is also closed.
It is clear that both $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are order-preserving.
Next, let us show that these maps are inverses of each other.
Given an ideal $J$ in $\Cu(A)$, using that $c$ is a surjective map, we easily deduce
\[
\varphi\circ\psi(J) = c(c^{-1}(J)) = J.
\]
Conversely, let $I$ be an ideal of $A$.
Then $I$ is clearly a subset of $\psi\circ\varphi(I) = c^{-1}(c(I))$.
By definition, if $x\in c^{-1}(c(I))$, then $xx^*\in c(I)$, which means that there exists $y\in I_+$ such that $xx^*\sim y$.
We have already seen that this implies $xx^*\in I$ and hence also $x\in I$, as desired.
Finally, let us see that $\varphi$ maps $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$ onto $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(\Cu(A))$.
In one direction, let $I\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$ and choose a full, positive element $x\in I_+$.
Set $a:=[x]\in\Cu(I)$.
In order to show that $\infty\cdot a$ is the largest element of $\Cu(I)$, let $y\in I_+$, and let $\varepsilon>0$.
Since $x$ is full and $y$ is positive, we can choose $K\in\N$ and elements $r_1,\ldots,r_K \in I$ such that
\[
\left\| y - \sum_{k=1}^K r_k x r_k^* \right\|<\varepsilon.
\]
It follows
\[
[(y-\varepsilon)_+] \leq K[x] \leq \infty\cdot a.
\]
Since this holds for every $\varepsilon>0$, we get $[y]\leq\infty\cdot a$, as desired.
Conversely, assume that $J$ is a singly-generated ideal in $\Cu(A)$ and set $I:=\psi(J)$.
Then, as observed in \autoref{pgr:Lat}, there exists a largest element in $J$, which we denote by $a$.
Choose $x\in I_+$ such that $a=[x]$.
In order to show that $x$ is a full element in $I$, let $y\in I$.
Since $a$ is the largest element in $J$, we get $yy^*\precsim x$.
This implies that $yy^*$ and hence $y$ is contained in the ideal generated by $x$.
Thus, $x$ is full in $I$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\index{terms}{C*-algebra@\ca{}!simple}
Recall that a \ca{} $A$ is called \emph{simple} if $\{0\}$ and $A$ are the only ideals of $A$.
Analogously, we define for $\CatCu$-semigroups:
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:simpleCu}
\index{terms}{Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup!simple}
\index{terms}{simple (Cu-semigroup)@simple ($\CatCu$-semigroup)}
A $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is called \emph{simple} if $\{0\}$ and $S$ are the only ideals of $S$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:simpleCa}
A \ca{} $A$ is simple if and only if its (completed) Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ is a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup.
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:LatSepCa}
Let $A$ be a separable \ca.
Then the ideal lattice $\Lat(A)$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
\end{cor}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:LatCa}
Let $A$ be a separable \ca.
(1)
In \autoref{prp:tensCaWithInfty}, we will show that there are natural isomorphisms between the following $\CatCu$-semigroups:
\[
\Cu(\mathcal{O}_\infty\otimes A)
\cong \Lat(A)
\cong \Lat(\Cu(A))
\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_\CatCu\mathcal{}\Cu(A).
\]
(2)
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $\Lat(A)$ is algebraic (see \autoref{sec:algebraicSemigp}) if and only if the \ca{} $A$ has the ideal property.
\end{rmks}
\begin{prp}[{Ciuperca, Robert, Santiago, \cite[Proposition~3.3]{CiuRobSan10CuIdealsQuot}}]
\label{prp:CuQuotientCa}
Let $I$ be an ideal in a \ca{} $A$.
Then there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\Cu(A) / \Cu(I) \cong \Cu(A / I).
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{pgr}[Elementary semigroups]
\label{pgr:elementarySemigr}
\index{terms}{Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup!elementary}
\index{terms}{nonelementary Cu-semigroup@nonelementary $\CatCu$-semigroup}
\index{symbols}{Ek@$\elmtrySgp{k}$ \quad (elementary $\CatCu$-semigroup)}
We call a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ \emph{elementary} if $S\cong\{0\}$ or if $S$ contains a minimal, nonzero element.
The typical example is the semigroup of extended natural numbers
\[
\overline{\N}
=\left\{ 0,1,2,\ldots,\infty \right\}.
\]
For each $k\in\N$, we define a semigroup
\[
\elmtrySgp{k}
:=\left\{ 0,1,2,\ldots,k,\infty \right\},
\]
with the natural order and with $a+b$ defined as $\infty$ if usually one would have $a+b\geq k+1$.
For $k=0$ we obtain $\elmtrySgp{0}=\{0,\infty\}$.
It is easy to check that these are simple $\CatCu$-semigroups satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}, and all elements are compact.
There exist simple, elementary $\CatCu$-semigroups satisfying \axiomO{5} that are not isomorphic to $\{0\}$, to $\overline{\N}$ or to $\elmtrySgp{k}$ for some $k$;
see \autoref{exa:elmtrySemirg}.
With the assumption of \axiomO{6}, this is not possible as we will show in \autoref{prp:elmtryO6}.
\end{pgr}
\begin{rmk}
The term elementary for a $\CatCu$-semigroup was first coined by Engbers in \cite{Eng14PrePhD} to refer only to the semigroup $\overline{\N}$.
With this terminology, he proved that a simple, separable \ca{} $A$ is elementary if and only if $\Cu(A)$ is elementary.
Our definition of elementary is motivated by Engbers', and is suitable for the general study of abstract Cuntz semigroups.
J.~Bosa proved (private communication) that $\elmtrySgp{k}$ does not come as the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca{} except for $k=0$.
It follows from this fact and from \autoref{prp:elmtryO6} below that, if $A$ is a nonzero, simple and separable \ca, then $\Cu(A)$ is elementary if and only if $A$ is elementary or $A$ is purely infinite.
\end{rmk}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:downwards}
Let $S$ be a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{6}.
Given nonzero elements $a_1,\ldots,a_n\in S$, there exists a nonzero element $x\in S$ such that $x\ll a_k$ for all $k$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to prove the case $n=2$ (and then use induction).
To verify this case, let $a$ and $b$ be nonzero elements in $S$.
We need to find a nonzero element $x\in S$ such that $x\ll a$ and $x\ll b$.
Choose nonzero elements $a'$ and $a''$ in $S$ satisfying $a''\ll a'\ll a$.
By simplicity of $S$, we can find $k\in\N$ such that $a'\leq kb$.
Considering the situation
\[
a''\ll a'\leq kb = b+b+\ldots+b,
\]
we may apply \axiomO{6} in $S$ to obtain elements $c_1,\ldots,c_k\in S$ with
\[
a''\leq c_1+\cdots+c_k,\quad
c_i\leq a',b,\quad i=1,2,\ldots,k.
\]
Since $a''$ is nonzero, there has to be an index $i_0$ with $c_{i_0}\neq 0$.
Choose a nonzero element $x\in S$ with $x\ll c_{i_0}$.
Then $x$ has the desired properties.
\end{proof}
The following result was observed independently by Engbers, \cite{Eng14PrePhD}.
He also noted that one must exclude elementary semigroups to obtain results like Glimm Halving, \cite[Proposition~5.2.1]{Rob13Cone};
see \autoref{prp:GlimmHalving}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:elmtryO6}
Let $S$ be a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Then $S$ is elementary if and only if $S$ is isomorphic to $\{0\}$, to $\overline{\N}$, or to $\elmtrySgp{k}$ for some $k\in\N$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The `if' part of the statement is clear.
To show the converse implication, assume that $S$ is an elementary $\CatCu$-semigroup with $S\neq\{0\}$.
Then there exists a minimal, nonzero element $a$ in $S$.
By \autoref{prp:downwards}, the element $a$ is compact.
We claim that $a$ is the least nonzero element.
Indeed, let $b\in S$ be an arbitrary nonzero element.
By \autoref{prp:downwards}, there exists a nonzero element $b'$ with $b'\leq a,b$.
Since $a$ is minimal, we have $b'=a$ and therefore $a\leq b$.
Now, let $b$ be an arbitrary nonzero element in $S$.
Then $a\leq b$ and since $a$ is compact and $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we can choose $x\in S$ such that $a+x=b$.
If $x=0$, we have $b=a$.
Otherwise, since $a$ is the least nonzero element, we obtain $a\leq x$ and so there is $y\in S$ with $a+y=x$ and consequently $2a+y=b$.
Continuing in this way, we find that either $b=na$ for some $n\in\N$ or otherwise $na\leq b$ for all $n\in\N$.
The latter implies $b=\infty$, whence
\[
S = \{ \infty \} \cup \{ na : n\in\N \}.
\]
Now, if $na\neq ma$ for any $n,m\in\N$ with $n\neq m$, then we have $S\cong\overline{\N}$.
Otherwise, there is $k\in\N$ with $ka=(k+1)a$.
For the smallest such $k$, we have $S\cong E_k$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Functionals}
\label{sec:fctl}
In this section, we study functionals on $\CatCu$-semigroups and their connection to the order structure.
First, we show that the existence of nontrivial functionals characterizes stable finiteness of simple $\CatCu$-semigroups;
see \autoref{prp:simpleSF}.
Then, we study the relation of `stable domination' of elements in a \pom;
see \autoref{dfn:relS}.
We recall that comparison by extended states is closely related to stable domination of elements;
see \autoref{prp:relSTFAE}.
In the context of $\CatCu$-semigroups, we introduce the `regularization' of a relation;
see \autoref{dfn:regularRel}.
The main result of this section is \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations}, where we show that comparison by functionals on a $\CatCu$-semigroup is closely related to the regularization of the stable domination relation.
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:fctl}
\index{terms}{state}
\index{terms}{extended state}
\index{terms}{functional}
\index{symbols}{F(S)@$F(S)$ \quad (functionals)}
Let $S$ be a \pom.
A \emph{state} on $S$ is a map $f\colon S\to [0,\infty)$ that preserves addition, order and the zero-element.
If the value $\infty$ is allowed, then we call $f$ an \emph{extended state}.
Thus, an (extended) state is a $\CatPom$-morphism from $S$ to $[0,\infty)$ (respectively from $S$ to $[0,\infty]$).
Assume now that $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
A \emph{functional} on $S$ is a map $\lambda\colon S\to[0,\infty]$ that preserves addition, order, the zero-element, and suprema of increasing sequences.
Hence, a functional is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism from $S$ to $[0,\infty]$.
The set of functionals on $S$ is denoted by $F(S)$.
When equipped with a suitable topology, $F(S)$ becomes a compact Hausdorff space;
see \cite[Theorem~4.8]{EllRobSan11Cone}, see also \cite{Rob13Cone}.
If $S$ is countably-based, then $F(S)$ is second-countable, hence a compact, metrizable space.
We equip $F(S)$ with pointwise addition and order, which provides it with the structure of a \pom.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5} (or just the original form of the axiom, \axiomO{5'}; see \autoref{rmk:addAxioms}), then $F(S)$ is algebraically ordered;
see \cite[Proposition~2.2.3]{Rob13Cone}.
It is clear that by multiplying a functional $\lambda\in F(S)$ with a positive scalar $\theta\in(0,\infty)$, one obtains a functional $\theta\cdot\lambda$.
It was shown in the comments before Theorem~4.8 in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone} that this can be extended to a scalar multiplication
\[
[0,\infty]\times F(S) \to F(S),
\]
by defining:
\begin{align*}
(0\cdot\lambda)(a) &:= 0 \text{ if } \lambda(a')<\infty \text{ for all } a'\ll a,\quad
(0\cdot\lambda)(a) := \infty \text{ otherwise}, \\
(\infty\cdot\lambda)(a) &:= 0 \text{ if } \lambda(a)=0,\quad
(\infty\cdot\lambda)(a) := \infty \text{ otherwise},
\end{align*}
for $a\in S$.
As shown in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}, the restricted scalar multiplication $[0,\infty)\times F(S) \to F(S)$ is jointly continuous.
However, differently than stated in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}, the multiplication with $\infty$ is not continuous as a map $F(S) \to F(S)$.
Consider for instance $S=[0,\infty]$, the Cuntz semigroup of the Jacelon-Razak algebra;
see \autoref{rmk:Razac}.
As a \pom, $F(S)$ is isomorphic to $[0,\infty]$.
Given $t\in[0,\infty]$ we denote the corresponding functional in $F(S)$ by $\lambda_t$.
The sequence $(\lambda_{1/n})_{n\in\N}$ converges to $\lambda_0$ in the topology of $F(S)$.
However, we have $\infty\cdot\lambda_{1/n} = \lambda_\infty$ for each $n$, while $\infty\cdot \lambda_0 = \lambda_0$.
Given an element $a\in S$, we say that a functional $\lambda$ is normalized at $a$ provided $\lambda(a)=1$, and we denote the set of these functionals by $F_a(S)$.
If $S$ is simple and $a\in S$ is a compact element, then $F_a(S)$ is a closed, convex subset of $F(S)$.
We denote by $\Lsc(F(S))$ the set of functions $f\colon F(S)\to[0,\infty]$ that are lower-semicontinuous $\CatPom$-morphisms.
\index{symbols}{Lsc(F(S))@$\Lsc(F(S))$}
Given $f\in\Lsc(F(S))$ and $\theta\in(0,\infty)$, the pointwise product $\theta f$ belongs to $\Lsc(F(S))$, and we have $\theta f(\lambda)=f(\theta\cdot\lambda)$ for every $\lambda\in F(S)$.
Indeed, one may first show this for rational $\theta$ and then use lower semicontinuity of $f$ to extend to all $\theta\in(0,\infty)$.
If $F(S)$ is algebraically ordered (for example if $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}), then a function $f\colon F(S)\to[0,\infty]$ is automatically order-preserving as soon as it is additive.
We define a binary relation $\lhd$ on $\Lsc(F(S))$ as follows:
Given $f,g\in\Lsc(F(S))$, we set $f\triangleleft g$ if and only if $f\leq (1-\varepsilon)g$ for some $\varepsilon>0$, and if moreover $f$ is continuous at each $\lambda\in F(S)$ where $g(\lambda)<\infty$;
see the paragraph after Remark~3.1.5 in \cite{Rob13Cone}.
We let $L(F(S))$ be the subset of $\Lsc(F(S))$ consisting of all $f\in\Lsc(F(S))$ for which there exists a sequence $(f_n)_n$ in $\Lsc(F(S))$ satisfying $f=\sup_nf_n$ (the pointwise supremum) and $f_n\triangleleft f_{n+1}$ for each $n$.
\index{symbols}{$\lhd$}
\index{symbols}{L(F(S))@$L(F(S))$}
Any element $a\in S$ induces a function
\[
\hat{a}\colon F(S)\to[0,\infty],\quad
\hat{a}=(\lambda\mapsto \lambda(a)),\quad
\txtFA \lambda\in F(S).
\]
The assignment $a\mapsto \hat{a}$ defines a map $S\to L(F(S))$ that preserves addition, order and suprema of increasing sequences.
(That $\hat{a}$ is an element of $L(F(S))$ follows from \cite[Proposition~3.1.6]{Rob13Cone}.)
\index{symbols}{a$\hat$@$\hat{a}$}
If $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, then it is shown in \cite{Rob13Cone} that $L(F(S))$ is also a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
\end{pgr}
\begin{pgr}[Stable finiteness]
\label{pgr:finiteSemigr}
\index{terms}{element!finite}
\index{terms}{finite element}
\index{terms}{infinite element}
\index{terms}{element!properly infinite}
\index{terms}{properly infinite element}
\index{terms}{Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup!stably finite}
\index{terms}{stably finite Cu-semigroup@stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
An element $a\in S$ is \emph{finite} if for every $b\in S$, we have that $a+b=a$ implies $b=0$.
Equivalently, we have $a<a+b$ for every nonzero $b\in S$.
We call an element \emph{infinite} if it is not finite.
An infinite element $a\in S$ is \emph{properly infinite} if $2a=a$.
We say that $S$ is \emph{stably finite} if an element $a\in S$ is finite whenever there exists $\tilde{a}\in S$ with $a\ll\tilde{a}$.
If $S$ contains a largest element, denoted by $\infty$, then the latter condition is equivalent to $a\ll\infty$.
In general, a $\CatCu$-semigroup does not contain a largest element.
There are, however, two important cases when a largest element always exists.
First, consider a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$.
We may assume $S\neq\{0\}$.
Choose $a\in S$ nonzero and consider the increasing sequence $(ka)_{k\in\N}$.
By axiom \axiomO{1}, the supremum of this sequence exists and it is easy to check that it is the largest element of $S$:
\[
\infty=\sup_{k\in\N} ka.
\]
In the other case, assume that $S$ is a countably-based $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Choose a countable set $\{a_0,a_1,a_2,\ldots\}$ in $S$ that is a basis in the sense of \autoref{pgr:axiomsW}.
For each $n\in\N$, consider the $n$-th partial sum $\sum_{k=0}^na_k$.
It is straightforward to check that the supremum of this increasing sequence of partial sums is the largest element of $S$:
\[
\infty = \sup_n \sum_{k=0}^n a_k.
\]
Thus, if $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup that is simple or countably-based, then $S$ is stably finite if and only if an element $a\in S$ is finite whenever $a\ll\infty$.
\end{pgr}
The following result is the generalization of \cite[Lemma~4.1, p.61]{Goo86Poag} from the setting of partially ordered abelian groups to the setting of \pom{s}.
It is shown in \cite{BlaRor92ExtendStates} that extensions of states on \pom{s} exist.
However, since we need to control the extended state, we have to prove a refined version of \cite[Corollary~2.7]{BlaRor92ExtendStates}.
We thank the referee for suggesting this approach to fix and generalize our original \autoref{prp:existenceFctl} from the setting of simple $\CatCu$-semigroups to general $\CatCu$-semigroups.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:extendingStates}
Let $M$ be a \pom, let $N$ be a submonoid of $M$, let $f\colon N\to[0,\infty)$ be a state on $N$, and let $x\in M$.
Set
\begin{align*}
p &:= \sup\left\{ \tfrac{f(y_1)-f(y_2)}{m} : y_1,y_2\in N, m\in\N_+, y_1\leq y_2+mx \right\}, \\
p'&:= \sup\left\{ \tfrac{f(y_1)-f(y_2)}{m} : y_1,y_2\in N, m\in\N_+, \bar{m}\in\N, y_1+\bar{m}x\leq y_2+(m+\bar{m})x \right\}, \\
r &:= \inf\left\{ \tfrac{f(z_2)-f(z_1)}{n} : z_1,z_2\in N, n\in\N_+, z_1+nx\leq z_2 \right\}, \\
r'&:= \inf\left\{ \tfrac{f(z_2)-f(z_1)}{n} : z_1,z_2\in N, n\in\N_+, \bar{n}\in\N, z_1+(n+\bar{n})x\leq z_2+\bar{n}x \right\}.
\end{align*}
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $0\leq p=p'\leq r\leq\infty$ and $-\infty\leq r'\leq r\leq\infty$.
\item
If $x\leq l y$ for some $y\in N$ and $l\in\N$, then $p<\infty$ and $r'=r$.
\item
If $\tilde{f}\colon N+\N x\to[0,\infty)$ is a state extending $f$, then $p'\leq\tilde{f}(x)\leq r'$.
\item
For every real number $q$ satisfying $p'\leq q\leq r'$ there exists a (unique) state $\tilde{f}\colon N+\N x\to[0,\infty)$ that extends $f$ and such that $\tilde{f}(x)=q$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
\enumStatement{1}:
It is straightforward to check $0\leq p\leq p'$ and $-\infty\leq r'\leq r\leq\infty$.
To verify $p\geq p'$, let $y_1,y_2\in N, m\in\N_+$ and $\bar{m}\in\N$ satisfy $y_1+\bar{m}x\leq y_2+(m+\bar{m})x$.
It is enough to show $p\geq \tfrac{f(y_1)-f(y_2)}{m}$.
We have
\[
2y_1 +\bar{m}x
\leq y_1 +y_2 +mx +\bar{m}x
= (y_2+mx) +(y_1+\bar{m}x)
\leq 2y_2 +2mx +\bar{m}x.
\]
Proceeding by induction (as in the proof of \cite[Proposition~3.2]{Ror92StructureUHF2} or \cite[Lemma~2.1]{AraGooOMePar98Separative}), we obtain
\[
ky_1 +\bar{m}x
\leq ky_2 +kmx +\bar{m}x,
\]
for all $k\in\N_+$.
Then $ky_1 \leq ky_2 + (km+\bar{m})x$, which implies
\[
p \geq \tfrac{f(ky_1)-f(ky_2)}{km+\bar{m}}
= \tfrac{f(y_1)-f(y_2)}{m+\bar{m}/k}.
\]
Since this holds for all $k\in\N_+$, we obtain $p\geq \tfrac{f(y_1)-f(y_2)}{m}$, as desired.
Next, let us show $p\leq r$.
This clearly holds if $r=\infty$.
In the other case, let $y_1,y_2,z_1,z_2\in N$ and $m,n\in\N_+$ satisfy
\[
y_1\leq y_2+mx,\quad
z_1+nx \leq z_2.
\]
Multiplying the first inequality by $n$ and adding $mz_1$ on both sides, and multiplying the second inequality by $m$ and adding $ny_2$ on both sides, we obtain
\begin{align*}
ny_1 +mz_1 \leq ny_2 +mz_1 + nmx \leq mz_2 +ny_2,
\end{align*}
and hence
\[
\tfrac{f(y_1)-f(y_2)}{m} \leq \tfrac{f(z_2) - f(z_1)}{n}.
\]
Passing to the supremum and infimum, we obtain $p\leq r$, as desired.
\enumStatement{2}:
Let $y\in N$ and $l\in\N$ such that $x\leq ly$.
(This means $x\varpropto y$; see \autoref{dfn:relS}.)
It is straightforward to show $p\leq lf(y)<\infty$.
To prove $r'\geq r$, let $z_1,z_2\in N, n\in\N_+$ and $\bar{n}\in\N$ such that $z_1+(n+\bar{n})x\leq z_2+\bar{n}x$.
It is enough to show $\tfrac{f(z_2)-f(z_1)}{n} \geq r$.
As in the proof of \enumStatement{1}, we deduce by induction
\[
kz_1+knx+\bar{n}x
\leq kz_2+\bar{n}x,
\]
for all $k\in\N_+$.
Using $x\leq ly$ at the last step, we deduce
\[
kz_1 + knx
\leq kz_1+knx+\bar{n}x
\leq kz_2+\bar{n}x
\leq kz_2+\bar{n}ly,
\]
and therefore
\[
\tfrac{f(z_2)-f(z_1)}{n} + \tfrac{f(\bar{n}ly)}{kn}
= \tfrac{f(kz_2+\bar{n}ly)-f(kz_1)}{kn}
\geq r.
\]
Since this holds for every $k\in\N_+$, we obtain $\tfrac{f(z_2)-f(z_1)}{n}\geq r$, as desired.
\enumStatement{3}:
This is straightforward to show.
Before proceeding to prove (4), we first verify a helpful statement.
\textbf{Claim 1}.
Let $y_1,y_2\in N$ and $k\in\N$ satisfy $y_1+kx\leq y_2+kx$.
If $p<\infty$, then $f(y_1)\leq f(y_2)$.
To verify the claim, let $n\in\N$.
Then
\[
ny_1 + nkx \leq ny_2 + nkx \leq ny_2 + (nk+1)x.
\]
Using the definition of $p'$ at the second step and that $p=p'$, we compute
\[
n \left( f(y_1)-f(y_2) \right)
= \tfrac{f(ny_1)-f(ny_2)}{(nk+1)-(nk)} \leq p.
\]
Since this holds for all $n\in\N$, and since $p<\infty$, we deduce $f(y_1)-f(y_2)\leq 0$.
\enumStatement{4}:
Let $q\in\R$ satisfy $p'\leq q\leq r'$.
It is clear that there is at most one state $\tilde{f}$ on $N+\N x$ that extends $f$ and that satisfies $\tilde{f}(x)=q$.
To show existence, we verify that the assignment
\[
\tilde{f}\colon N+\N x\to[0,\infty),\quad
\tilde{f}(y+kx) = f(y) + kq\quad
(y\in N, k\in\N),
\]
defines a state on $N+\N x$.
Let $y,z\in N$ and $\bar{m},\bar{n}\in\N_+$ satisfy $y+\bar{m}x \leq z+\bar{n}x$.
By distinguishing three cases, we show $\tilde{f}(y+\bar{m}x) \leq \tilde{f}(z+\bar{n}x)$.
Case~1:
Assume $\bar{m}<\bar{n}$.
Set $m:=\bar{n}-\bar{m}$ so that
\[
y+\bar{m}x \leq z + (m+\bar{m})x.
\]
It follows from the definition of $p'$ that $f(y)-f(z)\leq mp'$.
Using this at the second step, and using $p'\leq q$ at the third step, we deduce
\[
\tilde{f}(y+\bar{m}x)
= f(y) + \bar{m}q
\leq f(z) + mp' + \bar{m}q
\leq f(z) + mq + \bar{m}q
= \tilde{f}(z+\bar{n}x).
\]
Case 2:
Assume $\bar{m}=\bar{n}$.
Using Claim~1 at the second step, we deduce
\[
\tilde{f}(y+\bar{m}x)
= f(y) + \bar{m}q
\leq f(z) + \bar{m}q
= \tilde{f}(z+\bar{n}x).
\]
Case 3:
Assume $\bar{m}>\bar{n}$.
Set $n:=\bar{m}-\bar{n}$ so that
\[
y+(n+\bar{n})x \leq z + \bar{n}x.
\]
This time, it follows from the definition of $r'$ that $nr'\leq f(z)-f(y)$.
Using this at the third step, and using $q\leq r'$ at the second step, we deduce
\[
\tilde{f}(y+\bar{m}x)
= f(y) + nq + \bar{n}q
\leq f(y) + nr' + \bar{n}q
\leq f(z) + \bar{n}q
= \tilde{f}(z+\bar{n}x).
\]
This shows that $\tilde{f}$ is well-defined and order-preserving.
It follows easily that $\tilde{f}$ is a state on $M$ such that $\tilde{f}(x)=q$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:extendingStates}
(1)
As in \autoref{prp:extendingStates}, let $M$ be a \pom, let $N$ be a submonoid of $M$, let $f\colon N\to[0,\infty)$ be a state on $N$, and let $x\in M$.
Assume $x\leq ly$ for some $y\in N$ and $l\in\N$.
(This means $x\varpropto y$; see \autoref{dfn:relS}.)
Then $f$ can be extended to a state $\tilde{f}$ on $N+\N x$.
Moreover, the maximal value of $\tilde{f}(x)$ for such an extension is $r$, as defined in \autoref{prp:extendingStates}.
Thus, we can find an extension with $\tilde{f}(x)>0$ if and only if $r>0$.
(2)
Consider the semigroup $M=\overline{\N}=\{0,1,2,\ldots,\infty\}$, and the submonoid $N=\langle 1\rangle = \N$, and $x=\infty$.
Then the canonical state on $N$ cannot be extended to a state on $M$.
Indeed, we have $p=p'=r=\infty$ and $r'=-\infty$.
\end{rmks}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:stateEstimateR}
Let $M$ be a \pom, and let $a,x\in M$.
Set $N:=\langle a\rangle$, the submonoid of $M$ generated by $a$.
For each $m,n\in\N$, assume that $ma\leq na$ if and only if $m\leq n$.
Consider the state $f$ on $N$ given by $f(na)=n$ for each $n\in\N$.
Set
\[
\tilde{r} := \inf \left\{ \tfrac{k}{n} : k,n\in\N_+, nx\leq ka \right\}.
\]
Then $r=\tilde{r}$, for $r$ defined as in \autoref{prp:extendingStates} (with respect to $M$, $N$, $f$ and $x$).
Given $L\in\N_+$ such that $r<\tfrac{1}{L}$, there exists $k\in\N_+$ with $kLx\leq ka$.
Conversely, if there exist $L\in\N_+$ and $k\in\N_+$ satisfying $kLx\leq ka$, then $r\leq\tfrac{1}{L}$.
Thus, we have $0<r$ if and only if there exists $L\in\N_+$ such that $kLx \nleq ka$ for all $k\in\N_+$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward to check $r\leq\tilde{r}$.
To verify $r\geq\tilde{r}$, let $z_1,z_2\in N$ and $m\in\N_+$ such that $z_1 + mx \leq z_2$.
We need to show $\tfrac{f(z_2)-f(z_1)}{m}\geq\tilde{r}$.
Choose $k_1$ and $k_2$ such that $z_1=k_1 a$ and $z_2 = k_2 a$.
It follows from the assumptions on $a$ that $k_1\leq k_2$.
Set $k:=k_2-k_1$.
Then
\[
k_1 a + mx \leq k_1 a + ka.
\]
By induction, as in the proof of \enumStatement{1} in \autoref{prp:extendingStates} above, we deduce
\[
k_1 a + lmx
\leq k_1 a + lka,
\]
for all $l\in\N_+$.
This implies $lmx \leq (k_1+lk)a$, and therefore
\[
\tfrac{k_1}{lm} + \tfrac{k}{m}
= \tfrac{k_1+lk}{lm}
\geq \tilde{r}.
\]
Since this holds for all $l\in\N_+$, we have $\tfrac{f(z_2)-f(z_1)}{m}=\tfrac{k}{m}\geq \tilde{r}$, as desired.
Next, let $L\in\N_+$ such that $\tilde{r}<\tfrac{1}{L}$.
By definition of $\tilde{r}$, there exist $k,n\in\N_+$ such that $\tfrac{k}{n}<\tfrac{1}{L}$ (and hence $kL \leq n$) and such that $nx \leq ka$.
Then $kL x \leq nx \leq ka$, as desired.
Finally, if $kL x \leq ka$ for some $k,L\in\N_+$, then clearly $r=\tilde{r}\leq\tfrac{1}{L}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:existenceFctl}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
For every $m,n\in\N$, we have $ma\leq na$ if and only $m\leq n$.
Furthermore, there exist $l,L\in\N$ and $x\in S$ such that $x\ll la$ and such that $kLx\nleq ka$ for all $k\in\N_+$.
\item
There exist $l\in\N$ and $x\in S$ such that $x\ll la$.
Furthermore, there exists a state $f$ on the submonoid generated by $a$ and $x$ such that $f(x)>0$.
\item
There exists a functional $\lambda\in F(S)$ such that $\lambda(a)=1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
All three conditions imply $a\neq 0$.
Let us show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}.
Let $M=\langle a,x\rangle$, and let $N=\langle a\rangle$.
Let $f_0$ be the state on $N$ given by $f_0(na)=n$ for each $n\in\N$.
By \autoref{prp:stateEstimateR}, we have $r>0$, for $r$ defined as in \autoref{prp:extendingStates} (with respect to $M$, $N$, $f_0$ and $x$).
Then, by \autoref{prp:extendingStates}, there exists a state $f$ on $M$ that extends $f_0$ and such that $f(x)=r$.
This verifies \enumStatement{2}.
Next, let us show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
Let $M=\langle a,x\rangle$.
Consider the following subsets of $S$:
\begin{align*}
T_0 &= \left\{ b\in S : b\leq ka, \text{ for some } k\in\N \right\}, \\
T &= \left\{ b\in S : b \leq \infty\cdot a \right\}.
\end{align*}
Then $T_0$ is a submonoid of $S$ with order-unit $a$, and $M$ is a submonoid of $T_0$ containing the order-unit.
By \cite[Corollary~2.7]{BlaRor92ExtendStates}, we can extend the state $f$ on $M$ to a state $\tilde{f}$ on $T_0$.
For $b',b\in T$ satisfying $b'\ll b$, we have $b'\in T_0$.
We can therefore define
\[
\lambda_0\colon T\to[0,\infty],\quad
\lambda_0(b):= \sup \left\{ \tilde{f}(b') : b'\ll b \right\},\quad
\txtFA b\in T.
\]
It is straightforward to check that $\lambda_0$ is a functional on $T$.
We may extend $\lambda_0$ to a functional $\lambda_1$ on $S$ by setting
\[
\lambda_1(s)
:= \begin{cases}
\lambda_0(s), &\text{ if } s\in T, \\
\infty, &\text{ if } s\notin T.
\end{cases}
\]
for all $s\in S$.
It follows
\[
\lambda_1(la) = \lambda_0(la) \geq \tilde{f}(x) = f(x) > 0.
\]
Thus, $\lambda_1(a)\neq 0$.
Moreover, we have $\lambda_1(a)=\lambda_0(a)\leq \tilde{f}(a)=f(a)<\infty$.
Then the functional $\lambda=\tfrac{1}{\lambda_1(a)}\cdot\lambda_1$ has the desired properties.
Finally, let us show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}. From the existence of a functional $\lambda\in F(S)$ with $\lambda(a)=1$ it is clear that $ma\leq na$ if and only if $m\leq n$.
Furthermore, since $a$ is the supremum of an increasing sequence of elements that are compactly contained in $a$, and since $\lambda$ preserves suprema of increasing sequences, there exists $x\in S$ such that $x\ll a$ and $\lambda(x)\neq 0$.
Choose $L$ such that $L>\tfrac{1}{\lambda(x)}$.
Then $kLx\nleq kx$, for all $k\in\N_+$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:existenceFctlSimple}
Let $S$ be a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$ such that $a\ll\infty$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The element $a$ is nonzero, and for every $n\in\N$ the element $na$ is finite.
\item
For every $m,n\in\N$, we have $ma\leq na$ if and only if $m\leq n$.
\item
There exists a functional $\lambda\in F(S)$ such that $\lambda(a)=1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
One easily checks that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}.
Let us show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}.
Assume that there exists a functional $\lambda$ with $\lambda(a)=1$.
This clearly implies that $a$ is nonzero.
Let $k\in\N$.
In order to show that $ka$ is finite, let $b\in S$ be an element such that $ka+b=ka$.
This implies that $\lambda(b)=0$.
Note that every nonzero functional $\mu$ on a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup is faithful in the sense that $\mu(x)\neq 0$ for every nonzero element $x$.
Thus, it follows from $\lambda(b)=0$ that we have $b=0$, as desired.
Finally, let us show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
We verify \enumStatement{1} of \autoref{prp:existenceFctl}.
We have $a\neq 0$.
Choose $x\in S$ with $x\ll a$ and $x\neq 0$.
Since $S$ is simple and $x\neq 0$,
there exists $N\in\N$ such that $a\leq Nx$. Put $L=2N$.
It follows that for every $k\in \N_+$, $2ka\leq 2kNx=kLx$ and hence $kLx\nleq ka$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:elementInSimple}
Let $S$ be a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The element $a$ is infinite.
\item
The element $a$ is properly infinite.
\item
We have $a=\infty$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that in a general nonzero $\CatCu$-semigroup the largest element is properly infinite (if it exists), and that every properly infinite element is infinite.
Finally, to show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{3}, let us assume that $S$ is a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$ be infinite.
By definition, we can choose $b\in S$ nonzero with $a=a+b$.
Then $a=a+2b$, and inductively $a=a+kb$ for every $k\in\N$.
Therefore,
\[
\infty = \sup_k kb \leq \sup_k (a+kb) = \sup_k a = a \leq \infty,
\]
which shows $a=\infty$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:elementInSimple}
Let $S$ be a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$.
Then a multiple of $a$ can be infinite even if $a$ itself is finite.
This happens for instance in the elementary semigroups $\elmtrySgp{k}$ from \autoref{pgr:elementarySemigr}.
\end{rmk}
For the next result, we call a functional nontrivial if it does not only take the values $0$ and $\infty$.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:simpleSF}
Let $S$ be a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup with $S\neq\{0\}$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The semigroup $S$ is stably finite.
\item
Every compact element in $S$ is finite.
\item
The largest element $\infty$ is not compact.
\item
There exists a nontrivial functional $\lambda\in F(S)$.
\item
There exists a nonzero element $a\ll\infty$ such that $na$ is finite for all $n\in\N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
In general, every compact element in a stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup is finite.
Moreover, the largest element $\infty$ is never finite.
It follows that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, and that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
Let us show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{4}.
Choose a nonzero element $a\in S$ satisfying $a\ll\infty$.
Then $na\ll\infty$ for all $n\in\N$.
Since $S$ is stably finite, we obtain that $na$ is finite for every $n\in\N$.
By \autoref{prp:existenceFctlSimple}, there exists a functional $\lambda\in F(S)$ with $\lambda(a)=1$.
This functional is nontrivial, as desired.
Let us show that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{3}.
Choose a nontrivial functional $\lambda\in F(S)$.
By rescaling if necessary, we may assume that there exists $a\in S$ with $\lambda(a)=1$.
In order to show \enumStatement{3}, assume that $\infty$ is compact.
Then, since $\infty=\sup_k(ka)$, there exists $n\in\N$ with $\infty\leq na$, and hence $\infty=na$.
This implies
\[
n=\lambda(na)=\lambda(\infty)=\lambda(2\infty)=\lambda(2na)=2n,
\]
which clearly is a contradiction.
Hence, $\infty$ is not compact, which shows \enumStatement{3}.
Finally, let us show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}.
To verify the contraposition, assume that $S$ is not stably finite.
Then there exists a nonzero, infinite element $a\in S$ satisfying $a\ll\infty$.
By \autoref{prp:elementInSimple}, every infinite element in $S$ is equal to the largest element $\infty$.
It follows $\infty=a\ll\infty$, and so $\infty$ is compact.
The equivalence between \enumStatement{4} and \enumStatement{5} follows from \autoref{prp:existenceFctlSimple}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:simpleSF}
The equivalence of \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{4} in \autoref{prp:simpleSF} is well-known, especially for Cuntz semigroups of (simple) \ca{s}.
It is used to show that every unital, simple, stably finite \ca\ has a $2$-quasitrace.
In fact, the correspondence between $2$-quasitraces on a \ca\ and functionals on its Cuntz semigroup was one of the original motivations for Cuntz to introduce the semigroups named after him;
see \cite{Cun78DimFct}, \cite{BlaHan82DimFct}.
\end{rmk}
In the next part of this section, we will study the connection between the order structure of a \pom\ and the set of its functionals.
We first recall a notion that has appeared many times in the literature.
The notation chosen here follows Definition~2.2 in~\cite{OrtPerRor12CoronaStability}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:relS}
\index{terms}{stably dominated}
\index{terms}{relation!stable domination}
\index{symbols}{$<_s$ \quad (stable domination relation)}
\index{symbols}{$\varpropto$}
Let $M$ be a \pom, and let $a,b\in M$.
We will write $a\varpropto b$ if there exists $k\in\N$ such that $a\leq kb$.
We say that $a$ is \emph{stably dominated} by $b$, denoted by $a<_sb$, if there exists $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a\leq kb$.
\end{dfn}
The following result provides useful characterizations of the relation $<_s$.
Several versions of this results have appeared in the literature (see for example \cite[Proposition~2.1]{OrtPerRor12CoronaStability}), and most are based on \cite[Lemma~4.1]{GooHan76RankFct}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:relSTFAE}
Let $M$ be a \pom, and let $a,b\in M$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $a<_sb$, that is, there exists $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a\leq kb$.
\item
There exists $k_0\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a\leq kb$ for all $k\geq k_0$.
\item
Given $n\in\N_{+}$, there exists $k\in\N$ such that $(k+n)a\leq kb$.
\item
Given $n\in\N_{+}$, there exists $k_0\in\N$ such that $(k+n)a\leq kb$ for all $k\geq k_0$.
\item
We have $a\varpropto b$, and $f(a)<f(b)$ for every extended state on $S$ that is normalized at $b$.
\end{enumerate}
If $b$ is an order-unit for $M$, then the above statements are also equivalent to:
\beginEnumStatements
\setcounter{enumi}{5}
\item
We have $f(a)<f(b)$ for every state on $S$ that is normalized at $b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{3} and \enumStatement{2}, and that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}, and that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}.
It is also easy to see that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{3}.
Indeed, if $(k+1)a\leq kb$ for some $k\in\N$, then $(kn+n)a\leq knb$, as desired.
In order to show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{4}, let $n\in\N_{+}$ be given.
By assumption, we can find $d\in\N$ such that $(d+n)a\leq db$.
Set $k_0:=d(d+1)$, which we claim has the desired properties.
To verify this, let $k\in\N$ satisfy $k\geq k_0$.
Then there are $x,y\in\N$ with $k=(d+1)x+y$ and $x\geq d$ and $y\leq d$.
Then
\[
(k+n)a
=[(d+1)x]a+(y+n)a
\leq [(d+n)x]a+(d+n)a
\leq (dx)b+db
\leq kb,
\]
as desired.
Finally, the equivalence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{5}
is shown in \cite[Proposition~2.1]{OrtPerRor12CoronaStability}.
If $b$ is an order-unit, it is easy to verify that \enumStatement{5} and \enumStatement{6} are equivalent.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:regularRel}
\index{terms}{regularization of a relation}
\index{terms}{regular relation}
\index{symbols}{R*@$R^\ctsRel$ \quad (regularization of a relation)}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $R\subset S\times S$ be a binary relation.
The \emph{regularization} of $R$, denoted by $R^\ctsRel$, is the binary relation defined as follows:
For any $a,b\in S$, we set $a R^\ctsRel b$ if and only if $a' R b$ for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$.
A relation $R$ is \emph{regular} if it is equal to its own regularization.
\end{dfn}
\begin{exa}
\index{symbols}{$<_s^\ctsRel$}
\index{symbols}{$\varpropto^\ctsRel$}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
(1)
The usual order relation $\leq$ on $S$ is regular.
Indeed, given $a,b\in S$, it is clear that $a\leq b$ implies $a\leq^\ctsRel b$.
The converse follows from axiom \axiomO{2} for $S$.
(2)
The way-below relation $\ll$ on $S$ is not regular.
In fact, it is straightforward to check that the regularization of $\ll$ is nothing but the order relation $\leq$.
(3)
\index{terms}{element!soft}
\index{terms}{soft element}
The stable domination relation $<_s$ from \autoref{dfn:relS} is not regular.
However, we will show in \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations} that the regularization of $<_s$ is closely related to comparison by functionals.
In \autoref{sec:soft}, we will study elements $a\in S$ satisfying $a<_s^\ctsRel a$.
(We call such elements `soft'.)
(4)
The relation $\varpropto$ is not regular.
However, its regularization determines exactly which ideal an element of $S$ generates.
More precisely, given $a,b\in S$, we have $a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$ if and only if $a\leq\infty\cdot b$, and if and only if $\Idl(a)\subset \Idl(b)$;
see \autoref{pgr:Lat}.
\end{exa}
\begin{dfn}[{R{\o}rdam, \cite[Section~3]{Ror92StructureUHF2}}]
\label{dfn:almUnp}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!almost unperforated}
\index{terms}{almost unperforated}
\index{terms}{unperforated!almost}
A \pom\ $M$ is \emph{almost unperforated} if for every $a,b\in M$, we have that $a<_sb$ implies $a\leq b$.
\end{dfn}
The following result is straightforward to verify.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:almUnpCu}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then $S$ is almost unperforated if and only if for every $a,b\in S$, we have that $a<_s^\ctsRel b$ implies $a\leq b$.
\end{lma}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:comparisonRelations}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a,b\in S$.
Consider the following statements:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $a<_sb$, that is, there exists $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a\leq kb$.
\item
We have $\hat{a}<_s\hat{b}$, that is, there exists $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)\hat{a}\leq k\hat{b}$.
\item
We have $a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$, and $\lambda(a)<\lambda(b)$ for every $\lambda\in F(S)$ satisfying $\lambda(b)=1$.
\item
We have $a<_s^\ctsRel b$, that is, we have $a'<_s b$ for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$.
\item
We have $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the following implications hold:
'\enumStatement{1} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{2} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{3} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{4} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{5}'.
If $a$ is compact, then \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{1}.
If the element $a$ satisfies $a<_s^\ctsRel a$ (such elements will be called `soft'; see \autoref{dfn:softElement}), then \enumStatement{5} implies \enumStatement{4}.
If $S$ is almost unperforated, then \enumStatement{4} implies $a\leq b$.
The different implications are shown in the following diagram:
\[
\xymatrix@R+=15pt@C+=40pt@M+=5pt{
{ a<_sb } \ar@{=>}[r]
& { \hat{a}<_s\hat{b} } \ar@{=>}[r]
& {(3)}
\ar@{=>}[r]
& { a<_s^\ctsRel b } \ar@{=>}[r]\ar@/_1.5pc/@{-->}[lll]_{\text{$a$ compact}}
\ar@{-->}[d]_{\parbox{46pt}{\scriptsize $S$ is almost unperforated}}
& { \hat{a}\leq\hat{b} } \ar@/_1pc/@{-->}[l]_{\text{$a$ soft}} \\
& & & { a\leq b } \ar@{=>}[ur]
}
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, and it is straightforward to check that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{5}.
To see that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}, assume $\hat{a}<_s\hat{b}$.
This clearly implies $\lambda(a)<1$ for every $\lambda\in F_b(S)$.
Thus, it remains to show $a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$.
Let $I$ be the ideal generated by $b$, that is, $I=\left\{ x\in S : x\leq\infty\cdot b \right\}$.
Consider the following map
\[
\lambda_I\colon S\to[0,\infty],\quad
\lambda_I(x):=\begin{cases}
0, &\text{ if } x\in I \\
\infty, &\text{ if } x\notin I \\
\end{cases},\quad
\txtFA x\in S.
\]
It is easy to check that $\lambda_I$ is a functional.
Since $\lambda_I(b)=0$ and $\hat{a}<_s\hat{b}$, it follows $\lambda_I(a)=0$ and therefore $a\leq\infty\cdot b$, as desired.
Let us show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{4}.
Assume $a$ and $b$ satisfy the statement of \enumStatement{3}, and let us show $a<_s^\ctsRel b$.
Let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
We want to verify \enumStatement{5} of \autoref{prp:relSTFAE} to show $a'<_sb$.
The argument is similar to the one in the proof of \cite[Proposition~6.2]{EllRobSan11Cone} and \cite[Proposition~2.2.6]{Rob13Cone}.
Since $a'\ll a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$, we have $a'\varpropto b$.
Now, let $f\colon S\to[0,\infty]$ be an extended state with $f(b)=1$.
We want to show $f(a')<f(b)$.
Consider the map
\[
\tilde{f}\colon S\to[0,\infty],\quad
\tilde{f}(x)=\sup\left\{ f(x') : x'\ll x \right\},\quad
\txtFA x\in S.
\]
It is easy to see that $\tilde{f}$ is a functional on $S$.
In the literature, the map $\tilde{f}$ is sometimes called the regularization of $f$.
Since $f(b')\leq f(b)$ for every $b'\ll b$, it follows from the definition of $\tilde{f}$ that $\tilde{f}(b)\leq f(b)$.
We distinguish two cases:
In the first case, assume $\tilde{f}(b)=0$.
Since $a$ is in the ideal generated by $b$, it follows $\tilde{f}(a)=0$.
Using the definition of $\tilde{f}$ at the first step, we deduce
\[
f(a') \leq \tilde{f}(a)=0 < 1=f(b).
\]
In the second case, assume $\tilde{f}(b)>0$.
Using the definition of $\tilde{f}$ at the first and last step, and the assumption \enumStatement{3} in the middle step, we obtain
\[
f(a') \leq \tilde{f}(a) < \tilde{f}(b) \leq f(b).
\]
Thus, in either case, we have $f(a')<f(b)$.
Applying \autoref{prp:relSTFAE}, we obtain $a'<_sb$, as desired.
Finally, if $a$ is compact, it is clear that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{1}.
Moreover, as observed in \autoref{prp:almUnpCu}, if $S$ is almost unperforated then $a<_s^\ctsRel b$ implies $a\leq b$.
It remains to show that $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$ implies $a<_s^\ctsRel b$ if $a$ satisfies $a<_s^\ctsRel a$.
Let $x\in S$ satisfy $x\ll a$.
Choose $y$ such that $x\ll y\ll a$.
By assumption, this implies $y<_s a$.
It follows
\[
\hat{y} <_s\hat{a} \leq\hat{b}.
\]
Using that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{4}, we get $y<_s^\ctsRel b$.
Since $x\ll y$, we obtain $x<_s b$.
\end{proof}
The next result describes which information about the order structure of a $\CatCu$-semigroup is recorded by its functionals.
It has appeared in \cite[Proposition~2.2.6]{Rob13Cone}, under the additional assumption that the $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfies \axiomO{5}.
However, an inspection of the proof of \cite[Proposition~2.2.6]{Rob13Cone} shows that \axiomO{5} is not needed.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:comparison_hat}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a,b\in S$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$.
\item
For each $n\in\N$, we have $na<_s^\ctsRel(n+1)b$.
\item
For every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $k,n\in\N$ such that $(1-\varepsilon)<\tfrac{k}{n}$ and $ka'\leq nb$.
\end{enumerate}
If $S$ is almost unperforated, then these conditions are also equivalent to:
\beginEnumStatements
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item
For each $n\in\N$, we have $na\leq(n+1)b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $a,b\in S$.
First, in order to show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, assume $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$.
This clearly implies $n\hat{a}<_s(n+1)\hat{b}$ for each $n\in\N$.
Then \enumStatement{2} follows from \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations}.
It is straightforward to check that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}, and that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}.
Finally, \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{1} in general.
Conversely, it is clear that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{4} if $S$ is almost unperforated.
\end{proof}
The equivalence of statements \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} in the next result follows immediately from \autoref{prp:relSTFAE} and was first obtained by R{\o}rdam, \cite[Proposition~3.2]{Ror04StableRealRankZ} (see also \cite[Proposition~3.1]{Ror92StructureUHF2}).
The equivalence with condition \enumStatement{3} follows easily from \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations} and was first shown in \cite[Proposition~6.2]{EllRobSan11Cone}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:almUnp}
Let $S$ be a \pom.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The semigroup $S$ is almost unperforated.
\item
For all $a,b\in S$ we have that $a\leq b$ whenever $a\varpropto b$ and $f(a)<f(b)$ for every extended state $f$ on $S$ that is normalized at $b$.
\end{enumerate}
If, moreover, $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup, then these conditions are also equivalent to:
\beginEnumStatements
\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item
For all $a,b\in S$ we have that $a\leq b$ whenever $a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$ and $\lambda(a)<\lambda(b)$ for every \emph{functional} $\lambda$ on $S$ that is normalized at $b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
For the next result, recall that a $2$-quasitrace on a \ca{} $A$ is a map
\[
\tau\colon (A\otimes\K)_+\to[0,\infty],
\]
such that $\tau(0)=0$, such that $\tau(xx^*)=\tau(x^*x)$ for all $x\in A\otimes\K$, and such that $\tau(x+y)=\tau(x)+\tau(y)$ for all $x,y\in (A\otimes\K)_+$ that commute.
The set of lower-semicontinuous $2$-quasitraces on $A$ is denoted by $\QT_2(A)$.
Its structure (for example as a lattice and noncancellative cone) has been thoroughly studied in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}.
Given a $2$-quasitrace $\tau$ on $A$, consider the map
\[
d_\tau\colon (A\otimes\K)_+\to[0,\infty],\quad
d_\tau(x)=\lim_k\tau(x^{1/k}),\quad
\txtFA x\in(A\otimes\K)_+.
\]
If $x$ is Cuntz-subequivalent to $y$, then $d_\tau(x)\leq d_\tau(y)$.
It follows that a $2$-quasitrace $\tau$ on $A$ induces a map
\[
d_\tau\colon\Cu(A)\to[0,\infty],\quad
d_\tau(x)=\lim_k\tau(x^{1/k}),\quad
\txtFA x\in(A\otimes\K)_+,
\]
which is an extended state on $\Cu(A)$.
If $\tau$ is a lower-semicontinuous, then $d_\tau$ is a functional on $\Cu(A)$.
\begin{prp}[{Elliott, Robert, Santiago, \cite[Theorem~4.4]{EllRobSan11Cone}}]
\label{prp:FctlCa}
Let $A$ be a \ca{}.
Then the map
\[
\QT_2(A) \to F(\Cu(A)),\quad
\tau\mapsto d_\tau,\quad
\txtFA \tau\in\QT_2(A),
\]
is a bijection.
When $\QT_2(A)$ and $F(\Cu(A)$ are equipped with suitable natural topologies and order structures, then this map becomes a homeomorphic order isomorphism.
\end{prp}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:UniqueFctlFromCa}
Let $A$ be a simple, unital \ca{} with a unique $2$-quasi\-trace $\tau$ that satisfies $\tau(1_A)=1$.
Then the Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ has a unique functional $\lambda$ that satisfies $\lambda([1_A])=1$.
\end{cor}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Soft and purely noncompact elements}
\label{sec:soft}
In this section, we first introduce the notion of `softness' for elements in a $\CatCu$-semigroup;
see \autoref{dfn:softElement}.
This concept is closely related to that of `pure noncompactness', which was introduced in the Definition before~6.4 in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}.
In fact, we will slightly generalize their definition to that of `weak pure noncompactness', which for elements in a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ satisfying \axiomO{5} is equivalent to softnes;
see \autoref{prp:soft_wpnc}.
In \autoref{prp:softTFAE}, we will show that under the additional assumption that $S$ is almost unperforated or residually stably finite, an element $a\in S$ is soft if and only if it is purely noncompact.
The set of soft elements in a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ forms a submonoid that is closed under suprema of increasing sequences and that is absorbing in a suitable sense;
see \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}.
The main result of this section is \autoref{prp:soft_comparison}, where we show that the order among soft elements in an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is determined solely by the functionals of $S$.
This generalizes \cite[Theorem~6.6]{EllRobSan11Cone}, where the analogous result is shown for the comparison of purely noncompact elements in the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca.
We point out that we obtain our result without using \axiomO{5}, by considering soft elements
instead of (weakly) purely noncompact elements;
see \autoref{rmk:soft_comparison}.
\vspace{5pt}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
An \emph{interval}\index{terms}{interval} in $M$ is a subset $I\subset M$ that is upward directed and order-hereditary.
An interval $I$ is \emph{soft}\index{terms}{interval!soft}\index{terms}{soft interval} if for every $x\in I$ there exist $y\in I$ and $n\in\N$ such that $(n+1)x\leq ny$.
This notion was introduced by Goodearl and Handelman;
see the Definition before Lemma~7.4 in \cite{GooHan82Stenosis}.
It was also studied in \cite{Goo96KMultiplier} and \cite{Per01IdealsMultiplier}.
Using the relation $<_s$ from \autoref{dfn:relS}, an interval $I$ is soft if and only if for every $x\in I$ there exists $y\in I$ such that $x<_s y$.
Next, we introduce the notion of `softness' for elements in $\CatCu$-semigroups.
In \autoref{prp:softElementTFAE}, we will show that it is equivalent to softness of the interval of compactly contained elements.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:softElement}
\index{terms}{element!soft}
\index{terms}{soft}
\index{symbols}{S$_\soft$@$S_\soft$ \quad (soft elements)}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
An element $a\in S$ is \emph{soft} if for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$ there exists $n\in\N$ such that $(n+1)a'\leq na$.
We denote by $S_\soft$ the subset of soft elements in $S$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:softElement}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$.
(1)
Consider the set of compactly-contained elements $a^{\ll}:=\{ x\in S : x\ll a \}$.
We have that $a$ is soft if and only if for every $x\in a^{\ll}$ we have $x<_s a$.
Thus, an element is soft if and only if it stably dominates every compactly-contained element.
(2)
Recall that $<_s^\ctsRel$ denotes the regularization of the stable domination relation $<_s$;
see Definitions~\ref{dfn:relS} and~\ref{dfn:regularRel}.
Then $a$ is soft if and only if $a <_s^\ctsRel a$.
In \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations}, we have seen that for soft elements there is a close connection between the order comparison in the $\CatCu$-semigroup and the comparison by functionals.
In the case that the $\CatCu$-semigroup is almost unperforated, we even have that the functionals record the complete information about comparison between soft elements;
see \autoref{prp:soft_comparison}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:softElementTFAE}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The element $a$ is soft.
\item
The set of compactly-contained elements, $a^{\ll}$, is a soft interval.
\item
For every $b\in S$ satisfying $b\ll a$, we have $\hat{b}<_s\hat{a}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
To see that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, assume $a$ is soft, and let $x\in a^{\ll}$.
Choose $\tilde{x}\in S$ satisfying $x\ll \tilde{x}\ll a$.
Since $a$ is soft, we can find $n\in\N$ such that $(n+1)\tilde{x}\leq na$.
Then
\[
(n+1)x \ll (n+1)\tilde{x}\leq na.
\]
It follows that we can find $y\in S$ with $y\ll a$ and $(n+1)x\leq ny$.
Thus, $x<_s y$ and $y\in a^{\ll}$, which shows that $a^{\ll}$ is a soft interval.
It is easy to see that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
In order to show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}, let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
Choose $b\in S$ with $a'\ll b\ll a$.
By assumption, we have $\hat{b}<_s\hat{a}$.
By \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations}, this implies $b<_s^\ctsRel a$.
Since $a'\ll b$, we get $a'<_sa$, as desired.
\end{proof}
For the next definition, recall from \autoref{pgr:ideals} that given an ideal $I$ in a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we denote the image of an element $a\in S$ in the quotient $S/I$ by $a_I$.
To notion of `pure noncompactness' was introduced in the Definition before~6.4 in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}.
We will recall their definition and also generalize it to the concept of `weak pure noncompactness', which is more closely connected to softness;
see \autoref{prp:soft_wpnc}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:pnc}
\index{terms}{purely noncompact}
\index{terms}{element!purely noncompact}
\index{terms}{weakly purely noncompact}
\index{terms}{element!weakly purely noncompact}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
An element $a\in S$ is \emph{purely noncompact} if for every ideal $I$ in $S$, we have that $a_I\ll a_I$ implies $2a_I=a_I$.
An element $a\in S$ is \emph{weakly purely noncompact} if for every ideal $I$ in $S$, we have that $a_I\ll a_I$ implies $(k+1)a_I=ka_I$ for some $k\in\N$.
\end{dfn}
Thus, if $a$ is a (weakly) purely noncompact element, and if $I$ is an ideal such that $a_I$ is compact, then either $a_I=0$ or (a multiple of) $a_I$ is properly infinite.
The following result clarifies the connection between softness and weak pure noncompactness.
In the context of Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s}, the following result has partially been obtained in \cite[Proposition~6.4]{EllRobSan11Cone}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:soft_wpnc}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$.
Consider the following statements:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The element $a$ is soft.
\item
The element $a$ is weakly purely noncompact.
\item
For every $a',x\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a\leq a'+x$, there is $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a\leq ka'+\infty\cdot x$.
\item
For every $a',x\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a\leq a'+x$, we have $a'<_sa'+x$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the following implications hold:
`\enumStatement{1}$\Rightarrow$\enumStatement{2}$\Rightarrow$\enumStatement{3}$\Rightarrow$\enumStatement{4}'.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, then \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{1}, and so all $4$ statements are equivalent in that case.
Moreover, if $a$ is purely noncompact, then \enumStatement{3} holds for $k=1$, and the converse holds if $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
In order to show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, let $I$ be an ideal of $S$ and assume $a_I\ll a_I$.
We have to show that a multiple of $a_I$ is properly infinite.
Choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_n)_n$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_n a_n$.
Then, in the quotient $S/I$, we have $a_I=\sup_n (a_n)_I$.
Using that $a_I$ is compact, we can choose $n\in\N$ satisfying $a_I\leq (a_n)_I$.
Since $a_n\ll a$ and since $a$ is soft by assumption, we obtain $a_n<_s a$.
Choose $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a_n\leq ka$.
It follows $(k+1)a_I=ka_I$, as desired.
Next, to show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}, assume that $a$ is weakly purely noncompact, and let $a',x\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a\leq a'+x$.
Let $I:=\left\{ b\in S : b\leq \infty\cdot x\right\}$ be the ideal of $S$ generated by $x$.
Then, in the quotient $S/I$, we have $a_I\leq a'_I\ll a_I$, whence by assumption we can find $k\in\N$ with $ka_I=(k+1)a_I=ka'_I$.
This implies $(k+1)a\leq ka'+\infty\cdot x$, as desired.
To show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{4}, let $a',x\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a\leq a'+x$.
By assumption, we can find $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a\leq ka'+\infty\cdot x$.
Then
\[
(k+1)a'\ll (k+1)a\leq ka'+\infty\cdot x = \sup_{n\in\N} (ka'+nx).
\]
It follows that we can choose $n\in\N$ with $(k+1)a'\leq ka'+nx$.
Let $m\in\N$ be the maximum of $k$ and $n$.
We get
\[
(k+1)a'\leq ka'+ mx.
\]
Adding $(m-k)a'$ on both sides, we obtain
\[
(m+1)a'\leq ma'+ mx = m(a'+x),
\]
and hence $a'<_sa'+x$, as desired.
Finally, let us show that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{1} under the assumption that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
By \autoref{prp:softElementTFAE}, it is enough to show $\hat{b}<_s\hat{a}$ for every $b\in S$ satisfying $b\ll a$.
Let such $b$ be given.
Choose $c\in S$ with $b\ll c\ll a$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we can find $x\in S$ such that
\[
b+x \leq a \leq c+x.
\]
By assumption, we get $c<_sc+x$.
This means that we can find $k\in\N$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\label{prp:soft_wpnc:eq1}
(k+1)c\leq kc+kx.
\end{align}
In order to show $(k+1)\hat{b}\leq k\hat{a}$, let $\lambda\in F(S)$.
If $\lambda(a)=\infty$, then there is nothing to show.
Thus, we may assume $\lambda(a)<\infty$.
Since $c\leq a$, it follows $\lambda(c)<\infty$.
Applying $\lambda$ to the inequality \eqref{prp:soft_wpnc:eq1}, we obtain
\[
(k+1)\lambda(c)\leq k\lambda(c)+k\lambda(x).
\]
Since $\lambda(c)<\infty$, we may cancel $k$ summands of $\lambda(c)$ on both sides to get
\[
\lambda(c)\leq k\lambda(x).
\]
Then, using $b\leq c$ at the first step, and using $b+x\leq a$ at the last step, we deduce
\[
(k+1)\lambda(b)
\leq k\lambda(b)+\lambda(c)
\leq k\lambda(b)+k\lambda(x)
\leq k\lambda(a).
\]
This shows $\hat{b}<_s\hat{a}$, as desired.
The implications concerning a purely noncompact element are obtained analogously.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:RQQ}
\index{terms}{property@property!$(RQQ)$}
\index{terms}{property@property!$(QQ)$}
\index{symbols}{S$_\wpnc$@$S_\wpnc$ \quad (weakly purely noncompact elements)}
\index{symbols}{S$_\pnc$@$S_\pnc$ \quad (purely noncompact elements)}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Let us denote the subsets of (weakly) purely noncompact elements in $S$ by $S_\wpnc$ and $S_\pnc$.
We clearly have $S_\pnc\subset S_\wpnc$, but the converse might fail.
Indeed, if $S$ is the elementary semigroup $\elmtrySgp{k}=\left\{ 0,1,2,\ldots,k,\infty \right\}$ as considered in \autoref{pgr:elementarySemigr}, then $S_\wpnc=S$ and $S_\pnc=\left\{ 0,\infty \right\}$.
Let us say that $S$ satisfies condition $(RQQ)$ if in every quotient of $S$, an element is properly infinite whenever a multiple of it is properly infinite.
This property is a residual version (meaning to hold in all quotients) of property $(QQ)$ as introduced in \cite[Remark~2.15]{OrtPerRor12CoronaStability}, where it is also shown that $(QQ)$ is connected to the (strong) Corona factorization property.
It is easy to see that a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ with $(RQQ)$ satisfies $S_\pnc=S_\wpnc$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:RQQ}
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then $S$ satisfies $(RQQ)$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $I$ be an ideal of $S$, and let $a\in S$ such that a multiple of $a_I$ is properly infinite.
Choose $k\in\N$ with $(k+1)a_I=ka_I$.
We need to show $2a_I=a_I$.
Since $S$ is almost unperforated, it is straightforward to check that the quotient $S/I$ is also almost unperforated.
It follows from $(k+1)a_I=ka_I$ that $(k+n)a_I=ka_I$ for every $n\in\N$.
In particular, we have $(k+1)2a_I=ka_I$.
By almost unperforation, it follows $2a_I\leq a_I$.
The converse inequality always holds, which shows $2a_I=a_I$, as desired.
\end{proof}
In the next results, we will say that a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is \emph{residually stably finite} \index{terms}{Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup!residually stably finite} if for every ideal $I$ in $S$, the quotient $\CatCu$-semigroup $S/I$ is stably finite.
This is in accordance with the terminology used in \ca{} theory;
see for example \cite[Definition~V.2.1.3]{Bla06OpAlgs}.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:softRSF}
Let $S$ be a residually stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $a\in S$.
Then the following statements are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The element $a$ is soft.
\item
For every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, there exists $x\in S$ such that $a'+x\leq a$ and $a\leq\infty\cdot x$.
\item
For every $a',x\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a\leq a'+x$, we have $a\leq \infty\cdot x$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of \autoref{prp:soft_wpnc}.
First, in order to show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
Choose $b\in S$ with $a'\ll b\ll a$.
By \axiomO{5} in $S$, we can choose $x\in S$ such that $a'+x\leq a\leq b+x$.
Consider the ideal $J$ of $S$ generated by $x$.
Then $a_J$ is compact.
By \autoref{prp:soft_wpnc}, the element $a$ is weakly purely noncompact.
Thus, a multiple of $a_J$ is properly infinite.
Since $S/J$ is stably finite, this implies that $a_J$ is zero.
Therefore $a\leq \infty\cdot x$, as desired.
Conversely, to prove that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}, let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
We have to show $a'<_sa$.
By assumption, we can find $x\in S$ such that
\[
a'+x\leq a\leq\infty\cdot x.
\]
Since $a'\ll a$, we can choose $n\in\N$ satisfying $a'\leq nx$.
Then
\[
(n+1)a'
\leq na'+nx
\leq na,
\]
which shows $a'<_sa$, as desired.
Next, to show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{3}, let $a',x\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a\leq a'+x$.
Consider the ideal $J$ of $S$ generated by $x$.
Then $a_J$ is compact.
As in the first part of the proof, we obtain $a_J=0$ and hence $a\leq \infty\cdot x$, as desired.
Finally, statement \enumStatement{3} is stronger than statement \enumStatement{3} of \autoref{prp:soft_wpnc}, which shows that it implies that $a$ is soft.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:softRSF}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $a\in S$.
Consider the statements \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} from \autoref{prp:softRSF}.
Even if $S$ is not necessarily residually stably finite, then these imply that $a$ is soft.
Conversely, if $S$ is not residually stably finite, and if $a$ is a soft element in $S$, then \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} of \autoref{prp:softRSF} might fail.
Consider for example the elementary $\CatCu$-semigroup $\elmtrySgp{1}=\left\{ 0,1,\infty \right\}$.
The element $1$ in $\elmtrySgp{1}$ is soft and compact.
Then \enumStatement{3} fails by considering $a'=a=1$ and $x=0$.
To show that \enumStatement{2} fails, consider $a'=a=1$.
If $x$ is an element in $\elmtrySgp{1}$ such that $1+x\leq 1$, then $x=0$.
But then $1\nleq\infty\cdot x$.
We thank H.~Petzka for pointing out this example.
\end{rmk}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:softTFAE}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $a\in S$.
Assume that $S$ satisfies $(RQQ)$ (for example, $S$ is almost unperforated) or that $S$ is residually stably finite.
Then the following statements are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The element $a$ is soft.
\item
The element $a$ is weakly purely noncompact.
\item
The element $a$ is purely noncompact.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $S$ satisfies axiom \axiomO{5}, statements \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} are equivalent by \autoref{prp:soft_wpnc}.
If $S$ satisfies $(RQQ)$, then statements \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} are equivalent, as observed in \autoref{pgr:RQQ}.
Finally, if $S$ is residually stably finite, it follows easily from \autoref{prp:softRSF} that \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} are equivalent.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:softAbsorbing}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The set $S_\soft$ of soft elements of $S$ is a subsemigroup of $S$ that is closed under passing to suprema of increasing sequences.
\item
The set $S_\soft$ is absorbing in the sense that for any $a,b\in S$ with $b\varpropto^\ctsRel a$, we have that $a+b$ is soft whenever $a$ is.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
To prove \enumStatement{1}, let us first show that $S_\soft$ is closed under addition.
Let $a,b\in S_\soft$, and let $x\in S$ such that $x\ll a+b$.
We need to show $x<_sa+b$.
Choose $a',b'\in S$ such that
\[
x\leq a'+b',\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b.
\]
Since $a$ and $b$ are soft, it follows $a'<_sa$ and $b'<_sb$.
By \autoref{prp:relSTFAE}, we can find $k_0,l_0\in\N$ satisfying $(k+1)a'\leq ka$ for all $k\geq k_0$ and such that $(l+1)b'\leq lb$ for all $l\geq l_0$.
Let $n\in\N$ be the maximum of $k_0$ and $l_0$.
Then
\[
(n+1)x
\leq (n+1)(a'+b')
\leq n(a+b),
\]
which shows $x<_sa+b$, as desired.
Next, let us show that $S_\soft$ is closed under suprema of increasing sequences.
Let $(a_n)_{n\in\N}$ be an increasing sequence in $S_\soft$ and set $a:=\sup_n a_n$.
Let $x\in S$ satisfy $x\ll a$.
We need to show $x<_sa$.
Choose $\tilde{x}\in S$ such that $x\ll\tilde{x}\ll a$.
By definition of the way-below relation, we can choose $n\in\N$ such that $\tilde{x}\leq a_n$.
Then $x\ll a_n$.
Since $a_n$ is soft, it follows $x<_sa_n$, and therefore $x<_sa$, as desired.
To prove \enumStatement{2}, let $a\in S_\soft$ and $b\in S$ satisfy $b\varpropto^\ctsRel a$.
To show that $a+b$ is soft, let $x\in S$ such that $x\ll a+b$.
We need to show $x<_sa+b$.
Choose elements $a',b'\in S$ with
\[
x\leq a'+b',\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b.
\]
Since $b\varpropto^\ctsRel a$, we can find $n\in\N$ such that $b'\leq na$.
Moreover, since $a$ is soft, we get $a'<_sa$.
By \autoref{prp:relSTFAE}, we can choose $k\in\N$ with $(k+n+1)a'\leq ka$.
Then
\begin{align*}
(k+n+1)x
&\leq (k+n+1)(a'+b') \\
&= (k+n+1)a'+(k+n)b'+b' \\
&\leq ka+(k+n)b+na
= (k+n)(a+b),
\end{align*}
which shows $x<_sa+b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:soft_comparison}
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a,b\in S$.
Assume $a$ is soft.
Then $a\leq b$ if and only if $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $a\leq b$ implies $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$.
In order to show the converse implication, assume $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$.
It is enough to verify $x\leq b$ for every $x\in S$ satisfying $x\ll a$.
Let $x\in S$ such that $x\ll a$.
Since $a$ is soft, we get $x<_sa$.
Then $\hat{x}<_s\hat{a}$, and together with the assumption we obtain $\hat{x}<_s\hat{b}$.
By \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations}, it follows $x<_s^\ctsRel b$.
Since $S$ is almost unperforated, this implies $x\leq b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:soft_comparison}
Theorems \ref{prp:softAbsorbing} and \ref{prp:soft_comparison} are inspired by Proposition~6.4 and Theorem~6.6 in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}.
Their results are concerned with purely noncompact elements in Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s}, and their proofs use \ca ic methods.
We generalize the mentioned results in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone} in two ways.
First, we consider abstract $\CatCu$-semigroups instead of concrete Cuntz semigroups coming from \ca{s}.
Therefore, our proofs are necessarily purely algebraic.
Second, we do not assume \axiomO{5}, which is implicitly used to prove the results in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}.
Note that axiom \axiomO{5} automatically holds for Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s} (see \autoref{prp:o5o6}), whence it is not an unreasonable assumption.
We were able to obtain our results without using \axiomO{5}, by considering soft elements instead of (weakly) purely noncompact elements.
It seems that soft elements form the right class to prove desirable results like Theorems \ref{prp:softAbsorbing} and \ref{prp:soft_comparison}.
In the absence of \axiomO{5}, it is unclear whether the same results hold for the class of (weakly) purely noncompact elements.
Moreover, as shown in \autoref{prp:soft_wpnc}, under the assumption of \axiomO{5} the class of soft and weakly purely noncompact elements coincide, so that then the results for (weakly) purely noncompact elements follow from that for soft elements.
\end{rmk}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:pncInCu}
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, is the subsemigroup $S_\soft$ of soft elements again a $\CatCu$-semigroup?
Does this hold under the additional assumption that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}?
If so, does then $S_\soft$ satisfy \axiomO{5} as well?
\end{prbl}
\begin{rmk}
By \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}, $S_\soft$ is a subsemigroup of $S$.
It therefore inherits a natural structure as a \pom.
Moreover, axiom \axiomO{1} is satisfied.
It is not clear, whether axiom \axiomO{2} holds.
(If so, axioms \axiomO{3} and \axiomO{4} should follow immediately.)
The answer to \autoref{prbl:pncInCu} is not even clear for Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s}.
In \autoref{prp:softInCuZmult}, we will provide a positive answer for semigroups with $Z$-multiplication, which includes in particular the Cuntz semigroups of $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{s}.
We end this section by showing that \autoref{prbl:pncInCu} also has a positive answer for simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroups satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
We first observe that, in this case, every noncompact element is automatically soft.
This should be compared to \cite[Lemma~3.4]{Per01IdealsMultiplier}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:softNoncpctSimple}
Let $S$ be a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then a nonzero element in $S$ is soft if and only if it is not compact.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
In general, a finite compact element is never soft.
To show the converse, let $a\in S$ be nonzero and noncompact.
We need to show that $a$ is soft.
By \autoref{prp:softRSF} and \autoref{rmk:softRSF}, it is enough to show that for every $a',x\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a\leq a'+x$, we have $a\leq\infty\cdot x$.
Given such $a'$ and $x$, since $a'\ll a$ and $a$ is not compact, we get $a'\neq a$.
Therefore, $x$ is nonzero.
Since $S$ is simple, this implies $a\leq\infty\cdot x$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{lem:density}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $B\subset S$ be a submonoid.
Assume that for every $b\in B$, there exists a sequence $(b_k)_{k\in\N}$ in $B$ such that $b=\sup_k b_k$ and such that $b_k\ll b_{k+1}$ in $S$ for each $k$.
Then
\[
\overline{B} = \left\{ \sup_k b_k : (b_k)_{k\in\N} \text{ increasing sequence in } B \right\}
\]
is a submonoid of $S$ that is closed under passing to suprema of increasing sequences.
Moreover, $\overline{B}$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup such that for any $a,b\in\overline{B}$ we have $a\ll b$ in $\overline{B}$ if and only if $a\ll b$ in $S$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
We view $\overline{B}$ is a subset of $S$.
It is easy to see that $B$ is a subset of $\overline{B}$ and that $\overline{B}$ is a submonoid of $S$.
Thus, endowed with the partial order induced by $S$, we have that $\overline{B}$ is a \pom.
Given an increasing sequence $(c_n)_n$ in $\overline{B}$, let us show that the supremum $\sup_n c_n$ is an element of $\overline{B}$.
For each $n\in\N$ we can, by assumption, choose a sequence $(c_{n,k})_k$ in $B$ that is rapidly increasing in $S$ and such that $c_n=\sup_k c_{n,k}$.
As in the proof of \autoref{prp:CuificationExists}, we can inductively choose indices $k_n$ for $n\in\N$ such that
\[
c_{1,k_1+n-1}, c_{2,k_2+n-2},\ldots,c_{n,k_n} \leq c_{n+1,k_{n+1}}.
\]
Then $(c_{n,k_n})_n$ is an increasing sequence of elements in $B$ such that $\sup_n c_n = \sup_n c_{n,k_n}$.
By definition, the element $\sup_n c_{n,k_n}$ belongs to $\overline{B}$.
Thus, $\overline{B}$ is closed under passing to suprema of increasing sequences.
Then, axioms \axiomO{1} and \axiomO{4} for $\overline{B}$ follow easily from their counterparts in $S$.
For clarity, let us denote the compact-containment relation with respect to $S$ by $\ll_S$, and similarly for $\ll_{\overline{B}}$.
Given $a,b\in\overline{B}$ satisfying $a\ll_S b$, let us prove $a\ll_{\overline{B}} b$.
Since $\overline{B}$ satisfies \axiomO{1}, we need to show that for every increasing sequence $(b_k)_k$ in $\overline{B}$ satisfying $b\leq \sup_k b_k$ there exists $n\in\N$ such that $a\leq b_n$.
Since the sequence $(b_k)_k$ has the same supremum in $S$ as in $\overline{B}$, this follows directly from the assumption that $a\ll_S b$.
It follows that every element in $B$ is the supremum of a sequence of elements in $B$ that is rapidly increasing in $\overline{B}$.
A diagonalization argument shows that the same holds for every element in $\overline{B}$.
This verifies \axiomO{2} for $\overline{B}$.
Finally, given $a,b\in\overline{B}$ satisfying $a\ll_{\overline{B}} b$, let us show $a\ll_S b$.
Choose a sequence $(b_k)_k$ in $B$ with $b=\sup_k b_k$ and such that $b_k\ll_Sb_{k+1}$ for each $k$.
Since the supremum in $S$ and in $\overline{B}$ agree and since $a\ll_{\overline{B}}b$, we obtain $a\leq b_k$ for some $k$.
Then $a\leq b_k\ll_Sb_{k+1}\leq b$, so that $a\ll_Sb$.
Therefore, axiom \axiomO{3} for $\overline{B}$ follows since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:softSimple}
Let $S$ be a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Then the subsemigroup $S_\soft$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Since the statement clearly holds if $S$ is elementary, we may assume from now on that $S$ is nonelementary.
We want to apply \autoref{lem:density} with $B=S_\soft$.
By \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}, we have that $S_\soft$ is closed under passing to suprema of increasing sequences.
This implies that $S_\soft$ satisfies \axiomO{1} and that $\overline{S_\soft}=S_\soft$.
Claim 1:
For every nonzero $a\in S$ there exists a nonzero $b\in S_\soft$ satisfying $b\leq a$.
To prove this claim, we inductively construct nonzero elements $a_n\in S$ for $n\in\N$ such that $2a_{n+1}\leq a_n$ for each $n$.
We start by setting $a_0:=a$.
Assuming that we have constructed $a_k$ for all $k\leq n$, we apply \cite[Proposition~5.2.1]{Rob13Cone} (see \autoref{prp:GlimmHalving}), to obtain a nonzero element $a_{n+1}\in S$ such that $2a_{n+1}\leq a_n$.
Then set
\[
b :=\sum_{n\in\N} a_n
=\sup_{n\in\N} \sum_{k=0}^na_k.
\]
We have $b\leq a$.
Since $S$ is stably finite, the element $b$ cannot be compact.
Therefore, by \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}, it is a soft element.
This proves the claim.
Claim 2:
For every $a\in S$ and $b\in S_\soft$ satisfying $a\ll b$, there exists $s\in S_\soft$ with $a+s\ll b$.
Note that by \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}\enumStatement{2} this implies that $a+s$ is soft.
To prove this claim, we first choose $b'\in S$ such that $a\ll b'\ll b$.
By \autoref{prp:softRSF}, we can find $x\in S$ with $b'+x\leq b$ and $b\leq\infty\cdot x$.
In particular, $x$ is nonzero.
Choose $x'\in S$ nonzero such that $x'\ll x$.
By claim~1, we can find $s\in S_\soft$ nonzero with $s\leq x'$.
This implies $s\ll x$.
Moreover, we get
\[
a+s\ll b'+x\leq b,
\]
which proves the claim.
Claim 3:
For every $a\in S_\soft$, there exists a sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S_\soft$ that is rapidly increasing in $S$ and such that $a=\sup_k a_k$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{2}, it is enough to show that for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, there exists $b\in S_\soft$ such that $a'\leq b\ll a$.
This follows directly from claim 2 and \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}(2).
We can now apply \autoref{lem:density} to deduce that $S_\soft$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
To verify \axiomO{5} for $S_\soft$, let $a',a,b',b,c\in S_\soft$ satisfy
\[
a+b \leq c,\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b.
\]
Applying claim~2 for $a'\ll a$, choose $s\in S_\soft$ with $a'+s\ll a$.
Then, using \axiomO{5} in $S$, we obtain an element $x\in S$ such that
\[
(a'+s)+x \leq c \leq a+x,\quad
b' \leq x.
\]
Set $d:=s+x$, which is soft by \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}\enumStatement{2}.
Then
\[
a'+d
=a'+s+x
\leq c
\leq a+x
\leq a+d,\quad
b'\leq x\leq d,
\]
which show that $d$ has the desired properties to verify \axiomO{5} for $S_\soft$.
Finally, to verify \axiomO{6} for $S_\soft$, let $a',a,b,c\in S_\soft$ satisfy
\[
a'\ll a\leq b+c.
\]
Without loss of generality, we may assume that the elements $a',a,b$ and $c$ are nonzero.
Using \axiomO{6} for $S$, choose $e,f\in S$ such that
\[
a'\leq e+f,\quad
e\leq a,b,\quad
f\leq a,c.
\]
If $e$ and $f$ are soft, then these elements have the desired properties to verify \axiomO{6} for $S_\soft$.
Let us assume that $e$ is not soft.
By \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}, this implies that $e$ is compact.
Using \axiomO{5} for $S$, this implies that we can choose elements $x_1,x_2\in S$ such that
\[
e+x_1 = a,\quad
e+x_2 = b.
\]
Since $a$ and $b$ are not compact, $x_1$ and $x_2$ are nonzero elements.
By \autoref{prp:downwards}, we can find $\tilde{x}\in S$ nonzero satisfying $\tilde{x}\leq x_1, x_2$.
Then, by claim~1, we can find $x\in S_\soft$ nonzero such that $x\leq \tilde{x}$ and hence $x\leq x_1,x_2$.
By \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}, the element $e+x$ is soft.
Moreover, we get
\[
e+x \leq e+x_1 = a,\quad
e+x \leq e+x_2 = b.
\]
An analogous argument works in the case that $f$ is not soft.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Predecessors, after Engbers}
\label{sec:predecessors}
In \cite{Eng14PrePhD}, Engbers develops a theory of \emph{predecessors} of compact elements in Cuntz semigroups of simple, stably finite \ca{s}.
His work is based on results of a problem session at a workshop on Cuntz semigroups held at the American Institute of Mathematics (AIM) in 2009.
Engbers attributes the problem to J.~Cuntz and mentions that several participants contributed to the solution, notably N.~C.~Phillips.
Using algebraic methods, we obtain a weaker version of his results;
see \autoref{thm:predecessors}.
First, we recall the following Glimm-halving result of Robert:
\begin{prp}[{Robert, \cite[Proposition~5.2.1]{Rob13Cone}}]
\label{prp:GlimmHalving}
Let $S$ be a simple, nonelemen\-tary $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Then, for every nonzero $a\in S$, there exists $b\in S$ nozero with $2b\leq a$.
\end{prp}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:smallerElement}
Let $S$ be a simple, countably-based $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Then there exists a sequence $(g_n)_n$ in $S$ of nonzero elements with the following properties:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The sequence is rapidly decreasing, that is, $g_n\gg g_{n+1}$ for each $n$.
\item
The sequence is cofinal among all nonzero elements, that is, for every nonzero $a\in S$, there exists $n\in\N$ such that $g_n\leq a$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Since $S$ is countably-based, we can choose a countable set of nonzero elements $\{a_n\}_{n\in\N} \subset S$ that is dense in the sense of \autoref{pgr:axiomsW}.
We inductively construct the sequence $(g_n)_n$ such that for each $n$ we have
\[
g_{n+1} \ll g_n,a_0,a_1,\dots,a_{n+1}.
\]
We start by letting $g_0\in S$ be any nonzero element satisfying $g_0\ll a_0$.
Assume we have constructed $g_k$ for all $k\leq n$.
By \autoref{prp:downwards}, we can find $g_{n+1}$ with the desired properties.
By construction, the sequence $(g_n)_n$ is rapidly decreasing.
Finally, let $a\in S$ be nonzero.
Since $\{a_n\}_n$ is a basis, we can find $n$ with $a_n\leq a$.
It follows $g_n\leq a$, as desired.
\end{proof}
In \cite{Eng14PrePhD}, Engbers introduced the notion of a \emph{predecessor} \index{terms}{predecessor} of a compact element $p$ in a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$.
It is defined as
\[
\gamma(p) =\max \left\{ x\in S : x<p \right\},
\]
provided this maximum exists.
Engbers shows the existence of predecessors for Cuntz semigroups of separable, simple and stably finite \ca{s}, and for these semigroups he proves the following properties:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
For every nonzero $z\in S$, we have $p\leq \gamma(p)+z$.
\item
For every noncompact $y\in S$, we have $\gamma(p)+y=p+y$.
\item
For every $\lambda\in F(S)$, we have $\lambda(\gamma(p))=\lambda(p)$.
\end{enumerate}
Using the axioms \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}, we can almost recover this result in the algebraic setting, by showing that elements in $\left\{ x\in S : x<p \right\}$ with these properties do exist.
However, we only get existence of the maximum (and thus uniqueness of predecessors) in the presence of weak
cancellation or almost unperforation.
Since for a compact element $p$, the induced map $\hat{p}$ in $\Lsc(F(S))$ is continuous, the result gives us a \emph{noncompact} element with the same property.
\begin{lma}
\label{lma:predecessors}
Let $S$ be a simple, countably-based, nonelementary, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Then, for every nonzero compact $p\in S$, there exists a noncompact $c\in S$ with $c<p$ and such that $p\leq c+z$ for every nonzero $z\in S$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Using \autoref{prp:smallerElement}, we can choose a rapidly decreasing sequence $(g_n)_n$ in $S$ that is cofinal among the nonzero elements of $S$.
By reindexing, if necessary, we may assume $g_0 \leq p$.
We will inductively construct $c_n,x_n,\tilde{c}_n\in S$ satisfying
\[
c_n\ll x_n\ll \tilde{c}_n,\quad
c_n\leq c_{n+1},\quad
x_n\leq \tilde{c}_{n+1},\quad
g_{n+1}+\tilde{c}_n\leq p \leq g_{n}+c_n,
\]
for each $n\in\N$.
First, we have
\[
g_1 \ll g_0 \leq p.
\]
Applying axiom \axiomO{5}, we find $\tilde{c}_0$ such that
\[
g_1+\tilde{c}_0\leq p \leq g_0+\tilde{c}_0.
\]
Since $p$ is compact, we can choose $c_0\in S$ with $c_0\ll \tilde{c}_0$ and $p \leq g_0+c_0$.
Find $x_0\in S$ satisfying $c_0\ll x_0\ll \tilde{c}_0$.
For the induction, assume that we have constructed $c_k,x_k$ and $\tilde{c}_k$ for $k\leq n$.
Thus, we have
\[
g_{n+1}+\tilde{c}_n\leq p,\quad
g_{n+2}\ll g_{n+1},\quad
x_n\ll\tilde{c}_n.
\]
Then, by applying axiom \axiomO{5}, we can choose $\tilde{c}_{n+1}\in S$ such that
\[
g_{n+2}+\tilde{c}_{n+1}\leq p \leq g_{n+1}+\tilde{c}_{n+1},\quad
x_n\leq \tilde{c}_{n+1}.
\]
Then $c_n\ll \tilde{c}_{n+1}$.
Using also that $p$ is a compact element, we can find $c_{n+1}\in S$ with $c_n\ll c_{n+1}\ll\tilde{c}_{n+1}$ and $p \leq g_{n+1}+c_{n+1}$.
Choose $x_{n+1}\in S$ such that $c_{n+1}\ll x_{n+1}\ll \tilde{c}_{n+1}$.
Note that the sequence $(c_n)_n$ is increasing.
Therefore, we may set
\[
c:=\sup_n c_n.
\]
Let us show that $c$ has the desired properties.
We first observe that $c<p$.
Indeed, it is clear that $c\leq p$.
To obtain a contradiction, assume $c=p$.
Then, since $p$ is compact and $c=\sup_nc_n$, we would have $p=c_n$ for some $n$.
But we have $g_{n+1}+c_n\leq p$ and $g_{n+1}$ is nonzero.
Thus, $p$ would be an infinite compact element, which is not possible since $S$ is stably finite.
Next, let $z\in S$ be nonzero.
Choose $n\in\N$ such that $z\geq g_n$.
It follows
\[
c+z\geq c+g_n\geq c_n+g_n\geq p,
\]
as desired.
Finally, let us show that $c$ is not compact.
Indeed, if $c$ were compact, then by \axiomO{5} there could find $y\in S$ satisfying $c+y=p$.
Since $c<p$, the element $y$ is nonzero.
By \autoref{prp:GlimmHalving}, we can choose $z\in S$ nonzero such that $2z\leq y$.
As shown above, this implies $p\leq c+z$.
But then
\[
p+z \leq c+z+z \leq p,
\]
which is impossible since $S$ is stably finite.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:predecessors}
Let $S$ be a simple, nonelementary, stably finite $\CatCu$-sem\-i\-group satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Let $p\in S$ be compact, and let $c\in S$ be nonzero such that $c<p$.
Consider the following conditions:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
For every nonzero $z\in S$, we have $p\leq c+z$.
\item
The element $c$ is noncompact, and for every noncompact $y\in S$, we have $c+y=p+y$.
\item
For every $\lambda\in F(S)$, we have $\lambda(c)=\lambda(p)$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the following implications hold:
`\enumStatement{1}$\Leftrightarrow$\enumStatement{2}$\Rightarrow$\enumStatement{3}'.
Moreover, if $S$ has weak cancellation, then an element $c$ satisfying \enumStatement{1} or \enumStatement{2} is equal to the maximum of the set $\left\{ x : x<p \right\}$, and hence it is uniquely determined.
If $S$ is almost unperforated, then all three conditions are equivalent and the element $c$ satisfying \enumStatement{1}-\enumStatement{3} is uniquely determined.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
In order to show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, let $c\in S$ satisfy the statement of \enumStatement{1}.
As shown at the end of the proof of \autoref{lma:predecessors}, we have that $c$ is necessarily noncompact.
Let $y\in S$ be noncompact.
To show $c+y=p+y$, we follow an argument similar to the one in \cite[Theorem~5.7]{Eng14PrePhD}, which we include for completeness.
We clearly have $c+y\leq p+y$.
For the converse inequality, it is enough to show $p+y'\leq c+y$ for every $y'\in S$ satisfying $y'\ll y$.
Given such $y'$, choose $y''\in S$ satisfying $y'\ll y''\ll y$.
Applying \axiomO{5} in $S$, we choose $z\in S$ such that
\[
y'+z \leq y \leq y''+z.
\]
Notice that $z$ is nonzero, as otherwise $y$ would be compact.
Using the assumption at the first step, we deduce
\[
y'+p\leq y'+c+z\leq y+c,
\]
as desired.
Next, to show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}, let $z\in S$ be nonzero.
We need to show $p\leq c+z$.
By assumption, this is clear if $z$ is noncompact.
We may therefore assume that $z$ is compact.
Choose a noncompact, nonzero element $y\in S$ with $y<z$.
Then
\[
p\leq p+y=c+y\leq c+z,
\]
as desired.
Next, to show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}, let $\lambda\in F(S)$.
We distinguish two cases.
In the first case, we assume $\lambda(p)<\infty$.
Then $\lambda(c)<\infty$.
Applying $\lambda$ to the equality $p+c=2c$, we get
\[
\lambda(p)+\lambda(c)=\lambda(c)+\lambda(c).
\]
Then we can cancel $\lambda(c)$ on both sides and obtain $\lambda(p)=\lambda(c)$, as desired.
If the other case, we assume $\lambda(p)=\infty$.
It follows that $\lambda$ is equal to $\lambda_{\infty}$, the functional that takes value $\infty$ everywhere except at $0$.
Then $\lambda(c)=\infty=\lambda(p)$, as desired.
Suppose now that $S$ has weak cancellation, and that $c\in S$ satisfies \enumStatement{1}-\enumStatement{2}.
Assume $x\in S$ satisfies $x<p$.
We need to show $x\leq c$.
For this, it is enough to show $x'\leq c$ for every $x'\in S$ satisfying $x'\ll x$.
Let $x'\in S$ satisfy $x'\ll x$.
By \axiomO{5}, we can choose $t\in S$ such that
\[
x'+t \leq p \leq x+t.
\]
Then $t\neq 0$ as $S$ is stably finite.
Therefore, we get
\[
x'+t \leq p\ll p\leq c+t.
\]
Applying weak cancellation, we obtain $x'\leq c$, as desired.
Finally, assume that $S$ is almost unperforated.
In order to show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}, let $z\in S$ be nonzero.
By assumption, we have $\hat{p}=\hat{c}$.
Since $S$ is simple and $z$ is nonzero, it is straightforward to check
\[
\hat{p}<_s \widehat{c+z}.
\]
By \autoref{prp:comparisonRelations}, we get $p<_s^\ctsRel c+z$.
Since $p$ is compact and $S$ is almost unperforated, it follows $p\leq c+z$.
Moreover, the element is uniquely determined by \autoref{prp:soft_comparison} and \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}[{Engbers, \cite[Theorem~5.15]{Eng14PrePhD}}]
\label{thm:predecessors}
Let $S$ be a countably-based, simple, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation.
Then every compact $p\in S$ has a predecessor $\gamma(p)$, uniquely determined by the property that $p\leq\gamma(p)+z$ for every nonzero $z\in S$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \autoref{lma:predecessors} and \autoref{prp:predecessors}.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Algebraic semigroups}
\label{sec:algebraicSemigp}
In this section, we study $\CatCu$-semigroup that have a basis of compact elements.
Such semigroups are called `algebraic'.
Important examples are given by Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s} with real rank zero.
Given a \pom\ $M$, we show how to construct an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup $\Cu(M)$ such that the semigroup of compact elements in $\Cu(M)$ can be naturally identified with $M$;
see \autoref{prp:algebraicSemigp}.
This establishes an equivalence between the category $\CatPom$ of \pom{s}, and the full subcategory of $\CatCu$ consisting of algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroups;
see \autoref{pgr:equivalenceAlgCu}.
In \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}, we will see how certain properties of $M$ translate to properties of $\Cu(M)$.
Then we provide a version of the Effros-Handelman-Shen theorem by showing that a $\CatCu$-semigroup is an inductive limit of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroups if and only if it is weakly cancellative, unperforated, algebraic and satisfies \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6};
see \autoref{prp:EffHandShen_CuVersion}.
This also characterizes the Cuntz semigroups of separable AF-algebras.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:algebraicSemigp}
\index{terms}{Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup!algebraic}
\index{terms}{algebraic Cu-semigroup@algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup}
A $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is \emph{algebraic} if every element in $S$ is the supremum of an increasing sequence of compact elements of $S$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:algebraicSemigp}
(1)
\autoref{dfn:algebraicSemigp} is following the convention of domain theory to call a continuous partially ordered set \emph{algebraic} if its compact elements form a basis;
see \cite[Definition~I-4.2, p.~115]{GieHof+03Domains}.
(2)
If $A$ is a \ca\ with real rank zero, then $\Cu(A)$ is algebraic.
For \ca{s} with stable rank one, the converse holds;
see \cite[Corollary~5]{CowEllIva08CuInv}.
\end{rmks}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:algebraicSemigp}
Given a \pom\ $M$, it is easy to see that the partial order $\leq$ is an auxiliary relation in the sense of \autoref{pgr:axiomsW}.
In fact, it is the strongest auxiliary relation on $M$.
Moreover, it is straightforward to check that $(M,\leq)$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup.
We denote its $\CatCu$-completion by $\Cu(M)$.
In \autoref{prp:algebraicSemigp}, we will see that $\Cu(M)$ is algebraic and that every algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup arises this way.
Every $\CatPom$-morphism $f\colon M\to N$ between \pom{s} induces a $\CatCu$-morphism $\Cu(f)\colon\Cu(M)\to\Cu(N)$.
Thus, we obtain a functor
\[
\Cu\colon \CatPom\to\CatCu,\quad
M\mapsto\Cu(M),\quad
\txtFA M\in\CatPom.
\]
Conversely, given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we let $S_c$ denote the set of compact elements in $S$.
It is easy to see that $S_c$ is a submonoid of $S$ and we equip it with the order induced by $S$.
It follows that $S_c$ is a \pom.
Moreover, every $\CatCu$-morphism $f\colon S\to T$ between $\CatCu$-semigroups restricts to a $\CatPom$-morphism from $S_c$ to $T_c$.
Hence, we obtain a functor
\[
\CatCu\to\CatPom,\quad
S\mapsto S_c,\quad
\txtFA S\in\CatCu.
\]
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:algebraicSemigp}
\beginEnumStatements
\item
Let $M$ be a \pom.
Then $\Cu(M)$ as introduced in \autoref{pgr:algebraicSemigp} is an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Moreover, there is a natural identification of $M$ with the \pom\ of compact elements in $\Cu(M)$.
\item
Let $S$ be an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Consider the \pom\ $S_c$ of compact elements in $S$.
Then there is a natural isomorphism $S\cong\Cu(S_c)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let us show \enumStatement{1}.
Consider the natural map $\alpha\colon M\to\Cu(M)$ from $M$ to its $\CatCu$-completion.
Since $(M,\leq)$ is a $\CatW$-semigroup, the map $\alpha$ is an order-embedding;
see \autoref{rmk:Cuification}(2).
Given $a\in M$, we have $a\leq a$ and therefore $\alpha(a)\ll\alpha(a)$, showing that $\alpha$ maps $M$ to the compact elements of $S$.
On the other hand, let $s\in S$ be a compact element.
By \autoref{thm:Cuification}(1,ii), there exists $a\in M$ such that $s\leq \alpha(a)\leq s$, and hence $s=\alpha(a)$.
This shows that $\alpha$ is an order-embedding that maps $M$ onto $S_c$.
It also follows from \autoref{thm:Cuification}(1,ii) that every element in $S$ is the supremum of an increasing sequence of compact elements, showing that $S$ is an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup.
We leave the proof of \enumStatement{2} to the reader.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{pgr:equivalenceAlgCu}
The two functors from \autoref{pgr:algebraicSemigp}, assigning to a \pom\ $M$ its $\CatCu$-completion $\Cu(M)$, and assigning to an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup its \pom\ of compact elements, establish an equivalence of the following categories:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The category $\CatPom$ of \pom{s};
see \autoref{pgr:pom}.
\item
The full subcategory of $\CatCu$ consisting of algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroups.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{rmk}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
The $\CatCu$-completion $\Cu(M)$ has appeared in the literature before using different but equivalent constructions.
First, recall that an interval in $M$ is a nonempty, upwards directed, order-hereditary subset of $M$.
In the literature, intervals are often called ideals or sometimes round ideals;
see \cite[Definition~0-1.3, p.~3]{GieHof+03Domains} and \cite[Definition~2.1]{Law97RoundIdeal}.
An interval $I$ in $M$ is \emph{countably generated} \index{terms}{interval!countably generated} if there exists a countable cofinal subset for $I$.
This is equivalent to saying that there is an increasing sequence $(a_n)_n$ in $I$ such that
\[
I= \left\{ a\in M : a\leq a_n\text{ for some }n \right\}.
\]
Countably generated intervals in $M$ form a \pom\ $\Lambda_{\sigma}(M)$, where addition of intervals $I$ and $J$ is the interval generated by $I+J$, and order is given by set inclusion;
see \cite{Weh96TensorInterpol}, and also \cite{Per97StructurePositive}.
Let us define a map $\Lambda_{\sigma}(M)\to\Cu(M)$.
Given a countably generated interval $I\in\Lambda_\sigma(M)$, let $(a_n)_n$ be a cofinal subsequence of $I$.
Considering $M$ as a submonoid of $\Cu(M)$, we may assign to $I$ the element $\sup_na_n$ in $\Cu(M)$.
This induces a natural isomorphism $\Lambda_{\sigma}(M)\cong\Cu(M)$.
Similarly, if $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup, we may consider the natural map $\Phi\colon S\to \Lambda_{\sigma}(S_c)$, which sends an element $a\in S$ to the interval
\[
\Phi(a) = \left\{ x\in S_c : x\leq a \right\}.
\]
If $S$ is algebraic, then $\Phi$ is an isomorphism of \pom{s};
see \cite[Theorem~6.4]{AntBosPer11CompletionsCu}.
\end{rmk}
We will now study how properties of a \pom\ relate to properties of its $\CatCu$-completion.
The results in \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic} should be compared to \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:RieszProperties}
\index{terms}{Riesz refinement property}
\index{terms}{Riesz decomposition property}
\index{terms}{Riesz interpolation property}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!cancellative}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We say that $M$ has the \emph{Riesz refinement property} if whenever there are $a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2\in M$ with $a_1+a_2=b_1+b_2$, then there exist $x_{i,j}\in M$ for $i=1,2$ such that $a_i=x_{i,1}+x_{i,2}$ for $i=1,2$ and $b_j=x_{1,j}+x_{2,j}$ for $j=1,2$.
\item
We say that $M$ has the \emph{Riesz decomposition property} if whenever there are $a,b,c\in M$ with $a\leq b+c$, then there exist $b',c'\in M$ such that $a=b'+c'$, $b'\leq b$ and $c'\leq c$.
\item
We say that $M$ has the \emph{Riesz interpolation property} if whenever there are $a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2\in S$ such that $a_i\leq b_j$ for $i,j=1,2$, then there exists $c\in S$ such that $a_1,a_2\leq c\leq b_1,b_2$.
\item
We say $M$ has \emph{cancellation} (or that $M$ is \emph{cancellative}) if for any $a,b,x\in M$, $a+x\leq b+x$ implies $a\leq b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
The three Riesz properties are closely related but not equivalent in general.
If $M$ is algebraically ordered, then Riesz refinement implies Riesz decomposition.
If $M$ is cancellative and algebraically ordered, then all three Riesz properties are equivalent (see for example \cite[Proposition 2.1]{Goo86Poag})
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The monoid $M$ is algebraically ordered if and only if $\Cu(M)$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
\item
The monoid $M$ is cancellative if and only if $\Cu(M)$ is weakly cancellative.
\item
The monoid $M$ has Riesz interpolation if and only if $\Cu(M)$ does.
\item
If $M$ satisfies the Riesz decomposition property, then $\Cu(M)$ satisfies \axiomO{6}.
Conversely, if $\Cu(M)$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation, then $M$ satisfies the Riesz decomposition property.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let us show \enumStatement{1}.
By \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}(1), $\Cu(M)$ satisfies \axiomO{5} if and only if $M$, considered as a $\CatW$-semigroup $M=(M,\leq)$, satisfies \axiomW{5}.
First, assume that $M$ is algebraically ordered.
To show that $M$ satisfies \axiomW{5}, let $a',a,b',b,c,\tilde{c}\in M$ satisfy
\[
a+b\leq c,\quad
a'\leq a,\quad
b'\leq b,\quad
c\leq\tilde{c},
\]
Since $M$ is algebraically ordered, we can find $y\in M$ with $a+b+y=c$.
Set $x':=x=b+y$.
One checks that $x'$ and $x$ have the desired properties to verify \axiomW{5} for $M=(M,\leq)$.
Conversely, assume that $M$ satisfies \axiomW{5}.
To show that $M$ is algebraically ordered, let $a,c\in M$ satisfy $a\leq c$.
Set $a':=a$, $b':=b=0$ and set $\tilde{c}:=c$.
Since $M$ satisfies \axiomW{5}, we can find $x',x\in M$ such that
\[
a'+x\leq\tilde{c},\quad
c\leq a+x',\quad
x'\leq x.
\]
Then
\[
a+x = a'+x \leq \tilde c = c \leq a+x' \leq a+x,
\]
which shows $a+x=c$.
Thus, $M$ is algebraically ordered.
Statement \enumStatement{2} follows directly from \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}(3).
Statement \enumStatement{3} follows from the equivalence between conditions (1) and (3) in \cite[Proposition~2.12]{Per97StructurePositive}.
Finally, let us show \enumStatement{4}.
First, assume that $M$ satisfies the Riesz decomposition property.
By \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}(2), it is enough to verify \axiomW{6} for $M$.
Let $a',a,b,c\in M$ satisfy
\[
a'\leq a\leq b+c.
\]
By assumption, we can choose $b',c'\in M$ such that
\[
a'=b'+c',\quad
b'\leq b,\quad
c'\leq c.
\]
Then $b'\leq a$ and $c'\leq a$, showing that $b'$ and $c'$ have the desired properties to verify \axiomW{6} for the $\CatW$-semigroup $(M,\leq)$.
Conversely, assume that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation.
By statements \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} and \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToCu}(2), we have that $M$ is algebraically ordered, cancellative and satisfies \axiomW{6}.
To show that $M$ has Riesz decomposition, let $a,b,c\in M$ satisfy $a\leq b+c$.
Set $a':=a$.
Since $M$ satisfies \axiomW{6}, we can find $e,f\in M$ satisfying
\[
a'=a\leq e+f,\quad
e\leq a,b,\quad
f\leq a,c.
\]
Since $M$ is algebraically ordered, we can choose $x,y,z\in M$ such that
\[
a+x=e+f,\quad
e+y=a,\quad
f+z=a.
\]
Then
\[
a+x+y+z
=e+f+y+z
=2a.
\]
Since $M$ is cancellative, we obtain $a=x+y+z$.
It follows
\[
y+[x+z] = a \leq a+x = f+[x+z],
\]
which implies $y\leq f$.
Thus, we have $a=e+y$ with $e\leq b$ and $y\leq c$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
We are thankful to the referee, who spotted a gap in the proof of \cite[Proposition~2.12]{Per97StructurePositive}.
This, however, does not affect the result that, for a partially ordered monoid $M$, the conditions (1) $M$ has Riesz interpolation; (2) The monoid $\Lambda(M)$ of all intervals in $M$ has Riesz interpolation, and (3) The monoid $\Lambda_\sigma(M)$ of all countably generated intervals has Riesz interpolation, are equivalent.
(This is proved following the arguments in \cite[Proposition 2.12]{Per97StructurePositive}.)
\end{rmk}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:algebraicRieszTFAE}
Let $S$ be an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and weak cancellation.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ satisfies \axiomO{6}.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has Riesz refinement.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has Riesz decomposition.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has Riesz interpolation.
\item
The monoid of compact elements, $S_c$, has Riesz refinement (or equivalently, $S_c$ has Riesz decomposition, or $S_c$ has Riesz interpolation).
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and weak cancellation.
Let $M$ be the \pom\ of compact elements in $S$.
As shown in \autoref{prp:algebraicSemigp}, we have that $S$ is isomorphic to the $\CatCu$-completion of $M$.
By \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}(1) and (2), $M$ is algebraically ordered and cancellative.
It follows that the Riesz properties stated in \enumStatement{5} are equivalent for $M$.
By \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}(3), we have that $M$ has Riesz interpolation if and only $S$ does.
This shows the equivalence between \enumStatement{4} and \enumStatement{5}.
Similarly, we obtain the equivalence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{5} from \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}(4).
It is easy to check that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}.
To see that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}, let $a',a,b,c\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a\leq b+c$.
Since $S$ is algebraic, we can choose $x\in S$ compact with $a'\leq x\leq a$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we can find $y\in S$ satisfying $x+y=b+c$.
Using Riesz refinement, we choose $r_{i,j}\in S$ for $i,j=1,2$ such that
\[
x=r_{1,1}+r_{1,2},\quad
y=r_{2,1}+r_{2,2},\quad
b=r_{1,1}+r_{2,1},\quad
c=r_{1,2}+r_{2,2}.
\]
Set $e:=r_{1,1}$ and $f:=r_{1,2}$.
Then $e$ and $f$ have the desired properties to verify \axiomO{6} for $S$.
Finally, it follows from Lemma~2.6(a) and Proposition~2.5 in \cite{Goo96KMultiplier} that \enumStatement{5} implies \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3}.
\end{proof}
We will now consider the class of algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroups that are $\CatCu$-comple\-tions of dimension groups.
We first recall some definitions.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:dimMonoid}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!simplicial}
\index{terms}{simplicial monoid}
\index{terms}{dimension monoid}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We call $M$ a \emph{simplicial monoid} if it is isomorphic to the algebraically ordered monoid $\N^r$, for some $r\in\N_+$.
\item
We call $M$ a \emph{dimension monoid} if it is isomorphic to the inductive limit in $\CatPom$ of simplicial monoids.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
Recall that $M$ is \emph{unperforated} if for every $a,b\in M$ we have $a\leq b$ whenever $na\leq nb$ for some $n\in\N_+$.
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!unperforated} \index{terms}{unperforated}
Every simplicial monoid is algebraically ordered, cancellative, unperforated and satisfies the Riesz refinement property.
It is easy to see that all these properties pass to inductive limits, whence they are satisfied by all dimension monoids.
The converse is known as the Effros-Handelman-Shen theorem, \cite{EffHanShe80DimGps}, which is formulated for partially ordered groups.
The version given here for a \pom\ $M$ follows by passing to the Grothendieck completion $G$, from which $M$ can be recovered as $M=G_+$.
It is clear that for every separable AF-algebra $A$, the Murray-von Neumann semigroup $V(A)$ is a dimension monoid.
The converse can for instance be found in \cite[Proposition~1.4.2, p.20]{Ror02Classification}.
\begin{thm}[Effros, Handelman, Shen]
\label{prp:EffHanShen}
Let $M$ be a countable, \pom.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The monoid $M$ is a dimension monoid.
\item
The monoid $M$ is algebraically ordered, cancellative, unperforated and satisfies the Riesz refinement property.
\item
There is a separable AF-algebra $A$ such that $M\cong V(A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
In order to formulate the analog of the Effros-Handelman-Shen theorem for $\CatCu$-semigroups, we will call a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ a \emph{simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroup} if it is isomorphic to the $\CatCu$-completion of a simplicial monoid, that is, if $S\cong\overline{\N}^r$ with the algebraic order, for some $r\in\N_+$.
\index{terms}{Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup!simplicial}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:EffHandShen_CuVersion}
Let $S$ be a countably-based $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The semigroup $S$ is isomorphic to an inductive limit of simplicial $\CatCu$-semi\-groups.
\item
There is a dimension monoid $M$ such that $S\cong\Cu(M)$.
\item
The semigroup $S$ is weakly cancellative, unperforated, algebraic and satisfies \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
\item
There is a separable AF-algebra $A$ such that $S\cong\Cu(A)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Using \autoref{prp:limitsCu}, it is easy to see that \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} are equivalent.
It is also easy to check that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{2}.
In order to show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}, let $M$ be a dimension monoid such that $S\cong\Cu(M)$.
It follows directly from Theorems~\ref{prp:EffHanShen} and~\ref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic} that $S$ is weakly cancellative, algebraic and satisfies \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
To verify that $S$ is unperforated, let $a,b\in S$ and assume $na\leq nb$ for some $n\in\N_+$.
Since $S$ is algebraic, we can choose increasing sequences $(a_k)_k$ and $(b_k)_k$ of compact elements in $S$, such that $a=\sup_k a_k$ and $b=\sup_k b_k$.
For each $k$ we have
\[
na_k\ll na\leq nb=\sup_{l\in\N} nb_l.
\]
Choose $l\in\N$ with $na_k\leq na_l$.
Since $M$ is unperforated and the natural map from $M$ to $S$ is an order-embedding, this implies $a_k\leq b_l$.
Thus, we have $a_k\leq b$ for each $k$, and therefore $a\leq b$, as desired.
Finally, let us show that \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{4} are equivalent.
Given a separable AF-algebra $A$, the Cuntz semigroup of $A$ is isomorphic to the $\CatCu$-completion of $V(A)$.
Therefore, the desired equivalence follows from \autoref{prp:EffHanShen}.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Nearly unperforated semigroups}
\label{sec:nearUnp}
In this section, we introduce the notion of `near unperforation' for \pom{s};
see \autoref{dfn:nearUnperf}.
We study how this concept is connected to other notions like almost unperforation, separativity and cancellation properties.
The main result of this section is \autoref{prp:nearUnperfSimpleCu} where we show that a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup that satisfies \axiomO{5} is nearly unperforated if and only if it is weakly cancellative and almost unperforated.
In \cite{JiaSu99Projectionless}, the famous Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ was introduced.
Recall that it is a unital, separable, simple, nonelementary, nuclear \ca{} with stable rank one and unique tracial state.
It is strongly self-absorbing and $KK$-equivalent to the complex numbers, which means $K_0(\mathcal{Z})\cong\Z$ and $K_1(\mathcal{Z})=0$.
Therefore, tensoring with $\mathcal{Z}$ has no effect on the $K$-theory of a \ca{}, although it can change the ordering on the $K_0$-group (see for example \cite{GonJiaSu2000}).
In the Elliott classification program, the Jiang-Su algebra is considered as the stably finite analog of the Cuntz algebra $\mathcal{O}_\infty$, which plays a central role in the classification of purely infinite \ca{s}.
\index{terms}{Jiang-Su algebra}
\index{symbols}{Z@$\mathcal{Z}$ \quad (Jiang-Su algebra)}
Given a \ca{} $A$ that tensorially absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$, it is well-known that the Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ is almost unperforated, \cite[Theorem~4.5]{Ror04StableRealRankZ}.
Under the additional assumption that $A$ is simple or that $A$ has real rank zero and stable rank one, we obtain that $\Cu(A)$ is even nearly unperforated;
see \autoref{prp:nearUnpCaZstable}.
We conjecture that the Cuntz semigroup of every $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} is nearly unperforated;
see \autoref{conj:nearUnpCaZstable}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:nearUnperf}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!nearly unperforated}
\index{terms}{unperforated!nearly}
\index{terms}{nearly unperforated}
\index{symbols}{$\leq_p$}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
We define a binary relation $\leq_p$ on $M$ by setting $a\leq_p b$ for $a,b\in M$ if and only if there exists $k_0\in\N$ such that $ka\leq kb$ for all $k\in\N$ satisfying $k\geq k_0$.
We say that $M$ is \emph{nearly unperforated} if for all $a,b\in M$ we have that $a\leq_p b$ implies $a\leq b$.
\end{dfn}
Note that $a\leq_p b$ if and only if there exists $k\in\N$ such that $ka\leq kb$ and $(k+1)a\leq(k+1)b$.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:nearUnperfTFAE}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The monoid $M$ is nearly unperforated.
\item
For all $a,b\in M$, we have that $2a\leq 2b$ and $3a\leq 3b$ imply $a\leq b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to see that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}.
For the converse implication, let $a,b\in M$ satisfy $a\leq_p b$.
Let $n\in\N$ be the smallest integer such that $ka\leq kb$ for all $k\geq n$.
Arguing as in \cite[Lemma~2.1]{AraGooOMePar98Separative}, we will show that $(n-1)a\leq(n-1)b$ if $n\geq 2$.
This shows that $n=1$, and so $a\leq b$.
Assuming $n\geq 2$, we have $2(n-1)\geq n$ and $3(n-1)\geq n$.
It follows
\[
2(n-1)a\leq 2(n-1)b,\quad
3(n-1)a\leq 3(n-1)b.
\]
By assumption, this implies $(n-1)a\leq(n-1)b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
Recall that $M$ is \emph{unperforated} if for all elements $a,b\in M$ we have that $na\leq nb$ for some $n\in\N_+$ implies $a\leq b$.
Recall from \autoref{dfn:almUnp} that $M$ is \emph{almost unperforated} if $a<_s b$ implies $a\leq b$.
Let us say that $M$ is \emph{weakly separative} if for all elements $a$ and $b$ we have that $2a\leq a+b\leq 2b$ implies $a\leq b$.
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!weakly separative}
We warn the reader that different definitions of `separativity' for (partially ordered) semigroups appear in the literature.
However, in most of the recent literature, the notion of `separativity' has been used for a concept which is stronger than the condition above;
see for example \cite[Definition~1.2]{Weh94SeparativePOM}.
That is why we call the above condition `weak separativity'.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:nearUnperfImplications}
Let $M$ be a \pom.
Then the following implications hold:
\[
\xymatrix@C=15pt{
{M \text{ is unperforated } } \ar@{=>}[r]
& { M \text{ is nearly unperforated } } \ar@{=>}[r] \ar@{=>}[d]
& { M \text{ is almost unperforated } } \\
& { M \text{ is weakly separative } }.
}
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \autoref{prp:relSTFAE} that the relation $a<_s b$ is stronger than the relation $\leq_p$.
Therefore, for any $a,b\in M$, the following implications hold:
\[
\xymatrix@M+=10pt{
{ na\leq nb \text{ for some $n\in\N_+$ } }
& { a\leq_p b } \ar@{=>}[l]
& { a<_s b } \ar@{=>}[l].
}
\]
This implies the horizontal implications of the diagram.
Finally, let us assume that $M$ is nearly unperforated.
In order to verify that $M$ is weakly separative, let $a,b\in M$ satisfy $2a\leq a+b\leq 2b$.
Then
\[
2a\leq 2b,\quad
3a \leq a+2b = (a+b) + b \leq 3b.
\]
By \autoref{prp:nearUnperfTFAE}, this implies $a\leq b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:comparisonLeadsToP}
Let $M$ be a \pom, and let $a,b\in M$ and $k,l\in\N$.
If $a+ka\leq b+ka$ and $a+lb\leq b+lb$, then $a\leq_p b$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $a,b$ and $k,l$ be as in the statement.
Arguing as in \cite[Lemma~2.1]{AraGooOMePar98Separative}, it follows
\[
2a+ka
=a+[a+ka]
\leq a+[b+ka]
\leq 2b+ka.
\]
Inductively, we get $ra+ka\leq rb+ka$ for all $r\in\N$.
Analogously, we obtain $lb+sa\leq lb+sb$ for all $s\in\N$.
Then, for any $n\in\N$, we get
\[
(k+l+n)a \leq ka+(l+n)b =[ka+lb]+nb \leq [kb+lb]+nb=(k+l+n)b,
\]
which shows $a\leq_p b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:preminSimpleSFPrePom}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!preminimally ordered}
\index{terms}{preminimally ordered}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!simple}
\index{terms}{simple (positively ordered monoid)}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!stably finite}
\index{terms}{stably finite positively pre-ordered monoid}
Let $M$ be a \prePom.
We say that $M$ is \emph{preminimally ordered} if for all elements $a,b,x,y\in M$, we have that $a+x\leq b+x$ and $x\leq y$ imply $a+y\leq b+y$.
We say that $M$ is \emph{simple} if for all elements $a,b\in M$ with $b$ nonzero, we have $a\varpropto b$, that is, there exists $n\in\N$ such that $a\leq nb$.
An element $a$ in $M$ is \emph{finite} if $a<a+x$ for every nonzero element $x\in M$.
We say that $M$ is \emph{stably finite} if each of its elements is finite.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:preminSimpleSFPrePom}
(1)
The notion of being `preminimally ordered' was introduced in \cite[Definition~1.2]{Weh94SeparativePOM}.
This concept is closely related to what has been called `well-behaved' and `strictly well-behaved' in \cite[Definition~2.2.1]{Bla90Rational}.
(2)
Let $M$ be a \prePom.
If $M$ is cancellative, then it is stably finite.
Indeed, given elements $a$ and $x$ in $M$ we always have $a\leq a+x$ and if $a=a+x$ then cancellation implies that $x=0$.
(3)
Let $M$ be a conical monoid equipped with its algebraic pre-order.
Then $M$ is a \prePom.
If $M$ is stably finite, then its algebraic pre-order is antisymmetric and hence $M$, with its algebraic order, becomes a partially ordered monoid.
(4)
The notions of simplicity and stable finiteness have already been defined for $\CatCu$-semigroups;
see \autoref{pgr:finiteSemigr} and \autoref{dfn:simpleCu}.
However, we warn the reader that for a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, theses notions do not coincide when considering $S$ as a \prePom.
For instance, a nonzero $\CatCu$-semigroup always contains elements that are not finite.
Moreover, a nonzero, simple $\CatCu$-semigroup is not simple as a \pom, since for a nonzero element $a\in S$ we need not have $\infty\varpropto a$, but only $\infty\varpropto^\ctsRel a$.
One can, however, obtain a close connection as follows.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, consider
\[
S_0 := \left\{ x\in S : x\ll\tilde{x} \text{ for some } \tilde{x}\in S \right\}.
\]
Then $S$ is simple (respectively stably finite) as a $\CatCu$-semigroup if and only if $S_0$ is simple (respectively stably finite) as a \pom.
\end{rmks}
The next result shows that for $\CatCu$-semigroups, the axiom~\axiomO{5} of almost algebraic order implies a suitable version of preminimality:
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:preminO5}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $a,b,x,y\in S$.
If $a+x\ll b+x$ and $x\leq y$, then $a+y\leq b+y$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $a,b,x$ and $y$ be as in the statement.
Choose $x'\in S$ such that $x'\ll x$ and $a+x\ll b+x'$.
Applying \axiomO{5} to the inequality $x'\ll x\leq y$, choose $d\in S$ satisfying $x'+d\leq y\leq x+d$.
Then
\[
a+y \leq a+x+d \leq b+x'+d \leq b+y,
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:cancUpToP}
(1)
Let $M$ be a preminimally \pom, and let $a,b,x\in M$.
If $a+x\leq b+x$ and $x\varpropto a,b$, then $a\leq_p b$.
(2)
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $a,b,x\in S$.
If $a+x\ll b+x$ and $x\varpropto^\ctsRel a,b$, then $a\leq_p b$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
To show \enumStatement{2}, let $S$ be as in the statement, and let $a,b,x\in S$ satisfy $a+x\ll b+x$ and $x\varpropto^\ctsRel a,b$.
Choose $x'\in S$ with $x'\ll x$ and $a+x\ll b+x'$.
Then
\[
a+x' \leq a+x \ll b+x'.
\]
Moreover, we have $x'\varpropto a,b$, whence we can find $k,l\in\N$ such that $x\leq ka$ and $x\leq lb$.
By \autoref{prp:preminO5}, we obtain
\[
a+ka\leq b+ka,\quad
b+lb\leq b+lb.
\]
Then, by \autoref{prp:comparisonLeadsToP}, it follows $a\leq_p b$.
The proof of \enumStatement{1} is similar (and easier).
\end{proof}
The following result should be compared to \cite[Theorem~2.2.6]{Bla90Rational}.
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:cancUpToP_simple}
(1)
Let $M$ be a simple, stably finite, preminimally \pom, and let $a,b,x\in M$.
If $a+x\leq b+x$, then $a\leq_p b$.
(2)
Let $S$ be a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $a,b,x\in S$.
If $a+x\ll b+x$, then $a\leq_p b$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The argument for both statements is analogous.
Let the elements $a,b$ and $x$ be as in the statements.
The conclusion is clearly true if $a$ is zero.
We may therefore assume that $a$ is nonzero.
Then, using stable finiteness in both cases, we get that $b$ cannot be zero.
Thus, we may assume that both $a$ and $b$ are nonzero.
By simplicity, this implies $x\varpropto a,b$ or $x\varpropto^\ctsRel a,b$, respectively.
Then the conclusion follows from \autoref{prp:cancUpToP}.
\end{proof}
Recall from \autoref{dfn:addAxioms} that a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is \emph{weakly cancellative} if $a+x\ll b+x$ implies $a\leq b$, for any $a,b,x\in S$.
It follows from the previous result that $S$ is weakly cancellative whenever it is simple, stably finite, nearly unperforated and satisfies \axiomO{5}.
We remark that a simple, almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup need not be weakly cancellative;
see \autoref{sec:openproblems}\eqref{listPrbls:Zprime}.
See also \autoref{sec:openproblems}\eqref{listPrbls:RangeZmultNotWkCanc} where we ask if this phenomenon is also possible for Cuntz semigroups of (simple) \ca{s}.
By \autoref{prp:nearUnperfImplications}, near unperforation implies almost unperforation in general.
The following result provides a converse.
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:nearUnperfSimpleCu}
Let $S$ be a simple $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then $S$ is stably finite and nearly unperforated if and only if $S$ is weakly cancellative and almost unperforated.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In order to verify the remaining `if' part of the statement, assume that $S$ is weakly cancellative and almost unperforated.
It is clear that weak cancellation implies that $S$ is stably finite.
Let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $a\leq_p b$.
By \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}, an element in a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} is either compact or nonzero and soft.
We may therefore distinguish the following cases.
Case 1:
Assume $a$ is soft.
Let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
Since $a$ is soft, it follows $a'<_s a$ and therefore $a'<_s b$.
Using that $S$ is almost unperforated, we get $a'\leq b$.
Thus, we have shown $a'\leq b$ for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, whence $a\leq b$.
Case 2:
Assume $b$ is soft.
Since $a\leq_p b$, we can find $n\in\N$ such that $na\leq nb$.
Note that $nb$ is also soft.
Let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
Then $na'\ll nb$, and since $nb$ is soft, it follows $na'<_s nb$.
This implies $a'<_s b$, and hence $a'\leq b$ by almost unperforation.
Again, as this holds for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, we get $a\leq b$.
Case 3:
Assume that $a$ and $b$ are compact.
If there is $n\in\N$ such that $na<nb$, then using \axiomO{5} for $S$, there exists a nonzero element $x\in S$ such that $na+x=nb$.
Since $S$ is simple and $a$ is compact, we can find $k\in\N$ such that $a\leq kx$.
Then
\[
(kn+1)a
\leq kna + kx
= knb,
\]
which shows $a<_sb$.
Since $S$ is almost unperforated, we get $a\leq b$.
In the other case, there is $n\in\N$ with $na=nb$ and $(n+1)a=(n+1)b$.
Let $x=na=nb$.
Then $a+x\ll b+x$.
It follows from weak cancellation that $a\ll b$.
Thus, in all cases, it follows $a\leq b$.
This shows that $S$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:nearUnperfSimplePom}
Let $M$ be a simple, stably finite, algebraically ordered monoid.
Then $M$ is nearly unperforated if and only if $M$ is cancellative and almost unperforated.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \autoref{prp:cancUpToP_simple} that every simple, stably finite, nearly unperforated, preminimally \pom\ is cancellative.
Moreover, by \autoref{prp:nearUnperfImplications}, near unperforation implies almost unperforation.
This shows the `only if' part of the statement.
For the converse, assume that $M$ is a cancellative, almost unperforated, simple, algebraically ordered monoid.
Let $a,b\in M$ satisfy $a\leq_p b$.
If there is $n\in\N$ such that $na<nb$, then since $M$ is algebraically ordered, there is a nonzero element $x\in M$ such that $na+x=nb$.
As in case 3 in the proof of \autoref{prp:nearUnperfSimpleCu}, this implies $a\leq b$.
In the other case, there exists $n\in\N$ with $na=nb$ and $(n+1)a=(n+1)b$.
By cancellation, it follows $a\leq b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:nearUnperfCuAlgCanc}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Assume $S$ is algebraic, almost unperforated and weakly cancellative.
Then $S$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be as in the statement.
To show that $S$ is nearly unperforated, let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $a\leq_p b$.
Since $S$ is algebraic, we may assume without loss of generality that $a$ and $b$ are compact.
Choose $n\in\N$ such that $na\leq nb$ and $(n+1)a\leq(n+1)b$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we can find $x,y\in S$ such that
\[
na+x=nb,\quad
(n+1)a+y=(n+1)b.
\]
Multiplying the first equation by $(n+1)$, and multiplying the second equation by $n$, we obtain
\[
n(n+1)a+(n+1)x=n(n+1)b,\quad
n(n+1)a+ny=n(n+1)b.
\]
Using that $b$ is compact and that $S$ is weakly cancellative, it follows
\[
(n+1)x = ny.
\]
Then, since $S$ is almost unperforated, we get $x\leq y$.
Using this at the second step, we get
\[
a+nb
= a+na+x
\leq a+na+y
= b + nb.
\]
Then, using that $b$ is compact and that $S$ has weak cancellation, it follows $a\leq b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:nearUnpFromAlmUnp}
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Which conditions are necessary and sufficient for $S$ to be nearly unperforated?
In particular, is it sufficient to assume that $S$ satisfies weak cancellation and \axiomO{5}?
\end{prbl}
Concerning the second part of this problem, let $S$ be an almost unperforated, weakly cancellative $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then $S$ is nearly unperforated if we additionally assume that $S$ is simple or algebraic;
see \autoref{prp:nearUnperfSimpleCu} and \autoref{prp:nearUnperfCuAlgCanc}.
Let us draw some conclusions for Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s}.
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:nearUnpCaSr1}
Let $A$ be a \ca{} with stable rank one.
Assume that $A$ is either simple or has real rank zero.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated whenever it is almost unperforated.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem~4.3]{RorWin10ZRevisited}, $\Cu(A)$ has weak cancellation.
If $A$ is simple, then so is $\Cu(A)$;
see \autoref{prp:simpleCa}.
If $A$ has real rank zero, then $\Cu(A)$ is algebraic.
Then the statement follows from \autoref{prp:nearUnperfSimpleCu} (if $A$ is simple) and \autoref{prp:nearUnperfCuAlgCanc} (if $A$ has real rank zero).
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:nearUnpCaZstable}
Let $A$ be a $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated if $A$ is simple or has real rank zero and stable rank one.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $A$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, it follows from \cite[Theorem~4.5]{Ror04StableRealRankZ} that $\Cu(A)$ is almost unperforated.
We first assume that $A$ is simple.
Without loss of generality, we have $A\neq\{0\}$.
Since $A$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, we can distinguish two cases.
If $A$ is purely infinite, then $\Cu(A)=\{0,\infty\}$, which is nearly unperforated.
In the other case, $A$ is stably finite, which by \cite[Theorem~6.7]{Ror04StableRealRankZ} implies that $A$ has stable rank one.
Then it follows from \autoref{prp:nearUnpCaSr1} that $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
If $A$ has real rank zero and stable rank one, then it follows also directly from \autoref{prp:nearUnpCaSr1} that $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{lem:limnearlyunperf}
(1)
Let $S$ be a nearly unperforated $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
Then its $\CatCu$-completion $\gamma(S)$ is nearly unperforated.
(2)
Let $(S_i,\varphi_i)$ be an inductive system of nearly unperforated semigroups in $\CatPom$, $\CatPreW$ or $\CatCu$.
Then $S=\lim S_i$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let us show \enumStatement{1}.
Given $s\in S$, we denote by $\bar{s}$ its image in $\gamma(S)$.
Let $a,b\in\gamma(S)$ such that $2a\leq 2b$ and $3a\leq 3b$.
By properties of the $\CatCu$-completion (see \autoref{thm:Cuification}), we can choose rapidly increasing sequences $(a_n)_n$ and $(b_n)_n$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_n \bar{a}_n$ and $b=\sup_n \bar{b}_n$.
Fix $n\in\N$.
Then
\[
2\bar{a}_n\ll 2b=\sup_k 2\bar{b}_k,\quad
3\bar{a}_n\ll 3b=\sup_k 3\bar{b}_k.
\]
Thus, we can find indices $k$ and $l$ such that $2\bar{a}_n\leq 2\bar{b}_k$ and $3\bar{a}_n\leq 3\bar{b}_l$.
Set $m:=\max\{k,l\}+1$.
Then
\[
2\bar{a}_n\ll 2\bar{b}_m,\quad
3\bar{a}_n\ll 3\bar{b}_m.
\]
By properties of the $\CatCu$-completion, this implies $2a_n\prec 2b_m$ and $3a_n\prec 3b_m$.
Using that $S$ is nearly unperforated, we obtain $a_n\leq b_m$, and thus $\bar{a}_n\leq \bar{b}_m\leq b$.
It follows $a\leq b$, as desired.
Next, let us show \enumStatement{2}.
It is straightforward to check the statement for limits in $\CatPom$.
Using that the limit in $\CatPreW$ has the same order structure as the limit in $\CatPom$, the result follows for limits in $\CatPreW$.
\autoref{prp:limitsCu} shows that the limit of an inductive system in $\CatCu$ is the $\CatCu$-completion of the limit of the same system considered in $\CatPreW$.
Therefore, the statement for $\CatCu$ follows from \enumStatement{1}.
\end{proof}
For the next result, recall that we say that a \ca{} $A$ has \emph{no $K_1$-ob\-struc\-tions}, \index{terms}{no $K_1$-obstructions} if it has stable rank one and if $K_1(I)=\{0\}$ for any closed two-sided ideals $I$ of $A$;
see \cite{AntBosPer13CuFields} and \cite{AntBosPerPet14GeomDimFct}.
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:NearUnpNoK1}
Let $A$ be a separable $\mathcal Z$-stable \ca{} that has no $K_1$-obstructions.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Recall from \cite{RorWin10ZRevisited}, that $\mathcal{Z}$ is isomorphic to a sequential inductive limit where each algebra in the inductive system is equal to the fixed generalized dimension drop algebra
\[
Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty}
:=\left\{ f\in C([0,1],M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}) :
f(0)\in M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! 1,\
f(1)\in 1\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty} \right\}.
\]
Since $A$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable we have $A\cong \varinjlim_k A\!\otimes\! Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty}$.
By \autoref{prp:functorCu}, we have
\[
\Cu(A) \cong \varinjlim_k \Cu(A\!\otimes\! Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty}).
\]
Therefore, by \autoref{lem:limnearlyunperf}, it is enough to prove that $\Cu(A\!\otimes\! Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty})$ is nearly unperforated.
We remark that so far the argument applies for every \ca{} $A$.
We identify $A\!\otimes\! Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty}$ with the \ca{} of continuous maps $f$ from $[0,1]$ to $A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}$ such that
\[
f(0)\in A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! 1,\quad
f(1)\in A\!\otimes\! 1\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}.
\]
We use $\ev_0$ and $\ev_1$ to denote the evaluation at the endpoints $0$ and $1$ of $[0,1]$, respectively.
Then we have a commutative pullback diagram:
\[
\xymatrix{
A\!\otimes\! Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty}\ar@{-->}[r]^-{\ev_0\oplus\ev_1} \ar@{-->}[d]
& { A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! 1 \oplus A\!\otimes\! 1\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty} } \ar[d]^{\iota_3,\iota_2} \\
C([0,1], A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}) \ar@{->>}[r]^-{\ev_0\oplus\ev_1}
& { A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty} \oplus A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty} },
}
\]
where $\iota_3$ and $\iota_2$ denote the natural inclusion maps
\[
\iota_3\colon A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! 1
\to A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty},\quad
\iota_2\colon A\!\otimes\! 1\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}
\to A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}.
\]
We identify $M_{6^\infty}$ with $M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}$, and $A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}\!\otimes\! 1$ with $ A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}$, and $ A\!\otimes\! 1\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}$ with $A\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}$.
Then, since $A$ has no $K_1$-obstructions, we can apply \cite[Theorem~3.5]{AntPerSan11PullbacksCu} to compute $\Cu(A\!\otimes\! Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty})$ as the pullback semigroup
\[
\xymatrix{
\Cu(A\!\otimes\! Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty}) \ar@{-->}[r]^-{\ev_0\oplus\ev_1} \ar@{-->}[d]
& { \Cu( A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty}) \oplus \Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty}) } \ar[d]^{\Cu(\iota_3),\Cu(\iota_2)} \\
\Cu( C([0,1], A\!\otimes\! M_{6^\infty}) ) \ar@{->>}[r]^-{\ev_0\oplus\ev_1}
& { \Cu( A\!\otimes\! M_{6^\infty}) \oplus \Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{6^\infty}) }.
}
\]
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we denote by $\Lsc([0,1],S)$ the semigroup of lower-semi\-con\-tin\-u\-ous functions from $[0,1]$ to $S$ with pointwise order and addition.
Again, using that $A$ has no $K_1$-obstructions, by \cite[Corollary~2.7]{AntPerSan11PullbacksCu} we have
\[
\Cu(C([0,1],A\!\otimes\! M_{6^\infty}))
\cong \Lsc([0,1],\Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{6^\infty})).
\]
Now, let $a,b\in \Cu(A\otimes Z_{2^\infty,3^\infty})$ satisfy $a\leq_p b$.
Using the pullback description above, we can choose $f,g\in\Lsc([0,1],\Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{6^\infty}))$, and $x,u\in\Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty})$, and $y,v\in \Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty})$ such that
\[
f(0) = x,\quad
f(1) = y,\quad
g(0) = u,\quad
g(1) = v,
\]
and so that $a,b$ are identified as
\[
a=(f,x,y),\quad b=(g,u,v).
\]
Then $f\leq_p g$, $x\leq_p u$, and $y\leq_p v$.
By \autoref{prp:UHFStableNearUnp}, the Cuntz semigroups $\Cu(C([0,1],A\!\otimes\! M_{6^\infty}))$, $\Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{2^\infty})$ and $\Cu(A\!\otimes\! M_{3^\infty})$ are nearly unperforated.
Therefore, we obtain $f\leq g$, $x\leq u$, and $y\leq v$.
Hence $a\leq b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
Inspired by the previous results, we make the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}
\index{terms}{nearly unperforated Conjecture}
\label{conj:nearUnpCaZstable}
Let $A$ be a $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{conj}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:AnswersNearUnpCaZstable}
We have verified \autoref{conj:nearUnpCaZstable} for several classes of \ca{s}.
Let $A$ be a $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated in the following cases:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $A$ is simple;
see \autoref{prp:nearUnpCaZstable}.
\item
If $A$ has real rank zero and stable rank one;
see \autoref{prp:nearUnpCaZstable}.
\item
If $A$ is UHF-stable;
see \autoref{prp:UHFStableNearUnp}.
\item
If $A$ is purely infinite (not necessarily simple);
see \autoref{prp:pureInfCanearUnp}.
\item
If $A$ has no $K_1$-obstructions;
see \autoref{prp:NearUnpNoK1}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{pgr}
\chapter{Bimorphisms and tensor products}
\label{sec:tensProd}
In this chapter, we first present a framework for a theory of tensor products in enriched categories.
We focus on the categories $\CatPreW$ and $\CatCu$, which are both enriched over the category $\CatPom$; see \autoref{prp:enrichmentW-Cu}.
In \autoref{sec:tensProdPreW}, we construct tensor products in $\CatPreW$.
Given $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} $S$ and $T$, we consider the tensor product $S\otimes_\CatPom T$ of the underlying \pom{s}, as constructed in \autoref{sec:pom}, and we equip it with a natural auxiliary relation $\prec$;
see \autoref{dfn:tensProdAuxRel}.
We show that the pair
\[
(S\otimes_\CatPom T,\prec),
\]
which we abbreviate $S\otimes_\CatPreW T$, is a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{} that has the universal properties of a tensor product;
see \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW}.
We then show that this gives $\CatPreW$ the structure of a symmetric, monoidal category;
see \autoref{pgr:monoidalPreW}.
In \autoref{sec:tensProdCu}, we show the existence of tensor products in $\CatCu$ by combining the result for $\CatPreW$ with the fact that $\CatCu$ is a reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$.
More precisely, given $\CatCu$-semigroup{s} $S$ and $T$, their tensor product in $\CatCu$ is given as
\[
S\otimes_\CatCu T = \gamma(S\otimes_\CatPreW T),
\]
which is the $\CatCu$-completion of $S\otimes_\CatPreW T$;
see \autoref{prp:tensProdCu}.
Given \ca{s} $A$ and $B$, there is a natural $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\tau_{A,B}^{\txtMax}\colon\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \to \Cu(A\tensMax B).
\]
It is natural to ask when this map is an isomorphism.
In \autoref{prp:tensProdAF}, we provide a positive answer if one of the \ca{s} is an AF-algebra.
The crucial observation is that tensor products in $\CatPreW$ and $\CatCu$ are continuous functors in each variable;
see \autoref{prp:tensLim}.
In \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty}, we show that for every $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $S$, the tensor product of $S$ with $\{0,\infty\}$ is naturally isomorphic to the $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ of singly-generated ideals of $S$ as considered in \autoref{prp:LatCu}.
It follows that given $\CatCu$-semigroup{s} $S$ and $T$, there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T) \cong \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)\otimes_{\CatCu} \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(T).
\]
In \autoref{prp:tensCaWithInfty}, we apply these results for the Cuntz semigroup of a separable \ca{} $A$ and deduce that there are natural isomorphisms
\[
\Cu(A\otimes\mathcal{O}_2)
\cong \Lat(A)
\cong \Cu(A)\otimes_\CatCu\{0,\infty\}
\cong \Cu(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Cu(\mathcal{O}_2),
\]
where $\mathcal{O}_2$ denotes the Cuntz algebra generated by two isometries with range projections adding up to the unit.
The same result holds when $\mathcal{O}_2$ is replaced by any simple, purely infinite \ca.
\section{Tensor product as representing object}
\label{sec:abstractTensProd}
In this section, we give a general categorical setup for tensor products, which is in part inspired by the approach in \cite{BanNel76Bimor}.
When constructing the tensor product of objects with a certain structure, the notion of a bimorphism is a crucial ingredient.
In some categories a bimorphism from a pair of objects $(X,Y)$ to a third object $Z$ is simply a set function $X\times Y\to Z$ that is a morphism in each variable; for instance in the categories $\CatMon$ and $\CatPom$ (see Paragraphs~\ref{pgr:mon} and~\ref{pgr:pom}).
In other cases, a bimorphism is a set function $X\times Y\to Z$ that is only required to be a `generalized' morphism in each variable, but additionally satisfies a condition taking both variables into account. This is the case, for instance, in the category of \ca{s} $\CatCa$ (see \autoref{exa:bimorphismFctr}), and the categories $\CatPreW$ and $\CatCu$ (see Definitions~\ref{dfn:bimorPreW} and~\ref{dfn:bimorCu}; see also Lemmas~\ref{prp:bimorPreW} and~\ref{prp:bimorCu}).
With the notion of bimorphisms at hand, the tensor product of two objects $X$ and $Y$ can be defined as an object that represents the functor $Z\mapsto\operatorname{Bimor}(X\times Y, Z)$.
This means that the tensor product $X\otimes Y$ satisfies
\[
\operatorname{Bimor}(X\times Y, Z) \cong \operatorname{Mor}(X\otimes Y,Z),
\]
for all objects $Z$.
Of course, whether the functor $\operatorname{Bimor}(X\times Y,\freeVar)$ is representable or not depends heavily on the categories considered and the objects $X$ and $Y$.
If the (bi)morphism sets carry additional structure, we may demand that it be preserved by the above identification.
This can be made precise using the language of enriched categories and functors.
The basic theory of monoidal and enriched categories can be found in \autoref{sec:appendixMonoidal}.
For details, we refer the reader to \cite{MacLan71Categories} and \cite{Kel05EnrichedCat}.
In this section, $\CatV$ will always denote a concrete, locally small, closed symmetric monoidal category, and $I$ will denote the unit object in $\CatV$.
\begin{pgr}[Representable functor]
\label{pgr:representableFctr}
\index{terms}{representable functor}
Let $\CatC$ be a category that is enriched over $\CatV$.
Each object $X$ in $\CatC$ defines a $\CatV$-functor
\[
\CatCMor(X,\freeVar)\colon \CatC\to\CatV
\]
as follows:
An object $Z$ in $\CatC$ is sent to the object $\CatCMor(X,Z)$ in $\CatV$.
Further, given objects $Z$ and $Z'$ in $\CatC$, the $\CatV_0$-morphism
\[
C(X,\freeVar)_{Z,Z'} \colon\CatCMor(Z,Z')\to \CatCMor(X,Z')^{\CatCMor(X,Z)}
\]
is the one corresponding to $M_{X,Z,Z'}$ (defining the composition of morphisms in $\CatC$) under the identification
\[
\CatVMor_0\left( \CatCMor(Z,Z')\otimes\CatCMor(X,Z),\CatCMor(X,Z') \vphantom{\CatC(X)^{\CatC(X)}} \right)
\cong\CatVMor_0\left( \CatCMor(Z,Z'),\CatCMor(X,Z')^{\CatCMor(X,Z)} \right).
\]
The $\CatV$-functor $\CatCMor(X,\freeVar)$ is called the \emph{representable functor} corresponding to $X$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{pgr}[Bimorphism functor]
\label{pgr:bimorphismFctr}
Let $\CatC$ be a category that is enriched over $\CatV$.
Given objects $X$ and $Y$ in $\CatC$, we assume that there is a $\CatV$-functor
\[
\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)\colon\CatC\to\CatV.
\]
This means that for each object $Z$ in $\CatC$ there is an object $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z)$ in $\CatV$, representing the bimorphisms from $X\times Y$ to $Z$.
Moreover, given objects $Z$ and $Z'$ in $\CatC$, there is a $\CatV_0$-morphism
\[
\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)_{Z,Z'}\colon\CatCMor(Z,Z')
\to \CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z')^{\CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z)}.
\]
We remark that the notation `$X\times Y$' appearing in the bimorphism functor does not refer to the product of the objects $X$ and $Y$.
In general, we do not assume that the considered category has products.
The notation is chosen since for the concrete cases considered in this paper, a bimorphism is a set function from the cartesian product of the underlying sets of $X$ and $Y$ to the underlying set of $Z$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{exa}
\label{exa:bimorphismFctr}
Let $\CatC$ be one of the concrete categories considered in this paper (for example, $\CatCu$), and let $X,Y, Z$ be objects in $\CatC$.
Then $X,Y$ and $Z$ are sets with additional structure, and a $\CatC$-morphism from $X$ to $Z$ is just a set function $X\to Z$ preserving this structure.
Similarly, a $\CatC$-bimorphism from $X\times Y$ to $Z$ is a set function $X\times Y\to Z$ satisfying certain conditions.
Consider for example the category $\CatCa$ of \ca{s}, which is enriched over $\CatCGHTop$; see \autoref{exa:closedCat}.
Given \ca{s} $A$ and $B$ we denote the set of \starHom{s} from $A$ to $B$ by $\CatCaMor(A,B)$ (we do not use $\CatCa(A,B)$ to avoid confusion with the \ca\ generated by $A$ and $B$). $\CatCaMor(A,B)$ has a natural topology giving it the structure of a compactly generated, Hausdorff space; see \cite{DubPor71ConvenientCatTopAlg}.
The representable functor
\[
\CatCaMor(A,\freeVar)\colon \CatCa \to \CatCGHTop,
\]
sends a \ca{} $C$ to $\CatCaMor(A,C)$ in $\CatCGHTop$;
and for any pair $(C,C')$ of \ca{s}, the $\CatCGHTop$-morphism
\[
\CatCaMor(A,\freeVar)_{C,C'}\colon \CatCaMor(C,C') \to \CatCaMor(A,C')^{\CatCaMor(A,C)}
\]
is given by
\[
\CatCaMor(A,\freeVar)_{C,C'}(\alpha)(\varphi):=\alpha\circ\varphi,
\]
for all $\alpha\in\CatCaMor(C,C')$ and $\varphi\in\CatCaMor(A,C)$.
Given \ca{s} $A,B$ and $C$, a $\CatCa$-bimorphism from $A\times B$ to $C$ is a set function $\varphi\colon A\times B\to C$ satisfying the following conditions:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The function $\varphi$ is bounded and linear in each variable.
\item
We have $\varphi(a^*,b^*)=\varphi(a,b)^*$ for each $a\in A$ and $b\in B$.
\item
We have $\varphi(a_1a_2,b_1b_2)=\varphi(a_1,b_1)\varphi(a_2,b_2)$ for each $a_1,a_2\in A$ and $b_1,b_2\in B$.
\end{enumerate}
We equip the set $\CatCaBimor(A\times B,C)$ of all $\CatCa$-bimorphisms from $A\times B$ to $C$ with the topology of point-norm convergence.
Given \ca{s} $A$ and $B$, we define the bimorphism functor
\[
\CatCaBimor(A\times B,\freeVar)\colon \CatCa \to \CatCGHTop
\]
as follows:
A \ca{} $C$ is sent to $\CatCaBimor(A\times B,C)$ in $\CatCGHTop$;
and for any pair $(C,C')$ of \ca{s}, the $\CatCGHTop$-morphism
\[
\CatCaBimor(A\times B,\freeVar)_{C,C'}\colon \CatCaMor(C,C')
\to \CatCaBimor(A\times B,C')^{\CatCaBimor(A\times B,C)}
\]
is given by
\[
\CatCaBimor(A\times B,\freeVar,)_{C,C'}(\alpha)(\varphi):=\alpha\circ\varphi,
\]
for all $\alpha\in\CatCaMor(C,C')$ and $\varphi\in\CatCaBimor(A\times B,C)$.
\end{exa}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:abstractTensProd}
Let $\CatC$ be a category that is enriched over $\CatV$.
Assume that for any objects $X$ and $Y$ in $\CatC$ there is a bimorphism $\CatV$-functor $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)$.
Let $V$ be an object in $\CatC$, and let $\varphi$ be an element of $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,V)$.
Let us show that this induces a $\CatV$-natural transformation
\[
\Phi\colon \ \CatCMor(V,\freeVar) \ \Rightarrow\ \CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar).
\]
For each object $Z$ in $\CatC$, we need to define a $\CatV_0$-morphism $\Phi_Z$ from $\CatCMor(V,Z)$ to $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z)$.
To define $\Phi_Z$, we use the $\CatV_0$-morphism defining the bimorphism functor
\[
\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)_{V,Z} \colon \CatCMor(V,Z)
\to \CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z)^{\CatCBimor(X\times Y,V)},
\]
which naturally corresponds to a $\CatV_0$-morphism
\[
G_{V,Z}\colon\CatCMor(V,Z)\otimes\CatCBimor(X\times Y,V)\to\CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z).
\]
Then $\Phi_Z$ is the $\CatV_0$-morphism given as the following composition:
\[
\CatCMor(V,Z) \xrightarrow{\cong}
\CatCMor(V,Z)\otimes I \xrightarrow{\id\otimes\varphi}
\CatCMor(V,Z)\otimes\CatCBimor(X\times Y,V) \xrightarrow{G_{V,Z}}
\CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z).
\]
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:abstractTensProd}
\index{terms}{tensor product}
With the notation from \autoref{pgr:abstractTensProd}, we say that the pair $(V,\varphi)$ is a \emph{tensor product} of $X$ and $Y$ in the enriched category $\CatC$ if $\Phi$ is a natural isomorphism, that is, if
\[
\Phi_Z\colon\CatCMor(V,Z)\to\CatCBimor(X\times Y,Z)
\]
is a $\CatV_0$-isomorphism for each object $Z$ in $\CatC$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:abstractTensProd}
We retain the notation from \autoref{pgr:abstractTensProd}.
Recall that a representation of a $\CatV$-functor $F\colon\CatC\to\CatV$ is an object $V$ in $\CatC$ together with a natural isomorphism $\Phi$ from the representable functor $\CatCMor(V,\freeVar)$ to $F$.
Thus, a tensor product $(V,\varphi)$ for $X$ and $Y$ induces a representation $(V,\Phi)$ of the $\CatV$-functor $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)$.
Conversely, assume that the $\CatV$-functor $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)$ is represented by the object $V$ and the natural isomorphism $\Phi$.
Then $\Phi_V$ is a $\CatV_0$-isomorphism
\[
\Phi_V\colon\CatCMor(V,V)\xrightarrow{\cong}\CatCBimor(X\times Y,V).
\]
Under this isomorphism, the identity element $\id_V\in\CatCMor(V,V)$ corresponds to an element $\varphi\in\CatCBimor(X\times Y,V)$.
It is straightforward to check that $(V,\varphi)$ induces the $\CatV$-natural isomorphism $(V,\Phi)$.
Thus, $(V,\varphi)$ is a tensor product of $X$ and $Y$.
To summarize, we have a natural correspondence between the following classes:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
Concrete tensor products $(V,\varphi)$ of $X$ and $Y$, where $V$ is an object in $\CatC$, and where $\varphi$ is an element in $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,V)$.
\item
Representations of the $\CatV$-functor $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)$.
\end{enumerate}
Any two tensor products of $X$ and $Y$ are isomorphic, and hence the notation $X\otimes Y$ is unambiguous.
We also write $X\otimes_{\CatC}Y$ if we need to specify the category where the tensor product is taken.
\end{rmk}
\begin{exa}
\label{exa:tensProdCa}
Consider the category $\CatCa$ of \ca{s}, which is enriched over $\CatCGHTop$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}, and consider the $\CatCa$-bimorphism functor
\[
\CatCaBimor(A\times B,\freeVar)\colon \CatCa \to \CatCGHTop
\]
from \autoref{exa:bimorphismFctr}.
Let $A\tensMax B$ denote the maximal tensor product of $A$ and $B$;
we refer the reader to \cite[\S~II.9]{Bla06OpAlgs} for an introduction and details of the rich theory of tensor products of \ca{s}.
Consider the map
\[
\varphi_{A,B}\colon A\times B \to A\tensMax B,\quad
(a,b)\mapsto a\otimes b,\quad
\txtFA a\in A, b\in B.
\]
It is easy to see that $\varphi_{A,B}$ is a $\CatCa$-bimorphism.
For each \ca{} $C$, the assignment
\[
\CatCaMor(A\tensMax B,C) \to \CatCaBimor(A\times B,C),
\]
defined by mapping $\tau\in\CatCaMor(A\tensMax B,C)$ to $\tau\circ\varphi_{A,B}$,
is a homeomorphism, that is, an isomorphism in $\CatCGHTop$.
This means that the maximal tensor product of \ca{s} represents the $\CatCa$-bimorphism functor.
\end{exa}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:functorialityTensor}
Let $\CatC$ be a category that is enriched over $\CatV$.
Assume that $\CatC$ has a bimorphism functor that is also functorial in the first two variables.
This means there is a $\CatV$-multifunctor
\[
\CatCBimor(\freeVar\times\freeVar,\freeVar)\colon\CatC^\op\times\CatC^\op\times\CatC\to\CatV.
\]
Let us also assume that $\CatC$ has tensor products, that is, for any objects $X$ and $Y$ in $\CatC$ there are an object $X\otimes Y$ in $\CatC$ and a universal bimorphism
\[
\varphi_{X,Y}\in\CatCBimor(X\times Y,X\otimes Y).
\]
Functoriality of $\CatCBimor(\freeVar\times\freeVar,\freeVar)$ in the first two variables induces a $\CatV$-bifunctor
\[
\otimes\colon\CatC\times\CatC\to\CatC.
\]
A pair $(X,Y)$ in $\CatC\times\CatC$ is sent to the object $X\otimes Y$ in $\CatC$.
Given objects $X,X',Y$, and $Y'$ in $\CatC$, the required $\CatV_0$-morphism
\[
\CatCMor(X,X')\otimes\CatCMor(Y,Y')\to\CatCMor(X\otimes Y,X'\otimes Y')
\]
is obtained as the following composition, where the first morphism is obtained using that $\CatCBimor(\freeVar\times\freeVar,X'\otimes Y')$ is a (contravariant) $\CatV$-bifunctor, the second morphism is obtained by applying the $\CatV_0$-morphism $\varphi_{X',Y'}\colon I \to \CatCBimor(X'\times Y', X'\otimes Y')$ in the first variable to the internal hom-bifunctor, the first isomorphism is a natural isomorphism for closed monoidal categories and the second and last isomorphism is obtained using that $X\otimes Y$ represents the functor $\CatCBimor(X\times Y,\freeVar)$:
\begin{align*}
\CatCMor(X,X')\otimes\CatCMor(Y,Y')
&\to
\CatCBimor(X\times Y,X'\otimes Y')^{\CatCBimor(X'\times Y',X'\otimes Y')} \\
&\to
\CatCBimor(X\times Y,X'\otimes Y')^{I} \\
&\cong \CatCBimor(X\times Y,X'\otimes Y')
\cong \CatCMor(X\otimes Y,X'\otimes Y').
\end{align*}
\end{pgr}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{The tensor product in \texorpdfstring{$\CatPreW$}{PreW}}
\label{sec:tensProdPreW}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:enrichmentPreW}
Let us show that $\CatPreW$ is enriched over the closed, monoidal category $\CatPom$.
Given $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} $S$ and $T$, recall that we denote by $\CatWMor(S,T)$ the set of $\CatW$-morphisms from $S$ to $T$.
Equipped with pointwise order and addition, $\CatWMor(S,T)$ has the natural structure of a \pom.
Given $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} $S,T$ and $R$, it is easy to see that the composition of morphisms
\[
C_{S,T,R}\colon\CatWMor(T,R)\times\CatWMor(S,T)\to\CatWMor(S,R),\quad
(g,f)\mapsto g\circ f
\]
is a $\CatPom$-bimorphism.
By \autoref{prp:tensorPom}, $C_{S,T,R}$ factors through the $\CatPom$-tensor product.
This means that there exists a $\CatPom$-morphism
\[
M_{S,T,R}\colon\CatWMor(T,R)\otimes_{\CatPom}\CatWMor(S,T)\to\CatWMor(S,R)
\]
such that $g\circ f=M_{S,T,R}(g\otimes f)$ for every $g\in\CatWMor(T,R)$ and $f\in\CatWMor(S,T)$.
One can prove that this structure defines an enrichment of $\CatPreW$ over $\CatPom$.
Since the categories $\CatW$ and $\CatCu$ are full subcategories of $\CatPreW$, they inherit the enrichment over $\CatPom$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:enrichmentW-Cu}
The categories $\CatPreW$, $\CatW$ and $\CatCu$ are enriched over the category $\CatPom$.
Moreover, the reflection functors $\mu\colon\CatPreW\to\CatW$
and $\gamma\colon\CatPreW\to\CatCu$, from \autoref{pgr:WreflectivePreW} and \autoref{prp:CureflectivePreW}, are $\CatPom$-functors.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We have already observed in \autoref{pgr:enrichmentPreW} that the three categories are enriched over $\CatPom$.
In order to show that the reflection functor $\gamma\colon\CatPreW\to\CatCu$ is compatible with the enrichment, let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s}. We need to define a $\CatPom$-morphism
\[
\gamma_{S,T}\colon\CatWMor(S,T) \to \CatCuMor(\gamma(S),\gamma(T)).
\]
Let $\alpha_T\colon T\to\gamma(T)$ be the $\CatCu$-completion of $T$; see \autoref{dfn:Cuification}.
Given $f$ in $\CatWMor(S,T)$, we consider the composition $\alpha_T\circ f\colon S\to\gamma(T)$.
Using this assignment at the first step, and using \autoref{thm:Cuification} to obtain the natural identification at the second step, we obtain the following composition:
\[
\CatWMor(S,T) \to \CatWMor(S,\gamma(T))
\xrightarrow{\cong} \CatCuMor(\gamma(S),\gamma(T)).
\]
It is easy to see that these maps respect the $\CatPom$-structure of the involved morphism sets.
It is then straightforward to check that $\gamma$ is a $\CatPom$-functor.
Analogously, one shows that $\mu$ preserves is a $\CatPom$-functor.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:bimorPreW}
\index{terms}{W-bimorphism@$\CatW$-bimorphism}
\index{terms}{W-bimorphism@$\CatW$-bimorphism!generalized}
Let $S$, $T$ and $R$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s}, and let $f\colon S\times T\to R$ be a $\CatPom$-bimorphism.
We say that $f$ is a \emph{$\CatW$-bimorphism} if it satisfies the following conditions:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
The map $f$ is continuous in the following sense:
For every $a\in S$, $b\in T$, and $r\in R$ satisfying $r\prec f(a,b)$, there exist $a'\in S$ and $b'\in T$ such that $a'\prec a$, $b'\prec b$, and $r\leq f(a',b')$.
\item
If $a'\prec a$ and $b'\prec b$, then $f(a',b')\prec f(a,b)$, for any $a',a\in S$ and $b',b\in T$.
\end{enumerate}
We denote the set of all $\CatW$-bimorphisms by $\CatWBimor(S\times T,R)$.
If the $\CatPom$-bimorphism $f$ is only required to satisfy condition \enumCondition{1}, then we call it a \emph{generalized $\CatW$-bi\-morphism}.
We denote the collection of all generalized $\CatW$-bimorphisms by $\CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R}$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:bimorPreW}
Let $S$, $T$ and $R$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s}, and let $f\colon S\times T\to R$ be a $\CatPom$-bimorphism.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The map $f$ is a generalized $\CatW$-bimorphism.
\item
In each variable, $f$ is a generalized $\CatW$-morphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
To show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, fix an element $b\in T$ and consider the map $f_b\colon S\to R$ given by $f_b(a)=f(a,b)$
for $a\in S$.
This map is clearly a $\CatPom$-morphism.
In order to show that it is continuous, let $a\in S$ and $r\in R$ satisfy $r\prec f(a,b)$.
We need to find $a'\in S$ such that $a'\prec a$ and $r\leq f(a',b)$.
By assumption we can choose $a'\in S$ and $b'\in T$ such that
\[
a'\prec a,\quad
b'\prec b,\quad
r\leq f(a',b').
\]
Since $f(a',b')\leq f(a',b)$, we see that $a'$ has the desired properties.
The analogous result holds in the second variable.
To show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}, let $a\in S$, $b\in T$, and $r\in R$ satisfy $r\prec f(a,b)$.
Since $R$ satisfies \axiomW{1}, we can choose $\tilde{r}\in R$ such that
\[
r\prec\tilde{r}\prec f(a,b).
\]
Since $f$ is continuous in the first variable, we can find $a'\in S$ with $a'\prec a$ and $\tilde{r}\leq f(a',b)$.
It follows $r\prec f(a',b)$.
Using that $f$ is continuous in the second variable, we obtain an element $b'\in T$ such that $b'\prec b$ and $r\leq f(a',b')$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:bimorPreW}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s}.
Let us show that there is a $\CatPom$-functor
\[
\CatWBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)\colon\CatPreW\to\CatPom.
\]
Given a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{} $R$, the set $\CatWBimor(S\times T,R)$ has a natural structure of a \pom{} when endowed with pointwise addition and order.
This defines an assignment from the objects in $\CatPreW$ to the objects in $\CatPom$.
Moreover, given $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} $R$ and $R'$, we define a $\CatPom$-morphism
\[
\CatWBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)_{R,R'}\colon\CatWMor(R,R')\to \CatPomMor\left( \vphantom{A^A} \CatWBimor(S\times T,R),\CatWBimor(S\times T,R') \right),
\]
as follows:
A $\CatW$-morphism $f\in\CatWMor(R,R')$ is sent to the $\CatPom$-morphism
\[
\CatWBimor(S\times T,R)\to\CatWBimor(S\times T,R'),\quad
\tau\mapsto f\circ\tau,\quad
\txtFA \tau\in\CatWBimor(S\times T, R).
\]
It is straightforward to check that this defines a $\CatPom$-functor.
In \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW}, we show that the bimorphism functor is representable.
\end{pgr}
\begin{pgr}[Auxiliary relation on (bi)morphism sets]
\index{terms}{auxiliary relation!on (bi)morphism sets}
\label{pgr:auxiliaryMor}
Let $S$, $T$ and $R$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s}.
We define an auxiliary relation $\prec$ on the set $\CatWGenMor{S,T}$ of generalized $\CatW$-morphisms as follows:
Given $f,g\in\CatWGenMor{S,T}$, we set $f\prec g$ if and only if $a'\prec a$ implies $f(a')\prec g(a)$, for any $a',a\in S$.
Similarly, we define an auxiliary relation $\prec$ on the set $\CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R}$ of generalized $\CatW$-bimorphisms as follows:
Given $f,g\in\CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R}$, we set $f\prec g$ if and only if $a'\prec a$ and $b'\prec b$ implies $f(a',b')\prec f(a,b)$, for any $a',a\in S$ and $b',b\in T$.
We have
\[
\CatWMor(S,T)=\left\{ f\in\CatWGenMor{S,T} : f\prec f \right\},
\]
and
\[
\CatWBimor(S\times T,R)=\left\{ f\in \CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R} : f\prec f \right\}.
\]
In this way, we can think of the $\CatW$-(bi)morphisms as the `compact' generalized $\CatW$-(bi)morphisms.
It is clear that the auxiliary relation $\prec$ on $\CatWGenMor{S,T}$ satisfies \axiomW{3}.
In some cases, $\prec$ also satisfies \axiomW{1} and \axiomW{4}, but this seems not to be the case in general.
Thus, we warn the reader that the pair $(\CatWGenMor{S,T},\prec)$ is not necessarily a $\CatPreW$-semigroup.
The same remark applies to $(\CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R},\prec)$.
\end{pgr}
The following \autoref{dfn:tensProdAuxRelHelping} and \autoref{lma:tensProdAuxRelHelping} are rather technical, but they contain the necessary details to define an auxiliary relation on the $\CatPom$-tensor product $S\otimes_{\CatPom}T$ of two $\CatPreW$-semigroups $S$ and $T$.
The idea is that for simple tensors in $S\otimes_{\CatPom}T$ we have $a'\otimes b'\prec a\otimes b$ whenever $a'\prec a$ and $b'\prec b$.
For the next definition, we need to recall some notation for the construction of tensor products in $\CatPom$ from \autoref{prp:tensorPom}.
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPom$-semigroups.
We denote by $S^\times$ the submonoid of $S$ consisting of nonzero elements.
We consider the congruence relation $\cong$ from \autoref{pgr:tensorMonConstr} on the free abelian monoid $F:=\N[S^\times \times T^\times]$.
Recall that a congruence is (by definition) an additive equivalent relation.
Then $S\otimes_\CatMon T := F/\!\!\cong$ is the tensor product of the underlying monoids.
Further, recall the binary relation $\leq'$ on $F$ from \autoref{pgr:tensorPrePomConstr}.
Let $\leq$ be the relation on $F$ generated by $\cong$ and $\leq'$.
Then $\leq$ is a pre-order on $F$.
Recall from \autoref{pgr:tensorMonConstr} that for elements $a\in S^\times$ and $b\in T^\times$, we write $a\odot b$ for the generator in $F$ indexed by $(a,b)$.
For every $f\in F$, there exist a finite set $I$ and pairs $(a_i,b_i)\in S^\times\times T^\times$, for $i\in I$, satisfying $f=\sum_{i\in I}a_i\odot b_i$.
Note that we do not require that $a_i$ and $a_j$ are distinct for different indices $i$ and $j$.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:tensProdAuxRelHelping}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s}.
We define a relation $\lessdot$ on the free abelian monoid $F:=\N[S^\times\times T^\times]$ as follows:
For $f$ and $g=\sum_{j\in J} a_j\odot b_j$ in $F$ we set $f\lessdot g$ if and only if there exist a subset $J'\subset J$, and elements $a_j'\in S^\times$ and $b_j'\in T^\times$ for $j\in J'$ such that
\[
f \leq \sum_{j\in J'} a_j'\odot b_j',\quad\text{ and }\quad
a_j'\prec a_j,\, b_j'\prec b_j,
\]
for every $j\in J'$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{lma}
\label{lma:tensProdAuxRelHelping}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroups, and let $f,f',g,g',h\in F=\N[S^\times\times T^\times]$ .
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $f\lessdot g$, then $f\leq g$.
\item \label{part2}
If $f'\leq f\lessdot g$, then $f'\lessdot g$.
\item
If $f\lessdot g\leq g'$, then $f\lessdot g'$.
\item
We have $0\lessdot f$.
\item
For each $g$ in $F$, there exists a sequence $(g_k)_{k\in \N}$ in $F$ such that $g_k\lessdot g_{k+1}\lessdot g$ for each $k\in \N$ and such that, for any $f\in F$ satisfying $f\lessdot g$, there exists an index $k\in \N$ with $f\leq g_k$.
\item
If $f\lessdot g$ and $f'\lessdot g'$, then $f+f'\lessdot g+g'$.
\item
If $f,g$ and $h$ in $F$ satisfy $h\lessdot f+g$, then there exist $f_0$ and $g_0$ in $F$ such that $h\leq f_0+g_0$, $f_0\lessdot f$, and $g_0\lessdot g$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Statements \enumStatement{1}, \enumStatement{2}, \enumStatement{4} and \enumStatement{6} are straightforward to show.
To prove \enumStatement{7}, let $f,g,h\in F$ satisfy $h\lessdot f+g$.
Choose finite disjoint index sets $I_1$ and $I_2$, and elements $a_i\in S^\times$ and $b_i\in T^\times$ for $i\in I_1\cup I_2$ such that
\[
f= \sum_{i\in I_1} a_i\odot b_i,\quad
g= \sum_{i\in I_2} a_i\odot b_i.
\]
Since $h\lessdot f+g$, we can choose a subset $I'\subset I_1\cup I_2$, and elements $a_i'\in S^\times$ and $b_i'\in T^\times$ for $i\in I'$ such that
\[
h \leq \sum_{i\in I'} a_i'\odot b_i',\quad\text { and }\quad
a_i'\prec a_i,\, b_i'\prec b_i
\]
for each $i\in I'$.
Set
\[
f_0 := \sum_{i\in I_1\cap I'} a_i'\odot b_i',\quad
g_0 := \sum_{i\in I_2\cap I'} a_i'\odot b_i'.
\]
Then it is easy to check that
\[
h\leq f_0+g_0,\quad
f_0\lessdot f,\quad
g_0\lessdot g,
\]
as desired.
Next, let us show \enumStatement{3}. To this end, let $f,g,g'\in F$ satisfy $f\lessdot g\leq g'$.
Since the relation $\leq$ is the transitive closure of the relation generated by $\rightarrow$, $\leftarrow$ and $\leq'$, it is enough to consider the cases where $g\rightarrow g'$, or $g\leftarrow g'$, or $g\leq' g'$.
We may assume that $f,g$ and $g'$ are nonzero.
Using statements \enumStatement{6} and \enumStatement{7}, it is furthermore enough to consider the following cases (recall that $a\odot b+c\odot b$ is not being identified with $(a+b)\odot c$):
Case 1:
Assume $g\rightarrow^0 g'$.
Choose elements $a\in S^\times$, $b\in T^\times$, nonempty finite index sets $J$ and $K$, elements $a_j\in S^\times$, for $j\in J$, and elements $b_k\in T^\times$, for $k\in K$, such that
\[
a =\sum_{j\in J}a_j,\quad
b =\sum_{k\in K}b_k,\quad
g = a\odot b,\quad
g' = \sum_{j\in J, k\in K} a_j\odot b_k.
\]
Since $f\lessdot g$ we can choose elements $a'\in S^\times$ and $b'\in T^\times$ such that
\[
f \leq a'\odot b',\quad
a'\prec a,\quad
b'\prec b.
\]
Using that $S$ satisfies \axiomW{4} and that $a'\prec a = \sum_{j\in J}a_j$, we obtain elements $a_j'\in S$, for $j\in J$, such that $a'\leq \sum_{j\in J}a_j'$, and $a_j'\prec a_j$ for each $j\in J$.
Similarly, we obtain elements $b_k'\in T$, for $k\in K$, such that
$b'\leq \sum_{k\in K}b_k'$ and $b_k'\prec b_k$ for each $k\in K$.
Set $J':=\{j\in J : a_j'\neq 0\}$ and $K':=\{k\in K : b_k'\neq 0\}$.
Then it is easy to check that
\[
f \leq \sum_{j\in J',k\in K'}a_j'\odot b_k'.
\]
This shows that $f\lessdot g'$, as desired.
Case 2:
Assume $g\prescript{0}{}{\leftarrow} g'$.
Choose elements $a\in S^\times$, $b\in T^\times$, nonempty finite index sets $J$ and $K$, elements $a_j\in S^\times$, for $j\in J$, and elements $b_k\in T^\times$, for $k\in K$, such that
\[
a =\sum_{j\in J}a_j,\quad
b =\sum_{k\in K}b_k,\quad
g = \sum_{j\in J, k\in K} a_j\odot b_k,\quad
g' = a\odot b.
\]
Since $f\lessdot g$ we can choose a subset $L\subset J\times K$, elements $a_{j,k}'\in S^\times$ and $b_{j,k}'\in T^\times$, for $(j,k)\in L$, such that
\[
f \leq \sum_{(j,k)\in L} a_{j,k}'\odot b_{j,k}'\]
and $a_{j,k}'\prec a_j$, $b_{j,k}'\prec b_k$ for each $(j,k)\in L$.
For each $j^\sharp\in J$ and $k^\sharp\in K$ set
\[
K_{j^\sharp} := \left\{ k\in K : (j^\sharp,k)\in L \right\},\quad
J_{k^\sharp} := \left\{ j\in J : (j,k^\sharp)\in L \right\}.
\]
Moreover, set
\[
J' := \left\{ j^\sharp\in J : K_{j^\sharp}\neq\emptyset \right\},\quad
K' := \left\{ k^\sharp\in K : J_{k^\sharp}\neq\emptyset \right\}.
\]
Let $j^\sharp\in J'$.
For each $k\in K_{j^\sharp}$, we have $a_{j^\sharp,k}'\prec a_{j^\sharp}$.
Using that $S$ satisfies \axiomW{1}, choose an element $a_{j^\sharp}'\in S$ such that $a_{j^\sharp}'\prec a_{j^\sharp}$ and $a_{j^\sharp,k}'\leq a_{j^\sharp}'$ for each $k\in K_{j^\sharp}$.
Note that $a_{j^\sharp}'$ is necessarily nonzero.
Similarly, for each $k^\sharp\in K'$ choose an element $b_{k^\sharp}'\in T^\times$ such that $b_{k^\sharp}'\prec b_{k^\sharp}$ and $b_{j,k^\sharp}'\leq b_{k^\sharp}'$ for each $j\in J_{k^\sharp}$.
It follows
\[
f \leq \sum_{(j,k)\in L}a_{j,k}'\odot b_{j,k}'
\leq' \sum_{(j,k)\in L}a_j'\odot b_k'.
\]
Set $a' := \sum_{j\in J'} a_j'$ and $b' := \sum_{k\in K'} b_k'$.
Since $S$ and $T$ satisfy \axiomW{3}, we get $a'\prec a$ and $b'\prec b$.
Then
\[
f \leq \sum_{(j,k)\in L}a_j'\odot b_k'
\leq \sum_{(j,k)\in J'\times K'}a_j'\odot b_k'
\cong a'\odot b'
\lessdot a\odot b=g'.
\]
By part \ref{part2} of the present lemma, we conclude that $f\lessdot g'$, as desired.
Case 3:
Assume $g\leq^0 g'$.
Choose elements $a,\tilde{a}\in S^\times$ and $b,\tilde{b}\in T^\times$ with
\[
a\leq \tilde{a},\quad
b\leq \tilde{b},\quad
g = a\odot b,\quad
g' = \tilde{a}\odot \tilde{b}.
\]
Since $f\lessdot g$, we can choose elements $a'\in S^\times$ and $b'\in T^\times$ such that
\[
f \leq a'\odot b',\quad
a'\prec a,\quad
b'\prec b.
\]
Since $\prec$ is an auxiliary relation for $S$ and $T$, we deduce $a'\prec\tilde{a}$ and $b'\prec\tilde{b}$.
Therefore, we immediately get $f\lessdot g'$, as desired.
Finally, let us prove \enumStatement{5}.
Let $g=\sum_{i\in I} a_i\odot b_i\in F$.
Given $a\in S$, we write $a^\prec$ for the set $\left\{x\in S : x\prec a \right\}$, and similarly for elements in $T$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomW{1}, for each $i\in I$ we can choose a sequence $(a_{i,k})_{k\in\N}$ in $S$ that is cofinal in $a_i^\prec$ and such that $a_{i,k}\prec a_{i,k+1}$ for each $k$.
Similarly, for each $i$ we choose a $\prec$-increasing sequence $(b_{i,k})_{k\in\N}$ in $T$ that is cofinal in $b_i^\prec$.
Set
\[
I' := \left\{ i\in I : a_i^\prec\neq\{0\}, b_i^\prec\neq\{0\} \right\}.
\]
For $i\in I\setminus I'$ we have $a_{i,k}=0$ for each $k\in\N$ or $b_{i,k}=0$ for each $k\in\N$.
For $i\in I'$, we may assume that $a_{i,k}$ and $b_{i,k}$ are nonzero for each $k\in\N$.
Then we set
\[
g_k := \sum_{i\in I'} a_{i,k}\odot b_{i,k},
\]
which is an element of $F$.
We clearly have $g_k\lessdot g_{k+1}$, for each $k$.
Let $f\in F$ satisfy $f\lessdot g$.
We need to show that there is $n\in\N$ such that $f\leq g_n$.
Since $f\lessdot g$, we can choose a subset $J\subset I$, and elements $a_j'\in S^\times$ and $b_j'\in T^\times$ for $j\in J$ such that
\[
f \leq \sum_{j\in J} a_j'\odot b_j',\quad\text{ and }\quad
a_j'\prec a_j,\, b_j'\prec b_j,
\]
for each $j\in J$.
Note that $J$ is necessarily a subset of $I'$.
Since $S$ and $T$ satisfy \axiomW{1}, for each $j\in J$ we we choose indices $k(j),l(j)\in\N$ such that
\[
a_j'\leq a_{j,k(j)},\quad
b_j'\leq b_{j,l(j)}.
\]
Set
\[
n := \max\left\{ k(j), l(j) : j\in J \right\}.
\]
Then
\[
f \leq \sum_{j\in J} a_j'\odot b_j'
\leq \sum_{j\in J} a_{j,n}\odot b_{j,n}
\leq \sum_{i\in I'} a_{i,n}\odot b_{i,n}
= g_n,
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
For the next definition, recall that for $\CatPreW$-semigroups $S$ and $T$, and for an element $f\in F:=\N[S^\times\times T^\times]$, we denote the congruence class of $f$ in $S\otimes_\CatPom T=F/\!\!\cong$ by $[f]$.
\begin{dfn}[Auxiliary relation on $S\otimes_{\CatPom}T$]
\index{terms}{auxiliary relation!on $S\otimes_{\CatPom}T$}
\label{dfn:tensProdAuxRel}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPreW$-semi\-groups, and let $\lessdot$ be the relation on $\N[S^\times\times T^\times]$ introduced in \autoref{dfn:tensProdAuxRelHelping}.
We let $\prec$ be the binary relation on the tensor product $S\otimes_\CatPom T$ of the underlying \pom{s} that is induced by $\lessdot$.
That is, given $x,y\in S\otimes_\CatPom T$ we set $x\prec y$ if and only if there exist representatives $f,g\in \N[S^\times\times T^\times]$ such that $x=[f]$, $y=[g]$, and $f\lessdot g$.
\end{dfn}
\index{terms}{tensor product!in $\CatPreW$}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:tensProdPreW}
\index{symbols}{$\otimes_{\CatPreW}$}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s}.
Let
\[
\omega\colon S\times T\to S\otimes_\CatPom T
\]
be the tensor product of the underlying \pom{s}, as constructed in \autoref{prp:tensorPom}.
Then the relation $\prec$ on $S\otimes_\CatPom T$ from \autoref{dfn:tensProdAuxRel} is an auxiliary relation and $(S\otimes_\CatPom T,\prec)$ is a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{}, denoted by $S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T$.
Moreover, the map $\omega$ is a $\CatW$-bimorphism.
Furthermore, for every $\CatPreW$-semigroup{} $R$, the following universal properties hold:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
For every (generalized) $\CatW$-bimorphism $f\colon S\times T\to R$, there exists a (generalized) $\CatW$-morphism $\tilde{f}\colon S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T\to R$ such that $f=\tilde{f}\circ\omega$.
\item
We have $g_1\circ\omega\leq g_2\circ\omega$ if and only if $g_1\leq g_2$, for any generalized $\CatW$-morphisms $g_1,g_2\colon S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T \to R$.
\item
We have $g_1\circ\omega\prec g_2\circ\omega$ if and only if $g_1\prec g_2$, for any generalized $\CatW$-morphisms $g_1,g_2\colon S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T \to R$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus, for every $\CatPreW$-semigroup $R$, we obtain the commutative diagram below.
In the top row, the assignment $w^\ast\colon f\mapsto f\circ\omega$ is an isomorphism of the sets of generalized $\CatW$-(bi)morphisms with their structure as \pom{s} and with their additional auxiliary relations from \autoref{pgr:auxiliaryMor}.
When restricting to $\CatW$-(bi)mor\-phisms, as in the bottom row of the diagram, the map $\omega$ induces a $\CatPom$-isomorphism $\omega^*$ of the respective $\CatW$-(bi)morphisms sets.
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@M+3pt{
\CatWGenMor{S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T,R} \ar[r]^{w^*}
& \CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R} \\
\CatWMor(S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T,R) \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[r]^<<<<{w^*}
& \CatWBimor(S\times T,R). \ar@{^{(}->}[u]
}
\]
In particular, the pair ($S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T$, $\omega$) represents the bimorphism $\CatPom$-functor $\CatWBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Set $F:=\N[S^\times\times T^\times]$, and let $\leq$ be the pre-order on $F$ introduced in \autoref{pgr:tensorPrePomConstr}.
Let $\sim$ be the binary relation on $F$ defined by $f\sim g$ if and only if $f\leq g$ and $g\leq f$.
Then $\sim$ is a congruence relation on $F$ and $S\otimes_\CatPom T = F/\!\!\sim$.
Given $f\in F$, we denote by $[f]$ the congruence class of $f$ in $S\otimes_\CatPom T$.
Let $\lessdot$ be the relation on $F$ from \autoref{dfn:tensProdAuxRelHelping}.
It follows from statements \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} in \autoref{lma:tensProdAuxRelHelping} that $\lessdot$ only depends on the $\sim$-equivalence class of elements in $F$.
Thus, for every $x,y\in S\otimes_\CatPom T$ the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $x\prec y$ in the sense of \autoref{dfn:tensProdAuxRel}, that is, there are $f,g\in F$ such that $x=[f]$, $y=[g]$ and $f\lessdot g$.
\item
For each $f,g\in F$ satisfying $x=[f]$ and $y=[g]$, we have $f\lessdot g$.
\end{enumerate}
It follows easily from \enumStatement{1}-\enumStatement{4} in \autoref{lma:tensProdAuxRelHelping} that $\prec$ is an auxiliary relation on $S\otimes_\CatPom T$.
Moreover, statements \enumStatement{5}-\enumStatement{7} in \autoref{lma:tensProdAuxRelHelping} imply that $(S\otimes_\CatPom T,\prec)$ satisfies \axiomW{1}, \axiomW{3} and \axiomW{4}, showing that it is a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{}, denoted by $S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T$.
Let us show that the map
\[
\omega\colon S\times T\to S\otimes_\CatPreW T
\]
is a $\CatW$-bimorphism.
It is clear that $\omega$ is a $\CatPom$-bimorphism respecting the auxiliary relations.
Thus, it remains to show that $\omega$ is continuous in the sense of \autoref{dfn:bimorPreW}.
To this end, let $a\in S$, $b\in T$, and $x\in S\otimes_\CatPreW T$ satisfy $x\prec \omega(a,b)$.
We may assume that $a,b$, and $x$ are nonzero.
Then $f= a\odot b$ is an element in $F$ such that $\omega(a,b) = [f]$.
By the equivalent conditions stated above, and since $x\prec [f]$, we can choose $f'\in F$ such that $x\leq [f']$ and $f'\lessdot f$.
Therefore, by definition of the relation $\lessdot$ and since $x$ is nonzero, we can choose elements $a'\in S^\times$ and $b'\in T^\times$ such that
\[
f'\leq a'\odot b',\quad
a'\prec a,\quad
b'\prec b.
\]
Then
\[
x\leq [f']\leq [a'\odot b'] = \omega(a',b'),
\]
showing that $a'$ and $b'$ have the desired properties to verify the continuity of $\omega$.
Let $\mathfrak{F}\colon\CatPreW\to\CatPom$ be the forgetful functor, which associates to a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{} $X$ the underlying \pom\ (also denoted by $X$, by abuse of notation).
It is clear that $\mathfrak{F}$ is faithful.
Given $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} $X,Y$, and $Z$, the functor $\mathfrak{F}$ induces maps
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{F}_{X,Y} &\colon \CatWGenMor{X,Y} \to \CatPomMor(X,Y), \\
\mathfrak{F}_{X\times Y,Z} &\colon \CatWGenBimor{X\times Y, Z} \to \CatPomBimor(X\times Y, Z),
\end{align*}
by mapping a generalized $\CatW$-(bi)morphism to the same map considered as a $\CatPom$-(bi)morphism. It is clear that $\mathfrak{F}_{X,Y}$ and $\mathfrak{F}_{X\times Y,Z}$ are order embeddings when the respective (bi)morphism sets are equipped with their natural structure as \pom{s}.
To check the universal properties, let $R$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{}.
Consider the map
\[
\Omega_R\colon\CatPomMor(S\otimes_{\CatPom} T,R)\to\CatPomBimor(S\times T,R),\quad
f\mapsto f\circ\omega.
\]
Since $S\otimes_{\CatPom} T$ and $\omega$ have the universal property of a tensor product in $\CatPom$, the map $\Omega_R$ is an isomorphism of the (bi)morphism sets with their structure as objects in $\CatPom$;
see \autoref{prp:tensorPom}.
In particular, $\Omega_R$ is an order-embedding.
Since $\omega$ is also a $\CatW$-bimorphism, the same assignment maps (generalized) $\CatW$-morphisms to (generalized) $\CatW$-bimorphisms.
We denote this map by
\[
\Phi_R\colon \CatWGenMor{S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T,R} \to\CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R},\quad
f\mapsto f\circ\omega.
\]
We have a commutative diagram of $\CatPom$-morphisms:
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@M+3pt{
\CatPomMor(S\otimes_{\CatPom} T,R) \ar[r]^{\Omega_R}
& \CatPomBimor(S\times T,R) \\
\CatWGenMor{S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T,R} \ar[r]^{\Phi_R} \ar@{^{(}->}[u]^{\mathfrak{F}_{S\otimes T,R}}
& \CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R} \ar@{^{(}->}[u]_{\mathfrak{F}_{S\times T,R}} \\
}
\]
Since $\mathfrak{F}_{S\otimes T,R}$ and $\mathfrak{F}_{S\times T,R}$ are order-embeddings, and since the map $\Omega_R$ is a $\CatPom$-iso\-morphism, it follows that $\Phi_R$ is an order-embedding.
This shows the universal property \enumStatement{2}.
For \enumStatement{1}, we need to show that $\Phi_R$ is surjective.
Thus, let
\[
f\colon S\times T \to R
\]
be a generalized $\CatW$-bimorphism.
Considering $f$ as a $\CatPom$-bimorphism and using that $\Omega_R$ is an isomorphism, there exists a unique $\CatPom$-morphism
\[
\tilde{f}\colon S\otimes_{\CatPom}T\to R
\]
such that $f=\tilde{f}\circ\omega$.
We need to show that $\tilde{f}$ is continuous.
Let $x\in S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T$ and $r\in R$ satisfy $r\prec \tilde{f}(x)$.
We need to find $x'\in S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T$ such that $x'\prec x$ and $r\leq \tilde{f}(x')$.
Choose a finite index set $I$, and elements $a_i\in S$ and $b_i\in T$, for $i\in I$, such that
$x=\sum_{i\in I} a_i\otimes b_i$.
Then
\[
r\prec \tilde{f}(x)
=\sum_{i\in I} \tilde{f}(a_i\otimes b_i).
\]
Using that $R$ satisfies \axiomW{4}, choose elements $r_i$ in $R$, for $i\in I$, such that
\[
r\leq\sum_{i\in I} r_i,\quad\text{ and }\quad
r_i\prec \tilde{f}(a_i\otimes b_i)=f(a_i,b_i)\]
for each $i\in I$.
Since $f$ is continuous, for each $i\in I$ we can choose $a_i'\in S$ and $b_i'\in T$ with
\[
a_i'\prec a_i,\quad
b_i'\prec b_i,\quad
r_i\leq f(a_i',b_i').
\]
Set $x':=\sum_{i\in I} a_i'\otimes b_i'$.
Then $x'\prec x$ and
\[
r\leq\sum_{i\in I} r_i
\leq\sum_{i\in I} f(a_i',b_i')
=\tilde{f}(x'),
\]
as desired.
Finally, to prove \enumStatement{3}, we need to show that for any generalized $\CatW$-morphisms $f$ and $g$ in $\CatWGenMor{S\otimes_\CatPreW T,R}$, we have $f\prec g$ if and only if $\Phi_R(f)\prec\Phi_R(g)$.
This is left to the reader.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}[$\CatPreW$ is a symmetric, monoidal category]
\label{pgr:monoidalPreW}
It is straightforward to check that the bimorphism-functor on $\CatPreW$ from \autoref{pgr:bimorPreW} is also functorial in the first entries.
Thus, we have a $\CatPom$-multifunctor
\[
\CatWBimor(\freeVar\times\freeVar,\freeVar)\colon\CatPreW^\op\times\CatPreW^\op\times\CatPreW\to\CatPom.
\]
By \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW}, the tensor product of two $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} exists.
Therefore, as explained in \autoref{pgr:functorialityTensor}, it follows that the tensor product in $\CatPreW$ induces a $\CatPom$-bifunctor
\[
\otimes\colon \CatPreW\times\CatPreW\to\CatPreW.
\]
We use this to define a monoidal structure on $\CatPreW$.
Recall that the unit object of $\CatPom$ is given by $\N$ with its usual structure as an algebraically ordered monoid.
We equip $\N$ with the auxiliary relation that is equal to the partial order.
Then $\N$ is a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{}.
Let $S$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{}.
Since $\N$ is the unit object of $\CatPom$, there are natural isomorphisms:
\[
\N \otimes_\CatPom S \cong S \cong S\otimes_\CatPom \N.
\]
It is straightforward to check that these isomorphisms preserve the auxiliary relations and are therefore isomorphisms in $\CatPreW$.
Thus, $\N$ is the unit object in $\CatPreW$.
In the same way, associativity and symmetry of the tensor product in $\CatPreW$ follow from the respective properties in $\CatPom$.
\end{pgr}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{The tensor product in \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}}
\label{sec:tensProdCu}
In this section, we will use the construction of tensor products in $\CatPreW$ and the fact that $\CatCu$ is a reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$ to show that the category $\CatCu$ has a symmetric, monoidal structure.
Before we make this concrete in \autoref{prp:tensProdCu}, let us consider the natural notion of bimorphisms in the category $\Cu$; see \cite[Definition~4.3]{AntBosPer13CuFields}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:bimorCu}
\index{terms}{Cu-bimorphism@$\CatCu$-bimorphism}
\index{terms}{Cu-bimorphism@$\CatCu$-bimorphism!generalized}
Let $S, T$, and $R$ be $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}, and let $f\colon S\times T\to R$ be a $\CatPom$-bimorphism.
We say that $f$ is a \emph{$\CatCu$-bimorphism} if it satisfies the following conditions:
\beginEnumConditions
\item
We have $\sup_k f(a_k,b_k) = f(\sup_k a_k, \sup_k b_k)$, for any increasing sequences $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ and $(b_k)_k$ in $T$.
\item
If $a'\ll a$ and $b'\ll b$, then $f(a',b')\ll f(a,b)$, for any $a',a\in S$ and $b',b\in T$.
\end{enumerate}
We denote the set of all $\CatCu$-bimorphisms by $\CatCuBimor(S\times T,R)$.
If $f$ is only required to satisfy condition \enumCondition{1} then we call it a \emph{generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism}.
We denote the collection of all generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphisms by $\CatCuGenBimor{S\times T,R}$.
\end{dfn}
The next result is the analog of \autoref{prp:CuWMor} for (generalized) $\CatCu$-bimorphisms.
It shows that for $\CatCu$-semigroups, the notions of (generalized) $\CatW$-bimorphism and (generalized) $\CatCu$-bimorphism agree.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:bimorCu}
Let $S$, $T$, and $R$ be $\CatCu$-semigroups, and let $f\colon S\times T\to R$ be a $\CatPom$-bimorphism.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The map $f$ is a (generalized) $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
\item
In each variable, $f$ is a (generalized) $\CatCu$-morphism.
\item
The map $f$ is a (generalized) $\CatW$-bimorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
The equivalence of \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} follows by combining \autoref{prp:bimorPreW}, \autoref{prp:CuWMor} and the fact that $\CatCu$ is a full subcategory of $\CatW$ (see \autoref{pgr:CufullW}).
Moreover, it is clear that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}, and the converse is straightforward to show.
\end{proof}
Given $\CatCu$-semigroup{s} $S$ and $T$, the $\CatCu$-bimorphisms from $S\times T$ to a $\CatCu$-semigroup $R$ form a \pom{} under pointwise order and addition. Thus there is a $\CatPom$-functor
\[
\CatCuBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)\colon \CatCu\to\CatPom.
\]
By \autoref{prp:bimorCu}, this functor is just the restriction of the $\CatPom$-functor $\CatWBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)$ from \autoref{pgr:bimorPreW} to the full subcategory $\CatCu$ of $\CatPreW$.
In the next result, we will show that this bimorphism functor is representable.
Given $\CatCu$-semigroups $S,T$, and $R$, we equip the sets $\CatCuGenMor{S,R}$ and $\CatCuGenBimor{S\times T,R}$ with the same auxiliary relation as defined in \autoref{pgr:auxiliaryMor}.
For example, for $f,g\in\CatCuGenMor{S,R}$, we set $f\prec g$ if and only if $a'\ll a$ implies $f(a')\ll g(a)$, for any $a',a\in S$.
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:tensProdCu}
\index{terms}{tensor product!in $\CatCu$}
\index{symbols}{$\otimes_{\CatCu}$}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatCu$-semigroups.
Consider the tensor product
\[
\omega\colon S\times T\to S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T,
\]
as constructed in \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW}.
By applying the completion functor $\gamma$ from \autoref{prp:CuificationExists}, we obtain a $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T)$, which we denote by $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$, and a universal $\CatW$-morphism $\alpha\colon S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T\to S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$.
Then the composed map
\[
\varphi:=\alpha\circ\omega\colon S\times T \xrightarrow{\omega} S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T
\xrightarrow{\alpha} \gamma(S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T)
= S\otimes_{\CatCu}T
\]
is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
For every $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $R$, it satisfies the following universal properties:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
For every (generalized) $\CatCu$-bimorphism $f\colon S\times T\to R$, there exists a (generalized) $\CatCu$-morphism $\tilde{f}\colon S\otimes_{\CatCu} T\to R$ such that $f=\tilde{f}\circ\varphi$.
\item
We have $g_1\circ\varphi\leq g_2\circ\varphi$ if and only if $g_1\leq g_2$, for any generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms $g_1,g_2\colon S\otimes_{\CatCu} T \to R$.
\item
We have $g_1\circ\varphi\prec g_2\circ\varphi$ if and only if $g_1\prec g_2$, for any generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms $g_1,g_2\colon S\otimes_{\CatCu} T \to R$.
\end{enumerate}
Thus, for every $\CatCu$-semigroup $R$, we obtain the commutative diagram below, which is analogous to that in \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW}.
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@M+3pt{
\CatCuGenMor{S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,R} \ar[r]^{\varphi^*}
& \CatCuGenBimor{S\times T,R} \\
\CatCuMor(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,R) \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[r]^<<<<{\varphi^*}
& \CatCuBimor(S\times T,R), \ar@{^{(}->}[u]
}
\]
where $\varphi^*$ is an isomorphism of the respective (bi)morphism sets, given by $\varphi^*(f)=f\circ\varphi$.
In particular, the pair ($S\otimes_{\CatCu} T$, $\varphi$) represents the bimorphism $\CatPom$-functor $\CatCuBimor(S\times T,\freeVar)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $\varphi$ is a $\CatW$-bimorphism. Therefore, it follows from \autoref{prp:bimorCu} that it is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
To check the universal properties, let $R$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
In the diagram below, the horizontal maps on the left (given by composing on the right with $\alpha$) are $\CatPom$-isomorphisms by \autoref{thm:Cuification} and the horizontal maps on the right (given by composing on the right with $\omega$) are $\CatPom$-isomorphisms by \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW}.
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@M+3pt{
\CatCuGenMor{S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,R} \ar[r]^{\alpha^*}
& \CatWGenMor{S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T,R} \ar[r]^-{\omega^*}
& \CatWGenBimor{S\times T,R} \\
\CatCuMor(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,R) \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[r]^-{\alpha^*}
& \CatWMor(S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T,R) \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar[r]^-{\omega^*}
& \CatWBimor(S\times T,R). \ar@{^{(}->}[u]
}
\]
This establishes the universal properties \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2}.
It is also straightforward to check that the isomorphism between $\CatCuGenMor{S\otimes_{\CatCu}T,R}$ and $\CatCuGenBimor{S\times T, R}$ preserves the auxiliary relations, which establishes \enumStatement{3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}[Tensor product in $\CatW$]
\index{terms}{tensor product!in $\CatW$}
\label{rmk:tensProdW}
Analogous to the above \autoref{prp:tensProdCu}, one can construct tensor products in the category $\CatW$.
Given $\CatW$-semigroup{s} $S$ and $T$, one first considers the tensor product $S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T$ in $\CatPreW$.
Then one uses the reflection $\CatPreW\to\CatW$ from \autoref{pgr:WreflectivePreW} to obtain the tensor product in $\CatW$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:tensProdCompl}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatPreW$-semigroups.
Then there is a natural $\CatCu$-isomorphism
\[
\gamma(S)\otimes_{\CatCu}\gamma(T)\cong\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T).
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $R$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
Using \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW} at the first step, and using that $\CatCu$ is a reflective subcategory of $\CatPreW$ at the second step, we have natural isomorphisms of the following (bi)morphism sets
\[
\CatWBimor(S\times T,R)\cong \CatWMor(S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T,R)\cong \CatCuMor(\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T),R).
\]
On the other hand, using \autoref{prp:bimorCu} at the first step, and \autoref{prp:tensProdCu} at the second step, we obtain natural isomorphisms
\[
\CatWBimor(S\times T,R)
\cong\CatCuBimor(\gamma(S)\times\gamma(T),R)
\cong\CatCuMor(\gamma(S)\otimes_{\CatCu}\gamma(T),R).
\]
Hence, the $\CatCu$-semigroups $\gamma(S)\otimes_{\CatCu}\gamma(T)$ and $\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatPreW} T)$ both represent the same functor, which implies that they are naturally isomorphic.
\end{proof}
\index{terms}{tensor product!in $\CatCu$!associative}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:tensProdAssoc}
Let $S,T$, and $R$ be $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}.
Then there is a natural isomorphism:
\[
S\otimes_{\CatCu} (T\otimes_{\CatCu} R)\ \cong\ (S\otimes_{\CatCu} T)\otimes_{\CatCu} R.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Using \autoref{thm:tensProdCompl} at the second and last step, and that $\otimes_{\CatPreW}$ is associative (see \autoref{pgr:monoidalPreW}) at the third step, we obtain
\begin{align*}
S\otimes_{\CatCu} (T\otimes_{\CatCu} R)
&\cong\gamma(S)\otimes_{\CatCu}\gamma(T\otimes_{\CatPreW}R) \\
&\cong\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatPreW}(T\otimes_{\CatPreW}R)) \\
&\cong\gamma((S\otimes_{\CatPreW}T)\otimes_{\CatPreW}R)
\cong (S\otimes_{\CatCu}T)\otimes_{\CatCu}R,
\end{align*}
and all isomorphisms are natural.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}[$\CatCu$ is a symmetric, monoidal category]
\label{pgr:monoidalCu}
Similar as in \autoref{pgr:monoidalPreW}, it follows that tensor product in $\CatCu$ extends to a bifunctor
\[
\otimes\colon \CatCu\times\CatCu \to \CatCu.
\]
We showed in \autoref{prp:tensProdAssoc} that this functor is associative.
Let us show that the $\CatCu$-semigroup $\overline{\N}$ is a unit object for $\CatCu$.
Note that $\overline{\N}$ is the reflection in $\CatCu$ of the unit object $\N$ of $\CatPreW$.
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$.
Using \autoref{thm:tensProdCompl} at the first step, we obtain natural isomorphisms
\[
S\otimes_{\CatCu}\overline{\N}
\cong\gamma(S\otimes_{\CatPreW}\N)
\cong\gamma(S)\cong S,
\]
and analogously $\overline{\N}\otimes_{\CatCu}S\cong S$.
Similarly, symmetry of the tensor product in $\CatCu$ follows from symmetry of the tensor product in $\CatPreW$.
Thus, the category $\CatCu$ has a symmetric, monoidal structure.
\end{pgr}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Examples and Applications}
\label{sec:bimorAppl}
In this subsection, we are mainly concerned with the following problems:
Under which conditions do the axioms \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation pass to tensor products of $\CatCu$-semigroups; see \autoref{prbl:AxiomsTensProd}.
Secondly, for \ca{s} $A$ and $B$, what can we say about the natural $\CatCu$-morphism from $\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B)$ to $\Cu(A\tensMax B)$; see \autoref{prbl:tensCa}.
The following result is a useful tool to solve particular cases of both problems.
\index{terms}{tensor product!in $\CatCu$!continuous}
\index{terms}{tensor product!in $\CatPreW$!continuous}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensLim}
The tensor products in $\CatPreW$ and $\CatCu$ are continuous in each variable.
More precisely, let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I,i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatCu$, and let $T$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
Then there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\CatCuLim (S_i\otimes_{\CatCu} T)
\cong (\CatCuLim S_i)\otimes_{\CatCu} T.
\]
The analogous statement holds for the second variable and for the tensor product in $\CatPreW$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We first note that the tensor product in $\CatPom$ is a continuous functor in each variable, since
$\freeVar\otimes_\CatPom T$ is left adjoint to $\CatPomMor(T,\freeVar)$.
To simplify notation, in the first part of this proof we will write $\otimes$ for $\otimes_{\CatPreW}$ and $\varinjlim$ for $\CatPreWLim$.
Let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatPreW$ indexed over the directed set $I$, and let $T$ be a $\CatPreW$-semigroup{}.
This induces an inductive system $((S_i\otimes T)_{i\in I}, (\varphi_{i,j}\otimes\id_T)_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$.
For $j\in I$, we denote the respective $\CatW$-morphisms into the inductive limits by
\[
\varphi_{j,\infty}\colon S_j\to \varinjlim S_i,\text{ and }
\lambda_{j,\infty}\colon S_j\otimes T\to \varinjlim (S_i\otimes T).
\]
The $\CatW$-morphisms $\varphi_{j,\infty}\otimes\id_T$
induce a $\CatW$-morphism
\[
\psi\colon\varinjlim (S_i\otimes T) \to (\varinjlim S_i)\otimes T
\]
that satisfies $(\psi\circ\lambda_{j,\infty})(s\otimes t)=\varphi_{j,\infty}(s)\otimes t$ for every $j\in I$, $s\in S_j$, and $t\in T$.
These maps are shown in the following commutative diagram:
\[
\xymatrix{
S_j\otimes T \ar[d]_{\lambda_{j,\infty}} \ar[r]^-{\varphi_{j,\infty}\otimes\id_T}
& { (\varinjlim S_i)\otimes T } \\
{ \varinjlim (S_i\otimes T) } \ar[ur]_{\psi}
}
\]
The inductive limit of $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} is simply the inductive limit in $\CatPom$ of the underlying \pom{s} equipped with a natural auxiliary relation; see \autoref{prp:limitsPreW}.
Similarly, the tensor product of two $\CatPreW$-semigroup{s} is the $\CatPom$-tensor product of the underlying \pom{s} equipped with a natural auxiliary relation; see \autoref{prp:tensProdPreW}.
Thus, since the tensor product in $\CatPom$ is continuous in each variable, the map $\psi$ is a $\CatPom$-isomorphism.
Moreover, $\psi$ preserves the auxiliary relation since it is a $\CatW$-morphism.
Hence, to show that $\psi$ is a $\CatW$-isomorphism, it remains to prove that $x\prec y$ whenever $\psi(x)\prec\psi(y)$ for any $x$ and $y$ in the domain of $\psi$.
Given such $x$ and $y$, we can choose an index $i\in I$ and $n\in\N$ and elements $s_k\in S_i$ and $t_k\in T$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$ such that $y=\lambda_{i,\infty}(\sum_{k=1}^n s_k\otimes t_k)$.
Then
\[
\psi(x)\prec\psi(y)=\sum_{k=1}^n\varphi_{i,\infty}(s_k)\otimes t_k.
\]
By definition of the auxiliary relation for tensor products in $\CatPreW$, there are elements $a_k'\in\varinjlim S_i$ and $t_k'\in T$ with $\psi(x)\leq\sum_{k=1}^n a_k'\otimes t_k'$, satisfying
\[
a_k'\prec\varphi_{i,\infty}(s_k), \text{ and } t_k'\prec t_k
\]
for each $k=1,\ldots,n$.
It follows from the definition of the auxiliary relation for inductive limits in $\CatPreW$, that there is an index $j\geq i$ and elements $s_k'\in S_j$ for $k=1,\ldots, n$ such that
\[
a_k'=\varphi_{j,\infty}(s_k'),\text{ and }
s_k'\prec\varphi_{i,j}(s_k)
\]
for each $k=1,\ldots,n$.
Set $y':=\lambda_{j,\infty}(\sum_{k=1}^n s_k'\otimes t_k')$.
Then
\[
\psi(x)
\leq\sum_{k=1}^n a_k'\otimes t_k'
=\sum_{k=1}^n\varphi_{j,\infty}(s_k')\otimes t_k'
=\psi(y').
\]
Since $\psi$ is an order-embedding, we have $x\leq y'$.
It easily follows $y'\prec y$, and thus $x\prec y$, as desired.
Continuity in the second variable is proven analogously.
The result for tensor products in $\CatCu$ follows from that for $\CatPreW$.
More precisely, let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system in $\CatCu$, and let $T$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
Using \autoref{prp:limitsCu} at the first and last steps, using \autoref{thm:tensProdCompl} at the second to last step, and using the result for $\CatPreW$ at the second step, we obtain natural $\CatCu$-isomorphisms:
\begin{align*}
\CatCuLim (S_i\otimes_{\CatCu} T)
&\cong \gamma\left( \CatPreWLim (S_i\otimes_{\CatPreW} T) \right) \\
&\cong \gamma\left( (\CatPreWLim S_i)\otimes_{\CatPreW} T \right) \\
&\cong \gamma\left( \CatPreWLim S_i \right) \otimes_{\CatCu} \gamma(T)
\cong (\CatCuLim S_i) \otimes_{\CatCu} T.
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:AxiomsTensProd}
Given $\CatCu$-semigroups $S$ and $T$ that satisfy \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation).
When does $S\otimes_\CatCu T$ satisfy \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation)?
\end{prbl}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:answersAxiomsTensProd}
In general, \axiomO{5} does not pass to tensor products; see \autoref{prp:tensornotO5}.
However, for given $\CatCu$-semigroups $S$ and $T$, we obtain the following partial positive answers to \autoref{prbl:AxiomsTensProd}:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $S$ or $T$ is an inductive limit of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroups, then each of the axioms \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation pass from $S$ and $T$ to $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$; see \autoref{prp:tensLimSimplicial}.
\item
If $S$ and $T$ are algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroups, then axiom \axiomO{5} passes from $S$ and $T$ to $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$; see \autoref{prp:axiomsTensProdAlgebraic}.
\end{enumerate}
This suggests the following refined version of \autoref{prbl:AxiomsTensProd}:
Does \axiomO{5} pass to tensor products where one of the $\CatCu$-semigroups is algebraic?
Do the axioms pass to tensor products of simple $\CatCu$-semigroups?
\end{pgr}
For the next result, we use $Z$ to denote the semigroup $\N\sqcup(0,\infty]$. Note that $Z$ is the Cuntz semigroup of the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$; see \autoref{pgr:Z}.
We let $\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right)$ denote the set of lower-semicontinuous functions from $[0,1]$ to $\overline{\N}$, which is known to be isomorphic to the Cuntz semigroup of the \ca{} $C([0,1])$;
see \cite{Rob13CuSpaces2D}.
It follows from \autoref{prp:o5o6} that $Z$ and $\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right)$ satisfy \axiomO{5}, but this is also easy to see directly.
The next result shows that \axiomO{5} does in general not pass to tensor products. It requires the use of $Z$-multiplication, a notion that will be defined in \autoref{sec:solidCuSrg} (see also \autoref{sec:ZMod}).
\index{symbols}{Z@$Z$ \quad (Cuntz semigroup of Jiang-Su algebra)}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensornotO5}
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $Z\otimes_{\CatCu}\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right)$ does not satisfy axiom \axiomO{5}.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Consider the $\CatCu$-semigroup $S=\Lsc([0,1],Z)$ which clearly has $Z$-mul\-ti\-pli\-ca\-tion.
Let $S_{00}$ be the smallest submonoid of $S$ containing all elements of the form $z\cdot f$ for $z\in Z$ and $f\in\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right)$.
Let us verify that the assumptions of \autoref{lem:density} are satisfied for $S_{00}$.
Given $z\in Z$ and $f\in\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right)$, we choose rapidly increasing sequences $(z_n)_n$ in $Z$ and $(f_n)_n$ in $\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right)$ such that $z=\sup_n z_n$ and $f=\sup_n f_n$.
Then, as $z_n\ll z_{n+1}$ and $f_n\ll f_{n+1}$ for all $n$, the sequence $(z_n\cdot f_n)_n$ is rapidly increasing and
\[
z\cdot f =\sup_n (z_n\cdot f_n).
\]
Applying \autoref{lem:density}, we obtain that the sup-closure $S_0$ of $S_{00}$ in $S$, denoted by
\[
S_0=\overline{\text{span}}\left\{ z\cdot f : z\in Z, f\in\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right) \right\},
\]
is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
We first show that $S_0$ does not satisfy \axiomO{5}.
Given an open set $U$ in $[0,1]$, we denote by $1_U$ the indicator function of $U$, which is an element in $\Lsc\left( [0,1],\overline{\N} \right)\subset S$.
Given $a\in S$, we let $\supp_\CatSet(a)$ denote the set-theoretic support of $a$, which is open since $a$ is lower semicontinuous.
Set
\[
a':=\tfrac{1}{4}\cdot 1_{(3/4,1]},\quad
a:=\tfrac{1}{2}\cdot 1_{(1/2,1]},\quad
b:=1_{[0,1]}.
\]
These are all elements in $S_0$, and it is clear that $a'\ll a\leq b$.
We claim that there does not exist $c\in S_0$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{prp:tensornotO5:eq1}
a'+c\leq b \leq a+c.
\end{align}
(Note that an element $c$ with this property can easily be found in $S$; in fact, its existence is guaranteed since $S$ is the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca{} and therefore satisfies \axiomO{5}.)
In order to obtain a contradiction, suppose that an element $c\in S_0$ with the above property does exist.
Choose a sequence $(c_n)_n$ in $S_{00}$ such that $c=\sup_n c_n$.
By evaluating the inequality \eqref{prp:tensornotO5:eq1} at each point in $[0,1]$, it is clear that $\supp_\CatSet(c)=[0,1]$.
Since $\supp_\CatSet(c)=\cup_n \supp_\CatSet(c_n)$, there exists $N\in\N$ such that $\supp_\CatSet(c_{N})=[0,1]$.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $N=0$.
By evaluating \eqref{prp:tensornotO5:eq1} at $\tfrac{1}{2}$, we get $c\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)=1$.
Since the element $1$ in $Z$ is compact, it follows from $c\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)=\sup_n c_n\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)$ that there exists $N\in\N$ such that $c_{N}\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)=1$.
Again, without loss of generality, we may assume that $N=0$.
Note that every $f$ in $\Lsc([0,1],\overline{\N})$ has a (canonical) decomposition as $f=\sum_{k=0}^\infty 1_{f^{-1}((k,\infty])}$, where each $f^{-1}((k,\infty])$ is an open set.
Applying this to the element $c_0$, and using that $c_0\leq 1$, we can choose a finite index set $I$, nonempty open subsets $U_{i}\subset [0,1]$ and nonzero elements $z_i\in Z$ for $i\in I$ such that
\[
c_0= \sum_{i\in I} z_{i}\cdot 1_{U_{i}}.
\]
Then $c_0\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)$ is the sum of the elements $z_i$ for which $\tfrac{1}{2}\in U_i$.
Since $1=c_0\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)$ is a minimal compact element in $Z$, and since the noncompact elements in $Z$ are soft and therefore absorbing, we deduce that $\tfrac{1}{2}$ belongs to exactly one of the sets $U_i$.
Let $i_0$ be the unique index in $I$ such that $\tfrac{1}{2}\in U_{i_0}$.
We necessarily have $z_{i_0} = 1$.
Set
\[
V:=U_{i_0},\quad
W:=\bigcup_{i\neq i_0} U_i.
\]
Then $V$ and $W$ are open subset of $[0,1]$.
Since $\supp_\CatSet(c_0)=[0,1]$, it follows that $V\cup W=[0,1]$.
Since $c_0$ is strictly less than $1_{[0,1]}$, the set $V$ is a proper subset of $[0,1]$.
Therefore, the intersection $V\cap W$ is nonempty.
For each $t\in V\cap W$ we have $c_0(t)=1+\sum_{i\neq i_0}z_i1_{U_i}(t)$, with $z_i\neq 0$ for each $i\neq i_0$ and $t\in U_i$ for at least one $i\neq i_0$. Thus $c_0(t)>1$, which clearly is a contradiction. This proves the claim.
Next, consider the map
\[
\tau\colon Z\times \Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)
\to S_0\subset\Lsc([0,1],Z),
\]
defined by $\tau((z,f))= z\cdot f$. It is easy to see that $\tau$ is a $\Cu$-bimorphism.
By \autoref{prp:tensProdCu}, there exists a $\Cu$-morphism
\[
\tilde{\tau} \colon Z\otimes_{\CatCu} \Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)\to S_0,
\]
such that $\tilde{\tau}(z\otimes f)=\tau(z,f)$ for each $z\in Z$ and $f\in\Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)$.
Since $1_{(3/4,1]}\ll 1_{(1/4,1]}\leq 1$ in $\Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)$, and
$\frac{1}{4}\ll \frac{1}{2}\leq 1$ in $Z$, we have
\[
\tfrac{1}{4}\otimes 1_{(3/4,1]}
\ll \tfrac{1}{2}\otimes 1_{(1/2,1]}
\leq 1\otimes 1_{[0,1]},
\]
in $Z\otimes_{\CatCu} \Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)$.
Note that
\[
a' = \tilde{\tau}\left(\tfrac{1}{4}\otimes 1_{(3/4,1]}\right),\quad
a = \tilde{\tau}\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\otimes 1_{(1/2,1]}\right),\quad
b = \tilde{\tau}\left(1\otimes 1_{[0,1]}\right).
\]
Thus, if there existed $d\in Z\otimes_{\Cu}\Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)$ such that
\[
\tfrac{1}{4}\otimes 1_{(3/4,1]} + d
\leq 1\otimes 1_{[0,1]}
\leq \tfrac{1}{2}\otimes 1_{(1/2,1]} +d,
\]
then the element $c=\tilde{\tau}(d)$ would satisfy $a'+c \leq b \leq a+c$, which is not possible by the first part of the proof.
Therefore, $Z\otimes_{\CatCu} \Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)$ does not satisfy \axiomO{5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:tensornotlsc}
We have $\Lsc([0,1],Z)\ncong \Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)\otimes_{\CatCu}Z$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:tensornotO5}, $Z\otimes_{\CatCu}\Lsc\left([0,1],\overline{\N}\right)$ does not satisfy axiom~\axiomO{5}.
On the other hand,
\[
\Lsc([0,1],Z)\cong\Cu(C([0,1],\mathcal Z)),
\]
by \cite[Theorem~3.4]{AntPerSan11PullbacksCu}, which in combination with \autoref{prp:o5o6} shows that $\Lsc([0,1],Z)$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
\end{proof}
For the next result, recall from \autoref{dfn:dimMonoid} that a $\CatCu$-semigroup is \emph{simplicial} if it is isomorphic to the algebraically ordered $\CatCu$-semigroup $\overline{\N}^r$ for some $r\in\N$.
In \autoref{prp:EffHandShen_CuVersion}, we have seen that a countably-based $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is an inductive limit of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroups if and only if there exists a separable AF-algebra $A$ such that $S\cong\Cu(A)$.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensLimSimplicial}
Let $S$ be an inductive limit of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}.
Then taking the tensor product with $S$ preserves \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $((S_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i, j\in I, i\leq j})$ be an inductive system of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroups, indexed over a directed set $I$.
Then there are numbers $r_i\in\N$ such that $S_i\cong\overline{\N}^{r_i}$ for each $i\in I$.
Let $T$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
For $r\in\N$, let $T^r$ be the set of $r$-tuples with entries in $T$, equipped with pointwise addition and order.
It is easily checked that $T^r$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup{} and that there is a natural isomorphism $S_i\otimes_{\CatCu} T\cong T^{r_i}$ for each $i$.
It follows from \autoref{prp:tensLim} that $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T\cong\CatCuLim_i T^{r_i}$.
Assume now that $T$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
It follows easily that $T^r$ satisfies \axiomO{5} for each $r\in\N$.
Then $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$ satisfies \axiomO{5} by \autoref{prp:axiomsPassToLim}.
It is proved analogously that weak cancellation and \axiomO{6} pass from $T$ to $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$.
\end{proof}
For the next result, recall that for a \pom{} $M$, we denote by $\Cu(M)$ the $\CatCu$-completion of the $\CatPreW$-semigroup $(M,\leq)$;
see \autoref{pgr:algebraicSemigp}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensorAlgebraic}
Let $M$ and $N$ be \pom{s}.
Then there is a canonical isomorphism
\[
\Cu(M)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(N)
\cong \Cu(M\otimes_{\CatPom}N).
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We will write $(M,\leq)$ and $(N,\leq)$ for the $\CatW$-semigroup{s} associated to $M$ and $N$;
see \autoref{prp:algebraicSemigp}.
It follows easily from the construction of the tensor product in $\CatPreW$ that
\[
(M,\leq)\otimes_{\CatPreW}(N,\leq)\cong(M\otimes_{\CatPom} N,\leq).
\]
Now the result follows from \autoref{thm:tensProdCompl}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:algebraicPassesToTensProd}
If $S$ and $T$ are algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}, then so is $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$.
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:axiomsTensProdAlgebraic}
Let $S$ and $T$ be algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}.
If $S$ and $T$ satisfy axiom~\axiomO{5}, then so does $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $S_c$ and $T_c$ denote the \pom{} of compact elements in $S$ and $T$, respectively.
By \autoref{prp:algebraicSemigp} and \autoref{prp:tensorAlgebraic}, there are natural isomorphisms
\[
S\cong \Cu(S_c),\quad
T\cong \Cu(T_c),\text{ and }
S\otimes_{\CatCu} T \cong \Cu (S_c\otimes_{\CatPom} T_c).
\]
Assume now that $S$ and $T$ satisfy \axiomO{5}.
By \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}, this implies that $S_c$ and $T_c$ are algebraically ordered.
It follows from \autoref{prp:tensPomPreservesAlgOrd} that $S_c\otimes_{\CatPom}T_c$ is algebraically ordered.
Using \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic} again, we deduce that $S\otimes_{\CatCu} T$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:tensCa}
\index{symbols}{$\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax$}
\index{symbols}{$\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin$}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}, and let $A\tensMax B$ be their maximal tensor product.
Given $k,l\in\N$, $x_1,x_2\in M_k(A)_+$ and $y_1,y_2\in M_l(B)_+$, the simple tensors $x_1\otimes y_1$ and $x_2\otimes y_2$ are positive elements in $M_k(A)\tensMax M_l(B)$.
We have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $x_1\precsim x_2$ and $y_1\precsim y_2$, then $x_1\otimes y_1\precsim x_2\otimes y_2$ in $M_k(A)\tensMax M_l(B)$;
see \cite[Lemma~4.1]{Ror04StableRealRankZ}.
\item
If $x_1\precsim (x_2-\varepsilon)_+$ and $y_1\precsim (y_2-\varepsilon)_+$ for some $\varepsilon>0$, then there exists $\delta>0$ such that $x_1\otimes y_1\precsim (x_2\otimes y_2-\delta)_+$ in $M_k(A)\tensMax M_l(B)$;
see the proof of Proposition~4.5 in~\cite{AntBosPer13CuFields}.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\varphi\colon M_\infty(A)\tensMax M_\infty(B) \to M_\infty(A\tensMax B)$ be an isomorphism that identifies the natural copies of $A\tensMax B$ in $M_\infty(A)\tensMax M_\infty(B)$ and $M_\infty(A\tensMax B)$.
Such an isomorphism is unique up to approximate unitary equivalence.
We define a map $W(A)\times W(B)\to W(A\tensMax B)$ by $([x],[y]) \mapsto [\varphi(x\otimes y)]$ for $x\in M_\infty(A)_+$ and $y\in M_\infty(B)_+$,
Using (1) and (2) above, it is easily checked that this map is a $\CatW$-bimorphism.
It is independent of the choice of $\varphi$.
We therefore obtain a natural $\CatW$-morphism
\[
W(A)\otimes_{\CatW} W(B)\to W(A\tensMax B).
\]
Similarly, choosing a natural isomorphism $\psi$ from $(A\otimes\K)\tensMax(B\otimes\K)$ to $(A\tensMax B)\otimes\K$, we obtain a natural $\CatCu$-bimorphism
\[
\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax\colon\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \to \CatCu(A\tensMax B),
\]
such that $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax([x]\otimes[y])=[\psi(x\otimes y)]$ for every $x\in (A\otimes\K)_+$ and $y\in(B\otimes\K)_+$.
The natural quotient \starHom{} from $A\tensMax B$ to $A\tensMin B$ induces a surjective $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\Cu(A\tensMax B) \to \Cu(A\tensMin B).
\]
By composing the map $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax$ with this $\CatCu$-morphism, we obtain a natural $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin\colon\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \to \Cu(A\tensMin B).
\]
\end{pgr}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:tensCa}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}.
When is the map $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax$ a $\CatCu$-isomorphism?
When is it surjective?
When is it an order embedding?
Similarly, when is the map $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin$ an isomorphism? When is it surjective? When is it an order-embedding?
\end{prbl}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:AnswerTensCa}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}.
It is clear that $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax$ is an order-embedding whenever $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin$ is.
Similarly, if $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax$ is surjective, then so is $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin$.
If $A$ or $B$ is nuclear, then the natural map from $A\tensMax B$ to $A\tensMin B$ is an isomorphism.
In that case, the maps $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin$ and $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax$ are equal, and we simply write $\tau_{A,B}$ for this map.
It is easy to find examples of \ca{s} $A$ and $B$ for which the natural map $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax$ is not surjective.
For instance, this is the case for $A=C([0,1])$ and $B=\mathcal{Z}$, as shown in \autoref{prp:tensornotO5}; see also \autoref{cor:tensornotlsc}.
Other (counter)examples can be found using $K$-theory.
If $A$ is a unital, simple, stably finite \ca{}, then $K_0(A)$ is determined by the Cuntz semigroup of $A$ via the formula
\begin{align}
\label{pgr:AnswerTensCa:eq1}
K_0(A) = \Gr( \Cu(A)_c ),
\end{align}
where $\Cu(A)_c$ denotes the submonoid of compact elements in $\Cu(A)$, and where $\Gr$ denotes the Grothendieck completion (see, for example, \cite{AraPerTom11Cu}, or also \cite{BroCiu09IsoHilbert}).
Now, let $A$ and $B$ be unital, simple, stably finite \ca{s}.
Assume that $A$ is nuclear, whence we can unambiguously write $\otimes$ instead of $\tensMax$ for tensor products with $A$.
Then the tensor product $A\otimes B$ is also a unital, simple, stably finite \ca{}.
Assume that the map
\[
\tau_{A,B}\colon\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \to \Cu(A\otimes B)
\]
is surjective.
Let us show that this implies that the natural map
\[
\Cu(A)_c\otimes_{\CatPom}\Cu(B)_c \to \Cu(A\otimes B)_c
\]
is surjective as well.
Note that $A,B$ and $A\otimes B$ are simple and stably finite.
More generally, let $S,T$ and $R$ be simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroups satisfying \axiomO{5}, let $\varphi\colon S\otimes_\CatCu T\to R$ be a surjective $\CatCu$-morphism, and let $c\in R$ be compact.
Choose $a_k\in S$ and $b_k\in T$ for $k=1,\ldots,n$ such that $c=\varphi( \sum_k a_k\otimes b_k )$.
By \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}, a nonzero element in $R$ (or $S$, $T$ respectively) is either compact or soft.
By \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}, and using that $R$ is simple, a sum of elements in $R$ is only compact if each summand is.
Thus, $\varphi( a_k\otimes b_k )$ is compact for each $k$.
It is straightforward to check that $\varphi( a_k\otimes b_k )$ is soft whenever $a_k$ or $b_k$ is.
Hence, the elements $a_k$ and $b_k$ are compact.
This shows that the induced map $S_c\otimes_\CatPom T_c\to R_c$ is surjective, as desired.
Passing to Grothendieck completions, and using \eqref{pgr:AnswerTensCa:eq1} at the second step, we obtain a surjective map
\[
\Gr( \Cu(A)_c\otimes_{\CatPom}\Cu(B)_c )
\to \Gr( \Cu(A\otimes B)_c )
\cong K_0(A\otimes B).
\]
Since taking the Grothendieck completion commutes with tensor products (see \autoref{prp:GrTensorMon}), we have
\[
K_0(A)\otimes K_0(B)
\cong \Gr(\Cu(A)_c)\otimes_{\CatPom}\Gr(\Cu(B)_c)
\cong \Gr(\Cu(A)_c\otimes_{\CatPom}\Cu(B)_c).
\]
Thus, we have shown that the natural map
\[
K_0(A)\otimes K_0(B) \to K_0(A\otimes B)
\]
is surjective.
Let us further assume that $A$ is a \ca{} in the bootstrap class;
see \cite[V.1.5.4,~p.437]{Bla06OpAlgs}.
Then $A$ and $B$ satisfy the `K\"{u}nneth formula for tensor products in $K$-theory';
see \cite[Theorem~V.1.5.10,~p.440]{Bla06OpAlgs}.
This means that there is a short exact sequence
\[
0 \to \bigoplus_{i=0,1} K_i(A)\otimes K_i(B)
\to K_0(A\otimes B)
\to \bigoplus_{i=0,1} \Tor^\Z_1(K_i(A), K_{1-i}(B))
\to 0.
\]
Since our assumptions on $A$ and $B$ imply that the natural map from $K_0(A)\otimes K_0(B)$ to $K_0(A\otimes B)$ is surjective, we deduce from the K\"{u}nneth formula that
\[
K_1(A)\otimes K_1(B) = 0,\quad
\Tor^\Z_1(K_i(A), K_{1-i}(B))=0, \text{ for } i=0,1.
\]
In conclusion, we get that the map $\tau_{A,B}$ is not surjective whenever $A$ and $B$ are unital, simple, stably finite \ca{s} in the bootstrap class for which $K_1(A)\otimes K_1(B)\neq 0$ or for which $\Tor^\Z_1(K_i(A), K_{1-i}(B))\neq 0$ for $i=0$ or $i=1$.
On the other hand, $\tau_{A,B}$ is an isomorphism in the following cases:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $A$ or $B$ is an AF-algebra;
see \autoref{prp:tensProdAF}.
\item
If $A$ and $B$ are separable, and $B$ is simple, nuclear and purely infinite;
see \autoref{prp:tensCaWithSimplePI}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensProdAF}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}.
Assume that at least one of the algebras is an AF-algebra.
Then the natural map
\[
\tau_{A,B}\colon\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \to \Cu(A\otimes B)
\]
is an isomorphism.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $A$ is an AF-algebra.
Choose an inductive system $((A_i)_{i\in I},(\varphi_{i,j})_{i,j\in I, i\leq j})$ of finite-dimensional \ca{s} such that $A\cong\varinjlim A_i$.
For each $i$, there is $r_i\in\N$ such that $A_i$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of $r_i$ matrix algebras.
Then $A_i\otimes\K\cong\K^{r_i}$ and $\Cu(A_i)\cong\overline{\N}^{r_i}$.
Moreover, $A_i\otimes B\otimes\K \cong (B\otimes\K)^{r_i}$ and there are isomorphisms
\[
\Cu(A_i)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B)
\cong \overline{\N}^{r_i}\otimes\Cu(B)
\cong \Cu(B)^{r_i}
\cong \Cu(A_i\otimes B),
\]
for each $i$.
Since the maximal tensor product commutes with inductive limits of \ca{s} (see \cite[II.9.6.5,~p.200]{Bla06OpAlgs}), there is a natural isomorphism $\varinjlim (A_i\otimes B) \cong A\otimes B$.
Using \autoref{prp:functorCu} at the first and last step, and using \autoref{prp:tensLim} at the second step, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B)
&\cong \left( \CatCuLim \Cu(A_i) \right) \otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \\
&\cong \CatCuLim \left( \Cu(A_i) \otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \right) \\
&\cong \CatCuLim \Cu(A_i\otimes B)
\cong \Cu(A\otimes B),
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:tensFctl}
Recall that the set of functionals on a $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $S$ is defined as the set of generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms $S\to[0,\infty]$; see \autoref{pgr:fctl}.
Here, the product of two elements $x,y\in[0,\infty)$ is defined as the usual product of real numbers, and $0y=x0=0$ for all $x,y\in[0,\infty]$, and $\infty y = x\infty = \infty$ for all $x,y\in(0,\infty]$.
(This is the $\CatCu$-product on $[0,\infty]$ when considered with its structure as a $\CatCu$-semiring; see \autoref{exa:R}.)
Now, let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}.
There is a natural map
\[
F(S)\times F(T) \to F(S\otimes_{\CatCu}T),
\]
defined as follows:
Given $\lambda\in F(S)$ and $\mu\in F(T)$, consider the map
\[
f\colon S\times T\to[0,\infty],\quad
(a,b)\mapsto \lambda(a)\mu(b),\quad
\txtFA a\in S, b\in T.
\]
It is easily checked that $f$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
By \autoref{prp:tensProdCu}, $f$ induces a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\tilde{f}\colon S\otimes_{\CatCu}T\to[0,\infty].
\]
This means $\tilde{f}$ is a functional on $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$, satisfying $\tilde{f}(a\otimes b)=\lambda(a)\mu(b)$ for every $a\in S$ and $b\in T$.
\end{pgr}
The following is a version of \cite[Theorem~4.1.10, p.69]{Ror02Classification} for $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensprodTwoSimple}
Let $S$ and $T$ be simple, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semigroup{s} satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $S$ and $T$ are stably finite, then so is $S\otimes_{\CatCu} T$.
\item
If $S$ or $T$ is not stably finite, then $S\otimes_{\CatCu} T \cong\{0,\infty\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
To show \enumStatement{1}, assume that $S$ and $T$ are simple and stably finite.
Set $R:=S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$.
There are nontrivial functionals $\lambda\in F(S)$ and $\mu\in F(T)$; see \autoref{prp:simpleSF}.
By \autoref{pgr:tensFctl}, $\lambda$ and $\mu$ induce a functional $\delta\in F(R)$ such that $\delta(a\otimes b)=\lambda(a)\mu(b)$ for every $a\in S$ and $b\in T$.
It is clear that $\delta$ is nontrivial, which implies that $R$ is stably finite.
To show \enumStatement{2}, we may assume without loss of generality that $T$ is not stably finite.
By \autoref{prp:tensLat}, $S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$ is simple.
Thus, there is a unique element $\infty\in S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$ such that $\infty=\sup_{n\in\N} nx$ for every nonzero $x\in S\otimes_{\CatCu}T$.
Let $a\in S$ and $b\in T$ be nonzero.
We will show $a\otimes b=\infty$.
Let $\infty_T$ denote the infinite element of $T$.
By \autoref{prp:simpleSF}, $\infty_T$ is compact.
Thus, there is $n\in\N$ such that $nb=\infty_T$.
By \cite[Proposition~5.2.1]{Rob13Cone}, here reproduced as \autoref{prp:GlimmHalving}, there is a nonzero element $x\in S$ such that $nx\leq a$.
It follows
\[
a\otimes b \geq (nx)\otimes b = x\otimes(nb) = x\otimes\infty_T = \infty.
\]
We also have $a\otimes b\leq \infty$, and therefore $a\otimes b=\infty$.
Since this holds for all nonzero $a$ and $b$, we get $S\otimes_{\CatCu} T \cong\{0,\infty\}$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\chapter{\texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semirings and \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semimodules}
\label{sec:CuSrgSmod}
In \autoref{sec:solidCuSrg}, we introduce the concepts of $\CatCu$-semirings and their semimodules.
Natural examples are given by Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s} that are strongly self-absorbing and of \ca{s} that tensorially absorb such a \ca\ respectively; see \autoref{prp:semirgFromSSA}.
We say that a $\CatCu$-semiring $R$ is solid if the multiplication map $R\times R\to R$ induces an isomorphism $R\otimes_{\CatCu}R\xrightarrow{\cong} R$;
see \autoref{dfn:solidSemirg}.
This is analogous to the concept of solidity for rings as introduced in \cite[Definition~2.1;~2.4]{BouKan72Core}.
This property can also be interpreted as an algebraic analog of being strongly self-absorbing.
The Cuntz semigroup of every known strongly self-absorbing \ca{} is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring;
see \autoref{pgr:ssaSolid}.
Given a solid $\CatCu$-semiring $R$, we say that a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has $R$-mul\-ti\-pli\-ca\-tion if it is a semimodule over $R$, in a suitable sense, and it is very interesting to study the class of such $\CatCu$-semigroups.
We show that every generalized $\CatCu$-morphism between $\CatCu$-semigroups with $R$-multiplication is automatically $R$-linear;
see \autoref{prp:solidTFAE}.
We deduce that a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has at most one $R$-multipli\-ca\-tion.
In other words, either there is no way to give $S$ the structure of a semimodule over $R$, or there is a unique such structure.
This also means that, as we have already remarked in the Introduction, being a semimodule over $R$ is a \emph{property} of $S$, rather than an extra structure;
see \autoref{rmk:solidModuleIsProperty}.
It may therefore seem that $\CatCu$-semigroups with $R$-multiplication are rare.
However, we show in \autoref{prp:moduleTensorProd} that for every $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, the tensor product $R\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ has $R$-multiplication.
We obtain that $S$ has $R$-multiplication if and only if $S$ is naturally isomorphic to $R\otimes_{\CatCu}S$;
see \autoref{prp:solidModuleTFAE}.
We refer to \autoref{sec:semirg} for a detailed study of the structure of $\CatCu$-semirings, including a complete classification of solid $\CatCu$-semirings in \autoref{sec:classificationSolid}.
In Sections~\ref{sec:pureInf} through \ref{sec:RMod}, we study $\CatCu$-semimodules over the following solid $\CatCu$-semirings:
(1)
If $A$ is a purely infinite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{}, for example the Cuntz algebra $\mathcal{O}_\infty$, then $\Cu(A)=\{0,\infty\}$.
In \autoref{sec:pureInf}, we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that have $\{0,\infty\}$-multiplication.
This can be considered as a theory of `purely infinite Cuntz semigroups'.
Indeed, it is clear that the Cuntz semigroup of every $\mathcal{O}_\infty$-stable \ca{} is a $\{0,\infty\}$-semimodule.
More generally, we show that a (not necessarily simple) \ca{} is purely infinite if and only if its Cuntz semigroup has $\{0,\infty\}$-multiplication.
(2)
The Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ is a strongly self-absorbing \ca{} whose Cuntz semigroup is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, denoted by $Z$.
In \autoref{sec:ZMod}, we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that have $Z$-multiplication.
The analogy between $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{s} and Cuntz semigroups with $Z$-multiplication is however not as close as in the purely infinite case.
In one direction, we clearly have that the Cuntz semigroup of every $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} is a $Z$-semimodule.
However, the converse is not true in general.
Consider for example $C^*_\lambda(F_\infty)$, the reduced group \ca{} of the free group with infinitely many generators.
It is shown in \cite[Section~6.3]{Rob12LimitsNCCW} that $\Cu(C^*_\lambda(F_\infty))\cong\Cu(\mathcal{Z})$, which implies that the Cuntz semigroup of $C^*_\lambda(F_\infty)$ has $Z$-multiplication.
However, it was shown by Simon Wassermann that $C^*_\lambda(F_\infty)$ is tensorially prime, in particular $C^*_\lambda(F_\infty)\ncong C^*_\lambda(F_\infty)\otimes\mathcal{Z}$.
We show in \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE} that a $\CatCu$-semigroup has $Z$-multiplication if and only if it is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
On the other hand, it seems that the Cuntz semigroup of every $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} is even nearly unperforated;
see \autoref{conj:nearUnpCaZstable}.
(3)
Every strongly self-absorbing UHF-algebra is of the form $M_q$ for some supernatural number $q$ satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
We denote the Cuntz semigroup of $M_q$ by $R_q$, which is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
In \autoref{sec:RqMod}, we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that have $R_q$-multiplication.
This can be considered as a theory of `UHF-absorbing Cuntz semigroups'.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we also think of $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ as a `rationalization' of $S$.
(4)
The Jacelon-Razak algebra $\mathcal{R}$ is a stably projectionless \ca{}, whence it does not satisfy the definition of a strongly self-absorbing \ca{} (which are required to be unital).
However, the Cuntz semigroup of $\mathcal{R}$ is $[0,\infty]$, which is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
Moreover, for every \ca{} $A$ we have $\Cu(\mathcal{R}\otimes A)\cong[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(A)$.
In particular, if a \ca{} tensorially absorbs $\mathcal{R}$, then its Cuntz semigroup has $[0,\infty]$-multiplication.
In \autoref{sec:RqMod} we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that have $[0,\infty]$-multiplication.
This can be considered as a theory of `$\mathcal{R}$-absorbing Cuntz semigroups'.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we also think of $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ as the `realification' of $S$, a term that was introduced by Robert.
\\
In the following table, we summarize some results of this chapter.
The middle column contains the characterizations when a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has $R$-multiplication for the solid $\CatCu$-semiring listed in the left column.
The column on the right characterizes the effect that `stabilizing' with $R$ has on the order structure of the $\CatCu$-semigroup.
\vspace{5pt}
\noindent
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2
\begin{tabular}{|P{1.1cm}||P{5.2cm}|P{4.8cm}|}
\hline
$R$
& Characterization when $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semimodule over $R$.
& For $a,b\in S$, characterization when $1\otimes a\leq 1\otimes b$ in $R\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
\\
\hline
\hline
$\{0,\infty\}
& $S$ is idempotent; \autoref{prp:PIModTFAE}.
& $a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$; \autoref{prp:MapToPIMod}.
\\%
\hline
$Z$
& $S$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible; \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}.
& Unclear; \autoref{prbl:MapToZMod}.
\\
\hline
$R_q$
& $S$ is $q$-unperforated and $q$-divisible; \autoref{prp:RqModTFAE}.
& For each $a'\ll a$, there exists $n$ dividing $q$ such that $na'\leq nb$; \autoref{prp:MapToRqMod}.
\\
\hline
$[0,\infty]$
& $S$ is unperforated, divisible and every element is soft; \autoref{prp:RModTFAE}.
& $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$ in $\Lsc(F(S))$; \autoref{prp:MapToRMod}.
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\section{Strongly self-absorbing \texorpdfstring{{C}*-algebras}{{C}*-algebras} and solid \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semirings}
\label{sec:solidCuSrg}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:CuSemirg}
\index{terms}{Cu-semiring@$\CatCu$-semiring}
\index{terms}{Cu-product @$\CatCu$-product (of a $\CatCu$-semiring)}
A \emph{$\Cu$-semiring} is a $\CatCu$-semigroup $R$ together with a $\CatCu$-bimor\-phism, $(a,b)\mapsto ab$, and a distinguished element $1$ in $R$ such that for all $a,b,c\in R$ we have
\[
ab=ba,\quad a(bc)=(ab)c,\text{ and } \quad 1a=a=a1.
\]
The $\CatCu$-bimorphism $R\times R\to R$ is also called the \emph{$\CatCu$-product} of~$R$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:CuSemirg}
(1)
A $\Cu$-semiring is a commutative, unital semiring (see \autoref{sec:poRg}) with a compatible partial order turning it into a $\omega$-continuous $\omega$-\dcpo\ in the sense of lattice theory;
see \autoref{rmk:catCu}.
(2)
It is natural to assume that a $\Cu$-semiring has no zero divisors.
Indeed, if $a$ and $b$ satisfy $ab=0$, then $st=0$ for all $s$ and $t$ with $s\leq\infty\cdot a$ and $t\leq\infty\cdot b$.
Thus, if $ab=0$, then the multiplication is trivial on the ideals generated by $a$ and $b$.
In particular, a simple $\Cu$-semiring with zero divisors is isomorphic to $\{0\}$.
(3)
Let $R$ be a $\Cu$-semiring.
Recall from \autoref{pgr:ideals} that an ideal $I$ in $R$ is an order-hereditary submonoid that is closed under passing to suprema of increasing sequences.
This notion of ideal is a-priori not related to the ring-theoretic notion of an ideal, which means that $ab$ is in $I$ for any $a\in I$ and $b\in R$.
If the unit of $R$ is full (that is, if it is also an order-unit), then every ideal $I$ is also a ring-theoretic ideal.
Indeed, given $a\in I$ and $b\in R$, we have $b\leq\infty\cdot 1$, and therefore $ab\leq a(\infty\cdot 1)=\sup k(a1)=\infty\cdot a\in I$.
Then $ab$ is in $I$ as desired.
We thank the referee for pointing out the following example of a $\CatCu$-semiring whose unit is not full.
Consider $R=[0,\infty]\times[0,\infty]$, with pointwise order and addition, and with multiplication given by $(a_1,a_2)(b_1,b_2) := (a_1b_2+a_2b_1,a_2b_2)$.
Then the multiplicative unit $(0,1)$ is clearly not an order-unit.
On the other hand, if $S$ is the Cuntz semigroup of a unital \ca{} $A$ which is a $\CatCu$-semiring and the class of the unit of $A$ acts as a unit for the product, then it will be full.
\end{rmks}
The following definition is an adoption of the terminology introduced by Robert, \cite[Definition~3.1.2]{Rob13Cone}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:CuSemimod}
\index{terms}{Cu-semimodule@$\CatCu$-semimodule}
\index{terms}{R-multiplication@$R$-multiplication}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}, and let $R$ be a $\Cu$-semiring.
An \emph{$R$-mul\-ti\-pli\-ca\-tion} on $S$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism $R\times S \to S$, $(r,s)\mapsto rs$ such that for all $r_1,r_2\in R$ and $s\in S$, we have
\[
(r_1r_2)s=r_1(r_2s), \quad 1s=s.
\]
In this case we also say that $S$ is a \emph{$\Cu$-semimodule} over $R$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:ssa}
One motivation for the definition of a $\Cu$-semiring comes from strongly self-absorbing \ca{s}.
Recall from \cite[Definition~1.3]{TomWin07ssa} that a unital \ca{} $D$ is \emph{strongly self-absorbing} if $D\ncong\C$ and if there exists an isomorphism $\psi\colon D\to D\otimes D$ such that $\psi$ is approximately unitarily equivalent to $\id_D\otimes 1_D$.
Every such algebra is simple, nuclear, and either purely infinite or stably finite with a unique tracial state; see \cite[1.6, 1.7]{TomWin07ssa}.
The Cuntz semigroup of a simple, purely infinite \ca\ is isomorphic to $\{0,\infty\}$.
Another source of $\CatCu$-semimodules appears in group actions.
If $G$ is a compact group, then $\Cu(C^*(G))$ has a natural structure as a $\CatCu$-semiring.
An action of $G$ on a \ca{} $A$ induces a natural $\Cu(C^*(G))$-multiplication on $\Cu(A)$.
Such $\CatCu$-semimodules have been studied in \cite{GarSan15}.
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:semirgFromSSA}
Let $D$ be a unital, separable, strongly self-absorbing \ca.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(D)$ has a natural $\CatCu$-product giving it the structure of a countably-based, simple $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Moreover, if $D$ is stably finite then $\Cu(D)$ has a unique normalized functional.
\item
If $A$ is a $D$-absorbing \ca\ (that is, $A\cong A\otimes D$), then $\Cu(A)$ has a natural $\Cu(D)$-multiplication.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
We use the symbol `$\approx$' to denote approximate unitary equivalence.
For positive elements in a \ca, this is a stronger equivalence relation than Cuntz equivalence.
\enumStatement{1}
By definition, we choose a $^*$-isomorphism $\psi\colon D\to D\otimes D$ such that $\psi\approx \id_D\otimes 1_D$.
Consider the natural $\Cu$-bimorphism $\Cu(D)\times\Cu(D)\to \Cu(D\otimes D)$ from \autoref{pgr:tensCa}.
Composed with $\Cu(\psi^{-1})$, this yields a $\Cu$-bimorphism
\[
\varphi\colon \Cu(D)\times \Cu(D)\to \Cu(D).
\]
We will show that $\varphi$ together with $1=[1_D]$ gives $\Cu(D)$ the structure of a $\Cu$-semiring.
We know from \cite[Corollary~1.11]{TomWin07ssa} that $D$ has approximately inner flip.
Thus, for any $x,y\in D_+$, we have $x\otimes y\approx y\otimes x$ in $D\otimes D$.
It follows
\[
\varphi([x],[y])=[\psi^{-1}(x\otimes y)]=[\psi^{-1}(y\otimes x)]=\varphi([y],[x]).
\]
The analogous computation holds for Cuntz classes of positive elements in $D\otimes\K$, which implies that $\varphi$ defines a commutative multiplication.
To show associativity of the product, consider positive elements $x,y$ and $z$.
Using the approximately inner flip, we get $x\otimes y\otimes z\approx y\otimes z\otimes x$.
Applying $\psi^{-1}\otimes \id_D$, it follows that $\psi^{-1}(x\otimes y)\otimes z \approx \psi^{-1}(y\otimes z)\otimes x$, and therefore
\begin{align*}
\varphi (\varphi([x],[y]),[z])
&= [\psi^{-1}(\psi^{-1}(x\otimes y)\otimes z)] \\
&= [\psi^{-1}(\psi^{-1}(y \otimes z)\otimes x)] \\
&= [\psi^{-1}(x\otimes \psi^{-1}(y\otimes z))] =\varphi([x],\varphi([y],[z])).
\end{align*}
The analogous computation in $D\otimes\K$ implies that the product is associative.
Using $\id_D\otimes 1_D\approx\psi$ and $\psi\approx 1_D\otimes\id_D$, we obtain
\[
\varphi([x],1)
=[\psi^{-1}(x\otimes 1)]
=[x]
=[\psi^{-1}(1\otimes x)]
=\varphi(1,[x]),
\]
for every positive $x$.
This finishes the proof that $\Cu(D)$ is a $\CatCu$-semiring.
The Cuntz semigroup of every separable \ca\ is countably-based, satisfies \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6};
see \autoref{prp:CufromCAlg} and \autoref{prp:o5o6}.
Moreover, since $D$ is simple we get that $\Cu(D)$ is simple;
see \autoref{prp:simpleCa}.
If $D$ is stably finite, then it has a unique ($2$-quasi)tracial state, and then $\Cu(D)$ has a unique normalized functional by \autoref{prp:UniqueFctlFromCa}.
\enumStatement{2}
By \cite[Theorem~2.3]{TomWin07ssa} there is a ${}^*$-isomorphism $\phi\colon A\to D\otimes A$ such that $\phi\approx 1_D\otimes\id_A$ (note that the condition of $D$ being $\mathrm{K}_1$-injective is automatic by \cite[Theorem~3.1, Remark~3.3]{Win11ssaZstable}).
Arguing as in \enumStatement{1}, the natural map $D\times A\to D\otimes A$ induces a $\Cu$-bimorphism $\Cu(D)\times\Cu(A)\to \Cu(D\otimes A)$ and this, composed with $\Cu(\phi^{-1})$, yields a $\Cu$-bimorphism $\varphi\colon \Cu(D)\times \Cu(A)\to\Cu(A)$.
Given $x\in A_+$, we have $\phi(x)\approx 1_D\otimes x$ and therefore $\varphi([1_D],[x])=[x]$.
Given also $d_1,d_2\in D_+$, we have
\[
d_1\otimes d_2\otimes\phi(x) \approx d_1\otimes d_2\otimes 1_D\otimes x
\approx d_1\otimes 1_D\otimes d_2\otimes x
\]
in $D\otimes D\otimes D\otimes A$.
Applying $\phi^{-1}\circ (\psi^{-1}\otimes \phi^{-1})$ to the above relation, we get
\[
\phi^{-1}(\psi^{-1}(d_1\otimes d_2)\otimes x)
\approx \phi^{-1}(\psi^{-1}(d_1\otimes 1_D)\otimes \phi^{-1}(d_2\otimes x)).
\]
Therefore, $\varphi([d_1]\cdot[d_2],[x])=\varphi([d_1],\varphi([d_2],[x]))$.
The same computations hold for positive elements in the stabilizations, which implies that $\varphi$ defines a $\Cu(D)$-multiplication on $\Cu(A)$.
\end{proof}
A ring $R$ is called \emph{solid} if the multiplication map induces an isomorphism $R\otimes R\cong R$; see \cite[Definition~2.1; 2.4]{BouKan72Core} where it is pointed out that solidity of the ring $R$ is equivalent to the requirement that $a\otimes 1=1\otimes a$ for every $a\in R$.\index{terms}{ring!solid}
Here, we use the usual tensor product of (discrete) groups and rings, and every ring is understood to be unital and commutative.
See \autoref{sec:poRg} for more details.
As pointed out in \cite{Gut13arXivSolid}, solid rings have also been called $T$-rings and \mbox{$\Z$-epi}\-morphs;
see \cite[Definition~1.6]{BowSch77Rings} and \cite{DicSte84Epimorphs}.
We define solid $\Cu$-semirings in analogy to solid rings.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:solidSemirg}
\index{terms}{Cu-semiring@$\CatCu$-semiring!solid}
A $\Cu$-semiring $R$ is \emph{solid} if the $\Cu$-bimorphism $\varphi\colon R\times R\to R$ defining the multiplication induces an isomorphism $R\otimes_{\CatCu} R\cong R$.
\end{dfn}
The next result shows that for a $\Cu$-semiring there are many conditions equivalent to being solid.
This is analogous to the case for rings.
Indeed, for a ring, all of the conditions in \autoref{prp:solidTFAE}, when suitably interpreted, are equivalent to solidity of the ring.
This is known, and most of it is shown in the references mentioned in the paragraph before \autoref{dfn:solidSemirg}.
\index{terms}{Cu-semiring@$\CatCu$-semiring!solid!characterization}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:solidTFAE}
Let $R$ be a $\Cu$-semiring.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The $\Cu$-semiring $R$ is solid.
\item
Whenever $S$ is a $\Cu$-semimodule over $R$, then the $R$-multiplication on $S$ induces an isomorphism $R\otimes_{\CatCu} S\cong S$.
\item
Whenever $S_1$ and $S_2$ are $\Cu$-semimodules over $R$, and $\tau\colon S_1\times S_2\to T$ is a generalized $\Cu$-bimorphism, then $\tau(ra_1,a_2)=\tau(a_1,ra_2)$ for all $r\in R$ and $a_i\in S_i$.
\item
Every generalized $\Cu$-morphism $S_1\to S_2$ between $\Cu$-semimodules $S_1$ and $S_2$ over $R$ is automatically $R$-linear.
\item
For all $a,b\in R$, we have $a\otimes b=b\otimes a$ in $R\otimes_{\CatCu} R$.
\item
For every $a\in R$, we have $a\otimes 1=1\otimes a$ in $R\otimes_{\CatCu} R$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The implications `\enumStatement{2} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{1} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{5} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{6}' are clear.
In order to prove that \enumStatement{6} implies \enumStatement{2}, let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semimodule over $R$.
Given $r\in R$ and $s\in S$, we will show $r\otimes s=1\otimes rs$ in $R\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
To that end, consider the map
\[
\tau_s\colon R\times R\to R\otimes_{\CatCu} S,\quad
\tau_s(a,b):=a\otimes bs,\quad
\txtFA a,b\in R.
\]
It is straightforward to check that this is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism, whence there is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\bar\tau_s\colon R\otimes_{\CatCu} R\to R\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ such that $\tau_s(a,b)=\bar\tau_s(a\otimes b)$.
Using the assumption at the third step, we obtain
\[
r\otimes s = \tau_s(r,1)=\bar\tau_s(r\otimes 1)=\bar\tau_s(1\otimes r)=\tau_s(1,r)=1\otimes rs.
\]
Let $\varphi\colon R\times S\to S$ be the $\Cu$-bimorphism defining the $R$-multiplication.
This induces a $\Cu$-morphism $\bar\varphi\colon R\otimes_{\CatCu} S\to S$.
We let $\psi\colon S\to R\otimes S$ be the generalized $\Cu$-morphism defined by $\psi(s)=1\otimes s$.
We clearly have $\bar\varphi\circ\psi=\id_S$.
On the other hand, for every $r\in R$ and $s\in S$, using the formula of the previous paragraph at the last step, we have
\[
\psi\circ\bar\varphi(r\otimes s)=\psi(rs)=1\otimes rs=r\otimes s.
\]
It follows that $\psi\circ\bar\varphi=\id_{R\otimes_{\CatCu} S}$, and so $R\otimes_{\CatCu} S\cong S$.
Next, we prove that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
It is enough to show that for every $r\in R$, $s_1\in S_1$ and $s_2\in S_2$, we have $rs_1\otimes s_2=s_1\otimes rs_2$ in $S_1\otimes_{\CatCu} S_2$.
To that end, we use the isomorphisms $S_1\cong S_1\otimes_{\CatCu} R$ and $R\otimes_{\CatCu} S_2\cong S_2$ given by assumption, and the natural isomorphism of associativity of the tensor product from \autoref{prp:tensProdAssoc}, to obtain the identifications shown in the following diagram:
\[
\xymatrix@R=10pt{
S_1\otimes_{\CatCu} S_2 \ar@{}[r]|-{\cong} \ar@{}[d]|{\inDown}
& (S_1\otimes_{\CatCu} R)\otimes_{\CatCu} S_2 \ar@{}[r]|{\cong} \ar@{}[d]|<<<{\inDown}
& S_1\otimes_{\CatCu} (R\otimes_{\CatCu} S_2) \ar@{}[r]|-{\cong} \ar@{}[d]|<<<{\inDown}
& S_1\otimes_{\CatCu} S_2 \ar@{}[d]|{\inDown} \\
rs_1\otimes s_2 \ar@{}[r]|<<<<<<<{\longleftrightarrow}
& \parbox[c]{2.3cm}{$(rs_1\otimes 1)\otimes s_2$ \\ $=(s_1\otimes r)\otimes s_2$} \ar@{}[r]|{\longleftrightarrow}
& \parbox[c]{2.3cm}{$s_1\otimes (1\otimes rs_2)$ \\ $=s_1\otimes (r\otimes s_2)$} \ar@{}[r]|>>>>>>{\longleftrightarrow}
& s_1\otimes rs_2.
}
\]
Next, to show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{4}, let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be $\CatCu$-semimodules over $R$, and let $\alpha\colon S_1\to S_2$ be a generalized $\Cu$-morphism.
Consider the map
\[
\tau\colon R\times S_1\to S_2,\quad
\tau(r,s):=r\alpha(s),\quad
\txtFA r\in R,s\in S_1,
\]
which is easily seen to be a generalized $\Cu$-bimorphism.
We consider $R$ with the $R$-multiplication given by its $\Cu$-semiring structure.
Given $r\in R$ and $s\in S_1$, we use the assumption at the second step to obtain
\[
\alpha(rs)=\tau(1,rs)=\tau(r,s)=r\alpha(s).
\]
Thus, the map $\alpha$ is $R$-linear, as desired.
Finally, let us show that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{6}.
We endow the $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $R\otimes_{\CatCu} R$ with two (a priori different) $R$-multiplications induced by
\[
r\cdot(r_1\otimes r_2)=rr_1\otimes r_2,\quad
r\cdot(r_1\otimes r_2)=r_1\otimes rr_2,\quad
\txtFA r,r_1,r_2\in R.
\]
Now, we consider the identity $\Cu$-morphism $\id\colon R\otimes_{\CatCu} R\to R\otimes_{\CatCu} R$, but we equip the source and target with the two different $R$-multiplications.
By assumption, the map $\id_R$ is $R$-linear.
Then, given any $r\in R$, we compute the product of the element $1\otimes 1\in R\otimes_{\CatCu} R$ with $r$ using the different $R$-multiplications.
This gives $r1\otimes 1=1\otimes r1$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{exa}
\label{exa:R}
Consider the $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $[0,\infty]$.
We define the product of finite elements as for real numbers, set $\infty\cdot 0:=0$ and $\infty\cdot a:=\infty$ for every nonzero $a\in[0,\infty]$.
It is easy to check that this defines a $\CatCu$-product on $[0,\infty]$.
Thus, $[0,\infty]$ is a $\CatCu$-semiring.
Let us show that it is solid.
By \autoref{prp:solidTFAE}, it is enough to show that $1\otimes a$ equals $a\otimes 1$ for every $a\in[0,\infty]$.
Given $k,n\in\N$ with $n\neq 0$, we consider the element $\frac{k}{n}\in[0,\infty]$ and we compute
\[
1\otimes\tfrac{k}{n}
= \tfrac{n}{n}\otimes \tfrac{k}{n}
= kn\left(\tfrac{1}{n}\otimes \tfrac{1}{n}\right)
= \tfrac{k}{n}\otimes \tfrac{n}{n}
= \tfrac{k}{n}\otimes 1.
\]
Since rational elements are dense in $[0,\infty]$, we get that $[0,\infty]$ is solid.
\end{exa}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:solidModuleUnique}
Let $R$ be a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, and let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then any two $R$-multiplications on $S$ are equal.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Consider the identity morphism $S\to S$, where the range and target are equipped with the two $R$-multiplications in question.
By \autoref{prp:solidTFAE}, this map is $R$-linear, which means exactly that the two $R$-multiplications are equal.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:solidModuleIsProperty}
Let $R$ be a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, and let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
By \autoref{prp:solidModuleUnique}, $S$ has at most one $R$-multiplication.
Thus, having an $R$-multiplica\-tion is a \emph{property} rather than an additional \emph{structure}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:moduleTensorProd}
Let $R$ be a $\Cu$-semiring, and let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatCu$-semigroups.
Assume that $S$ has an $R$-multiplication.
Then $S\otimes_{\CatCu} T$ also has an $R$-multiplication that satisfies
\[
r(s\otimes t)=(rs)\otimes t,
\]
for all $r\in R$, $s\in S$ and $t\in T$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Given $r\in R$, consider the map
\[
\alpha_r\colon S\times T\to S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,\quad
(s,t)\mapsto rs\otimes t,\quad
\txtFA s\in S, t\in T.
\]
This is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism, which therefore induces a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\bar\alpha_r\colon S\otimes_{\CatCu} T\to S\otimes_{\CatCu} T$ with $\alpha_r(s\otimes t)=(rs)\otimes t$.
Using the universal properties of the tensor product (see \autoref{prp:tensProdCu}), one shows that the map
\[
R\times(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T)\to S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,\quad
(r,x)\mapsto \bar\alpha_r(x),\quad
\txtFA r\in R, x\in S\otimes_{\CatCu} T,
\]
is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism defining an $R$-multiplication on $S\otimes_\CatCu T$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:constructingSolidMod}
Let $R$ be a solid $\Cu$-semiring, let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $\varphi\colon R\times S\to S$ be a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
Assume that $\varphi(1_R,a)=a$ for every $a\in S$.
Then $\varphi$ defines an $R$-multiplication on $S$.
Thus, $\varphi$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism satisfying
\[
\varphi(r_1r_2,a)=\varphi(r_1,\varphi(r_2,a)),
\]
for every $r_1,r_2\in R$ and $a\in S$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\varphi\colon R\times S\to S$ be a map as in the statement.
Let $\bar{\varphi}\colon R\otimes_{\CatCu} S\to S$ be the generalized $\CatCu$-morphism induced by $\varphi$.
We will show that $\bar{\varphi}$ is a $\CatCu$-isomorphism.
Consider the map
\[
\rho\colon S\to R\otimes_{\CatCu} S,\quad
\rho(a)=1_R\otimes a,\quad
\txtFA a\in S.
\]
It is clear that $\rho$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism.
Using the assumption on $\varphi$ at the third step, we deduce for each $a\in S$ that
\[
\bar{\varphi}\circ\rho(a)
=\bar{\varphi}(1_R\otimes a)
=\varphi(1_R,a)
=a.
\]
Thus, $\bar{\varphi}\circ\rho=\id_S$.
For the converse, consider the generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\rho\circ\bar{\varphi}\colon R\otimes_{\CatCu} S\to R\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
For each $r\in R$ and $a\in S$ we have
\[
\rho\circ\bar{\varphi}(r\otimes a) = 1_R\otimes\varphi(r,a).
\]
By \autoref{prp:moduleTensorProd}, $R\otimes_\CatCu S$ has an $R$-multiplication such that $r_1(r_2\otimes a)=(r_1r_2)\otimes a$ for all $r_1,r_2\in R$ and $a\in S$.
It follows from \autoref{prp:solidTFAE} that $\rho\circ\bar{\varphi}$ is $R$-linear.
Using this at the second step, we obtain for each $r\in R$ and $a\in S$ that
\begin{align*}
\rho\circ\bar{\varphi}(r\otimes a)
= \rho\circ\bar{\varphi}(r\cdot (1_R\otimes a))
= r\cdot \left( \rho\circ\bar{\varphi}(1_R\otimes a) \right)
= r\cdot (1_R\otimes a)
= r\otimes a.
\end{align*}
This shows that $\rho\circ\bar{\varphi}$ is the identity map on simple tensors in $R\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
It follows $\rho\circ\bar{\varphi}=\id_{R\otimes_\CatCu S}$.
In general, every $\CatPom$-isomorphism between $\CatCu$-semigroups automatically preserves the way-below relation and suprema of increasing sequences, since these notions are completely encoded in the order structure.
We clearly have that $\bar{\varphi}$ is an isomorphism of \pom{s}.
Therefore it is also a $\CatCu$-isomorphism.
It follows that $\varphi$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
Let $r_1,r_2\in R$ and $a\in S$.
Since $\rho\circ\bar{\varphi}=\id_{R\otimes_\CatCu S}$, we have $r_2\otimes a = 1_R \otimes \varphi(r_2,a)$.
Using the $R$-multiplication of $R\otimes_\CatCu S$ to multiply by $r_1$, we deduce
\[
(r_1r_2)\otimes a
= r_1\cdot (r_2\otimes a)
= r_1\cdot(1_R \otimes \varphi(r_2,a))
= r_1 \otimes \varphi(r_2,a).
\]
Applying $\bar{\varphi}$, we have
\[
\varphi(r_1r_2,a)
=\bar{\varphi}((r_1r_2)\otimes a)
=\bar{\varphi}(r_1 \otimes \varphi(r_2,a))
=\varphi(r_1,\varphi(r_2,a)),
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:solidModuleTFAE}
Let $R$ be a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, and let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup{} $S$ has an $R$-multiplication.
\item
There exists a $\CatCu$-isomorphism between $R\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ and $S$.
\item
The map $S\to R\otimes_\CatCu S$ given by $a\mapsto 1_R\otimes a$ is a $\CatCu$-isomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{2}.
It follows from \autoref{prp:moduleTensorProd} that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}.
To show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{3}, assume that $S$ has an $R$-multiplication $\varphi\colon R\times S\to S$.
By \autoref{prp:solidTFAE}, the induced $\CatCu$-morphism $\bar{\varphi}\colon R\otimes_{\CatCu} S\to S$ is an isomorphism.
It is straightforward to check that the inverse of $\bar{\varphi}$ sends $a$ in $S$ to $1_R\otimes a$.
\end{proof}
The following result should be compared with an analogous result for strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} in \cite[Proposition~5.12]{TomWin07ssa}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:solidMorImpliesAbsorb}
Let $R$ be a solid $\Cu$-semiring, and let $S$ be another $\Cu$-semiring.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
There is a $\CatCu$-isomorphism between $R\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ and $S$.
\item
There exists a unital, multiplicative, generalized $\Cu$-morphism $R\to S$.
\item
There exists a unital, generalized $\Cu$-morphism $R\to S$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if a map as in \enumStatement{3} exists, then it is unique (and therefore automatically multiplicative).
Furthermore, if $1_S$ is a compact element, then any map as in \enumStatement{3} is automatically a $\CatCu$-morphism.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
Let $\alpha\colon R\to S$ be a unital, generalized $\Cu$-morphism.
This induces a map
\[
\varphi_\alpha\colon R\times S\to S,\quad
(r,a)\mapsto \alpha(r)\cdot a,\quad
\txtFA r\in R, a\in S.
\]
It follows easily from the properties of $\alpha$ that $\varphi_\alpha$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism satisfying $\varphi_\alpha(1_R,a)=a$ for every $a\in S$.
Then it follows from \autoref{prp:constructingSolidMod} that $\varphi_\alpha$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism defining an $R$-multiplication on $S$.
Thus, using \autoref{prp:solidModuleTFAE}, we obtain that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}.
Moreover, by \autoref{prp:solidModuleUnique}, any two $R$-multiplications on $S$ are equal.
This implies that a map satisfying \enumStatement{3} is unique (if it exists).
Let us show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}.
By \autoref{prp:moduleTensorProd}, the semigroup $R\otimes_\CatCu S$ has an $R$-multiplication.
Therefore, by assumption, $S$ has an $R$-multiplication $\varphi\colon R\times S\to S$.
Consider the map
\[
\alpha\colon R\to S,\quad
r\mapsto \varphi(r,1_S),\quad
\txtFA r\in R.
\]
It is clear that $\alpha$ is a unital, generalized $\CatCu$-morphism.
In order to show that $\alpha$ is multiplicative, we consider the following map
\[
\psi\colon R\times S\to S,\quad
(r,a)\mapsto \varphi(r,1_S)a,\quad
\txtFA r\in R, a\in S.
\]
It is easy to see that $\psi$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism satisfying $\psi(1_R,a)=a$ for every $a\in S$.
By \autoref{prp:constructingSolidMod}, we have $\psi=\varphi$.
Using this at the third step, we deduce
\begin{align*}
\alpha(r_1r_2)
=\varphi(r_1r_2,1_S)
&=\varphi(r_1,\varphi(r_2,1_S)) \\
&=\psi(r_1,\varphi(r_2,1_S))
=\varphi(r_1,1_S)\varphi(r_2,1_S)
=\alpha(r_1)\alpha(r_2).
\end{align*}
Thus, $\alpha$ is multiplicative, as desired.
Finally, if $1_S$ is compact, then it is also clear from the definition that $\alpha$ is a $\CatCu$-morphism.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5pt}
\section[Cuntz semigroups of purely infinite {C}*-algebras]{Cuntz semigroups of purely infinite \texorpdfstring{{C}*-algebras}{{C}*-algebras}}
\label{sec:pureInf}
In this section, we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that are semimodules over the $\CatCu$-sem\-i\-ring $\{0,\infty\}$.
If $A$ is a purely infinite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{} (for example $\mathcal{O}_2$, $\mathcal{O}_\infty$, or the tensor product of $\mathcal{O}_\infty$ with a UHF-algebra of infinite type), then $\Cu(A)\cong\{0,\infty\}$.
In \autoref{prp:PIModTFAE}, we characterize the $\CatCu$-semimodules over $\{0,\infty\}$ as the $\CatCu$-sem\-i\-groups that are idempotent.
We show that the tensor product of a given $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ with $\{0,\infty\}$ is canonically isomorphic to $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$, the semigroup of singly-generated ideals in $S$;
see \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty}.
In \autoref{prp:pureInfCa}, we apply our results to Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s} by showing that a (not necessarily simple) \ca{} $A$ is purely infinite if and only if
\[
\Cu(A)\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(A).
\]
We deduce that for every separable \ca{} $A$, there are natural isomorphisms of the following $\CatCu$-semigroups:
\[
\Cu(\mathcal{O}_\infty\otimes A)
\cong \Lat(A)
\cong \Lat(\Cu(A))
\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(A);
\]
see \autoref{prp:tensCaWithInfty}.
The following is easy to prove and hence we omit the details:
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:PureInfSolid}
The $\CatCu$-semiring $\{0,\infty\}$ is solid.
\end{lma}
Recall that a commutative semigroup $S$ is called \emph{idempotent} if each of its elements is idempotent, that is, if $2a=a$ for every $a\in S$. \index{terms}{semigroup!idempotent}
In the literature, an idempotent, commutative semigroup $S$ is also called a \emph{commutative band}, or a \emph{semilattice} (with `join' in the semilattice corresponding to addition in the semigroup).
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:PIModTFAE}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $S\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has a $\{0,\infty\}$-multiplication.
\item
The semigroup $S$ is idempotent.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Since $\{0,\infty\}$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, the equivalence of \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} follows from \autoref{prp:solidModuleTFAE}.
To show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}, let $a$ be an element of $S$.
Since $\infty$ is the unit of the $\CatCu$-semiring $\{0,\infty\}$ and since $2\infty=\infty$ in $\{0,\infty\}$, we obtain
\[
a = \infty\cdot a = (2\infty)\cdot a = 2(\infty\cdot a) = 2a,
\]
as desired.
Next, to prove that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{2}, assume that $S$ is an idempotent $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Consider the map
\[
\varphi\colon\{0,\infty\}\times S\to S,\quad
(0,a)\mapsto 0,\quad
(\infty,a)\mapsto a,\quad
\txtFA a\in S.
\]
We have that $\varphi$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism in the second variable.
It is also clear that $\varphi$ preserves zero, order and suprema of increasing sequences (there are no nontrivial ones) in the first variable.
Using that $S$ is idempotent, it follows that $\varphi$ is additive in the first variable.
By \autoref{prp:bimorCu}, we have that $\varphi$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
Then we obtain from \autoref{prp:constructingSolidMod} that $S$ has $\{0,\infty\}$-multiplication, as desired.
\end{proof}
Recall that, for a given $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, we denote by $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ the $\CatCu$-sem\-i\-group of singly-generated ideals in $S$, as considered in \autoref{prp:LatCu}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensWithInfty}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then there is a natural $\CatCu$-isomor\-phism
\[
\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S\cong\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)
\]
identifying $\infty\otimes a$ with $\Idl(a)$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $\varphi\colon \{0,\infty\}\times S\to \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ denote the universal $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
Consider the map
\[
\tau\colon \{0,\infty\}\times S\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S),\quad
\tau(0,a)=0,\quad
\tau(\infty,a)=\Idl(a),\quad
\txtFA a\in S.
\]
It follows from \autoref{prp:LatCu} that $\tau$ is $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
Then there is a $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\tilde{\tau} \colon \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S),
\]
such that $\tau=\tilde{\tau}\circ\varphi$.
It is clear that $\tilde{\tau}$ is a surjective $\CatCu$-morphism.
As shown in \autoref{pgr:Lat}, every ideal $I$ in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ contains a largest element, denoted by $\bigvee I$.
We may therefore define a map
\[
\psi \colon \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S) \to \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S,\quad
I\mapsto \infty\otimes\left( \bigvee I \right),\quad
\txtFA I\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S).
\]
It is easy to see that $\psi$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism.
To see that $\psi$ preserves the way-below relation, let $I,J\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ satisfy $I\ll J$.
Set $a:=\bigvee I$ and $b:=\bigvee J$.
Let $(b_n)_n$ be a rapidly increasing sequence in $S$ with supremum $b$.
Then $J = \sup_n \Idl(b_n)$ in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$.
By assumption, there exists $n$ such that $I\subset\Idl(b_n)$.
Using this at the second step, and using that $\infty\ll\infty$ and $b_n\ll b$ at the third step, we deduce
\[
\psi(I) = \infty\otimes a \leq \infty\otimes b_n \ll \infty\otimes b = \psi(J).
\]
Given $a\in S$, we clearly have
\[
\psi\circ\tilde{\tau}\circ\varphi(0,a) = 0 = \varphi(0,a).
\]
We can also deduce
\[
\psi\circ\tilde{\tau}\circ\varphi(\infty,a)
= \infty\otimes\left( \bigvee \Idl(a) \right)
= \infty\otimes(\infty\cdot a)
= \infty\otimes a
= \varphi(\infty,a).
\]
Thus, we have shown that $\psi\circ\tilde{\tau}\circ\varphi=\varphi$, which implies that $\psi\circ\tilde{\tau}$ is the identity on $\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
Therefore, the map $\tilde{\tau}$ is an order isomorphism, and therefore an isomorphism in $\CatCu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $S$ be a simple, nonzero $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
Then
\[
\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S\cong\{0,\infty\}.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:tensLat}
Let $S$ and $T$ be $\CatCu$-semigroup{s}.
Then there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T) \cong \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)\otimes_{\CatCu} \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(T).
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $\{0,\infty\}\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu} \{0,\infty\}$.
Using \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty} at the first and last step, and using the associativity and symmetry of the tensor product (see \autoref{prp:tensProdAssoc} and \autoref{pgr:monoidalCu}) at the second step, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T)
&\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}(S\otimes_{\CatCu} T) \\
&\cong (\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S) \otimes_{\CatCu} (\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu} T)
\cong \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)\otimes_{\CatCu} \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(T),
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:MapToPIMod}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a,b\in S$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $1\otimes a\leq 1\otimes b$ in $\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu} S$, where $1=\infty$ is the unit of $\{0,\infty\}$.
\item
We have $a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$, that is, $a\leq\infty\cdot b$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $a,b\in S$.
By \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty}, there is an isomorphism between $\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ and $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$ that identifies the simple tensor $1 \otimes a$ with $\Idl(a)$.
Then we have $1\otimes a\leq 1\otimes b$ in $\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ if and only if $\Idl(a)\subset\Idl(b)$ in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(S)$, which in turn happens if and only if $a\varpropto^\ctsRel b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:axiomTensProdPI}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then $\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ is unperforated, divisible and satisfies \axiomO{5}.
Moreover, if $S$ satisfies \axiomO{6}, then so does $\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Set $T:=\{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}S$, which by \autoref{prp:PIModTFAE} is an idempotent $\CatCu$-semigroup.
To show that it is unperforated, let $a,b\in T$ satisfy $na\leq nb$ for some $n\in\N_+$.
Since $a=na$ and $b=nb$, we immediately get $a\leq b$.
Similarly, $T$ is divisible.
The statements about \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6} follow directly by combining \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty} with \autoref{prp:LatCu}.
\end{proof}
A not necessarily simple \ca{} $A$ is \emph{purely infinite} \index{terms}{C*-algebra@\ca{}!purely infinite} \index{terms}{purely infinite \ca{}} if $A$ has no characters and if for any positive elements $x$ and $y$ in $A$ we have $x\precsim y$ whenever $x$ is contained in the ideal of $A$ generated by $y$; see \cite[Definition~4.1]{KirRor00PureInf}, see also \cite[p.450ff]{Bla06OpAlgs}.
By \cite[Theorem~4.23]{KirRor00PureInf}, if $A$ is purely infinite, then so is $A\otimes\K$.
A nonzero element $x$ in $A_+$ is \emph{properly infinite}\index{terms}{properly infinite} if $x\oplus x\precsim x$, considered in $M_2(A)$.
If we denote by $[x]$ the class of $x$ in $\Cu(A)$, then $x$ is properly infinite if and only if $2[x]=[x]$ and $[x]\neq 0$.
By \cite[Theorem~4.16]{KirRor00PureInf}, a \ca{} is purely infinite if and only each of its nonzero positive elements is properly infinite.
Using \autoref{prp:PIModTFAE}, we may reformulate the result of Kirchberg and R{\o}rdam as follows:
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:pureInfCa}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
Then $A$ is purely infinite if and only if $\Cu(A)\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(A)$.
\end{prp}
It follows from Propositions~\ref{prp:axiomTensProdPI} and~\ref{prp:pureInfCa} that the Cuntz semigroup of every purely infinite \ca{} is unperforated.
This verifies \autoref{conj:nearUnpCaZstable} for the class for purely infinite \ca{s}.
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:pureInfCanearUnp}
Let $A$ be a purely infinite \ca.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{cor}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:LatTens}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}, and let $A_0\subset A$ and $B_0\subset B$ be sub-\ca{s}.
Then the natural map between the algebraic tensor products, $A_0\odot B_0\to A\odot B$ induces an isometric embedding $A_0\tensMin B_0 \subset A\tensMin B$;
see \cite[II.9.6.2, p.199]{Bla06OpAlgs}.
Given ideals $I\in\Lat(A)$ and $J\in\Lat(B)$, it is easy to see that $I\tensMin J$ is an ideal in $A\tensMin B$.
Moreover, if $I\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$ and $J\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)$, then $I\tensMin J\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A\tensMin B)$.
Indeed, if $x$ and $y$ are positive, full elements in $I$ and $J$, respectively, then $x\otimes y$ is a positive, full element in $I\tensMin J$.
We leave it to the reader to check that the map
\[
\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)\times\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A\tensMin B),\quad
(I,J)\mapsto I\tensMin J,
\]
is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
It induces a $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\psi_{A,B}\colon\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A\tensMin B).
\]
\end{pgr}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:LatTens}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}.
When is the map $\psi_{A,B}$ an isomorphism?
When is it surjective?
When is it an order-embedding?
\end{prbl}
We will give partial answers to this problem in \autoref{prp:Latf}.
We expect that $\psi_{A,B}$ is always an order-embedding.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:idealsTens}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}, let $I_1,I_2$ be ideals in $\Lat(A)$, and let $J_1,J_2$ be ideals in $\Lat(B)$.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $(I_1\tensMin J_1)\cap(I_2\tensMin J_2) = (I_1\cap I_2)\tensMin(J_1\cap J_2)$.
\item
We have $I_1\tensMin J_1 \subset I_2\tensMin J_2$ if and only if $I_1=0$, or $J_1=0$, or $I_1\subset I_2$ and $J_1\subset J_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
\enumStatement{1}.
The inclusion `$\supset$' is clear.
Let us show the converse.
In general, for ideals $K$ and $L$ in a \ca{}, we have $K\cap L = KL = \left\{ab : a\in K, b\in L\right\}$.
Now, given $x\in I_1\odot J_1$ and $y\in I_2\odot J_2$ in the respective algebraic tensor products, one easily verifies that $xy$ is in $(I_1I_2)\odot(J_1J_2)$.
Passing to closures, we obtain
\begin{align*}
(I_1\tensMin J_1)\cap(I_2\tensMin J_2)
&= (I_1\tensMin J_1)(I_2\tensMin J_2) \\
&\subset (I_1I_2)\tensMin(J_1J_2)
= (I_1\cap I_2)\tensMin(J_1\cap J_2).
\end{align*}
\enumStatement{2}.
The `if' implication is clear.
To show the converse, assume $I_1\tensMin J_1 \subset I_2\tensMin J_2$.
A minimal tensor product of \ca{s} is only zero if each of the factors is zero.
Thus we may assume that $I_1,J_1,I_2$, and $J_2$ are nonzero.
Using \enumStatement{1} at the second step, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{prp:idealsTens:eq1}
I_1\tensMin J_1
= (I_1\tensMin J_1)\cap(I_2\tensMin J_2)
= (I_1\cap I_2)\tensMin(J_1\cap J_2).
\end{align}
To show $I_1\cap I_2=I_1$, let us assume the converse, that is, assume there is $c\in I_1$ with $c\notin I_1\cap I_2$.
Using the Hahn-Banach theorem, choose a state $\varphi$ on $A$ with $\varphi(I_1\cap I_2)=\{0\}$ and $\varphi(c)=1$.
Consider the slice map $R_\varphi\colon A\tensMin B\to B$, which satisfies $R_\varphi(a\otimes b)=\varphi(a)b$, for $a\in A$ and $b\in B$;
see \cite[II.9.7.1., p.203]{Bla06OpAlgs}.
Using linearity and continuity of $R_\varphi$, we obtain $R_\varphi(x)=0$ for all $x\in (I_1\cap I_2)\tensMin(J_1\cap J_2)$.
In particular, by \eqref{prp:idealsTens:eq1}, we have $R_\varphi(c\otimes b)=0$ for all $b\in J_1$.
On the other hand, we have $R_\varphi(c\otimes b)=b$ for all $b\in B$.
Since $J_1\neq\{0\}$, this is a contradiction, which implies $I_1\cap I_2=I_1$ and hence $I_1\subset I_2$.
Analogously, we deduce $J_1\subset J_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:idealsTens}
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}, and let $\psi_{A,B}$ be the $\CatCu$-mor\-phism as defined in \autoref{pgr:LatTens}.
Then \autoref{prp:idealsTens}(2) shows that $\psi_{A,B}$ determines the order of simple tensors in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)$.
More precisely, given $I_1,I_2\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$, and $J_1,J_2\in\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)$, the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $I_1\otimes J_1 \leq I_2\otimes J_2$ in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)$.
\item
We have $\psi_{A,B}(I_1\otimes J_1) \leq \psi_{A,B}(I_2\otimes J_2)$ in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A\tensMin B)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:Latf}
Let $A$ and $B$ be separable \ca{s}, and let $\psi_{A,B}$ be the $\CatCu$-morphism as defined in \autoref{pgr:LatTens}.
Assume $B$ is simple.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The map $\psi_{A,B}$ is an order-embedding.
\item
The map $\psi_{A,B}$ is surjective if and only if the (equivalent) conditions of Proposition~2.16 in \cite{BlaKir04PureInf} are satisfied.
In particular, this is the case if $A$ or $B$ is exact;
see \cite[Proposition~2.17]{BlaKir04PureInf}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
\enumStatement{1}.
Since $B$ is simple, we have $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)\cong\{0,\infty\}$.
Therefore, every element in $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B)$ is a simple tensor, and thus the result follows since $\psi_{A,B}$ determines the order of simple tensors;
see \autoref{rmk:idealsTens}.
\enumStatement{2}.
Given $K\in\Lat(A\tensMin B)$, it is straightforward to see that $K$ lies in the image of the map $\psi_{A,B}$ if and only if $K$ is the supremum of the ideals $I\tensMin J\subset K$ with $I\in\Lat(A)$ and $J\in\Lat(B)$.
This is equivalent to condition~(ii) in \cite[Proposition~2.16]{BlaKir04PureInf}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:tensCaWithSimplePI}
Let $A$ and $B$ be separable \ca{s}.
Assume $B$ is simple, nuclear and purely infinite.
Then the natural map $\tau_{A,B}$ is an isomorphism.
Thus, there are natural isomorphisms:
\[
\Cu(A\otimes B)
\cong \Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B)
\cong \Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\{0,\infty\}.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We have $\Cu(B)\cong\{0,\infty\}$, and therefore $\Cu(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Cu(B)\cong\Lat(A)$ by \autoref{prp:tensWithInfty}.
Kirchberg's $\mathcal{O}_\infty$-absorption theorem (\cite[Theorem~7.2.6, p.113]{Ror02Classification}) implies $B\cong B\otimes\mathcal{O}_\infty$, whence $A\tensMin B$ is purely infinite.
Therefore $\Cu(A\tensMin B)\cong\Lat(A\tensMin B)$, and the result follows from \autoref{prp:Latf}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:tensCaWithInfty}
Let $A$ be a separable \ca{}.
Then there are natural isomorphisms between the following $\CatCu$-semigroups:
\[
\Cu(\mathcal{O}_\infty\otimes A)
\cong \Lat(A)
\cong \Lat(\Cu(A))
\cong \{0,\infty\}\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(A).
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{rmk}
Note that it follows from our observations that a \ca{} $A$ is purely infinite if and only if $\Cu(A)\cong\Cu(\mathcal{O}_{\infty}\otimes A)$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{pgr}
Let $A$ be a \ca{}.
Consider the map
\[
I_A\colon\Cu(A)\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A),
\]
that sends the class of $x\in (A\otimes\K)_+$ to the ideal generated by $x$.
(We implicitly identify $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)\cong\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A\otimes\K)$.)
The map $I_A$ agrees with the composition of the map $\Cu(A)\to\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(\Cu(A))$ from \autoref{prp:LatCu} with the isomorphism $\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(\Cu(A))\cong\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)$ from \autoref{prp:LatCa}.
By \autoref{prp:pureInfCa}, the \ca{} $A$ is purely infinite if and only if $I_A$ is an isomorphism.
Now, let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s} and assume that $A$ or $B$ is purely infinite.
In \cite[Question~5.12]{KirRor00PureInf}, Kirchberg and R{\o}rdam ask whether it follows that $A\tensMin B$ is purely infinite.
Consider the following commutative diagram:
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt{
\Cu(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Cu(B) \ar[r]^-{\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin} \ar[d]^{I_A\otimes I_B}
& \Cu(A\tensMin B) \ar[d]^{I_{A\tensMin B}} \\
\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A)\otimes_\CatCu\Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(B) \ar[r]^-{\psi_{A,B}}
& \Lat_{\mathrm{f}}(A\tensMin B).
}
\]
Using that $A$ or $B$ is purely infinite, it is straightforward to check that $I_A\otimes I_B$ is an isomorphism.
Moreover, $A\tensMin B$ is purely infinite if and only if $I_{A\tensMin B}$ is an isomorphism.
If $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin$ is an isomorphism, then $A\tensMin B$ is purely infinite.
Conversely, if $A\tensMin B$ is purely infinite, then $\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin$ is an isomorphism if and only if $\psi_{A,B}$ is.
This connects Problems~\ref{prbl:tensCa}, \ref{prbl:LatTens} and \cite[Question~5.12]{KirRor00PureInf}.
\end{pgr}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Almost unperforated and almost divisible \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semigroups}
\label{sec:ZMod}
In this section we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that are semimodules over the $\CatCu$-semiring of the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$.
We use $Z$ to denote $\Cu(\mathcal{Z})$ and we begin by showing that $Z$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring;
see \autoref{prp:ZSolid}.
The main result of this section is \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}, where we characterize the $\CatCu$-semimodules over $Z$ as the $\CatCu$-semigroups that are almost unperforated and almost divisible.
This can be interpreted as a verification of the $\CatCu$-semigroup version of the Toms-Winter conjecture;
see \autoref{rmk:TWConjecture}.
\vspace{5pt}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
Recall that $V(A)$ denotes the Murray-von Neumann semigroup of equivalence classes of projections in matrices over $A$.
We use $\QT_2(A)$ to denote the set of $2$-quasitraces on $A$;
see \autoref{sec:fctl}.
By a famous result of Haagerup, \cite{Haa14arXivQuasitraces}, every $2$-quasitrace on a unital, exact \ca{} is a trace.
We let $\Lsc(\QT_2(A))$ denote the set of lower-semicontinuous linear functions from the cone $\QT_2(A)$ to $[0,\infty]$.
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $L(\QT_2(A))$ is defined as a certain subset of $\Lsc(\QT_2(A))$;
see \autoref{pgr:fctl} and \cite{EllRobSan11Cone} for more details.
If $A$ is simple and unital, then $L_b(\QT_2(A))$ is defined as the elements in $L(\QT_2(A))$ that are bounded by a finite multiple of the function $\hat{1}\in L(\QT_2(A))$ associated to the unit of $A$.
The following result is the combination of work of many people and has appeared in several (partial) versions in the literature.
In the formulation presented here, it can be found as Corollary~6.8 and Remark~6.9 in \cite{EllRobSan11Cone}.
Equivalent results and previous partial results can be found in Theorems~4.4 and~6.5 in \cite{PerTom07Recasting}, Theorem~2.6 in \cite{BroTom07ThreeAppl}, Theorems~6.2 and~6.3 in \cite{AntBosPer11CompletionsCu}, Theorem~5.27 in \cite{AraPerTom11Cu}, and Theorem~5.5 in \cite{BroPerTom08CuElliottConj}.
\begin{prp}[{A number of people}]
\label{prp:CuSimpleZstable}
Let $A$ be a unital, separable, simple, finite, $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{}.
Then the (pre)completed Cuntz semigroup of $A$ can be computed as:
\[
W(A) \cong V(A)^\times \sqcup L_b(\QT_2(A)),\quad
\Cu(A) \cong V(A)^\times \sqcup L(\QT_2(A)).
\]
In particular, if $A$ is exact and has a unique tracial state, then
\[
W(A) \cong V(A) \sqcup (0,\infty),\quad
\Cu(A) \cong V(A) \sqcup (0,\infty].
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:Z}\index{terms}{Cuntz semigroup!of Jiang-Su algebra}
Now let $Z$ be the (completed) Cuntz semigroup of the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$.
Using \autoref{prp:CuSimpleZstable}, we can compute $Z$ as
\[
Z=\N\sqcup(0,\infty],
\]
where the elements of $\N\subset Z$ are compact and the elements of $(0,\infty]\subset Z$ are soft;
for the concrete case of the Cuntz semigroup of the Jiang-Su algebra, this computation has also appeared in \cite[Theorem~3.1]{PerTom07Recasting}. (We are assuming here that the set $\N$ contains $0$.)
Using this decomposition into two parts, the addition, multiplication and order on $Z$ are defined as usual in each of the parts;
see also \autoref{exa:R}.
Given a compact, nonzero element $n\in\N\subset Z$, we let $n'\in(0,\infty]$ denote the associated soft element with the same number.
Then, given $n\in\N$ and $a\in(0,\infty]$, we define $n+a=n'+a$ and $na=n'a$.
Thus, the soft part of $Z$ is additively and multiplicatively absorbing.
For a compact element $n\in Z$ and a soft element $a\in Z$ we have $n\leq a$ if and only if $n'< a$; and we have $a\leq n$ if and only if $a\leq n'$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:ZSolid}
The $\CatCu$-semiring $Z=\N\sqcup(0,\infty]$ is solid.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:solidTFAE}, it is enough to show that $1\otimes a=a\otimes 1$ for every $a\in Z$.
This follows easily for compact elements in $Z$, since they are multiples of the unit.
In the other case, if $a\in Z$ is a soft element, we can use the same argument that was used in \autoref{exa:R} to show that $[0,\infty]$ is solid.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:almDiv}
\index{terms}{element!almost $k$-divisible}
\index{terms}{element!almost divisible}
\index{terms}{almost divisible}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!almost divisible}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, $a$ in $S$, and $k\in\N_+$.
We say that $a$ is \emph{almost $k$-divisible} if for any $a'\in S$ with $a'\ll a$ there exists $x\in S$ such that
\[
kx\leq a,\quad
a'\leq (k+1)x.
\]
We say that $a$ is \emph{almost divisible} if it is almost $k$-divisible for every $k\in\N_+$.
We say that $S$ is \emph{almost divisible} if each of its elements is.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:almDiv}
Divisibility properties of $\CatCu$-semigroups are studied in detail in \cite{RobRor13Divisibility}.
The above definition of `almost divisibility' for $\CatCu$-semigroups can be found as Definition~3.1 in connection with Remark~3.13 in \cite{RobRor13Divisibility}.
The Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ of a \ca{} $A$ has sometimes been called almost divisible provided that for all $k\in\N$ and $a\in\Cu(A)$, there exists $x\in\Cu(A)$ such that $kx\leq a\leq (k+1)x$.
This is the natural definition of \emph{almost divisibility} for \pom{s}.
However, for $\CatCu$-semigroups this is in general a stronger form of divisibility than the one in \autoref{dfn:almDiv}.
As suggested by L.~Robert, we use the notion of almost divisibility for $\CatCu$-semigroups as in \autoref{dfn:almDiv} since this is the natural property that is preserved by quotients, limits and ultraproducts of \ca{s} (see \cite{RobTik14} and \cite{RobRor13Divisibility}).
Moreover, as we show below (\autoref{prp:alternativealmDiv}), in the presence of almost unperforation, both definitions agree for $\CatCu$-semigroups.
Therefore, whenever a $\CatCu$-semigroup is almost unperforated, we will make no distinction on which form of divisibility is being used.
Note also that we introduce the notion of `almost $k$-divisibility' for each $k$ only for technical reasons.
This should not be confused with the notion of `$k$-almost divisibility' as in \cite{RobTik14}, \cite{RobRor13Divisibility} or \cite{Win12NuclDimZstable}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{lma}
Let $S$ be an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then $S$ is almost divisible if and only if the subsemigroup $S_c$ of compact elements is almost divisible as a \pom.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $S$ is almost divisible, $a$ is in $S_c$ and $k\in\N$.
As $a\ll a$, there is $x\in S$ such that
\[
kx\leq a,\quad a\leq (k+1)x.
\]
Since $S$ is algebraic and $a$ is compact, we can find $x'\in S_c$ such that $x'\leq x$ and $a\leq(k+1)x'$.
Then
\[
kx'\leq kx\leq a\leq (k+1)x',
\]
which shows that $x'$ has the desired properties.
Conversely, assume that $S_c$ is almost divisible as a \pom.
Let $a'$ and $a$ be elements in $S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, and let $k\in\N$.
Using that $S$ is algebraic there exists a compact element $b$ such that $a'\ll b\ll a$.
Now by assumption there is $x$ in $S_c$ such that
\[
kx\leq b\leq (k+1)x.
\]
It follows
\[
kx\leq b \leq a,\quad
a'\leq b\leq (k+1)x,
\]
which shows that $x$ has the desired properties.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:alternativealmDiv}
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup.
If $S$ is almost divisible, then for all $a\in S$ and $k\in\N$ there exists $x\in S$ such that
\[
kx\leq a\leq (k+1)x.
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Let $a$ and $k$ be as in the statement.
For each $n\in\N$, choose numbers $p_n,q_n\in\N_+$ such that
\[
k+1>\tfrac{p_n}{q_n}>\tfrac{p_{n+1}+1}{q_{n+1}}>k.
\]
Choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_n)_n$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_n a_n$.
Using that $S$ is almost divisible, for each $n\in\N$ we can choose an element $x_n$ in $S$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{prp:alternativealmDiv:eq1}
p_n x_n\leq q_n a_n,\quad
q_n a_{n-1}\leq (p_n+1)x_n.
\end{align}
It follows
\[
q_{n+1} p_n x_n\leq q_{n+1} q_n a_n\leq q_n (p_{n+1}+1) x_{n+1},
\]
which by almost unperforation implies $x_n\leq x_{n+1}$.
Set $x :=\sup_n x_n$.
For each $n$, it follows from \eqref{prp:alternativealmDiv:eq1} that
\[
kp_n x_n\leq kq_n a_n,\quad
(k+1)q_n a_{n-1}\leq (k+1)(p_n+1)x_n.
\]
By almost unperforation, we obtain $k x_n\leq a_n$ and $a_{n-1}\leq (k+1)x_n$.
Passing to suprema, we obtain the desired inequalities.
\end{proof}
It is easily checked that $Z$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
It then follows from the next result that every $\CatCu$-semigroup{} with $Z$-multiplication is almost divisible and almost unperforated.
The converse is shown in \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}.
The following lemma is also used in the proof of \autoref{thm:simpleSemirg}, which is why we formulate it more general than needed in this section.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:ZModAlmUnpDiv}
Let $S$ be a $\Cu$-semimodule over a $\Cu$-semiring $R$.
Assume that the unit element of $R$ is almost divisible.
Then $S$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
In particular, $R$ itself is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(u_n)_n$ in $R$ such that $1_R=\sup_n u_n$.
First, we show that $S$ is almost divisible.
Let $a$ be in $S$, $k\in \N$, and let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
Since $a=\sup_n u_n a$, there exists $N\geq 1$ such that $a'\leq u_Na$.
Then, since $1_R$ is almost divisible, we choose $x\in R$ such that
\[
kx\leq 1_R,\quad
u_N\leq (k+1)x.
\]
It follows
\[
k(xa)\leq a,\quad
a'\leq u_Na\leq (k+1)(xa).
\]
This shows that $a$ is almost divisible.
Since $a$ was arbitrary, we obtain that $S$ is almost divisible.
To show that $S$ is almost unperforated, let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $(k+1)a\leq kb$ for some $k\in\N$.
Let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
As above, there exists $N\in\N$ such that $a'\leq u_Na$ and we can choose $x\in R$ such that $kx\leq 1_R$ and $u_N\leq (k+1)x$.
Then
\[
a'\leq u_Na\leq x(k+1)a\leq xkb\leq b.
\]
Since this holds for every $a'$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, we obtain $a\leq b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
To prepare the proof of \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}, we first provide some results that are also of interest in themselves.
We need to introduce some notation. Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Given $a\in S$ and $k,n\in\N_+$, we set
\[
\mu((k,n),a) :=\left\{ x\in S : nx\leq ka \leq (n+1)x \right\}.
\]
Note that an element $a\in S$ is almost divisible if and only if $\mu((k,n),a)$ is nonempty for every $k,n\in\N_+$.
We interpret $\mu((k,n),a)$ as the interval $\left[\tfrac{k}{n+1}a,\tfrac{k}{n}a\right]$.
With this idea in mind, the following lemma asserts that for almost unperforated semigroups these `intervals' respect the order and way-below relation.
\begin{lma}
\label{lem:mult}
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup{}, $a,b\in S$, and $k_1,n_1,k_2,n_2\in\N_+$ such that $\tfrac{k_1}{n_1}<\tfrac{k_2}{n_2+1}$.
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $a\leq b$, then $x\leq y$ for every $x\in\mu((k_1,n_1),a)$ and $y\in\mu((k_2,n_2),b)$.
\item
If $a\ll b$, then $x\ll y$ for every $x\in\mu((k_1,n_1),a)$ and $y\in\mu((k_2,n_2),b)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $k_1,n_1,k_2,n_2$ be as in the statement, and let $x\in\mu((k_1,n_1),a)$ and $y\in\mu((k_2,n_2),b)$.
Then
\[
n_1x \leq k_1a,\quad
k_2 b \leq (n_2+1)y.
\]
Multiplying the first inequality by $k_2$ and the second by $k_1$, we obtain
\[
k_2n_1x \leq k_2k_1a,\quad
k_1k_2b \leq k_1(n_2+1)y.
\]
If $a\leq b$, then it follows $k_2n_1x\leq k_1(n_2+1)y$.
Since $k_1(n_2+1)<k_2n_1$ and $S$ is almost unperforated, we obtain $x\leq y$.
In the second case, assuming $a\ll b$, it follows $k_2n_1x\ll k_1(n_2+1)y$.
Choose $y'$ such that $y'\ll y$ and $k_2n_1x\ll k_1(n_2+1)y'$.
As in the first case, we obtain $x\leq y'$.
Then $x\ll y$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:zembed}
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup{} and let $a$ in $S$.
Then there exists a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\alpha_a\colon Z\to S$ with $\alpha_a(1)=a$ if and only if $a$ is almost divisible.
If the map $\alpha_a$ exists, then it is unique.
Moreover, it is a $\CatCu$-morphism if and only if $a$ is compact.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
If there exists a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\alpha_a\colon Z\to S$ with $\alpha_a(1)=a$, then for each $n\in\N_+$ we have
\[
n\cdot\alpha_a(\tfrac{1}{n})=\alpha_a(1')\leq \alpha_a(1)=a\leq \alpha_a(\tfrac{n+1}{n})=(n+1)\alpha_a(\tfrac{1}{n}),
\]
which shows that $a$ is almost divisible.
For the converse, let $a\in S$ be an almost divisible element.
We define a map $\alpha_a\colon Z\to S$ by considering the decomposition $Z=\N\sqcup(0,\infty]$.
For $n\in\N\subset Z$, we set $\alpha_a(n) :=na=a+\stackrel{n}{\ldots}+a$.
For $t\in(0,\infty]\subset Z$, we set
\[
\alpha_a(t)
:=\sup \left\{ x\in\mu((k,n),a) : \tfrac{k}{n}<t \right\}.
\]
We first prove that this supremum exists, by finding an increasing cofinal sequence.
Choose numbers $k_d,n_d\in\N_+$ for $d\in\N_+$ such that
\[
\tfrac{k_d}{n_d}<\tfrac{k_{d+1}}{n_{d+1}+1},
\quad\text{ and }\quad
\sup_d\tfrac{k_d}{n_d}=t.
\]
Since $a$ is almost divisible, for each $d$ we can choose an element $x_d\in\mu((k_d,n_d),a)$.
By \autoref{lem:mult}, $(x_d)_d$ is an increasing sequence in $S$.
Moreover, it is easily checked that for every $\tfrac{k}{n}\in\Q_+$ with $\tfrac{k}{n}<t$ and for every $x\in\mu((k,n),a)$ there is an index $d$ such that $x\leq x_d$.
It follows $\alpha_a(t)=\sup_d x_d$, which exists by \axiomO{1}.
To show uniqueness, let $\beta\colon Z\to S$ be a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism with $\beta(1)=a$.
It is clear that $\beta(n)=\alpha_a(n)$ for all elements $n\in\N\subset Z$.
Consider now $t\in (0,\infty]\subset Z$.
As above, for each $d\in\N_+$ choose numbers $k_d,n_d\in\N_+$ and an element $x_d$ such that
\[
\tfrac{k_d}{n_d}<\tfrac{k_{d+1}}{n_{d+1}+1},\quad
\sup_d\tfrac{k_d}{n_d}=t,
\text{ and }
x_d\text{ is in }\mu((k_d,n_d),a).
\]
It is easy to see that $\beta(\tfrac{k_d}{n_d})$ is in $\mu((k_d,n_d),a)$ for each $d\in\N_+$.
By \autoref{lem:mult}, we deduce for each $d$ that
\[
x_d \leq \beta(\tfrac{k_{d+1}}{n_{d+1}}) \leq x_{d+2}.
\]
Using this at the second step, and that $\beta$ preserves suprema of increasing sequences at the first step, it follows
\[
\beta(t)
=\sup_d \beta(\tfrac{k_d}{n_d})
=\sup_d x_d
=\alpha_a(t).
\]
It is left to the reader to check that $\alpha_a$ preserves the zero element, the order, and suprema of increasing sequences.
It remains to prove that $\alpha_a$ is additive.
This is clear for sums of elements in $\N\subset Z$.
Let $t_1,t_2$ be in $(0,\infty]\subset Z$.
For each $d\in\N_+$, choose numbers $k_d^{(1)},k_d^{(2)},n_d\in\N_+$ such that for $i=1,2$:
\[
\tfrac{k_d^{(i)}}{n_d}<\tfrac{k_{d+1}^{(i)}}{n_{d+1}+1},
\quad\text{ and }\quad
\sup_d\tfrac{k_d^{(i)}}{n_d}=t_i.
\]
For each $d$ and $i=1,2$, choose $x_n^{(i)}\in\mu((k_d^{(i)},n_d),a)$.
Then $\alpha_a(t_i)=\sup_d x_d^{(i)}$ for $i=1,2$.
Moreover, we get
\[
\tfrac{k_d^{(1)}+k_d^{(2)}}{n_d}
<\tfrac{k_{d+1}^{(1)}+k_{d+1}^{(2)}}{n_{d+1}+1},
\quad\text{ and }\quad
\sup_d\tfrac{k_d^{(1)}+k_d^{(2)}}{n_d}=t_1+t_2.
\]
Thus, for any sequence of elements $(y_d)_d$ with $y_d\in\mu((k_d^{(1)}+k_d^{(1)},n_d),a)$ we will get $\alpha_a(t_1+t_2)=\sup_d y_d$.
However, it is easily seen that $x_d^{(1)}+x_d^{(2)}$ belongs to $\mu((k_d^{(1)}+k_d^{(2)},n_d),a)$.
Using \axiomO{4} at the second step, we obtain
\[
\alpha_a(t_1+t_2)=\sup_d (x_d^{(1)}+x_d^{(2)})
=\sup_d x_d^{(1)} + \sup_d x_d^{(2)}
=\alpha_a(t_1)+\alpha_a(t_2).
\]
It is left to the reader to show that $\alpha_a$ preserves the sum of an element in $\N\subset Z$ with an element in $(0,\infty]\subset Z$.
Finally, let us show that $\alpha_a$ is a $\CatCu$-morphism if and only if $a$ is compact.
Assume first that $\alpha_a$ preserves the way-below relation.
Since the unit element of $Z$ is compact, we obtain
\[
a=\alpha_a(1)\ll\alpha_a(1)=a.
\]
For the converse, assume that $a$ is compact.
We need to show that $x\ll y$ implies $\alpha_a(x)\ll\alpha_a(y)$, for any $x,y\in Z$.
This is clear if $x$ or $y$ is an element in $\N\subset Z$.
Assume that $x,y$ are in $(0,\infty]\subset Z$.
Without loss of generality we may assume $x<y$.
Choose $\tfrac{k}{n}\in\Q_+$ and elements $u\in\mu((k,n+2),a)$, $v\in\mu((k,n),a)$ such that
\[
x\leq\tfrac{k}{n+3},\quad
\tfrac{k}{n}< y.
\]
Since $a\ll a$, it follows from \autoref{lem:mult} that $u\ll v$.
It also follows from \autoref{lem:mult} and the definition of $\alpha_a$ that $\alpha_a(x)\leq u$ and $v\leq\alpha_a(y)$.
Therefore
\[
\alpha_a(x)
\leq u \ll v
\leq\alpha_a(y),
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:ZModTFAE}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $S\cong Z\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
\item
The semigroup $S$ has $Z$-multiplication.
\item
The semigroup $S$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:ZSolid}, the $\CatCu$-semiring $Z$ is solid.
Therefore, the equivalence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} follows from \autoref{prp:solidModuleTFAE}.
Since the unit of $Z$ is almost divisible, we obtain from \autoref{prp:ZModAlmUnpDiv} that every $\CatCu$-semigroup with $Z$-multiplication is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
This shows that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
To show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{2}, suppose that $S$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
Using \autoref{prp:zembed}, we define $\alpha\colon Z\times S \to S$ by $\alpha(z,a)=\alpha_a(z)$ for each $a\in S$ and $z\in Z$.
We claim that $\alpha$ is a $\Cu$-bimorphism.
By \autoref{prp:zembed}, $\alpha(\freeVar,a)$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism for each $a\in S$.
For the other variable, it is also clear that $\alpha(n,\freeVar)$ is a $\CatCu$-morphism for each $n\in\N\subset Z$.
Let $t$ be in $(0,\infty]\subset Z$.
To show that $\alpha(t,\freeVar)$ preserves order, let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $a\leq b$.
By definition, we have
\[
\alpha(t,a)
= \sup \left\{ x\in\mu((k,n),a) : \tfrac{k}{n}<t \right\}.
\]
Thus, given any $k,n\in\N_+$ satisfying $\tfrac{k}{n}<t$ and given any element $x\in\mu((k,n),a)$, we need to show that $x\leq\alpha(t,b)$.
Choose $k',n'\in\N_+$ and an element $y$ such that
\[
\tfrac{k}{n}<\tfrac{k'}{n'+1},\
\tfrac{k'}{n'}<t,\quad
y\in\mu((k',n'),b).
\]
By \autoref{lem:mult}, we have $x\leq y$.
Therefore
\[
x \leq \sup \left\{ z\in\mu((c,d),b) : \tfrac{c}{d}<t \right\}
= \alpha(t,b),
\]
from which we deduce $\alpha(t,a)\leq\alpha(t,b)$, as desired.
To show additivity in the second variable, let $z$ be in $Z$ and $a,b$ in $S$.
Consider the following maps from $Z$ to $S$ given by
\[
\alpha_{a+b}=(x\mapsto \alpha(x,a+b)),\quad
\alpha_a+\alpha_b=(x\mapsto \alpha(x,a)+\alpha(x,b)),\quad
\txtFA x\in Z.
\]
It is clear that both maps are generalized $\CatCu$-morphisms that send the unit of $Z$ to the element $a+b$.
By \autoref{prp:zembed}, the map with this property is unique, and therefore $\alpha(z,a+b)=\alpha(z,a)+\alpha(z,b)$.
Analogously, one proves that $\alpha(z,\sup_na_n)=\sup_n\alpha(z,a_n)$ for every $z\in Z$ and every increasing sequence $(a_n)_n$ in $S$.
Thus, $\alpha\colon Z\times S\to S$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
It is clear that $\alpha(1,a)=a$ for every $a\in S$ and it is straightforward to check that
\begin{align}\tag{*}
\label{thm:zmult:1}
\alpha(z_1z_2,a)=\alpha(z_1,\alpha(z_2,a)),
\end{align}
for every $z_1,z_2\in Z$ and $a\in S$.
It remains to show that for any $t_1,t_2\in Z$ with $t_1\ll t_2$ and for any $a,b\in S$ with $a\ll b$, we have $\alpha(t_1,a)\ll \alpha(t_2,b)$.
This is clear if $t_1$ or $t_2$ is an element in $\N\subset Z$.
Thus, we consider the case that $t_1,t_2$ are in $(0,\infty]$, and without loss of generality we may assume $t_1<t_2$.
Then $t_1$ is necessarily finite, and $1_Z\leq t_1^{-1}t_2$ in $Z$.
In order to show $\alpha(t_1,a)\ll \alpha(t_2,b)$, let $(x_n)_n$ be an increasing sequence in $S$ with $\alpha(t_2,b)\leq \sup_n x_n$.
Using this at the fifth step, and using \eqref{thm:zmult:1} at the fourth step, we obtain
\begin{align*}
a \ll b
=\alpha(1_Z,b)
&\leq\alpha(t_1^{-1}t_2,b) \\
&=\alpha(t_1^{-1},\alpha(t_2,b)) \\
&\leq\alpha(t_1^{-1},\sup_n x_n)
=\sup_n (\alpha(t_1^{-1},x_n)).
\end{align*}
Therefore, there exists an index $n_0$ such that $a\leq \alpha(t_1^{-1},x_{n_0})$.
Then
\[
\alpha(t_1,a)
\leq\alpha(t_1,\alpha(t_1^{-1},x_{n_0}))
=\alpha(1',x_{n_0})
\leq\alpha(1_Z,x_{n_0})
=x_{n_0}.
\]
Hence $\alpha(t_1,a)\ll \alpha(t_2,b)$, as desired.
This finishes the proof that $S$ has $Z$-multiplication.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:TWConjecture}\index{terms}{Regularity Conjecture}\index{terms}{Toms-Winter Conjecture}
The Toms-Winter conjecture (see \cite[Remarks~3.5]{TomWin09Villadsen} and
\cite[Conjecture~0.1]{Win12NuclDimZstable}) predicts that for every unital, separable, simple, nonelementary, nuclear \ca{} $A$, the following conditions are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
The algebra $A$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, that is, we have $A\cong \mathcal{Z}\otimes A$.
\item
The Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ is almost unperforated.
\item
The algebra $A$ has finite nuclear dimension.
\end{enumerate}
We can interpret \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE} as the verification of the $\CatCu$-semigroup version of a part of the Toms-Winter conjecture.
The analog of `$\mathcal{Z}$-stability' for a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is the property that $S\cong Z\otimes_{\CatCu}S$, which is \enumStatement{1} of \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}.
The second condition of the Toms-Winter conjecture is already formulated for $\CatCu$-semigroups.
However, in \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}\enumStatement{3} we not only require the $\CatCu$-semigroup to be almost unperforated but also almost divisible.
We remark that not every Cuntz semigroup of a simple \ca{} is almost divisible;
see \cite{DadHirTomWin09ZNotEmb}.
On the other hand, it seems possible that the Cuntz semigroup of a simple \ca{} is automatically almost divisible whenever it is almost unperforated.
Indeed, if the Toms-Winter conjecture holds true, then this would be a consequence for at least the class of nuclear \ca{s}.
It is not clear what the analog of condition \enumStatement{3} of the Toms-Winter conjecture for $\CatCu$-semigroups should be.
This would entail to define nuclearity and dimension concepts for $\CatCu$-semigroups, which is not pursued here.
\end{rmk}
The following problem asks if there is an analog of Theorems~\ref{prp:MapToPIMod}, \ref{prp:MapToRqMod} and \ref{prp:MapToRMod} for tensor products with $Z$.
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:MapToZMod}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a,b$ be in $S$.
Characterize when $1\otimes a \leq 1\otimes b$ in $Z\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
\end{prbl}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:axiomTensProdZ}
When does axiom~\axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} or weak cancellation pass from a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ to the tensor product $Z\otimes_{\CatCu} S$?
\end{prbl}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:axiomTensProdZ}
In general, axiom~\axiomO{5} does not pass to tensor products with $Z$;
see \autoref{prp:tensornotO5}.
We have that $Z$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation itself.
Therefore, if $S$ is an inductive limit of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroups, then $Z\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ satisfies the three axioms as well;
see \autoref{prp:tensLimSimplicial}.
It seems likely that \autoref{prbl:axiomTensProdZ} has a positive answer if $S$ is assumed to be algebraic.
\end{pgr}
We end this section with some structure results about $\CatCu$-semigroup{s} with $Z$-multi\-plication.
For the next result, recall that $1'\in Z$ denotes the soft `one'.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:softZmult}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{} with $Z$-multipli\-ca\-tion.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
An element $a\in S$ is soft if and only if $a=1'a$.
\item
For every functional $\lambda\in F(S)$ and every $a\in S$, we have $\lambda(a)=\lambda(1'a)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
First, in order to verify \enumStatement{1}, let $a$ be in $S$.
To prove that $1'a$ is soft, let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll 1'a$.
We need to show that $a'<_s 1'a$.
Consider the increasing sequence $(\tfrac{k-1}{k})_k$ of noncompact elements in $(0,\infty]\subset Z$.
Since $1'=\sup_k\tfrac{k-1}{k}$ in $Z$, we get
\[
a'\ll 1'a=\sup_k\tfrac{k-1}{k}a.
\]
Thus, there exists $n\in\N$ such that $a'\leq\tfrac{n-1}{n}a$.
It is easy to verify that $\tfrac{n-1}{n}a<_s 1'a$.
It follows $a'<_s 1'a$, as desired
Conversely, assume that $a\in S$ is a soft element.
It is clear that $1'a\leq a$.
To show the converse inequality, it is enough to show that $a'\leq 1'a$ for every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$.
Given such $a'$, it follows from softness of $a$ that there exists $k\in\N$ such that $(k+1)a'\leq ka$.
Using this at the third step, we obtain
\[
a'\leq\tfrac{k+1}{k}a'
=\tfrac{1}{k}((k+1)a')
\leq\tfrac{1}{k}(ka)
=1'a,
\]
as desired.
To show \enumStatement{2}, let $\lambda$ be a functional in $F(S)$ and let $a$ be in $S$.
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $[0,\infty]$ has a $Z$-multiplication.
Since $\lambda$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism from $S$ to $[0,\infty]$, it follows from \autoref{prp:solidTFAE} that $\lambda$ is $Z$-linear.
Using this at the first step, and using that every element of $[0,\infty]$ is soft, we deduce
\[
\lambda(1's)
=1'\lambda(s)
=\lambda(s),
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Let $S$ be a simple, nonelementary, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup with $Z$-multiplication.
Then $S$ is almost unperforated and therefore the conditions in \autoref{prp:predecessors} are equivalent. It follows from \autoref{prp:softZmult} that the predecessor of any compact element $p\in S$ is given as $1'p$.
\end{rmk}
The following result provides a partial answer to \autoref{prbl:pncInCu}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:softInCuZmult}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup{} with $Z$-multipli\-ca\-tion.
Then the subsemigroup $S_\soft$ of soft elements is a $\CatCu$-semigroup{}.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation), then so does $S_\soft$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:softAbsorbing}, $S_\soft$ is a subsemigroup of $S$ that is closed under suprema of increasing sequences.
This shows that $S_\soft$ satisfies \axiomO{1}.
Claim 1:
For every $a\in S_\soft$ there exists an increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S_\soft$ such that $a=\sup_ka_k$ and such that $a_k\ll a_{k+1}$ in $S$ for each $k$.
To show this claim, let $a$ be in $S_\soft$.
Since $S$ satisfies \axiomO{2} we choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(s_k)_k$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_k s_k$.
For each $k\in\N_+$, set
\[
a_k :=\tfrac{k-1}{k}s_k.
\]
It is easy to check that $1'a_k=a_k$, which by \autoref{prp:softZmult} implies that $a_k$ belongs to $S_\soft$.
Moreover, for each $k$ we have $\tfrac{k-1}{k}\ll\tfrac{k}{k+1}$ in $Z$ and $s_k\ll s_{k+1}$ in $S$.
Since the $Z$-multiplication on $S$ is given by a $\CatCu$-bimorphism, we obtain
\[
a_k =\tfrac{k-1}{k}s_k \ll \tfrac{k}{k+1}s_{k+1} = a_{k+1},
\]
for each $k$.
It is clear that $a=\sup_ka_k$, which finishes the proof of the claim.
By \autoref{lem:density}, for every $a,b\in S_\soft$ we have $a\ll b$ in $S$ if and only if $a\ll b$ in $S_\soft$.
Together with claim~1, this verifies \axiomO{2} for $S_\soft$.
Then axioms \axiomO{3} and \axiomO{4} for $S_\soft$ follow from their counterparts in $S$.
Next, assume that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
In order to show that $S_\soft$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, let $a',a,b',b,c\in S_\soft$ satisfy
\[
a+b\leq c,\quad
a'\ll a,\quad
b'\ll b.
\]
Using that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5} choose $x\in S$ such that
\[
a'+x\leq c\leq a+x,\quad
b'\leq x.
\]
Set $y :=1'x$, which by \autoref{prp:softZmult} is an element in $S_\soft$.
We claim that $y$ has the desired properties to verify \axiomO{5} for $S_\soft$.
Indeed, using \autoref{prp:softZmult} again, we have $a'=1'a'$, $a=1'a$, $c=1'c$ and $b'=1'b'$.
Therefore
\[
a'+y
=1'(a'+x)\leq 1'c = c
\leq 1'(a+x)
=a+y,\quad
b'=1'(b')\leq 1'(x)=y,
\]
as desired.
In the same way, one shows that $S_\soft$ inherits \axiomO{6} from $S$.
Finally, it is straightforward to check that $S_\soft$ is weakly cancellative whenever $S$ is.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{The rationalization of a semigroup}
\label{sec:RqMod}
\index{terms}{rationalization}
In this section, we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that are semimodules over the $\CatCu$-semiring of a strongly self-absorbing UHF-algebra.
Given a supernatural number $q$ satisfying $q^2=q$ and $q\neq 1$, we let $M_q$ be the associated UHF-algebra;
see \autoref{pgr:Mq}.
We use $R_q$ to denote $\Cu(M_q)$.
In \autoref{prp:RqSolid}, we show that $R_q$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
In \autoref{dfn:qUnpDiv}, we recall the natural notions of $q$-unperforation and $q$-divisibility for semigroups.
The main result of this section is \autoref{prp:RqModTFAE}, where we characterize the $\CatCu$-semimodules over $R_q$ as the $\CatCu$-semigroups that are $q$-unperforated and $q$-divisible.
In \autoref{prp:tensRqCa}, we apply the results to the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca{} $A$.
In particular, we obtain that $\Cu(M_q\otimes A)\cong \Cu(A)$ if and only if $\Cu(A)$ is $q$-divisible and $q$-unperforated.
We also deduce that the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca{} $A$ is nearly unperforated whenever $A$ tensorially absorbs a strongly self-absorbing UHF-algebra;
see \autoref{prp:UHFStableNearUnp}.
This verifies \autoref{conj:nearUnpCaZstable} in that case.
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:Rq}
\index{terms}{supernatural number}
A \emph{supernatural number} $q$ is a formal product
\[
q=\prod_{k\in\N} p_k^{n_k},
\]
where $p_0,p_1,p_2,\ldots$ is an enumeration of all prime numbers and where each $n_k$ is a number in $\{0,1,2,\ldots,\infty\}$ that denotes the multiplicity with which the prime $p_k$ occurs in $q$.
By definition, zero is not a supernatural number.
Given supernatural numbers $q=\prod_k p_k^{m_k}$ and $r=\prod_k p_k^{n_k}$, their (formal) product is given by $qr=\prod_k p_k^{m_k+n_k}$. Analogously one can naturally define the product of infinitely many (super)natural numbers $\prod_{n\in \N}q_n$ in the obvious way. If $q=q^2$, then each $n_k$ is either $0$ or $\infty$.
We identify the nonzero natural numbers with the supernatural numbers of the form $\prod_{k\in\N} p_k^{n_k}$ where $\sum_{k\in\N} n_k <\infty$.
In particular, the number `one' is the supernatural number $\prod_{k\in\N} p_k^{n_k}$ where each $n_k$ is zero.
Let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$.
We write $\Z\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]$ for the ring obtained by inverting in $\Z$ all primes that divide $q$, that is:
\[
\Z\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]
=\Z\left[\left\{ \tfrac{1}{p} : p \text{ prime}, p|q \right\}\right].
\]
Then we let $K_q$ denote the subsemiring of nonnegative numbers in $\Z\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]$, that is:
\[
K_q=\Q_+\cap\Z\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right].
\]
For example, we have
\[
K_1=\N=\{0,1,2,\ldots\},\quad
K_{2^\infty}=\Q_+\cap\Z\left[\tfrac{1}{2}\right]=\N\left[\tfrac{1}{2}\right].
\]
Then $K_q$ is a unital subsemiring of $\Q_+$, and all unital subsemirings of $\Q_+$ arise this way.
\index{symbols}{K$_q$@$K_q$}
For the rest of the paragraph, we fix a supernatural number $q$ satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
We equip $K_q$ with the natural algebraic order.
Recall that, for a \pom{} $M$, we denote by $\Cu(M)$ the $\CatCu$-completion of the $\CatPreW$-semigroup $(M,\leq)$;
see \autoref{pgr:algebraicSemigp}.
Then we define
\[
R_q = \Cu(K_q).
\]
\index{symbols}{R$_q$@$R_q$}
It follows from the results about algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroups in \autoref{sec:algebraicSemigp} that $R_q$ is a weakly cancellative $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}, and whose submonoid of compact elements is canonically identified with $K_q$.
It is then straightforward to check that there is a decomposition of $R_q$ as
\[
R_q = K_q \sqcup (0,\infty],
\]
where $K_q\subset R_q$ are the compact elements in $R_q$, and where $(0,\infty]\subset R_q$ is the submonoid of nonzero soft elements in $R_q$.
Using that $K_q$ is a semiring, we can define a product on $R_q$.
In \autoref{pgr:CuCompletionSrg}, this construction will be carried out in greater generality.
Here, we only consider the concrete case of $R_q$.
The order and semiring-structure of $R_q$ are so that the inclusion of $K_q$ in $R_q$ and the inclusion of $(0,\infty]$ in $R_q$ are order-embeddings and semiring-homomorphisms.
We let $\iota\colon K_q\to [0,\infty]$ be the natural inclusion map.
Let $a\in K_q$ and $t\in(0,\infty]$.
Then their sum in $R_q$ is given as $a+t=\iota(a)+t$, an element in $(0,\infty]$.
If $a=0$, then $at=0\in K_q$.
If $a$ is nonzero, then the product of $a$ and $t$ in $R_q$ is given as $at=\iota(a)t\in(0,\infty]$.
Moreover, we have $a\leq t$ in $R_q$ if and only if $\iota(a)<t$, and we have $t\leq a$ in $R_q$ if and only if $t\leq\iota(a)$.
Thus, the submonoid of soft elements in $R_q$ is additively and multiplicatively absorbing.
It is straightforward to check directly that the product on $R_q$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism and that the unit element of $K_q$ is also a unit for $R_q$.
This gives $R_q$ the structure of a $\CatCu$-semiring.
\end{pgr}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:Mq}
\index{terms}{UHF-algebra!infinite type}
\index{symbols}{M$_q$@$M_q$ \quad (UHF-algebra)}
Given a supernatural number $q$, one associates a UHF-algebra $M_q$ as follows:
If $q$ is finite, then $M_q$ denotes the \ca{} of $q$ by $q$ matrices.
If $q$ is infinite, then we choose a sequence $n_0,n_1,n_2,\ldots$ of prime numbers such that $q$ is equal to the product $\prod_{k=0}^\infty n_k$.
Then we set
\[
M_q := \bigotimes_{k=0}^\infty M_{n_k}.
\]
The isomorphism type of $M_q$ does not depend on the choice of the sequence $(n_k)_k$.
Let $q_1$ and $q_2$ be supernatural numbers.
Then $q_1=q_2$ if and only if $M_{q_1}\cong M_{q_2}$.
Moreover,
\[
M_{q_1}\otimes M_{q_2} \cong M_{q_1q_2}.
\]
The UHF-algebra $M_q$ is said to be of \emph{infinite type} if $M_q\cong M_q\otimes M_q$ and $M_q\neq\C$.
Equivalently, we have $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
It is known that every UHF-algebra of infinite type is strongly self-absorbing;
see \cite{TomWin07ssa}.
\end{pgr}
\index{terms}{Cuntz semigroup!of UFH-algebra}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:RqFromUHF}
Let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
Then
\[
R_q \cong \Cu(M_q).
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It is well-known that $M_q$ is a unital, separable, simple, $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca{} with stable rank one and unique tracial state.
The $K_0$-group of $M_q$ is isomorphic to $\Z\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]$.
Since $M_q$ has stable rank one, the positive part of the ordered $K_0$-group is naturally isomorphic with $V(M_q)$.
We therefore have $V(M_q)= \Q_+ \cap \Z\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right] = K_q$.
Then it follows from \autoref{prp:CuSimpleZstable} that
\[
\Cu(M_q) \cong V(M_q) \sqcup (0,\infty] \cong K_q \sqcup (0,\infty] = R_q,
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:RqSolid}
Let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
Then $R_q$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:solidTFAE}, it is enough to show that $1\otimes a=a\otimes 1$ for every $a\in R_q$.
If $a$ is a nonzero, compact element in $R_q$, then there are $k,n\in\N_+$ such that $n|q$ and $a=\tfrac{k}{n}$.
It follows
\[
1\otimes a
= \tfrac{n}{n}\otimes \tfrac{k}{n}
= (nk) \tfrac{1}{n}\otimes \tfrac{1}{n}
= \tfrac{k}{n}\otimes \tfrac{n}{n}
= a\otimes 1.
\]
For a soft element in $R_q$, one can apply the same argument that was used in \autoref{exa:R} to show that $[0,\infty]$ is solid.
\end{proof}
We remark that a more general result will be proved in \autoref{prp:solidSrgCu}.
The following result follows by combining the observations in \autoref{pgr:Mq} with \autoref{prp:RqFromUHF} and \autoref{prp:tensProdAF}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensProdRqs}
Let $q$ and $r$ be supernatural numbers satisfying $q=q^2\neq 1$ and $r=r^2\neq 1$.
Then $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} R_r\cong R_{qr}$.
\end{prp}
If $q$ is a (nontrivial) supernatural number of infinite type, and $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup, we will refer to $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ as a \emph{rationalization} of $S$.
\index{terms}{rationalization!Cu-semigroup@$\CatCu$-semigroup}
The concepts of $n$-unperforation and $n$-divisibility of a positively ordered mo\-noid are well-known for a natural number $n$.
The following definition is a straightforward generalization to supernatural numbers.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:qUnpDiv}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!q-unperforated@$q$-unperforated}
\index{terms}{positively ordered monoid!q-divisible@$q$-divisible}
\index{terms}{unperforated!q@$q$-}
\index{terms}{divisible!q@$q$-}
Let $S$ be a \pom, and let $q$ be a supernatural number.
We say that $S$ is \emph{$q$-unperforated} if for every finite number $n$ dividing $q$, and for any elements $a,b\in S$, we have $a\leq b$ whenever $na\leq nb$.
We say that $S$ is \emph{$q$-divisible} if for every finite number $n$ dividing $q$, and for every $a\in S$, there exists $x\in S$ such that $a=nx$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:qUnpDiv}
Let $S$ be a \pom, and let $n$ be a nonzero natural number.
We let $\mu_n\colon S\to S$ be the map that multiplies each element in $S$ by $n$.
(1)
The monoid $S$ is $n$-divisible if and only if $\mu_n$ is surjective.
(2)
The monoid $S$ is $n$-unperforated if and only if $\mu_n$ is an order-embedding.
(3)
Let $q$ be a supernatural number, and let $q^\infty$ denote its infinite product with itself.
Then $S$ is $q$-divisible if and only if $S$ is $q^\infty$-divisible.
Similarly, $S$ is $q$-unperforated if and only if $S$ is $q^\infty$-unperforated.
(4)
Let $q_\infty$ be the largest supernatural number, for which each prime has infinite multiplicity.
A \pom{} $S$ is \emph{divisible} if it is $n$-divisible for every $n\in\N_+$, which is equivalent to being $q_\infty$-divisible.
Similarly, $S$ is \emph{unperforated} if it is $n$-unperforated for every $n\in\N_+$, or, equivalently, if if is $q_\infty$-unperforated.
\end{rmks}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:qUnpNearUnp}
Let $S$ be a \pom, and let $q$ be a supernatural number with $q\neq 1$.
(1)
If $S$ is $q$-divisible, then for any $a\in S$ and $n\geq 1$, there exists $x\in S$ such that $nx\leq a\leq (n+1)x$. In particular, $S$ is almost divisible.
(2)
If $S$ is $q$-unperforated, then $S$ is nearly unperforated and therefore also almost unperforated.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
To show the first statement, assume that $S$ is a $q$-divisible, \pom.
Let $a$ be in $S$ and let $n$ be in $\N_+$.
We need to find $x\in S$ such that $nx\leq a\leq(n+1)x$.
Choose a number $d\geq 2$ that divides $q$.
Since the set $\left\{ \tfrac{r}{d^k} : r,k\in \N_+ \right\}$ is dense in $\Q_+$, we can find $r$ and $k$ in $\N_+$ such that $\tfrac{1}{n+1}<\tfrac{r}{d^k}<\tfrac{1}{n}$.
Since $S$ is $d$-divisible, there exists $x\in S$ such that $d^kx=a$.
Then
\[
n(rx)\leq d^k x = a \leq (n+1)(rx),
\]
which shows that the element $rx$ has the desired properties.
To prove the second statement, assume that $S$ is a $q$-unperforated, \pom.
Choose a number $d\geq 2$ that divides $q$.
To show that $S$ is nearly unperforated, let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $a\leq_p b$.
This means that there exists $n_0\in\N$ such that $na\leq nb$ for all $n\in\N$ with $n\geq n_0$.
Choose $k\in\N_+$ such that $d^k\geq n_0$.
Then $d^ka\leq d^kb$.
As observed in \autoref{rmk:qUnpDiv}, we have that $S$ is $d^k$-unperforated.
Thus, we obtain $a\leq b$, as desired.
We have seen in \autoref{prp:nearUnperfImplications} that near unperforation implies almost unperforation in general.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:RqModUnpDiv}
Let $S$ be a $\Cu$-semimodule over a $\Cu$-semiring $R$, and let $q$ be a supernatural number with $q\neq 1$.
Assume that the unit element of $R$ is $q$-divisible.
Then $S$ is $q$-unperforated and $q$-divisible.
In particular, $R$ itself is $q$-unperforated and $q$-divisible.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is analogous to that of \autoref{prp:ZModAlmUnpDiv} and is left to the reader.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:RqModTFAE}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $S\cong R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ has $R_q$-multiplication.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is $q$-divisible and $q$-unperforated.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:RqSolid}, the $\CatCu$-semiring $R_q$ is solid.
Therefore, the equivalence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} follows from \autoref{prp:solidModuleTFAE}.
The unit of $R_q$ is clearly $q$-divisible.
Therefore, it follows from \autoref{prp:RqModUnpDiv} that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{3}.
Finally, to show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{2}, suppose that $S$ is $n$-divisible and $n$-unperforated for every $n\in\N_+$ that divides $q$.
It follows from \autoref{prp:qUnpNearUnp} and \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE} that $S$ has $Z$-multiplication.
By \autoref{prp:constructingSolidMod}, it is enough to define a generalized $\Cu$-bimorphism
\[
\varphi\colon R_q\times S\to S
\]
such that $\varphi(1,a)=a$ for each $a\in S$.
Recall that $R_q=K_q\sqcup (0,\infty]$, where $K_q$ is a unital subsemiring of $\Q_+$.
For $r\in (0,\infty]\subset R_q$ we use the $Z$-multiplication on $S$ to define $\varphi(r,\freeVar)$.
Let $r$ be in $K_q$.
Then there exist unique coprime integers $n,k\in\N_+$ such that $r=\tfrac{k}{n}$ and $n$ divides $q$.
Consider the map $\mu_n\colon S\to S$ that multiplies each element in $S$ by $n$.
Since $S$ is $n$-divisible and $n$-unperforated, the map $\mu_n$ is a $\CatPom$-isomorphism and therefore a $\CatCu$-isomorphism;
see \autoref{rmk:qUnpDiv}.
Given $a\in S$, we set
\[
\varphi(r,a) := k \mu_n^{-1}(a).
\]
It is now straightforward to check that $\varphi$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
It is also clear that $\varphi(1,a)=a$ for each $a\in S$.
Therefore, we may apply \autoref{prp:constructingSolidMod} to deduce that $S$ has $R_q$-multiplication.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:MapToRqMod}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, let $a,b$ be elements in $S$, and let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $1\otimes a\leq 1\otimes b$ in $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
\item
For each $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, there exists $n\in\N_+$ dividing $q$ such that $na'\leq nb$ in $S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First, let us show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{2}.
By definition, $R_q$ is the $\Cu$-completion of the (algebraically ordered) $\CatW$-semigroup $(K_q,\leq)$.
By \autoref{thm:tensProdCompl}, we have
\[
R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} S
= \gamma\left( K_q \otimes_{\CatPreW} S \right).
\]
Let $\alpha\colon K_q \otimes_{\CatPreW} S \to R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ denote the universal $\CatW$-morphism of the $\Cu$-completion.
The underlying \pom{} of $K_q \otimes_{\CatPreW} S$ is
\[
K_q \otimes_{\CatPom} S
= \N\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right] \otimes_{\CatPom} S.
\]
Then, given elements $x,y\in S$, it is easy to see that $1\otimes x\leq 1\otimes y$ in $K_q \otimes_{\CatPom} S$ if and only if there exists a natural number $n$ dividing $q$ such that $nx\leq ny$ in $S$.
Now, let $a,b\in S$ satisfy $1\otimes a\leq 1\otimes b$ in $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} S$, and let $a'\in S$ satisfy $a'\ll a$.
Using at the second step that the unit of $R_q$ is a compact element, it follows
\[
\alpha(1\otimes a') = 1\otimes a' \ll 1\otimes b = \alpha(1\otimes b)
\]
in $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
By properties of the $\Cu$-completion, we deduce $1\otimes a'\prec 1\otimes b$ in $K_q \otimes_{\CatPreW} S$.
Hence, $1\otimes a'\leq 1\otimes b$ in $K_q \otimes_{\CatPom} S$.
As observed above, this implies that there exists $n\in\N_+$ dividing $q$ such that $na'\leq nb$ in $S$.
This verifies \enumStatement{2}.
Next, let us show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}.
Choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $S$ such that $a=\sup_k a_k$.
By assumption, for each $k$ there exists $n_k\in\N_+$ that divides $q$ and such that $n_ka_k\leq n_kb$.
Since $n_k$ is invertible in $R_q$, we deduce
\[
1\otimes a_k
= \left(n_k\tfrac{1}{n_k}\right)\otimes a_k
= \tfrac{1}{n_k} \otimes \left(n_k a_k\right)
\leq \tfrac{1}{n_k} \otimes \left(n_k b\right)
= \left(n_k\tfrac{1}{n_k}\right)\otimes b
= 1 \otimes b.
\]
Since this holds for each $k$, and since $1\otimes a=\sup_k \left( 1\otimes a_k \right)$ in $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu} S$, we obtain $1\otimes a\leq 1\otimes b$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:RqLimSimplicial}
Let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
Let $(d_k)_{k\in\N}$ be a sequence of natural numbers such that $q=\prod_{k\in\N}d_k$.
Then $R_q$ is isomorphic to the limit of the following inductive system of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroups:
\[
\overline{\N} \xrightarrow{d_0} \overline{\N} \xrightarrow{d_1} \overline{\N} \xrightarrow{d_2} \ldots.
\]
Consequently, if we are given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, then $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ is isomorphic to the limit of the inductive system
\[
S \xrightarrow{d_0} S \xrightarrow{d_1} S \xrightarrow{d_2} \ldots
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Consider the following inductive system, where the map at the $k$-th step is multiplication by $d_k$:
\[
\N \xrightarrow{d_0} \N \xrightarrow{d_1} \N \xrightarrow{d_2} \ldots.
\]
It is straightforward to check that the inductive limit of this system in $\CatPom$ is $\N\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]$.
If we endow $\N$ and $\N\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]$ with auxiliary relations equal to their partial order, then we also have
\[
\N\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]
\cong \CatWLim \left( \N \xrightarrow{d_0} \N \xrightarrow{d_1} \N \xrightarrow{d_2} \ldots \right).
\]
Applying the reflection functor $\gamma\colon\CatPreW\to\CatCu$, which is a continuous functor, and using also \autoref{prp:limitsCu}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
R_q \cong \gamma\left(\N\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right]\right)
&\cong \gamma\left( \CatWLim \left( \N \xrightarrow{d_0} \N \xrightarrow{d_1} \N \xrightarrow{d_2} \ldots \right) \right) \\
&\cong \CatCuLim \left( \overline{\N} \xrightarrow{d_0} \overline{\N} \xrightarrow{d_1} \overline{\N} \xrightarrow{d_2} \ldots \right),
\end{align*}
as desired.
The result for $R_q\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ follows from the limit presentation for $R_q$ in combination with \autoref{prp:tensLim}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:axiomTensProdRq}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation), then so does $S\otimes R_q$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:tensLimSimplicial}, each of the axioms~\axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation is preserved by taking the tensor product with a $\CatCu$-semigroup that is an inductive limit of simplicial $\CatCu$-semigroups.
Therefore, the result follows from \autoref{prp:RqLimSimplicial}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensRqCa}
Let $A$ be a \ca{}, and let $q$ be a supernatural number satisfying $q=q^2$ and $q\neq 1$.
Then there are natural isomorphisms
\[
\Cu(M_q\otimes A)
\cong \Cu(M_q)\otimes_{\Cu}\Cu(A)
\cong R_q\otimes_{\Cu} \Cu(A).
\]
In particular, we have $\Cu(A\otimes M_q)\cong \Cu(A)$ if and only if $\Cu(A)$ is $q$-unperforated and $q$-divisible.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The isomorphism on the left follows from \autoref{prp:tensProdAF} since $M_q$ is an AF-algebra.
By \autoref{prp:RqFromUHF}, we have $\Cu(M_q)\cong R_q$, which gives the isomorphism on the right.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:UHFStableNearUnp}
Let $A$ be a \ca{}.
If $A$ tensorially absorbs a UHF algebra of infinite type, then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $q$ be a supernatural number such that $q^2=q$ and $q\neq 1$ and $A\cong M_q\otimes A$.
By \autoref{prp:tensRqCa}, we have that $\Cu(A)$ is $q$-unperforated.
Then it follows from \autoref{prp:qUnpNearUnp} that $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
\end{proof}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{The realification of a semigroup}
\label{sec:RMod}
In this section, we study $\CatCu$-semigroups that are semimodules over the $\CatCu$-semiring $[0,\infty]$.
We have already shown in \autoref{exa:R} that $[0,\infty]$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
It is also known that $[0,\infty]$ is the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca{}, called the Jacelon-Razak algebra $\mathcal{R}$;
see \autoref{rmk:Razac}.
In \autoref{prp:RModTFAE}, we characterize the $\CatCu$-semimodules over $[0,\infty]$ as the $\CatCu$-semigroups that are unperforated, divisible and that contain only soft elements.
We observe in \autoref{rmk:realMult} that a $\CatCu$-semigroup has $[0,\infty]$-multiplication if and only if it has `real multiplication' in the sense of Robert, \cite{Rob13Cone}.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, Robert defines a `realification' $S_R$, which is a $\CatCu$-semigroup with real multiplication satisfying a natural universal property.
In \cite[Remark~3.1.5]{Rob13Cone}, Robert suggests that the realification of a $\CatCu$-semigroup can be considered as the tensor product of $S$ with $[0,\infty]$.
We verify this in \autoref{prp:RModRealification}.
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:Razac}
\index{terms}{Cuntz semigroup!of Jacelon-Razak algebra}
\index{symbols}{R@$\mathcal{R}$ \quad (Jacelon-Razak algebra)}
The $\CatCu$-semiring $[0,\infty]$ is the Cuntz semigroup of the stably projectionless \ca\ known as the Jacelon-Razak algebra.
This algebra has been studied in \cite{Jac13Projectionless}, where it is denoted by $\mathcal{W}$.
Following Robert, we denote the Jacelon-Razak algebra by $\mathcal{R}$;
see \cite{Rob13Cone}.
Using the result in \cite{Jac13Projectionless}, the Cuntz semigroup of $\mathcal{R}$ was computed by Robert, \cite[\S~5]{Rob13Cone} as
\[
\Cu(\mathcal{R}) \cong [0,\infty].
\]
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:realMult}
\index{terms}{real multiplication}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
In \cite[Definition~3.1.2]{Rob13Cone}, Robert defines $S$ to have \emph{real multiplication} if there exists a map
\[
(0,\infty]\times S\to S,\quad
(t,a)\mapsto t\cdot a,\quad
\txtFA t\in(0,\infty], a\in S,
\]
that preserves addition, order and suprema of increasing sequences in each variable, and such that $1\cdot a=a$ for every $a\in S$.
It is clear that such a map extends uniquely to a generalized $\CatCu$-bi\-morphism
\[
\varphi\colon[0,\infty]\times S\to S,
\]
satisfying $\varphi(1,a)=a$ for each $a\in S$.
As observed in \autoref{exa:R}, the semiring $[0,\infty]$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
Thus, we may apply \autoref{prp:constructingSolidMod} to deduce that $S$ has a $[0,\infty]$-multiplication in the sense of \autoref{dfn:CuSemimod}.
To summarize, a $\CatCu$-semigroup has real multiplication in the sense of Robert if and only if it is a $\CatCu$-semimodule over the solid $\CatCu$-semiring $[0,\infty]$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:RModViaSoft}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup with $Z$-multiplication.
Then the map
\[
\varphi\colon[0,\infty]\times S \to S,\quad
(t,a)\mapsto t\cdot a,\quad
\txtFA t\in [0,\infty]\subset Z, a\in S,
\]
is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism that induces an isomorphism
\[
\bar{\varphi}\colon[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \xrightarrow{\cong} S_{\soft}.
\]
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
The map $\varphi$ is a restriction of the $\CatCu$-bimorphism defining the $Z$-multiplication.
Therefore, $\varphi$ is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
By \autoref{prp:softInCuZmult}, the submonoid $S_\soft$ of soft elements in $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
By \autoref{prp:softZmult}, an element $a$ in $S$ is soft if and only if $1'a=a$, where $1'$ denotes the `one' in the submonoid $[0,\infty]=Z_\soft\subset Z$ of soft elements in $Z$.
Therefore, $\bar{\varphi}$ maps into $S_\soft$.
We define a map, which will turn out to be the inverse of $\bar{\varphi}$, as follows:
\[
\psi\colon S_\soft \to [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu} S,\quad
a\mapsto 1'\otimes a,\quad
\txtFA a\in S_\soft.
\]
It is easy to see that $\psi$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism and that $\bar{\varphi}\circ\psi$ is the identity on $S_\soft$.
Let $t$ be in $[0,\infty]$ and let $a$ be in $S$.
Using that $[0,\infty]$ and $S$ have $Z$-multiplication, it follows from \autoref{prp:moduleTensorProd} (and also \autoref{prp:solidModuleUnique}) that $1'\otimes (t\cdot a)=t\otimes a$ in $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
Using this at the third step, we deduce
\[
\psi\circ\varphi(t,a)
= \psi(t\cdot a)
= 1'\otimes (t\cdot a)
= t\otimes a.
\]
This implies that $\psi\circ\bar{\varphi}$ is the identity on $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$, and hence $\bar{\varphi}$ is an isomorphism, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:RModTFAE}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $S\cong [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu} S$.
\item
The semigroup $S$ has $[0,\infty]$-multiplication.
\item
The semigroup $S$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible, and every element of $S$ is soft.
\item
The semigroup $S$ is unperforated and divisible, and every element of $S$ is soft.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Since $[0,\infty]$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, the equivalence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} follows from \autoref{prp:solidModuleTFAE}.
It is clear that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{3}.
Let us show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{4}.
To show that $S$ is unperforated, let $a,b\in S$ be such that $na\leq nb$ for some $n\in\N_+$.
Since in $[0,\infty]$ we have $1=\tfrac{1}{n}n$, we obtain
\[
a =
(\tfrac{1}{n}n)\cdot a
= \tfrac{1}{n}\cdot (na)
\leq \tfrac{1}{n}\cdot (nb)
= b.
\]
It is also clear that $S$ is divisible.
Next, let us show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{1}.
By \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}, we have that $S$ has $Z$-multiplication.
Using \autoref{prp:RModViaSoft} to obtain the first isomorphism, and using the assumption for the second equality, we obtain
\[
[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu} S\cong S_\soft = S,
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:RModViaRq}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then there is a natural isomorphism
\[
[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \cong (R_{2^\infty}\otimes_{\CatCu} S)_{\soft}.
\]
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Since $R_{2^\infty}$ has $Z$-multiplication, it follows from \autoref{prp:moduleTensorProd} that $R_{2^\infty}\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ has $Z$-multiplication.
Then, using \autoref{prp:RModViaSoft} to obtain the last isomorphism, and using that $[0,\infty] \cong [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}R_{2^\infty}$ at the first step (which follows from a second usage of \autoref{prp:RModViaSoft}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S
&\cong \left([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}R_{2^\infty}\right)\otimes_{\CatCu} S \\
&\cong [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}\left( R_{2^\infty}\otimes_{\CatCu} S\right)
\cong (R_{2^\infty}\otimes_{\CatCu} S)_{\soft},
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:axiomTensProdR}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
If $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation), then so does $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
By \autoref{prp:axiomTensProdRq}, the tensor product $R_{2^\infty}\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}.
Since $R_{2^\infty}\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ has $Z$-multiplication, it follows from \autoref{prp:softInCuZmult} that the subsemigroup of soft elements in the tensor product $R_{2^\infty}\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Now the desired result follows from \autoref{prp:RModViaRq}.
It is proved analogously that axiom \axiomO{6} and weak cancellation pass from $S$ to $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:realification}
\index{terms}{realification}
\index{symbols}{S$_R$@$S_R$ \quad (realification)}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Recall from \autoref{pgr:fctl}, that there is a natural map
\[
S \to \Lsc(F(S)),\quad
a\mapsto\hat{a},\quad
\txtFA a\in S,
\]
where $F(S)$ is the cone of functionals on $S$.
In \cite[\S~3.1]{Rob13Cone}, Robert defines the \emph{realification} of $S$ as the smallest subsemigroup of $\Lsc(F(S))$ that is closed under passing to suprema of increasing sequences, and which contains all elements of the form $\tfrac{1}{n}\hat{a}$ for some $n\in\N_+$ and some $a\in S$.
We denote the realification of $S$ by $S_R$.
In \cite[Proposition~3.1.1]{Rob13Cone}, it is shown that $S_R$ is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Moreover, if $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5'}, the original version of the almost algebraic order axiom (see \autoref{rmk:addAxioms}(1)), then so does $S_R$.
In \autoref{prp:RModRealification}, we show that $S_R$ is naturally isomorphic to $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
Then it follows from \autoref{prp:axiomTensProdR} that $S_R$ satisfies \axiomO{5} whenever $S$ does.
\end{pgr}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:fctlRMod}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Consider the map $\vartheta\colon S\to [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu} S$ that sends $a$ in $S$ to $1\otimes a$.
Then, given a functional $\lambda\in F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu} S)$, the composition $\lambda\circ\vartheta$ is a functional in $F(S)$.
Moreover, the assignment
\[
\theta\colon F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)\to F(S),\quad
\lambda\mapsto\lambda\circ\vartheta,
\]
is an isomorphism of topological cones.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
We first define a map that will turn out to be the inverse of $\theta$.
Given a functional $\mu$ in $F(S)$, consider the map
\[
[0,\infty]\times S \to [0,\infty],\quad
(t,a)\mapsto t\cdot\mu(a)\quad
\txtFA t\in [0,\infty], a\in S.
\]
It is straightforward to check that this is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism, which therefore induces a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism
\[
\tilde{\mu}\colon [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \to [0,\infty].
\]
This means that $\tilde{\mu}$ is a functional in $F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)$ such that $\tilde{\mu}(t\otimes a)=t\cdot\mu(a)$ for each $t\in[0,\infty]$ and $a\in S$.
This defines a map
\[
\psi\colon F(S)\to F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S),\quad
\mu\mapsto\tilde{\mu},\quad
\txtFA \mu\in F(S).
\]
Given $\mu$ in $F(S)$ and $a\in S$, we deduce
\[
\theta\circ\psi(\mu)(a)
= \theta(\tilde{\mu})(a)
= \tilde{\mu}(1\otimes a)
= 1\cdot\mu(a)
= \mu(a).
\]
Thus, $\theta\circ\psi$ is the identity on $F(S)$.
Conversely, let $\lambda$ be a functional in $F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)$.
Since $[0,\infty]$ is solid, it follows from \autoref{prp:solidTFAE} that $\lambda$ is automatically $[0,\infty]$-linear.
Using this at the last step, we deduce for each $t\in[0,\infty]$ and $a\in S$ that
\[
\psi\circ\theta(\lambda)(t\otimes a)
= t\cdot\theta(\lambda)(a)
= t\lambda(1\otimes a)
= \lambda(t\otimes a).
\]
It follows that $\psi\circ\theta$ is the identity on $F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)$.
It is straightforward to check that $\theta$ and $\psi$ are continuous and linear, which shows the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:RModRealification}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then the natural map
\[
\varphi\colon[0,\infty]\times S \to S_R \subset \Lsc(F(S)),\quad
(t,a)\mapsto t\cdot\hat{a},\quad
\txtFA t\in[0,\infty], a\in S,
\]
is a $\CatCu$-bimorphism that induces an isomorphism
\[
\bar{\varphi}\colon[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \xrightarrow{\cong} S_R.
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward to check that $\varphi$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
By universal properties of the tensor product, the induced map $\bar{\varphi}$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism.
It follows easily from the definition of $S_R$ that $\bar{\varphi}$ is surjective.
Next, we show that $\bar{\varphi}$ is an order-embedding.
Consider the isomorphism $\theta\colon F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)\to F(S)$ from \autoref{prp:fctlRMod}.
It induces an isomorphism of \pom{s}
\[
\theta^\ast \colon \Lsc(F(S)) \to \Lsc(F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)),\quad
f\mapsto f\circ\theta.
\]
We let
\[
\Gamma\colon [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \to \Lsc(F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)),
\]
denote the canonical map that sends $x\in [0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ to $\hat{x}$.
Then, for $t\in[0,\infty]$, $a\in S$ and $\lambda\in F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S)$, we have
\[
\Gamma(t\otimes a)(\lambda)
= \lambda(t\otimes a)
= t\cdot \theta(\lambda)(a)
= \varphi(t, a)(\theta(\lambda))
= (\theta^\ast\circ\bar{\varphi})(t\otimes a)(\lambda).
\]
This implies that $\Gamma=\theta^\ast\circ\bar{\varphi}$.
The situation is shown in the following commutative diagram:
\[
\xymatrix{
[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \ar[r]^{\bar{\varphi}} \ar[dr]^{\Gamma}
& \Lsc(F(S)) \ar[d]^{\theta^\ast}_{\cong} \\
& \Lsc(F([0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S))
}
\]
It follows from \autoref{prp:RModTFAE} that the $\CatCu$-semigroup $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ is almost unperforated and that each of its elements is soft.
Then \autoref{prp:soft_comparison} implies that the map $\Gamma$ is an order-embedding.
Since $\theta^\ast$ is an order isomorphism, it follows that $\bar{\varphi}$ is an order-embedding.
Thus, $\bar{\varphi}$ is an isomorphism of \pom{s}, and consequently a $\CatCu$-isomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:tensProdWithR}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Then there are canonical isomorphisms
\[
[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \cong S_R \cong (Z\otimes_{\CatCu} S)_{\soft}.
\]
In particular, if $S$ has $Z$-multiplication, then there are isomorphisms
\[
[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S \cong S_R \cong S_{\soft}.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows by combining \autoref{prp:RModViaSoft} with \autoref{prp:RModRealification}. (Notice that $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}Z\cong Z_{\soft}=[0,\infty]$.)
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:MapToRMod}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a,b$ be elements in $S$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $1\otimes a\leq 1\otimes b$ in $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
\item
We have $\hat{a}\leq\hat{b}$ in $\Lsc(F(S))$.
\item
For every $a'\in S$ satisfying $a'\ll a$, and every $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $k,n\in\N_+$ such
that $(1-\varepsilon)<\tfrac{k}{n}$ and $ka'\leq nb$ in $S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
As shown in \autoref{prp:RModRealification}, there is an isomorphism between the tensor product $[0,\infty]\otimes_{\CatCu}S$ and $S_R$ that identifies $1\otimes a$ with $\hat{a}$ and $1\otimes b$ with $\hat{b}$.
This shows the equivalence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2}.
The equivalence between statement \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} is shown in \autoref{prp:comparison_hat}.
\end{proof}
Let $A$ be a \ca.
It is shown in \cite[Theorem~5.1.2]{Rob13Cone} that there is a natural isomorphism between $\Cu(\mathcal{R}\otimes A)$ and $\Cu(A)_R$.
Using \autoref{prp:RModRealification} we can rephrase the result of Robert as follows:
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensRCa}
Let $A$ be a \ca{}.
Then there are natural isomorphisms
\[
\Cu(\mathcal{R}\otimes A)
\cong\Cu(\mathcal{R})\otimes_{\Cu}\Cu(A)
\cong[0,\infty]\otimes_{\Cu}\Cu(A).
\]
In particular, we have $\Cu(\mathcal{R}\otimes A)\cong \Cu(A)$ if and only if $\Cu(A)$ is unperforated, divisible and each element in $\Cu(A)$ is soft (or equivalently, purely noncompact).
\end{prp}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Examples and Applications}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:ssaSolid}
Let $D$ be a unital, separable, strongly self-absorbing \ca{}.
As mentioned before in \autoref{prp:semirgFromSSA}, it is known that $D$ is nuclear and simple and that $D$ is either purely infinite, in which case $\Cu(D)\cong\{0,\infty\}$, or that $D$ is stably finite with unique tracial state.
The only known examples of purely infinite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} are the Cuntz algebras $\mathcal{O}_\infty$ and $\mathcal{O}_2$, and the tensor products of $\mathcal{O}_\infty$ with a UHF-algebra of infinite type.
It follows from the Kirchberg-Phillips classification theorem, \cite[Theorem~8.4.1, p.128]{Ror02Classification}, that these are the only purely infinite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} satisfying the Universal Coefficient Theorem (UCT).
Let us assume that $D$ is stably finite.
In that case, the only known examples are the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ and the UHF-algebras of infinite type $M_q$;
see \autoref{pgr:Mq}.
Each of these algebras satisfies the UCT.
We also have that $D$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, by \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Win11ssaZstable};
see also \autoref{prp:ssaZstable}.
Therefore, it follows from \autoref{prp:CuSimpleZstable} that the Cuntz semigroup of $D$ can be computed as
\[
\Cu(D) \cong V(D) \sqcup (0,\infty].
\]
By \cite[Theorem~6.7]{Ror04StableRealRankZ}, $D$ has stable rank one.
Therefore, $V(D)$ is a cancellative, algebraically ordered monoid that is isomorphic to the positive part of $K_0(D)$.
We conclude that the only known Cuntz semigroups realized by stably finite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} are the following:
\[
Z = \N \sqcup (0,\infty] = \Cu(\mathcal{Z}),
\quad
R_q = \N\left[\tfrac{1}{q}\right] \sqcup (0,\infty] = \Cu(M_q).
\]
It follows from the $K$-theory computations in \cite[Proposition~5.1]{TomWin07ssa} that the Cuntz semigroups $Z$ and $R_q$ are the only Cuntz semigroups of stably finite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} that satisfy the UCT.
We have seen that $Z$ and $R_q$ (and also $\{0,\infty\}$) are solid $\CatCu$-semirings;
see for example \autoref{prp:ZSolid} and \autoref{prp:RqSolid}.
Therefore, the Cuntz semigroup of every strongly self-absorbing \ca{} satisfying the UCT is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
It is an open problem whether every nuclear \ca{} satisfies the UCT.
It is also unclear if there exist strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} that do not satisfy the UCT.
More modestly, we ask the following question:
\end{pgr}
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:ssaSolid}
Given a strongly self-absorbing \ca{} $D$, is the Cuntz semiring $\Cu(D)$ a solid $\CatCu$-semiring?
\end{prbl}
As noted above, the answer is `yes' for every strongly self-absorbing \ca{} satisfying the UCT.
In \autoref{sec:classificationSolid}, we provide a complete classification of solid $\CatCu$-semirings.
We remark that even when excluding $\CatCu$-semirings that are elementary or have noncompact unit, there exist solid $\CatCu$-semirings that are not the Cuntz semigroup of any known strongly self-absorbing \ca{};
see \autoref{thm:solidSemirgClassification}.
We can summarize \autoref{prp:tensCaWithInfty}, \autoref{prp:tensRqCa} and \autoref{prp:tensRCa} as follows:
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:tensSaCa}
Let $A$ and $D$ be \ca{s}.
Assume that either $D=\mathcal{R}$ or that $D$ is a (unital) separable, strongly self-absorbing \ca{} satisfying the UCT but not equal to $\mathcal{Z}$.
Then there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\Cu(D\otimes A)
\cong\Cu(D)\otimes_{\CatCu} \Cu(A).
\]
\end{prp}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:strictComp}
\index{terms}{strict comparison}
Recall that a \ca\ $A$ is said to have \emph{strict comparison of positive elements} if for any positive elements $x,y\in M_\infty(A)$ the following holds:
If $x$ is contained in $\overline{AyA}$, the closed two-sided ideal generated by $y$, and if $d(x)<d(y)$ for every dimension function $d$ on $A$ satisfying $d(y)=1$, then $x\precsim y$ ($x$ is Cuntz subequivalent to $y$).
It was shown by R{\o}rdam that a \ca\ $A$ has strict comparison of positive elements if and only if its pre-completed Cuntz semigroup $W(A)$ is almost unperforated, \cite[Proposition~3.2]{Ror04StableRealRankZ}; see also \cite[Lemma~5.7]{AraPerTom11Cu}.
It is easy to see that $W(A)$ is almost unperforated if and only if $\Cu(A)$ is.
For a unital, simple \ca\ $A$, and positive elements $x,y\in M_\infty(A)$, the condition that $x$ belongs to $\overline{AyA}$ is automatically satisfied whenever $y$ is nonzero, and it is moreover enough to consider lower-semicontinuous dimension functions.
In this form, the notion of strict comparison of positive elements in simple \ca{s} was introduced by Blackadar as the `Fundamental Comparability Question (FCQ4)' in \cite[\S~6.4.7]{Bla88Comparison}.
In \cite[Question~5.3]{RorWin10ZRevisited}, R{\o}rdam and Winter ask whether the Jiang-Su algebra unitally embeds into any unital \ca{} $A$ such that the class of the unit is almost divisible in $\W(A)$.
It is easy to see that the class of the unit is almost divisible in $W(A)$ if and only if it is in $\Cu(A)$.
Thus, the implication `\enumStatement{2}$\Rightarrow$\enumStatement{4}' of the following \autoref{prp:embedZCa} provides a positive answer to the question of R{\o}rdam and Winter for \ca{s} that have stable rank one and strict comparison of positive elements.
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:embedZCa}
Let $A$ be a unital \ca\ with stable rank one and with strict comparison of positive elements.
Then the following statements are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
For each $n\in\N$, there exists a unital \starHom\ $Z_{n,n+1}\to A$, where $Z_{n,n+1}$ is the dimension drop algebra.
\item
The element $[1_A]$ is almost divisible in $\Cu(A)$.
\item
There exists a $\CatCu$-morphism $Z\to\Cu(A)$ that sends $1_Z$ to $[1_A]$.
\item
There exists a unital \starHom\ $\mathcal{Z}\to A$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The equivalence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} is shown in \cite[Proposition~5.1]{RorWin10ZRevisited}.
The equivalence between \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} follows from \autoref{prp:zembed}.
Finally, it is clear that \enumStatement{4} implies \enumStatement{3}.
The converse follows from Theorems~1.0.1 and 3.2.2 in \cite{Rob12LimitsNCCW}.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}
Let $S$ be a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup{} satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Recall that we denote by $S_c$ (respectively $S_c^\times$) the subsemigroup of (nonzero) compact elements in $S$.
As shown in \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}, an element $a\in S$ is soft whenever it is not compact.
The only element that is both compact and soft is the zero element.
Thus, there is a natural decomposition
\[
S=S_c^\times\sqcup S_\soft.
\]
If we additionally assume that $S$ has $Z$-multiplication, then we can apply \autoref{prp:tensProdWithR} to compute $S_\soft$ as $S_R$, the realification of $S$.
We obtain
\[
S\cong S_c^\times\sqcup S_R.
\]
Since $S$ also satisfies \axiomO{5}, it follows from \cite[Theorem~3.2.1]{Rob13Cone} that $S_R$ is isomorphic to $L(F(S))$.
The point is that in this case the semigroup $L(F(S))$ only depends on $F(S)$, the cone of functionals on $S$.
On the other hand, it is not clear if $S_R$ only depends on $F(S)$ in general;
see \autoref{prbl:LFS}.
We summarize our representation result for simple $\CatCu$-semigroups with $Z$-mul\-ti\-pli\-ca\-tion in the following Theorem.
For Cuntz semigroups of \ca{s}, the analogous result has appeared in \cite[Theorem~2.6]{BroTom07ThreeAppl} and \cite[Theorem~6.3]{AntBosPer11CompletionsCu}.
\end{pgr}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:isothm}
Let $S$ be a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup that satisfies \axiomO{5} and has $Z$-multipli\-ca\-tion.
Then the soft part of $S$ is isomorphic to $L(F(S))$.
Thus, there is a natural isomorphism
\[
S\cong S_c^\times \sqcup L(F(S)).
\]
\end{thm}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
By definition, $S_R$ and $L(F(S))$ are submonoids of $\Lsc(F(S))$.
It follows from \cite[Proposition~3.1.6]{Rob13Cone} that $S_R$ is a subset of $L(F(S))$.
(The implicit assumption of \axiomO{5} in \cite{Rob13Cone} is not needed in the proof of \cite[Proposition~3.1.6]{Rob13Cone}.)
It is natural to ask whether $S_R$ is in fact equal to $L(F(S))$.
Under the assumption of \axiomO{5} this is indeed the case;
see \cite[Theorem~3.2.1]{Rob13Cone}.
Thus, we ask if the result of Robert holds without the assumption of \axiomO{5}.
\begin{prbl}
\label{prbl:LFS}
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Is it true that $S_R=L(F(S))$?
\end{prbl}
\chapter{Structure of \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semirings}
\label{sec:semirg}
In this chapter, we study the structure of certain classes of $\CatCu$-semirings that satisfy \axiomO{5}.
The main result is \autoref{thm:simpleSemirg}, where we show that every simple, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semiring with \axiomO{5} is automatically almost unperforated and almost divisible.
Together with \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}, we obtain that every simple, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semiring has $Z$-multiplication, which can be interpreted as the $\CatCu$-semiring version of Winter's result that every strongly self-absorbing \ca{} is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable;
see \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgZmult}.
We also use our findings to give an alternative proof of Winter's result;
see \autoref{prp:ssaZstable}.
In \autoref{sec:algebraicSemirg}, we study algebraic $\CatCu$-semirings.
We establish an equivalence between the category of weakly cancellative, algebraic $\Cu$-semirings and the category of directed, \por{s};
see \autoref{prp:equivalenceSrgAlgCu}.
We also give several characterizations when a simple $\Cu$-semiring with unique normalized functional is algebraic;
see \autoref{prp:imagelambda}.
In \autoref{sec:classificationSolid}, we analyse the structure of solid $\CatCu$-semirings.
The main result is \autoref{thm:solidSemirgClassification}, where we classify all solid, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semirings satisfying~\axiomO{5}.
\section{Simple \texorpdfstring{$\Cu$}{Cu}-semirings}
\label{sec:SimpleSrg}
Recall that a simple $\Cu$-semigroup is \emph{elementary} if it contains a minimal nonzero element;
see \autoref{pgr:elementarySemigr}.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:simpleSemirgElmtry}
Let $R$ be a simple $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $R$ is nonelementary, then there exist nonzero $c,d\in R$ with $c+d\leq 1$.
\item
Assume $R\ncong\{0\}$.
Then $R$ is elementary if and only if the unit $1_R$ is a minimal nonzero element.
\item
If $1_R$ is properly infinite (that is, $2\cdot 1_R=1_R$), then $R\cong\{0,\infty\}$ or $R\cong\{0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
We first assume $1_R\neq 0_R$ and that $1_R$ is not a minimal nonzero element.
Choose a nonzero $x\in R$ with $x<1$ and a nonzero $c\in R$ satisfying $c\ll x$.
Using that $R$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we can choose $d\in R$ such that
\[
c+d \leq 1 \leq x+d.
\]
Since $x\neq 1$, $d$ is nonzero.
This immediately implies statement \enumStatement{1}.
To show \enumStatement{2}, note that the assumption $R\ncong\{0\}$ implies $1_R\neq 0_R$.
It follows that $R$ has no zero divisors;
see \autoref{rmk:CuSemirg}.
If $1_R$ is a minimal, nonzero element, then $R$ is elementary by definition.
Conversely, assume $1_R$ is not minimal.
As shown at the beginning of the proof, we can choose nonzero elements $c$ and $d$ such that $c+d\leq 1$.
In order to prove that $R$ is nonelementary, assume $a$ is a nonzero element in $R$.
Consider the elements $ca$ and $da$, which are nonzero since $R$ has no zero divisors.
Moreover, $ca+da\leq a$.
If $ca\neq a$ or $da\neq a$, then $a$ is not a minimal, nonzero element.
Otherwise, we can deduce $a=2a$ and hence $a=\infty$.
Since $1\leq \infty$ and $1$ is assumed not to be a minimal, nonzero element, we obtain that $a$ is not a minimal, nonzero element in either case.
Thus, $R$ is nonelementary.
Finally, statement \enumStatement{3} is easily verified.
\end{proof}
\begin{exa}
\label{exa:elmtrySemirg}
The elementary $\Cu$-semigroups $\overline{\N}$ and $\elmtrySgp{k}=\{0,1,2,\ldots,k,\infty\}$ have natural (and unique) $\CatCu$-products giving them the structure of solid $\CatCu$-semirings.
These are the only simple, nonzero, elementary $\CatCu$-semirings satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6};
see \autoref{pgr:elementarySemigr}.
Without \axiomO{6}, there are other examples of simple, elementary $\CatCu$-semirings:
Consider $S=\{0,1,1',2,3,4,\ldots,\infty\}$, with addition and multiplication among the un-apostrophized elements as usual and such that $1'+k=1+k$ and $k\cdot 1'=k$ for each $k\in\N$.
The elements $1$ and $1'$ are incomparable.
\end{exa}
To prove \autoref{thm:simpleSemirg}, we need several lemmas.
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ and $k\in\N_+$, recall that an element $a$ in $S$ is \emph{almost $k$-divisible} if for every $a'\ll a$ there exists $x\in S$ such that $kx\leq a$ and $a'\leq (k+1)x$;
see \autoref{dfn:almDiv}.
If this holds for every $k\in\N_+$, we say that the element is \emph{almost divisible}.
Moreover, $S$ is \emph{almost divisible} if each of its elements is.
\begin{lma}
\label{lma:simpleSemirg1}
Let $R$ be a simple $\Cu$-semiring.
Let $c,d\in R$ be nonzero elements satisfying $c+d\leq 1$.
Then for every $x\in R$ with $x\ll\infty$ there exists $n\in\N$ such that $xc^n\leq 1$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
We inductively show
\begin{align}
\label{lma:simpleSemirg1:eq1}
[(k+1)d]c^k\leq 1,
\end{align}
for every $k\in\N$.
For $k=0$ this is clear.
For the induction step, assume \eqref{lma:simpleSemirg1:eq1} is satisfied for some $k\in\N$.
Multiplying both sides of \eqref{lma:simpleSemirg1:eq1} by $c$, we obtain
\[
[(k+1)d]c^{k+1}\leq c.
\]
Using this at the second step, we deduce
\[
[(k+2)d]c^{k+1}
\leq [(k+1)d]c^{k+1}+d
\leq c+d
\leq 1.
\]
Since $R$ is simple, and since $d\neq 0$ and $x\ll\infty$, we can find $n\in\N$ such that $x\leq (n+1)d$.
Then $xc^n\leq [(n+1)d]c^n\leq 1$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{lma:simpleSemirg2}
Let $R$ be a simple $\Cu$-semiring, and let $k\in\N_+$.
If $c+d\leq 1$ for some nonzero elements $c,d\in R$, then there exists a nonzero element $a\in R$ such that $ka\ll (k+1)a\leq 1$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $c,d$ and $k$ be as in the statement.
We may assume $c\ll\infty$ (by replacing $c$ by some nonzero $c'\in R$ satisfying $c'\ll c$, if necessary).
We construct the element $a$ in two steps.
Step 1:
Let $c_1$ be a nonzero element in $R$ satisfying $c_1\ll c$.
Since $c\ll\infty$, we can choose $n\in\N$ satisfying $c\leq nc_1$.
By \autoref{lma:simpleSemirg1}, we can find $m\in\N$ such that
\[
[k(k+1)n^2]c^m\leq 1.
\]
Choose elements $c_i$ in $R$ for $i=2,\ldots,m$ with
\[
c_1\ll c_2\ll\ldots\ll c_m \ll c.
\]
Set $b :=c_1c_2\cdots c_m$ (the product).
Using at the second step that compact containment is preserved under multiplication, we obtain
\[
b
= [c_1c_2\cdots c_{m-1}]c_m
\ll [c_2c_3\cdots c_m]c
\leq [c_2c_3\cdots c_m]nc_1
= nb.
\]
Moreover, we have $b\leq c^m$, and therefore $k(k+1)n^2 b\leq 1$.
Step 2:
Choose elements $b_i$ in $R$ for $i=1,\ldots,kn$ such that
\[
b\ll b_1\ll b_2\ll\ldots\ll b_{kn} \ll nb.
\]
Set $a :=b_1+\ldots+b_{kn}$.
Using at the second step that compact containment is preserved under addition, we deduce
\[
a
= [b_1+b_2+\ldots+b_{kn-1}]+b_{kn}
\ll [b_2+b_3+\ldots+b_{kn}]+nb
\leq a+nb.
\]
Multiplying this inequality by $k$, and using $knb\leq a$ at the last step, we obtain
\[
ka
\ll ka+knb
\leq (k+1)a.
\]
Moreover, we have $a\leq kn(nb)$, and thus $(k+1)a\leq (k+1)kn^2b\leq 1$,
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{lma:simpleSemirg3}
Let $R$ be a simple $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $k\in\N_+$.
Suppose that there exists a nonzero element $a\in R$ such that $2ka\ll (2k+1)a\leq 1$.
Then there exists $c\in R$ such that $kc\leq 1\leq (k+1)c$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Using that $R$ satisfies \axiomO{5} we can choose $t$ in $R$ such that
\[
2ka+t\leq 1 \leq (2k+1)a+t.
\]
We think of this inequality as `$2ka\leq (1-t) \leq (2k+1)a$'.
Then we want to multiply by $(1-t)^{-1}$, which we think of as $(1+t+t^2+\ldots)$.
To make this precise, set
\[
z := 1+t+t^2+\ldots = \sup_{n\in\N} \left(1+t+t^2+\ldots+t^n\right).
\]
We construct $c$ such that $kc\leq 1\leq (k+1)c$ in two steps.
Step 1:
We show $2kaz \leq 1$.
To obtain this, we first show that if $x,y\in R$ satisfy $x+y\leq 1$, then
\[
x\cdot\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty y^n\right)\leq 1.
\]
Indeed, multiplying the inequality $x+y\leq 1$ by $y$, we obtain $xy+y^2\leq y$.
Using this at the second step, we deduce
\[
x(1+y)+y^2 = x+(xy+y^2)\leq x+y \leq 1.
\]
Inductively, we obtain
\[
x(1+y+y^2+\ldots+y^n)+y^{n+1}\leq 1,
\]
for all $n\in\N_+$, and therefore $x\cdot\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty y^n\right)\leq 1$, as desired.
Applying this to $2ka+t\leq 1$, we deduce $2kaz\leq 1$.
Step 2:
We show $1\leq (2k+2)az$.
Choose a rapidly increasing sequence $(w_r)_{r\in\N}$ in $R$ satisfying $1=\sup_r w_r$.
(If the unit element is compact, the following argument can be simplified.)
For each fixed $r\in\N$, since $w_r\ll 1 \leq (2k+1)a+t$, we can choose $t_r$ in $R$ such that
\[
t_r\ll t,\quad
w_r\leq (2k+1)a+t_r.
\]
We have $1\leq (2k+1)a+t$.
Multiplying this inequality by $t_r$, we obtain
\[
t_r \leq (2k+1)at_r +tt_r \leq (2k+1)at + tt_r.
\]
Since $w_r\leq (2k+1)a+t_r$, it follows
\[
w_r \leq (2k+1)a(1+t)+tt_r.
\]
Inductively, we obtain
\[
w_r \leq (2k+1)a(1+t+\ldots+t^n)+t^nt_r,
\]
for all $n\in\N$.
Since $t_r\ll\infty$ and $a\neq 0$, we can choose $m_r\in\N$ such that $t_r\leq(m_r+1)a$.
Then
\[
t^{m_r}t_r \leq t^{m_r}(m_r+1)a =a(t^{m_r}+\ldots+t^{m_r})\leq a(1+\dots+t^{m_r}),
\]
This implies
\begin{align*}
w_r
&\leq (2k+1)a(1+t+\ldots+t^{m_r})+t^{m_r}t_r \\
&\leq (2k+2)a(1+t+\dots+t^{m_r}) \\
&\leq (2k+2)a(1+t+\dots+t^{m_r}+\ldots) \\
&=(2k+2)az.
\end{align*}
Since this holds for all $r\in\N$ and since $1=\sup_r w_r$, we deduce $1\leq (2k+2)az$.
Then $k(2az)\leq 1\leq (k+1)(2az)$, which finishes the proof setting $c=2az$.
\end{proof}
The following theorem is the main structure result for simple $\CatCu$-semirings.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:simpleSemirg}
Let $R$ be a simple, nonelementary $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then $R$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:ZModAlmUnpDiv}, it is enough to show that the unit of $R$ is almost divisible.
Let $k$ be a natural number with $k\geq 1$.
By \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgElmtry} we can choose nonzero elements $c,d\in R$ satisfying $c+d\leq 1$.
Thus, we may apply \autoref{lma:simpleSemirg2} (for $2k$) to obtain a nonzero element $a\in R$ such that $2ka\ll (2k+1)a\leq 1$.
Now it follows from \autoref{lma:simpleSemirg3} that the unit of $R$ is almost $k$-divisible.
\end{proof}
Combining the above result with \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}, we obtain the $\CatCu$-semigroup{} version of Winter's result that strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} are $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Win11ssaZstable}. An actual alternative proof will be obtained as a consequence.
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:simpleSemirgZmult}
Let $R$ be a simple, nonelementary $\Cu$-semiring satisfying axiom~\axiomO{5}.
Then $R$ has $Z$-multiplication and is therefore `$Z$-stable' in the sense that $R\cong Z\otimes_{\CatCu}R$.
\end{cor}
\begin{prp}[{Winter, \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Win11ssaZstable}}]
\label{prp:ssaZstable}
Let $D$ be a unital, separable, strongly self-ab\-sorb\-ing \ca.
Then $D$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, that is, $D\cong\mathcal{Z}\otimes D$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The famous $\mathcal{O}_\infty$-absorption theorem states that every unital, separable, nuclear, purely infinite, simple \ca{} $A$ satisfies $\mathcal{O}_\infty\otimes A\cong A$;
see \cite[Theorem~3.15]{KirPhi00Crelle1}.
Thus, if $D$ is purely infinite, then it is $\mathcal{O}_\infty$-stable and therefore also $\mathcal{Z}$-stable.
Assume now that $D$ is stably finite.
Let $R$ be the Cuntz semigroup of $D$.
By \autoref{prp:semirgFromSSA}, $R$ is a simple $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Since $R$ is also nonelementary, we obtain from \autoref{thm:simpleSemirg} that $R$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible.
This implies that $D$ has strict comparison of positive elements, and that the class of the unit $1_D$ in $R$ is almost $k$-divisible, for any $k\in\N_+$.
Note also that the state space of $D$ is nonempty (as $D$ has a unique tracial state).
With these assumptions we can apply \cite[Theorem~3.6]{DadTom10Ranks} to deduce that there exists a unital \starHom{} from the dimension drop algebra $Z_{k,k+1}$ to $D$.
Since the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ is an inductive limit of dimension drop algebras $Z_{k,k+1}$, it follows from \cite[Proposition~2.2]{TomWin08ASH} that $D$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:simpleSemirgCompacts}
Let $R$ be a simple $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
If $R$ is nonelementary, then $R$ is stably finite.
\item
Either the unit $1_R$ is compact, or $R$ contains no nonzero compact elements.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
To show \enumStatement{1}, let $R$ be a simple, nonelementary $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
By \autoref{thm:simpleSemirg}, $R$ is almost divisible.
We now proceed similarly to \autoref{prp:tensprodTwoSimple}.
Assume that $R$ is not stably finite.
As shown in \autoref{prp:simpleSF}, it follows that $\infty$ is a compact element.
Since $R$ is nonelementary and $1_R$ is nonzero, we can find $k\in\N$ such that $k 1_R=\infty$.
Given a nonzero $a\in R$, let us show $a=\infty$.
Since $R$ is almost divisible, we can choose $t\in R$ with $kt\leq a\leq (k+1)t$.
This implies that $t$ is nonzero.
Then
\[
\infty=\infty\cdot t = k 1_R \cdot t\leq a\leq\infty.
\]
Thus, we have shown $a=\infty$ for every nonzero $a\in R$.
This implies $R\cong\{0,\infty\}$, which is a contradiction since $R$ was assumed to be nonelementary.
Let us show \enumStatement{2}.
The statement is clearly true if $R\cong\{0\}$ or if $1_R$ is compact.
Thus we may assume from now on $R\ncong\{0\}$ and that $1_R$ is not compact.
We claim that $R$ is nonelementary, and hence stably finite by statement \enumStatement{1}. Indeed, assume the opposite.
Then, by \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgElmtry}, $1_R$ is a minimal, nonzero element.
This implies that $1_R$ is compact, a contradiction.
Hence $R$ is nonelementary, and therefore stably finite by statement \enumStatement{1}.
Then, by \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}, every nonzero element of $R$ is either soft or compact.
Thus, the unit element $1_R$ is soft.
It follows from \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgZmult} that $R$ has $Z$-mul\-ti\-pli\-ca\-tion.
By \autoref{prp:softZmult}, an element $a$ in $R$ is soft if and only if $a=1'_Za$, where $1_Z'$ is the `soft' unit of $Z$.
We deduce $1_R=1'_Z1_R$.
Given a nonzero element $a$ in $R$, we obtain
\[
a = 1_R a = 1'_Z 1_R a = 1'_Za.
\]
Using \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple} again, it follows that $a$ is noncompact, as desired.
\end{proof}
Next, we study the multiplicativity of normalized functionals on $\Cu$-semirings.
The results are inspired by \cite[Corollary~3]{Han13SimpleDimGps}.
Given a $\CatCu$-semiring $R$, recall that $F_1(R)$ denotes the functionals of $R$ that are normalized at $1$, the unit element.
The main application is \autoref{prp:multiplicativeUniqueFctl}, where we consider $\CatCu$-semirings with a unique normalized functional.
As we will see in \autoref{sec:classificationSolid}, in particular \autoref{prp:propertiesSolid}, this class includes all (stably finite) solid $\Cu$-semirings.
It also includes the Cuntz semigroups of stably finite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{s};
see \autoref{prp:semirgFromSSA}.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:FctlExtrMult}
Let $R$ be simple, nonelementary $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then $\lambda\in F_1(R)$ is multiplicative whenever it is an extreme point of $F_1(R)$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
To reach a contradiction, assume $\lambda(ab)\neq\lambda(a)\lambda(b)$ for some $a,b\in R$.
By Corollaries~\ref{prp:simpleSemirgCompacts} and~\ref{prp:simpleSemirgZmult}, we know that $R$ is stably finite and that $R$ has $Z$-multiplication.
By \autoref{prp:softZmult}, we have $\lambda(x)=\lambda(1'x)$ for every $x\in R$.
Thus, we may assume that $a$ and $b$ are soft elements, by replacing $a$ with $1'a$ and by replacing $b$ with $1'b$, if necessary.
Since $a$ is the supremum of a rapidly increasing sequence and since functionals preserve suprema of increasing sequences, we may also assume $a\ll\infty$.
Choose $n\in\N$ such that $a\ll n1'$.
Since $R$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we may apply \cite[Theorem~3.2.1]{Rob13Cone} to deduce $R_\soft\cong L(F(R))$.
By the definition of $L(F(R))$, we can find a sequence $(x_k)_k$ in $L(F(R))$ such that $x_k\lhd x_{k+1}$ for each $k\in\N$ and such that $a=\sup_k x_k$.
Since
\[
\sup_k\lambda(x_kb)=\lambda(ab)
\neq\lambda(a)\lambda(b) = \sup_k\lambda(x_k)\lambda(b),
\]
we can choose $k\in\N$ with $\lambda(x_kb)\neq\lambda(x_k)\lambda(b)$.
Set $x:=x_k$.
We have $x\lhd x_{k+1}\ll n1'$.
By \cite[Lemma~3.3.2]{Rob13Cone}, we can choose $y\in L(F(R))\cong R_\soft$ satisfying $x+y=n1'$.
Without loss of generality, we may assume $x,y\neq 0$.
Then we can consider the maps $\lambda_i\colon R\to[0,\infty]$ given by
\[
\lambda_0(s) =\lambda(x)^{-1}\lambda(xs),\quad
\lambda_1(s) =\lambda(y)^{-1}\lambda(ys),
\]
for $s\in R$.
It is easy to check that $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ are functionals on $R$ and that $\lambda_0(b)\neq\lambda_1(b)$.
Since
\[
\lambda=\tfrac{\lambda(x)}{n}\lambda_0+\tfrac{\lambda(y)}{n}\lambda_1,
\]
we have shown that $\lambda$ is not an extreme point of $F_1(R)$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:multiplicativeUniqueFctl}
Let $R$ be a simple, nonelementary $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Assume that $R$ has a unique functional $\lambda$ that is normalized at $1$.
Then $\lambda$ is multiplicative.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
This follows directly from \autoref{prp:FctlExtrMult}, since $F_1(R)=\{\lambda\}$ and hence $\lambda$ is an extreme point of $F_1(R)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:uniquenessR}
Let $R$ be a simple $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Assume that $R$ has a unique normalized functional.
Then $R\cong [0,\infty]$, as $\CatCu$-semirings, if and only if $1_R$ is not compact.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The unit of $[0,\infty]$ is clearly not compact.
Conversely, assume that $R$ satisfies the conditions of the statement and that $1_R$ is not compact.
Then $R_c=\{0\}$, by \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgCompacts}.
Using \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgElmtry} and \autoref{thm:simpleSemirg}, we deduce that $R$ is nonelementary, almost unperforated and almost divisible.
It follows from \autoref{thm:isothm} that $R\cong[0,\infty]$, as $\CatCu$-semigroups.
By rescaling, we can find an isomorphism $\varphi\colon R\to[0,\infty]$ with $\varphi(1_R)=1$.
Then $\varphi$ is a normalized functional and therefore automatically multiplicative by \autoref{prp:multiplicativeUniqueFctl}.
\end{proof}
The requirement in the following result that the function $\widehat{1}\in\Lsc(F(R))$ be continuous is not very restrictive.
It is automatically satisfied if $1$ is a compact element or if $R$ has only finitely many extremal functionals.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:extremeFunctionals}
Let $R$ be simple, nonelementary $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Assume that $\widehat{1}$ is continuous.
Then:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
A functional $\lambda\in F_1(R)$ is multiplicative if and only if it is an extreme point of $F_1(R)$.
\item
The space $F_1(R)$ is a Bauer simplex, that is, a Choquet simplex with closed extreme boundary.
\item
Every functional $\lambda\in F_1(R)$ satisfies $\lambda(ab)^2\leq\lambda(a^2)\lambda(b^2)$ for all $a,b\in R$.
In particular, we have $\lambda(a)^2\leq\lambda(a^2)$ for every $a\in R$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The assumption that $\widehat{1}$ is continuous implies that $F_1(R)$ is a closed subset of $F(R)$.
(In fact, this is equivalent to $\widehat{1}$ being continuous.)
Since $F(R)$ is compact, it follows that $F_1(R)$ is a compact, convex set.
We denote the subset of its extreme points by $\partial F_1(R)$.
We note that $F_1(R)$ is a Choquet simplex.
This follows for instance from \cite[Proposition~3.2.3, Theorem~4.1.2]{Rob13Cone}.
Note first that $F_1(R)$ is a basis for
\[
F_0(R)=\left\{ \lambda\in F(R) : \lambda(a)<\infty \text{ for all } a\ll\infty \right\}.
\]
Let $V(F_0(R))$ denote the vector space of linear, real-valued, continuous functions on $F_0(R)$.
Then $F_0(R)$ is a lattice-ordered, strict, convex cone in the vector space of linear functionals on $V(F_0(R))$.
Let us show \enumStatement{3}.
Since $F_1(R)$ is a Choquet simplex, there is a measure $\mu$ on its extreme boundary $\partial F_1(R)$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{prp:extremeFunctionals:eq1}
\lambda(x)=\int_{\partial F_1(R)}\varphi(x)d\mu(\varphi),
\end{align}
for every element $x$ in $R$ for which $\widehat{x}$ is continuous.
We claim that \eqref{prp:extremeFunctionals:eq1} holds for every $x\in R$.
This is clear if $x$ is compact, since then $\widehat{x}$ is continuous.
If $x$ is soft, then it follows from \cite[Proposition~3.1.6]{Rob13Cone} that there is an increasing sequence $(x_k)_k$ in $R$ such that $x=\sup_k x_k$ and $\widehat{x_k}$ is continuous for each $k\in\N$.
Using the theorem of monotone convergence at the third step, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\lambda(x)
= \sup_k\lambda(x_k)
&= \sup_k \int_{\partial F_1(R)}\varphi(x_k)d\mu(\varphi) \\
&= \int_{\partial F_1(R)}\sup_k\varphi(x_k)d\mu(\varphi)
\,=\, \int_{\partial F_1(R)}\varphi(x)d\mu(\varphi),
\end{align*}
which verifies \eqref{prp:extremeFunctionals:eq1}.
Now, given $a$ and $b$ in $R$, we use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality at the second step to deduce
\begin{align*}
\lambda(ab)^2
&=\left(\int_{\partial F_1(R)}\varphi(a)\varphi(b)d\mu(\varphi)\right)^2 \\
&\leq \int_{\partial F_1(R)}\varphi(a)^2d\mu(\varphi) \int_{\partial C}\varphi(b)^2d\mu(\varphi)
\,=\,\lambda(a^2)\lambda(b^2).
\end{align*}
Next, let us show \enumStatement{1}.
By \autoref{prp:FctlExtrMult}, every functional in $\partial F_1(R)$ is multiplicative.
To show the converse, assume $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_0+\lambda_1)$ for two different functionals $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$.
Choose $a\in R$ satisfying $\lambda_0(a)\neq\lambda_1(a)$.
By switching the role of $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$, if necessary, we may find $\varepsilon>0$ such that
\[
\lambda_0(a)=\lambda(a)-\varepsilon,\quad
\lambda_1(a)=\lambda(a)+\varepsilon.
\]
Then, using \enumStatement{3} at the second step, it follows
\[
\lambda(a^2)=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_0(a^2)+\lambda_1(a^2))
\geq \frac{1}{2}(\lambda_0(a)^2+\lambda_1(a)^2)
=\lambda(a)^2+\varepsilon^2,
\]
which shows $\lambda(a^2)\neq\lambda(a)^2$ and thus $\lambda$ is not multiplicative.
Finally, it follows easily from \enumStatement{1} that $\partial F_1(R)$ is a closed subset of $F_1(R)$.
This verifies \enumStatement{2}.
\end{proof}
\section{Algebraic \texorpdfstring{$\CatCu$}{Cu}-semirings}
\label{sec:algebraicSemirg}
Recall from \autoref{dfn:algebraicSemigp} that a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is \emph{algebraic} if every element in $S$ is the supremum of an increasing sequence of compact elements.
\index{terms}{Cu-semiring@$\CatCu$-semiring!algebraic}
\index{terms}{algebraic Cu-semiring@algebraic $\CatCu$-semiring}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:CuCompletionSrg}
Let $K$ be a cancellative, conical semiring.
We equip $K$ with the algebraic order.
Then $K$ is a \pom{} and we may apply the construction of \autoref{sec:algebraicSemigp} to the underlying additive monoid of $K$.
We denote by $S$ the resulting $\CatCu$-completion of $K$.
Then $S$ is an algebraic $\CatCu$-semigroup whose compact elements can be identified with $K$.
We therefore think of $K$ as a submonoid of $S$.
The multiplication on $K$ can be extended to $S$ as follows:
First, we define the product of an element in $K$ with an element in $S$.
Let $a\in K$ and $b\in S$.
Choose an increasing sequence $(b_k)_k$ in $K$ with $b=\sup_k b_k$.
Then the sequence $(ab_k)_k$ is increasing (in $K$) and we may set $ab := \sup_k (ab_k)$.
It is straightforward to check that this is independent of the choice of the sequence $(b_k)_k$.
Moreover, if $a'$ and $a$ in $K$ satisfy $a'\leq a$, then $a'b\leq ab$ for every $b\in S$.
Now we can define the product of two arbitrary elements $a$ and $b$ in $S$ as follows.
Choose an increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ in $K$ with $a=\sup_k a_k$.
For each $k$, the product $a_kb$ is already defined.
Moreover, the resulting sequence $(a_kb)_k$ is increasing and we may set $ab := \sup_k (a_kb)$.
It is easy to check that this defines a $\CatCu$-product on $S$.
We denote the resulting $\CatCu$-semiring by $\Cu(K)$.
By \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}, $\Cu(K)$ is a weakly cancellative, algebraic $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Moreover, there is a natural isomorphism between $K$ and the semiring of compact elements in $\Cu(K)$.
Given cancellative, conical semirings $K$ and $L$, it is clear that every semiring homomorphism $K\to L$ induces a multiplicative $\CatCu$-morphism from $\Cu(K)$ to $\Cu(L)$.
This defines a functor from the category $\CatCon\CatSrg_\txtCanc$ of cancellative, conical semirings to the category of algebraic $\CatCu$-semirings.
Conversely, for every $\CatCu$-semiring $S$ with compact unit, the compact elements in $S$ form a subsemiring.
The assignment $S\mapsto S_c$ can be extended to a functor from the category of algebraic $\CatCu$-semirings to the category of conical semirings.
Let $S$ be a weakly cancellative, algebraic $\Cu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
By \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}, the subset $S_c$ is a cancellative, conical, algebraically ordered semiring.
Moreover, the $\CatCu$-semiring $S$ is naturally isomorphic to $\Cu(S_c)$.
\end{pgr}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:equivalenceSrgAlgCu}
The functors from Paragraphs \ref{pgr:CuCompletionSrg} and \ref{pgr:equivalenceSrgPoRg} establish equivalences between the following categories:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
Directed, \por{s}, together with ring homomorphisms.
\item
Cancellative, conical semirings, together with semiring homomor\-phisms.
\item
Weakly cancellative, algebraic $\Cu$-semirings satisfying \axiomO{5}, together with multiplicative $\Cu$-morphisms.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
The following notion of weak divisibility was introduced in \cite[Definition~2.2]{OrtPerRor11CoronaRefinement} (see also \cite{PerRor04AFembedding} and \cite{AraGooPerSil10NonsimplePurelyInfinite}).
This property has also been called \emph{quasi-divisible} in \cite[Definition~3.2]{Weh98EmbeddingRefinement}.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:wkDivMon}
\index{terms}{monoid!weakly divisible}
\index{terms}{weakly divisible monoid}
A monoid $M$ is \emph{weakly divisible} if for every $s\in M$, there are $a, b\in M$ such that $s=2a+3b$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:nonElemSrg}
\index{terms}{semiring!nonelementary}
\index{terms}{nonelementary semiring}
A conical semiring $R$ is \emph{nonelementary} if there exist nonzero elements $s,t\in R$ such that $1=s+t$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmks}
\label{rmk:wkDivNonElemSrg}
(1)
Let $S$ be a conical semiring.
Then the underlying additive monoid of $S$ is weakly divisible if and only if there exist $s,t\in S$ with $1=2s+3t$.
(2)
Let $S$ be a conical semiring.
If we equip $S$ with its algebraic pre-order, then $S$ is nonelementary if and only if $S\neq\{0\}$ and the unit is not a minimal nonzero element.
\end{rmks}
It is easily seen that every (nonzero) weakly divisible, conical semiring is nonelementary.
In the next result, we show that the converse holds for simple, conical semirings.
Part of the argument below is inspired by \cite{DadRor09ssa}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:simpleSrgDiv}
Let $R$ be a nonelementary, conical semiring that is simple for its algebraic pre-order.
Then $R$ is weakly divisible.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
In this proof, we will write $\leq$ for the algebraic pre-order on $R$.
Then simplicity of $R$ means that for every $x,y\in R$ with $y\neq 0$ there exists $n\in\N$ such that $x\leq ny$.
We first observe that $R$ contains no zero divisors.
Indeed, assume nonzero elements $x,y\in R$ satisfy $xy=0$.
Since $R$ is simple, we can choose $x',y'\in R$ and $k,k\in\N$ such that $1+x'=kx$ and $1+y'=ly$.
This implies $1+x'+y'+x'y'=0$.
Since $R$ is conical, it follows that the unit of $R$ is zero, whence $R=\{0\}$, which contradicts that $R$ is nonelementary.
To prove weak divisibility of $R$, it is enough to show that there are exist $a,b\in R$ such that $1=2a+3b$.
Since $R$ is nonelementary we can find nonzero $s,t\in R$ satisfying $1=s+t$.
Then $1=s^2+t^2+2st$.
Set
\[
f:=s^2+t^2,\quad
e:=st.
\]
Note that both $e$ and $f$ are nonzero.
Then $1=f+2e$, which implies $f=f^2+2ef$.
It follows $1=f^2+2e(1+f)$.
Inductively, we obtain
\[
1=f^m+2e(1+f+\cdots+f^{m-1}),
\]
for each $m\in\N$.
By simplicity of $R$, we can choose $m\in\N_+$ with $f\leq me$.
Then
\[
f^m\leq mef^{m-1}\leq e(1+f+\cdots+f^{m-1}).
\]
Set $b:=f^m$ and $a':=e(1+f+\cdots+f^{m-1})$.
Then $1=b+2a'$.
Since $b\leq a'$, we can find $a\in R$ such that $b+a=a'$.
Then
\[
1=b+2a'=b+2b+2a=2a+3b,
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:wkDivNearUnperf}
Let $R$ be a weakly divisible semiring.
Let $M$ be a \pom\ that is a semimodule over $R$.
Then $M$ is nearly unperforated.
In particular, if $R$ has a compatible positive order, then it is nearly unperforated itself.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:nearUnperfTFAE}, it is enough to show that $2a\leq 2b$ and $3a\leq 3b$ imply $a\leq b$, for any $a,b\in M$.
Let such $a$ and $b$ be given.
By weak divisibility of $R$, there are elements $s,t\in R$ such that $1=2s+3t$.
Then
\[
a = (2s+3t)a
= s(2a) + t(3a)
\leq s(2b) +t(3b)
= (2s+3t)b
= b,
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:cancSimpleSemirg}
Let $R$ be a nonelementary, conical semiring that is simple and stably finite for its algebraic (pre)order.
Then $R$ is cancellative.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The assumptions imply that the algebraic pre-order of $R$ is antisymmetric;
see \autoref{rmk:preminSimpleSFPrePom}.
Thus, the underlying monoid of $R$ is a simple, stably finite, partially ordered monoid (with its algebraic order).
By \autoref{prp:simpleSrgDiv} and \autoref{prp:wkDivNearUnperf}, the semiring $R$ is nearly unperforated.
Then we may apply \autoref{prp:nearUnperfSimplePom} to deduce that $R$ is cancellative.
\end{proof}
\begin{lma}
\label{lma:wkDivNonElemSrg}
Let $R$ be a simple algebraic $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item $R$ is nonelementary as a $\CatCu$-semiring.
\item $R_c$ is stably finite, $1_R$ is compact and $R_c$ is a nonelementary semiring.
\item $R_c$ is stably finite, $1_R$ is compact and not minimal.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that (2) and (3) are equivalent conditions.
Assume condition (1).
Then $R_c\neq \{0\}$ as $R$ is algebraic, and thus $1_R$ is compact by \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgCompacts}. Another use of \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgCompacts} shows that $R$ (hence also $R_c$) is stably finite. Since $R$ is nonelementary and algebraic we can choose a compact element $a\in R$ such that $a<1_R$, and by \axiomO{5} we obtain a nonzero (compact) element $b$ with $1_R=a+b$.
This shows that $R_c$ is a nonelementary (conical) semiring.
Assume now (2), and let us show (1).
We have $1_R=a+b$ for nonzero compact elements $a$ and $b$.
If $c$ is a minimal nonzero element in $R$, then $c\in R_c$ (since $R$ is algebraic).
Now $c=ca+cb$, with both $ca$ and $cb$ nonzero as $R$ does not have zero divisors.
Note that $ca<c$ because $R_c$ is stably finite.
This contradicts the minimality of $c$, and thus $R$ is nonelementary as a $\CatCu$-semiring.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:cancSimpleAlgebraicSemirg}
Let $R$ be a simple, nonelementary, algebraic $\Cu$-semiring satisfying~\axiomO{5}.
Then $R$ is weakly divisible and weakly cancellative.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
First notice that the subsemiring $R_c$ of compact elements in $R$ is conical.
By \autoref{lma:wkDivNonElemSrg}, $R_c$ is a nonelementary semiring (with unit $1_R$) whose underlying additive monoid is stably finite.
Since $R$ satisfies \axiomO{5}, we may apply \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic} to deduce that the partial order on $R$ induces the algebraic order on $R_c$.
Using that $R$ is simple and algebraic, it follows that $R_c$ is simple.
Then $R_c$ is weakly divisible, by \autoref{prp:simpleSrgDiv}. Now write $1_R=2a+3b$ for $a$ and $b$ in $R_c$, and then $c=2ac+3bc$ for any $c\in R$. This shows that $R$ is weakly divisible as well.
Moreover, $R_c$ is cancellative by \autoref{prp:cancSimpleSemirg}.
Using \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic} again, we obtain that $R$ is weakly cancellative.
\end{proof}
The following proposition is a $\CatCu$-semigroup version of results for \ca{s} that have appeared in \cite[Proposition~5.8]{TomWin07ssa} and \cite[Theorem~2.5]{DadRor09ssa}.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:imagelambda}
Let $R$ be a simple, nonelementary $\Cu$-semiring satisfying~\axiomO{5} and with a unique functional $\lambda$ that is normalized at $1_R$.
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
There exists a compact element $p\in R$ with $0<p<1_R$.
\item
There exists a compact element $p\in R$ with $\lambda(p)\notin\N$.
\item
The set $\lambda(R_c)$ is dense in $\R_+$.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semiring $R$ is weakly divisible.
\item
The $\CatCu$-semiring $R$ is algebraic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{thm:simpleSemirg}, the $\Cu$-semiring $R$ is almost unperforated.
Then, by \autoref{prp:almUnp}, we have $a<b$ if and only if $\lambda(a)<\lambda(b)$, for any $a,b\in R$.
The implications `\enumStatement{4} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{3} $\Rightarrow$ \enumStatement{2}' are clear.
By \autoref{prp:cancSimpleAlgebraicSemirg}, \enumStatement{5} implies \enumStatement{4}.
To show that \enumStatement{2} implies \enumStatement{1}, choose a compact element $a\in R$ satisfying $\lambda(a)\notin\N$.
Let $n\in\N$ such that $n<\lambda(a)<n+1$.
Then
\[
\lambda(n 1_R) = n < \lambda(a) < n+1 = \lambda((n+1) 1_R).
\]
As explained at the beginning of the proof, it follows $n 1_R<a<(n+1) 1_R$.
Since $R$ satisfies \axiomO{5} we can choose a compact element $p$ in $S$ such that $a+p=(n+1)1_R$.
Then $0<\lambda(p)<1$, which implies that $0<p<1_R$, as desired.
Next, we show that \enumStatement{3} implies \enumStatement{5}.
Let $a\in R$ be an element.
We need to show that $a$ is the supremum of an increasing sequence of compact elements.
This is clear if $a$ is compact itself.
Thus, we may assume that $a$ is noncompact.
By \autoref{prp:softNoncpctSimple}, we get that $a$ is soft.
By assumption, there is a sequence $(b_k)_k$ of compact elements such that $\lambda(b_k)_k$ is strictly increasing with $\lambda(a)=\sup_k\lambda(b_k)$.
As observed at the beginning of the proof, it follows that the sequence $(b_k)_k$ is increasing.
Set $b:=\sup_k b_k$.
Then $\lambda(b)=\lambda(a)$.
Since $R$ is stably finite, the element $b$ is noncompact and therefore soft.
Then \autoref{prp:soft_comparison} implies $a=b$.
Thus, $a$ is the supremum of the increasing sequence $(b_k)_k$ of compact elements, as desired.
Finally, let us show that \enumStatement{1} implies \enumStatement{3}.
By \autoref{prp:multiplicativeUniqueFctl}, the functional $\lambda$ is multiplicative.
Therefore $\lambda(R_c)$ is a subsemiring of $[0,\infty]$, which must be dense as it contains arbitrarily small elements.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}[{Dadarlat, R{\o}rdam, \cite[Theorem~2.5]{DadRor09ssa}}]
Let $D$ be a strongly self-absorbing \ca.
Then $D$ has real rank zero if and only if it contains a nontrivial projection.
\end{cor}
\vspace{5pt}
\section{Classification of solid \texorpdfstring{$\Cu$}{Cu}-semirings}
\label{sec:classificationSolid}
\index{terms}{Cu-semiring@$\CatCu$-semiring!solid}
\index{terms}{solid Cu-semiring@solid $\CatCu$-semiring}
We now study the structure of general solid $\CatCu$-semirings.
The goal is the classification result in \autoref{thm:solidSemirgClassification}.
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:propertiesSolid}
Let $R$ be a solid $\Cu$-semiring.
Then $R$ is simple.
Moreover, $R$ has at most one functional that is normalized at the unit element $1$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We first show that $R$ is simple.
Let $I$ be an ideal in $R$. Define $\tau_I\colon R\times R\to\{0,\infty\}$ by
\[
\tau_I(a,b) =
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if $a\in I$ or $b=0$} \\
\infty, & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\]
for all $a,b\in R$.
This is easily checked to be a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
Since $R$ is solid, the map~$\tau_I$ factors through multiplication in $R$.
This means that there exists a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\widetilde{\tau}_I\colon R\to \{0,\infty\}$ such that $\widetilde{\tau}_I(ab)=\tau_I(a,b)$ for all $a,b\in R$.
Consider the case that $I$ is the ideal generated by $1$.
Then
\[
0=\tau_I(1,a)=\widetilde{\tau}_I(a)=\tau_I(a,1),
\]
for all $a\in R$.
This implies that $I=R$ and thus $1$ is a full element.
Now let $J$ be an ideal in $R$ satisfying $J\neq R$.
Since $1$ is full, this implies $1\notin J$.
Let $a\in J$.
We deduce
\[
0=\tau_J(a,1)=\widetilde{\tau}_J(a)=\tau_J(1,a).
\]
This implies $a=0$, hence $J=\{0\}$.
Thus, we have shown that $R$ is simple.
To show that $R$ has at most one normalized functional, let $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ be functionals on $R$ satisfying $\lambda_1(1)=\lambda_2(1)=1$.
Consider the map
\[
\tau\colon R\times R\to [0,\infty],\quad
\tau(a,b)=\lambda_1(a)\lambda_2(b),
\txtFA a,b\in R.
\]
It is clear that $\tau$ is a generalized $\CatCu$-bimorphism.
Since $R$ is solid, there exists a generalized $\CatCu$-morphism $\widetilde{\tau}\colon R\to [0,\infty]$ such that $\widetilde{\tau}(ab)=\lambda_1(a)\lambda_2(b)$ for all $a,b\in R$.
Then we obtain
\[
\lambda_1(a)=\tau(a,1)=\widetilde{\tau}(a1)=\widetilde{\tau}(1a)=\tau(1,a)=\lambda_2(a),
\]
for all $a\in R$.
This shows $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$, as desired.
\end{proof}
The aim of the following two results is to show that a nonelementary, solid $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5} has a unique functional which is moreover multiplicative.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:existenceFctlZMult}
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated, almost divisible $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a\in S$.
Then there exists $\lambda\in F(S)$ with $\lambda(a)=1$ if and only if $a\neq 2a$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, if $\lambda(a)=1$ for some $\lambda\in F(S)$, then $a\neq 2a$.
For the converse, assume there exists no $\lambda\in F(S)$ such that $\lambda(a)=1$.
This implies $\lambda(a)\in\{0,\infty\}$ for all $\lambda\in F(S)$.
By \autoref{prp:ZModTFAE}, $S$ has $Z$-multiplication.
Consider the elements $1'a$ and $3'a$.
By \autoref{prp:softZmult}, both $1'a$ and $3'a$ are soft, and $\lambda(1'a)=\lambda(a)$ for all $\lambda\in F(S)$.
Then $\lambda(1'a)=\lambda(3'a)$ for all $\lambda\in F(S)$.
Since $S$ is almost unperforated, it follows from \autoref{prp:soft_comparison} that $1'a=3'a$.
We deduce
\[
2a \leq 3'a = 1'a \leq a,
\]
which shows $a=2a$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prp:solidZmult}
Let $R$ be a nonelementary, solid $\Cu$-semiring satisfying axiom~\axiomO{5}.
Then $R$ is simple, almost unperforated, almost divisible (hence $R\cong Z\otimes_{\CatCu}R$) and stably finite.
Moreover, there is a unique functional $\lambda\in F(R)$ satisfying $\lambda(1)=1$.
This functional is multiplicative.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:propertiesSolid}, $R$ is simple.
It follows from \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgZmult} that $R$ satisfies $R\cong Z\otimes_{\CatCu}R$.
Also by \autoref{prp:propertiesSolid}, $R$ has at most one functional that is normalized at the unit element $1$.
We have $1\neq 2$, since otherwise $R$ is elementary;
see \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgElmtry}.
Since $R$ is almost unperforated and almost divisible, we may apply \autoref{prp:existenceFctlZMult} to deduce that there exists $\lambda\in F(R)$ satisfying $\lambda(1)=1$.
By \autoref{prp:multiplicativeUniqueFctl}, $\lambda$ is multiplicative.
\end{proof}
\begin{pgr}
\label{pgr:solidRings}
Let us recall the classification of solid rings from \cite[Proposition~3.5]{BouKan72Core} and \cite[Proposition~1.10]{BowSch77Rings}.
Every unital subring of the rational numbers~$\Q$ is a (torsion-free) solid ring.
Conversely, every torsion-free, solid ring is isomorphic to a unital subring of~$\Q$.
Given a set of primes $P$, we let $\Z\left[P^{-1}\right]$ denote the subring of $\Q$ generated by $\Z$ and the numbers $\tfrac{1}{p}$ for every $p\in P$.
We associate to $P$ the supernatural number $n_P = \prod_{p\in P}p^\infty$.
Then, using the notation from \autoref{pgr:Rq},
\[
\Z\left[P^{-1}\right]
=\Z\left[\left\{ \tfrac{1}{p} : p \in P \right\}\right]
=\Z\left[\tfrac{1}{n_P}\right].
\]
Every unital subring of $\Q$ is of the form $\Z\left[P^{-1}\right]$ for some set of primes~$P$.
Given a ring $R$, we let $t(R)$ denote the torsion part of~$R$.
If $R$ is a solid ring, then $R/t(R)$ is a torsion-free, solid ring.
It is possible that $R/t(R)=\{0\}$, which happens precisely when the unit of $R$ is a torsion element.
Let us now assume that $R$ is a solid ring whose unit is not torsion.
Then $R/t(R)$ is a unital subring of $\Q$, and consequently there is a set of primes $P$ such that
\[
R/t(R)\cong\Z[P^{-1}].
\]
Furthermore, it is known that the order of every torsion element in $R$ is divisible in $R/t(R)$.
More precisely, it is shown in \cite[3.12]{BouKan72Core} that there is a subset $K\subset P$ and integers $e(p)$ for $p\in K$ such that
\[
t(R)\cong\bigoplus_{p\in K} \Z_{p^{e(p)}}.
\]
If $R$ is a solid ring whose unit is not torsion and $R/t(R)\cong \Z$, then $t(R)=\{0\}$ and hence $R\cong \Z$. Indeed, if $R$ has nonzero $p$-torsion elements for a prime $p$, then $p$ becomes invertible in $R/t(R)$, which is impossible.
\end{pgr}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:solidRgPositive}
Let $R$ be a solid ring whose unit is not torsion.
As explained in \autoref{pgr:solidRings}, there exists a canonical embedding of $R/t(R)$ into $\Q$.
Let $\lambda_0\colon R\to\Q$ be the ring homomorphism obtained by composing the quotient map $R\to R/t(R)$ with the embedding $R/t(R)\subset\Q$.
We define $R_+$ as the set
\[
R_+ := \left\{ r\in R : \lambda_0(r)>0 \right\} \cup \{0\}.
\]
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn:solidSrg}
\index{terms}{semiring!solid}
A semiring $R$ is \emph{solid} if for every $a\in R$ the equality
\[
a\otimes 1=1\otimes a
\]
holds in $R\otimes_{\CatSrg}R$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:solidSrgRg}
(1)
Let $S$ be a solid semiring.
Then the Grothendieck completion $\Gr(S)$ is a solid ring.
(2)
Let $R$ be a solid ring whose unit is not a torsion element.
Then the subset $R_+$ from \autoref{dfn:solidRgPositive} is a unital, conical subsemiring of $R$.
Moreover, the semiring $R_+$ is cancellative, and solid in the sense of \autoref{dfn:solidSrg}, and the algebraic order of $R_+$ is almost unperforated.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
To show the first part of the statement, let $S$ be a solid semiring.
Let $R$ denote the Grothendieck completion of $S$, and let
\[
\delta\colon S\to R:=\Gr(S)
\]
denote the natural map.
To prove that $R$ is solid, let $a\in R$.
We need to show $a\otimes 1=1\otimes a$ in $R\otimes R$.
By properties of the Grothendieck completion, we can choose $x,y\in S$ such that $a=\delta(x)-\delta(y)$.
Using that $S$ is solid at the second step, we deduce
\[
a\otimes 1
=(\delta\otimes\delta)(x\otimes 1) - (\delta\otimes\delta)(y\otimes 1)
=(\delta\otimes\delta)(1\otimes x) - (\delta\otimes\delta)(1\otimes y)
=1\otimes a,
\]
as desired.
To show the second part of the statement, let $R$ be a solid ring with non-torsion unit.
It is straightforward to check that $R_+$ is a unital, conical subsemiring of $R$.
Let us show that $R_+$ is a solid semiring.
If $R\cong\Z$, then $R_+\cong\N$, which is obviously a solid semiring.
Therefore, we may assume $R\ncong\Z$.
Let us denote the inclusion of $R_+$ into $R$ by $\iota\colon R_+\to R$.
Let $\lambda_0\colon R\to\Q$ denote the canonical ring homomorphism introduced in \autoref{dfn:solidRgPositive}.
By abuse of notation, we denote the composition $\lambda_0\circ\iota\colon R_+\to\Q$ also by $\lambda_0$.
We endow $R_+$ with the algebraic order.
Then, for any $a,b\in R_+$ we have
\[
a<b\quad
\text{ if and only if }\quad
\lambda_0(a) < \lambda_0(b).
\]
Note that for every nonzero element $a$ in $R_+$, we have $\lambda_0(a)>0$.
It follows easily that $R_+$ is a simple semiring.
This implies that $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$ is a simple semiring, as well.
It is easy to see that $\lambda_0$ is a state when considering it as a map $\lambda_0\colon R_+\to\R$.
This induces a state $\lambda_0\otimes\lambda_0$ on $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$, such that $(\lambda_0\otimes\lambda_0)(x)>0$ for every nonzero element $x\in R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$.
It follows that $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$ is conical and stably finite.
Since $R\ncong\Z$, we have $R/t(R)\cong\Z[P^{-1}]$ for some nonempty set of primes $P$.
Then it is easy to see that $R_+$ contains nonzero elements $c$ and $d$ such that $1=c+d$.
Note that the elements $1\otimes c$ and $1\otimes d$ in $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$ are nonzero.
Thus, the unit of $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$ is equal to $1\otimes c+1\otimes d$, the sum of two nonzero elements.
By \autoref{prp:cancSimpleSemirg}, the semiring $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$ is cancellative.
The following commutative diagram shows the (semi)rings and maps to be considered.
\[
\xymatrix@R=15pt@M+3pt{
R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+ \ar@{}[r]|{=}
& R_+\otimes_{\CatMon}R_+ \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar[d]^{\iota\otimes\iota}
& \Gr(R_+\otimes_{\CatMon}R_+) \ar[d]^{\cong} \\
R\otimes R \ar@{}[r]|{=}
& R\otimes_{\CatMon}R \ar@{}[r]|-{\cong}
& \Gr(R_+)\otimes_{\CatMon}\Gr(R_+) \\
}
\]
The tensor product of two (semi)rings is just the tensor product of the underlying monoids, equipped with a natural multiplication;
see \autoref{sec:poRg}.
We want to show that the map $\iota\otimes\iota$ is injective.
This does not follow directly from the injectivity of $\iota$, since in general the tensor product of two injective morphisms need not be injective again.
However, we have shown above that $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$ is cancellative.
Therefore, the map to the Grothendieck completion is injective, as indicated by the upper-right horizontal arrow in the diagram.
In general, if $M$ and $N$ are monoids, there is a natural isomorphism between $\Gr(M\otimes_{\CatMon}N)$, the Grothendieck completion of their tensor product, and $\Gr(M)\otimes_{\CatMon}\Gr(N)$, the tensor product of their respective Grothendieck com\-ple\-tions;
see \cite[Proposition~17]{Ful70Tensor}, and also \autoref{prp:GrTensorMon}.
It is clear that $R$ is canonically isomorphic to the Grothendieck completion of~$R_+$.
It follows from the commutativity of the above diagram that the map $\iota\otimes\iota$ is injective.
Now let $a\in R_+$ be given.
Using that $R$ is solid at the second step, we deduce
\[
(\iota\otimes\iota)(a\otimes 1)
= \iota(a)\otimes 1
= 1\otimes\iota(a)
= (\iota\otimes\iota)(1\otimes a),
\]
in $R\otimes R$.
Since the map $\iota\otimes\iota$ is injective, this implies
\[
a\otimes 1
=1\otimes a,
\]
in $R_+\otimes_{\CatSrg}R_+$, as desired.
It is left to the reader to check that the algebraic order of $R_+$ is almost unperforated.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:solidRgOrdered}
Let $R$ be a solid ring whose unit is not a torsion element.
By \autoref{prp:solidSrgRg}, the subset $R_+$ of $R$ is a unital, conical, subsemiring.
It follows that $R$ has the structure of a \por{} with positive cone given by $R_+$;
see \autoref{pgr:equivalenceSrgPoRg}.
It is clear that $R$ is directed.
This means that every solid ring with non-torsion unit has a canonical structure as a directed, \por.
\end{rmk}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:solidElementsRational}
Let $R$ be a solid ring whose unit is not a torsion element, and let $a\in R_+$.
Then there exist $k,n\in\N$ such that $na=k1$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $a$ is nonzero.
Let $\lambda_0\colon R\to\Q$ be the canonical ring homomorphism introduced in \autoref{dfn:solidRgPositive} such that
\[
R_+ = \left\{ r\in R : \lambda_0(r)>0 \right\} \cup \{0\}.
\]
Choose positive $k_0,n_0\in\N$ such that $\lambda_0(a)=\tfrac{k_0}{n_0}$.
Then
\[
\lambda_0(n_0 a - k_0 1)=0.
\]
Therefore, $n_0 a - k_0 1$ is a torsion element of $R$.
Let $m$ be its order.
Then
\[
(mn_0)a = (mk_0)1,
\]
which shows that $n:=mn_0$ and $k:=mk_0$ have the desired properties.
\end{proof}
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:equivalenceSolidSrgRg}
There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between the following classes:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
Solid rings whose unit is not a torsion element.
\item
Solid, cancellative, conical semirings for which the algebraic order is almost unperforated.
\end{enumerate}
The correspondence is given by associating to a solid ring $R$ with non-torsion unit the solid semiring $R_+$ from \autoref{dfn:solidRgPositive}, and conversely by associating to a solid semiring $S$ its Grothendieck completion $\Gr(S)$.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
It is clear from \autoref{prp:solidSrgRg} that the assignments of the statement are well-defined.
Thus, it remains to show that the assignments are inverse to each other.
Given a solid ring $R$ with non-torsion unit, the inclusion $\iota\colon R_+\to R$ induces a map $\iota_*\colon\Gr(R_+)\to \Gr(R)=R$.
It is easy to verify that $\iota_*$ is an injective ring homomorphism.
To show that $\iota_*$ is surjective, let $r\in R$.
Let $\lambda_0\colon R\to\Q$ be the canonical ring homomorphism from \autoref{dfn:solidRgPositive}.
It is clear that $r$ belongs to the image of $\iota_*$ whenever $\lambda_0(r)\neq 0$.
If $\lambda_0(r)=0$, then $r\in t(R)$.
Then $r=(r+1)-1$, with $r+1, 1\in R_+$ (as the unit is not torsion), which shows that also in this case $r$ belongs to the image of $\iota_*$.
Conversely, let $S$ be a solid, cancellative, conical semiring for which the algebraic order is almost unperforated.
Let $R$ be the Grothendieck completion of $S$.
Since $S$ is cancellative, we can consider $S$ as a unital subsemiring of $R$.
We need to show that $S=R_+$.
As before, we denote by $\lambda_0\colon R\to\Q$ the canonical ring homomorphism.
In order to show $S\subset R_+$, we let $a\in S$.
We may assume $a\neq 0$.
Since $S$ is conical, it contains no torsion element.
Thus, we have $\lambda_0(a)\neq 0$.
To reach a contradiction, assume $\lambda_0(a)<0$.
Choose $k,n\in\N$ such that $\lambda_0(a)=-\tfrac{k}{n}$.
Then
\[
\lambda_0(na+k1)=0.
\]
Since $1$ is an element of $S$, we deduce $na+k1\in S$, and therefore $na+k1=0$.
This contradicts conicality of $S$.
Thus $\lambda(a)\geq 0$ for each $a\in S$.
It follows $S\subset R_+$, as desired.
To show $R_+\subset S$, let $a\in R_+$.
We may assume $a\neq 0$.
Since $R$ is the Grothendieck completion of $S$, we can choose $x,y\in S$ with $a+x=y$.
Then $y$ is nonzero, and we may clearly assume that $x$ is also nonzero.
Let us show $x<_s y$.
It follows from the proof of \autoref{prp:solidElementsRational} that we can find $n,k_1,k_2\in\N$ such that
\[
nx = k_11,\quad
ny = k_21.
\]
Since $a$ is nonzero, we have $k_1<k_2$.
Then $k_2nx=k_1k_21=k_1ny$, with $k_1n<k_2n$, and thus $x<_s y$.
Since $S$ is almost unperforated (with the algebraic order), we deduce $x\leq y$.
Using that the order of $S$ is algebraic and that $S$ is cancellative, we obtain $a\in S$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
In \autoref{prp:equivalenceSrgPoRg}, we recall the natural one-to-one correspondence between directed, \por{s} and cancellative, conical se\-mi\-rings, given by assigning to a \por{} its positive cone, and conversely by associating to a conical semiring its Grothendieck completion.
Every solid ring whose unit is not a torsion element has a canonical structure as a directed \por;
see \autoref{rmk:solidRgOrdered}.
Then \autoref{prp:equivalenceSolidSrgRg} shows that the above correspondence restricts to a natural identification between directed, \por{s} coming from solid rings and cancellative, conical semirings that are solid and whose algebraic order is almost unperforated.
\end{rmk}
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:solidSrgCu}
(1)
Let $K$ be a solid, cancellative, conical semiring.
Then its $\Cu$-completion $\Cu(K)$ as constructed in \autoref{pgr:CuCompletionSrg} is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
(2)
Let $R$ be a solid, nonelementary, algebraic $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying~\axiomO{5}.
Then the subsemiring of compact elements $R_c$ is a solid, nonelementary, cancellative, conical semiring for which the algebraic order is almost unperforated.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
Let $K$ be a cancellative, conical semiring.
Consider the tensor square $K\otimes_{\CatMon}K$ of $K$ in the category $\CatMon$ of monoids.
Equipped with the natural multiplication, the monoid $K\otimes_{\CatMon}K$ becomes a semiring, denoted by $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$, which is the tensor square of $K$ in the category $\CatSrg$ of (unital, commutative) semirings;
see \autoref{pgr:srg}.
As explained in \autoref{pgr:algebraicSemigp}, we obtain a $\CatW$-semigroup $(K,\leq)$ if we equip the monoid $K$ with the auxiliary relation that is equal to its partial order.
As shown in \autoref{pgr:CuCompletionSrg}, it follows that the $\CatCu$-completion of $(K,\leq)$ is a $\CatCu$-semiring which we denote by $\Cu(K)$.
We denote the universal $\CatW$-morphism to the $\CatCu$-completion by
\[
\alpha\colon K\to\Cu(K).
\]
Considering $K$ and $\Cu(K)$ as semirings, the map $\alpha$ is a semiring homomorphism and an order-embedding that identifies $K$ with the compact elements of $\Cu(K)$;
see \autoref{rmk:Cuification} and \autoref{prp:algebraicSemigp}.
We therefore think of $K$ as a subset of~$\Cu(K)$ and identify $a$ with $\alpha(a)$, for each $a\in K$.
The map
\[
K\times K \to \Cu(K)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(K),\quad
(a,b)\mapsto a\otimes b,\quad
\txtFA a,b\in K,
\]
is a monoid bimorphism and therefore induces a monoid homomorphism
\[
\varphi\colon K\otimes_{\CatMon} K \to \Cu(K)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(K)
\]
such that $\varphi(a\otimes b)=a\otimes b$ for each $a,b\in K$.
To show the first part of the statements, assume that $K$ is a solid, cancellative, conical semiring.
Let $a\in\Cu(K)$.
In order to prove that $\Cu(K)$ is a solid $\CatCu$-semiring, we need to show by \autoref{prp:solidTFAE} that $1\otimes a= a\otimes 1$ in $\Cu(K)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(K)$.
Assume first that $a$ is a compact element.
Then $a$ is an element of $K$.
Using that $K$ is solid at the second step, we obtain
\[
1\otimes a
= \varphi(1\otimes a)
= \varphi(a\otimes 1)
= a\otimes 1.
\]
If $a$ is a not necessarily compact element, then we can choose an increasing sequence $(a_k)_k$ of compact elements in $\Cu(K)$ such that $a=\sup_k a_k$.
Then
\[
1\otimes a
= 1\otimes (\sup_ka_k)
= \sup_k(1\otimes a_k)
= \sup_k(a_k\otimes 1)
= a\otimes 1.
\]
In order to show the second part of the statement, let $R$ be a solid, nonelementary, algebraic $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying~\axiomO{5}.
By \autoref{prp:propertiesSolid}, $R$ is simple.
Then it follows from \autoref{prp:cancSimpleAlgebraicSemirg} that $R$ is weakly divisible and weakly cancellative.
We set $K:=R_c$, the subsemiring of compact elements, and we identify $R$ with $\Cu(K)$.
It follows from \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic} that $K$ is a conical, cancellative semiring such that the order on $K$ induced by $R$ is the algebraic order.
We know from \autoref{lma:wkDivNonElemSrg} that $K$ is a stably finite nonelementary semiring.
Moreover, by \autoref{prp:solidZmult}, $R$ has a unique normalized functional, which we denote by $\lambda$.
Note that $\lambda(a)>0$ for every nonzero element of $R$.
The map $\lambda$ is a state on $K$, which induces a state $\lambda\otimes\lambda$ on $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$ with the property that $(\lambda\otimes\lambda)(x)>0$ for every nonzero element $x$ of $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$.
It follows that $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$ is stably finite. Since $K$ is a nonelementary semiring we see, as in the proof of \autoref{prp:solidSrgRg}, that $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$ is also nonelementary.
It is also straightforward to deduce that $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$ is simple and weakly divisible.
Therefore, by \autoref{prp:cancSimpleSemirg}, the semiring $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$ is cancellative.
It follows that its algebraic pre-order is partial.
Thus, we have shown that the natural quotient map
\[
K\otimes_{\CatMon}K \to K\otimes_{\CatPom}K
\]
is an isomorphism.
We obtain a $\CatW$-semigroup by equipping $K\otimes_{\CatMon}K$ with the auxiliary relation that is equal to its partial order.
The tensor square of $(K,\leq)$ in the category $\CatPreW$ is given as the tensor square in $\CatPom$ of the underlying monoids together with a naturally defined auxiliary relation;
see \autoref{dfn:tensProdAuxRel}.
It follows that there is a natural isomorphism
\[
(K\otimes_{\CatMon}K,\leq) \cong (K,\leq)\otimes_{\CatPreW}(K,\leq)
\]
Applying $\CatCu$-completions to both sides and using \autoref{thm:tensProdCompl}, we deduce that there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\Cu(K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K) \cong \Cu(K) \otimes_{\CatCu} \Cu(K).
\]
We denote the universal $\CatW$-morphism to the $\CatCu$-completion of $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$ by
\[
\beta\colon K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K\to\Cu(K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K).
\]
By \autoref{rmk:Cuification}, the map $\beta$ is an order-embedding.
In conclusion, the map $\varphi$ from the beginning of the proof is an order-embedding.
Then, if $a$ is an element of $K$, we have
\[
\beta(1\otimes a)
= 1\otimes \alpha(a)
= \alpha(a)\otimes 1
= \beta(a\otimes 1).
\]
Since $\beta$ is an oder-embedding, we obtain $1\otimes a=a\otimes 1$ in $K\otimes_{\CatSrg}K$.
Thus, $K$ is a solid semiring.
It is easy to check that $K$ is almost unperforated.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{prp:equivalenceSolidSrgRgCu}
There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between each of the following classes:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
Solid rings whose unit is not a torsion element and that are not isomorphic to $\Z$.
\item
Solid, nonelementary, cancellative, conical semirings for which the algebraic order is almost unperforated.
\item
Solid, nonelementary, algebraic $\CatCu$-semirings satisfying~\axiomO{5}.
\end{enumerate}
The correspondence between \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} is given by associating to a solid ring $R$ with non-torsion unit the solid semiring $R_+$ from \autoref{dfn:solidRgPositive}, and conversely by associating to a solid semiring $S$ its Grothendieck completion $\Gr(S)$.
The correspondence between \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3} is given by associating to a solid semiring $K$ the $\CatCu$-semiring $\Cu(K)$ as constructed in \autoref{pgr:CuCompletionSrg}, and conversely by associating to a solid, algebraic $\CatCu$-semiring $S$ its subsemiring of compact elements.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The correspondence between the classes \enumStatement{1} and \enumStatement{2} follows directly from \autoref{prp:equivalenceSolidSrgRg}.
Let us show the correspondence between the classes \enumStatement{2} and \enumStatement{3}. By \autoref{prp:solidSrgCu}, the assignments of the statement are well-defined; thus, it just remains to show that the assignments are inverse to each other.
This follows directly from \autoref{prp:algebraicSemigp}.
\end{proof}
\index{terms}{Cu-semiring@$\CatCu$-semiring!solid!classification}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:solidSemirgClassification}
Let $S$ be a nonzero solid $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying~\axiomO{5}.
If $S$ is nonelementary, then exactly one of the following statements holds:
\beginEnumStatements
\item
We have $S\cong[0,\infty]$.
\item
We have $S\cong Z$.
\item
There is a solid ring $R$ with non-torsion unit such that $R\ncong\Z$ and such that $S\cong \Cu(R_+)$.
\end{enumerate}
If $S$ is elementary and satisfies \axiomO{6}, then exactly one of the following conditions holds:
\beginEnumStatements
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item
We have $S\cong\N$.
\item
There is $k\in\N$ such that $S\cong\elmtrySgp{k}=\{0,1,2,\ldots,k,\infty\}$.
\end{enumerate}
The $\CatCu$-semiring $S$ is algebraic if and only if it satisfies \enumStatement{3}, \enumStatement{4} or \enumStatement{5}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We have observed that all $\CatCu$-semirings in statements \enumStatement{1}-\enumStatement{5} are solid.
It is also clear that a solid $\CatCu$-semiring can satisfy at most one of the statements.
Let $S$ be a solid $\CatCu$-semiring.
We will show that $S$ satisfies one of the statements.
Case 1:
Assume $S$ is nonelementary.
By \autoref{prp:solidZmult}, $S$ is simple, almost unperforated, almost divisible, and stably finite.
Moreover, there is a unique normalized functional $\lambda$ on $S$, which is automatically multiplicative.
We obtain from \autoref{thm:isothm} that there is a canonical decomposition
\[
S = S_c \sqcup (0,\infty].
\]
If $S$ contains no nonzero compact element, then $S\cong[0,\infty]$ by \autoref{prp:uniquenessR}.
Otherwise, by \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgCompacts}, the unit of $S$ is compact.
It follows from \autoref{prp:imagelambda} that either $\lambda(S_c)\subset\N$ or that $S$ is algebraic.
In the latter case, $S$ satisfies \enumStatement{3};
see \autoref{prp:equivalenceSolidSrgRgCu}.
Thus, let us assume $\lambda(S_c)\subset\N$.
Then we consider the map
\[
\alpha\colon S = S_c\sqcup(0,\infty] \to Z = \N\sqcup(0,\infty],
\]
which maps a compact element $r$ in $S$ to the compact element $\lambda(r)\in\N\subset Z$, and which maps a soft element in $S_\soft = (0,\infty]$ to the same in $Z_\soft = (0,\infty]$.
It is straightforward to check that $\alpha$ is a unital, multiplicative $\CatCu$-morphism.
It follows from \autoref{prp:solidMorImpliesAbsorb} that $Z\otimes_{\CatCu} S\cong Z$.
By \autoref{prp:solidZmult}, we also have $S\cong S\otimes_{\CatCu} Z$.
It follows $S\cong Z$, which shows that $S$ satisfies \enumStatement{2}.
Case 2:
Assume that $S$ is elementary and satisfies~\axiomO{6}.
Then $S$ satisfies \enumStatement{4} or \enumStatement{5};
see \autoref{exa:elmtrySemirg}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:solidSemirgClassification}
If $S$ is a nonelementary, solid $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}, then by the classification above, we see that \axiomO{6} is also satisfied. Indeed, only the case where $S=\Cu(R_+)$ for a solid ring $R$ with nontorsion unit needs verification. In this situation, by \autoref{prp:propertiesAlgebraic}, it is enough to show that $R_+$, endowed with the algebraic order, is a Riesz semigroup. This is easy to check once we note that $R/t(R)\cong\Z[P^{-1}]$ for a nonemtpy set of primes $P$.
\end{rmk}
We end this section with a result about initial and terminal objects among solid $\CatCu$-semirings.
This can be considered as a $\CatCu$-semigroup{s} version of \cite[Corollary~3.2]{Win11ssaZstable}, which characterizes the Jiang-Su algebra $\mathcal{Z}$ as the initial object in the category of unital, strongly self-absorbing \ca{s} with \starHom s up to approximate unitary equivalence.
\begin{lma}
\label{prp:CompactSolidElementsRational}
Let $S$ be a solid, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying \axiomO{5}, and let $\lambda$ be its unique normalized functional.
Then $\lambda(S_c)\subset\Q_+$.
\end{lma}
\begin{proof}
By \autoref{prp:imagelambda}, either $\lambda(S_c)\subset\N$ or $S$ is algebraic.
If $S$ is algebraic, by \autoref{prp:solidSrgCu} $S_c$ is a conical, cancellative, solid semiring for which the algebraic order is almost unperforated.
Now the result follows from \autoref{prp:equivalenceSolidSrgRg} and \autoref{prp:solidElementsRational}.
\end{proof}
\begin{exa}
\label{exa:Q}
\index{symbols}{Q@$Q$}
Let $\Q$ be the solid ring of rational numbers.
We obtain a corresponding solid $\CatCu$-semiring, which we denote by $Q$.
Thus
\[
Q = \Cu(\Q_+) \cong \Q_+\sqcup (0,\infty].
\]
As we show below, $Q$ is the terminal object in a suitable category.
\end{exa}
We remark that for every simple, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semiring $S$ that satisfies \axiomO{5} and has a compact unit, there exists a multiplicative $\CatCu$-morphism from $Z$ to $S$.
This follows from \autoref{prp:simpleSemirgZmult}.
If $S$ has a unique normalized functional, then the map is unique.
\begin{prp}
\label{prp:initialTerminal}
Let $S$ be a solid, nonelementary $\CatCu$-semiring satisfying~\axiomO{5}.
Assume that $1_s$ is compact.
Let $Q$ be the solid $\CatCu$-semiring from \autoref{exa:Q}.
Then there are unique unital, multiplicative $\Cu$-morphisms
\[
Z\to S\to Q.
\]
Thus, $Z\otimes_{\CatCu} S\cong S$ and $S\otimes_{\CatCu} Q\cong Q$.
This means that $Z$ and $Q$ are the initial and final objects of the category of considered $\CatCu$-semirings with unital, multiplicative $\CatCu$-morphisms.
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
The existence and uniqueness of the map $Z\to S$ is observed in the paragraph before this proposition.
Let $S$ be as in the statement.
As in the beginning of the proof of \autoref{thm:solidSemirgClassification}, we obtain that there is a natural decomposition
\[
S = S_c \sqcup (0,\infty].
\]
By \autoref{prp:solidZmult} and \autoref{prp:CompactSolidElementsRational}, $S$ has a unique normalized functional $\lambda$, which is automatically multiplicative, and which satisfies $\lambda(S_c)\subset\Q_+$.
Thus, we may consider the map
\[
\alpha\colon S = S_c\sqcup(0,\infty] \to Q = \Q_+\sqcup(0,\infty],
\]
which maps a compact element $r$ in $S_c$ to the compact element $\lambda(r)\in\Q_+\subset Q$, and which maps a soft element in $S_\soft = (0,\infty]$ to the same in $Q_\soft = (0,\infty]$.
It is easy to see that $\alpha$ is a unital, multiplicative $\CatCu$-morphism, as desired.
It is left to the reader to show uniqueness of the map $S\to Q$.
The results about tensorial absorption follow from \autoref{prp:solidMorImpliesAbsorb}.
\end{proof}
\chapter{Concluding remarks and Open Problems}
\label{sec:openproblems}
In this chapter we list some problems that we believe to be open and that have appeared in the course of our investigations.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*]
\item
\autoref{prbl:tensCa}:
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}.
When are the natural $\CatCu$-morphisms
\begin{align*}
\tau_{A,B}^\txtMin\colon\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \to \Cu(A\tensMin B), \\
\tau_{A,B}^\txtMax\colon\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B) \to \Cu(A\tensMax B),
\end{align*}
from \autoref{pgr:tensCa} surjective, or order-embeddings, or isomorphisms?
More generally, what is the relation between $\Cu(A)\otimes_{\CatCu}\Cu(B)$ and $\Cu(A\otimes B)$?
In \autoref{pgr:AnswerTensCa}, we mention some partial result concerning this problem.
This problem asks for a more general formula of a K\"{u}nneth type flavor.
It looks plausible that such a formula will have to take the $K_1$-groups of the involved \ca{s} into account.
One possible invariant is $\Cu_{\T}(\freeVar)$, as introduced in
\cite{AntDadPerSan14RecoverElliott}, which for a \ca{} $A$ is defined as
\[
\Cu{(C(\T)\otimes A)}.
\]
In significant cases, this invariant records both the Cuntz semigroups of $A$ and the $K_1$-group of $A$.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\label{prbl:Cuclosed}
Is $\CatCu$ a closed category?
This is a natural question given that $\CatCu$ is a symmetric, monoidal category.
A positive answer to this problem would provide additional structure to the morphism sets in $\CatCu$, and this is a potentially useful tool in connection with the current development of a bivariant version of the Cuntz semigroup (see \cite{BosTorZac14BivarCu}).
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:AxiomsTensProd}:
Given $\CatCu$-semigroups $S$ and $T$ that satisfy \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation).
When does $S\otimes_\CatCu T$ satisfy \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation)?
In \autoref{pgr:answersAxiomsTensProd}, we mention some partial result concerning this problem.
A particular variant of this problem is:
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:axiomTensProdZ}:
When does axiom~\axiomO{5}, \axiomO{6} or weak cancellation pass from a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ to the tensor product $Z\otimes_{\CatCu} S$?
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\label{prbl:lsctensor}
Let $X$ be a finite-dimensional, compact, Hausdorff space, and let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
It was proved in \cite[Theorem~5.15]{AntPerSan11PullbacksCu} that the semigroup of lower semicontinuous functions from $X$ to $S$, denoted by $\Lsc(X,S)$, is a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Under which conditions on $S$ and $X$ does $\Lsc(X,S)$ satisfy \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation)?
We remark that if $\Lsc(X,S)$ satisfies \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation), then so does $S$.
The natural test case is $X=[0,1]$.
A positive answer seems likely if $S$ is algebraic.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
Let $X$ be a finite-dimensional, compact, Hausdorff space, and let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
When does it hold that $\Lsc(X,S)=\Lsc(X,\overline{\N})\otimes_{\CatCu}S$?
We show in \autoref{cor:tensornotlsc} that this question has a negative answer for $X=[0,1]$ and $S=Z$.
On the other hand, a positive answer seems likely if $S$ is algebraic.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\label{prbl:rangequtn}
Range problem:
Under which conditions can a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ be realized as the Cuntz semigroup $\Cu(A)$ of a \ca{} $A$?
Necessarily, such a $\Cu$-semigroup satisfies \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}.
Thus, we are asking for additional conditions on $\CatCu$-semigroups beyond these two axioms which would guarantee that a $\CatCu$-semigroup is realized by a \ca{}.
As we have already mentioned, Robert showed in \cite{Rob13CuSpaces2D} that if $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space whose covering dimension is at least $3$, then there is no \ca{} $A$ with $\Cu(A)\cong \Lsc(X,\overline{\N})$.
It was shown by Bosa (private communication), that none of the elementary semigroups $\elmtrySgp{k}$ as described in \autoref{pgr:elementarySemigr} for $k\geq 1$ are realized as the Cuntz semigroup of a \ca{}.
(The $\CatCu$-semigroup $\elmtrySgp{0}=\{0,\infty\}$ is of course the Cuntz semigroup of any purely infinite simple \ca.)
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\label{listPrbls:Zprime}
Consider the $\CatCu$-semigroup $Z'$ defined as follows:
\[
Z'=\{0,1,1',2,3,4,\ldots\}\sqcup (0,\infty],
\]
with addition as in $Z$, except that $k+1'=k+1$ for any $k\in\N_+$.
It is easy to check that $Z'$ is a simple, stably finite $\CatCu$-semigroup satisfying \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}, but it is not weakly cancellative as $1+1'=1'+1'$ but $1\neq 1'$.
It is also easy to prove that $Z'$ has $Z$-multiplication, and therefore $Z' \cong Z\otimes_{\CatCu}Z'$.
A particularly interesting instance of the range problem is the following:
Does there exist a (separable, unital, simple, stably finite) \ca{} $A$ such that~$\Cu(A)\cong Z'$?
Note that if such a \ca{} $A$ exists, then it is necessarily simple, not $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, and not nuclear.
For if $A$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, then it has stable rank one and hence its Cuntz semigroup has weak cancellation.
Similarly, if $A$ is nuclear, then as $Z'$ has only one normalized functional, we would get that $A$ is monotracial.
In that situation, the solution of the Toms-Winter conjecture (see \cite{MatSat12StrComparison}) would imply that $A$ is $\mathcal{Z}$-stable, a contradiction.
The $\CatCu$-semigroup $Z'$ seems to be the simplest example that is not weakly cancellative and has $Z$-multiplication.
A more general question is then:
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\label{prbl:Zprimeprime}
\label{listPrbls:RangeZmultNotWkCanc}
Does there exist a finite, simple \ca{} $A$, such that $\Cu(A)$ has $Z$-mul\-ti\-pli\-ca\-tion, but is not weakly cancellative?
Let $A$ be such a \ca{}.
If $A$ is nuclear, then we could deduce as above that $A$ is not $\mathcal{Z}$-stable although $\Cu(A)$ is almost unperforated.
Therefore, the Toms-Winter Conjecture predicts that $A$ cannot be nuclear.
It is natural to seek for additional axioms that allow us to rule out $Z'$ as a semigroup in a future reformulation of the category $\CatCu$.
We make this explicit with the following question.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\label{prbl:dichotomyCu}
Under what additional axioms (besides \axiomO{5} and \axiomO{6}) is a simple $\CatCu$-semi\-group with $Z$-multiplication necessarily weakly cancellative?
This question also refers to structural properties of $\CatCu$-semigroups.
In this direction, \autoref{conj:nearUnpCaZstable} bears repeating.
Let us recall from \autoref{dfn:nearUnperf} that a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$ is nearly unperforated if and only if $a\leq b$ whenever $a\leq_p b$ for any $a$ and $b$ in $S$.
Equivalently, by \autoref{prp:nearUnperfTFAE}, we have $a\leq b$ whenever $2a\leq 2b$ and $3a\leq 3b$.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{conj:nearUnpCaZstable}:
Let $A$ be a $\mathcal{Z}$-stable \ca.
Then $\Cu(A)$ is nearly unperforated.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:axiomsExtension}:
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $I$ be an ideal in $S$.
Assume that $I$ and $S/I$ satisfy \axiomO{5} (respectively \axiomO{6}, weak cancellation).
Under what assumptions does this imply that $S$ itself satisfies the respective axiom?
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:pncInCu}:
Given a $\CatCu$-semigroup $S$, is the subsemigroup $S_\soft$ of soft elements again a $\CatCu$-semigroup?
Does this hold under the additional assumption that $S$ satisfies \axiomO{5}?
If that is the case, does then $S_\soft$ satisfy \axiomO{5} as well?
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:nearUnpFromAlmUnp}:
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Which conditions are necessary and sufficient for $S$ to be nearly unperforated?
In particular, is it sufficient to assume that $S$ satisfies weak cancellation and \axiomO{5}?
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:LatTens}:
Let $A$ and $B$ be \ca{s}.
When is the map $\psi_{A,B}$ from \autoref{pgr:LatTens} an isomorphism?
When is it surjective?
When is it an order embedding?
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:MapToZMod}:
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup, and let $a,b\in S$.
Characterize when $1\otimes a \leq 1\otimes b$ in $Z\otimes_{\CatCu}S$.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:ssaSolid}:
Given a strongly self-absorbing \ca{} $D$, is the Cuntz semiring $\Cu(D)$ a solid $\CatCu$-semiring?
Should the answer to this problem be positive, our \autoref{thm:solidSemirgClassification} (see also \autoref{rmk:solidSemirgClassification}) would yield a complete list of the possible Cuntz semigroups for stably finite, strongly self-absorbing \ca{s}, and this would be valuable information towards finding a possible non-UCT example, if such exists.
\vspace{5pt}
\item
\autoref{prbl:LFS}:
Let $S$ be a $\CatCu$-semigroup.
Is it true that $S_R=L(F(S))$?
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction}
Neutrino oscillation experiments~\cite{Fukuda:1998mi,Apollonio:1999ae,Ahmad:2002jz,Eguchi:2002dm,Ahmed:2003kj,Ahn:2006zza,Michael:2006rx,Abe:2011sj,Adamson:2011qu,Abe:2011fz,An:2012eh,Ahn:2012nd,Abe:2012tg,An:2013uza} have established that neutrinos change flavour in a manner that is perfectly consistent with the standard mechanism: the flavour eigenstates are unitary superpositions of non-degenerate mass eigenstates that, after creation, evolve in time as free particles. The origin of the required neutrino masses and mixings continues to be one of the outstanding problems in particle physics. The neutrinos have unusually small masses (sub-eV) and the leptonic unitary (PMNS) mixing matrix~\cite{Maki:1962mu} is of a different qualitative form from the quark analogue. These observations, especially the former, strongly suggest that the neutrino mass generation mechanism is different from that of the charged fermions. A key distinguishing feature is that neutrinos may be Majorana fermions, the case we consider in this paper.
A much-studied possibility is that neutrinos may pick up mass at tree-level through one of the see-saw mechanisms~\cite{Minkowski:1977sc, Yanagida:1980, Glashow:1979vf, Gell-Mann:1980vs, Mohapatra:1980ia, Magg:1980ut, Schechter:1980gr,Wetterich:1981bx, Lazarides:1980nt, Mohapatra:1980yp, Cheng:1980qt, Foot:1988aq}.
Another generic possibility, the focus of this work, is that the origin is radiative, at $1$- to $3$-loop order~\cite{Zee:1980ai, Cheng:1980qt, Zee:1985id, Babu:1988ki, Krauss:2002px}.
One reason to be interested in such models is that the new physics required may be searched for, or non-trivially constrained, at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)\footnote{One possible argument for a low scale of neutrino mass generation is classical scale invariance~\cite{Coleman:1973jx}, which has been studied in Refs.~\cite{Foot:2007ay,Lindner:2014oea}. In general the seesaw framework is difficult to test at the LHC, but there are some regions of parameter space which might be testable at colliders. See e.g.~Ref.~\cite{Kersten:2007vk,Pilaftsis:1991ug,Dev:2012sg}.}, in addition to having flavour-violation signatures.
A challenge is that there are many viable radiative models, and one wishes to study them in as generic and inclusive a way as possible. One very good way to approach this task is to begin with gauge-invariant effective operators that violate lepton-number by two units ($\Delta L =2$), constructed out of standard model (SM) fields~\cite{Babu:2001ex,deGouvea:2007xp,Angel:2012ug}. These operators, which Babu and Leung~\cite{Babu:2001ex} systematically classified for mass dimensions 5, 7, 9 and 11, produce vertices that feature in loop-level graphs generating Majorana masses (and mixing angles and phases). By opening up the operators in all possible ways subject to some minimality assumptions, one may in principle construct all candidate renormalizable models that yield radiative Majorana neutrino masses consistent with those assumptions~\cite{Angel:2012ug}. Following Ref.~\cite{Angel:2012ug} we restrict ourselves to tree-level UV completions.
Alternatively neutrino mass models can be classified according to a subset of $\Delta L=2$ operators of the form $LLHH (H^\dagger H)^n$, which has been pursued in Refs.~\cite{Bonnet:2009ej,Bonnet:2012kz,Krauss:2013gy}.
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we write down the candidate models implied by opening up all of the dimension-7 (D7) operators in the Babu-Leung list, subject to the following minimality assumptions: (a) The gauge symmetry is that of the SM only, and effective operators containing gauge fields are excluded from consideration. (b) The exotic particles that are integrated-out to produce the effective operators are either scalars, vector-like fermions or Majorana fermions. The Appendix is a compendium of all of the candidate models.
The second purpose is to do a detailed study of the LHC constraints and signatures, taking account of flavour-violation constraints in the process. This study raises its own challenges, because each model has its special features. We approach this by first listing the quantum numbers of all the exotic scalars and fermions that appear in at least one of the D7 models, and then summarising the existing constraints from ATLAS and CMS. In a second stage, we analyse one of the models in detail to determine the precise LHC reach and constraints.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:uvd7} we study the minimal UV completions of the D7 operators
and list all the exotic particles grouped according to their completion topologies.
The details of these UV completions are given in App.~\ref{app:uvcompletion}.
Searches for these exotic particles will be generally discussed in
Sec.~\ref{sec:lhcsearches} including the production mechanisms, decay patterns and the searching strategies.
Experimental limits will be presented if there are dedicated searches. We then present a detailed analysis
of a specific model in Sec.~\ref{sec:example}. Constraints
from neutrino mass generation and flavour physics are explored,
and limits from LHC searches are derived.
Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec:con} is devoted to the conclusions.
\mathversion{bold}
\section{Minimal UV Completion of D7 $\Delta L=2$ Operators}
\label{sec:uvd7}
\mathversion{normal}
In Weyl-spinor notation, the D7 operators of interest, using the numbering system of Babu-Leung~\cite{Babu:2001ex}, are
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}_2 &= LLL\bar{e}H ,&
\mathcal{O}_3 &= LLQ\bar{d}H , &
\mathcal{O}_4 &= LLQ^\dagger \bar{u}^\dagger H ,&
\mathcal{O}_8 &= L\bar{d}\bar{e}^\dagger \bar{u}^\dagger H,&
\label{eq:d7operators}
\end{align}
and the Weinberg-like operator
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}_1^\prime &= LL \tilde HHHH .
\end{align}
The pertinent part of the SM Lagrangian is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{SM,Y}&= Y_e L \bar{e} \tilde{H} + Y_u Q \bar{u} H + Y_d Q \bar{d} \tilde{H} +\ensuremath{\mathrm{h.c.}}\;,
\end{align}
where $\tilde{H}=i\tau_2 H^*$ is the charge conjugate of $H$.
The Weinberg-like operator $\mathcal{O}_1^\prime$ has not been explicitly shown in the list of Babu-Leung~\cite{Babu:2001ex}, but has been studied in Refs.~\cite{Bonnet:2009ej,Krauss:2013gy}. Note that this operator always induces the usual Weinberg operator $\mathcal{O}_1=LLHH$ by connecting the two external legs $H$ and $\tilde H$ via a Higgs boson to form a Higgs loop. This contribution dominates if the scale of new physics is large, much above the TeV-scale.
We will study minimal ultraviolet (UV) completions of these D7 operators using scalars and fermions,
following the programme set out in Ref.~\cite{Angel:2012ug}. Hence we do not include models with new gauge bosons.
Also, we only consider models which do not generate the dimension-5 Weinberg operator at tree-level. Hence we remove models in which one of the three seesaw mechanisms may operate, i.e. models containing SM singlet fermions, electroweak (EW) triplet scalars with unit hypercharge, and EW triplet fermions.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
\FMDG{FFFF}
\captionof{figure}{Scalar-only extension.}
\label{fig:OnlyScalarExtension}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\toprule
Scalar & Scalar & Operator\\\midrule
$(1, 2, \frac12)$ & $(1, 1, 1)$ & $\mathcal{O}_{2,3,4}$ \cite{Zee:1980ai} \\
$(3, 2, \frac16)$ & $(3,1,-\frac13)$ & $\mathcal{O}_{3,8}$ \cite{Babu:2001ex,Babu:2010vp}\\
$(3, 2, \frac16)$ & $(3,3,-\frac13)$ & $\mathcal{O}_3$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\captionof{table}{Topology of \Figref{fig:OnlyScalarExtension}.}
\label{tab:completionstab1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
\FMDG{FHFF}
\captionof{figure}{Extension by a scalar and a fermion.}
\label{fig:FermionScalarExtension}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\toprule
Dirac fermion & Scalar& Operator\\\midrule
$(1, 2, -\frac32)$ & $(1, 1, 1)$ & $\mathcal{O}_2$ \\
$(3, 2, -\frac56)$ & $(1, 1, 1)$ & $\mathcal{O}_3$\\
$(3, 1, \frac23)$ & $(1, 1, 1)$ & $\mathcal{O}_3$\\
$(3, 1, \frac23)$ & $(3,2,\frac16)$ & $\mathcal{O}_3$ \cite{Babu:2011vb}\\
$(3, 2, -\frac56)$ & $(3,1,-\frac13)$ & $\mathcal{O}_{3,8}$$^\ast$ \\
$(3, 2, -\frac56)$ & $(3,3,-\frac13)$ & $\mathcal{O}_3$\\
$(3, 3, \frac23)$ & $(3,2,\frac16)$ & $\mathcal{O}_3$\\
$(3, 2, \frac76)$ & $(1, 1, 1)$ &$\mathcal{O}_4$\\
$(3, 1, -\frac13)$ & $(1, 1, 1)$ & $\mathcal{O}_4$\\
$(3, 2, \frac76)$ & $(3,2,\frac16)$ & $\mathcal{O}_8$\\
$(1,2,-\frac12)$ & $(3,2,\frac16)$ &$\mathcal{O}_8$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\captionof{table}{Topology of \Figref{fig:FermionScalarExtension}.
\label{tab:completionstab2}
The completion marked with a $^\ast$ is studied in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:example}.}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
\FMDG{FHHHH}
\captionof{figure}{Extension by a scalar and a fermion.}
\label{fig:FHHHH}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\linewidth}\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccl}
\toprule
Dirac fermion & Scalar& Operator\\\midrule
$(1, 3, -1)$ & $(1, 4, \frac32)$ & $\mathcal{O}_1^\prime$\cite{Babu:2009aq}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\captionof{table}{Topology of \Figref{fig:FHHHH}.}
\label{tab:completionstab3}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
We group the completions by topology in Figs.~\ref{fig:OnlyScalarExtension}--\ref{fig:FHHHH} and Tables~\ref{tab:completionstab1}--\ref{tab:completionstab3}, where
quantum numbers are given with respect to SU(3)$_c\times$SU(2)$_L\times$U(1)$_Y$.
Details are left to App.~\ref{app:uvcompletion}.
The contents of Tables~\ref{tab:completionstab1}--\ref{tab:completionstab3} constitute a workable list of exotic particles relevant to D7 radiative neutrino mass models which may be searched for at the LHC.
It turns out that the operators $\mathcal{O}_2$ and $\mathcal{O}_{3b}$ lead to one-loop models, while the others only admit two-loop models.
Generally for models with scalar leptoquarks and vector-like fermions, the radiatively generated neutrino mass is proportional to the quark or
lepton mass in the loop (we will show this in detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:example}). Thus we will only consider the mixing
between the third generation quarks or leptons and the exotic fermions, as the third generation masses dominate the neutrino mass matrix unless there is an unnatural flavour structure for the various coupling constants.
\afterpage{\clearpage}
\section{LHC Searches}
\label{sec:lhcsearches}
The completions listed in Tables~\ref{tab:completionstab1}--\ref{tab:completionstab3} each contain two fields beyond the SM, including vector-like quarks, vector-like leptons, scalar leptoquarks, charged scalars, EW scalar doublets and EW scalar quadruplets.
In this section we discuss the pertinent LHC searches and limits for the lightest of these exotic fields.\footnote{Note, however, that the completions generically predict more complex cascade decays if allowed by the relevant couplings and phase space.}
We present a brief discussion of their production mechanisms and possible decay channels.
A dedicated search at the LHC may or may not already exist.
For those that exist, we list or reference the most stringent limits;
these limits are generally functions of decay branching ratios which are treated as free parameters.
For those that do not exist, we list what would be the relevant LHC search according to the appropriate final state(s).
We would like to emphasise that one of the advantages to our approach is its predictivity.
The exotic particles are required to not only conform to existing flavour constraints, but also to fit low energy neutrino measurements.
As a result it is common in these neutrino mass generation models to be able to predict the decay patterns of the exotic particles.
Then for a specific model it is possible to extract the limit based on the decay patterns,
either from existing searches, as we shall see in Sec.~\ref{sec:example:vlq}, or by carefully recasting relevant LHC searches,
as in Sec.~\ref{sec:detail:leptoquark}.
\subsection{Vector-Like Quarks}
\label{subsec:vectorlikequarks}
In the minimal UV completion of the D7 operators we introduced five vector-like quarks,
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
$B$ & $T$ & $(BY)$ & $(XT)$ & $(XTB)$\\
\midrule
$(3,1,-\frac{1}{3})$ & $(3,1,\frac{2}{3})$ & $(3,2,-\frac{5}{6})$ & $(3,2,\frac{7}{6})$ & $(3,3,\frac{2}{3})$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
where the names of the fermions follow the conventions in the literature~\cite{AguilarSaavedra:2009es}.
Vector-like quarks are well-studied by the LHC collaborations.
They can be pair-produced in $pp$ collisions via gluon fusion and quark-antiquark annihilations.
They can also be singly produced in association with two extra quarks via $t$-channel processes involving a $W$ or $Z$ boson.
Single production depends on the mixing between the heavy fermions and the third generation quarks
and also the generalised CKM matrix, and can be dominant for large vector-like quark masses and large mixings~\cite{AguilarSaavedra:2009es}.
So far, collider studies have focused on the more model-independent pair-production channel.
The decay channels for the singlet $B$ and $T$ are
\begin{align}
B: \qquad B&\to W^- t,& B&\to Z b,& B&\to H b \ ,\\
T: \qquad T&\to W^+ b,& T&\to Z t,& T&\to H t \ ,
\end{align}
the branching fractions of which are determined by the masses of the heavy fermions and also the mixings between
the heavy fermions and the third generation quarks together with the generalised CKM matrix.
The decays for the doublets and the triplet are determined by the mass spectrum and their weak coupling to the $W$
and $Z$ bosons. In general, the mass splitting among the components fields is suppressed by the mixing angles between
the SM quarks and the heavy quarks, which in turn suppresses the decays between the component fields.
For the two doublets $(BY)$ and $(XT)$, the possible decay channels are
\begin{align}
(BY):\qquad Y&\to W^- b,& B&\to Z b, & B&\to H b \ ,\\
(XT): \qquad X&\to W^+ t,& T&\to Z t, & T&\to H t \ .
\end{align}
For the triplet $(XTB)$, the possible decay channels are
\begin{eqnarray}
(XTB): && X \to W^+ t \ ,\\
&& T\to W^+ b, \qquad T\to Z t, \qquad T\to H t \ ,\\
&& B\to W^- t ,\qquad B \to Z b, \qquad B\to H b \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the heavy $T$ and $B$ in the triplet $(XTB)$ also decay to $W$ like the singlet
$T$ and $B$. Assuming only strong pair production and the same decay branching ratios,
the limits we can set on the masses are the same for the singlet and the triplet $T$ and $B$.
Both ATLAS~\cite{ATLAS:2013ima,TheATLAScollaboration:2013jha,TheATLAScollaboration:2013oha,TheATLAScollaboration:2013sha}
and CMS~\cite{CMS:2013una,CMS:2012hfa,CMS:2013zea,Chatrchyan:2013uxa,Chatrchyan:2013wfa}
have performed searches for vector-like quarks, although there is no dedicated search for $Y$ so far.
We list the limits from the CMS searches in Table~\ref{tab:lhclimits},
to be used later in extracting limits for the vector-like quarks we are interested in.
\begin{table}[tp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
Particle & $T$ & $B$ & $X$\\
\midrule
Lower Mass Limit (GeV) & $687-782$~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013uxa} & $520-785$~\cite{CMS:2013una,CMS:2012hfa,CMS:2013zea} & $800$~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013wfa} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The lower limits on the masses of the vector-like quarks from CMS.}
\label{tab:lhclimits}
\end{table}
In practice, extracting the relevant limits from these dedicated searches involves calculation of
the decay branching ratios of the exotic particle with the constraints from neutrino masses and mixings.
With the specific decay branching ratios, we will be able to pin down the limits by interpolation
as shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:example:vlq} for $B$.
\subsection{Vector-Like Leptons}
\label{subsec:vectorlikeleptons}
Our completions also introduced three vector-like fermions which are not charged under $SU(3)_c$,
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
$E$ & $(NE)$ & $(ED)$ & $(NED)$ \\
\midrule
$(1,1,-1)$ & $(1,2,-\frac{1}{2})$ & $(1,2,-\frac{3}{2})$ & $(1,3,-1)$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Vector-like leptons which are singlets or doublets of SU(2)$_L$ have been thoroughly studied in the recent literature~\cite{Altmannshofer:2013zba, Falkowski:2013jya, Dermisek:2014qca}, while the triplet has been mentioned in the context of minimal dark matter~\cite{Cirelli:2005uq}.
The dominant production mechanism for these exotic leptons is Drell-Yan pair production. A pair of
different-charge vector-like leptons can be subdominantly produced through an $s$-channel $W$.
The vector-like leptons can also be singly produced with a SM lepton via $s$-channel $W$, $Z$ or Higgs.
The subsequent decays of the vector-like leptons depends on the mass spectrum and mass mixing parameters.
Similarly to the vector-like quarks, the mass splittings among the component fields of the heavy fermions is
suppressed and the possible decay channels are
\begin{eqnarray}
E: &&\qquad E\to W^- \nu_\tau, \qquad E\to Z\tau, \qquad E\to H\tau \ ,\\
(NE):&&\qquad E\to W^- \nu_\tau, \qquad N\to Z\nu_\tau, \qquad N\to H\nu_\tau \ , \\
(ED):&& \qquad D\to W^- \tau, \qquad E\to Z\tau, \qquad E\to H\tau \ ,\\
(NED):&& \qquad D\to W^- \tau,\\
&&\qquad E\to W^- \nu ,\qquad E\to Z\tau , \qquad E\to H\tau ,\\
&&\qquad N \to W^+ \tau, \qquad N\to Z\nu, \qquad N\to H\nu \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus pair-produced $N$, $E$ or $D$ will produce final states with a pair of bosons, $\tau$ lepton(s) and/or large missing transverse energy.
In general these models are constrained by the LHC searches for final states with $\tau$ lepton(s) and/or missing transverse energy together with
leptons and/or jets.
So far there are no dedicated searches for these vector-like leptons at ATLAS and CMS.
However, searches for multi-lepton plus missing transverse energy final states, including some supersymmetry (SUSY) searches
for sleptons or charginos~\cite{Aad:2014vma, Aad:2014yka, Aad:2014nua, Aad:2014iza, Khachatryan:2014qwa},
could be used to derive the bounds on vector-like leptons.
For example, Ref.~\cite{Altmannshofer:2013zba} has studied the pair-production of $D$ fermions
which decay to light leptons or a combination of light leptons and at least one $\tau$,
which constrains the mass of vector-like leptons to be heavier than $460\; \rm{GeV}$ and $320\; \rm{GeV}$
respectively.
\subsection{Leptoquarks}
\label{subsec:leptoquarks}
There are only five scalar leptoquark candidates whose interactions with SM fermions can be described
by a dimensionless, SM gauge-invariant, baryon- and lepton-number conserving Lagrangian \cite{Buchmuller:1986zs}.
Three of these leptoquarks have been introduced in our UV completions:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
$S_1$ & $\tilde{R}_2$ & $S_3$ \\
\midrule
$(\bar{3},1,\frac{1}{3})$ & $(3,2,\frac{1}{6})$ & $(\bar{3},3,\frac{1}{3})$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
A recent systematic study of models of neutrino mass generation with leptoquarks can be found in Ref.~\cite{AristizabalSierra:2007nf}.
Searches at the LHC assume simplified models in which the leptoquarks
couple exclusively to leptons and quarks
of a single generation in a chiral interaction. This assumption is made in order to not induce unacceptable flavour-changing currents
or lepton-flavour violating four-fermion interactions. The most stringent of these limits come from meson mixing in the quark sector leading to a limit on the scale of the four-fermion interaction up to $10^8$ GeV (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Cirigliano:2013lpa}). The limits in the lepton sector are generally weaker. The most stringent limits are from the $\mu\to e$ transition with Br$(\mu\to e \gamma)< 5.7\times10^{-13}$ \cite{Adam:2013mnn}, Br$(\mu\to eee)<10^{-12}$ \cite{PDG:2012}, and Br$(\mu \mathrm{Au}\to e\mathrm{Au})<7\times 10^{-13}$ \cite{PDG:2012}. As the limits in the lepton sector are weaker, it is possible to relax the strong assumption of an exclusive coupling to one generation in the lepton sector.
The collaborations make the further underlying assumption that the couplings are small enough so that one may only consider pair production governed by the leptoquark colour charge.
After pair production, final states of interest for first (second) generation leptoquarks are $ejej,ej\nu j,\nu j \nu j$ ($e\leftrightarrow \mu$).
Limits are set on $(m_{LQ},\beta)$ parameter space, where $\beta$ is the branching ratio to the charged lepton and quark
\cite{ATLAS:2012aq,Aad:2011ch,CMS-PAS-EXO-12-041,CMS-PAS-EXO-12-042}.
In practice the $\nu j \nu j$ state is not considered, although it would be constrained by SUSY searches for $\ge 2j+\slashed{E}_T$.
Searches for third generation leptoquarks consider only single decay hypotheses: $\tau b$, $\tau t$, $\nu b$, $\nu t$
\cite{ATLAS:2013oea,Khachatryan:2014ura,CMS-PAS-EXO-13-010,Chatrchyan:2012st}.
The latter two are also covered by pair-produced sbottom and stop searches in the $m_{LSP}\rightarrow 0$ limit (LSP means the lightest supersymmetric particle). We discuss the $\nu b$ and $\ell t$ channels in more detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:example}.
\subsection{Charged Scalar}
\label{subsec:chargedscalar}
The charged scalar introduced in our completions is $\phi\sim (1,1,1)$.
It couples to lepton bilinears and decays as
\begin{equation}
\phi \rightarrow \nu_i l_j^+,
\end{equation}
which, after pair-production, results in the signature of two opposite-sign leptons and $\slashed{E}_T$ at the LHC.
There is also no dedicated search for such a scalar so far.
However the same signature has been used to search for direct slepton-pair and chargino-pair production at the LHC~\cite{CMS:2013bda, Aad:2014yka, Aad:2014vma}.
The limits of the SUSY search are given in a slepton- or chargino-neutralino mass plane,
from which the limit of the charged scalar can be extracted by
recasting the searches with the limit of $m_{LSP}\to 0$ and taking into account the different branching ratios.
\subsection{EW Scalar Doublet}
\label{subsec:ewscalardoublet}
The only EW scalar doublet introduced is another Higgs doublet, $H\sim (1,2,1/2)$.
It can be decomposed as
\begin{equation}
H=\left(H^+, \frac{H^0 + i A^0}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^T.
\end{equation}
There has been extensive study of the SM extension with a second Higgs doublet (2HDM),
and analyses of the general 2HDM after LHC~Run~1 have been presented in recent studies~\cite{Altmannshofer:2012ar, Bai:2012ex, Celis:2013ixa, Craig:2013hca}.
The EW scalar doublet in the UV completions of $\mathcal{O}_{2,3,4}$ in general should have the same
couplings to the SM particles as in a 2HDM without imposed new symmetries. When we study the neutrino mass generation of a specific model, however,
it is possible to switch off many of the couplings without spoiling the generation of appropriate neutrino masses and mixings.
Thus the decay of the EW scalar doublet is fairly model-dependent and interpretation of LHC searches should be handled with caution.
The combined results of the search for the SM Higgs at the LHC have been reported
in Refs.~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012tx, Aad:2012tfa, Chatrchyan:2012ufa}. So far in the mass range of 127--600 GeV the SM Higgs
has been excluded at 95\% CL. Based on these limits, one can in principle draw a limit on the mass of $H^0$ by
recasting the neutral Higgs search with rescaled decay branching ratios.
LEP has set a limit of $79.3\ \rm{GeV}$ on the charged Higgs mass
assuming $\mathrm{Br}(H^+\rightarrow \tau^+\nu)+ \mathrm{Br}(H^+\rightarrow c\bar{s}) = 1$ in the framework of a 2HDM \cite{Heister:2002ev}.
Charged Higgs searches at the LHC are categorised by the mass of the charged Higgs.
The light charged Higgs, $m_{H^+}<m_t$, is mainly searched for through
$t\bar{t}$ pair production with the subsequent decay $t\rightarrow H^+ b$~\cite{Aad:2012rjx, Aad:2012tj,
Chatrchyan:2012vca, Aaltonen:2011aj, Aaltonen:2009ke, Abazov:2009wy, Abazov:2009aa, Abazov:2009ae}.
The heavy charged Higgs, on the other hand, is mainly searched for in the singly produced channel with
the subsequent decay $H^+\rightarrow t\bar{b}$~\cite{Abazov:2008rn}. These searches are under some
specific theoretical frameworks and can be reinterpreted with careful conversion of the parameters.
\subsection{EW Scalar Quadruplet}
The EW scalar quadruplet can be decomposed as
\begin{equation}
\phi = \left( \phi^{+++}, \phi^{++}, \phi^+, \frac{\phi^0+i A^0}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^T
\end{equation}
and contains a neutral scalar $\phi^0$ which mixes with the Higgs, a pseudo-scalar $A^0$ and three complex scalars. This scalar quadruplet has also been mentioned in the context of minimal dark matter~\cite{Cirelli:2005uq}, whose mass spectrum can be non-degenerate depending on the values of the parameters in the scalar potential. As the neutral scalar $\phi^0$ mixes with the SM Higgs, the Higgs searches~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012tx, Aad:2012tfa, Chatrchyan:2012ufa} apply. On the other hand the charged components decay to $W$-bosons and SM Higgs bosons. However the current searches for a singly-charged scalar~\cite{Aad:2012rjx, Aad:2012tj,
Chatrchyan:2012vca, Aaltonen:2011aj, Aaltonen:2009ke, Abazov:2009wy, Abazov:2009aa, Abazov:2009ae,Abazov:2008rn} and a doubly-charged scalar~\cite{Chatrchyan:2012ya,ATLAS:2012hi} do not apply, because both searches assume a coupling to SM fermions.
Triply-charged scalars have also been briefly studied~\cite{Babu:2009aq} and a rough bound of $\sim 120$ GeV
has been estimated for triply-charged scalars with displaced decay vertices based on the D0 and CDF searches for long-lived massive particles.
A proper collider study relies on a detailed study of the mass spectrum and the different decay channels, which is beyond the scope of this short summary.
\section{Detailed Study of a Specific Model}
\label{sec:example}
\subsection{Model}
In order to demonstrate the LHC reach with regard to minimal UV completions of D7 $\Delta L=2$ operators, we study a model with a scalar leptoquark $\phi$ and a vector-like quark $\chi$ with quantum numbers
\begin{equation}
\phi\sim\left(\bar 3,1,\frac13\right),\qquad \chi\sim\left(3,2,-\frac56\right)\;.
\end{equation}
These particles arise in the minimal UV completions of $\mathcal{O}_3=LLQ\bar{d}H$ and
$\mathcal{O}_8=L\bar{d}\bar{e}^\dagger\bar{u}^\dagger H$ operators, for which more details are available in Appendix~\ref{app:uvcompletion}.
The Yukawa couplings and bare mass terms of the new exotic particles are given by
\begin{align}
-\mathcal{L}&=\mu^2_\phi \phi^\dagger\phi + m_\chi \bar\chi\chi
+\left(Y^{LQ\phi}_{ij} L_i Q_j \phi
+Y^{L\bar\chi\phi}_{i} L_i\bar\chi \phi^\dagger
+ Y^{\bar d\chi H}_{ij} \bar d_i \chi_j H +\ensuremath{\mathrm{h.c.}}\right) \\\nonumber
&+\left(Y^{\bar e\bar u \phi}_{ij} \bar e_i \bar u_j \phi^\dagger+\ensuremath{\mathrm{h.c.}}\right) .
\end{align}
Besides the SM gauge symmetry group, we have to demand baryon-number conservation, in order to forbid the operators $Y^{QQ\phi}_{ij} Q_iQ_j\phi^\dagger$ and $Y^{\bar d\bar u\phi}_{ij} \bar d_i \bar u_j \phi$, which induce proton decay in analogy to Ref.~\cite{Angel:2013hla}.
\subsection{Neutrino Mass Generation}
\label{subsec:numassgen}
\begin{figure}[tp]\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\FMDG{NuMass}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}_3$ one-loop contribution.}
\label{fig:NuMass}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\FMDG{NuMass2}
\caption{$\mathcal{O}_8$ two-loop contribution.}
\label{fig:NuMassO8}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Neutrino mass diagrams.}
\label{fig:NuMassAll}
\end{figure}
In this model, neutrino mass receives its dominant contribution from the radiative diagram of \Figref{fig:NuMass}. The two-loop $\mathcal{O}_8$ contribution depicted in \Figref{fig:NuMassO8} as well as the corresponding three-loop contribution, which is obtained from \Figref{fig:NuMassO8} by connecting two external Higgs lines, are generally subdominant unless the coupling of the leptoquark $\phi$ to RH fermions is much larger, $|Y^{\bar e \bar u \phi}_{i3}| \gg |Y^{LQ\phi}_{j3}|$. The neutrino mass matrix is proportional to the down-type quark mass matrix, and it is dominated by the bottom quark. For simplicity we will assume that the vector-like quark only mixes with the third generation quarks and set all couplings to the first two generation quarks to zero. In addition we will focus on the $\mathcal{O}_3$ contribution, neglect the $\mathcal{O}_8$ contributions and assume $Y^{\bar e \bar u \phi}_{ij}=0$.
Decomposing the vector-like quark $\chi$ and $\bar\chi$ into its components with respect to SU(2)$_L$, we write
\begin{align}
\chi&=\begin{pmatrix}B^\prime\\Y\end{pmatrix} , &
\bar\chi&=\begin{pmatrix}\bar Y\\\bar B^\prime\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
$\bar Y$ and $Y$ form a Dirac pair with mass $m_Y=m_\chi$ and $\bar B^\prime$ and $B^\prime$ mix with the gauge eigenstate of the bottom quark $b^\prime$,
\begin{align}
&\left(\begin{array}{c}
\bar{b} \\ \bar{B}
\end{array}\right) =
\left(\begin{array}{cc} c_1 & s_1 \\ -s_1 & c_1\end{array}\right)^\dagger
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\bar{b}^\prime \\ \bar B^\prime
\end{array}
\right),
& \left(
\begin{array}{c}
b \\ B
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(\begin{array}{cc} c_2 & s_2 \\ -s_2 & c_2\end{array}\right)^\dagger
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
b^\prime \\ B^\prime
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
forming the mass eigenstates $b$ and $B$. The physical masses are
\begin{align}
m_b^2 &= m_{b^\prime}^2-m_{bB}^2 \frac{m_\chi^2}{m_\chi^2-m_{b^\prime}^2} \;, &
m_B^2 &= m_\chi^2 + m_{bB}^2 \frac{m_{b^\prime}^2}{m_\chi^2-m_{b^\prime}^2}
\end{align}
with $m_{bB}=Y_3^{\bar d\chi H} v /\sqrt{2}$, $m_{b^\prime}=y_b v/\sqrt{2}$ and the mixing angles are given by
\begin{align}
& s_1=\frac{m_{bB} \ m_\chi}{m_\chi^2-m_{b^\prime}^2},
& s_2=\frac{m_{bB} \ m_{b^\prime}}{m_\chi^2-m_{b^\prime}^2}
\end{align}
with $c_{1,2}=\sqrt{1-s_{1,2}^2}$.
After electroweak symmetry breaking, we calculate the radiatively generated neutrino mass as
\begin{equation}
(m_\nu)_{ij}= \frac{3}{16\pi^2} \left(Y_{i3}^{LQ\phi} Y_j^{L\bar\chi\phi} +(i\leftrightarrow j) \right) m_{bB}\frac{m_b m_B}{m_B^2-m_b^2}\left(\frac{m_B^2\ln \frac{m_B^2}{m_\phi^2}}{m_\phi^2-m_B^2}-\frac{m_b^2\ln\frac{m_b^2}{m_\phi^2}}{m_\phi^2-m_b^2}\right)\;.
\label{eq:numasso3b1a}
\end{equation}
In the limit $m_b\ll m_B,m_\phi$ this reduces to
\begin{equation}
(m_\nu)_{ij} = \frac{3}{16\pi^2} \left(Y_{i3}^{LQ\phi} Y_j^{L\bar\chi\phi} +(i\leftrightarrow j)\right) m_{bB}
\frac{m_b m_B}{m_\phi^2-m_B^2}\ln \frac{m_B^2}{m_\phi^2}\;.
\end{equation}
Thus there is one almost massless neutrino and two massive neutrinos.
Next we would like to use the low-energy parameters (the PMNS matrix as well as the neutrino masses) to determine the Yukawa couplings in terms of the high-scale parameters.
The flavour structure of the neutrino mass matrix can be parameterised by vectors $a_\pm$ and a common factor $\alpha$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NuMassStruct}
m_\nu = \alpha (a_+ a_-^T + a_- a_+^T)\;,
\end{equation}
i.e.\ the neutrino mass matrix is generated by multiplying two different vectors $a_\pm$ symmetrically. On the other hand it can be written in terms of the low-energy parameters for normal (NO) as well as inverted (IO) mass ordering,
\begin{align}\label{eq:mNuLowEnergy}
m_\nu^{NO} &= m_2 u_2^* u_2^\dagger + m_3 u_3^* u_3^\dagger \ ,&
m_\nu^{IO} &= m_1 u_1^* u_1^\dagger + m_2 u_2^* u_2^\dagger \ ,
\end{align}
where $m_i$ are the neutrino masses and $U=(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ is the PMNS matrix.
We can rewrite the right-most expression of \Eqref{eq:NuMassStruct} as
\begin{equation}
\alpha (a_+a_-^T + a_- a_+^T)=\frac{\alpha}{2} \left[ \left( \frac{a_+}{\zeta}+\zeta a_-\right)\left( \frac{a_+}{\zeta}+\zeta a_-\right)^T -\left( \frac{a_+}{\zeta}-\zeta a_-\right)\left( \frac{a_+}{\zeta}-\zeta a_-\right)^T \right]
\end{equation}
and match it onto \Eqref{eq:mNuLowEnergy} to obtain the vectors $a_\pm$ in terms of the low-energy parameters:
\begin{align}
a_{\pm}^\mathrm{NO}&=\frac{\zeta^{\pm 1}}{\sqrt{2\alpha}} \left(\sqrt{m_2} u_2^* \pm i \sqrt{m_3} u_3^*\right) ,&
a_{\pm}^\mathrm{IO}&=\frac{\zeta^{\pm 1}}{\sqrt{2\alpha}} \left(\sqrt{m_1} u_1^* \pm i \sqrt{m_2} u_2^*\right)\;.
\end{align}
The complex parameter $\zeta$ is a free parameter not determined by low-energy physics.
We use the best fit values (v1.2) of the NuFIT collaboration~\cite{GonzalezGarcia:2012sz}\footnote{The newest best fit values in v1.3 of the NuFIT collaboration are slightly changed. See~\cite{Tortola:2012te, Fogli:2012ua} for other global fits to the neutrino oscillation data.} assuming normal ordering:
\begin{align}
\sin^2\theta_{12}&=0.306\,, &
\Delta m_{21}^2&=7.45\times 10^{-5} \ensuremath{\,\mathrm{eV}}^2\,,\nonumber\\\label{eq:nuParam}
\sin^2\theta_{13}&=0.0231\,, &
\Delta m_{31}^2& =2.417\times 10^{-3}\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{eV}}^2 \,,\\\nonumber
\sin^2\theta_{23}&=0.446\;.
\end{align}
Furthermore we set the lightest neutrino mass to zero and assume vanishing CP phases in the PMNS matrix, i.e.\ $\delta=\varphi_1=\varphi_2=0$.
\subsection{Constraints From Flavour Physics and Neutrino-less Double-Beta Decay}
Experimental constraints on flavour violating processes already constrain the parameter space. Similarly to the two-loop model in Ref.~\cite{Angel:2013hla}, we expect the most stringent constraints from lepton-flavour violating processes, in particular from the $\mu \rightarrow e$ transition. We calculated $\mu\to e \gamma$, $\mu\to eee$ as well as $\mu N \to e N$ conversion in nuclei and compared the results with the current experimental limits. We use the contributions calculated in Ref.~\cite{Angel:2013hla} and add the contributions from the additional coupling of the leptoquark to the vector-like lepton. The Wilson coefficients are included in \Appref{app:LFV}.
As all parameters are fixed by the leptonic mixing and the neutrino masses, the constraints directly translate to a constraint on the complex rescaling parameter $\zeta$, more precisely on $|\zeta|$. The phase of $\zeta$ drops out in the flavour physics amplitudes, at least for the leading contributions, because they are of the form $Y_i^{L\bar\chi\phi*}Y_j^{L\bar\chi\phi}$ and $Y_i^{LQ\phi*}Y_j^{LQ\phi}$. We present the constraints on $|\zeta|$ while varying one of the masses $m_{\phi,\chi}$ in \Figref{fig:zetaConstraints}. The other mass is fixed to 2 TeV. The grey shaded region is excluded (see the caption for an explanation of the different exclusion lines). Our main result is that within the bounds on $|\zeta|$ from LFV experiments there are two regions, separated by a sharp transition, with very different search strategies for the leptoquark $\phi$.
The light blue shaded region (region B) indicates the allowed region with Br$(\phi\to b\nu)\approx 100\%$. The light red shaded region (region T) has Br$(\phi\to b\nu)<100\%$. We discuss both of these regions in \Secref{sec:detail:leptoquark}.
\begin{figure}[tp]\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{mphiGeV_zeta}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{mchiGeV_zeta}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Constraints on $\zeta$ and the two different experimental search regions for the leptoquark $\phi$. The grey shaded region is excluded. The light blue shaded region (B) indicates the allowed region with Br$(\phi\to b\nu)\approx 100\%$. The light red shaded region (T) has Br$(\phi\to b\nu)<100\%$.
The solid black lines indicate the bound from perturbativity of Yukawa couplings. We require $\max(|Y^{LQ\phi}_{ij}|,|Y^{L\bar\chi\phi}_{ij}|)<1$. The green dot-dashed, blue dotted, red dashed lines show the limits Br$(\mu\to e \gamma)< 5.7\times10^{-13}$ \cite{Adam:2013mnn}, Br$(\mu\to eee)<10^{-12}$ \cite{PDG:2012}, and Br$(\mu \mathrm{Au}\to e\mathrm{Au})<7\times 10^{-13}$ \cite{PDG:2012}. The magenta dashed line indicates the projected experimental sensitivity of $10^{-16}$ to measure $\mu\mathrm{Ti}\to e\mathrm{Ti}$ conversion in titanium in Mu2E at FNAL and COMET at J-PARC~\cite{Carey:2008zz, Kutschke:2011ux, Cui:2009zz}.}
\label{fig:zetaConstraints}
\end{figure}
In addition to constraints from flavor violating processes, there are constraints from lepton-number violating processes, like neutrino-less double beta decay. The relevance of neutrino-less double beta decay for radiative neutrino mass models with coloured particles in the loop has been illustrated in Ref.~\cite{Choubey:2012ux}. More generally, Ref.~\cite{Bonnet:2012kh} studied possible contributions to neutrino-less double beta decay by systematically decomposing the dimension-9 operator.
This specific model will lead to additional short-range contributions to neutrinoless double beta decay via couplings to the first generation of quarks. As neutrino mass does not depend on the coupling to the first generation of quarks, this bound can always be satisfied by setting these couplings to zero without affecting the mechanism of neutrino mass generation.
This leaves the long-range contribution via an exchange of active neutrinos, which is controlled by the effective mass
\begin{equation}
\langle m_{ee}\rangle=\sum U_{ei}^2m_i\ .
\end{equation}
As the minimal framework leads to a strong mass hierarchy, there are currently no competitive constraints from neutrino-less double beta decay, similarly to the discussion in Ref.~\cite{Angel:2013hla}.
\subsection{Vector-Like Quark Search}
\label{sec:example:vlq}
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{subsec:vectorlikequarks}, the mass eigenstate $B$ will decay mainly through
$B\rightarrow Zb$ and $B\rightarrow Hb$ while the third channel $B\rightarrow W^- t$ is highly suppressed
due to the small mixing between the heavy vector-like quark $B$ and the SM $b$-quark.
The dominant branching ratios obey the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{ {\rm Br} (B\rightarrow Z b)}{{\rm Br}(B\rightarrow H b)}&=&
\frac{\lambda(1,r_b,r_Z)^{1/2}}{\lambda(1,r_b,r_H)^{1/2}}
\frac{ 1+r_Z^2-2 r_b^2-2 r_Z^4+r_b^4+r_Z^2 r_b^2}{1+6 r_b^2-r_H^2+r_b^4-r_b^2r_H^2} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_{b,H,Z}=m_{b,H,Z}/m_B$ and
\begin{align}\label{eq:defLambda}
\lambda(M,m_1,m_2) &=M^4+m_1^4+m_2^4-2 M^2 m_1^2-2 M^2 m_2^2-2 m_1^2m_2^2\\
&=(M^2-(m_1+m_2)^2)(M^2-(m_1-m_2)^2)\;. \nonumber
\end{align}
We can easily read our limit on the mass of $B$, $m_B\gtrsim 620 \ \rm{GeV}$, from the dedicated CMS search as a function of the branching ratios in
Fig.~\ref{fig:cmsheavyquarks}.
\begin{figure}[tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{CMSlimit}
\caption{The branching ratio of $B\rightarrow bZ$ as a function of the heavy $B$ mass with the observed limit from CMS shown in red. }
\label{fig:cmsheavyquarks}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Leptoquark Searches}
\label{sec:detail:leptoquark}
In the following subsection we take $L\equiv \{e,\mu,\tau\}$ and $l\equiv \{e,\mu\}$.
The scalar leptoquark $\phi$ can be pair-produced at the LHC via $gg$ fusion and $q\bar{q}$ annihilation. The cross section $\sigma(pp\to\phi\phi)$ is determined purely by colour charge and therefore depends only on the mass $m_\phi$. We use NLO \textsc{Prospino2} \cite{Kramer2004df} cross sections for the LHC running at $\sqrt{s}=8$~TeV, which gives $\sigma(pp\to \phi\phi)=82$ (23.5) fb for $m_\phi=500$ (600) GeV. We ignore the t-channel lepton exchange contribution and single production $qg\to \phi L$, since these will be suppressed by powers of small Yukawa couplings.
Upon pair production, the leptoquarks will decay with branching ratios dependent on the parameters $Y_{L3}^{LQ\phi}$ and $Y_3^{\bar{d} \chi H}$ relevant to neutrino mass generation.
The partial decay widths are
\begin{align}
\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow L t)&=\frac{m_\phi}{8\pi}\left| Y_{L3}^{LQ\phi}\right|^2 f(m_\phi,m_{L},m_t) \ , \\
\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \nu_L b )&=\frac{m_\phi}{8\pi}\left(\left|Y_{L3}^{LQ\phi} c_2\right|^2 + \left|Y_{L}^{L\bar\chi\phi} s_1 \right|^2\right) f(m_\phi,m_{\nu_L},m_{ b}) \label{eq:phi2nub} \\\nonumber
&-\frac{m_\phi}{4\pi}\mathrm{Re}\left(Y_{L3}^{LQ\phi} c_2 Y_{L}^{L\bar\chi\phi} s_1^* \right) f^\prime(m_\phi,m_{\nu_L},m_{ b}) \ , \\
\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \nu_L B )&=\frac{m_\phi}{8\pi}\left(\left|Y_{L3}^{LQ\phi} s_2\right|^2 + \left| Y_{L}^{L\bar\chi\phi} c_1 \right|^2\right) f(m_\phi,m_{\nu_L},m_{B}) \label{eq:phi2nuB} \\\nonumber
& + \frac{m_\phi}{4\pi} \mathrm{Re}\left(Y_{L3}^{LQ\phi} s_2 Y_{L}^{L\bar\chi\phi} c_1^* \right) f^\prime(m_\phi,m_{\nu_L},m_{B}) \ , \\
\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow L Y)&= \frac{m_\phi}{8\pi} \left| Y_{L}^{L\bar\chi\phi}\right|^2 f(m_\phi,m_{L},m_{Y}) \ ,
\end{align}
where $b$, $B$ are the two heaviest down-type quark mass eigenstates and the functions $f$, $f^\prime$ are defined as
\begin{align}
f(M,m_1,m_2)&=\frac{\left( M^2-m_1^2-m_2^2\right) \lambda(M,m_1,m_2)^{1/2} }{2\,M^4} \ ,\\
f^\prime(M,m_1,m_2)&=\frac{m_1 m_2 \lambda(M,m_1,m_2)^{1/2} }{M^4}
\end{align}
with $\lambda$ given in \Eqref{eq:defLambda}.
The term in the second lines of \Eqref{eq:phi2nub} and \Eqref{eq:phi2nuB} is neglible because it is suppressed by the neutrino mass. Note that the phase of $\zeta$ drops out in all decay widths.
Nonzero couplings that are not constrained by the neutrino mass generation generally open extra decay channels.
Since we are only interested in the consequences of neutrino mass generation, all these couplings are taken to be zero.
In the following we will concentrate on the region in parameter space with $m_Y,m_B\gg m_\phi$: each leptoquark may decay into either $b\nu$ or $tL$, resulting in $b\nu b\nu$, $b\nu tL$ or $tLtL$ after pair production. The branching ratios are determined by the single complex parameter $\zeta$ after fitting to low energy parameters as described in Sec.~\ref{subsec:numassgen}.
There are two regions of interest:
\begin{itemize}
\item Region B where the branching ratio Br$(\phi\to b\nu)\approx 100\%$, either because the other channels are kinematically not accessible for $m_\phi\lesssim m_t$ or $\left|Y^{LQ\phi}\right|\ll \left|Y^{L\bar\chi\phi}\right|$. It is shaded light blue in \Figref{fig:zetaConstraints}.
\item Region T in which all decay channels are open. It is shaded light red in \Figref{fig:zetaConstraints}.
\end{itemize}
In region B we have $\mathrm{Br}(\phi\to \sum b\nu_L)\approx 1$, resulting in a $bb\slashed{E}_T$ final state for which sbottom pair searches can be directly applied \cite{Aad2013ija,CMS-PAS-SUS-13-018}. In this case $m_\phi$ is constrained to be $\gtrsim 730$~GeV at 95\% CL. Fig.~\ref{figbranch1} shows branching ratios for region T in the case of normal ordering. The hierarchy between Br$(\phi\to t \mu$) $\approx$ Br$(\phi\to t \tau$) and Br$(\phi\to t e$) is larger for normal compared to inverted mass ordering.\footnote{For example, at $m_\phi=500$~GeV, normal ordering gives $(0.028,0.183,0.226)$ for $\mathrm{Br}(\phi\to te,t\mu,t\tau)$, whilst inverted ordering gives $(0.070,0.165,0.202)$.} Hence there will be slightly more electrons in final states for the inverted mass ordering. The relative size of Br$(\phi\to t \mu$) and Br$(\phi\to t\tau$) is controlled by the atmospheric mixing angle $\theta_{23}$, i.e. for $\theta_{23}> \pi/4$, Br$(\phi\to t\mu)>\mathrm{Br}(\phi\to t\tau)$ and we expect the
limits to get slightly stronger. In the limit of large $m_\phi$ it is apparent that $\mathrm{Br}(\phi\to \sum b\nu_L)\approx \mathrm{Br}(\phi\to \sum tL) \approx 0.5$.
In region T we can now calculate the branching fractions to LHC-reconstructable final states.\footnote{We do not attempt to reconstruct $\tau$ leptons since this will not improve sensitivity. CMS has performed a dedicated search for leptoquarks decaying to $t\tau$ \cite{CMS-PAS-EXO-12-030}; the resulting bounds are not competitive with the bounds found henceforth.} The most frequent final state is $bb\slashed{E}_T$ at about $30\%$; as we will see, because $\mathrm{Br}(\phi\to \sum b\nu_L)$ is always greater than $50\%$, existing sbottom pair searches alone can provide a bound of $m_\phi > 500$~GeV. But can another final state compete? The next most frequent final state is $l bbjj\slashed{E}_T$ at about $22\%$; in this case, searches for top squark pairs in final states with one isolated lepton are applicable.
About $8\%$ of the time a two-lepton final state is produced; again, searches for top squark pairs are applicable.
Three- and four-lepton final states are also predicted by this model in $\lesssim 1\%$ of events.
For $m_\phi = 600$~GeV, where we will find the existing bound lies, one expects $\approx500$ leptoquark pair events in the $\sqrt{s}=8$~TeV dataset. When compared to existing limits, it turns out there are simply not enough three- or four-lepton events to provide a competitive limit \cite{Aad2014pda,Aad2014iza}. However it is possible that, with more data at $\sqrt{s}=13$~TeV, these final states can be competitive.
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig_branch1}
\caption{Branching fractions for $\phi$ as a function of $m_\phi$ in the region T. Also shown are limits on $\mathrm{Br}(\phi\to \sum_L b\nu_L)$ from sbottom pair searches of ATLAS (light blue) and CMS (the limit line lies somewhere within the magenta band).}
\label{figbranch1}
\end{figure}
In the following subsections we will cover three final states of interest, namely $bb\slashed{E}_T$, $l\slashed{E}_T + (b\text{-})jets$, and $l^+l'^-\slashed{E}_T + jets$. Our aim is to recast LHC stop searches \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2013-037,Aad2014qaa} in order to constrain $m_\phi$.
\subsubsection{Event samples and reconstruction}
We generated two hadron-level signal samples at $m_\phi=(500,600)$~GeV\footnote{We also used $m_\chi=2$~TeV and $s_1=0.01$, but the branching ratios do not depend on the choice of $m_\chi$ and $s_1$ as long as $m_\chi> m_\phi$.} using \textsc{Pythia 8.180} with default tune \cite{Sjostrand2006za, Sjostrand2007gs}; each contained $5\times10^6$ pair-produced leptoquark events where at least one leptoquark decays to $tL$. A validation set of $10^7$ $t\bar{t}$ events where at least one $t$ decays leptonically was also generated using \textsc{Pythia}, normalised to the predicted NNLO+NNLL cross section of $235\times[1-\mathrm{Br}(W\to \mathrm{hadrons})^2]$~pb = 137~pb \cite{Cacciari2011hy, Baernreuther2012ws, Czakon2012zr, Czakon2012pz, Czakon2013goa, Czakon2011xx}.
Lastly we used \textsc{MadGraph5 v1.5.10} and \textsc{Pythia} to generate a validation set of $10^5$ stop pair events, where the stops each decayed to a top and neutralino, $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}_1^0$; we took $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=(600,50)$~GeV.
The event samples were reconstructed after passing through the \textsc{Delphes 3.0.12} detector fast-simulation \cite{deFavereau2013fsa}, both with and without simulated pileup. Jets were reconstructed with \textsc{FastJet 3.0.6} \cite{Cacciari2011ma} using the anti-$k_t$ clustering algorithm \cite{Cacciari2008gp} with radius parameter 0.4, and were required to have $p_T>20$~GeV. We used a flat $b$-tag rate of 70\%, with a rejection factor of 5 (140) for jets initiated by charm (light) quarks. Electrons were considered isolated if $\sum p_T$, the scalar sum of the $p_T$ of inner detector tracks with $p_T>1$~GeV within a $\Delta R=0.2$ cone surrounding the electron candidate, was less than $10\%$ of the electron $p_T$. Muons were considered isolated if $\sum p_T$, defined as above, was less than 1.8~GeV. Otherwise, the default \textsc{Delphes} ATLAS card was used.
In the simulations with pileup we used a mean pileup $\mu=21$, and pileup subtraction was performed using default parameters; the neutral pileup subtraction uses the jet area method \cite{Cacciari2007fd, Cacciari2008gn} with average contamination density $\rho$ calculated
using a
$k_t$ jet clustering algorithm with radius parameter 0.6. We note that this pileup subtraction method does not match that used in either of the ATLAS analyses. The results simulated with pileup therefore serve only as an indicator of pileup effects.
Further cuts were made with the aid of the \textsc{MadAnalysis5} v1.1.10beta \textsc{SampleAnalyzer} framework \cite{Conte2012fm}. For preselection we required isolated leptons and
\begin{align}
|\eta_e| <2.47, && |\eta_\mu| < 2.4, && |\eta_j| <2.5, && p_T^l > 10 \text{ GeV}.
\end{align}
We rejected jets within $\Delta R=0.2$ of a preselected electron, and leptons within $\Delta R=0.4$ of remaining jets.
Each of the stop search analyses use variants of $m_{T2}$, known as the Cambridge $m_{T2}$ or stransverse mass variable \cite{Lester1999tx, Barr2003rg}, as a powerful discriminant of signal over background. For events where mother particles are pair produced and subsequently decay to two visible branches along with invisible momentum, such as in leptonic or semi-leptonic $t\bar{t}$ decays, $m_{T2}$ can be constructed to have an upper limit at the mother particle mass. It is defined as
\begin{align}
m_{T2}&(\vec{p}_T^i,\vec{p}_T^j,\slashed{\vec{p}}_T) =
\min\limits_{\vec{u}_T+\vec{v}_T=\slashed{\vec{p}}_T}
\left\{ \max\left[ m_T(\vec{p}_T^i,\vec{u}_T),m_T(\vec{p}_T^j,\vec{v}_T) \right] \right\},
\end{align}
where $\slashed{\vec{p}}_T$ is the missing transverse momentum, $\vec{p}_T^i$ and $\vec{p}_T^j$ are the transverse momenta of two visible decay branches, and $m_T$ is the usual transverse mass calculated assuming some mass for the invisible particle associated with that branch. It can be thought of as the minimum mother particle mass consistent with pair production, the decay hypothesis, and the observed kinematics. We calculated $m_{T2}$ using the publicly available bisection method codes of Refs.~\cite{Cheng2008hk,Bai2012gs}.
\subsubsection{$bb\slashed{E}_T$}
The $bb\slashed{E}_T$ final state arises primarily from the decay $\phi\phi \to b\nu b\nu$. There are also contributions from the other decay chains, where either leptons are missed or hadronically decaying taus are produced; these contributions will be subleading and additive, and will generally appear with extra hard jet activity in the event which may be vetoed in analyses. We will ignore them to obtain a slightly conservative limit.
Constraints on the production cross section of sbottom pairs decaying via $\tilde{b}_1\to b\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ have been provided by both ATLAS and CMS \cite{Aad2013ija,CMS-PAS-SUS-13-018}. Along the contour $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}=0$, this provides a limit on the production cross section $\sigma(pp \to \phi\phi) \times \mathrm{Br}(\phi \to b\nu)^2$, and therefore on $\mathrm{Br}(\phi \to b\nu)$. These limits are reproduced in Fig.~\ref{figbranch1}.\footnote{The ATLAS limit on $\mathrm{Br}(\phi \to b\nu)$ can be read off the auxiliary Figure~5. The CMS limit on $\sigma(pp \to \phi\phi) \times \mathrm{Br}(\phi \to b\nu)^2$ can be read off Figure~6 and converted to a limit on $\mathrm{Br}(\phi \to b\nu)$ using the NLO value of $\sigma(pp \to \phi\phi)$ from \textsc{Prospino2}.} The existing 95\% CL limit from the CMS search for region T is somewhere between $m_\phi >$~520--600~GeV.
\subsubsection{$l\slashed{E}_T + (b\text{-})jets$}
The single lepton final state is produced primarily through the mixed decay $\phi\phi \to b\nu tL \to l jj bb \slashed{E}_T$, where the top decays hadronically.
This final state is the same as for semi-leptonically decaying top pairs, which is the primary SM background. It can also be given by stop pairs decaying via the chains $\tilde{t}_1 \to b\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\to b W^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to b l\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ or $\tilde{t}_1 \to t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \to bl\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. ATLAS and CMS have performed searches for stop pairs in the single lepton final state, with no significant excess observed \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2013-037,Chatrchyan2013xna}.\footnote{In the time since this analysis was performed, ATLAS submitted a more detailed search in this channel \cite{Aad2014kra}.}
In this section we will recast the ATLAS analysis.
\begin{table*}\centering \footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
& & SRtN2 & SRtN3 & SRbC1 & SRbC2 & SRbC3 \\ \midrule
$m_{\tilde{t}_1}=600$~GeV
& $\mathcal{A}\varepsilon$ ATLAS (\%)
& 2.7 & 2.3 & 5.7 & 1.7 & 0.84 \\
$m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}=50$~GeV
& $\mathcal{A}\varepsilon$ obtained (\%)
& 2.0 (2.1) & 1.4 (1.5) & 5.8 (5.6) & 1.8 (1.6) & 1.0 (0.83) \\ \midrule
$m_\phi=500$~GeV
& $N$
& 21 (22) & 14 (14) & 75 (74) & 28 (26) & 16 (14) \\
$m_\phi=600$~GeV
& $N$
& 7.8 (8.3) & 5.5 (5.7) & 26 (26) & 11 (10) & 7.0 (6.4) \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{NP limit}
& 10.7 & 8.5 & 83.2 & 19.5 & 7.6 \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Approximate $m_\phi$ limit (GeV)}
& 567 (574) & 553 (556) & 490 (489) & 537 (532) & 589 (579) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Acceptance times efficiency ($\mathcal{A}\varepsilon$) and total number of events ($N$) for three event samples without (with) pileup. The stop pair production sample is compared to the ATLAS result as a validation of our analysis. The 95\% CL limit on new physics (NP) contributions are given; these limits are quoted ATLAS results. Lastly we provide an approximate limit on $m_\phi$ based on our results.}
\label{tabSRtNbC}
\end{table*}
After preselection we demanded exactly two opposite sign leptons with the leading lepton having $p_T>25$~GeV, at least four jets with $p_T>80,60,40,25$~GeV, and at least one tagged b-jet.
We refer to Ref.~\cite{ATLAS-CONF-2013-037} for the definitions of the remaining kinematical variables and of the signal regions (SRs) SRtN2-3 and SRbC1-3, designed for $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and $\tilde{t}_1\to b\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ topologies respectively (see their Table~1).
Variables $am_{T2}$ and $m_{T2}^\tau$ are variants of $m_{T2}$ designed to reject leptonic and semi-leptonic $t\bar{t}$ background respectively: $am_{T2}$ takes for its visible branches $b$ and $(bl)$, with a missing on-shell $W$ associated with the $b$ branch; $m_{T2}^\tau$ takes $l$ and a jet for its visible branches, assuming massless invisible states.
Both $am_{T2}$ and $m_{T2}^\tau$ require two jets in the event to be chosen as $b$-jets, regardless of whether they are $b$-tagged. ATLAS are able to choose those jets which have the highest $b$-tag weight. However, \textsc{Delphes} only outputs a boolean variable which identifies whether a jet is $b$-tagged or not. We must therefore find a way to choose two b-jets. We follow Ref.~\cite{Bai2012gs}. There are three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item 2 $b$-tags: Take both as $b$-jets.
\item 1 $b$-tag: Assume that second $b$-jet is in the leading two non-$b$-tagged jets.
\item 0 or $>2$ $b$-tags: Ignore $b$-tagging information and assume that $b$-jets are in leading three jets.
\end{itemize}
Then, to calculate $am_{T2}$, we take the $j_i(j_kl)$ permutation over the $b$-jet candidates which minimises $am_{T2}$.
For $m_{T2}^\tau$ we assume that the $\tau$-jet is in the leading three jets. We find the $j_il$ combination over the candidate jets which minimises $m_{T2}^\tau$. These methods are in the spirit of $m_{T2}$ as the minimum mother particle mass consistent with the decay hypothesis and observed kinematics.
Since the minimum plausible $m_{T2}$ value is selected, the results after cuts are also conservative.
We compared our obtained $am_{T2}$ and $m_{T2}^\tau$ distributions for the $t\bar{t}$ sample at the preselection stage to Figure~3 in the ATLAS analysis \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2013-037} and found good agreement, particularly at large values where cuts are made.
The $N^{\text{iso-trk}}$ cut applied to the SRbC1-3 SRs cannot be replicated after our reconstruction has been performed. Cut-flows published in auxiliary Figures 112--117 of Ref.~\cite{Aad2014kra} suggest that after all other cuts, the $N^{\text{iso-trk}}$ requirement reduces the signal by 15--25\%, consistent between the single-muon and single-electron channel. We therefore conservatively post-scale our results in the SRbC1-3 SRs by a factor 0.75 to take this into account.
The results of our analysis are shown in Table~\ref{tabSRtNbC}. The acceptance times efficiency ($\mathcal{A}\varepsilon$) for our stop pair validation sample agree well with ATLAS results in each of the signal regions; our predicted event rates are likely an underestimate for the SRtN2-3 SRs. We are confident that the discrepancies can be assigned to some combination of: different event generators, the third-party detector simulation, our b-tagging efficiency approximation, the necessary amendments to $am_{T2}$ and $m_{T2}^\tau$ calculation methods, and our inability to recreate the pileup subtraction procedure. The predicted number of events in the 20.7~fb$^{-1}$ of data for each of the signal samples are also given in Table~\ref{tabSRtNbC}.
Since the branchings of $\phi$ and the distribution shapes do not change significantly from masses 500~GeV to 600~GeV, and since $\log[\sigma(pp\to\phi\phi)]$ varies approximately linearly with mass $m_\phi$, an approximate limit on $m_\phi$ can be determined by taking the published ATLAS new physics (NP) limits and assuming that, in each SR, the log of the number of accepted events scales linearly with $m_\phi$. These results are also shown in Table~\ref{tabSRtNbC}. Since this is only a recast of the ATLAS results, these limits are not to be taken too seriously; they serve only as an indication of the present experimental reach.
We note that these limits are found using the sum of single electron and muon channels. In our model $\approx 75\%$ of accepted events are single muons, whereas an approximately even share is expected for the background (and stops). We would likely obtain stronger limits if ATLAS published a NP limit on each lepton channel separately.
\subsubsection{$l^+l'^-\slashed{E}_T + jets$}
The dilepton final state is produced primarily through the mixed decay $\phi\phi \to b\nu tL \to l^+l'^- bb \slashed{E}_T$.
There is also a non-negligible contribution from $\phi\phi \to tL tL'$, where the top pair and possible $\tau$ lepton(s) decay such that only two leptons are detected.
This final state is the same as for leptonically decaying top pairs or for stop pairs decaying via the same chains considered in the previous subsection. ATLAS has performed a search for stop pairs in the dilepton final state, with no significant excess observed \cite{Aad2014qaa}. In this section we will recast the analysis in order to place a constraint on $m_\phi$.
\begin{table}\centering \footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\toprule
L110 & L100 & C1 \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$m(l^+l^-)^{<71}_{>111}$~GeV} & opposite flavour \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Delta\phi_b<1.5$} & $m_{eff}>300$~GeV \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\Delta\phi_j>1.0$} & $\slashed{E}_T>50$~GeV \\
\midrule
- & $N(j)\ge 2$ & $N(j)\ge 2$ \\
- & $p_T^j[1]>100$~GeV & $p_T^j[1] > 50$~GeV \\
& $p_T^j[2]>50$~GeV & \\
\midrule
$m_{T2}>110$~GeV & $m_{T2}>100$~GeV & $m_{T2}>150$~GeV \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Signal region selections after preselection requirements.}
\label{tabSRs}
\end{table}
After preselection we demanded exactly two opposite sign leptons with the leading lepton having $p_T>25$~GeV. Any lepton pairs with invariant mass less than 20~GeV were rejected.
We then defined three SRs in Table~\ref{tabSRs}: L110, L100, and C1. We use the notation $p_T[1]$ ($p_T[2]$) to stand for the leading (subleading) $p_T$ object.
We refer to Ref.~\cite{Aad2014qaa} for definitions of any unfamiliar variables. The most important is $m_{T2}$, which takes leptons for the visible branches and assumes massless missing particles. It is constructed to have a parton-level kinematic upper limit at $m_W$ for the dominant $t\bar{t}$ background.
\begin{figure}[t]\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig_mT2OF}
\caption{Distribution of $m_{T2}$ opposite flavour events for the three SRs in $t\bar{t}$ and $m_\phi=500,600$~GeV event samples descending, simulated without (solid) and with (dashed) pileup. The ATLAS data, dominated by $t\bar{t}$ background for $m_{T2}\lesssim 100$~GeV, is overlaid as points. The apparent ``excess'' of $t\bar{t}$ events above $m_{T2}>100$~GeV is only because we have not simulated subleading backgrounds (only $t\bar{t}$ is necessary for validation of our analysis). These can be compared with Figures 9, 10, and 3 respectively of Ref.~\cite{Aad2014qaa}.}
\label{fig_mT2OF}
\end{figure}
Plots of the number of events expected in 20.3~fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity for each SR are shown against $m_{T2}$ for opposite flavour events in Fig.~\ref{fig_mT2OF}. These are to be compared with Figures 3, 9, and 10 of the ATLAS analysis \cite{Aad2014qaa}. One can see that our analysis does a good job of reproducing the background distribution in the region $m_{T2}\lesssim 100$~GeV where $t\bar{t}$ dominates. We are confident that the discrepancies can be assigned to some combination of: an overall normalisation factor, the LO $t\bar{t}$ event generator, the third-party detector simulation, and our inability to recreate the pileup subtraction procedure. The number of events in the SRs are broken up by lepton flavour in Table~\ref{tabSRlims}.
\begin{table*}\centering \footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{L110} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{L100} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{C1} \\
\midrule
$m_\phi$~(GeV)& 500 & 600 & 500 & 600 & 500 & 600 \\
\midrule
$e^+e^-$ & 0.93 (0.86) & 0.34 (0.32) & 0.79 (0.68) & 0.30 (0.27) & - & - \\
$\mu^+\mu^-$ & 3.0 (2.8) & 1.0 (0.93) & 2.7 (2.3) & 0.92 (0.81) & - & - \\
$\mu^\pm e^\mp$& 4.6 (4.2) & 1.5 (1.4) & 3.9 (3.4) & 1.4 (1.2) & 7.5 (7.6) & 2.8 (2.9) \\
$\sum_l l^+l'^-$& 8.5 (7.8) & 2.9 (2.7) & 7.4 (6.3) & 2.6 (2.3) & - & - \\ \midrule
NP limit & \multicolumn{2}{c}{9.0} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{5.6} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2.3 $^*$} \\
Approx. $m_\phi$ limit (GeV) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 495 (487) } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 527 (512) } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ 621 (622) $^*$ } \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Number of events in each SR without (with) pileup. The 95\% CL limit on new physics contributions are also given; these limits are quoted ATLAS results for L110 and L100, and inferred from a plot for C1 (which is why we mark it with a $^*$). }
\label{tabSRlims}
\end{table*}
The limits on the number of NP events summed over the lepton channels in SRs L110 and L100 are provided by ATLAS and reproduced in our Table~\ref{tabSRlims}. The limit from the C1 SR was not published, since this SR is subsequently filtered through a multivariate analysis. However, one can read off Figure~3 in Ref.~\cite{Aad2014qaa} that three events were observed with $3.6^{+6.7}_{-?}$ expected before the multivariate analysis. It is therefore reasonable to model the probability density function for the expected number of events as a gamma distribution with shape parameter 1.3 and mean 3.6.\footnote{The gamma distribution is the standard conjugate prior for rate parameters. A shape parameter of 1.3 ensures that $\int_{3.6}^{3.6+6.7}dx\,f(x;k=1.3,\mu=3.6)=34.1\%$, corresponding to one half of the 68.2\% confidence interval.} We performed toy Monte Carlo pseudoexperiments for different signal+background hypotheses ($H_{s+b}$) under this assumption, measuring
\begin{align}
CL_s=\frac{Pr(n\le n_{obs} | H_{s+b} )}{Pr(n\le n_{obs} | H_b)}
\end{align}
each time. We found $CL_s=0.05$ for an expected new physics contribution of 2.3 events, corresponding to the observed $95\%$ CL limit on the number of NP events determined using the $CL_s$ method \cite{Read2002hq}, the same as that used in the ATLAS analysis.
An approximate limit on $m_\phi$ can be derived in the same way described in the previous subsection, and the results are shown in Table~\ref{tabSRlims}. Again, since this is only a recast of the ATLAS analysis, these limits are not to be taken too seriously; they serve only as an indication of the present experimental reach.
The best limit is obtained from the C1 SR. There are three principal reasons for this. \textit{(1)} The L110 and L100 limits are quoted on the sum over all flavour channels. In our model we expect greater than half of the events to be in the opposite-flavour channel. Simply requiring opposite flavour leptons reduces the background significantly (compare Figures 2 and 3 of Ref.~\cite{Aad2014qaa}), so that one can afford to make softer cuts that keep more signal. \textit{(2)} The L110 and L100 cuts on $\Delta \phi_b$ and $\Delta \phi_j$ are designed to reject background events with high $m_{T2}$ arising from events with large $\slashed{E}_T$ from mismeasured jets. These cuts keep about $50\%$ of the stop pair signals considered by ATLAS (see auxiliary Figures 24 and 25 of Ref.~\cite{Aad2014qaa}). We found that only $\approx 35\%$ of events were kept for our model due to different kinematics. \textit{(3)} The signal-to-background ratio and the limit is significantly improved if the cut on $m_{T2}$ is slightly
increased.
\subsubsection{Summary}
It is clear from these analyses that the existing constraints on the leptoquark from sbottom and stop searches are comparable, $m_\phi\gtrsim 600$~GeV.
Inferred limits could be even stronger if the collaborations provided limits before combining lepton flavour channels.
But this conclusion can be turned around: if the collaborations \textit{were} to see a significant excess in any of the discussed final states,
this model predicts that it should show up in all of them at around the same time, with a well-predicted, non-universal flavour signature
and distinctive kinematics.
Simple SUSY models might find this scenario difficult to accommodate.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:con}
In this work we have written down the minimal UV completions for all of the D7 $\Delta L=2$ operators
which could be responsible for radiatively generating a Majorana neutrino mass.
We then discussed the generic collider searches for the newly introduced exotic particles,
including vector-like quarks, vector-like leptons, scalar leptoquarks, a charged scalar, a scalar doublet and a scalar quadruplet.
The properties of these particles are generally constrained by low-energy neutrino oscillation data.
The hope is that this will advance a systematic approach to searches for the origin of neutrino mass at the LHC.
A detailed study of the collider bounds has been presented for
$\mathcal{O}_3=LLQ\bar{d}H$ and $\mathcal{O}_8=L\bar{d}\bar{e}^\dagger\bar{u}^\dagger H$ completions
where a leptoquark $\phi\sim (\bar{3},1,\frac{1}{3})$ and a vector-like quark $\chi\sim (3,2,-\frac{5}{6})$ are introduced.
In the detailed study, we constrained the vector-like quark mass $m_\chi \gtrsim 620$~GeV using a dedicated LHC search.
For the leptoquark $\phi$ we recast LHC sbottom/stop searches and explored in the parameter space allowed by the constraints from flavour physics.
We found two distinct areas of parameter space, one where Br$(\phi\to b\nu)\approx 100\%$ and the other where Br$(\phi\to b\nu)<100\%$.
In the first case $m_\phi\gtrsim 520$--$600$~GeV, and in the second case we found $m_\phi \gtrsim 600$~GeV using three different final states.
Through this detailed analysis we have shown the powerful discovery and/or exclusion potential of the LHC for the radiative neutrino mass models
based on $\Delta L=2$ operators.
We have also made advances in a systematic approach to these searches.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Aldo Saavedra for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Australian Research Council.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec.intro}
In many research fields it is required to model the dependence of a collection of response variables on one or more explanatory variables. \citet[][Sec.~6.5]{mcc-nel:1989} specified that in this context there are typically three lines of inquiry: (i) the dependence structure of each response marginally on covariates, (ii) a model for the joint distribution of all responses and (iii) the joint dependence of response variables on covariates. When in a regression model responses are categorical, a linear model is typically related to the response variables via a transformation of probabilities called the link function, and the choice of the link function plays a key role for the interpretation of the model along the lines (i) to (iii). We refer to \citet{tutz2011regression} and \citet{agresti2013categorical} for a full account of regression models for categorical data; see also \citet[Section~5]{Ekh-al:2000} for a review of some link functions commonly used in the binary case.
This work is motivated by a research aimed to investigate the effect of HIV-infection on \emph{multimorbiditiy} which is defined as the co-occurrence of two or more chronic medical conditions in one person. It is well known that multimorbidity is associated with age and, furthermore, that HIV-infected patients experience an increased prevalence of noninfectious comorbidities, compared with the general population. \citet{Guaraldi-al:2011} considered a dataset obtained from a cross-sectional retrospective case-control study, and investigated the effect of HIV-infection on the prevalence of a set of noninfectious chronic medical conditions by applying an univariate regression to each response. However, multimorbidity is characterised by complex interactions of co-existing diseases and to gain relevant insight it is necessary to use a multivariate approach aimed to investigate the effect of HIV on the way different chronic conditions associate. The main scientific objective of this study is thus the line of enquiry (iii). However, to the best of our knowledge, this line has never been explicitly addressed in the literature, and this paper is fully devoted to this issue.
The application we consider naturally requires a \emph{marginal modelling} approach because the main interest is for the effect of HIV on the marginal association of subsets of comorbidities; see \citet[][Chapter~13]{tutz2011regression} and \citet[][Chapter~12]{agresti2013categorical}.
For this reason, we focus on the case where the link function satisfies \emph{upward compatibility}, that is every association term among responses can be computed in the relative marginal distribution.
In this way, the parameterization of the response variables will include terms that can be regarded as \emph{single outcomes}, computed marginally on univariate responses, and terms that can be regarded as \emph{association outcomes}, hereafter referred to as \emph{response associations}, which are computed marginally on subsets of responses.
Regression models typically include coefficients encoding the effect of the covariates, as well as of interactions of covariates, on response associations and difficulties involve both the interpretation of the response associations and the interpretation of the relevant regression coefficients. More seriously, the effect of a covariate on a response association might be \emph{removable} in the sense that it disappears when a different link function is used. It is therefore crucially relevant to be able to define models with interpretable regressions coefficients; see \citet{berrington2007interpretation} for a review on statistical interactions, with emphasis on interpretation.
In marginal modelling a central role is played by the \emph{multivariate logistic} regression model because it maintains a marginal logistic regression interpretation for the single outcomes \citep{mcc-nel:1989,glo-mcc:1995}. Nevertheless, this family of regression models does not provide a satisfying answer to the multimorbidity application. This is due to the fact that, although the regression coefficients for the single outcomes can be interpreted in terms of odds ratios, this feature does not translate to the higher order regressions where both the response association and the relevant regression coefficients are high-level log-linear parameters which are difficult to interpret.
We consider two different parameterizations, the \emph{log-mean} (LM) \citep{drton2008binary,drton2009discrete} and the \emph{log-mean linear} (LML) parameterization \citep{rov-lup-lar:2013,roverato2015log}, and investigate the use of these parameterizations as link functions. In this way, we introduce an approach where, similarly to Poisson regression, regression coefficients can be interpreted in terms of relative risks. Furthermore, and more interestingly, the relative risk interpretation can be extended from the regressions of the single outcomes to the regressions of the response associations, thereby providing interpretable coefficients. The LM and the LML links can be used to specify the same classes of submodels but the LML link has the advantage that relevant submodels can be specified by setting regression coefficients to zero. Specifically, we show that certain collections of zero LML regression coefficients imply that the relative risks for joint responses factorize with respect to the corresponding relative risks for marginal responses.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{SEC:multimorbidity} we describe the motivating problem concerning the analysis of the multimorbidity data.
Section~\ref{sec:back} gives the background concerning the theory of regression for multivariate binary responses, as required for this paper. Section~\ref{sec.LM-LML} introduces the LM and the LML regression models and describes the relevant properties of these models. The analysis of multimorbidity data is carried out in Section~\ref{sec:app} and, finally, Section~\ref{sec:discuss} contains a discussion.
\section{Motivating problem: multimorbidity in HIV-positive patients}\label{SEC:multimorbidity}
Antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has been a great medical success story. Nowadays, in countries with good access to treatment, clinical AIDS is no longer the inevitable outcome of HIV infection and this disease, previously associated with extremely high mortality rates, is now generally thought of
as a chronic condition \citep{Mocroft200322,may2011life}. Despite a marked increase in life expectancy, mortality rates among HIV-infected persons remain higher than those seen in the general population. Some of the excess mortality observed among HIV-infected persons can be directly attributed to illnesses that occur as a consequence of immunodeficiency, however, more than half of the deaths observed in recent years among ART-experienced HIV infected patients are attributable to noninfectious comorbidities (NICMs) \citep{phillips2008role,Guaraldi-al:2011}.
\emph{Multimorbidity} is defined as the co-occurrence of two or more chronic medical conditions in one person that is, for HIV positive patients, as the simultaneous presence of two or more NICMs. Multimorbidity, which is associated with age, is perhaps the most common \lq\lq{}disease pattern\rq\rq{} found among the elderly and, for this reason, it is turning into a major medical issue for both individuals and health care providers \citep{marengoni2011aging}. It is well known that HIV-infected patients experience an increased prevalence of NICMs, compared with the general population, and it has been hypothesized that such increased prevalence is the result of premature aging of HIV-infected patients \citep{deeks2009hiv,shiels2010age,Guaraldi-al:2011}.
Multimorbidity is characterised by the co-occurrence of NICMs and therefore investigating the effect of HIV-infection on multimorbidity requires to investigate the effect of HIV on the way different chronic conditions associate.
The dataset we analyse here comes from a study of \citet{Guaraldi-al:2011} who investigated the effect of HIV-infection on the prevalence of a set of noninfectious chronic medical conditions. Data were obtained from a cross-sectional retrospective case-control study with sample size $n=11\,416$ (2854 cases and 8562 controls). Cases were ART-experienced HIV-infected patients older than 18 years of age who were consecutively enrolled at the Metabolic Clinic of Modena University in Italy from 2002 to 2009. Control subjects were matched according to age, sex, race (all white), and geographical area. The observed variables include both a set of binary (response) variables encoding the presence of NICMs of interest and a set of context and clinical covariates. See \citet{Guaraldi-al:2011} for details and additional references.
\section{Background and notation}\label{sec:back}
\subsection{M\"{o}bius\ inversion}\label{subsec:mob}
In this subsection we introduce the notation used for matrices and recall a well known result named \emph{M\"{o}bius\ inversion} that will be extensively used in the following.
For two finite sets $V$ and $U$, with $|V|=p$ and $|U|=q$, we write $\theta=\{\theta_{D}(E)\}_{D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U}$ to denote a $2^{p}\times 2^{q}$ real matrix with rows and columns indexed by the subsets of $V$ and $U$, respectively. Furthermore, we will write $\theta(E)$ to denote the column of $\theta$ indexed by $E\subseteq U$ and $\theta_{D}$ to denote the row of $\theta$ indexed by $D\subseteq V$. Note that the notation we use may be easier to read if one associates $D$ with $D$iseases and $E$ with $E$xposure.
\begin{exmp}[Matrix notation.]\label{EXA:matrix.notation}
For the case $V=\{b, c, d\}$ and $U=\{h, a\}$ the matrix $\theta$ has eight rows indexed by the subsets $\emptyset$, $\{b\}$, $\{c\}$, $\{d\}$ $\{b, c\}$, $\{b, d\}$, $\{c, d\}$, $\{b, c, d\}$ and four columns indexed by the subsets $\emptyset$, $\{h\}$, $\{a\}$, $\{h, a\}$. The matrix $\theta$, with row and column indexes, is given below; note that we use the suppressed notation $\theta_{bc}(ha)$ to denote $\theta_{\{b,c\}}(\{h, a\})$, and similarly for the other quantities.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{array}{ll}
\begin{array}{llll}
\hspace{1.3cm}\emptyset & \hspace{.7cm}\{h\} & \hspace{.7cm}\{a\} & \hspace{.4cm}\{h,a\}
\end{array}
& ~ \\[2mm]
\theta=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\theta_{\emptyset}(\emptyset) & \theta_{\emptyset}(h) & \theta_{\emptyset}(a) & \theta_{\emptyset}(ha) \\
\theta_{b}(\emptyset) & \theta_{b}(h) & \theta_{b}(a) & \theta_{b}(ha) \\
\theta_{c}(\emptyset) & \theta_{c}(h) & \theta_{c}(a) & \theta_{c}(ha) \\
\theta_{d}(\emptyset) & \theta_{d}(h) & \theta_{d}(a) & \theta_{d}(ha) \\
\theta_{bc}(\emptyset) & \theta_{bc}(h) & \theta_{bc}(a) & \theta_{bc}(ha)\\
\theta_{bd}(\emptyset) & \theta_{bd}(h) & \theta_{bd}(a) & \theta_{bd}(ha)\\
\theta_{cd}(\emptyset) & \theta_{cd}(h) & \theta_{cd}(a) & \theta_{cd}(ha)\\
\theta_{bcd}(\emptyset) & \theta_{bcd}(h) & \theta_{bcd}(a) & \theta_{bcd}(ha)
\end{array}
\right)
&\hspace*{-3mm}
\begin{array}{l}
\emptyset\\
\{b\} \\
\{c\} \\
\{d\} \\
\{b,c\} \\
\{b,d\} \\
\{c,d\} \\
\{b,c,d\}
\end{array}
\end{array}%
\end{eqnarray*}
Furthermore, the rows and columns of $\theta$ are denoted as follows.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\theta =
\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\theta_{\emptyset}\\
\theta_{b}\\
\theta_{c}\\
\theta_{d}\\
\theta_{bc}\\
\theta_{bd}\\
\theta_{cd}\\
\theta_{bcd}\\
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{llll}
\theta(\emptyset) & \theta(h) & \theta(a) & \theta(ha)
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{exmp}
This matrix notation is not standard in the literature concerning categorical data but, in the case of regression models for binary data, it allows us to provide a compact representation of model parameters in matrix form and to compute alternative parameterizations, as well as regression coefficients, by direct application of M\"{o}bius\ inversion.
Let $\omega$ be another real matrix indexed by the subsets of $V$ and $U$. For a subset $D\subseteq V$ M\"{o}bius\ inversion states that
\begin{equation}\label{EQN.mon.Mobius}
\theta_{D}(E)=\sum_{E^{\prime} \subseteq E} \omega_{D}(E^{\prime}),\;\; \forall E \subseteq U
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad \omega_{D}(E)=\sum_{E^{\prime} \subseteq E} (-1)^{|E\backslash E^{\prime}|} \theta_{D}(E^{\prime}),\;\; \forall E \subseteq U;
\end{equation}
see, among others, \citet[][Appendix~A]{lau:1996}. Let $Z_{U}$ and $M_{U}$ be two $(2^{q} \times 2^q)$ matrices
with entries indexed by the subsets of $U \times U$ such that the entry of $Z$ indexed by the pair $E,H\subseteq U$ is equal to $1(E \subseteq H)$ and the corresponding entry of $M$ is equal to $(-1)^{|H \backslash E|} 1(E \subseteq H)$, where $1(\cdot)$ denotes the indicator function. Then, the equivalence~(\ref{EQN.mon.Mobius}) can be written in matrix form as
$\theta_{D}= \omega_{D}Z_{U}\; \Leftrightarrow\; \omega_{D} =\theta_{D}M_{U}$
and M\"{o}bius\ inversion follows by noticing that $M_{U}=Z^{-1}_{U}$. Note that it is straightforward to extend this result to the matrices $\omega$ and $\theta$ as
\begin{equation}\label{EQN.mon.Mobius.matrix}
\theta= \omega Z_{U} \quad \Leftrightarrow\quad \omega =\theta M_{U}
\end{equation}
and, furthermore, that it makes sense to consider M\"{o}bius\ inversion also with respect to the columns of $\omega$ and $\theta$ so that $\theta= Z_{V}^{\top}\omega \; \Leftrightarrow\; \omega = M^{\top}_{V}\theta$.
\subsection{Multivariate binary response models}\label{sec.mult-bin-mod}
Let $Y_{V}=(Y_{v})_{v\in V}$ be a binary random vector of response variables with entries indexed by $V$ and $X_{U}=(X_{u})_{u\in U}$ a vector of binary covariates with entries indexed by $U$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $Y_{V}$ and $X_{U}$ take value in $\{0,1\}^{p}$ and $\{0,1\}^{q}$, respectively. The values of covariates denote different observational or experimental conditions and we assume that, for every $x_{U}\in \{0,1\}^{q}$, the distribution of $Y_{V}|(X_{U}=x_{U})$ is multivariate Bernoulli. Furthermore, we assume that the latter distributions are independent across conditions and that, when $X_{U}$ is regarded as a random vector, then also $(Y_{V}, X_{U})$ follows a multivariate Bernoulli distribution. We can write the probability distributions of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$ by means of a matrix $\pi=\{\pi_{D}(E)\}_{D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U}$ where, for every $E\subseteq U$, the column vector $\pi(E)$ is the probability distribution of $Y_{V}$ given $(X_{E}=1_{E},X_{U\backslash E}=0_{U\backslash E})$ and, more specifically, $\pi_{D}(E)=\mathrm{pr}(Y_{D}=1_{D},Y_{V\backslash D}=0_{V\backslash D}\mid X_{E}=1_{E},X_{U\backslash E}=0_{U\backslash E})$. We assume that all the entries of $\pi$ are strictly positive. In the following, for a subset $D\subseteq V$ we use the suppressed notation $Y_{D}=1$ to denote $Y_{D}=1_{D}$ and similarly for $Y_{D}=0$ and the subvectors of $X_{U}$. Given three random vectors $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, we write $X\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y|Z$ to say that $X$ is independent of $Y$ given $Z$ \citep{dawid1979conditional} or, in the case where $Y$ and $Z$ are not random, that the conditional distribution of $X$ given $Y$ and $Z$ does not depend on $Y$.
In regression models for categorical responses a linear regression is typically related to the response variables via a link function $\theta(\pi)$. All the link functions considered in this paper are such that, for every $E\subseteq U$, the vector $\theta(E)=\theta(\pi(E))$ parameterizes the distribution of $Y_{V}|(X_{E}=1,X_{U\backslash E}=0)$.
In this way, the link function induces a matrix $\theta=\{\theta_{D}(E)\}_{D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U}$ and the associated linear regression, in the saturated case, has form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:betadef}
\theta_{D}(E)=\sum_{E^{\prime}\subseteq E} \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{D}(E^{\prime})
\qquad\mbox{for every }D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}=\{\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{D}(E)\}_{D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U}$ is a matrix of regression coefficients. It follows from
(\ref{EQN.mon.Mobius}) and (\ref{EQN.mon.Mobius.matrix}) that (\ref{EQN:betadef}) can be written in matrix form as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:beta-theta}
\theta=\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}Z_{U}\qquad\mbox{so that}\qquad \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}=\theta M_{U}.
\end{eqnarray}
The regression setting (\ref{EQN:betadef}) involves multivariate combinations of both the responses and the covariates and for this reason it is important to explicitly distinguish between the $D$-\emph{response associations} which are given by $\theta_{D}$ for $D\subseteq V$ with $|D|>1$, and the $E$-\emph{covariate interactions} given by $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}(E)$ for $E\subseteq U$ with $|E|>1$. Hence, $\beta_D^{\langle\theta\rangle}(E)$ encodes the effect of the $E$-covariate interaction on the $D$-response association, given a fixed level of $X_{U \setminus E}$ that, without loss of generality, in our approach is the zero level.
\begin{exmp}[Matrix notation continued.]
In all the examples of this paper we use the variables of the multimorbidity data as given in Section~\ref{sec:app}. Specifically, we consider three of the response variables, which are $Y_{b}=\;$\emph{Bone fracture}, $Y_{c}=\;$\emph{Cardiovascular disease} and $Y_{d}=\;$\emph{Diabetes}, with level 1 encoding the presence of the disease, and the most relevant covariates, that is, $X_{h}=\,$\emph{HIV} with the level 1 encoding the presence of the infection and $X_{a}=\,$\emph{Age} with the value 1 for patients aged 45 or more.
Hence, if the link function is the matrix $\theta$ given in Example~\ref{EXA:matrix.notation}, then the matrix of regression coefficients $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}$ is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}=
\left(
\begin{array}{llll}
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{\emptyset}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{\emptyset}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{\emptyset}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{\emptyset}(ha) \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(ha) \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{c}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{c}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{c}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{c}(ha) \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{d}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{d}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{d}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{d}(ha) \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bc}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bc}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bc}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bc}(ha)\\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(ha)\\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{cd}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{cd}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{cd}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{cd}(ha)\\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bcd}(\emptyset) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bcd}(h) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bcd}(a) & \beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bcd}(ha)
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{llll}
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{\emptyset} \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b} \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{c} \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{d} \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bc} \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd} \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{cd} \\[1.5mm]
\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bcd}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Equation (\ref{EQN:betadef}) states that there exists a one-to-one M\"{o}bius\ inversion relationship between every row $\theta_{D}$ of $\theta$ and the corresponding row $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{D}$ of $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}$.
For instance, $\theta_{b}$ is the link function of the marginal distribution of bone fracture, and each of its entries, $\theta_{b}(E)$ for $E\subseteq U$, can be computed by considering $\beta_{b}^{\langle\theta\rangle}$ and then by taking the sum of its entries which are indexed by a subset of $E$. More specifically, for $E=\{h\}$ it holds that $\theta_{b}(h)=\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(h)$
whereas for $E=\{h, a\}$ it holds that
$\theta_{b}(ha)=\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(h)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(a)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(ha)$.
Hence, $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(h)$ and $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{b}(ha)$ encode the effect of HIV and of the interaction of HIV and age, respectively, on bone fracture. Similarly, $\theta_{bd}$ is the response association of bone fracture and diabetes. Hence, for $E=\{h\}$ it holds that $\theta_{bd}(h)=\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(h)$
whereas for $E=\{h, a\}$ it holds that
$\theta_{bd}(ha)=\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(h)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(a)+\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(ha)$.
Here, $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(h)$ and $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{bd}(ha)$ encode the effect of HIV and of the interaction of HIV and age, respectively, on the $\{b,d\}$-response association $\theta_{bd}$.
\end{exmp}
There exists an extensive literature on models for categorical data analysis but, remarkably,
\citet{lang:1996}, extending previous work by \citet{lang:agre:94}, introduced a very general method to specify regression models for categorical data thereby defining an extremely broad class of models named \emph{generalized log-linear models}. This includes, as special cases, many of the existing models for multiple categorical responses such as log-linear and, more generally, marginal log-linear models \citep{ber-al:2009}. In particular, in marginal regression modelling a relevant instance within this class is obtained when $\theta(\cdot)$ is the multivariate logistic link function denoted by $\eta(\cdot)$ \citep{mcc-nel:1989,glo-mcc:1995,mole-lesa:1999,bar-al:07,ber-al:2009,mar-lup:2011}. This induces the parameterization $\eta=\{\eta_{D}(E)\}_{D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U}$ where $\eta_{D}(E)$ is the $|D|$-way log-linear interaction computed in the margin $Y_{D}|(X_{E}=1,X_{U\backslash E}=0)$ and, more specifically, $\eta_{\{v\}}$ is the usual logistic link for every $v\in V$. \citet{mar-lup:2011} considered the regression framework (\ref{EQN:betadef}) with $\theta=\eta$ and showed that $\beta^{\langle\eta\rangle}_{D}(E)$ is the $|D\cup E|$-way log-linear interaction computed in the distributions of $(Y_{D}, X_{U})$.
\begin{exmp}[Multivariate logistic regression]
Consider the case $V=\{b, c\}$ and $U=\{h\}$.
The multivariate logistic parameters are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_{i}(\emptyset)=\log\frac{\mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1|X_{h}=0)}{1-\mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1|X_{h}=0)}
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\eta_{i}(h)=\log\frac{\mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1|X_{h}=1)}{1-\mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1|X_{h}=1)}
\end{eqnarray*}
for $i\in \{b, c\}$, which are logit links. Furthermore, if we denote by $OR(Y_{bc}|\emptyset)$ and by $OR(Y_{bc}|h)$ the odds ratio between bone fracture and cardiovascular disease for HIV-negative and HIV-positive patients, respectively, then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_{bc}(\emptyset)=\log OR(Y_{bc}|\emptyset)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\eta_{bc}(h)=\log OR(Y_{bc}|h)
\end{eqnarray*}
so that the coefficients for the regression of $\eta_{bc}$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta^{\langle\eta\rangle}_{bc}(\emptyset)=\log OR(Y_{bc}|\emptyset)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\beta^{\langle\eta\rangle}_{bc}(h)=\log\frac{OR(Y_{bc}|h)}{OR(Y_{bc}|\emptyset)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{exmp}
We now move from the saturated model to submodels defined by means of linear constraints on the regression coefficients and, more specifically, to submodels with regression coefficients equal to zero. If for every subset of $U$, denoted as $E$, that has non-empty intersection with $U^\prime\subseteq U$, it holds that $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{D}(E)=0$, then the covariates $X_{U^{\prime}}$ have no-effect on $\theta_{D}$. The following lemma states a connection between no-effect of a subset of variables and linear constraints in $\theta$.
\begin{lem}\label{THM:lemma.beta.theta}
Let $\theta=\{\theta_{D}(E)\}_{D\subseteq V,E\subseteq U}$ be a real matrix with entries indexed by two nonempty sets $V$ and $U$. If $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}=\theta M_{U}$ and $U^{\prime}\subseteq U$ then the following are equivalent, for every $D\subseteq V$, as they both say that $X_{U^{\prime}}$ has no effect on $\theta_{D}$;
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\beta^{\langle\theta\rangle}_{D}(E)=0$ for every $E\subseteq U$ such that $E\cap U^{\prime}\neq\emptyset$;
\item[(ii)] $\theta_{D}(E_{1})=\theta_{D}(E_{2})$ for every $E_{1},E_{2}\subseteq U$ such that $E_{1}\backslash U^{\prime}=E_{2}\backslash U^{\prime}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
\section{Log-mean and log-mean linear regression models}\label{sec.LM-LML}
The multivariate Bernoulli distribution belongs to the natural exponential family, and the mean parameter associated with the distribution $\pi(E)$ is $\mu(E)$ where $\mu_{D}(E)=\mathrm{pr}(Y_{D}=1|X_{E}=1, X_{U\backslash E}=0)$ for $D\subseteq V$. \citet{drton2008binary} used the mean parameter to parameterize graphical models of marginal independence and called it the M\"{o}bius\ parameter because $\mu(E)=Z_{V}\pi(E)$ for every $E\subseteq V$. Subsequently, \citet{drton2009discrete} used the matrix $\mu=Z_{V}\pi$ to parameterize regression graph models; see also \citet{rov-lup-lar:2013} and \citet{roverato2015log}. The mean parameterization has the disadvantage that
submodels of interest are defined by, non-linear, multiplicative constraints. \citet{rov-lup-lar:2013} introduced the log-mean linear parameter $\gamma$ defined as a log-linear expansion of the mean parameters, formally,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:definition.of.gamma}
\gamma=M^{\top}_{V}\log(\mu),
\end{eqnarray}
and showed that this approach improves on the mean parameterization as submodels of interest can be specified by setting certain zero log-mean linear interactions. We remark that both the mean and the log-mean linear parameters are not variation independent, in the sense that setting some parameters to particular values may restrict the valid range of other parameters. As a consequence, unlike variation independent parameterizations, it might be more difficult to interpret separately each parameter.
Here, we show that the analysis of multimorbidity data can be effectively approached by applying the theory described in the previous section to the log-mean (LM) and the log-mean linear (LML) parameterizations to develop the LM and the LML regression model, respectively.
\subsection{Log-mean regression}
The LM regression model is obtained by setting $\theta$ in (\ref{EQN:betadef}) equal to the logarithm of the mean parameter, $\log(\mu)$, so that, in the saturated case, $\log(\mu)=\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}Z_{U}$ that,
in its extended form, is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:mob.regression}
\log\mu_{D}(E)=\sum_{E^{\prime}\subseteq E}\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E^{\prime})\quad\mbox{ for every }D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U
\end{eqnarray}
where for $D=\emptyset$ the equation (\ref{EQN:mob.regression}) is trivial for every $E\subseteq U$ because $\mu_{\emptyset}$ is a row vector of ones so that both $\log(\mu_{\emptyset})=0$ and $\beta^{\langle\mu \rangle}_{\emptyset}=\log(\mu_{\emptyset})M_{U}=0$.
LM regression can be regarded as one of the possible alternative ways to parameterize the distribution of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$, but it is of special interest for the application considered in this paper. This can be seen by noticing that one can write $\mu_{D}(E)=\mathrm{pr}(Y^{D}=1|X_{E}=1, X_{U\backslash E}=0)$ where $Y^{D}=\prod_{v\in D}Y_{v}$ is the binary random variable associated with the multimorbidity pattern $D$. More specifically, $\mathrm{pr}(Y^{D}=1)$ is the probability that the multimorbidity pattern $D$ occurs, and therefore (\ref{EQN:mob.regression}) is a sequence of regressions corresponding to the univariate binary responses $Y^{D}$ for $\emptyset\neq D\subseteq V$.
Similarly to Poisson regression, the parameters of LM regression
can be interpreted in terms of relative risks. We first consider the case $U=\{u\}$, so that $|U|=1$.
Hence, if we denote the relative risk of an event $\mathcal{E}$ with respect to the two groups identified by $X_{u}=1$ and $X_{u}=0$ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:relative.risk.factorization.002}
RR_{u}(\mathcal{E})=
\frac{\mathrm{pr}(\mathcal{E}|X_{u}=1)}
{\mathrm{pr}(\mathcal{E}|X_{u}=0)}
\end{eqnarray}
then for every $v\in V$ it holds that
$\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{v}(u)=\log RR_{u}(Y_{v}=1)$ whereas, more generally, for $D\subseteq V$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN.rel.risk.U1}
\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(u)=\log RR_{u}(Y^{D}=1)=\log RR_{u}(\cap_{v\in D} \{Y_{v}=1\})
\end{eqnarray}
where we use the convention that $RR_{u}(Y^{\emptyset}=1)=1$.
\begin{exmp}[LM regression]\label{EXA:mob.reg.001}
Consider the case where $V=\{b, c, d\}$ and $U=\{h\}$. Then the saturated LM regression model contains a regression equation for every $D\subseteq V$, where the case $D=\emptyset$ is trivial. For $|D|=1$, equation (\ref{EQN:mob.regression}) has form
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log\mu_{i}(\emptyset)=\log \mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1|X_{h}=0)&=&\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{i}(\emptyset)\\
\log\mu_{i}(h)=\log \mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1|X_{h}=1)&=&\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{i}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{i}(h)
\end{eqnarray*}
where, for every $i\in V$, $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{i}(h)=\log RR_{h}(Y_i=1)$ that is the log-relative risk of the disease $Y_{i}$ for HIV-positive patients compared to HIV-negative patients. For $|D|=2$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log\mu_{ij}(\emptyset)=\log\mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1, Y_{j}=1|X_{h}=0)&=&\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{ij}(\emptyset)\\
\log\mu_{ij}(h)=\log\mathrm{pr}(Y_{i}=1, Y_{j}=1|X_{h}=1)&=&\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{ij}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{ij}(h)
\end{eqnarray*}
where, for every $i,j\in V$ with $i\neq j$, $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{ij}(h)=\log RR_{h}(Y^{ij}=1)$ that is the log-relative risk of the co-occurrence of the diseases $Y_{i}$ and $Y_{j}$ for HIV-positive patients compared to HIV-negative patients. Finally, for $|D|=3$ so that $D=V$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log\mu_{bcd}(\emptyset)=\log\mathrm{pr}(Y_{b}=1,Y_{c}=1, Y_{d}=1|X_{h}=0)&=&\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bcd}(\emptyset)\\
\log\mu_{bcd}(h)=\log\mathrm{pr}(Y_{b}=1,Y_{c}=1, Y_{d}=1|X_{h}=1)&=&\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bcd}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bcd}(h)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bcd}(h)=\log RR_{h}(Y^{bcd}=1)$ is the log-relative risk of the co-occurrence of the three diseases for HIV-positive patients compared to HIV-negative patients.
\end{exmp}
Consider the regression equation relative to the subset $\emptyset\neq D\subseteq V$. It follows from (\ref{EQN:mob.regression}) that if for an element $u\in U$ it holds that $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)=0$ for every $E\subseteq U$ such that $u\in E$, then $Y^{D}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} X_{u}|X_{U\backslash \{u\}}$. This can be easily extended to a subset of covariates $X_{U^{\prime}}$ with $\emptyset\neq U^{\prime}\subseteq U$, whereas to generalize this result to the vector $Y_{D}$ it is necessary to consider a collection of regression equations as shown below.
\begin{prop}\label{THM:ind.equal.beta.zero}
Let $Y_{D}$ be the subvector of $Y_{V}$ indexed by $\emptyset\neq D\subseteq V$. For a subset $\emptyset\neq U^{\prime}\subseteq U$, it holds that $Y_{D}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} X_{U^{\prime}}|X_{U\backslash U^{\prime}}$ if and only if $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D^{\prime}}(E)=0$ for every $D^{\prime}\subseteq D$ and $E\subseteq U$ such that $E\cap U^{\prime}\neq\emptyset$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
We can conclude that it makes sense to focus on submodels characterized by zero LM regression coefficients because they encode interpretable relationships, possibly implying that one or more covariates have no-effect on the distribution of $Y^{D}$, or even on the joint distribution of $Y_{D}$. However, this approach did not identify any missing effects in the application to multimorbidity data. One reason for that is that the zero pattern of regression coefficients described in Proposition~\ref{THM:ind.equal.beta.zero} implies no-effect of $X_{U^{\prime}}$ on $Y_{D}$ and therefore that $X_{U^{\prime}}$ has no-effect on $Y_{v}$ for every single $v\in D$. Consider the case $|U|=1$ of a unique covariate $X_h$ representing the HIV-infection. It is well established that HIV has a relevant effect on each of the comorbidites considered singularly, that is, $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_v(h)\neq 0$ for every $v \in V$. Although in principle it is possible for a covariate $X_{h}$ with a non-zero effect on $Y_{v}$ for some $v\in D$ to have coefficients equal to zero in the regression relative to $Y^{D}$, this hardly happens in practice because of the strong association existing between $Y^{D}$ and every $Y_{v}$ with $v\in D$; recall that $Y_{v}=0$ for any $v\in D$ implies $Y_{D}=0$ and, conversely, $Y^{D}=1$ implies $Y_{v}=1$ for every $v\in D$. In other words, it is well known that, if $X_{h}=1$ for HIV-postive patients, then $\mathrm{pr}(Y_{v}=1|X_{h}=1)>\mathrm{pr}(Y_{v}=1|X_{h}=0)$ for every comorbidity $v\in V$, and therefore it is reasonable to expect that also $\mathrm{pr}(Y^{D}=1|X_{h}=1)>\mathrm{pr}(Y^{D}=1|X_{h}=0)$ for every comorbidity pattern $D\subseteq V$, with $|D|>1$.
To disclose the usefulness of LM regression for the application considered in this paper, it is necessary to propose a different approach. In the multimorbidity analysis, it is useful to distinguish between two different effects of HIV, specifically, one can be interest in the effect of HIV (i) on the prevalence of a comorbidity pattern $D$ and (ii) on the association among comorbidities in $D$. As discussed above, the former is in general a well known matter as multimorbidity shows a higher prevalence in infected patients. Indeed, the main question is whether HIV plays a role in the way single comorbidities combine together to produce the comorbidity pattern $D$, that is in the association of variables in $Y_D$.
We approach the problem by considering the extreme case of no-effect of HIV on the $D$-response associations because responses are conditionally independent given the covariates. Our standpoint is that if for a subset $D\subseteq V$ there exists a proper partition $A\cup B=D$ such that $Y_{A}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{B}|X_{U}$, then there is no-effect of the covariates on the $|D|$-way association of $Y_{D}$. This allows us to compare the performance of different link functions in multimorbidity analysis and, more importantly, to provide a clear interpretation to the effect of HIV in LM regression.
In the Example~\ref{EXA:mob.reg.002} below we illustrate how this idea can be formalized.
\begin{exmp}[LM regression vs. multivariate logistic regression]\label{EXA:mob.reg.002}
For the case $V=\{b, d\}$ and $U=\{h\}$, assume $Y_{b}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{d}|X_{h}$ so that we can say that there is no-effect of $X_{h}=HIV$ on the association of $Y_{b}$ and $Y_{d}$. To see this in practice it is sufficient to consider any measure of association that represents independence by a constant value, for instance the value zero, so that the association is the same for the two values of $X_{h}$. Exploiting the factorization of the probability function of $Y_{bd}|X_{h}$ implied by conditional independence, it is not difficult to see that under the LM regression both
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{EQN:EXA:mob.reg.002.001}
Y_{b}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{d}|X_{h}
\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad
\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bd}(\emptyset)=\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{b}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{d}(\emptyset)
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bd}(u)=\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{b}(h)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{d}(h),
\end{eqnarray*}
and, under the multivariate logistic regression,
\begin{eqnarray*}
Y_{b}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{d}|X_{h}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad\beta^{\langle\eta\rangle}_{bd}(\emptyset)=0
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\beta^{\langle\eta\rangle}_{bd}(h)=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
The effect of HIV on the joint distribution of $Y_{bd}$ is represented by $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bd}(h)$ in LM regression and by $\beta^{\langle\eta\rangle}_{bd}(h)$ in multivariate logistic regression and therefore both
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:betamusum}
\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bd}(h)=\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{b}(h)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{d}(h)
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:betaetazero}
\beta^{\langle\eta\rangle}_{bd}(h)=0
\end{eqnarray}
can be used to state that there is no-effect of HIV on the association of $Y_{b}$ and $Y_{d}$. However, (\ref{EQN:betamusum}) and (\ref{EQN:betaetazero}) refer to different kinds of association because, although they are necessary conditions for $Y_{b}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{d}|X_{h}$, they are not sufficient for the same condition to hold true, and it can be easily checked that neither (\ref{EQN:betamusum}) implies (\ref{EQN:betaetazero}) nor (\ref{EQN:betaetazero}) implies (\ref{EQN:betamusum}). From this perspective, it makes little sense to state that \emph{HIV has no-effect on the association of $Y_{b}$ and $Y_{d}$} if a clear interpretation to equalities (\ref{EQN:betamusum}) and (\ref{EQN:betaetazero}) is not provided.
The interpretation of equality (\ref{EQN:betamusum}) is straightforward. It states a connection between regressions of different order and implies that the effect of HIV on the distribution of $Y^{bd}$ is explained by the effects of HIV on the marginal distributions of $Y_{b}$ and $Y_{d}$. More interestingly, it provides an useful insight on the behaviour of relative risks because (\ref{EQN:betamusum}) is equivalent to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:exa.RR.factorization}
RR_{h}(\{Y_{b}=1\}\cap \{Y_{d}=1\})=RR_{h}(Y_{b}=1)\times RR_{h}(Y_{d}=1)
\end{eqnarray}
that is, if we are willing to interpret the effect of HIV by means of relative risks, then (\ref{EQN:betamusum}) allows one to carry out the analysis marginally on the regression equations for the main responses,
because the computation of the relative risk of the joint event $\{Y_{b}=1\}\cap\{Y_{d}=1\}$ does not require the joint distribution of $Y_{bd}|X_{h}$ but only the marginal distributions of $Y_{b}|X_{h}$ and $Y_{d}|X_{h}$ as in the case where $Y_{b}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{d}|X_{h}$.
Multivariate logistic regression parameters are naturally associated with odds ratios, which play a very fundamental role among association measures for categorical data. However, we deem that, in this context, the interpretation of (\ref{EQN:betamusum}) is more straightforward than (\ref{EQN:betaetazero}). Indeed, the latter is equivalent to the identity $OR(Y_{bd}|\emptyset)=OR(Y_{bd}|h)$ that, unlike (\ref{EQN:exa.RR.factorization}), does not explains how the marginal effects of HIV on bone fracture and diabetes combine together to give the effect of HIV on the $\{b,d\}$-response association.
\end{exmp}
This example shows that the LM regression coefficients provide a clear way to investigate the effect of a covariate on the association of two binary variables and the following theorem generalises this result to $D$-response associations.
\begin{thm}\label{THM:independence.betamu}
Let $\mu$ be the mean parameter of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$ and $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}=\log(\mu)M_{U}$. Then, for a pair of disjoint nonempty subsets $A$ and $B$ of $V$ it holds that $Y_{A}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{B}|X_{U}$ if and only if for every $D\subseteq A\cup B$ and $E\subseteq U$, with both $D\cap A\neq\emptyset$ and $D\cap B\neq\emptyset$, it holds that $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)= \mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)$ where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:reference.beta}
\mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)=-\sum_{D^{\prime}\subset D} (-1)^{|D\backslash D^{\prime}|}\; \beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D^{\prime}}(E).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu} shows that, whenever $Y_{D}$ can be split into two conditionally independent subvectors $Y_A$ and $Y_B$, then every coefficient of the LM regression with response $\log(\mu_{D})$ can be written as a linear combination of the corresponding coefficients in lower-order regressions. Hence, the difference between case and control patients with respect to $Y^{D}$ is not given by the effect of HIV on the association of all the comorbidities in $D$, but it is only the consequence of the effect that HIV has on the occurrence of the subsets $A$ and $B$ of comorbidity patterns.
For the case $U=\{u\}$, the relationship $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(u)=\mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(u)$ can be used to state that $X_{u}$
has no-effect on the $D$-response association and, as well as in Example~\ref{EXA:mob.reg.002}, this statement means that the effect of $X_{u}$ on the distribution of $Y^{D}$ is explained by the corresponding coefficients in lower-order regressions. Furtheremore, it follows immediately from (\ref{EQN.rel.risk.U1}) that the equality $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(u)=\mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(u)$ can be equivalently stated in terms of factorization of the relative risk $RR_{u}(Y^{D}=1)$ with respect to the collection of relative risks $RR_{u}(Y^{D^{\prime}}=1)$ for $D^{\prime}\subset D$.
\begin{exmp}[LM regression cont.]\label{EXA:mob.reg.003}
For the LM regression in Example~\ref{EXA:mob.reg.001} consider the case where $Y_{A}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{B}|X_{h}$ where $A$ and $B$ are nonempty, disjoint subsets of $V$ such that $A\cup B=V$. Then, it follows from Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu} both that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bcd}(\emptyset)=-\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{b}(\emptyset)-\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{c}(\emptyset)-\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{d}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bc}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bd}(\emptyset)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{cd}(\emptyset)
\end{eqnarray*}
and that
\begin{eqnarray*
&\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bcd}(h)=-\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{b}(h)-\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{c}(h)-\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{d}(h)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bc}(h)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bd}(h)+\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{cd}(h)&\\
\nonumber&\Updownarrow&\\
&RR_{h}(Y^{bcd}=1)=
\frac{RR_{h}(Y^{bc}=1)\times RR_{h}(Y^{bd}=1)\times RR_{h}(Y^{cd}=1)}
{RR_{h}(Y^{b}=1)\times RR_{h}(Y^{c}=1)\times RR_{h}(Y^{d}=1)}.&
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{exmp}
More generally, for the case $|U|>1$ it follows from Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu} that the relationship
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:no.effect.definition}
\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)=\mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)\quad\mbox{for every }E\subseteq U\mbox{ such that } u\in E
\end{eqnarray}
implies that every regression coefficient involving $X_{u}$ is the linear combination of the corresponding coefficients of lower-order regressions, and can be used to state that $X_{u}$ has no-effect on the $D$-response association. Also in this case, (\ref{EQN:no.effect.definition}) can be interpreted in terms of relative risks. Consider the collection of relative risks of the event $Y^{D}=1$, with respect to $X_{u}$, conditionally on the values of the remaining covariates $X_{U\backslash \{u\}}$, given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:relative.risk.E}
RR_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)=
\frac{\mathrm{pr}(Y^{D}=1|X_{u}=1,\; X_{E}=1, X_{U\backslash (E\cup \{u\})}=0)}
{\mathrm{pr}(Y^{D}=1|X_{u}=0,\; X_{E}=1, X_{U\backslash (E\cup \{u\})}=0)}\quad\mbox{for }E\subseteq U\backslash\{u\};
\end{eqnarray}
we recall that we set $RR_{u}(Y^{\emptyset}=1|E)=1$. Then we associate to every element of (\ref{EQN:relative.risk.E}) a reference value defined as follows.
\begin{defn}\label{DEF:reference.relative.risk} For $D\subseteq V$ with $|D|>1$, the \emph{reference relative risk} of the event $Y^{D}=1$ with respect to $X_{u}$ and a subset $E\subseteq U\backslash \{u\}$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray*
\mathcal{RR}_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)=\prod_{D^{\prime}\subset D}\; RR_{u}(Y^{D^{\prime}}=1| E)^{(-1)^{|D\backslash D^{\prime}|+1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{defn}
The following lemma states the connection between relative risks and regression coefficients as well as between reference relative risks in
Definition~\ref{DEF:reference.relative.risk} and Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu}.
\begin{lem}\label{THM:lemma.beta.b}
Let $\mu$ be the mean parameter of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$ and $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}=\log(\mu)M_{U}$. Then, for every $D\subseteq V$, $u\in U$ and $E\subseteq U\backslash \{u\}$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log RR_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)=\sum_{E^{\prime}\subseteq E} \beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E^{\prime}\cup \{u\})
\end{eqnarray*}
and, for $|D|>1$, that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log\mathcal{RR}_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)=\sum_{E^{\prime}\subseteq E} \mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E^{\prime}\cup \{u\}).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
The introduction of the reference relative risks is motivated by the following result,
\begin{cor}\label{THM:independence.RR}
Let the subset $D\subseteq V$ be such that there exists a proper partition $D=A\cup B$, with $A, B \neq \emptyset$, satisfying $Y_{A}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{B}|X_{U}$. Then for every $u\in U$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:THM.independence.RR.001}
RR_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)=\mathcal{RR}_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)\quad\mbox{ for every } E\subseteq U\backslash \{u\}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
Hence $\mathcal{RR}_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)$ is a reference value in the sense that it is the value taken by the corresponding relative risk when $Y_{D}$ can be split into two conditionally independent subvectors. If (\ref{EQN:THM.independence.RR.001}) is satisfied, then all the conditional relative risks of the events $\{Y^{D}=1\}$, with respect to $X_{u}$, are equal to their reference value. This implies that, as far as the relative risk of the multimorbidity pattern $D$ is of concern, the analysis can be carried out marginally on the distributions of $Y_{D^{\prime}}|X_{U}$ with $D^{\prime}\subset D$. The following corollary shows that one can interpret (\ref{EQN:no.effect.definition}) in terms of relative risks because it is equivalent to (\ref{EQN:THM.independence.RR.001}).
\begin{cor}\label{THM:independence.RRfff}
Let $\mu$ be the mean parameter of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$ and $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}=\log(\mu)M_{U}$. For any $D\subseteq V$, with $|D|>1$, and $u\in U$ the relationship (\ref{EQN:no.effect.definition}) is satisfied if and only if (\ref{EQN:THM.independence.RR.001}) is satisfied.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
We can conclude that LM regression provides a useful framework to investigate the effect of covariates on the association of responses. Submodels of interest involve possibly zero regression coefficients, as in Proposition~\ref{THM:ind.equal.beta.zero}, but, more commonly, regression coefficients which are linear combination of lower-order coefficients as in Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu}. This approach can be easily implemented because (i) it involves submodels defined by linear constraints on the regression parameters and (ii) the computation of $\mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)$ in (\ref{EQN:reference.beta}) does not require to specify explicitly the partition of $Y_{D}$ into independent subvectors. A shortcoming of LM regression is that in order to interpret the values of regression coefficients in
terms of conditional independence the coefficients must be contrasted with the
theoretical values (\ref{EQN:reference.beta}) given in Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu}. In the next section we show that LML regression provides a solution to this problem.
\subsection{Log-mean linear regression}
The LML regression model is obtained by setting $\theta$ in (\ref{EQN:betadef}) equal to the LML parameter $\gamma=M^{\top}_{V}\log(\mu)$ in (\ref{EQN:definition.of.gamma}), so that, in the saturated case, it follows from (\ref{EQN:beta-theta}) that
$\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}=\gamma M_{U}$ and $\gamma=\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}Z_{U}$; the latter can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:LML.regression}
\gamma_{D}(E)=\sum_{E^{\prime}\subseteq E}\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(E^{\prime})\quad\mbox{ for every }D\subseteq V, E\subseteq U.
\end{eqnarray}
There is a close connection between LM and LML regression given by a linear relationship between $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}$ and $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}$.
\begin{lem}\label{THM:betagamma.betamu}
Let $\mu$ and $\gamma$ be the mean and LML parameter, respectively, of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$ so that $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}=\log(\mu)M_{U}$ and $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}=\gamma M_{U}$. Then it holds that $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}=M_{V}^{\top}\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}$, that is for every $D\subseteq V$ and $E\subseteq U$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN.betagamma.betamu}
\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(E)=\sum_{D^{\prime}\subseteq D} (-1)^{|D\backslash D^{\prime}|}\;\beta_{D^{\prime}}^{\langle\mu\rangle}(E).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of Lemma~\ref{THM:betagamma.betamu}, submodels defined by zero LM regression coefficients as in Proposition~\ref{THM:ind.equal.beta.zero} can be equivalently stated by setting to zero the corresponding LML regression coefficients.
\begin{cor}\label{THM:cor.ind.equal.beta.zero}
Let $Y_{D}$ be the subvector of $Y_{V}$ indexed by $\emptyset\neq D\subseteq V$. For a subset $\emptyset\neq U^{\prime}\subseteq U$, it holds that $Y_{D}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} X_{U^{\prime}}|X_{U\backslash U^{\prime}}$ if and only if $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D^{\prime}}(E)=0$ for every $D^{\prime}\subseteq D$ and $E\subseteq U$ such that $E\cap U^{\prime}\neq\emptyset$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
Furthermore, it follows immediately from (\ref{EQN.betagamma.betamu}) that for $|D|\leq 1$ it holds that $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}=\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}$ whereas for $|D|>1$ LML regression coefficients allow one to immediately check whether a LM regression coefficients coincides with the associated theoretical value given in Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu}.
\begin{prop}\label{THM:gamma.equal.zero}
Let $\mu$ and $\gamma$ be the mean and LML parameter, respectively, of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$ so that $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}=\log(\mu)M_{U}$ and $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}=\gamma M_{U}$. Then for every $D\subseteq V$, such that $|D|>1$, and $E\subseteq U$ it holds that $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(E)=\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)-\mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)$ so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(E)=0\quad\mbox{if and only if}\quad \beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E)=\mathcal{B}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(E).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is an immediate consequence of (\ref{EQN.betagamma.betamu}).
\end{proof}
Hence, the relationship
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:no.effect.gamma}
\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(E)=0\quad\mbox{for every }E\subseteq U\mbox{ such that } u\in E
\end{eqnarray}
is equivalent to both (\ref{EQN:no.effect.definition}) and (\ref{EQN:THM.independence.RR.001}) and we can conclude that LML regression is equivalent to LM regression for the purposes of our analysis, with the advantage that all the submodels of interest can be specified by setting LML regression coefficients to zero. Furthermore, the value of the regression coefficients $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}$ can be used to contrast relative risks with the corresponding reference values as follows.
\begin{cor}\label{THM:gamma.interpretation}
Let $\gamma$ be the LML parameter of $Y_{V}|X_{U}$ so that $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}=\gamma M_{U}$. Then for every $D\subseteq V$, such that $|D|>1$, and $E\subseteq U$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:ratio.of.RR}
\log\frac{RR_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)}{\mathcal{RR}_{u}(Y^{D}=1|E)}=\sum_{E^{\prime}\subseteq E} \beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(E^{\prime}\cup \{u\})
\end{eqnarray}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
See Appendix A.
\end{proof}
Note that, interestingly, Corollary~\ref{THM:gamma.interpretation} implies that for the case $|U|=1$ the LML regression coefficients such that $|D|>1$ have an immediate interpretation as deviation of a relative risk from its reference value
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EQN:beta.gamma.single.covariate}
\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(u)=\log \frac{RR_{u}(Y^{D}=1)}{\mathcal{RR}_{u}(Y^{D}=1)}.
\end{eqnarray}
We close this section by noticing that also the LM and the LML regression models belong to the family of generalized log-linear models. This allows us to exploit the asymptotic results of \citet{lang:1996} for the computation of maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) and for model comparison. Nevertheless, we remark that the regression framework introduced in this paper is entirely novel.
Both the LM and the LML link functions allow us to specify the functional relationship between $\pi$ and the regression coefficients in closed form. This is a specific property that is not shared by the wider class of generalised log-linear models, and that makes it possible to specify closed-form functional relationships between regression coefficients of different responses. In turn, this is the basis for the factorization of relative risks with respect to the corresponding relative risks of lower order regressions.
\section{Analysis of multimorbidity data}\label{sec:app}
We now apply the LM and the LML regression models to the analysis of the multimorbidity data described in Section~\ref{SEC:multimorbidity}. We consider four response variables: $Y_{b}=\;$\emph{Bone fracture}, $Y_{c}=\;$\emph{Cardiovascular disease}, $Y_{d}=\;$\emph{Diabetes} and $Y_{r}=\;$\emph{Renal failure}. Hence, $V=\{b,c,d,r\}$ and $Y_V$ takes values in $\{0,1\}^{4}$ where, for each variable, the value 1 encodes the presence of the disease. The four responses define 11 multimorbidity patterns denoted by the subsets $D\subseteq V$ with $|D|\geq 2$ and we say that $k=|D|$ is the \emph{size} of the multimorbidity pattern.
For the computation of MLEs we applied the algorithm and the maximization procedure given in \citet{lang:1996} properly adjusted
to account for the inclusion of the LM and LML link functions; for technical details and a review of further maximization approaches
see also \citet{eva-for:2013} and references therein.
It is well established that asymptotic methods are not efficient when the table of observed counts is sparse, that is when many cells have small frequencies \citep[see][Section~10.6]{agresti2013categorical}. For a given sample size, sparsity increases with the number of variables included in the analysis, therefore inference is less reliable for response associatons of higher-order since they are computed on the relevant marginal tables. In order to keep sparsity at an acceptable level, we restrict the analysis to the effect of two binary covariates indexed by $U=\{a, h\}$; specifially, $X_{h}=\,$\emph{HIV} with the level 1 encoding the presence of the infection and $X_{a}=\,$\emph{Age} with the value 1 for patients aged 45 or more. Firstly, in Subsection \ref{subsec:appH}, we consider the regression model including only the covariate $X_h$, so that each regression coefficient represents the marginal effect of HIV on a $D$-response associations. Next, in Subsection \ref{subsec:appAH} we consider a regression model with two covariates including also the effect of age.
We remark that the case-control design for this study is not based on an outcome-dependent sampling. In fact the enrollment of each patient is independent of the disease status given the HIV status and further individual covariates. Therefore, for this case-study the population relative risk represents an identifiable measure of association, unlike case-control designs where the sample selection depends on the outcome of interest.
\subsection{The single covariate case}\label{subsec:appH}
When only the covariate $X_{h}$ is included in the model, the regression coefficients have a straightforward interpretation in terms of relative risks for cases versus controls. Indeed, in the LM regression model, it holds that for $|D|=1$ the coefficient
$\beta^{\langle \mu \rangle}_D(h)$ is the log-relative risk of the occurrence of single commorbidities and, otherwise, it is the log-relative risk of the occurrence of the multimorbidity pattern $D$; see (\ref{EQN.rel.risk.U1}). In the LML regression, the coefficient $\beta^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$ is equal to $\beta^{\langle \mu \rangle}_D(h)$ in case of single responses,
otherwise it is the log-ratio of the relative and the reference relative risks for the occurrence of the multimorbidity pattern $D$, as shown in (\ref{EQN:beta.gamma.single.covariate}). Hence, from Proposition \ref{THM:gamma.equal.zero}, the no-effect of HIV defined by $\beta^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)=0$ with $|D|> 1$ implies that the relative risk equals the reference relative risk for the multimorbidity pattern $D$. Conversely, a positive or a negative value of $\beta^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$ states that the relative risk for the pattern $D$ is higher or lower than its reference relative risk, respectively.
As a preliminary analysis, we provide in Table~\ref{tab.full_Hsat} the MLEs under the saturated LM and LML regression models.
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{table}[p]\small{
\centering
\caption{The saturated LML and LM regression models for $Y_V|X_h$. The table gives the MLEs of the regression coefficients with their standard error (s.e.) and $p$-value.}
\hspace*{-4mm}\begin{tabular}{l|rrrrrr|rrrrrr}
\hline
$D$ & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(\emptyset)$ & s.e. & $p$-value & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_D(h)$ & s.e. & $p$-value & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_D(\emptyset)$ & s.e. & $p$-value & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_D(h)$ & s.e. & $p$-value \\
\hline
$\{b\}$ & -4.573 & 0.106 & $<\!.001$ & 2.621 & 0.115 & $<\!.001$ & -4.573 & 0.106 & $<\!.001$ & 2.621 &0.115 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{c\}$ & -4.476 & 0.101 & $<\!.001$ & 1.056 & 0.143 & $<\!.001$ & -4.476 & 0.101 & $<\!.001$ & 1.056 & 0.143 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{d\}$ & -3.255 & 0.054 & $<\!.001$ & 1.061 & 0.075 & $<\!.001$ & -3.255 & 0.054 & $<\!.001$ & 1.061 & 0.075 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{r\}$ & -6.321 & 0.251 & $<\!.001$ & 3.570 & 0.261 & $<\!.001$ & -6.321 & 0.251 & $<\!.001$ & 3.570 & 0.261 &$<\!.001$ \\[1mm]
$\{b, c\}$ & 1.158 & 0.524 & 0.027 & -0.737& 0.558 & 0.187 & -7.892 & 0.541 & $<\!.001$ & 2.941 & 0.584 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{b, d\}$ & 0.422 & 0.415 & 0.309 & -0.539& 0.437 & 0.217 & -7.407 & 0.430 & $<\!.001$ & 3.144 & 0.457 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{b, r\}$ & 0.230 & 0.272 & 0.398 & -0.257& 0.325 & 0.429 & -10.665 & 0.005 & $<\!.001$ & 5.935 & 0.198 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{c, d\}$ & 1.776 & 0.181 & $<\!.001$ & -1.165& 0.268 & $<\!.001$ & -5.955 & 0.211 & $<\!.001$ & 0.953 & 0.309 &0.002 \\
$\{c, r\}$ & 0.133 & 0.270 & 0.622 & 0.404 & 0.393 & 0.304 & -10.665 & 0.005 & $<\!.001$ & 5.030 & 0.310 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{d, r\}$ & 1.684 & 0.483 & $<\!.001$ & -0.863& 0.497 & 0.082 & -7.892 & 0.541 & $<\!.001$ & 3.768 & 0.560 &$<\!.001$ \\[1mm]
$\{b, c, d\}$& -0.011 & 0.697 & 0.987 & -0.553& 0.909 & 0.543 & -8.960 & 0.909 & $<\!.001$ & 1.745 & 1.131 &0.123 \\
$\{b, c, r\}$ & 2.493 & 0.581 & $<\!.001$ & -1.846& 0.676 & 0.006 & -11.358 & 0.005 & $<\!.001$ & 4.812 & 0.487 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{b, d, r\}$ & 0.456 & 0.634 & 0.472 & -0.101& 0.681 & 0.882 & -11.358 & 0.005 & $<\!.001$ & 5.493 & 0.349 &$<\!.001$ \\
$\{c, d, r\}$ & -0.898 & 0.513 & 0.080 & 0.748 & 0.616 & 0.225 & -11.358 & 0.005 & $<\!.001$ & 4.812 & 0.487 &$<\!.001$ \\[1mm]
$\{b, c, d, r\}$ & -0.867 & 0.846 & 0.305 & 0.742 & 1.015 & 0.465 & -12.051 & 0.005 & $<\!.001$ & 4.143 & 0.952 &$<\!.001$ \\\hline
\end{tabular} \label{tab.full_Hsat}}
\end{table}
To clarify the meaning of the values given in this table consider, for instance, the disease pattern $\{b,c\}$, that is \emph{bone fracture--diabetes}. The estimated LM coefficient $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bc}(h)=2.941$ provides a strong evidence of the existence of an effect of HIV on the co-occurrence of the two diseases whereas the corresponding LML parameter estimate $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{bc}(h)=-0.737$ is not significantly different from zero, and this can be interpreted as no-effect of HIV on the association of the two diseases. More specifically, the estimated relative risk of the co-occurrence of bone fracture and diabetes takes value $\exp\{\hat{\beta}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{bc}(h)\}=\exp(2.941)=18.9$ and is significantly different from 1; however, it is not significantly different from the product of the two marginal relative risks given by $\exp\{\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{b}(h)\}\times\exp\{\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{c}(h)\}$. The latter is the value taken by the relative risk of the co-occurrence of the two diseases when $Y_{b}\mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_{c}|X_{h}$ and therefore it implies that the relative risk of the co-occurrence of the two diseases only depends on the marginal relative risks of the two diseases rather than on the way the two diseases associate to give the multimorbidity pattern. Different is the case of the disease pattern $\{c, d\}$ because in this case the estimated LML coefficient $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{cd}(h)=-1.165$ is significantly different form zero and negative and therefore the relative risk of the co-occurrence of the two diseases is significantly smaller than expected in the case the two diseases are conditionally independent given HIV. We remark that, when we say that a regression coefficient is significantly different from zero we refer to the statistical test, at level 5\%, based on the asymptotic normal distribution of the MLEs.
As expected (see the discussion following Proposition~\ref{THM:ind.equal.beta.zero})
in Table~\ref{tab.full_Hsat} the estimated log-relative risks $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \mu \rangle}_D(h)$ are positive for every single disease and for every multimorbidity pattern. Furthermore, all the corresponding regression coefficients are significantly different from zero, except for the pattern $\{b,c,d\}$. The lowest relative risk corresponds to the pattern $\{c, d\}$, whereas the highest relative risks are in correspondence of the patterns $\{b, r\}$, $\{c, r\}$ and $\{b, d, r\}$.
More informative is the analysis of the LML regression coefficients. Indeed, most of the coefficients $\beta^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$ are not significantly different from zero, thereby providing an empirical evidence that the log-relative risks for the corresponding disease patterns are positive as a consequence of the effect of HIV on the single diseases they are composed, rather than for an effect of HIV on the associations of diseases. It is interesting that most of the coefficients $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$, for $|D| \geq 2$, take a negative value. This is especially true for the multimorbidity patterns of size two, suggesting that the corresponding relative risks, although positive, take a value that is smaller than the value one would expect in case of conditional independence of the diseases.
The results provided by the saturated model can be summarized considering the average HIV-effect for disease patterns of the same size $k$, under the LM and LML approaches.
In particular, we compute the average of
$\hat{\beta}^{\langle \mu \rangle}_D(h)$ and of $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$, for $D$-response associations of the same size; see Appendix~B for further details.
Confidence intervals for these effects are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:CI}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{plot_bemu_sat
\hspace*{5mm}
\includegraphics[scale=.7]{plot_bega_sat
\end{center}\caption{Confidence intervals of the average HIV-effect for response associations for disease patterns of the same size under the saturated LM and LML regression models.}\label{fig:CI}
\end{figure}
The plot in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:CI} gives the estimated LM average effect, i.e. the average log-relative risk for the occurrence of multimorbidity patterns of the same size, which clearly increases with the size of the disease pattern. On the other hand, the plot in the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:CI} shows the estimated LML average effect, that is the average effect of HIV on the association among diseases forming patterns of the same size. This effect appears to be negative for patterns of size $k=2$ and it might be null for $k=3$ and $k=4$.
Next, we apply the forward inclusion stepwise procedure described in Appendix B and select, in this way, the LML regression submodel given in Table~\ref{tab.full_H}. The latter provides a very good fit of the data with a deviance 3.45 on 12 degrees of freedom and $p$-value, computed on the asymptotic chi-square distribution of the deviance, equal to 0.99. In the selected model there is no effect of HIV on the associations $\{b,c\}$, $\{b,d\}$, $\{b,r\}$, $\{c,r\}$, $\{d,r\}$, $\{b,c,d\}$ and $\{c,d,r\}$. Furthermore, it follows from Theorem~\ref{THM:independence.betamu} and Proposition~\ref{THM:gamma.equal.zero} that, under the selected model, three pairs of responses are conditionally independent given HIV, specifically, $Y_b \mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_d|X_h$, $Y_b \mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_r|X_h$ and $Y_c \mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_r|X_h$.
\begin{table}
\centering\caption{The selected LML, and the corresponding LM, regression model for $Y_V|X_h$. The table gives the MLEs of the regression coefficients with their standard error (s.e.) and $p$-value.}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{l|rrrrrr|rrrr}
\hline
$D$ & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(\emptyset)$ & s.e. & $p$-value & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_D(h)$ & s.e. & $p$-value & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_D(\emptyset)$ & s.e. & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle\mu\rangle}_D(h)$ & s.e. \\
\hline
$\{b\}$ & -4.534 & 0.088 & $<\!.001$ & 2.579 & 0.100 & $<\!.001$ & -4.534 & 0.088 & 2.579& 0.100 \\
$\{c\}$ & -4.474 & 0.093 & $<\!.001$ & 1.056 & 0.138 & $<\!.001$ & -4.474 & 0.093 & 1.056& 0.138 \\
$\{d\}$ & -3.253 & 0.053 & $<\!.001$ & 1.058 & 0.075 & $<\!.001$ & -3.253 & 0.053 & 1.058& 0.075 \\
$\{r\}$ & -6.131 & 0.089 & $<\!.001$ & 3.383 & 0.114 & $<\!.001$ & -6.131 & 0.089 & 3.383& 0.114 \\[1mm]
$\{b, c\}$ & 0.443 & 0.181 & 0.014 & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -8.565 & 0.227 & 3.635& 0.178 \\
$\{b, d\}$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -7.787 & 0.101 & 3.637& 0.122 \\
$\{b, r\}$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -10.665 & 0.011 & 5.962& 0.086 \\
$\{c, d\}$ & 1.777 & 0.124 & $<\!.001$ & -1.232 & 0.235 & $<\!.001$ & -5.950 & 0.182 & 0.882& 0.291 \\
$\{c, r\}$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -10.605 & 0.118 & 4.439& 0.172 \\
$\{d, r\}$ & 0.840 & 0.102 & $<\!.001$ &$\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -8.544 & 0.155 & 4.440& 0.142 \\[1mm]
$\{b, c, d\}$& $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -10.041 & 0.261 & 3.461& 0.299 \\
$\{b, c, r\}$ & 3.337 & 0.202 & $<\!.001$ & -2.631 & 0.431 & $<\!.001$ & -11.358 & 0.006 & 4.387& 0.439 \\
$\{b, d, r\}$ & 1.720 & 0.112 & $<\!.001$ & -1.382 & 0.238 & $<\!.001$ & -11.358 & 0.011 & 5.638& 0.251 \\
$\{c, d, r\}$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -11.241 & 0.222 & 4.264& 0.323 \\[1mm]
$\{b, c, d, r\}$& -1.777 & 0.124 & $<\!.001$ & 1.284 & 0.530 & 0.015 & -12.051 & 0.006 & 4.115& 0.729 \\\hline
\end{tabular} \label{tab.full_H}}
\end{table}
We now look more closely at the values taken by the estimated regression coefficients given in Table~\ref{tab.full_H}. We base this analysis on the asymptotic normal distribution of the MLEs, but it is important to remark that, as we are dealing with post-selection parameter estimates, there might be distortions on the sampling distributions; see \citet{berk-al:2013} for a discussion and recent developments. The highest estimated relative risks are for multimorbidity patterns $\{b, r\}$ and $\{b, d, r\}$ with 95\% confidence intervals $(5.793; 6.130)$ and $(5.146; 6.130)$, respectively. More generally, high relative risks are given in correspondence of multimorbidity patterns including \emph{Renal failure}.
The negative values taken by the estimates $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$ for the remaining patterns of size two and three suggest that the relative risks of the multimorbidity patterns $\{c, d\}$, $\{b, d, r\}$ and $\{b, c, r\}$ are lower than their reference relative risks. For the disease pattern of size 4 the estimate of $\beta^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$ is positive suggesting that the relative risk of the pattern $\{b, c, d, r\}$ is higher than its reference relative risk.
\subsection{The two-covariate case}\label{subsec:appAH}
We now introduce in the analysis of the previous section the additional covariate $X_{a}=Age$ and apply the model selection procedure
described in Appendix~B to obtain the model given in Table~\ref{tab.full_AH}. Such model has deviance $32.996$ on 33 degrees of freedom ($p=0.467$).
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}\caption{The selected LML, and the corresponding LM, regression model for $Y_V|X_{ah}$. The table gives the MLEs of the regression coefficients with their standard error (s.e.) and $p$-value.}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{l|rrrrrrrrr|rr}
\hline
$D$ & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(\emptyset)$ & s.e. & $p$-value & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(a)$ & s.e. & $p$-value& $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$ & s.e. & $p$-value & $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \mu \rangle}_D(h)$ & s.e. \\
\hline
$\{b\}$ & -4.717 & 0.117 & $<\!.001$ & 0.274 & 0.087 & 0.002 & 2.604 & 0.113 & $<\!.001$ & 2.604 & 0.113 \\
$\{c\}$ & -5.347 & 0.170 &$<\!.001$ & 1.268 & 0.175 &$<\!.001$ & 1.044 & 0.140 & $<\!.001$ & 1.044 & 0.140 \\
$\{d\}$ & -4.052 & 0.093 &$<\!.001$ & 1.159 & 0.095 & $<\!.001$ & 1.059 &0.074 &$<\!.001$ & 1.059 & 0.074\\
$\{r\}$ & -6.745 & 0.223 & $<\!.001$ & 0.869 & 0.153 & $<\!.001$ & 3.419 & 0.219 &$<\!.001$ & 3.419 & 0.219 \\[1mm]
$\{b, c\}$ & 1.292 & 0.273 & $<\!.001$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$& -0.907 & 0.329 &0.006 & 2.742 & 0.363 \\
$\{b, d\}$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& 3.663 & 0.135 \\
$\{b, r\}$ & 2.732 & 0.287 & $<\!.001$ & -0.720 & 0.322 & 0.025 & -2.223 & 0.361 & $<\!.001$ & 3.799 & 0.375 \\
$\{c, d\}$ & 2.421 & 0.308 &$<\!.001$ & -0.980 & 0.312 & 0.002 & -1.119 & 0.257 &$<\!.001$ & 0.985 & 0.297 \\
$\{c, r\}$ & 2.252 & 0.262 &$<\!.001$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & -1.881 & 0.379 & $<\!.001$ & 2.582 & 0.348 \\
$\{d, r\}$ & 2.249 & 0.294 &$<\!.001$ & -0.628 & 0.279 &0.024 & -1.053 & 0.320 &0.001 & 3.425 & 0.348 \\ [1mm]
$\{b, c, d\}$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& 2.682 & 0.442\\
$\{b, c, r\}$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$ & 2.056 & 0.474 \\
$\{b, d, r\}$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& 3.805 & 0.389 \\
$\{c, d, r\}$ & -1.312 & 0.376 & $<\!.001$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$& 1.299 &0.485 &0.007 & 2.769 & 0.579 \\ [1mm]
$\{b, c, d, r\}$& $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$ & $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& $\cdot$& 2.242 & 0.661 \\\hline
\end{tabular} \label{tab.full_AH}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
When the model includes more than one covariate, the regression coefficients can be used to compute conditional relative risks as shown in Lemma~\ref{THM:lemma.beta.b} and Corollary~\ref{THM:gamma.interpretation}. However, in the model resulting from the application of the selection procedure the interactions $\beta_D^{\langle \gamma \rangle}(ah)$ are equal to zero for every $D\subseteq V$ and, by (\ref{EQN.mon.Mobius}) and
(\ref{EQN.betagamma.betamu}), this implies that also $\beta_D^{\langle \mu \rangle}(ah)$ are equal to zero for every $D\subseteq V$. As a consequence, in the selected model the regression coefficients have a direct interpretation in term of conditional relative risks, for every $D\subseteq V$, as follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(h)=\log RR_h(Y^D=1|\emptyset)=\log RR_h(Y^D=1|a)
\end{eqnarray*}
and similarly for $\beta^{\langle\mu\rangle}_{D}(a)$. LML regression coefficients coincide with LM regression coefficients for $|D|\leq 1$ whereas, for $|D|>1$, if follows from (\ref{THM:gamma.interpretation}) that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(h)=\log \frac{RR_h(Y^D=1|\emptyset)}{\mathcal{RR}_h(Y^D=1|\emptyset)}=\log \frac{RR_h(Y^D=1|a)}{\mathcal{RR}_h(Y^D=1|a)}
\end{eqnarray*}
and similarly for $\beta^{\langle\gamma\rangle}_{D}(a)$.
Table~\ref{tab.full_AH} includes, for every $D \subseteq V$, the estimates $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \mu \rangle}_D(h)$ of the corresponding LM regression model. As well as in the model with one covariate, also in this case the fitted model provides high relative risks of patterns involving \emph{Renal failure}. Nevertheless, compared with the results illustrated in Section \ref{subsec:appH}, the inclusion of \emph{Age} leads to a sensitive reduction of the estimated relative risk $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \mu \rangle}_D(h)$ for most of the multimorbidity patterns.
The fitted model shows a negative value of the estimates $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(h)$ for most of the patterns of size two, except for the pattern $D=\{b,d\}$ where the model constraints imply the conditional independence relationship $Y_b \mbox{$\perp \! \! \! \perp$} Y_d|X_{ah}$. According to the selected model, HIV has no-effect on every $D$-response association of size $|D|>2$ with the exception of the pattern $\{c,d,r\}$.
The estimates of the LML regression coefficients $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(a)$
show a positive value in univariate regressions
as they coincide with the estimates of the log-relative risk of a single comorbidity for the increasing of age; in particular, the highest estimates are for the events $\{Y_c=1\}$ and $\{Y_d=1\}$, whereas the lowest is for $\{Y_b=1\}$. For most of the multimorbidity patterns, the dataset supports the hypotheses of no-effect of age with $\hat{\beta}^{\langle \gamma \rangle}_D(a)=0$, except for patterns $\{b,r\}$, $\{c,d\}$ and $\{d,r\}$ where the estimates of the corresponding coefficients are negative.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discuss}
A wide range of alternative link functions for binary data have been proposed in the literature and, in particular, the marginal log-linear approach of \citet{ber-rud:2002} provides a wide and flexible class of links including the multivariate logistic one. However, in marginal regression modeling, iterative procedures need to be typically used to compute the cell probabilities from the parameters of the model. A key property of both the LM and the LML link functions is that probabilities can be analytically computed from the parameters. This inverse closed-form mapping is a distinguishing feature that confers our approach fundamental advantages that are not generally shared by other methods. In particular, this makes it possible to derive a closed-form functional relationships between the coefficients of regressions of different order that turns out to be very convenient when the interest is on the association of responses as in the multimorbidity application or, more generally, as stated by the line of enquiry (iii) given in \citet[][Sec.~6.5]{mcc-nel:1989}; see also Section~\ref{sec.intro}. More concretely, suitable collections of zero LML coefficients imply
the analysis in terms of relative risks can be equivalently performed in marginal distributions of the responses, even when independence relationships between responses do not hold true. Similar conclusions cannot be drawn by looking, for instance, at the coefficients of regressions based on the multivariate logistic link where analysis in terms of covariate effect on response associations can be equivalently carried out in marginal distributions only in case of independence.
With respect to the lines of enquiry given in Section~\ref{sec.intro}, we remark that
although the main focus of this paper is on the line of enquiry (iii), the LM and the LML regression models are useful also when the interest is for the lines of enquiry (i) and (ii).
Firstly, with respect to (i), that is the analysis of the dependence structure of each response marginally on covariates, a central role is played by multivariate logistic regression because it maintains a marginal logistic regression interpretation for the single outcomes.
However, when the interest is for relative risks, rather than odds ratios,
the LM and LML regression models provide a useful alternative.
Secondly, when (ii) is of concern, that is a model for the joint distribution of all responses, Proposition~\ref{THM:ind.equal.beta.zero} and Corollary~\ref{THM:cor.ind.equal.beta.zero} show that the LM and LML regression models allow one to identify independencies among subsets of responses, conditionally on covariates. Interestingly, this feature is shared by the multivariate logistic regression \citep{mar-lup:2011} and, more precisely, the family of regression graph models \citep[see][]{wermuth2012sequencies} for binary data turns out as a special case of our approach. However, the regression graph representation of the model does not give the associations of responses and therefore we do not pursue this aspect here.
Future research directions for the class of LM and LML regression models involve the extension to response variables with an arbitrary number of levels, following a similar generalization of the LM and the LML parameterizations provided by \citet{roverato2015log}. It is also of interest the inclusion of continuous covariates and of additive random effects which may be
useful in the case where the sampling design induces unobserved correlation between
units which cannot be totally explained by the covariates. Unlike other approaches to regressions for categorical responses, such as the GEE models, the LM and LML regressions do not seem to lend themselves to semi-parametric fitting approaches because correlations between responses are regarded as parameters of interest rather than as nuisance parameters.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We gratefully acknowledge Mauro Gasparini, Luca La Rocca and Nanny Wermuth for helpful discussions. We thank two Referees for their helpful comments.
|
\section{Motivations}
Dark matter (DM) with non-vanishing couplings to ordinary matter may be probed in underground direct-detection experiments. Such couplings can arise from short-range interactions with protons and neutrons, or via weak interactions with photons.
The latter are particularly relevant whenever the DM field $X$ directly couples to messengers that carry electro-weak charges, but couple only very weakly to gluons, the standard model (SM) fermions, and the Higgs boson. In these scenarios, complex DM with spin will generically acquire electro-magnetic dipole moments. These lead to very large direct detection (DD) signatures, and have already been studied by many authors~\cite{Bagnasco:1993st}\cite{Pospelov:2000bq}\cite{Sigurdson:2004zp}\cite{Barger:2010gv}\cite{Banks:2010eh}\cite{Vecchi:2013iza}.
Here we are interested in the alternative scenarios with self-conjugate $X$ (real scalar, Majorana fermion, real vector, etc.) in which DD is controlled by the DM electro-magnetic polarizability. We define the latter according to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Ogamma}
\delta{\cal L}\supset\frac{C_\gamma}{\Lambda^3}O_\gamma,~~~~~~~~~~{O}_\gamma=F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\,\overline{X}X,
\end{eqnarray}
with $F^{\mu\nu}$ the photon field strength.~\footnote{At scales relevant to DD experiments, couplings to the intermediate $W^\pm,Z^0$ bosons effectively describe short-range interactions between DM and nucleons.} For definiteness we assume $X$ is a Majorana fermion, but our results apply to self-conjugate DM of any spin. Strictly speaking, there is another $C$ and $P$ invariant operator that contributes to the DM polarizability at leading order in a momentum expansion. In the non-relativistic limit we may write it as $F_{\mu\alpha}F_{\nu\alpha}v^\mu v^\nu\,\overline{X}X$, where $v^\mu$ is the DM 4-velocity. Note that one of the two DM velocities arises from a derivative on the DM field (if the DM is a boson, both of them). Therefore, the latter operator is parametrically suppressed compared to $O_\gamma$ when the scale of the charged mediator inducing (\ref{Ogamma}) is much heavier than the DM mass, but cannot be neglected when the two scales approach each other. The important point for us is that both operators lead, up to small velocity-suppressed corrections, to the same direct detection matrix element, so a distinction between the two is not relevant to our work. In fact, in the limit of small DM velocity $v^\mu\to(1,\overrightarrow{0})$, and the second operator effectively reduces to $F_{0i}F_{0i}\,\overline{X}X$. Analogously, because the photon field in $O_\gamma$ dominantly couples to the zeroth component of the nucleon current, $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\,\overline{X}X\to F_{0i}F_{0i}\,\overline{X}X$. In the following we will denote the DM polarizability by $O_\gamma$, but the reader should keep in mind that when discussing specific UV completions with no large gap between the DM and the charged mediators masses another operator might be present. In addition, there may be $C$ and $P$ violating operators involving the Levi-Civita tensor, such as $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu}\,\overline{X}X$ and $F_{\mu\alpha}\widetilde{F}_{\nu\alpha}v^\mu v^\nu\,\overline{X}X$.
Self-conjugate DM also couples to photons via the anapole operator $\overline{X} s_\mu X\partial_\nu F^{\mu\nu}$, with $s_\mu$ the DM spin. This has lower dimensionality and generically dominates over $O_\gamma$ unless additional assumptions are made. Since the anapole violates separately $C$ and $P$, while $O_\gamma$ does not, a natural way to suppress its effects is to assume that the dark sector approximately respects either $C$ or $P$. Similarly, $\widetilde O_\gamma=\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F_{\mu\nu} F_{\alpha\beta}i\overline{X}\gamma^5 X$ can dominate over the anapole if the dark sector is approximately $C/P$ invariant. We thus conclude that, under reasonable and generic conditions, the couplings of self-conjugate DM to photons are controlled by $O_\gamma, \widetilde O_\gamma$.
Direct detection via DM polarizability was first studied in~\cite{Pospelov:2000bq} in the limit in which the interaction is described by a DM wave propagating in the electro-magnetic field of an infinitely heavy target nucleus. Later, the authors of ref.~\cite{Weiner:2012cb} emphasized that DM scattering for arbitrary masses proceeds via a photon loop, and estimated the rate using an effective field theory for the nucleus. More recent work on the DD signatures of (\ref{Ogamma}) can be found in~\cite{Frandsen:2012db} and~\cite{Crivellin:2014gpa}.
In this paper we present a detailed analysis of the DD signature induced by $O_\gamma$ and $\widetilde O_\gamma$. After a qualitative discussion of the nucleon/target effective field theory (EFT) in section~\ref{sec:EFT}, our main results for $O_\gamma$ are presented in sec.~\ref{sec:nucleonEFT}. A numerical study in section~\ref{sec:signatures} emphasizes the unique nature of the corresponding DD signature. A comparison between our results and the existing literature is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:vanish}. The operator $\widetilde O_\gamma$ is discussed in section~\ref{sec:Ogammatilde}. In section~\ref{sec:UV} we emphasize some important features that characterize UV complete models with unsuppressed $O_\gamma, \widetilde O_\gamma$, and comment on the coupling $\overline{X}XH^\dagger H$. A summary of our results is presented in section~\ref{conclusions}.
\section{EFT at a qualitative level}
\label{sec:EFT}
We start with an analysis of $O_\gamma$, whereas $\widetilde O_\gamma$ will be discussed later on.
There are two types of direct detection signatures that (\ref{Ogamma}) can lead to: an elastic scattering $XT\to XT$ (here $T$ stands for the target nuclei) or an inelastic process $XT\to XT\gamma$~\cite{Weiner:2012cb}. The first is numerically a loop effect. The latter process arises at tree-level, but its rate is suppressed at least by a factor $v^24\pi/\alpha\sim10^{-3}$ ($v$ is the incoming DM velocity) compared to the former, and is therefore completely negligible.
\subsection{The nucleon Lagrangian}
\label{sec:nucleon}
The rate for the elastic scattering $XT\to XT$ may be found exploiting the hierarchy of scales
\begin{eqnarray}
q\lesssim Q_0\ll m_N\ll m_T,
\end{eqnarray}
with $q$ the momentum transfer, $1/Q_0$ the radius of $T$, $m_N$ the nucleon mass, and $m_T$ the target mass.
One first performs the RG evolution from the new physics scale $\sim\Lambda$ to the scale $\sim m_c$. Here one finds that $O_\gamma$ mixes with the quark mass operators $O_q=\overline{q}HqX^2$ at one loop, and the latter with the gluon operator $O_G=\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}G_{\mu\nu}^2X^2$ via an additional QCD loop. In addition, one should take care of the top and bottom quark thresholds. Once this is done, the EFT at leading order in $q/m_c$ reads $\sum_{i=\gamma,u,d,s,G}\frac{C_i}{\Lambda^3}O_i$ where, up to $O(1)$ numbers,
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{q,G}(m_c)\sim C_{q,G}(\Lambda)+\frac{\alpha}{\pi}C_\gamma(\Lambda),
\end{eqnarray}
with $\alpha=e^2/4\pi$ the fine structure constant. In section~\ref{sec:UV} we argue that the natural expectation in realistic models is $C_{q,G}(\Lambda)\gtrsim\frac{\alpha}{\pi}C_\gamma(\Lambda)$, with $C_{q,G}(\Lambda)\sim\frac{\alpha}{\pi}C_\gamma(\Lambda)$ achievable under reasonable conditions.
The Wilson coefficients $C_{q,G,\gamma}(m_c)$ can be calculated using standard perturbation theory (see~\cite{Frandsen:2012db}\cite{Crivellin:2014gpa} for a discussion of the case $C_{q,G}(\Lambda)=0$). Alternatively, one can derive the leading non-derivative interactions of $X$ by simply observing that (\ref{Ogamma}) renormalizes the QED gauge coupling. By a formal redefinition $(A,e)\to(A_{\rm eff},e_{\rm eff})$, with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{trick}
e_{\rm eff}^2(X)=e^2\left(1+4C_\gamma\frac{\overline{X}X}{\Lambda^3}+O(X^4/\Lambda^6)\right),
\end{eqnarray}
we can remove $X$ from the Lagrangian (up to momentum-suppressed terms). The EFT at the lower scale is now a function of $e_{\rm eff}(X)$, whereas by gauge invariance $eA=e_{\rm eff}A_{\rm eff}$ does not depend on the DM. This trick for example implies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{trick1}
{\delta{\cal L}}_{m_t}\supset-\frac{\partial\log m_t}{\partial\log\alpha} m_t\overline{t}t~4C_\gamma(\Lambda)\frac{\overline{X}X}{\Lambda^3},
\end{eqnarray}
in agreement with an explicit loop analysis.
Next one should match the quark EFT onto a theory for the nucleons $N=n,p$. The leading DM couplings now are:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{mN}
\delta{\cal L}_{m_N}&=&\sum_{i=\gamma,p,n}\frac{C_i}{\Lambda^3}O_i+O(q/m_N),
\end{eqnarray}
with $O_\gamma$ defined in (\ref{Ogamma}), and $O_N=m_N\overline{N}N\overline{X}X$ ($N=p,n$). It is understood that all couplings and operators are renormalized at $\sim m_N$. The remainder $O(q/m_N)$ also includes the chiral corrections discussed in~\cite{Prezeau:2003sv}\cite{Cirigliano:2012pq}.
Importantly, the coefficients $C_{p,n}(m_N)$ receive, besides the familiar contributions from $O_{u,d,s,G}(m_c)$ (see~\cite{Hill:2014yxa} for a recent NLO analysis), also a correction induced by $O_\gamma(m_c)$ of order:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta C_{p,n}(m_N)\sim\frac{\alpha}{\pi}C_\gamma(m_c).
\end{eqnarray}
This latter RG effect can be seen, for example, proceeding along the lines discussed around (\ref{trick}). (We emphasize that both proton and the neutron masses are corrected by QED at 1-loop, so that $C_n(m_N)$ is also affected despite the neutron has no net charge.) The crucial difference compared to the RG evolution at higher scales is that now the analog of eq.(\ref{trick1}) is violated by non-negligible higher derivative operators of order $m_N^2/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2\sim1$. In terms of a heavy baryon EFT these higher-derivative operators correspond to $O(\alpha)$ corrections to the nucleon masses, and more generally the two-nucleon Lagrangian: their main effect is a modification of the pion-nucleon coupling at the percent level. Unfortunately, with our current knowledge of QCD we cannot determine the Wilson coefficients of these operators, and thus $C_{p,n}(m_N)$, with an accuracy better than $O(1)$, even under the assumption (unlikely, according to section~\ref{sec:UV}) that $C_{q,G}(\Lambda)=0$.
\subsection{EFT for the target nucleus}
\label{sec:nuclearEFT}
To determine the scattering rate for the process $XT\to XT$ one can proceed in two equivalent ways. The first is based on an EFT for the target nucleus defined at scales $\sim Q_0$, and will be qualitatively discussed in this subsection. The second, which is the one we will adopt in this paper, will be analyzed in section~\ref{sec:nucleonEFT}.
At scales $\mu\lesssim Q_0\ll m_N$ the target nucleus $T$ is effectively a point-like particle of mass $m_T\gg Q_0$ and one should be allowed to use a heavy nucleus Lagrangian. Up to $O(q/Q_0)$, the EFT at $\mu\sim Q_0$ includes $O_\gamma$ as well as the contact operator
\begin{eqnarray}\label{RT}
\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}X^2\overline{T}T\left[Z^2Q_0+Zm_p+(A-Z)m_n\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where we ignored numerical coefficients for simplicity. The contact operator mixes with $O_\gamma$ at one-loop under the RG, as seen from arguments completely analogous to those discussed above. The terms of order $Z,A$ also receive corrections from $C_N(m_N)$ in $\delta{\cal L}_{m_N}$.
From (\ref{RT}) one immediately reads a {{short distance}} contribution to the amplitude for $XT\to XT$. There is also a correction coming from a UV-sensitive one-loop diagram involving $O_\gamma$, which scales as the $O(Z^2)$ term in (\ref{RT})~\cite{Weiner:2012cb}. The two contributions are individually scheme-dependent; only their sum is physical. For example, using a mass-independent renormalization scheme the loop diagram vanishes at $q=0$, and the $O(Z^2)$ effect comes dominantly from the counterterm (\ref{RT}).~\footnote{\label{foot}The authors of~\cite{Weiner:2012cb} neglected the contact operator (\ref{RT}), or in other words assume a certain renormalization scheme in which its coefficient vanishes. However, this is not necessarily the same scheme that the authors used to regulate the 1-loop diagram. This introduces a spurious scheme-dependence and an $O(1)$ uncertainty in the amplitude.}
\section{The 2-body process}
\label{sec:nucleonEFT}
The approach followed in section~\ref{sec:nuclearEFT} is intuitive from a physical standpoint, but not very convenient. One reason is that it depends on several unknown form-factors, even in the optimistic (and unrealistic) case in which only $O_\gamma$ is present at $\mu\sim m_N$. More importantly, though, it obscures the accuracy of the perturbative expansion. For example, are we allowed to ignore QED vertex corrections to the one-loop diagram of~\cite{Weiner:2012cb}? These are naively of order $\alpha Z^2/4\pi$, and apparently not negligible for heavy targets.
In this section we will approach the problem from the point of view of the ``fundamental" nucleon EFT. In practice we take (\ref{mN}) as our starting point, derive a multi-body effective theory for the nucleons, and finally take the appropriate nuclear matrix element. Using this formalism all the unknowns will be encoded in measurable nuclear form factors. Furthermore, within this formalism the perturbative expansion becomes manifest. For instance, an inspection of the $O(\alpha Z^2/4\pi)$ ``vertex corrections" mentioned above shows that these are secretly a renormalization of the nuclear wave-function, and hence already included in the nuclear potential.
\subsection{The 2-proton form factor}
\label{sec:2body}
We now want to calculate the amplitude for $XT\to XT$ from the {\emph{nucleon}} Lagrangian (\ref{mN}). The discussion in section~\ref{sec:nuclearEFT} shows that this process receives contributions from the operators $O_{n,p}$ in (\ref{mN}) as well as $O_\gamma(m_N)$. The former may be treated using standard methods. Our main focus here will be on $O_\gamma$. In section~\ref{sec:signatures} we will study in detail the interplay between all Wilson coefficients $C_{\gamma,p,n}$.
To proceed we formally write a multi-nucleon hamiltonian $H_{\rm tot}=H_{\rm strong}+V$, where $H_{\rm strong}$ contains the nuclear force and $V$ one insertion of $O_\gamma$. At leading order in the weak DM coupling and all orders in the nuclear force the amplitude for $XT \to XT$ is just the Born approximation
$$
\langle T_f|V|T_i\rangle,
$$
with the nuclear ground states $|T_{i,f}\rangle$ understood as $A$-nucleon configurations dressed with the nuclear force.
The dominant DM-nucleon interactions contributing to the potential $V$ are described by the diagrams shown in fig.~\ref{fig:FD}. The loop on the left vanishes for $q=0$ in any mass-independent renormalization scheme, which is the natural regulator in our EFT. Therefore, only the 2-body process in the right of figure~\ref{fig:FD} is relevant at leading $q/m_N$ order.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{one_body.pdf}~~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=6cm]{two_body.pdf}
\caption{Feynman diagrams for the 1-proton and 2-proton processes. Both diagrams contribute to the contact DM-nuclei interaction, whereas the one on the right is also related in a scheme-dependent way to the one-loop diagram of~\cite{Weiner:2012cb} (see Appendix~\ref{sec:vanish} for details).}\label{fig:FD}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The non-relativistic amplitude for the 2-proton process $ppX\to ppX$ is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{1}
\overline{\cal M}_2({\bf q}_i,{\bf q}_j)=\delta_{s_is_i'}\delta_{s_js_j'}V_0\frac{{\bf q}_i\cdot {\bf q}_j}{{\bf q}_i^2{\bf q}_j^2}(1+O({\bf q}^2/m_N^2)), ~~~~~~~~V_0=-8\frac{e^2}{\Lambda^3}C_\gamma(m_N),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf q}_{i,j}$ are the three-momentum transferred to the nucleons, whereas $s_{i,j,i',j'}$ are spin indices for the nucleons (the DM spin indices are not shown because they cancel out in the cross section when summing and averaging over final and initial states). We did not add the crossed diagram because it will be automatically included when convoluting $\overline{\cal M}_2$ with the anti-symmetric nuclear wave function. Following~\cite{Prezeau:2003sv}\cite{Cirigliano:2012pq}, we used a non-relativistic normalization for the 1-particle states. In practice, this corresponds to divide the relativistic amplitude by $(2m_N)^2(2m_X)$. With this convention, the formula (\ref{1}) also applies to real scalars (with $C_\gamma$ a parameter with dimensions of a mass).
The DM-nucleon potential in ``mixed coordinates" ($x_i$ for nucleon $i$ and Fourier for $X$) reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde V_{ij}&=&-\int\frac{d{\bf q}_i}{(2\pi)^3}\int\frac{d{\bf q}_j}{(2\pi)^3}e^{-i{\bf q}_i\cdot {\bf x}_i-i{\bf q}_j\cdot {\bf x}_j}(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}({\bf q}+{\bf q}_i+{\bf q}_j)\overline{\cal M}_2({\bf q}_i,{\bf q}_j)\\\nonumber
&=&\delta_{s_is_i'}\delta_{s_js_j'}V_0e^{+i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}}f({\bf q},{\bf r}),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf R}=({\bf x}_i+{\bf x}_j)/2$, ${\bf r=x}_i-{\bf x}_j$, and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{f}
f({\bf q},{\bf r})&=&\int\frac{d{\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot {\bf r}}\frac{\left({\bf k}-\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)\cdot \left({\bf k}+\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)}{\left({\bf k}-\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)^2\left({\bf k}+\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)^2}\\\nonumber
&=&\frac{1}{4\pi r}\int_{-1/2}^{+1/2}dy~e^{-qr\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}-y^2}}\left[\left(1-qr\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}-y^2}\right)\cos(y{\bf q}\cdot{\bf r})-(y{\bf q\cdot r})\sin(y{\bf q\cdot r})\right]\\\nonumber
&=&\frac{1}{4\pi r}\left[1-\frac{\pi}{4}qr+\frac{1}{4}(qr)^2-\frac{1}{8}({\bf q}\cdot{\bf r})^2+O(q^3r^3)\right].
\end{eqnarray}
The term linear in $q$ arises because the transition is mediated by a massless particle.
Because $V=\sum_{i<j}\tilde V_{ij}$, we conclude that the amplitude for $XT\to XT$, with the target remaining in the ground state, is given by~\cite{Prezeau:2003sv}\cite{Cirigliano:2012pq}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TV}
\langle T_f|\sum_{i<j}\tilde V_{ij}|T_i\rangle&=&\sum_{i<j}\int d{\bf x}_i\int d{\bf x}_j~\tilde V_{ij}\otimes{\hat\rho}^{(2)}({\bf x}_i,{\bf x}_j)\\\nonumber
&=&\frac{Z(Z-1)}{2}\int d{\bf x}_1\int d{\bf x}_2~\tilde V_{12}\otimes{\hat\rho}^{(2)}({\bf x}_1,{\bf x}_2).
\end{eqnarray}
Here ${\hat\rho}^{(2)}({\bf x}_i,{\bf x}_j)$ is the (diagonal) 2-proton nuclear density matrix, the sum extends over all proton pairs, and $\otimes$ indicates a contraction of the spin indices. In the second line we used the fact that protons are indistinguishable. The factor $Z(Z-1)$ signifies that this is truly a two-body effect, and as such it vanishes for $Z=1$. The relevant spin-singlet quantity is the projection:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^{(2)}({\bf x}_i,{\bf x}_j)&\equiv& (\delta_{s_is_i'}\delta_{s_js_j'})\otimes\hat\rho^{(2)}({\bf x}_i,{\bf x}_j)\\\nonumber
&=&\int \frac{d{\bf q}_1}{(2\pi)^3} \int \frac{d{\bf q}_2}{(2\pi)^3} e^{-i{\bf q}_1\cdot {\bf x}_1-i{\bf q}_2\cdot {\bf x}_2}F^{(2)}({\bf q}_1,{\bf q}_2).
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, employing eq. (\ref{f}), and making a trivial coordinate transformation, we arrive at an expression for the dominant, spin-independent part of the amplitude:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{M2b}\label{MNR}
\langle T_f|\sum_{i<j}\tilde V_{ij}|T_i\rangle&=&\frac{Z(Z-1)}{2}V_0~F_{pp}(q),
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined the {\emph{2-proton form factor}}~\footnote{If we were to follow the conventions used in~\cite{Prezeau:2003sv}\cite{Cirigliano:2012pq} we would call this quantity $F_{\gamma\gamma}$, because induced by the exchange of two photons.}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{2body}
F_{pp}(q)=\int\frac{d{\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\left({\bf k}-\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)\cdot \left({\bf k}+\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)}{\left({\bf k}-\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)^2\left({\bf k}+\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)^2}F^{(2)}(-{\bf k}+{\bf q}/2,{\bf k}+{\bf q}/2).
\end{eqnarray}
Eqs. (\ref{MNR}) and (\ref{2body}) are one of the main result of the present paper.
Note that the relative size between two-body and one-body contributions induced by $O_{p,n}$ is $\sim\frac{ZQ_0}{m_N}$ (see also eq.(\ref{RT})), which is not negligible for heavy nuclei. On the other hand, consistently with what done in (\ref{mN}) we can neglect corrections $O(q^2/m_N^2)$ to both the one-body and two-body terms because of order $Q_0^2/m_N^2=$ few \%.~\footnote{This means that $Z(Z-1)$ should truly be replaced by $Z^2$ in eq.(\ref{MNR}). We will do this in section~\ref{sec:signatures} when we will include the corrections from $C_N(m_N)$. For now we decided to keep $Z(Z-1)$ in (\ref{MNR}) to emphasize the 2-body nature of the amplitude.}
\subsection{The role of proton-proton correlations}
\label{sec:corre}
The 2-proton density $F^{(2)}$ appearing in (\ref{2body}) plays an important role in many nuclear reactions, such as electro-disintegration processes, $(e,e'N)$ and $(e,e'NN)$, precision calculations in muonic atoms, and neutrino-nucleus interactions.
In~\cite{Prezeau:2003sv}\cite{Cirigliano:2012pq}\cite{Cirigliano:2013zta}, the relevance of 2-body densities in DM detection has been pointed out, although as a subleading effect in the chiral counting. In this paper we find another interesting application for DM direct detection, where the two-body term plays a dominant role.
The exact form of $F^{(2)}$ is not known, but some of its basic properties can be qualitatively understood. Without loss of generality we write
\begin{eqnarray}\label{corr}
F^{(2)}(-{\bf k}+{\bf q}/2,{\bf k}+{\bf q}/2)=F_p^{(1)}(-{\bf k}+{\bf q}/2)F_p^{(1)}({\bf k}+{\bf q}/2)+F_{\rm corr}({\bf k},{\bf q}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_p^{(1)}$ is the (one-proton) charge form factor, and $F_{\rm corr}$ a measure of the correlation between the two nucleons (protons in our case). From the normalization of the density distributions follows that $F_{\rm corr}(0,0)=0$. In practice this means that one may neglect the correlation when {\emph{both}} $|{\bf q}|,|{\bf k}|$ are much smaller than, say, the pion mass $m_\pi$. As ${\bf q}^2,{\bf k}^2\sim m^2_\pi$, nucleon-nucleon correlations become non-negligible and the approximation $F_{\rm corr}=0$ is violated. At even larger momenta one anticipates a universal shape for $F^{(2)}$, dominated by the repulsive pion exchange.
From this simple consideration follows that $F_{\rm corr}$ cannot be ignored in general, because the integral in (\ref{2body}) probes a regime where the correlation is presumably non-negligible. In particular, $F_{\rm corr}({\bf k},0)$ is likely to result in an overall $O(1)$ correction in the nuclear matrix element. To see this more explicitly, we take the following phenomenological expression for the charge form factor
\begin{eqnarray}\label{pheno}
F^{\rm pheno}_p=e^{-\bar{q}^2},~~~~~~\bar q=|{\bf q}|/Q_0,
\end{eqnarray}
and parametrize $F^{(2)}$ with
$$
F^{(2), {\rm pheno}}=F^{\rm pheno}_p(-{\bf k}+{\bf q}/2)F^{\rm pheno}_p({\bf k}+{\bf q}/2)\left[1+c_1\frac{{\bf k}^2}{Q_0^2}+c_2\frac{{\bf q}^2}{Q_0^2}+c_3\frac{{\bf k}\cdot{\bf q}}{Q_0^2}\right],
$$
where $c_i$ are order one numbers (in general functions of $A,Z$) mimicking the effect of a short distance correlation. The expression (\ref{2body}) can now be solve exactly:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{phenoFpp}
F_{pp}^{\rm pheno}&=&\frac{Q_0}{4\sqrt{2}\pi^{3/2}}\overline F_{pp}^{\rm pheno},\\\nonumber
\overline F_{pp}^{\rm pheno}&=&\frac{Q_0^2}{4}e^{-q^2/2Q_0^2}\int d{\bf r}~e^{-{\bf r}^2Q_0^2/8}f({\bf q},{\bf r})\left[\left(1+\frac{3}{4}c_1\right)-\frac{1}{16}c_1{\bf r}^2Q_0^2+c_2\frac{{\bf q}^2}{Q_0^2}\right]\\\nonumber
&=&e^{-\bar q^2/2}\left[1+\frac{1}{4}c_1-\frac{\pi^{3/2}}{2\sqrt{2}}\bar q+\left(\frac{5}{3}-\frac{5}{12}c_1+c_2\right)\bar q^2+O(\bar q^3)\right].
\end{eqnarray}
In the second line we used the expansion of $f$ given in (\ref{f}). As expected, we see that $c_1$ changes the overall rate, whereas both $c_{1,2}$ modify the momentum-dependence of the form factor ($c_3$ does not contribute for our choice of $F^{(2), {\rm pheno}}$). We will present a numerical study in the next section. Interestingly, when $c_i\to0$ the form factor $\overline F_{pp}^{\rm pheno}$ reduces to that derived in~\cite{Weiner:2012cb}\cite{Frandsen:2012db}. This correspondence is elucidated in Appendix~\ref{sec:vanish}.
We conclude this section observing that the proton-proton correlation becomes parametrically small if one models the nuclear potential with a mean field approximation. Indeed, in that case the nuclear wave-function is described by a single Slater determinant, and it is a trivial exercise to show that $F_{\rm corr}=O(1/Z)$ is entirely due to the Pauli exclusion principle. (We also numerically verified this expectation using a shell model.) In reality the mean field potential is no more than an intuitive picture of the nucleus, and $F_{\rm corr}$ cannot be neglected.
\section{Signatures in direct detection experiments}
\label{sec:signatures}
The study of the DD signature induced by $O_\gamma$ is complicated by two obvious hurdles. First, we do not have a reliable estimate of the 2-proton form factor (\ref{2body}). Second, large hadronic uncertainties make it impossible to precisely determine the actual relation among the Wilson coefficients in (\ref{mN}) and the fundamental parameters.
We thus take a bottom-up, phenomenological approach. For the form factors we use the phenomenological expressions given in (\ref{pheno}) and (\ref{phenoFpp}). The spin-independent differential rate is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SI}
\frac{d\sigma_T}{dE_R}=\frac{\mu_T^2}{\pi E_R^{\rm max}}\left(\frac{m_N}{\Lambda^3}C_p\right)^2\left\{\frac{f_{pp}}{f_p}\frac{Q_0}{m_N}Z^2\overline F_{pp}^{\rm pheno}(q)+\left[{Z}+\frac{f_n}{f_p}(A-Z)\right]F^{\rm pheno}_{p}(q)\right\}^2,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{f_{pp}}{f_p}=2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\alpha\frac{C_\gamma}{C_p}\frac{Z-1}{Z},~~~~~~~~~~~f_N=C_N\frac{m_N}{\Lambda^3}.
\end{eqnarray}
We simplified eq.(\ref{SI}) assuming that protons and neutrons have the same mass and 1-particle densities. We use $Q_0=0.5(0.3 + 0.9A^{1/3})^{-1}$ GeV.
Now, the discussion in section~\ref{sec:UV} (see also section~\ref{sec:nucleon}) suggests that, in generic theories with unsuppressed $C_\gamma$, the natural expectation is $C_N/C_\gamma\sim\alpha/\pi$, and hence $f_{pp}/f_p, f_n/f_p=O(1)$. In the following we will therefore treat these latter as independent parameters of order unity. Because $f_{pp}$ already accounts for changes in the overall normalization of the two-body effect, it makes sense to work with form factors that are normalized to one at $q=0$; for this reason we will set $c_1=0$ and vary only $c_2$ in our numerical analysis ($c_3$ has no effect on (\ref{phenoFpp})). Comparing to~\cite{Frandsen:2012db}, our phenomenological 2-body form factor for $c_1\to0$ reduces to $\overline F_{pp}^{\rm pheno}\to F_{\rm Ray}(1+c_2\bar q^2)$ (see Appendix~\ref{sec:vanish}).
\subsection{Numerical analysis}
The impact of the new form factor may be significant, both in the spectrum and the total rate.
When both $f_{pp}/f_p, f_{pp}/f_n$ have the same magnitude and sign, the new term $f_{pp}$ is expected to dominate for heavy nuclei (at least as long as the form factors are positive and non-vanishing). However, an opposite sign in either $f_{pp}/f_p, f_n/f_p$ can generically result in destructive interference among the various contributions to (\ref{SI}), and hence lead to qualitatively new effects.~\footnote{This possibility has already been noticed in~\cite{Frandsen:2012db} for a particular set of $f_{pp,p,n}$ and a vanishing 2-proton correlation ($c_i=0$).} Because of the different momentum-dependence of the form factors, the suppression in $d\sigma_T/dE_R$ will occur at a specific recoil energy. This energy is a strong function of the parameters $f_{pp}/f_p, f_n/f_p$ and the form factors, as well as of the target, due to the peculiar dependence on $A,Z$.
To assess the effect of $f_{pp}/f_p, f_n/f_p$ on the total rate, the relevant quantity to consider is the number of events within a certain signal region $\Delta$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ND}
N_\Delta=\frac{\rho_X}{m_X}~{\rm Ex}\sum_{\rm Target}N_T\int_{\Delta}ds~\eta_{\rm eff}(s)\int dE_R~p(E_R,s)\int_{v_{\rm min}(E_R)} d{\bf v}~v{f_{\rm lab}({\bf v,v_e})}~\frac{d\sigma_T}{dE_R}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\rho_X$ is the local DM density, Ex the detector exposure, $N_T$ the number of nuclear targets (summed over all isotopes), $\eta_{\rm eff}(s)p(E_R,s)$ the signal efficiency, and $f_{\rm lab}$ the DM velocity distribution in the lab frame.
While for $f_{pp}=0$ the surface $N_\Delta={\rm const}$ is defined by parallel lines $f_n\propto f_p$, in the more general case it becomes an ellipses. To see this one can focus on a single isotope, in which case, denoting by $\langle\rangle$ the integrals in (\ref{ND}), it is clear that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CS}\nonumber
{N_\Delta(f_{pp},f_p,f_n)}&=&\langle(x {\overline F_{pp}}+yF_{p})^2\rangle\\
&=&\langle F_{p}^2\rangle\left(y+x\frac{\langle {\overline F_{pp}}F_{p}\rangle}{\langle F_{p}^2\rangle}\right)^2+\langle\overline F_{pp}^2\rangle\left(1-\frac{\langle {\overline F_{pp}}F_{p}\rangle^2}{\langle \overline F_{pp}^2\rangle\langle F_{p}^2\rangle}\right)x^2,
\end{eqnarray}
for $x\propto f_{pp}/f_p$ and $y\propto (\frac{Z}{A-Z}+f_n/f_p)$. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality the last term is always positive, implying that the isocurves must be ellipses.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{interplay_m_10_GEV_down_final.pdf}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{interplay_m_100_GEV_down_final.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{interplay_m_10_GEV_center_final.pdf}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{interplay_m_100_GEV_center_final.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{interplay_m_10_GEV_up_final.pdf}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{interplay_m_100_GEV_up_final.pdf}
\caption{Degradation plot ($N_\Delta/N^{\rm ref}_\Delta$) for $f_{pp}/f_{p}=-1$ (dotted lines) $f_{pp}/f_{p}=0$ (solid) and $f_{pp}/f_{p}=1$ (dashed). Left column corresponds to $m_X=10\text{ GeV}$, and right column to $m_X=100\text{ GeV}$. Color coding: Red (Xenon100), Green (LUX), Blue (CDMS-Ge). Note that for $f_{pp}=0$ the solid red and green lines exactly overlap. }\label{fig:interplay}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.35cm]{ContourPlot_m_10_GEV_down_final.pdf}~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=6.35cm]{ContourPlot_m_100_GEV_down_final.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=6.35cm]{ContourPlot_m_10_GEV_center_final.pdf}~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=6.35cm]{ContourPlot_m_100_GEV_center_final.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=6.35cm]{ContourPlot_m_10_GEV_up_final.pdf}~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=6.35cm]{ContourPlot_m_100_GEV_up_final.pdf}
\caption{Contour plots of $N_\Delta/N_\Delta^{\rm ref}=0.01$. The left column corresponds to $m_X=10\text{ GeV}$, the right column to $m_X=100\text{ GeV}$. The upper, middle, and lower plots are obtained with the phenomenological form factor $\overline F_{pp}^{\rm pheno}$ defined in (\ref{phenoFpp}) with $(c_1,c_2)=(0,-1)(0,0),(0,+1)$, respectively. Color coding: Red (Xenon100), Green (LUX), Blue (CDMS-Ge).}\label{fig:contourplots}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We present our numerical results for three experiments: Xenon100, LUX and CDMS-Ge in Figures \ref{fig:interplay}, \ref{fig:contourplots}. For the experimental details of the analysis we refer the reader to~\cite{Cirigliano:2013zta} and references therein. The color coding is Xenon100 (red), LUX (green), CDMS-Ge (blue). The impact of $f_{pp}$ is most conveniently discussed in terms of the ratio $N_\Delta/N^{\rm ref}_\Delta$, where $N^{\rm ref}_\Delta$ is defined with $f_{pp}=0, f_n=f_p$. This is sometimes referred to as the ``degradation plot" in the literature.
In Figure \ref{fig:interplay} we present degradation plots for $f_{pp}/f_{p}=-1$ (short dashed lines), $f_{pp}/f_{p}=0$ (solid lines) and $f_{pp}/f_{p}=1$ (long dashed lines). We consider the case of light DM, $m_X=10\,{\text{GeV}}$ (left column), and $m_X=100\text{\,GeV}$ (right column). The top, center and bottom plots correspond to variations of the parameter $c_2$ (see our phenomenological two-body form factor) from $-1,0$, to $+1$.
For the case $f_{pp}/f_p=0$ we find the familiar LO degradation plot (see for instance~\cite{Feng:2013vaa} and references therein). By turning on non-zero values of $f_{pp}/f_{p}$, i.e. the two-body term, the entire plot is shifter and the minimum increases. This can be qualitatively understood looking at (\ref{CS}), from which we see that the minimum of the rate is always found at $f_{pp}=0$ ($x=0$), and gets displaced when $f_{pp}\neq0$.
Importantly, for $f_{pp}\neq0$ the Xenon100 and LUX experiments (and more generally other Xe-based detectors) observe different rates, despite having the same target nuclei. The reason is that the rate depends on the integrals in~(\ref{ND}), which are themselves functions of the energy threshold and the associated efficiency. If DM is detected, in principle this feature may be used to infer important information about the parameters $f_{pp}/f_p, f_n/f_p$. However, Fig. \ref{fig:interplay} suggests that the difference between the rates at different experiments significantly depends on the two-body form factor, so an accurate determination of $F^{(2)}$ would be required to draw any conclusion on $f_{pp}/f_p, f_n/f_p$.
To better appreciate this, in Figure \ref{fig:contourplots} we show contour lines of $N_\Delta/N^{\rm ref}_\Delta=0.01$ (similar contours are obtained for different values, as clear from Figure \ref{fig:interplay}) as a function of $f_{pp}/f_p, f_n/f_p$. As anticipated, we see that the amount of overlap among the (green, red, and blue) ellipses is critically sensitive to the two-body form factor.
In Figure \ref{fig:contourplots} we also observe a qualitative difference between light and heavy DM. For light DM the ellipses are very elongated, while for heavier masses they are more circular in shape. Again, this can be understood from (\ref{CS}). The astrophysical function in~(\ref{ND}) is more steeply falling for light DM, and this basically forces $E_R$ to acquire values close the lowest bin. In the approximation that the integrand in (\ref{ND}) is a delta function in $E_R$, the last term in (\ref{CS}) is very small and the domain $N_\Delta/N^{\rm ref}_\Delta={\rm const}$ is determined by a line $x\propto y$ with an experiment-dependent slope. For heavier DM the recoil spectrum has effectively a larger range and the second term in (\ref{CS}) becomes important.
The nature of a possible cancellation in the event rate is analogous to that invoked in isospin-violating DM (see e.g~\cite{Giuliani:2005my}\cite{Feng:2011vu}), as it arises from fine-tuning parameters that are naturally of the same order, but is qualitatively different for at least two reasons. First, the cancellation depends on $E_R$. Second, it involves two parameters --- i.e. $f_n/f_p, f_{pp}/f_p$ --- rather than one, so in principle it is possible to suppress $d\sigma_T/dE_{R}$ in two experiments simultaneously.
\section{The 2-nucleon form factor for $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$}
\label{sec:Ogammatilde}
To study DM scattering induced by $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$ one can proceed in complete analogy with the ${O}_{\gamma}$ operator: determine the non-relativistic amplitude for $NNX\to NNX$ and derive the corresponding nucleon potential.
The crucial difference is that in the present case also neutrons contribute. The matrix element $\langle T_f|F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu}|T_i\rangle$ is dominated by the {\emph{coherent}} scattering of one of the two photons on the proton charge, as in section~\ref{sec:2body}, and the {\emph{incoherent spin-dependent}} scattering of the second photon on the nucleon magnetic moment.
The multi-nucleon potential can again be written as in section~\ref{sec:2body}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\widetilde V_{ij}=\widetilde V_0\,\text{e}^{i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf R}}\, \widetilde{f}_{ij}({\bf q}, {\bf r}),
\end{eqnarray}
where now $\widetilde f_{ij}$ depends non-trivially on the nucleon spin. Up to $O({\bf q}^2/m_N^2)$ we find:
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{f}_{ij}({\bf q}, {\bf r})=i\int\frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}\text{e}^{-i\bf{k}\cdot \bf{r}}\frac{\left[({\bf k}^2){\bf q}-({\bf k}\cdot{\bf q}){\bf k}\right]\cdot\overrightarrow\mu^+_{ij}+\left[({\bf q}^2){\bf k}-({\bf k}\cdot{\bf q}){\bf q}\right]\cdot\frac{\overrightarrow\mu^-_{ij}}{2}}{\left({\bf k}-\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)^2\left({\bf k}+\frac{\bf q}{2}\right)^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined $\overrightarrow\mu^\pm_{ij}={\bf s}_i\mu^{\rm m}_ie_j\pm{\bf s}_j\mu^{\rm m}_je_i$, with ${\bf s}_i=\sigma/2$ the nucleon spin operator, and $\mu^{\rm m}_i, e_i$ the nucleon magnetic moment and electric charge. To keep our discussion general, we did not specify the DM bilinear coupling to $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$. This model-dependent contribution (generally momentum-dependent) is included in the coefficient $\widetilde V_0$. In other words, what we want to discuss here is the nuclear matrix element $\langle T_f|F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{F}^{\mu\nu}|T_i\rangle$.
The nuclear form factor follows immediately from $\langle T_f|\sum_{i,j}\tilde V_{ij}|T_i\rangle$. One of the nucleon indices runs over the proton charge, and results in a single power of $Z$ in the amplitude. The remaining (spin-dependent) sum involves both neutrons and protons and is similar to that found in ordinary spin-dependent interactions.
Similarly to $O_\gamma$, the RG evolution of $\widetilde O_\gamma$ will induce contact (spin-dependent) interactions that reduce in the non-relativistic limit to the familiar 1-nucleon potential $\propto {\bf q}\cdot{\bf s}_i$. The ratio between long and short distance contributions to the amplitude for $XT\to XT$ scales as $ZQ_0/m_N$, as we found in section~\ref{sec:nucleonEFT}. An equivalent way to check this is to follow a logic similar to that of section~\ref{sec:nuclearEFT}, and add to the (spin-dependent) DM-target contact interaction a 1-loop diagram analogous to that evaluated in~\cite{Weiner:2012cb}, but now with the nuclear magnetic moment in one of the two $\gamma-T$ vertices.
\section{Realistic UV completions}
\label{sec:UV}
In this section we briefly comment on possible UV completions of $O_\gamma$ ($\widetilde O_\gamma$). We take $X$ to be a Majorana fermion for simplicity, but keep in mind that our results generalize to self-conjugate DM of any spin (baring naturalness issues in the case of scalar DM). Also, as emphasized in the introduction, generic UV completions of the DM polarizability operator will also contain $v^\mu v^\nu F_{\mu\alpha}F_{\nu\alpha}$~\footnote{With a coefficient suppressed by the ratio $m_X/m_*$ in the notation used in this Section.}. None of the results of this paper (nor of this Section) are affected by its presence.
\subsection{New physics at the weak scale}
The existing literature assumes that $O_{\gamma}$ is generated in isolation at some high scale $m_*$ by loops of some heavy mediator with electro-weak charges. However, generic field theories will also induce a lower dimensional coupling to the Higgs mass operator $H^\dagger H$ (and the quark mass operator). More precisely, on the basis of simple dimensional analysis we expect that when matching the UV completion at $m_*$ the effective Lagrangian will {\emph{generically}} contain --- in addition to the DM polarizability --- a contribution of order
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CH}
\delta{\cal L}\supset C_H\,\frac{m_*^2}{\Lambda^3}\,\overline{X}{X}H^\dagger H, ~~~~~
C_H\sim \frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\,C_\gamma,
\end{eqnarray}
along with $C_q\sim\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}C_\gamma$. In terms of the fundamental constituents, (\ref{CH}) arises from diagrams similar to those leading to $O_\gamma$, where the $Z^0$ lines are closed in a loop and external $H$-legs are attached to it. We are here referring to a contribution at the matching scale $m_*$, not to an RG effect below $m_*$.
Now, while $C_H$ is suppressed compared to $C_\gamma$ at the cutoff, the latter contributes in DD at one-loop order. A back of the envelop calculation tells us that the ratio between the DM-nucleon cross section induced by $O_{\gamma}$ and that of $O_H$ is parametrically suppressed by $\left({m_h}/{m_*}\right)^4$. Numerically, the coupling $O_{\gamma}$ will be relevant (i.e. $f_{pp}/f_p\sim1$) only if the electro-weak charged mediators have masses $m_*$ below a few hundred GeV. This holds irrespective of the actual magnitude of the signal, and is a priori independent from the usual WIMP miracle and arguments based on the naturalness of the SM: generic models in which $f_{pp}/f_p\sim1$ will have new physics accessible at colliders. The strongest constraint on the messenger mass scale in these scenarios come from direct searches at LEP and the LHC, and for relatively short lived particles are compatible with new physics at the weak scale.~\footnote{For a broad perspective on the current bounds, see for instance \cite{Aad:2014vma}\cite{Khachatryan:2014qwa}. An explicit analysis of some model relevant to our discussion was presented in~\cite{Weiner:2012gm}\cite{Liu:2013gba}. The results of these papers are relevant to our scenario, even though in some of those models $O_\gamma$ is not relevant to DD experiments.}
The situation is unchanged in UV-complete models for $\widetilde O_\gamma$, since $\overline{X}{X}H^\dagger H$ is allowed by all relevant symmetries.
It should be clear that, in analogy with the more familiar hierarchy problem, one can evade the natural expectation (\ref{CH}) by fine-tuning, or invoking Supersymmetry and/or Higgs compositeness at scales $\ll m_*$. In this sense we claim that a UV completion for (\ref{Ogamma}) at the weak scale is {{generic}}, but not strictly necessary.
\subsection{Large DD rates and suppressed indirect signatures}
Much can be learnt about possible UV completions by making a rough estimate of the DD rate generated by $O_\gamma$.
First of all, in a healthy theory (\ref{Ogamma}) will be generated at one-loop level
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Cgamma}
\frac{C_\gamma}{\Lambda^3}=e^2\frac{g_*^2}{16\pi^2}\frac{m_X}{m_*^4},
\end{eqnarray}
with $g_*$ a typical coupling (the power of $m_X$ is expected if $m_X\ll m_*$). Using the results of section~\ref{sec:nucleonEFT} we estimate a nucleon-DM cross section (on Xe) of order
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rateNX}
\sigma_{N}&\sim&8\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2\left(\mu_NQ_0\frac{C_\gamma}{\Lambda^3}\right)^2\frac{Z^4}{A^2}\\\nonumber
&\sim&6\times10^{-46}~{\rm cm^2}~\left(\frac{g_*}{4\pi}\right)^4\left(\frac{100~{\rm GeV}}{m_*}\right)^8\left(\frac{m_X}{100~{\rm GeV}}\right)^2~~~~~~({\rm for~Xe})
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mu_N$ the reduced DM-nucleon mass, and $1/Q_0\sim A^{1/3}$ fm a measure of the radius of the target nuclei. Together with the collider bounds mentioned at the end of the previous section, this estimate strongly disfavors DM detection in forthcoming DD experiments. This is even more true for $\widetilde O_\gamma$, which has a much lower rate.
However, this estimate fails if the heavy messengers interact with DM primarily via a light scalar. Consider first $O_\gamma$ and postulate the dark sector couples to a light dilaton $\phi$ of mass $m_\phi\ll m_X, m_*$. In this case the high energy theory contains a (loop-order) coupling $F_{\mu\nu}^2 \phi$ and, provided the trilinear $XX\phi$ is unsuppressed (typically of order $g_* m_X/m_*$), $O_\gamma$ will be dominated by the tree-level exchange of $\phi$. For $\phi$ heavier than $\sim100$ MeV the rate (\ref{rateNX}) receives an enhancement of $\sim({m_*^2}/{m_\phi^2})^2$. Now nucleon cross sections of order $10^{-44}~{\rm cm}^2$ become plausible for $m_X,m_*\sim100$ GeV provided $m_\phi/g_*$ is in the few GeV range. Still, natural considerations suggest $m_\phi^2\gtrsim e^2m_*^2/16\pi^2$, from which follows that $\sigma_N$s significantly larger than a few times $10^{-44}~{\rm cm}^2(100~{\rm GeV}/m_*)^6$ may be interpreted as indirect signature of an unnaturally light scalar.
It is hard to imagine a mechanism to enhance the rate of $\widetilde O_\gamma$ up to similar values. Even if we add an axion $a$ with mass $m^2_a\ll q^2$ the cross section will be typically too small to be detected. The reason is that the power of $1/q^2$ from the propagator is compensated by a factor ${\bf q}\cdot{\bf s}_{\rm DM}$ from the axion-DM coupling, and ${\bf q}\cdot{\bf s}_{T}$ from the axion-target coupling. Yet, axion-mediated DM interactions can naturally suppress the ``dangerous" DM-Higgs coupling of the previous subsection, and typically have $f_{pp}/f_p\sim1$.
An obvious question is whether indirect gamma-ray signatures of, say $O_\gamma$, can be relevant. Importantly, for $m_\phi\ll m_X$ the s-channel exchange of $\phi$ will lead to:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{annih}
\langle\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}v\rangle\sim v^2\frac{e^4}{\pi}\left(\frac{g_*^2}{16\pi^2}\right)^2\frac{m_X^2}{m_*^4}.
\end{eqnarray}
Because of the much larger momentum flowing in the $\phi$ propagator, the result is a factor $\sim(m_\phi/m_X)^4$ {\emph{smaller}} than that obtained assuming that the same scale suppressing $O_\gamma$ in DD experiments also controls indirect signals. Indirect detection rates close to the current sensitivities are still possible (see for instance~\cite{Fedderke:2013pbc}), especially for scalar DM that does not suffer from the velocity suppression in~(\ref{annih}).
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
We presented a detailed analysis of the DD signature induced by the DM polarizability operator $O_\gamma$, see eq.(\ref{Ogamma}), and derived the associated nuclear form factor as a function of the 2-nucleon density. The relevance of 2-body densities was previously pointed out in~\cite{Prezeau:2003sv}\cite{Cirigliano:2012pq}, but in those cases the effect was subleading in the chiral expansion and for generic choices of the parameters. To the best of our knowledge, $O_\gamma$ provides the first known example of DM scattering {\emph{dominated}} by a 2-body nuclear form factor. The long range force mediated by the photon is key to our result.
The multi-body nature of the interaction implies that the scattering rate varies significantly from experiment to experiment, and that DD experiments with the same target nuclei are expected to measure different rates. The presence of destructive interference in a non-negligible portion of the parameter space makes these scenarios especially interesting in light of current anomalies.
DM scattering via $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$ was also discussed. The novel feature here is that the 2-body interaction actually describes an example of {\emph{coherent}} and simultaneously {\emph{spin-dependent}} DM scattering.
One expects $F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$ to be important to DD experiments in a large class of models with self-conjugate DM. We showed that realistic scenarios in which these operators are relevant to DM detection have new physics at scales accessible at colliders. Furthermore, large DD rates are indirect evidence of exotic light scalars, and are typically accompanied by suppressed gamma-ray signatures.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank John F. Donoghue for useful conversations. The work of LV was supported in part by the NSF Grant No. PHY-0968854, No. PHY-0910467, by the Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics, and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY11-25915.
|
\section{\label{sec:level1}Introduction}
Decaying dark matter has become a matter of considerable interest over the last few years.
It has been conjectured to answer specific questions related to cosmological large scale structure and unexpected observations of high-energy neutrinos, the positron fraction, and gamma-ray measurements. Further motivation comes from particle physics models beyond the standard model as well as a basic desire to better understand the nature of dark matter.
Issues surrounding structure formation center on two problems. First is the so-called ``cuspy core'' issue where observation suggests galaxy cores have a constant dark matter density whereas simulations predict a cuspy density profile rising in the center \cite{Kaplinghat:2005aa, Gong:2008aa, Strigari:2007aa, DeLope-Amigo:2009aa, Peter:2010aa, Wang:2012aa, Wang:2013aa}. Second is the problem of missing satellites where dark matter-only numerical simulations predict a large number of dark matter halos present in the potential well of a host halo, while observations support the existence of roughly a factor of 5-10 fewer (e.g., in the Milky Way halo -- for a more in depth analysis of these two problems see \cite{Weinberg:2013aa}). Both of these problems have been shown to be potentially solved by N-body simulations of decaying dark matter \cite{Wang:2014aa}.
From the observational point of particle astrophysics there are some rather interesting problems that may relate to decaying dark matter. For example, recently, IceCube reported on the observation of very high-energy neutrinos ($\sim$PeV energies) whose observational properties (energies, directions, and flavors) are not consistent with what one would expect from the known backgrounds at the $4\sigma$ level \cite{IceCube-Collaboration:2013aa,2014PhLB..733..120E}. The now well-known problem of excess energetic positrons as reported by PAMELA \cite{Adriani:2011ab} and AMS-02 \cite{Aguilar:2013aa} may also have a decaying dark matter explanation (e.g., \cite{Ibarra:2014aa, Cirelli:2012aa}) as well as observations of gamma-ray lines and diffuse background measurements \cite{Yuksel:2008aa, Bell:2010aa,Buchmuller:2012aa}.
From the theoretical particle physics point of view, there are many dark matter candidates that arise in the context of decays in physics beyond the standard model, such as sterile neutrinos \cite{1994PhRvL..72...17D}, hidden photinos \cite{Morrissey:2009aa}, gravitino dark matter \cite{Moroi:1995aa} (all of which are discussed in detail in \citet{Essig:2013aa}), as well as cryptons \cite{Ellis1990257}, moduli dark matter\cite{Asaka:1998aa}, axinos \cite{Kim200218}, and quintessinos \cite{Bi:2004aa} (all of which are covered in \cite{Chen:2004aa}). Indeed as is pointed out by \citet{Ibarra:2013aa} there is no \emph{a priori} reason to believe that dark matter particles should be absolutely stable.
One of the draw backs to considering specific dark matter candidates with particular decay channels and known outcomes is that while they can be tightly constrained such results are not widely applicable. Many general decaying dark matter models have been derived that try to make only a few assumptions about decay products.
In this paper we derive two rather general models. In the first we assume that the parent dark matter particle decays over time to a single, massless and relativistic particle and a single, massive and possibly relativistic particle (with velocity determined by momentum conservation). The velocity of the massive particle falls as the Universe expands and therefore there is a distribution of velocities as different heavy daughter particles will have been created at different times. The only assumption made in determining the evolution of the velocity distribution (besides the existence of such a two-body dark matter decay) is that the particles are noninteracting (i.e., no standard model interactions and no interactions among themselves). We also present a second model in which the assumption that there is only one massless particle is relaxed. This necessarily means that the velocity of the massive particle is indeterminate and so it will be assumed to be stationary. We then use recent supernovae type Ia data to constrain these rather general models.
Type Ia supernovae are good candidates for constraining cosmological models. As standard candles their luminosity is well correlated with their observed brightness profiles. Therefore the only parameter affecting the observed luminosity flux is their luminosity distance -- the main idea behind the Hubble diagram and the revolutionary discovery of the accelerated Universe. Luminosity distance is a function of all known energy budget contributions to the Universe and their dynamics (including relativistic and nonrelativistic components). This fact is what motivates the use of supernovae type Ia as a probe of the possibility of a decaying dark matter scenario. Of course, as supernovae type Ia are late-universe standard candles [i.e., located at $z \sim {\cal{O}}(1)$], it is expected that their constraining power will be concentrated towards long-living decaying dark matter particles (of order the age of the Universe).
The paper is structured as follows. Section \ref{sec:level2} derives the two-body decay while Sec.~\ref{sec:level3} looks at the many-body decay. Section \ref{sec:level4} details the data against which the models will be compared and considers some of the other relevant physics required to calculate the cosmological effects of decaying dark matter. The results are given in Sec. \ref{sec:level5} alongside a detailed discussion on where these constraints fit in the bigger picture.
\section{\label{sec:level2}Two-Body Decay}
In this section we consider two-particle decay, with a parent dark matter particle (labeled with a subscript 0) with mass $m_{0}$ moving at rest relative to the expansion of the Universe, a massless and relativistic daughter particle (with subscript 1) and a second daughter particle (subscript 2) with mass $m_{2}$. The second particle may or may not be relativistic at the time of its creation (see Fig.~\ref{fig:TWOpict}).
First, consider the 4-momenta of the particles at the time of decay,
\begin{eqnarray*}
p_{\mu, 0} &=& (m_{0}c^{2}, \textbf{0}) \\
p_{\mu, 1} &=& (\epsilon m_{0}c^{2},\boldsymbol{p_{1}}) \\
p_{\mu, 2} &=& ((1-\epsilon) m_{0}c^{2},\boldsymbol{p_{2}})
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\epsilon$ denotes the fraction of the energy of the parent particle that has been transferred to the massless daughter particle.
Energy and momentum conservation implies
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \frac{\widetilde{m} \beta_{2}}{\sqrt{1-\beta_{2}^{2}}},
\label{momentum2body}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
(1-\epsilon)^{2}= \widetilde{m}^{2} + \frac{\widetilde{m}^{2}\beta_{2}^{2}}{1-\beta_{2}^{2}}
\label{energy2body}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{m} = m_{2}/m_{0}$ and $\beta_{2} = v_{2}/c$. Note that throughout the rest of the derivation we shall use natural units such that $c=1$.
These two expressions give a unique relationship between $\epsilon$ and $\widetilde{m}$ and $\epsilon$ and $\beta_{2}$,
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \frac{1}{2}(1 -\widetilde{m}^{2})
\label{epsilon2body}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\beta_{2}^{2} = \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{(1 - \epsilon)^{2}}
\label{beta2body}
\end{equation}
Note that $\epsilon = 0$ when $m_{2} = m_{0}$, and the maximum value is $\epsilon = 1/2$ when $\widetilde{m} = 0$. As $\epsilon$ approaches the value of 1/2, $\beta_{2}$ approaches the value of 1 which corresponds to the second particle being relativistic with a boost given by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \epsilon^{2} / (1-\epsilon)^{2}}}.
\end{equation}
We will now consider the evolution of the densities of these three particle species.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{Twobody.pdf}
\caption{A pictorial of a two-body decay from a massive, stationary parent particle to a massless, relativistic particle and a massive, possibly relativistic particle.}
\label{fig:TWOpict}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The parent }
The rate of change of the parent particle is straightforward. The density decreases over time due to the expansion of the Universe and due to the decay. If the decay rate is $\Gamma = 1/\tau$ where $\tau$ is the lifetime of the particle, the time evolution of the parent particle is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\rho_{0}}{dt} + 3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho_{0} = -\Gamma \rho_{0}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\rho_{0}(a) = {\cal{A}} \, \frac{e^{-\Gamma t(a)}}{ a^3},
\label{eq:parent2body}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal{A}}$ is some normalization constant and $t(a)$ is the age of the Universe at $a$. We choose to normalize the density of the heavy parent particle at the epoch of recombination (at a scale factor of $a_*$) using cosmic microwave background (CMB) data (see Sec. IV).
We will further simplify matters by assuming that no decays occur in the early Universe before recombination. Under these assumptions the normalization constant is
\begin{equation}
{\cal A} = \rhocrit \Omega_{\mathrm{cdm}} \, e^{ \Gamma t(a_*)},
\end{equation}
where, $\rhocrit$ is the present value of the critical density, $\Omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}$ is the matter density as measured at the present epoch by CMB experiments, and $t(a_*)$ is the age of the Universe at the epoch of recombination (taken to be the age of the Universe that corresponds to approximately a redshift of $z \approx 1090$ \cite{Planck-Collaboration:2013ab}).
\subsection{The massless daughter}
The evolution of the massless daughter particle's density is governed by the decay rate of the parent particle and by the expansion of the Universe including the effect of redshifting, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\rho_{1}}{dt} + 4 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \rho_{1} = \epsilon \Gamma \rho_{0}
\end{equation}
Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:parent2body}) we can write this as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{1}a^{4} = \epsilon{\cal A} \int_{a_*}^a \Gamma e^{-\Gamma t} a dt
\end{equation}
and with integration by parts and $d(e^{-\Gamma t}) = -\Gamma e^{-\Gamma t} dt$ we get
\begin{equation}
\rho_{1}(a) = \frac{\epsilon \cal A}{a^{4}} \left[ \int_{a_{*}}^{a} e^{-\Gamma t(a^{\prime})} da^{\prime} - a^{\prime} \, e^{-\Gamma t(a^{\prime})} \bigg|_{a_{*}}^{a}\right],
\end{equation}
where the lower bound of the integrals have been evaluated at $a_{*}$ in keeping with the boundary conditions. Evaluating the last term gives
\begin{equation}
\rho_{1}(a) = \frac{\epsilon \cal A}{a^{4}} \left[ \int_{a_{*}}^{a} e^{-\Gamma t(a^{\prime})} da^{\prime} - a \, e^{-\Gamma t(a)} + a_{*} \, e^{-\Gamma t(a_{*})}\right]
\label{eq:rho1a}
\end{equation}
\subsection{The massive daughter and its equation of state}
Consider the change in the comoving abundance of the massive daughter particles at some time $t_{D}$ (or scale factor $a_D$). This is related to the comoving abundance of the parent particle by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d n_2}{dt_D} = - \frac{d n_0}{dt_D} = -\frac{d (a^{3}\rho_{0}/m_{0})}{dt_{D}} = \frac{\Gamma {\cal{A}} \, e^{-\Gamma t_{D}}}{m_{0}}.
\label{eq:n2numberdensity}
\end{equation}
In other words, the change in the number of massive daughter particles is equal to minus the change in the number of parent particles over the same time interval; for every parent that decays one massive daughter is created.
The momentum of the massive daughter particle at some later time $t>t_D$ when the scale factor is $a > a_D$ will then be inversely proportional to $a$ (i.e., the longer the particle has been around the slower it moves),
\begin{equation}
p_2(a) =\frac{m_2 \beta_2 }{\sqrt{1 - \beta_2^2}} \, \left( \frac{a_{D}}{a} \right).
\label{decayvelocity2particle}
\end{equation}
For small values of $\epsilon$, $\beta_2 \rightarrow 0$, and we recover the nonrelativistic redshifting of velocity ($v(a) \propto a^{-1}$).
The ratio of the energy of massive daughter particles at $a$ to the rest mass energy of the parent particle is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{E_2(a, a_{D})}{m_{0}}&=& \widetilde{m} \sqrt{\frac{\beta_{2}^{2}}{1-\beta_{2}^{2}}\left(\frac{a_{D}}{a}\right)^{2}+ 1} \\
&=& \sqrt{1-2 \, \epsilon} \, \left[ \frac{\beta_2^2}{1 - \beta_2^2} \left(\frac{a_D}{a} \right)^2 + 1 \right]^{1/2}
\label{eq:particle2energy}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation~(\ref{eq:particle2energy}) shows that at early times ($a_D \approx a$) the energy of the daughter particle is as expected $(1-\epsilon)m_{0}$, while at later times ($a_D \ll a$) it falls to $\sqrt{1-2\epsilon}m_{0}$. For small values of $\epsilon$ this effect is negligible, but as $\epsilon $ approaches the value of $\epsilon \approx 1/2$ this effect becomes significant as we will discuss further below.
It is now relatively straightforward to derive the energy density of massive daughter particles that were created at time $t_D$. First, we calculate the energy density at time $a > a_D$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{2}(a) = \frac{1}{a^{3}} \int _{a_{*}}^{a} E_{2}(a, a_{D})dn_{2}(a_{D})
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting from Eq.~(\ref{eq:n2numberdensity}) and using $dt_D = da_D / (a_D H_D)$, where $H_D$ is the expansion parameter at the epoch of decay, we get that the total energy density of daughter particles at a redshift $a > a_D$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_2(a) &=& \frac{ {\cal{A}} \, \Gamma \sqrt{1 - 2 \epsilon}}{a^3} \int_{a_*}^a {\cal{J}}(a, a_{D}) da_D \label{eq:rho2evolution} \\
{\cal{J}}(a, a_{D}) & \equiv & \frac{e^{-\Gamma t(a_D)}}{a_D H_D} \sqrt{ \frac{\beta_2^2}{1 - \beta_2^2} \left( \frac{a_D}{a} \right)^2 + 1 } \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the integral of Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho2evolution}) must be solved iteratively as $H_D$ [and consequently $t(a_{D})$] depends on the value of $\rho_2$ at each decaying epoch $a_D$ [$H_D^2(a_{D}) = H_0^2 \sum_i \Omega_i(a_{D})$, where $\Omega_i = \rho_i / \rhocrit$, and $i$ runs over all the constituents of the Universe, including the massive daughter particle (i=2) with density $\rho_2$].
Equation~(\ref{eq:rho2evolution}) shows that when $a\approx a_{D}$ and for large values of $\beta_{2}$ the density falls off as $a^{4}$ but as $a$ increases sufficiently ($ a \gg a_D$) the density falls with $a^{3}$. This is the case for a particle that is born relativistically at decay, but becomes nonrelativistic at late times (an important feature in decaying dark matter physics that has been relatively absent from the literature).
One convenient way of expressing the cosmological evolution of the massive daughter particle is the equation of state,
\begin{equation}
w_{2}(a) = \frac{1}{3} \langle v_2(a)^{2}\rangle.
\end{equation}
This useful quantity can be derived from some basic thermodynamic assumptions and the results of the previous section.
The velocity of a massive daughter particle, whose parent decayed at $a_D$, has velocity $v$ at epoch $a$ given by
\begin{equation}
v_2^2(a,a_D) = \frac{ (a_D/a)^2 \beta_2^2 }{1 + \beta_2^2 [ ( a_D/a)^2 - 1]}
\end{equation}
The averaged (over all particles) velocity is derived by integrating over all particles that were created at or before $a$.
\begin{equation}
\langle v^{2}(a) \rangle = \left[ \int_{a_*}^a v^{2}(a,a_D) \frac{dn_{D}}{dt_D} \, dt_D \right] \left[ \int_{a_*}^a \frac{dn_{D}}{dt_D} \, dt_D \right]^{-1}
\end{equation}
We can use Eq.~(\ref{eq:n2numberdensity}), and by expressing the integral over time as an integral over the scale factor in the first term we get
\begin{eqnarray}
w_2(a) &=& \frac{1}{3}\frac{ \Gamma \beta_2^2}{e^{- \Gamma t_* } - e^{- \Gamma t} }\nonumber \\
& \times & \int_{a_*}^{a} \frac{ e^{-\Gamma t(a_D)} d\ln a_D}{H_D [(a/a_D)^2 ( 1 - \beta_2^2 ) + \beta_2^2]} \label{eq:w2a}
\end{eqnarray}
This expression must also be solved iteratively as $H_D$ is a function of $\rho_2(a)$ and its evolution with $a$ (thus $w_2(a)$). Figure~\ref{fig:w2} shows the evolution of the equation of state of the massive daughter as a function of scale factor for various values of $\epsilon$ and $\tau$. For the highly relativistic case where $\epsilon$ approaches the value of $1/2$ the massive daughter behaves at early times in a fashion similar to radiation (i.e., with a value of $w_2 \approx 1/3$). At later times (depending on the decay time scale) the value of $w_2$ decreases, thus the massive daughter behaves in a nonrelativistic manner, with an equation of state that approaches $w_2 \approx 0$ as expected.
Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:w2a}) and Fig.~\ref{fig:w2} serve as a sanity check on the validity of the calculation presented here; however, in practice it is easier to implement \ref{eq:rho2evolution} rather than \ref{eq:w2a} (as we discuss in the next section).
\begin{figure}[]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{w2a.pdf}
\caption{The evolution of the equation of state of the massive daughter particle in two-body decays [Eq.~(\ref{eq:w2a})]. As the value of $\epsilon$ approaches $\epsilon \rightarrow 1/2$ the value of $w_{2}$ tends toward $w_2 \rightarrow 1/3$. Increasing the lifetime prolongs the period of time during which $w_{2}$ has an elevated value. Note that the current age of the Universe corresponds to the solid green curve with $\log_{\mathrm{10}}(\tau / {\mathrm{Gyr}}) = 10.14$.}
\label{fig:w2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{sec:level3}Many-Body Decay}
In this section we discuss the relevant physics of many-body decay in which the daughter products consist of many relativistic particles and a single massive particle (see Fig.~\ref{fig:MANYpict}). By loosening the constraint on the number of relativistic particles we lose the ability to determine the velocity of the heavy daughter. For this reason we assume the particle to be stationary. Nonzero values of velocity could have been assumed (as e.g., in \cite{Bell:2010aa}) but this is necessarily arbitrary.
Parts of the derivation for the two-particle decay are identical to the many-body case. For simplicity the parent will still be referred to with subscript $0$, the massless daughter particles, even though there are many of them, with subscript $1$ and the heavy daughter with subscript $2$. Equation \ref{eq:parent2body} for the parent particle density is the same as is the formula for the relativistic particles in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho1a}). Note however that this density refers to many relativistic particles created in each decay.
Note also that in the many-body decay $\epsilon$ has a slightly different form. In the two-body decay $\epsilon$ was defined as the fraction of the energy of the parent particle that was transferred to the massless particle and a formula was derived in terms of $m_{0}$ and $m_{2}$. We maintain this definition but in the case where there are many massless, relativistic particles and a single, stationary, massive particle formula is more simply derived as being
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = \frac{m_{0} - m_{2}}{m_{0}}
\end{equation}
where we see that $\epsilon$ is allowed to take any value between $0$ and $1$ (in contrast to the two-body case where the limit was $1/2$).
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{Manybody.pdf}
\caption{A pictorial of a many-body decay from a massive, stationary parent particle to many massless, relativistic particles and a massive, stationary daughter particle.}
\label{fig:MANYpict}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The only particle density that has a different form in the many-body case is the heavy daughter which, without having to consider its kinetic energy in the derivation, is much more straightforward. The evolution of the density of the massive daughter is governed by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\rho_{2}}{dt} + 3 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \rho_{2} = (1 - \epsilon)\Gamma\rho_{0}\\
\end{equation}
whose solution is
\begin{equation}
\rho_{2} =\frac{{\cal{A}} ( 1 - \epsilon)}{a^3} \left[ e^{-\Gamma t_*} -e^{-\Gamma t} \right]
\label{eq:manyrho2}
\end{equation}
where it has been assumed that $\rho_2 = 0$ at $t = t_*$. The evolutions of the parent $\rho_0$ and the relativistic by-products $\rho_1$ are governed by the same expressions as in the two-body, namely, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:parent2body}) \& (\ref{eq:rho1a}) respectively.
\section{\label{sec:level4}Decaying dark matter and Supernovae Type Ia}
In the previous two sections we derived the dynamical evolution of two decaying dark matter models. Here we will explore the constraints on these models that come from the cosmological information encoded in the observed brightness of supernovae type Ia (SNIa).
We use SNIa from the Union2.1 catalog of 580 supernovae \cite{Suzuki:2012aa}. The recently published Joint Light-curve Analysis (JLA) catalog (from the SNLS-SDSS collaborative effort) \cite{Betoule:2014aa} features a greater number of supernovae as well as an improved photometric calibration of two of the largest supernova surveys.
However, as of the time of writing the JLA collaboration has not yet published a data release that will allow the straightforward propagation of statistical and systematic uncertainties and for this reason the Union2.1 data is used in this paper (as was the case with the Planck 2013 data release \cite{Planck-Collaboration:2013ab}). The Union2.1 data set includes 580 supernovae up to a redshift of about $z \approx 1.4$ and excludes those with redshift below $z=0.015$ in order to minimize any error due to peculiar velocities.
The physically important quantity in SNIa is the luminosity distance as a function of redshift of each supernova (essentially a Hubble diagram). The luminosity distance is related to the redshift, in a flat Universe where the scale factor relates to the redshift via $a= 1 / (1 + z)$, by
\begin{equation}
d_{L} (z) = \frac{c(1+z)}{H_{0}} \int_{0}^{z} {\cal{F}}^{-1/2} (z^\prime) \, \,dz^{\prime}
\label{eq:lumdist}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal{F}}(z^\prime) &=& \Omega_0(z^\prime) + \Omega_1(z^\prime) + \Omega_2(z^\prime) \nonumber \\
&+& \Omega_\nu(z^\prime) + \Omega_\gamma(z^\prime) + \Omega_{b}(z^{\prime}) + \Omega_\Lambda ,
\label{eq:Ffortwo}
\end{eqnarray}
For each species $i=\{\gamma, \nu, 0, 1, 2, b, \Lambda\}$, $\Omega_i = \rho_i / \rho_{\mathrm{crit}}$, and $\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}$
is the critical density of the Universe. The values of $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:parent2body}) \& (\ref{eq:rho1a}) respectively. The evolution of $\rho_2$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:rho2evolution}) for the two-body scenario and by Eq.~(\ref{eq:manyrho2}) respectively for the many-body decay.
Note that the redshift dependence of each dimensionless cosmological parameter $\Omega_i$ above is due to the fact that the abundance of each species changes with time due to decay (for $i=0, 1, 2$) as well as the expansion of the Universe. This is especially important for $i=2$ where the redshift evolution contains both the effects of production (by decay) and the dynamical evolution of the population, some of which may or may not be relativistic.
The distance modulus is simply a manipulation of the luminosity distance (where $d_{L}$ is measured in parsecs):
\begin{equation}
\mu(z) = 5\log_{10}d_{L}(z)-5,
\label{modulus}
\end{equation}
which is the parameter that is constrained by observations.
We obtain goodness of fit constraints to decaying dark matter models parametrized by $\epsilon$ and $\tau$ in the following way. We compute the luminosity distance to the $j$th SNIa with redshift $z_j$, and the subsequent distance modulus $\mu(z_{j, {\mathrm{DDM}}})$. We then compare that with the observed absolute magnitude and redshift of each SNIa. The sum of the squares of their variance weighted difference is the $\chi^2$ distribution of that particular dark matter decaying scenario.
\begin{equation}
\chi^{2} = \sum_{j=1}^{580} \left\{ \frac{1}{\sigma_{j}^{2}} \left[ \mu(z_{j, {\mathrm{DDM}}}) - \mu(z_j) \right]^2 \right\}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{j}$ is the uncertainty of the distance modulus measured for each supernova \cite{Suzuki:2012aa} .
This is then compared to a $\chi^2$ distribution with 578 degrees of freedom (580 SNIa minus 2 degrees of freedom, corresponding to $\epsilon$ and $\tau$) and assign a goodness of fit confidence.
In order to properly compute the luminosity distance in a decaying dark matter scenario via Eq.~(\ref{eq:lumdist}), we need knowledge of the rest of the cosmological energy budget (in addition to matter and radiation derived from the parent dark matter decay, either in the two-body scenario or the many-body scenario).
The photon density $\rho_\gamma$ is derived from the present photon temperature $T_{\gamma,0} = 2.7255$K \cite{2009ApJ...707..916F} using $\rho_{\gamma}(a) = 4\sigma (T_{\gamma,0}/a)^{4}/c$, where $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This temperature is inflated by electron-positron annihilation, a heating that did not affect the neutrino temperature which leads to the well-known result for massless neutrinos, $T_{\nu}(a) = \left(4 / 11\right)^{1/3} T_{\gamma}(a)$ and an energy density given by $\rho_{\nu}(a) = N_{\mathrm{eff}} \left( 7 / 8 \right) \left(4/ 11 \right)^{4/3} \rho_{\gamma}(a)$,
where the effective neutrino number density, $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$, takes the standard value $N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3.046$ \cite{Mangano:2002aa}.
However, this standard treatment of neutrinos is slightly inaccurate because they are both relativistic and massive and therefore we follow Sec. 3.3. in \citet{2011ApJS..192...18K} that provides the following expression for the energy density of massive neutrinos:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\nu}(a) = \frac{7}{8} \left(\frac{4}{11}\right)^{4/3}N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rho_{\gamma}(a) f(y)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
f(y) \equiv \frac{120}{7\pi^{4}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dx \frac{x^{2} \sqrt{x^{2} + y^{2}}}{e^{x}+1}
\end{equation}
This form of the neutrino density takes into account the transition from relativistic to nonrelativistic expansion.
A fitting formula gives the approximation
\begin{equation}
f(y) \approx [1 + (Ay)^{p}]^{1/p},
\label{eq:neuApprox}
\end{equation}
where $A = 180 \, \zeta(3) / 7\pi^{4} \approx 0.3173$, $p=1.83$ and $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta function, which is what we use for the remainder of this paper.
As the decaying dark matter formalism that we derived in Sec.~\ref{sec:level2} is normalized to the value of dark matter at the epoch of the CMB we choose to use cosmological parameters from CMB experiments.
We use the cosmological parameters derived from the combination of Planck \cite{Planck-Collaboration:2013ab} and low-l WMAP \cite{Hinshaw:2013aa} likelihoods with the high-l Atakama Cosmology Telescope \cite{Das:2014aa} and South Pole Telescope \cite{Reichardt:2012aa} likelihoods (which were combined in \cite{Planck-Collaboration:2013ab} and called in short {\it Planck + WP + highL}). These are: $\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}} h^2 = 0.12025$, $\Omega_{\mathrm b} h^2 = 0.022069$, $h = 0.6715$, $z_* = 1090.43$ and $w = -1 $. This cosmological model is consistent with the Union2.1 supernovae sample that we use here (see Fig. 19 in \cite{Planck-Collaboration:2013ab}, and we use it as a benchmark over which we can test the SNIa constraints on the two-body and many-body decaying dark matter scenarios \footnote{We can readily provide results upon request for many of the cosmological models discussed in \cite{PlanckSuppl}.}).
\section{\label{sec:level5}Results and Discussion}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{TWO_goodness_of_fit_100x100_planckwphighl.pdf}
\caption{ Goodness of fit contour plots for the two-body decaying dark matter scenario in the $\epsilon -\tau$ parameter space. Color density corresponds to the value of the goodness of fit. The two contours depict the $3 \sigma$ and $5 \sigma$ values. The constraining power of supernovae is evident for lifetimes greater than $10^{10}$ years and values of the daughter relativistic fraction ($\epsilon$) greater than roughly $1\%$.}
\label{fig:tworesult}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{MANY_goodness_of_fit_100x100_planckwphighl.pdf} \\
\caption{ Goodness of fit contour plots for the many-body decaying dark matter scenario in the $\epsilon -\tau$ parameter space. Color density corresponds to the value of the goodness of fit. The two contours depict the $3 \sigma$ and $5 \sigma$ values. The constraining power of supernovae is evident for lifetimes greater than $10^{10}$ years and values of the daughter relativistic fraction ($\epsilon$) greater than roughly $1\%$.}
\label{fig:manyresult}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig:tworesult} and \ref{fig:manyresult} show the derived SNIa constraints on the two-body and many-body decaying dark matter scenarios, respectively. The color density corresponds to the value of the goodness of fit confidence, while the two curves depict the $3\sigma$ and $5\sigma$ contours in the $\epsilon - \tau$ parameter space. It is evident that the constraining power of SNIa is concentrated in large values of $\epsilon$ ($\epsilon > 10^{-2}$, and lifetimes of less than $\tau \sim 10^{10}$ years; the latter is not surprising as SNIa are fairly recent in cosmological history, and therefore only dark matter that decays appreciably at the sample epoch of the SNIa we are using here can be constrained).
Both plots look very similar and indeed share the same features (note that $\epsilon$ only extends to $1/2$ in the two-body case whereas it can rise as far as $1$ in the many-body scenario).
At short lifetimes, the contours are approximately vertical. The supernovae to which we are comparing only extend back to a redshift of $z \lesssim1.5$ and for very short lifetimes essentially all of the dark matter has decayed by this epoch rendering differences between small $\tau$ and even smaller $\tau$ irrelevant.
Moving vertically up from small lifetimes to large lifetimes we see that the confidence level decreases. The longer the lifetime the smaller the difference between decaying dark matter and $\Lambda$CDM and so we essentially return to the base $\Lambda$CDM model found by Planck. Conversely moving horizontally from small $\epsilon$ to high $\epsilon$ the confidence level increases. As more and more radiation is added to the model the further away it is from the true Universe as traced by SNIa.
At intermediate and high lifetimes we observe diagonal contours across the plots indicating that the effect of an increase in the lifetime (reducing the amount of additional radiation) can be offset by an increase in $\epsilon$. Finally observe that in the two-body case, but not the many-body, there is an upward inflection in the contour lines at high $\epsilon$. The reason for this can easily be seen by consulting Fig.~\ref{fig:w2} where $w_{2}$ varies greatly with changes in $\epsilon$ between $0.3$ and $0.5$.
It is important to also mention, however, that the choice of a cosmological model that sets the initial conditions can have a strong effect on the derived constraint, or turning the problem around, the results obtained here are rather sensitive on the choice of the cosmological model. For example, cosmological models that allow $w \neq -1$ have much more constraining power on decaying dark matter than models within the standard paradigm of~$w=-1$. In addition, if we use the WMAP9-only derived cosmological model \cite{Hinshaw:2013aa}, the constraining power of SNIa is less, scaling roughly by changing the $3\sigma$ contour into a $1\sigma$ contour. On the other hand, using the Planck-only cosmological parameters the constraining power of SNIa are stronger (perhaps a manifestation of the apparent tension between Planck and SNIa \cite{Planck-Collaboration:2013ab}). The choice of the aforementioned cosmological model of using Planck data together with low-$\ell$ WMAP and high-$\ell$ ACT/SPT data ({\it Planck + WP + highL}) is however consistent with the Union2.1 supernovae we consider here and we feel this is the most appropriate and self-consistent choice of cosmological parameters in the normalization of the decaying dark matter models we explore here.
The derived constraints from SNIa on the two-body and many-body decaying dark matter scenarios are complementary to other approaches to the problem which we show in Figs.~(\ref{fig:twocompare}) and (\ref{fig:manycompare}).
For example, in a recent paper, \citet{Hasenkamp:2013aa} derived a two-body decaying scenario with one daughter particle assumed to be of negligible mass and relativistic, and a second massive, possibly relativistic, daughter. They use a different, indeed complementary approach, to ruling out parameter space. They assume that the relativistic energy produced by decaying dark matter manifests itself as additional effective neutrinos, justified by findings such as in \citet{Dunkley:2011aa}. In addition, the density of the decaying parent and daughters is allowed to vary between models they explore, and is constrained by present limits on nonrelativistic and relativistic dark matter measurements. The density of the parent particle is allowed to vary between models in order to obtain the same amount of additional relativistic energy regardless of the other specified parameters, and they derive limits based on the current observed cold and hot dark matter densities. However, \citet{Hasenkamp:2013aa} make a number of simplifying assumptions. More specifically, they assume a sudden transition from radiation to matter domination, that the massive daughter particle is relativistic unless it's momentum is equal to or less than its mass, and that all the particles decay at a time equal to the lifetime $\tau$. This last assumption is obviously quite a simplification from the exponential decay and so the authors derive a correction factor to alter the density with two values, one when the lifetime is within radiation domination and one during matter domination. This approximation progressively improves for observational times significantly greater than the lifetime.
Within this framework \citet{Hasenkamp:2013aa} looked at many different scenarios. For example they consider the contour where the number of additional neutrino degrees of freedom is 1 [labeled as Hasenkamp \& Kersten (2013a) in Fig.~\ref{fig:twocompare}]. They also considered a bound based on demanding that the amount of decaying dark matter could not exceed the total amount of dark matter that is observed [in their paper this was referred to as the non-domination constraint and in Figure~\ref{fig:twocompare} is labeled as Hasenkamp \& Kersten (2013b)]. Their results are complementary as they rule out parameter space at small values of $\epsilon$ and $\tau$ (the lower left area of the plot) while the results presented here, along with most previous findings, have ruled out space in the large values of $\epsilon$, small $\tau$ region (the lower right region). We note however that we do not make the assumption of instantaneous decay and a relativistic cutoff of the heavy daughter as in \citet{Hasenkamp:2013aa}. Instead we allow both decay and relativistic behavior to be monotonically continuous functions, thus providing additional insight to the effects of decaying dark matter.
Another model of two-body decaying dark matter is considered in \citet{Yuksel:2008aa} in the specific case where the massless particle is a photon. However this model does not consider the (equal and opposite) momentum of the heavy daughter, merely constraining the decay by comparing the resulting photon density against the isotropic diffuse photon background and a Milky Way $\gamma$-ray line search. This model is further complicated as it only constrains the product $m_{\chi}\tau$, where $m_{\chi}$ is the mass of the parent particle, against the energy of the photon.
Two-body decays in decaying dark matter were shown to be a possible solution to problems in structure formation in papers by \citet{Kaplinghat:2005aa} and \citet{Strigari:2007aa} that looked at very early decays with lifetimes of less than one year and later decays ($z<1000$), respectively. They showed that dynamical dark matter could have positive implications for constant density cores in halos reducing the quantity of small scale substructure.
A pair of papers, \citet{Peter:2010aa} and \citet{Wang:2013aa}, analyzed structure formation data while looking at two-body decay scenarios where there was only a slight mass splitting between the parent and heavy daughter (a decay with small $\epsilon$) giving the massive particle a nonrelativistic velocity. The authors parametrized the decay in terms of the recoil ``kick'' velocity $v_{k}$ of the heavy daughter particle, which is given as $v_{k}/c \simeq (m_{0} - m_{2})/m_{0}$ where $m_{0}$ is the mass of the parent particle and $m_{2}$ is the mass of the heavy daughter. For the small values considered in these papers $\epsilon \simeq v_{k}/c$. Both of these constraints are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:twocompare}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{TWO_compare_planckwphighl.pdf}
\caption{Summary of the two-body decay constraints presented here as compared to other studies. In all cases, parameter space is ruled out (at various levels of confidence) below the contour line. The results obtained in this work appear to rule out parameter space more aggressively than previous studies, but note that a direct comparison is not straightforward (for caveats see text). Note that both Wang et al. 2012 \cite{Wang:2012aa} and Wang et al. 2013 \cite{Wang:2013aa} considered only small mass splittings. This results in an abrupt cutoff in their corresponding contour lines at lower values of $\epsilon$. Similarly \citet{Hasenkamp:2013aa} considered only shorter lifetimes causing their contours to end abruptly in the parameter space.}
\label{fig:twocompare}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{MANY_comparison_planckwphighl.pdf}
\caption{Summary of the many-body decay constraints presented here as compared to other studies. The results obtained in this work appear to rule out parameter space more aggressively than previous studies, but note that a direct comparison is not straightforward (for caveats see text).}
\label{fig:manycompare}
\end{figure}
In \citet{Peter:2010aa} N-body simulations of dark matter halos are compared to observations of dwarf-galaxies, groups, and clusters to rule out regions of parameter space (note that this paper quotes a value of $\tau$ for different decay models which is the half-life of the decay as opposed to the lifetime used through out this paper). As this study was based on a suite of N-body simulations it is difficult to assign a numerical value of confidence. Instead, decaying dark matter parameters were allowed, if a few of the realizations of the satellite populations produced at least the minimum number of satellites expected in a Milky Way-like halo.
Lyman-$\alpha$ forest data was used to constrain a dynamical dark matter model in \citet{Wang:2013aa}. Decaying dark matter affects structure growth and thus the authors used SDSS 1D Ly$\alpha$ data to measure large-scale structure growth \cite{McDonald:2006aa}.They looked at kick velocities up to $2\times 10^{7}$m/s though without considering relativistic effects. A related paper by \citet{Wang:2012aa} projected how dynamical dark matter might be constrained by weak lensing results from future experiments such as Euclid \cite{Refregier:2010aa} and LSST \cite{LSST-Science-Collaboration:2009aa}. Recently \citet{Wang:2014aa} produced the most sophisticated N-body simulations of galaxy formation assuming dark matter decay. They showed that problems associated with large-scale structure formation such as the missing satellites problems are largely solved for particular values of the lifetime of the decaying dark matter particle and the recoil kick velocity of the daughter.
\citet{Hasenkamp:2014aa} recently explored a two-body decay with lifetimes less than 1500 years, in particular decays occurring before and during big-bang nucleosynthesis. What they found is that there was no difference in the value of $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ or $m^{\mathrm{eff}}_{\mathrm{hdm}}$ for the massive relativistic daughter compared to thermally produced $\nu_s$HDM but that the temperature at which such particles became nonrelativistic differed by a factor of $\sim 2$. Such a difference could have an observable impact on the CMB. This presents an interesting avenue of future work as there is a possibility of connecting the effects on the CMB to late Universe probes (longer lifetimes), such as the work presented here.
When considering a many-body decay, \citet{Gong:2008aa} modified CosmoMC to include dynamical dark matter, and ruled out parameter space by making comparison to the distance modulus of 182 supernovae and the position of the first peak in the WMAP3 angular power spectrum (comparison shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:manycompare}). Since this paper was written there has been much improvement in the quantity and quality of the data, in particular with the 580 supernovae in the Union2.1 catalog \cite{Suzuki:2012aa} and in the Planck 2013 results \cite{Planck-Collaboration:2013aa}.
Further constraints are placed on many-body decay by \citet{Zhang:2007aa} by assuming that some portion $f_{\chi}$ of the decay products are released as electromagnetically interacting particles and that some portion of that, $f$, is then deposited in baryonic gas thus affecting both reionization and recombination. Unfortunately this model can only constrain the product $ff_{\chi}$ against $\Gamma$ and it is difficult to map in the $\epsilon - \tau$ parameter space.
A later paper by \citet{DeLope-Amigo:2009aa} aimed to update the results of \citet{Gong:2008aa} and \citet{Zhang:2007aa}. However they only considered the specific case where all the energy from decay was transferred to relativistic energy, the $\epsilon = 1$ scenario. When this was true they found that in the case where the fraction $f$ of energy then deposited in baryonic gas was negligible then the Integrated Sachs-Wolf effect \cite{1967ApJ...147...73S} constrained the lifetime to be over $100$ Gyr at $2\sigma$ confidence. For non-negligible deposition they found $(f\Gamma)^{-1} \gtrsim 5.3 \times 10^{8}$Gyr.
Specific decay models, where the decay is assumed to produce particular standard model particles, are more highly constrained than the general models above. \citet{Ibarra:2014aa} sets competitive limits on the lifetime of the parent particle by making comparison to the recent AMS-02 data release \cite{Aguilar:2013aa}. They assumed decay products such as $b\bar{b}$, $e^{+}e^{-}$, $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$, $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ and $W^{+}W^{-}$ and set lower limits on the lifetime in the region of $10^{7} \sim 10^{11}$ Gyr. \citet{Essig:2013aa} looked at the same decays and found similar constraints when making comparison to recent gamma-ray and x-ray data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope \cite{The-Fermi-LAT-Collaboration:2012aa}, INTEGRAL \cite{Bouchet:2008aa}, EGRET \cite{Strong:2004aa}, and HEAO-1 \cite{Gruber:1999aa}. Similar constraints were also found by \citet{Cirelli:2012aa} using Fermi, H.E.S.S. \cite{2012ApJ...750..123A}, and PAMELA \cite{2009Natur.458..607A,2009PhRvL.102e1101A,2010PhRvL.105l1101A,2011PhRvL.106t1101A}.
It is worth noting that the recently measured high-energy neutrino detections at IceCube \cite{IceCube-Collaboration:2013aa} have been hypothesized as originating from decaying dark matter (see for example \citet{Ema:2013aa}) though more data will be needed before limits on such decaying models can be set.
An interesting extension to specific decays was investigated in \citet{Bell:2010aa} where they considered a three-body decay in which the daughters consisted of two electrons, two photons or two neutrinos plus a heavy daughter that possessed a kick velocity. As there were three particles there was no derivable value of this velocity so they assumed it moved in the range of $[5-90]$ km/s in order to derive lower lifetime limits very approximately in the region of $10^{2}$ - $10^{8}$ Gyr.
Of course there could also be decay into nonstandard model particles such as gravitinos, gauginos, or sneutrinos (see for example \citet{Ibarra:2013aa}).
As shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:twocompare} and \ref{fig:manycompare}, the results presented here rule out regions of contour space at clearly defined levels of confidence and do so at much higher levels than previously achieved. We underline that the comparison is somewhat opaque. In the two-body case the model developed here is more highly developed with its sophisticated treatment of the possibly relativistic, heavy daughter particle. On the other hand our results rely only on comparisons to supernovae while the other plotted results were compared against other, and in many cases, several other data sets. It would therefore be of interest to implement the derived two-body and many-body decay scenarios to a multitude of cosmological probes \cite{BKinprep}, as well as generic particle physics models (e.g., dynamical dark matter \cite{2012PhRvD..85h3523D,2012PhRvD..85h3524D}).
In summary, we developed a sophisticated model of two- and many-body dark matter decays. In the case of the former it takes into account the gradual slowing, from relativistic to nonrelativistic, of the heavy particle without having to choose an arbitrary cutoff for what counts as a relativistic velocity. The level of confidence at which areas of the decaying dark matter parameter space is strongly constrained by SNIa shows that cosmological probes may in fact strongly constrain decaying dark matter scenarios.
\acknowledgements
We acknowledge useful conversations with Alex Geringer-Sameth, Jasper Hasenkamp, Deivid Ribeiro and Andrew Zentner. We thank the referees for the constructive feedback that helped improve the content of the paper. SMK is supported by DOE DE-SC0010010, NSF PHYS-1417505 and NASA NNX13AO94G. G.B. is partially supported by NSF PHYS-1417505. S.M.K. thanks the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality where part of this work was completed.
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most important characteristics of the telephone Call Centers is their varying number of service requests (calls) in time. As the cost of labor is the most significant one in such service systems, the problem of adequate scheduling of its employees has a long history in the area of operational research. The methods proposed to analyze such time-varying behavior in order to find optimal working schedules for given demand forecasts are based mostly on approximations, by adopting stationary queuing models. Examples of such well established methods can be found e.g in \cite{Green_2007coping} or \cite{Aksin_2007}.
However, stationary solutions for generating such schedules are, in many situations, not adequate. \cite{Ingolfsson_2010} demonstrated that such approximations can be either entirely unreliable or deliver results significantly different than methods based on inherently transient models. Despite this, their widespread use is commonly justified by simple implementation and low computational cost.
Another inspiration for this research was the problem of real-time schedule adjustments in situations when we have to deal with much higher than planned volume of service requests, technical problems resulting in higher service times or staff absence. In order to maintain both service level and efficiency, such decisions can involve moving of the break times, extending shift times or temporarily involving other employees (quality assurance, supervisors) in answering the calls. Although usually generating higher cost than the normal schedule (paying overtime or involving higher paid personnel), requiring very short decision time and being rather common than exceptional, they are, surprisingly, not particularly well supported by current, otherwise quite sophisticated, Call Center management systems. As they are transient by their very nature and often deal with an overloaded system, their modeling using stationary queuing models as proposed, for example, in \cite{Mehrotra_2009} would deliver possibly unreliable results as well.
The main objective of this work is to model such non-stationary systems in a reliable and precise way with computational efficiency enabling its use for schedule planning and in real-time applications.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section the model and the basic notation are introduced. Section 3 introduces continuous time Markov chains. Section 4 reviews the original uniformization algorithm with steady-state detection and section 5 introduces its modifications for modeling inhomogenous M/M/s queuing systems with particular emphasis on the proposed new steady state detection and error control methods. The paper ends with a summary of experimental results, implementation details, conclusions and proposals for future research.
\section{Model}
To demonstrate the implementation we use the following simplified model of a Call Centre: the analyzed period is finite (e.g. one working day) with the system starting empty; the size $n(t)$ of the system which represents the number of possible states is finite, equal to $s(t)$ = number of servers plus $q(t)$ = capacity of the queue, with corresponding discrete state space $\varphi = \{0,..,n\}$,$|\varphi(t)|=1+s(t)+q(t)$, representing number of service requests (served/waiting calls) in the system.
Customers arrive according to an inhomogenous Poisson process with rate $\lambda(t)$, the service rate $\mu(t)$ is exponential. The load $\rho = \lambda(t)/s(t) \mu(t)$ can be bigger than 1.
There is no abandonment, therefore, the capacity of the queue has to be big enough to be considered practically infinite, which is insofar realistic, as the cost of setting practically unlimited queue space in the telecommunications equipment is negligible nowadays.
The system size must, in consequence, ensure that the probability of being in the state $n$ (abandoning service requests) is insignificant compared to the required computational precision of the whole model, effectively approximating an M/M/s system.
\section{Inhomogenous CTMC}
The description and notation is based on \cite{Haverkort_2001} and \cite{Arns_2010}.
A CTMC is described by \emph{infinitesimal generator matrix} $Q:n+1 \times n+1, Q=(q_{i,j})$
and the \emph{initial state probability vector} $p(0)$,
where the value $q_{i,j}(i \neq j)$ is the rate at which the state $i$
changes to state $j$ and
$q_{i,i}=-\sum_{j \neq i} q_{i,j}$
represents the rate for the event of staying in the same state.
The transient distribution at time t $p(t)$ can be calculated using Kolmogorov`s forward equations:
\begin{equation}\label{qh} p`(t)=p(t)Q \end{equation}
Where the vector $p(t)=[p_{0}(t),...,p_{n}(t)]$ gives probabilities of the system being in any of the states at time $t$.
In the inhomogenous case, the generator matrix changes with time $t$ and is denoted as $Q(t)$. Consequently the transient distribution $p(t)$ in that case will take the form:
\begin{equation}\label{qih} p`(t)=p(t)Q(t) \end{equation}
Both represent linear systems of ordinary differential equations, which can be solved using either direct methods for (\ref{qh}) or using numerical approximations for both to solve them in steps. An overview of available numerical solvers can be found in \cite{Oelschl_gel_1990} or \cite{stewart1994introduction}, many of them are available e.g. in the GNU scientific library. Particularly interesting in this context are the embedded Runge-Kutta methods, producing two approximations of different order (e.g. 4+5 in popular Runge -Kutta Fehlberg or 8+9 in Runge-Kutta Prince-Dormand). The comparison of the two solutions allows direct estimation of the error of the approximation for the given size of the computational step and can be alternatively used for adaptive step size control for the required error bound.
\section{Uniformization}
Uniformization or Randomization, known since the publication of Jensen in 1953 and, therefore, often referenced as Jensen method, is the method of choice for computing transient behavior of CTMCs. Many authors compared its performance in different applications with the conclusion that it usually outperforms known differential equation solvers (e.g. \cite{Grassmann_1978}, \cite{Reibman_1988}, \cite{Arns_2010}).
To use uniformization we first define the matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{pmx}
P=I+\frac{Q}{\alpha}
\end{equation} which for $\alpha\geq max_{i}(|q_{i,i}|)$ is a stochastic matrix. The value of $\alpha$ is called uniformization rate. Further, let
\begin{equation}
\beta(\alpha{}t,k)=e^{-\alpha{} t} \frac{(\alpha{}t)^k}{k!}
\end{equation}
be the probability of a Poisson process with rate $\alpha$ to generate $k$ events in the interval $[0,t)$. One now finds for $p(t)$
\begin{equation}
\label{jensen}
p(t)=p(0)\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\beta(\alpha{}t,k)(P)^k
\end{equation}
The formula (\ref{jensen}) can be interpreted as a discrete time Markov process (DTMC) embedded in a Poisson process generating events at rate $\alpha$.
The implemented uniformization algorithm is based on \cite{Reibman_1988}
and computes transient state probabilities for a CTMC with the following modification of (\ref{jensen}) :
\begin{equation}
\label{reibmann88}
p(t)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\Pi(i)e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is uniformization rate, as described in (\ref{pmx}), and $\Pi(i)$ is the state probability vector of the underlying DTMC after each step $i$ computed iteratively by:
\begin{equation}
\label{reibmann88pi}
\Pi(0)=p(0),\ \Pi(i)=\Pi(i-1)P
\end{equation}
To compute $p(i)$, within prespecified error tolerance, in finite time, the computation stops, when the remaining value of cdf of Poisson distribution is less than the error bound $\epsilon$:
\begin{equation}
\label{reibmann88k}
1-\sum_{i=0}^{k}e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} \leq \epsilon
\end{equation}
with $k$ being the \emph{right truncation point}.
As $\alpha t$ increases, the corresponding probabilities of small number of $i$ Poisson events occurring become less significant. This allows us to start the summation from the $l$`th iteration called \emph{left truncation point} with the equation \ref{reibmann88} reduced to:
\begin{equation}
\label{reibmann88truncated}
p(t)=\sum_{i=l}^{k}\Pi(i)e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!}
\end{equation}
\citep{Reibman_1988} suggests that the values of $l$ and $k$ be derived by:
\begin{equation}
\label{reibmann88lk}
\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2},\ 1-\sum_{i=0}^{k}e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}
\end{equation}
The main computational effort of the algorithm lies in consecutive $k$ matrix vector multiplications (MVM), necessary for calculation of epochs of DTMC in (\ref{reibmann88pi}) and is of $O(\eta k)$ where $\eta$ is the number of nonzero elements of (sparse) $P$. As our M/M/s/n model is a birth-death process and only transitions between neighboring states are possible, the resulting transition matrix will be tridiagonal ($\eta=3n$) of size $n=s+q+1$ with $max_{i}(|q_{i,i}|)=\lambda + s\mu$.
As in the case of a Call Center, the optimal setting of the system in terms of the trade-off between service quality and efficiency is achieved for approximately steady load $\rho=\frac{\lambda}{s\mu}$, the number of (scheduled) servers will then grow approximately linearly with $\lambda$.
Further, if we assume the proportion of servers to the queue capacity to be constant and being some fraction of system size $s=\nu n$, the resulting value of uniformization rate will be $\alpha\geqq\rho n \nu (1+\mu)$. The computational complexity dependent of the size of the analyzed system would be then roughly of:
\begin{equation}
\label{complexity}
O( n^2 \Theta t),\ \ \Theta\thickapprox 3\rho \nu(1+\mu)
\end{equation}
For large $\alpha t$, as the distribution converges to normal, which is symmetric with the mean $\alpha t$, both left and right truncation points $l$ and $k$ in (\ref{reibmann88lk}) will tend to be symmetric to the mean. The number $\frac{l+k}{2}$ is consequently of $O(\alpha t)$ and the number of additional $\frac{k-l}{2}$ MVMs for the given error tolerance of $O\sqrt{\alpha t}$ and proportional to inverse cdf for that given $\epsilon$.
Therefore, although we could solve the $p(t)$ with any accuracy $\epsilon > 0$, choosing a higher, acceptable for respective practical application, value would mean some computational advantage.
The savings due to (tighter) left truncation are, however, rather insignificant, unless, as proposed in \cite{Reibman_1988} the computation of the first significant DTMC is performed in an improved way.
An example for this could be precomputing of a $(P)^k$ in (\ref{jensen}) by successive squaring of $P$ which were practical for moderate system sizes or systems with low sparsity as it causes a fill-in of subsequential transition matrices.
Another method to compute the DTMC vectors in a more efficient way, presented first in \cite{muppala1992numerical}, is based on recognizing the steady-state of the underlying DTMC. If convergence of the probability vector in (\ref{reibmann88pi}) is guaranteed then we can stop the MVM after arriving at the steady-state. We can state their proposal as follows:
let us assume that DTMC has the steady state solution $ \Pi (\infty )$,
and that after the $S$ iteration of (\ref{reibmann88pi}), $\Vert\Pi(S) - \Pi(\infty)\Vert_v < \delta(S)$, where $\Vert.\Vert_v$ is an arbitrary vector norm. Then (\ref{reibmann88truncated}) changes to:
\begin{equation}
\label{muppala92}
\hat{p}(t)=
\begin{cases}
\Pi(S) & \text{if } S\leq l,\\
\\
\displaystyle{\sum_{i=l}^{S}\Pi(i)e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} + \Pi(S)(1 - \sum_{i=0}^{S}e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!})}& \text{if } l<S \leq k,\\
\\
\text{same as }p(t) \text{ in }(\ref{reibmann88truncated}) & \text{if } S>k
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
with $\hat{p}(t)$ used instead $p(t)$ denoting transient state probability vector computed using approximate steady state DTMC vector $\Pi(S)$.
According to \cite{Malhotra_1994} for a predefined error bound $\epsilon$ (as in \eqref{reibmann88k},\eqref{reibmann88lk}) the following inequality holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{malhotra94error}
\ \Vert p(t) - \hat{p}(t) \Vert < \frac{\epsilon}{2} + 2\delta (S)
\end{equation}
The computing of consecutive epochs of the DTMC is equivalent to the power method of finding stationary probability vector of a finite Markov chain. According to \cite{stewart2009probability}, if the stochastic matrix $P$ is aperiodic, convergence of the power method is guaranteed and the number of iterations $k$ needed to satisfy a tolerance criterion $\xi$ may be obtained approximately from the relationship
\begin{equation}
\label{stewart2009}
\ \rho ^k = \xi \text{, i.e., } k=\frac{log \xi}{log \rho}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the magnitude of subdominant eigenvalue $\lambda _2$ of matrix $P$
\[ 1=\Vert \lambda _1 \Vert > \Vert \lambda _2 \Vert \geq \Vert \lambda _3 \Vert ... \geq \Vert \lambda _N \Vert \]
reducing, consequently, the computational complexity to $O(\eta \ log \xi / log \vert \lambda_2 \vert )$. The detailed analysis of convergence of the power method may by found in \cite{O_Leary_1979} or in standard books on numerical analysis.
Since in most cases the size of the subdominant eigenvalue is not known in advance, the usual method of testing for convergence is to examine some norm of the difference of successive iterates:
\[ \Vert \Pi_i(k) - \Pi_i(k-m) \Vert < \xi \]
\cite{stewart2009probability} recommends using the relative convergence test of iterates spaced apart by $m$ being function of the rate of convergence:
\[ max_i\left( \frac{\vert \Pi_i(k) - \Pi_i(k-m) \vert}{\vert \Pi_i(k) \vert} \right) < \xi \]
and suggests envisaging further different convergence tests in order to accept the approximation as being sufficiently accurate.
\subsection{Uniformization for ICTMCs}
The infinitesimal generator matrix $Q(t)$ of an inhomogenous continuous-time Markov chain (ICTMC) is time dependent and the process is described by modified Kolmogorov`s forward equations \eqref{qih}.
As it is still of the type $y'=f(t,y)$, with $y(t)=p(t)$ and $f(t,y) = Q(t)y$, it could be solved by using iterative ODE solvers (e.g. Euler or the already mentioned Runge-Kutta methods) as demonstrated, for example, in \cite{Arns_2010}.
When the changes in generator matrix Q occur in a discrete way at finite points of time and all the rates are constant during the intervals between them, we could replace the analyzed ICTMC with a sequence of homogeneous systems computing the state probability vectors for consecutive time periods recursively using uniformization (e.g. as in \cite{Gross_1984}).
In case of a Call Center, time dependent changes in $Q$ can occur either discretely due to the changing number of servers (arrivals or departures of agents due to the schedule, planned and unplanned breaks, after call work or technical errors like failures of working places etc) or due to changes in the arrival rate.
Since the forecast and current traffic data in Call Center Management applications are already aggregated with their average values by some arbitrary period (e.g. 5, 15 or 30min), we will further assume, similarly to \cite{Ingolfsson_2010}, Q(t) being accordingly piecewise constant and refer to such consecutive time periods with the coresponding HCTMCs as steps.
For the implemented model a pre-emptive discipline is assumed, where the service request rejoins the queue when all servers are busy and a server number decrease happens. This allows for reuse of the calculated probability vector for the next period without modification, which changes only the interpretation of probabilities of a state from being served to waiting (or the opposite for the server increase). The detailed description of an alternative approach (the exhaustive discipline) can be found e.g. in \cite{Ingolfsson_2007} where servers finish serving requests in progress.
Another approach adopting uniformization for time-inhomogenous CTMCs introduced by \cite{van_Dijk_1992} with subsequent improvements by \cite{van1998numerical}, \cite{Arns_2010} and \cite{andreychenko2010fly} could be used if continuous arrival rates were available, reducing the error of the approximation with the average rates.
An additional aspect in case of a Call Center is that for long time steps even a very exact calculation of the final state probability vector is not sufficient if some performance indicators, like service level or any other distribution of waiting times, are to be estimated as in \cite{Green_2007} or \cite{Ingolfsson_2010}. For this purpose additional intermediary results are needed and that, as in the most transient cases they cannot be simply interpolated with required precision, implies the need for additional splitting of long calculation steps accordingly.
\section{Multi-Step Uniformization with steady-state detection}
The main purpose of modeling a Call Center is the prediction of service level as a function of time. The service level is defined in practical application as percentage of customers, waiting for being serviced longer than $d$ time units (e.g. SL of 90/10 means that no more than 10\% of service requests would have to wait longer than 10s). The exact expressions how to calculate predicted SL as a function of consecutive state probability vectors and number of servers can be found in \cite{Green_2007} or \cite{Ingolfsson_2010}. In order to estimate correct values for SL, the error of calculated state probabilities should stay continuously within the predefined range for the whole modeled period.
One of the biggest advantages of the uniformization is its strict error bounding for one step independently of its length. However, to model an ICTMC according to the above requirements we have to control the error of computation for a number of steps with possibly different lengths.
It is not difficult to show (e.g. \cite{de_Souza_e_Silva_2000}) that the total error for a number of uniformization steps is the sum of truncation errors (error bounds) for each step, consequently the total error bound has to be distributed to sub-intervals.
Assume for a time period $T$ with a known initial distribution $p(0)$ that for any $p(\tau)$, $\tau=(0,T]$ the value of each its state has to be computed with an error less than $\varepsilon_T$. Let us further assume $\varepsilon_t < \varepsilon_T$ being the error after computing some $p(t), t<T$. Then:
\begin{equation}
\label{silvaepsilon}
\varepsilon_t + \sum_i {\epsilon_{\Delta_i}} \leq \varepsilon_T ,\ \sum_i {\Delta_i} = T-t
\end{equation}
According to \cite{Arns_2010} for $\varepsilon_R=\varepsilon_T-\varepsilon_t$ being the remaining error, in a step of length $\Delta \leq (T-t)$ starting with $p(t)$ the error should be
\begin{equation}
\label{arnsepsilon}
\epsilon_\Delta \leq \varepsilon_R \frac{\Delta}{T-t}
\end{equation}
to not exceed the error $\varepsilon_T$. This implies distribution of the error bound proportional to the length of the respective single interval. Although it is very intuitive, one could also consider, according to the already mentioned computational complexity of higher right truncation values, which is asymptotically of $O\sqrt{\alpha t}$, to set rather higher error bounds for the steps with smaller $\alpha t$ (shorter size or lower activity) or, as explained further in the text, for higher steady-state detection thresholds. For example, tightening the error bound from $10^{-7}$ to $10^{-13}$ requires for $\alpha t = 255$ about 20\% of additional MVM, whereas for an $\alpha t = 4095$ the increase is only 6\%.
\
As the DTMC representing an M/M/s/n is both irreducible and aperiodic, its limiting (steady-state) distribution is unique and independent of the initial distribution.
The convergence properties required for existence of a steady-state solution of queuing systems can be found e.g. in \cite{stewart2009probability}. Due to the fact that the model does not allow abandonment and approximates an infinite capacity system with a M/M/s/n system of appropriate capacity, the existence of steady-state (in the meaning of either $n$ not growing infinitely or for a $n$ fixed - $\forall{t}: p_n(t)$ not bigger than some arbitrary value limiting adequacy of the approximation) requires $\lambda<\mu s$ as for an M/M/s system (such system will further be referred to as converging). Its precise stationary distribution $\Pi(\infty)$ can, using global balance equations (e.g. \cite{stewart2009probability}, be easily calculated (see section Implementation details).
\
We will consider now the case of the step of lenght $\Delta$ with initial probability vector $p(t)$ as in \eqref{silvaepsilon} with the DTMC converging.
As pointed out in the \cite{Katoen_2006}, in order to rely on the \emph{geometrical convergence} of power iterations for (aperiodic) DTMC the \emph{total variation norm} $l^\infty$, defined as $\Vert \nu \Vert_\infty = max_i\vert \nu_i \vert$ has to be used for the error estimate.
Let us assume that after the $S$ iteration of \eqref{reibmann88pi} ($S < l$ with $l$ for $\epsilon_\Delta$ as in \eqref{reibmann88lk})
\begin{equation}
\label{burak13sse_cond}
\frac{\Vert \Pi(S) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}{\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty} < \delta \text{, with }\delta < \varepsilon_T
\end{equation}
Now instead of further (infinitely) iterating $ \Pi(S)$ in order to calculate $p(t+\Delta)$ as in \eqref{reibmann88}, we will use $\Pi(\infty)$ (instead of $ \Pi(S)$, as proposed in the original algorithm by \cite{muppala1992numerical}) as the $\hat{p}(t+\Delta)$ approximation of such (error free) $p(t+\Delta)$.
Therefore, for:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{burak13sserr_1}
p(t+\Delta) - \hat{p}(t+\Delta) & = & \sum_{i=0}^S (\Pi(i)-\Pi(\infty))e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} \\
& + & \sum_{i=S+1}^\infty (\Pi(i)-\Pi(\infty))e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
as the norm of the first summation is, due to $\Pi(i)$ and $\Pi(\infty)$ being stochastic vectors (and, therefore, $\forall: j \ \vert\Pi_j(i) - \Pi_j(\infty)\vert < 1$) and $S<l$,
strictly upper bounded by:
\begin{equation}
\label{burak13sserr_epsS}
\epsilon_S = Q_\lambda(S) = \sum_{i=0}^S e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} \ \ , \epsilon_S < \frac {\epsilon_\Delta}{2}
\end{equation}
and, as from initial condition:
\[\forall i>S : \Vert \Pi(i) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty < \delta {\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}, \text{ and }\sum_{i=S+1}^\infty e^{-\alpha t} \frac{(\alpha t)^{i}}{i!} <1 \]
the resulting error is upper bounded:
\begin{equation}
\label{burak13sserr_1norm}
\Vert p(t+\Delta) - \hat{p}(t+\Delta) \Vert_\infty < \epsilon_S + \delta {\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}\ \ , \epsilon_S < \frac{\epsilon_\Delta}{2}
\end{equation}
As steady-state distribution is unique and independent of initial probability distribution (of the step) the above error is absolute and independent of the error of the previous steps.
Therefore:
\begin{equation}
\label{burak13sserr_eps}
\varepsilon_{t+\Delta} = \epsilon_S + \frac{\Vert \Pi(S) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}{\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}
\end{equation}
As the difference (error) between the $\Pi(i)$ and $\Pi(\infty)$ gets smaller, we can expect the angle between both vectors decreasing as well, therefore, the convergence rate will approach asymptotically some value dependent only on subdominant eigenvalue of $P$. If we treat the difference of both vectors as function of current error and some convergence rate function in $i$, we can consequently calculate its value for some $l_S > i$. Although we do not have neither the subdominant eigenvalue nor the exact function of convergence rate $cr(i)$, we can, at any point, easily estimate numerically the current error, the convergence rate and its first derivative, which allows the estimation of $\Vert\Pi(l_S) - \Pi(\infty)\Vert_\infty$ using second order Taylor expansion as:
\begin{multline}
\label{burak13sserr_Sltaylor}
log\left( \frac{\Vert \Pi(l_S) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}{\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty} \right) =
\\
log\left(\frac{\Vert \Pi(i) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}{\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}\right) + (l_S - i)cr(i) + \frac{(l_S - i)^2}{2!} cr'(i)
\end{multline}
with the quality of the estimation improving as $lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}(cr'(i)) \rightarrow 0$.
\
Let us assume some $l_S < l$ with $l$ for $\epsilon_\Delta$ as in \eqref{reibmann88lk}, such that $\epsilon_{l_S}$ equal to the cdf of the discrete Poisson distribution function, as in \eqref{burak13sserr_epsS} and insignificant (e.g. $\epsilon_{l_S}=\epsilon_\Delta \times 10^{-3}$). If for some $i < l_S < l$ the relative error of $\Pi(i)$ is greater than the convergence threshold $\delta$ but smaller than some $\delta_T$ ($\delta_T$ relatively small to $\Pi(\infty)$ in order to provide acceptable quality of (\ref{burak13sserr_Sltaylor})) and the relative error of $\Pi(l_S)$ smaller than the convergence threshold $\delta$, then we can stop further iterating $\Pi(i)$ and use $\Pi(\infty)$ as $\hat{p}(t+\Delta)$ with:
\begin{equation}
\label{burak13sserr_eps_taylor}
\varepsilon_{t+\Delta} = \frac{\Vert \Pi(l_S) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}{\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}
\end{equation}
\
However, meeting the convergence can happen earlier, when the error $\varepsilon_t$ from the previous step causes the initial probability vector p(t) being closer to limiting distribution of the current step than the theoretical error-free value. Due to the geometrical convergence of the DTMC this difference is always smaller than:
\begin{multline}
\label{burak13sserr_Sshift}
K_\varepsilon = \frac{log \xi_0 - log(\xi_0 + \varepsilon_t)}{\hat{cr}}, \text{ where: }
\hat{cr}=\frac{log \xi_S - log \xi_0}{S},
\\
\xi_0=\frac{\Vert \Pi(0) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}{\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty},
\xi_S=\frac{\Vert \Pi(S) - \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty}{\Vert \Pi(\infty) \Vert_\infty},
\Pi(0)=p(t)
\\
\text{with S replaced by } l_S \text{ if \eqref{burak13sserr_Sltaylor} is used}
\end{multline}
Therefore, if the initial (convergence) condition \eqref{burak13sse_cond} has not been met until $S < l-K_\varepsilon$ (or when $l_S+K_\varepsilon > l$ if \eqref{burak13sserr_Sltaylor} is used), $p(t+\Delta)$ will be calculated as in \eqref{reibmann88truncated} and $ \varepsilon_{t+\Delta} = \varepsilon_t + \epsilon_\Delta$. The same applies if the DTMC is not converging.
\\
We can now use the fact that the error bound is, in case the steady state is reached, absolute and independent of the error of the previous steps to set the convergence threshold dependent rather on the actual total error bound than the error for the single step (as proposed e.g. by \cite{Malhotra_1994}). This is particularly useful in cases of steps with large $\alpha t$ as the relative cost of achieving tighter truncation bonds gets smaller, allowing to trade them for higher convergence thresholds while still within the global error bound for the whole solution.
Assume the system at time $m,0 \leq m <T$. To satisfy $\varepsilon_t < \varepsilon_T$ for each $p(t)$, $t=(m,T]$ we have to:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{burak13delta}
\delta_m \leq \varepsilon_T - \varepsilon_m - \sum_m^{T}\epsilon_\Delta
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Computational Examples}
To test the implementation the following model has been used: a service system (Call Center) working for time $T$ = 24h and starting empty. The arrival rate is sinusoidal with two peaks and divided into 288 (5min) periods with constant averaged rates, similar to the example in \citep{Ingolfsson_2010}, with the load varying, in the first example - between 0.65 and 1.05. The service rate and number of servers are constant ($\mu(t)=\mu$, $s(t)=s$), the arrival rate varies in time - $\lambda (t) = s \mu (0.85 + 0.2sin(3\pi t / T), 0 \leq t < T$.
The capacity of the queue is constant and chosen so that for all times the probability $p_n(t)$ of the system being in the state $n$ is less than $1.5 \times 10^{-3}$ for the smallest (30+180) and does not reach $1 \times 10^{-4}$ for all the other systems.
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computational example 1 - System load}
\label{load}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{load}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
To evaluate the impact of the proposed steady-state detection algorithm, models of 5 different sizes have been at first calculated using unmodified uniformization algorithm with an error step $\epsilon=1.5\times 10^{-5}$ corresponding to the total error bound $\varepsilon_T=2.88 \times 10^{-3}$.
All experiments were performed on an 1.7GHz PC under 64bit Linux OS with a processor supporting vector operations in both: avx with 256bit vectors (4 double or 8 float operations simultaneously) and the older sse instruction set with 128bit vector operations (an Intel i5-3317U with cpu throttling disabled via kernel scaling governor), compiled with GNU GCC compiler.
In order to evaluate the impact of our contribution on some common, hardware independent reference (base), the algorithm was firstly implemented using \emph{cblas\_(s/d)gbmv} (band) matrix vector multiplication from Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software (atlas) for GCC compiler as MVM routine.
The working set of the critical part of the implementation requires for every step: access to the initial (e.g. $p(t)$ from previous step) probability vector and creation of new state probability vector which is then used after every MVM to store partial sums and saved "permanently" into RAM after step end.
The calculation of sub-sequential DTMCs requires memory for two probability vectors and 3 rows of the transition matrix. All of them are reused in following steps in order to minimize memory bandwidth. Each of the referenced vectors is of size n+1.
Due to the regular structure of the transition matrix, the second, improved, MVM algorithm calculates consecutive DTMCs creating required operands recursively (on the fly) instead of storing the transition matrix for explicit matrix vector multiplication - consequently reducing working set of MVM loop to only 2 vectors of size n+1.
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Comparison base vs. improved MVM algorithm SSE3/AVX double precision.}
\centering
\resizebox{0.75\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{l||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1.5e-5 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{base ATLAS} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{improved (sse)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{improved (avx)} \\
\hline
System size (s+q) & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
210........(30+180)& 67& 1.53& 14& 0.32& 6& 0.14 \\
600.......(100+500)& 450& 1.25& 92& 0.26& 39& 0.11 \\
1500.....(300+1200)& 3093& 1.37& 494& 0.21& 224& 0.10 \\
4000....(1000+3000)& 24113& 1.51& 3685& 0.23& 1991& 0.12 \\
9000....(3000+6000)& 155821& 1.92& 22448& 0.28& 12454& 0.15 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}}
\label{baseSSE3double}
\end{table}
All measurements use standard Unix \emph{time.h/clock()} function - returning CPU time. All times are in milliseconds.
As the precompiled ATLAS library was available only for sse3, all implementations are compared using only this instruction set (compiled with -march=core2 for GCC). The column \emph{improved (avx)} showing the results of the same program compiled using newer instruction set, being clearly an exception from the above statement, only demonstrates that the modified algorithm is vectorizable and scales well with available vector length.
\
\subsubsection{Steady-state detection}
\
Since the results for the steps with load $\rho \geq 1$ would be identical to those when no steady detection was used, we modified slightly the first example, changing only the arrival rate to $\lambda (t) = s \mu (0.8 + 0.1sin(3\pi t / T), 0 \leq t < T$ with the load $0.7 \leq \rho \leq 0.9$, in order to show the impact of steady state detection on performance and precision in cases when the system can possibly converge.
When applying now \eqref{burak13delta} with e.g. constant $\epsilon_\Delta=1\times 10^{-7}$ and $ \varepsilon_T=0.5\times 10^{-2}$, we can set the steady-state detection threshold $\delta=4.97\times10^{-3}$.
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Number of iterations(mvm) per step, system size 4000 \newline(without convergence error prediction).}
\label{ssd70_90__1000_3000}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssd70_90__1000_3000}
{\scriptsize load $0.70 \leq \rho \leq 0.90$, s=1000 q=3000\par}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Number of iterations(mvm) per step, system size 4000 \newline(with convergence error prediction).}
\label{ssd70_90_taylor_1000_3000}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssd70_90_taylor_1000_3000}
{\scriptsize load $0.70 \leq \rho \leq 0.90$, s=1000 q=3000,$\delta_T=5.5 \times 10^{-2}$\par}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The impact of reduced computational effort due to steady-state detection for some chosen total error bounds (between $0$ and $5\times10^{-2}$), with corresponding steady-state detection thresholds, is illustrated for the system of size 4000 in Figure \ref{ssd70_90__1000_3000} and with the use of convergence error prediction as in (\ref{burak13sserr_Sltaylor}) in Figure \ref{ssd70_90_taylor_1000_3000} ($\delta_T=5.5 \times 10^{-2}$).
The detailed results of computation times are in Tables \ref{table_ssd_70_90} and \ref{table_ssd_70_90_taylor}.
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computation times, steady-state detection.}
\resizebox{0.71\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
{\begin{tabular}{l||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-7 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{no ssd($\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-5)} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-03} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$1.5e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$3e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-02} \\
\hline
System size & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
1500...(300+1200)& 459& 0.20& 404& 0.18& 287& 0.13& 54& 0.024& 33& 0.014\\
4000..(1000+3000)& 3236& 0.21& 3379& 0.21& 2650& 0.17& 1496& 0.094& 424& 0.026\\
9000..(3000+6000)& 20915& 0.26& 21027& 0.26& 19043& 0.20& 16025& 0.198& 9190& 0.113\\
\end{tabular}}
{\scriptsize load $0.7 \leq \rho \leq 0.9$\par}
\end{minipage}}
\label{table_ssd_70_90}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computation times, steady-state detection with convergence error prediction.}
\resizebox{0.71\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
{\begin{tabular}{l||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-7,$\delta_T$=5.5e-2 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{no ssd($\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-5)} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-03} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$1.5e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$3e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-02} \\
\hline
System size & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
1500...(300+1200)& 414& 0.19& 402& 0.18& 313& 0.14& 42& 0.018& 33& 0.015\\
4000..(1000+3000)& 3222& 0.20& 3190& 0.20& 2515& 0.16& 876& 0.055& 362& 0.023\\
9000..(3000+6000)& 20492& 0.25& 20542& 0.25& 18299& 0.23& 14449& 0.178& 8015& 0.099\\
\end{tabular}}
{\scriptsize load $0.7 \leq \rho \leq 0.9$\par}
\end{minipage}}
\label{table_ssd_70_90_taylor}
\end{table}
Subsequently, we revisit our first experiment with the load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$ (Figure \ref{load}), now using \eqref{burak13delta}, with the same $\varepsilon_T, \epsilon_\Delta$ parameters as in the modified example. The results (with convergence error prediction) are in Table \ref{table_ssd_65_105_taylor} and for the system of size 4000 in Figures \ref{ssd65_105__1000_3000} and \ref{ssd65_105_taylor_1000_3000}.
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computation times, steady-state detection with convergence error prediction.}
\resizebox{0.71\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
{\begin{tabular}{p{2.95cm}||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-7,$\delta_T$=5.5e-2 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{no ssd($\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-5)} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-03} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$1.5e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$3e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-02} \\
\hline
System size & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
1500...(300+1200)& 429& 0.19& 449& 0.20& 451& 0.20& 396& 0.18& 337& 0.15\\
4000..(1000+3000)& 3364& 0.21& 3530& 0.22& 3419& 0.21& 3313& 0.21& 3207& 0.20\\
9000..(3000+6000)& 21248& 0.26& 21921& 0.27& 21656& 0.27& 21230& 0.26& 20776& 0.26\\
\end{tabular}}
{\scriptsize load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$\par}
\end{minipage}}
\label{table_ssd_65_105_taylor}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Number of iterations (mvm) per step, system size 4000 \newline(without convergence error prediction).}
\label{ssd65_105__1000_3000}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssd65_105__1000_3000}
{\scriptsize load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$, s=1000 q=3000\par}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Number of iterations (mvm) per step, system size 4000 \newline(with convergence error prediction).}
\label{ssd65_105_taylor_1000_3000}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssd65_105_taylor_1000_3000}
{\scriptsize load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$, s=1000 q=3000\par}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Error of the expected system state, system size 4000.}
\label{ssd65_105err__1000_3000}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssd65_105err__1000_3000}
{\scriptsize load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$, s=1000 q=3000\par}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{ssd65_105err__1000_3000} shows the error of the expected state of the system, derived from the calculated probability vector as:
\[ES(t)=\sum_i{i \pi_i(t)},\ p(t)=[\pi_0..\pi_n]\]
The reference for the error estimate has been calculated with $\epsilon_\Delta=1\times10^{-13}$.
\
The computational overhead resulting from steady-state detection (mainly due to the calculation and comparison of vector norms), which has to be done in cases when the system can possibly converge
($ \frac{198}{288}$ in the above example) and from tighter step error bounds (traded for the convergence threshold), is offset by savings due to the steady-state detected within the preset error bound, at first for the error bound of $3 \times 10^{-2}$.
However, the savings in the practical Call Center applications should be rather closer to the modified (converging) example, as overloaded time periods will usually constitute much lower percentage of operational times due to the service level requirements.
The relative increase of computational complexity visible in the $3000+6000$ case in both (original and modified) examples is partially due to filling of the probability vector with very small probability values requiring more floating points operation per MVM.
This could be simply ignored for practical reasons, as there is (to the best knowledge of the author) no Call Center on the earth employing more then 1000 agents on a single skill (and even if there were one, then they could probably afford more powerful cpu than the author's $800\$$ notebook).
Alternatively, we can consider the probabilities smaller than e.g. $1 \times 10^{-37}$ being insignificant and treat them as if they were equal to $0$, reducing to some extent this effect. The systematic loss of precision due to such truncation would not exceed $\approx 9 \times 10^{-34}$ of the probability mass for the $3000+6000$ case and be, therefore, much smaller than the error due to the truncation of Poisson probability mass (as shown e.g. in the $no ssd$ example on Figure \ref{ssd65_105err__1000_3000}).
An additional advantage of this approach is the possibility to store and process the DTMC vectors in single (binary32) precision, which enables up to 2 times more floating point operations in the same time when using sse or up to 4 times more when using avx instruction set.
The possible disadvantage is much bigger accumulation of rounding errors due to MVM with much less precision.
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computation times, steady-state detection (binary32 on sse).}
\resizebox{0.71\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
{\begin{tabular}{l||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-7,$\delta_T$=5.5e-2 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{no ssd($\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-5)} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-03} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$1.5e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$3e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-02} \\
\hline
System size & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
1500...(300+1200)& 320& 0.14& 299& 0.13& 194& 0.086& 31& 0.014& 24& 0.011\\
4000..(1000+3000)& 2388& 0.15& 2323& 0.15& 1863& 0.120& 685& 0.043& 232& 0.015\\
9000..(3000+6000)& 14474& 0.18& 14524& 0.18& 12750& 0.160& 10284& 0.126& 5532& 0.068\\
\end{tabular}}
{\scriptsize load $0.7 \leq \rho \leq 0.9$\par}
\end{minipage}}
\label{table_ssd_70_90_sse32}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computation times, steady-state detection (binary32 on sse).}
\resizebox{0.71\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
{\begin{tabular}{l||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-7,$\delta_T$=5.5e-2 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{no ssd($\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-5)} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-03} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$1.5e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$3e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-02} \\
\hline
System size & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
1500...(300+1200)& 321& 0.14& 401& 0.18& 336& 0.15& 304& 0.14& 269& 0.12\\
4000..(1000+3000)& 2405& 0.15& 2616& 0.16& 2515& 0.16& 2436& 0.15& 2296& 0.14\\
9000..(3000+6000)& 15319& 0.19& 15738& 0.19& 15413& 0.19& 15296& 0.19& 14920& 0.18\\
\end{tabular}}
{\scriptsize load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$\par}
\end{minipage}}
\label{table_ssd_65_105_sse32}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Error of the expected system state, system size 4000, single (binary32) precision.}
\label{ssd65_105err_float_1000_3000}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ssd65_105err_float_1000_3000}
{\scriptsize load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$, s=1000 q=3000\par}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
Tables \ref{table_ssd_70_90_sse32} and \ref{table_ssd_65_105_sse32} show execution times of such implementation (for the same data as Tables \ref{table_ssd_70_90}/\ref{table_ssd_70_90_taylor} and \ref{table_ssd_65_105_taylor}). Figure \ref{ssd65_105err_float_1000_3000} shows its error (similar to Figure \ref{ssd65_105err__1000_3000}).
\
The results in Tables \ref{table_ssd_70_90_avx32} and \ref{table_ssd_65_105_avx32} show the same computation as the Tables \ref{table_ssd_70_90_sse32} and \ref{table_ssd_65_105_sse32} performed with the newer avx instruction set (on the same hardware). They can not be directly compared with the reference (ATLAS) implementation due to the different instruction set, they show, however, much more efficient utilization of available hardware (using still only 1 of 2 available cpu cores).
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computation times, with steady-state detection (binary32 on avx).}
\resizebox{0.71\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
{\begin{tabular}{l||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-7,$\delta_T$=5.5e-2 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{no ssd($\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-5)} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-03} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$1.5e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$3e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-02} \\
\hline
System size & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ &time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
1500...(300+1200)& 134& 0.059& 132& 0.059& 86& 0.038& 16& 0.0069& 13& 0.0057\\
4000..(1000+3000)& 1122& 0.070& 1104& 0.069& 894& 0.056& 308& 0.0193& 114& 0.0071\\
9000..(3000+6000)& 6656& 0.082& 6677& 0.082& 5795& 0.071& 4746& 0.0586& 2526& 0.0312\\
\end{tabular}}
{\scriptsize load $0.7 \leq \rho \leq 0.9$\par}
\end{minipage}}
\label{table_ssd_70_90_avx32}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!t!b]
\caption{Computation times, with steady-state detection (binary32 on avx).}
\resizebox{0.71\textwidth}{!}{\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
{\begin{tabular}{l||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r||r|r}
$\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-7,$\delta_T$=5.5e-2 & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{no ssd($\epsilon_\Delta$=1e-5)} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-03} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$1.5e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\varepsilon_T=$3e-02} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\varepsilon_T=$5e-02} \\
\hline
System size & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ & time & $t/n^2$ &time & $t/n^2$ \\
\hline
1500...(300+1200)& 138& 0.061& 151& 0.067& 146& 0.065& 135& 0.060& 114& 0.051\\
4000..(1000+3000)& 1148& 0.072& 1219& 0.076& 1212& 0.071& 1135& 0.071& 1087& 0.068\\
9000..(3000+6000)& 7312& 0.090& 7585& 0.094& 7492& 0.093& 7345& 0.091& 7271& 0.089\\
\end{tabular}}
{\scriptsize load $0.65 \leq \rho \leq 1.05$\par}
\end{minipage}}
\label{table_ssd_65_105_avx32}
\end{table}
\subsection{Implementation details}
All described algorithms assume that some basic floating point arithmetic is implemented conforming to IEEE 754-2008 standard (e.g. GCC Default IEEE 754 compliance on Intel cpu's supporting either sse or avx instructions). In particular, the numerical accuracy and stability analysis (rounding, underflow and overflow) assumes floating point formats implemented as binary32, binary64 or binary128 (radix 2), correct rounding to the nearest even for basic arithmetic operations and correct conversion from integers.
\subsubsection{Poisson discrete distribution function}
\
The algorithm presented in Appendix
computes for given values $\lambda$ ($\alpha t$ in the uniformization algorithm), $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_{ssd}$:
the limits $l_{ssd},l,k$, the normalization value $W$ and the weights $w(j), j\in \{l_{ssd} .. k\}$, such that individual Poisson probabilities: $p(i)=w(i)/W , i\in \{l .. k\}$
and $w(S)/W = \epsilon_S, S\in \{l_{ssd} .. l-1\}$, where $\epsilon_S$ is equal to the cdf of the discrete Poisson distribution function, as in \eqref{burak13sserr_epsS}.
If $\epsilon_{ssd}$=$\epsilon$, only the discrete Poisson probabilities are calculated and stored (e.g. in cases of a non converging system), like for the traditional uniformization algorithm.
The algorithm computes the weights recursively starting from mode $m=\lfloor \lambda \rfloor$, with $w(m)$ being the initial weight, similarly to \cite{Fox_1988}. As there is practically no penalty in using double precision numbers in comparison to the single (float) precision for sequential calculations on modern cpu's, the (double precision) binary64 format with $p=53$ bit precision and $w=11$ bit exponent is used. The initial value used for $w(m)$ is 0x1.0p176 ($\approx9.57809713041180536\times10^{52}$).
The calculation of every weight, both left and right to $m$, requires one multiplication and one division.
As we assume basic IEEE 754-2008 conformity, the relative rounding error for every next n'th calculated weight will be upper bounded by $(1+2^{-53})^{2n-2} -1$.
The rounding error of W is bounded by $(start-end)eps$, where $eps= 2^{-53} \approx 1.11\times10^{-16}$ is the machine epsilon for binary64, but will probably be much smaller, due to the summation performed in increasing order and the specific properties of the function, as already pointed out in \cite{Fox_1988}, or for much more detailed analysis of the error of sum of exponentially distributed numbers in increased order also \cite{Robertazzi_1988}. Therefore, the use of more accurate summation algorithms (e.g. Kahan's or Priest's compensated summation) or further increase of precision (e.g. trough using of binary128 type) seems not to be justified.
The number of weights for the calculation of the normalization value $W=\sum_{start}^{end} w()$ is chosen so that the remaining (weighted) cdf is always smaller than the numerical accuracy of $W$ :
\[Pr(X\leqslant start) + Pr(X\leqslant end) < eps \]
Consequently, $\sum_l^k p() = 1-\epsilon$ and is not always equal to one, as in \cite{Fox_1988}.
For bounding the number of calculated weights, the algorithm uses the property of the Poisson distribution having truncation points being asymptotically of $O(\sqrt{\lambda})$ for constant remaining cdf (tail) value and approximates the required number of weights using simple function of $\sqrt{\lambda}$. Figure \ref{B14_weights_L} shows the number of weights necessary to calculate the distribution with truncated probability mass of less than some given value, as a function of $\lambda$, with L and R being the values calculated by the algorithm's approximation.
\begin{figure}[h!t!b]
\caption{Number of weights to be calculated for given precision as a function of $\lambda$}
\label{B14_weights_L}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{B14_weights_L}
\includegraphics[width=0.50\linewidth]{B14_weights_R}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The values of weights are (for $0<\lambda<\sqrt{LONG\_MAX} / 2 \approx 1.51\times10^9$ - restricted due to the size of C++ standard \emph{long} format), due to the choice of $w[m]$ and bounding of their number by the approximation, always between $1\times10^{-35}$ and $1\times10^{58}$ and, therefore, comfortably between under- and overflow limits of binary64 format.
The computational complexity is due to the bounding method of $O\sqrt{\lambda}$
\subsubsection{M/M/s/n steady state probability vector}
\
The calculation of exact steady state probability vector $\Pi(\infty)$ is done using the well known formula:
\begin{equation}
\label{ErlangC}
\Pi_0^{-1} (\infty )=\sum_{k=0}^{s-1} \frac{(s\rho)^k}{k!} + \sum_{k=s}^n \frac{(s\rho)^k}{s^{k-s}s!}
\ ,\
\Pi_k (\infty )=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle \Pi_0 (\infty )\frac{(s\rho)^k}{k!}, & 0 < k \leq s\\
\\
\displaystyle \Pi_0 (\infty )\frac{(s\rho)^k}{s^{k-s}s!}, & s\leq k \leq n
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The implementation uses its modification similarly to the algorithm calculating Poisson probabilities, with the mode $m = \lfloor s\rho \rfloor$
and $w[m]=$0x1.0p176. Consequently, the same rounding error approximations for calculating probabilities apart from $m$ apply.
The calculation of weights stops at the limits of the vector or when their values would be no more normalized binary64 numbers using for the remaining weights the value 0x0.0p+0 (to prevent e.g. underflow). The weights are normalized by the total weight to steady state probabilities and only the normalized (either binary32 or binary64) numbers or 0x0p+0 value are stored.
\subsubsection{Uniformization algorithm}
\
Due to the restricted precision of binary32 (float), the probability weighted sum of significant DTMC vectors is done both for binary32 and binary64 implementations in binary64 (double) accuracy. Consequently, the consecutive probability vectors $p(t)$ are always stored and manipulated in binary64 precision (including in particular the casting of precalculated binary32 steady state DTMC vector in cases where steady state was detected).
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we showed that the uniformization can be applied in a very effective way to evaluate transient behavior of M/M/n queues. Applied to modeling of the Call Center schedules, it allows calculation of transient system states for systems of any, possible in practical applications, size in a very short time ($\lesssim$1s.), in a numerically stable way, with very high precision, using relatively common and inexpensive CPU. It can, therefore, be used in evaluating possible schedule changes in order to support short-time decisions (e.g. shift times or breaks assignments) in a real-time manner.
Its use can be also extended to schedule planning based on available forecasts, as described in \cite{Ingolfsson_2010}. Particularly useful in this application is the possibility of performance optimization using steady-state detection for systems with load less than 1. As we can start constructing such schedules from an "overstaffed" prototype and then consecutively reduce the applied workforce in order to achieve the desired service level and efficiency, it is then guaranteed that the system will converge for the most of the time during such optimization, reducing the computational time to a fraction, particularly for larger system sizes as shown in the modified (converging) example. It can be even further accelerated by using higher error bounds for first schedule approximations and their step-wise refinement towards a final optimal solution.
As the proposed error control method is not specific to the queuing systems, it could be also useful for multi-step solution of other ICTMC's with some homogeneous or almost-homogeneous time steps. Particularly for systems with big state spaces or long step times (large $\alpha t$) , where we can "trade" the then relatively inexpensive higher cdf's truncation precision for higher convergence thresholds, it will result in significant reduction of computational effort without compromising strict error bounds for the whole (multi-step) solution.
The presented method can be extended in several directions. The first one could be, in regard to Call Center modeling, to consider abandonment due to impatient customers or more generally consider cases where we can easily calculate the precise steady-state of the system in advance(e.g using flow equations). Another would be to apply it in the similar way to other inhomogeneous CTMCs in cases, where steady state for a step could be efficiently approximated using faster converging iterative methods (e.g. Lanczos) parallel to the DTMC evolution.
Finally, as the presented algorithm is quite thrifty in memory bandwidth use and at the same time its split for parallel calculation of (parts of) consecutive DTMC probability vectors would need relatively little synchronization due to the on the fly generation of coefficients, it could profit from multi-threaded execution on separate CPU cores in an almost linear way (e.g. execution on a 8-core CPU would require almost 8 times less time). This could be relatively easily implemented using, for example, the standard OpenMP extension.
\nocite{fog2006optimizing}
\newpage
\section*{APPENDIX: Class B14 - Computing Poisson Probabilities}
\lstset{language=C++,
basicstyle=\scriptsize,
breaklines=true
}
\begin{lstlisting}
#ifndef Poisson_Burak2014
#define Poisson_Burak2014
#include<cmath>
#include<cstdlib>
class B14 {
private: long wsize,start;
long left_l,right_k;
double *weights;
double total_weight;
public:
//constructor - creates weights
B14(const double Lambda, double Epsilon, double Epsilon_ssd);
long LS(){return start;} //left truncation point for ssd epsilons
long L() {return left_l;} //left truncation point
long R() {return right_k;} //rigt truncation point
//weights value by the n-th poisson probability
double p(const double value, const long n)
{if(value > total_weight)
return((n>=left_l)&&(n<(wsize+start)) ?
(value/total_weight)*weights[n-start] : 0.0);
return((n>=left_l)&&(n<(wsize+start)) ?
(value*weights[n-start])/total_weight : 0.0);}
//returns S-th cdf
double essd(const long S)
{return ((S>=start) && (S<left_l) ?
weights[S-start]/total_weight : 0.0);}
//returns n-th weight, use together with W()
double weight(const long n)
{return ((n>=start) && (n<wsize+start) ?
weights[n-start] : 0.0);}
//for weighted sums of small values e.g. probabilities:
// sum_i( weight(i) * p_i ) / W()
double W(){return total_weight;}
~B14(){free(weights);}
}; //end of B14 class
B14::B14(const double Lambda, double Epsilon, double Epsilon_ssd)
{if(!(Lambda > 0.0)||!(Epsilon<1.0d))
{left_l=right_k=0;weights=&total_weight;
total_weight=nan("");return;}
if(Epsilon<1e-50)Epsilon=1e-50;
if(Epsilon_ssd<1e-50)Epsilon_ssd=1e-50;
if(!(Epsilon_ssd<Epsilon))Epsilon_ssd=Epsilon; //LS=L essd=0.0
long m=(long)floor(Lambda);
//number of temporary weights stored
long mw=30; long ma=44; long ms=21;
long tsize=(long)(sqrt(Lambda) * mw) + ma;
long tstart=m+ms-tsize/2;if(tstart<0)tstart=0;
//if short of stack and big Lambda: alloca -> malloc+free
double *tweights=(double*)alloca(tsize*sizeof(double));
long j=m-tstart;
tweights[j]=0x1.0p176; //weight[m]
for(j=m-tstart;j>0;j--)
tweights[j-1]=(tweights[j]*(j+tstart))/Lambda;
for(j=m-tstart+1;j<tsize;j++)
tweights[j]=(Lambda*tweights[j-1])/(j+tstart);
//compute total_weight
total_weight=0.0;
for(j=0;j<(m-tstart);j++)total_weight+=tweights[j];
double suml=0.0;
for(j=(tsize-1);j>=(m-tstart);j--)suml+=tweights[j];
total_weight+=suml;
//calculate truncation points
double ogon=(Epsilon_ssd*total_weight)/2.0;
long i=0;
double cdf=tweights[i];
while(cdf<ogon) cdf+=tweights[++i];
start=i+tstart;
double cdf_start=cdf;
ogon=(Epsilon*total_weight)/2.0;
while(cdf<ogon) cdf+=tweights[++i];
left_l=i+tstart;
//if(i==0)ogon*=2; //for historical compatibility
i=tsize-1;
cdf=tweights[i];
while(cdf<ogon) cdf+=tweights[--i];
right_k=i+tstart;
//only weights/cdfs between LS and R are stored
wsize=right_k-start+1;
weights = (double *)malloc(wsize * sizeof(double));
weights[0]=cdf_start;
for(j=start+1;j<left_l;j++)
weights[j-start]=weights[j-start-1]+tweights[j-tstart];
for(j=left_l;j<=right_k;j++)
weights[j-start]=tweights[j-tstart];
}//end of B14 constructor
#endif
\end{lstlisting}
\newpage
\section*{References}
\input{M.Burak_multistep_error_control_uniformization_ctms.bbl}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{section:intro}
As part of Hadamard's well-posedness criteria, stability of the utility maximization problem with random endowment is studied with respect to perturbations in both volatility and drift. Specifically, we seek to answer the question:
\begin{center}
\textit{
What conditions on the utility function and modes of convergence on the sequence of volatilities and drifts guarantee convergence of the corresponding value functions and indifference prices?
}
\end{center}
Perhaps surprisingly, convergence can fail even in the tamest of settings when the utility function is finite only on $\R_+$ and the volatility can vary. We present a simple counterexample in a stochastic volatility setting with power utility. When the utility function is finite only on $\R_+$, the admissibility criterion is harsh: negative values in terminal wealth plus random endowment equate to minus infinity in utility. When volatility can vary, a contingent claim that is replicable only in the limiting market requires strictly more initial capital in every pre-limiting market
in order to avoid a minus infinity contribution towards expected utility. As part of the counterexample, we prove a positive convergence result in which the limiting market adopts an additional admissibility condition that is implicitly present in each pre-limiting market.
When the investor's utility function is finite on the entire real line, the admissibility criterion is different. Our main result provides conditions on the utility function and on the sequence of markets so that we have convergence of the value functions and indifference prices. We consider a similar setup to \cite{LZ07SPA}, and our main assumptions are analogous to theirs. The only non-standard assumption we require is an assumption on the limiting market. The significant difficulty stems from the growth of the dual utility function at infinity because in contrast to utilities on $\R_+$, the conjugate of a real line utility grows strictly faster than linearly at infinity. We provide two sufficient conditions. These conditions include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The first condition applies to a contingent claim that is replicable in the limiting market yet not replicable in any pre-limiting market. The corresponding stability problem is relevant when a claim's underlying asset is not liquidly traded but is closely linked to a liquidly traded asset. This situation arises, e.g., when hedging weather derivatives by trading in related energy futures or when an executive wants to hedge his position in company stock options but is legally restricted from liquidly trading his own company's stock. Practical and computational aspects of this problem are considered by \cite{D00preprint}, \cite{M04QF}, and in more generality by \cite{FS08AAP}.
\item The second sufficient condition requires exponential preferences and additional regularity of the limiting market but places no restrictions on the claim's replicability. This case covers a general incomplete Brownian market structure under a mild $\bmo$ condition on the limiting market. The connection between $\bmo$ and exponential utility is long established; see, for example, \cite{6AP} and \cite{GR02AP}.
\end{enumerate}
The questions of existence and uniqueness for the optimal investment problem from terminal wealth are thoroughly studied. The surrounding literature is vast, and only a small subset of work is mentioned here. For general utility functions on $\R_+$ in a general semimartingale framework, \cite{KS99AAP} finish a long line of research on incomplete markets without random endowment. In \cite{CSW01FS}, this work is extended to include bounded random endowment, while \cite{HK04AAP} study the unbounded
random endowment case.
For utility functions on $\R$ in a locally bounded semimartingale framework, \cite{S01AAP} studies the case with no random endowment, while \cite{OZ09MF} handle the unbounded random endowment case. In \cite{BF08AAP}, the authors study the non-locally bounded semimartingale setting without random endowment and unify the
framework for utilities on $\R$ and $\R_+$.
Stability with respect to perturbations in the market price of risk for fixed volatility is first studied in \cite{LZ07SPA} for utility on $\R_+$ and later in \cite{BK13SPA} for exponential utility. Both works consider risky assets with continuous price processes and no random endowment. For a locally bounded asset and an investor with random endowment, \cite{KZ11MF} study a market stability problem in which the financial market and random endowment stay fixed while the subjective probability measure and utility function vary. A BSDE stability result is used in \cite{F13S} to study a specific stability problem for an exponential investor related to the indifference price formulas derived in \cite{FS08AAP}. Using this BSDE stability result, \cite{F13S}'s market stability result extends to a case with a fixed market price of risk and a varying underlying correlation factor between the traded and nontraded securities. In contrast to these previous works, we seek to prove a stability result for a general utility function on $\R$ allowing for varying both volatility and market price of risk in the presence of random endowment.
Stability
is related to the concept of robustness with respect to a collection of probability measures.
Robustness in option pricing dates back to the uncertain volatility models (UVM) of \cite{ALP95AMF} and \cite{Lyons95AMF}, who consider a range of possible volatilities and determine the best- and worst-case option prices. In contrast to UVM, which seek to price claims in a \textit{complete} yet uncertain market, we seek to determine stability properties using indifference prices in an \textit{incomplete} market. With utility maximization, both the volatility and the drift impact investors' optimal trading decisions. In \cite{DK13SIAM}, \cite{MPZ15MF}, and \cite{TTU13FS}, the authors consider robust utility maximization problems, in which both the volatility and drift vary within a class of subjective probability measures. Robust optimization seeks the best trading strategy in the worst possible model, whereas our investor firmly believes in the specified subjective model, and we seek to determine which of these models are stable.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section \ref{section:counterex} presents a counterexample for a power investor with unspanned stochastic volatility. Section \ref{section:model} lays out the model assumptions and states the main result. The proofs are presented in Section \ref{section:proofs}. Finally, Section \ref{section:examples} provides a counterexample showing the necessity of a nondegeneracy assumption and provides sufficient conditions on the structure of the dual problem for this assumption to hold.
\section{Stability Counterexample for Power Utility}\label{section:counterex}
When an investor's preferences are described by utility on the positive real line and random endowment is present, the admissibility condition provides an additional implicit constraint. As we will prove, this constraint can create a discontinuity in the value function and indifference prices for markets with varying martingale drivers. The following are simple incomplete Brownian models with a contingent claim that can only be replicated in the limiting market.
\subsection{Market Model}\label{subsection:counterex_model}
We let $B$ and $W$ be independent Brownian motions on a filtered probability space $\left(\Omega,\sF, \bF, \bP\right)$ where $\bF=(\sF_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ is the natural filtration of $(B, W)$ completed with $\bP$-null sets and $\sF=\sF_T$.
We consider stock market models, $S^\rho$, with stochastic volatility indexed by correlation parameter $\rho\in(-1,1)$ where
\begin{equation}\label{def:stocks}
\begin{split}
dS^{\rho}_t &= \mu V_t dt
+ \sqrt{V_t}\left(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}dB_t + \rho dW_t\right),
\ \ \ S^{\rho}_0 :=0,\\
dV_t &= \kappa\left(\theta-V_t\right)dt +
\sigma\sqrt{V_t}dB_t ,
\ \ \ V_0 :=1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The constants $\kappa, \theta,\sigma>0$ satisfy Feller's condition, $2\kappa\theta\geq \sigma^2$, which guarantees that there exists a unique strong solution for $V$ that is strictly positive for all $\rho\in(-1,1)$. The risky asset $S^\rho$ is traded, whereas the stochastic volatility $V$ is not traded. The dynamics of $S^\rho$ are written in an arithmetic fashion, which can be viewed as the returns of a positive asset. For our purposes, the outcome of trading is unchanged whether we consider arithmetic or geometric specifications of the dynamics. For a fixed $\rho$, \cite{K05QF} studies the utility maximization problem in the context of this model. Each $\rho$ market also has a bank account with zero interest rate.
A contingent claim $f$ is defined by $f:=\phi(B_T)$, where $\phi:\R\rightarrow\R$ is a bounded, continuous function. The claim $f$ is replicable in the $\rho=0$ market; however, it is not replicable in any other market. We define $\phimin:=\inf\phi$, which corresponds to the subreplication price of $f$ in the $\rho\neq 0$ markets (see Proposition \ref{prop:subreplication} below). We allow for the possibility that $\phi$ is a constant function, in which case the endowment $f$ can be viewed as a deterministic initial endowment.
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:measurability}
Our model assumes that all markets share the same probability space and filtration. In particular, we assume that both Brownian motions, $B$ and $W$ are observable in each $\rho$ market. However, suppose an investor in the $\rho$ market can only observe the path of the risky asset, $S^\rho$. Then such an investor can also observe both $B$ and $W$.\footnote{Many thanks to an anonymous reviewer for making this keen observation.} Since the quadratic variation of $S^\rho$ is observable and there exists a unique (positive) strong solution to the SDE for $V$, we can observe $V$ and $B$ from $\left<S^\rho\right>$. Also from the observation of $S^\rho$ and $V$, we can determine $(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}B+\rho W)$, which allows the investor to observe both $B$ and $W$ separately (for $\rho\neq 0$).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Optimal Investment Problem}\label{subsection:counterex_primal}
An investor is modeled by power utility $U(x)=x^p/p$ for $x\geq 0$ with $p<1$ ($p=0$ corresponds to $\log$). As a convention, $U(x)=-\infty$ for $x < 0$. The investor begins with initial capital $x>-\phimin$. A progressively measurable process $H$ is \textit{integrable} if $\int_0^T V_t H^2_tdt<\infty$, a.s. An integrable $H$ is called \textit{$\rho$-admissible} if there exists a finite constant $K=K(H)$ such that $(H\cdot S^\rho)_t\geq -K$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. We define the primal optimization set by
$$
\sC(\rho):= \left\{(H\cdot S^\rho)_T:
\text{$H$ is $\rho$-admissible}\right\}.
$$
For $\rho\in(-1,1)$, the primal value function is
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{def:primal}
u(x,\rho):= \sup_{X\in\sC(\rho)} \E\left[U\left(x+X+f\right)\right],
\ \ \text{ $x>-\phimin$}.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
For $\rho=0$, $u(\cdot,0)$ is well-defined for a larger $x$-domain
than $(-\phimin,\infty)$. Yet the $x$-domain is tight
for every $\rho\neq 0$.
This discontinuity in the domains at $\rho=0$ hints at the issue of
(dis)continuity with respect to $\rho$ in the primal problem. See
\cite{CSW01FS} for more details on the primal domain definition.
\end{remark}
For each $\rho\in(-1,1)$, we define the dual domain by
$$
\sD(\rho):= \left\{\text{measures }\bQ\sim\bP:
\E\left[\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}\right]=1 \text{ and }
\E^\bQ\left[X\right]\leq 0
\ \forall X\in\sC(\rho)\right\}.
$$
Lemma 5.2 in \cite{CL14RAPS} shows that $\sD(\rho)\neq\emptyset$.
Similar to \cite{EKQ95JCO}, we have the following result, which will be proven in Section \ref{section:proofs}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:subreplication}
Let $\rho\neq 0$ be given. The subreplication price of $f$ is $\phimin$; that is,
$$
\inf_{\bQ\in\sD(\rho)}\E^\bQ\left[\phi(B_T)\right] = \phimin.
$$
Moreover, for all $x\in\R$ and $(H\cdot S^\rho)_T\in\sC(\rho)$ such that
$x+(H\cdot S^\rho)_T+f\geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:primal_bound}
x+(H\cdot S^\rho)_T \geq -\phimin\,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
We consider a different optimization problem for $\rho=0$ with an additional admissibility constraint motivated by \eqref{eqn:primal_bound}. For any $x>-\phimin$, we define the admissibly-constrained primal optimization sets in the $\rho=0$ market by
$$
\sC_c(x) := \left\{X\in\sC(0):
x+X \geq -\phimin \right\}.
$$
The corresponding admissibly-constrained primal value function is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{def:primal_constrained}
u_c(x):= \sup_{X\in\sC_c(x)}\E\left[U\left(x+X+f\right)\right],
\ \ \text{ $x>-\phimin$}.
\end{equation}
The following is the main result of the section. {\label{sentence:no_f}We note that when $\phi(z)=0$ for all $z\in\R$, we have that $\sC(\rho=0)$ for $u(x,0)$ corresponds to $\sC_c(x)$, and $u(x,0) = u_c(x)$ for $x>-\phimin$. In this case, the next theorem provides a stability result in the spirit of \cite{LZ07SPA}. }
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:primal_convergence}
Assume the market dynamics \eqref{def:stocks} and utility function
$U(x)=x^p/p$, for $x\geq 0$, with $p<1$
($p=0$ corresponds to $\log$).
Assume the random endowment
function $\phi$ is continuous and bounded, and the initial
endowment is $x>-\phimin$.
Let $u$ and $u_c$ be as in \eqref{def:primal} and
\eqref{def:primal_constrained}, respectively. Then,
$$
\lim_{\rho\rightarrow 0} u(x,\rho) = u_c(x)\,.
$$
\end{theorem}
The proofs of Theorem \ref{thm:primal_convergence} and its Corollary \ref{cor:indifference_prices} (below) will follow in Section \ref{section:proofs}. The corollary says that when $\phi$ is not constant, indifference prices for $f$ do not converge to the unique arbitrage-free price in the $\rho=0$ market as $\rho\rightarrow 0$. For any $\rho\in(-1,1)$, we define the value function without random endowment by
\begin{equation}\label{def:primal_no_endowment}
w(x,\rho):= \sup_{X\in\sC(\rho)} \E\left[U\left(x+X\right)\right],
\ \ \text{ $x>0$}.
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}
Given $x>-\phimin$ and $\rho\in(-1,1)$, $p=p(x,\rho)\in\R$ is called the
\textit{indifference price for $f$ at $x$ in the $\rho$ market} if
$\, w(x+p,\rho) = u(x,\rho)$.
\end{definition}
Of course, for $\rho=0$, the indifference price corresponds to the unique arbitrage-free price for the bounded replicable claim, $f$. Also notice that since indifference prices are arbitrage-free prices, then $p(x,\rho)\geq\phimin$ for every $x>-\phimin$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:indifference_prices}
Under the assumptions of Theorem
\ref{thm:primal_convergence} and for $\phi$ not constant:
For $x>-\phimin$, the indifference
prices for $f$ do not converge to the arbitrage-free price in the $\rho=0$
market. Indeed, $\limsup_{\rho\rightarrow 0}
p(x,\rho) < p(x,0)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:counterex_simplicity}For the sake of clarity, emphasis is placed on the simplicity of the power investor's problem. Some aspects can be generalized at the expense of more lengthy proofs and set-ups, e.g., a more general utility function or more general asset dynamics. For the special case when $f=0$, Theorem \ref{thm:primal_convergence} can be extended to the more general market models of Section \ref{section:model} in order to generalize the value function convergence of Theorem 2.12 in \cite{LZ07SPA} in the varying volatility setting.
The difficulty in generalizing beyond $f=0$ stems from the need for a dual conjugacy result for $u_c$, which is not available in the literature due to the Inada condition not being satisfied at $x=0$ for the ($\omega$-dependent) function $x\mapsto U(x+f-\phimin)$.
\end{remark}
\section{Utility Functions on $\R$} \label{section:model}
Modeling investor preferences on the entire real line removes the fixed admissibility lower bound, which prevents the degeneracy of Theorem \ref{thm:primal_convergence} from occurring. The remainder of this work is devoted to studying conditions that guarantee stability for real line utility functions.
Let $(\Omega,\sF,\bF=(\sF_t)_{0\leq t\leq T},\bP)$ be a filtered probability space with the filtration generated by $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $B=(B^1,\ldots, B^d)$. We assume that $\bF$ is completed with all $\bP$ null sets and $\sF = \sF_T$, for a fixed time horizon $T\in(0,\infty)$.
We consider a sequence of financial market models with stocks $S^n$ valued in $\R$, for $1\leq n\leq \infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:S_dynamics}
dS^n_t =
\lambda^n_t\left|\sigma^n_t\right|^2 dt + \sigma^n_t dB_t\,,\ \ \ S^n_0 = 0.
\end{equation}
Letting $\sL^p:=\{\text{progressively measurable }\theta: \int_0^T |\theta_t|^p dt<\infty,\,\text{a.s}\}$, $p=1,2$,
we require that $\sigma^n=(\sigma^{n,1},\ldots,\sigma^{n,d})$ satisfies $\sigma^{n,i}\in\sL^2$ for
$1\leq n\leq\infty$, $1\leq i\leq d$, and $\lambda^n\left|\sigma^n\right|^2\in\sL^1$ for $1\leq n\leq\infty$. For $1\leq n\leq\infty$, we define the local martingales $M^n$ by
\begin{equation*}\label{eqn:Mn_dynamics}
M^n := (\sigma^{n,1}\cdot B^1) + \ldots + (\sigma^{n,d}\cdot B^d),
\end{equation*}
so that the dynamics of $S^n$ are of the form
$$
dS^n_t = \lambda^n_t d\left<M^n\right>_t + dM^n_t\,,
\ \ \ S^n_0=0.
$$
Additionally, we assume that $\lambda^n\sigma^{n,i}\in\sL^2$ for $1\leq n\leq\infty$, $1\leq i\leq d$, so that $(\lambda^n\cdot M^n)$ is well-defined. We let
$Z^n_t := \sE\left(-\lambda^n\cdot M^n\right)_t$, $t\in[0,T]$, denote each market's minimal martingale density process, where $\sE(\cdot)$ refers to the stochastic exponential. Each market is assumed to have a bank account with a zero interest rate.
A sequence $\{X_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ of semimartingales is said to converge to $X$ in the \textit{semimartingale topology} provided that
$$
\sup_{|\theta|\leq 1}
\E\left[\left|\left(\theta\cdot (X^n-X)\right)_T\right|\wedge 1\right]
\longrightarrow 0 \ \text{ as } n\rightarrow\infty.
$$
Here, the supremum is taken over progressively measurable $\theta$, which are bounded uniformly by $1$ in $t$ and $\omega$. We note that in the Brownian filtration, all progressively measurable processes are predictable.
The following assumptions capture the necessary market regularity and the convergence of a sequence of markets.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:semimg}
The collections $\{M^n\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$ and
$\{(\lambda^n\cdot M^n)\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$ satisfy the convergence relations:
$$
M^n\longrightarrow M^\infty\ \text{ and }\
(\lambda^n\cdot M^n)\longrightarrow (\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)
\ \text{ in the semimartingale topology
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.}
$$
\end{assumption}
The assumption that $(\lambda^n\cdot M^n)\longrightarrow
(\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)$ is similar to the appropriate topology assumption of \cite{LZ07SPA}, whereas the convergence assumption on $M^n$ is new since the previous market stability work required the martingale components to remain constant.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:Z_mg}
Each minimal martingale density process, $Z^n$, for $1\leq n\leq\infty$,
is a $\bP$-martingale.
\end{assumption}
Under the minimal martingale measure $\bQ^n$, where $\frac{d\bQ^n}{d\bP}=Z^n_T$, $S^n$ is a local martingale and any $\bP$-local martingale $N$ such that $\left<N, M^n\right>_t=0$ for $t\in[0,T]$ remains a local martingale under $\bQ^n$. We refer to \cite{FS10} for a survey on minimal martingale measures and their use in mathematical finance.
Under Assumption \ref{ass:semimg}, \label{rmk:about_semimg_convergence}
$(\lambda^n\cdot M^n)_T\longrightarrow(\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)_T$
and $\left<\lambda^n\cdot M^n\right>_T \longrightarrow
\left<\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty\right>_T$
in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Hence,
$Z^n_T \longrightarrow Z^\infty_T$ in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Under Assumption \ref{ass:Z_mg}, each $Z^n$ is a
martingale, and so Scheffe's Lemma implies the seemingly stronger fact that
$Z^n_T\longrightarrow Z^\infty_T$ in $L^1(\bP)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
A further non-degeneracy assumption is needed on the limiting market in order to ensure that randomness does not disappear in a degenerate way. A counterexample showing that this condition is in some sense necessary is provided in Section \ref{section:examples}.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:nondegeneracy}
The dynamics of $\left<M^\infty\right>$ are nondegenerate in that
$\sum_{i=1}^d\left(\sigma^{\infty,i}_t\right)^2\neq 0$
for all $t\in[0,T]$, $\bP$-a.s.
\end{assumption}
\begin{remark}
Assumptions \ref{ass:semimg}, \ref{ass:Z_mg},
and \ref{ass:nondegeneracy} are satisfied
by the markets $\{S^{\rho_n}\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$ of Section
\ref{section:counterex} for any $\rho_n\longrightarrow\rho\in[-1,1]$
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{remark}
Finally, a contingent claim $f\in L^\infty(\bP)$ is given and is independent of $n\in\bN$. We make no assumption on the replicability of $f$ at this time.
\subsection{Optimal Investment Problem}\label{subsection:primal}
An investor is modeled by preferences $U:\R\rightarrow\R$, which is finite on the entire real line. $U$ is assumed to be continuously differentiable, strictly increasing, strictly concave and satisfies the Inada conditions at $-\infty$ and $+\infty$:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Inada}
U'(-\infty) := \lim_{x\rightarrow -\infty} U'(x) = \infty \ \text{ and }\
U'(+\infty) := \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} U'(x) = 0.
\end{equation}
Additionally, we assume that $U$ satisfies the reasonable asymptotic elasticity conditions of \cite{KS99AAP} and \cite{S01AAP}:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ae}
AE_{-\infty}(U):= \liminf_{x\rightarrow-\infty} \frac{xU'(x)}{U(x)} > 1
\ \text{ and }\
AE_{+\infty}(U):= \limsup_{x\rightarrow\infty} \frac{xU'(x)}{U(x)} < 1\,.
\end{equation}
The utility function's Fenchel conjugate is defined by $V(y):=\sup_{x\in\R}\left\{U(x)-xy\right\}$ for $y>0$. $V$ is strictly convex and continuously differentiable. Without loss of generality, we assume that $U(0)> 0$. When $U(0)>0$, we have $V(y)> 0$ for all $y>0$.
Similar to \cite{LZ07SPA}, \cite{KZ11MF}, and \cite{BK13SPA}, we make the following assumption:
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:V_ui}
The collection of random variables $\left\{V(Z^n_T)\right\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$,
where $Z^n_T$ is the minimal martingale density for the $S^n$ market,
is uniformly integrable.
\end{assumption}
In \cite{LZ07SPA}, the authors show that Assumption \ref{ass:V_ui} is both necessary and sufficient in the case of complete markets. They study the stability problem with a utility function defined on the positive real line, no random endowment, fixed volatility, and varying market price of risk; see \cite{LZ07SPA} Proposition 2.13. In an incomplete setting, they provide a counterexample to the value function stability showing that in some sense Assumption \ref{ass:V_ui} is necessary.
For $1\leq n\leq\infty$, a process $H$ is \textit{$S^n$-integrable} if $H\sigma^{n,i}\in\sL^2$ for $1\leq i\leq d$. Cauchy-Schwartz's inequality produces $H\lambda^n(\sigma^{n,i})^2\in\sL^1$ for $1\leq i\leq d$.
The $S^n$ market's admissible strategies are defined by
$$
\adm^n := \left\{ H: H \text{ is $S^n$-integrable},\ \exists K=K(H),\,
(H\cdot S^n)_t\geq -K,\ \forall t\right\}.
$$
The primal value function is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{def:primal_value_fn}
u_n(x) := \sup_{H\in\adm^n}\E\left[U\left(x+(H\cdot S^n)_T+f\right)\right], \ \ x\in\R.
\end{equation}
Let $\sM^n$ denote the set of probability measures $\bQ$ such that $\bQ\sim\bP$ and $S^n$ is a local martingale under $\bQ$. We are primarily interested in such measures that have finite $V$-entropy: $\E\left[V\left(\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}\right)\right]<\infty$. Let $\sM^n_V$ denote those measures $\bQ\in\sM^n$ having finite $V$-entropy.
For $1\leq n\leq\infty$, the dual value function is defined for the $S^n$ market by
\begin{equation}\label{def:dual_value_fn}
v_n(y) := \inf_{\bQ\in\sM^n_V} \E\left[V\left(y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}\right)
+ y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}f\right],\ \ y>0.
\end{equation}
\label{rmk:dual_is_same}
At first glance, our definition of the dual value function
differs from that of \cite{OZ09MF}, who, for $1\leq n\leq\infty$, consider the infimum over $\bQ\ll\bP$ such that $S^n$ is a $\bQ$-local martingale and $\E[V(\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP})]<\infty$. Assumptions \ref{ass:Z_mg} and \ref{ass:V_ui} plus $Z^n_T>0$ imply that $\sM^n_V\neq\emptyset$. In this case, Theorem 1.1(iii) of \cite{OZ09MF} shows that the optimal dual element lies in the set $\sM^n_V$, and thus the two dual value function definitions agree.
{\label{rmk:primal_is_same}
The primal admissible class of strategies is too small to attain a solution to the optimal investment problem. However, the behavior of the value function is our primary interest, rather than the behavior (or even attainability) of the optimizer.
Using that $f\in L^\infty(\bP)$ and $\sM^n_V\neq\emptyset$, Theorem 1.2(i) of \cite{OZ09MF} implies that our definition of the primal value function agrees with the definition of $u_\sE$ of \cite{OZ09MF}. Here, $\sE=x_n+f$ and $\sE$ refers to the notation of the aforementioned work.
}
By using \label{page:AS_ref}\cite{AS92} and \cite{AS93MMM}, for $1\leq n\leq\infty$, we can rewrite any $\bQ\in\sM_V^n$ as $\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP} = Z_T^n\sE(L)_T$, where $L$ is a local martingale null at $0$ such that $\left<L,M^n\right>_t=0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
We need to make a further assumption in order to ensure a ``nice'' structure of the limiting market's dual domain. For $n=\infty$, let $\sB$ be defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:B}
\begin{split}
\sB := \left\{\text{local martingales }L:\right. &
L_0=0, \left<L, M^\infty\right>_t = 0,\,\forall t\in[0,T], \,
\\ &\left. \exists \text{ constant }C=C(L),\, \sE(L)_t\leq C,
\,\forall t\in[0,T]\right\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:bdd_inf}
For $n=\infty$, the dual problem, (\ref{def:dual_value_fn}),
can be expressed as
$$
v_\infty(y) = \inf_{L\in\sB} \E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)
+ yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T f\right],\ \ y>0,
$$
where $Z^\infty_T$ is the minimal martingale density in the
$S^\infty$ market.
\end{assumption}
This assumption is non-trivial to verify in general due to the fact that $V$ is increasing strictly faster than linearly as $y\longrightarrow +\infty$. It is mathematical in nature and ensures that the dual optimizer does not vary ``too much''. Section \ref{section:examples} provides two sufficient conditions. The first condition covers the original motivation for our stability problem, where the contingent claim is replicable in the (incomplete) limiting market but not replicable in any pre-limiting market. In this case, the limiting market consists of a driving Brownian motion, a replicable claim, and additional independent Brownian noise. The second condition makes no assumptions on the claim's replicability; however, it requires exponential preferences and imposes a mild $\bmo$ condition on the limiting market. Indeed, a $\bmo$ condition on the limiting market's minimal martingale density ensures that the dual optimizer has controlled oscillations, which implies Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf}. Similarly, \cite{6AP} make use of a form of $\bmo$ regularity of \textit{some} dual element in order to establish $\bmo$ regularity of the \textit{optimal} dual element.
The following is our main result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main_result}
Suppose that the sequence of markets satisfies Assumptions
\ref{ass:semimg}, \ref{ass:Z_mg},
and \ref{ass:V_ui}. Suppose that
the limiting market satisfies
Assumptions \ref{ass:nondegeneracy} and \ref{ass:bdd_inf}.
Then, for $x_n\longrightarrow x$ as
$n\rightarrow\infty$,
$$
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} u_n(x_n) = u_\infty(x).
$$
Moreover, for $y_n\longrightarrow y>0$ as
$n\rightarrow \infty$,
$$
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} v_n(y_n) = v_\infty(y).
$$
\end{theorem}
For $1\leq n\leq\infty$, the value function without random endowment is defined by
\begin{equation}
w_n(x) := \sup_{H\in\adm^n}\E\left[U\left(x+(H\cdot S^n)_T\right)\right],
\ \ x\in\R.
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}\label{def:indifference_price}
Given $1\leq n\leq\infty$ and $x\in\R$, $p_n=p_n(x)$ is called the \textit{indifference price for
$f$ at $x$ in the $S^n$ market} if $w_n(x+p_n) = u_n(x)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:indifference_price}
Let the assumptions be as in Theorem \ref{thm:main_result}.
Then for $x\in\R$, the indifference prices for $f$ converge;
that is, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} p_n(x) = p_\infty(x)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
The results in Theorem \ref{thm:main_result} and
Corollary \ref{cor:indifference_price} remain true
(with only minor notational changes to the proofs)
in the case with varying random endowment. Specifically, the random
endowments $\{f_n\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$ corresponding to the
$\{S^n\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$ markets need to satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:fn}
\sup_n\|f_n\|_{L^\infty} <\infty\ \ \text{ and }\ \
f_n\longrightarrow f_\infty \ \text{ in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$}
\end{equation}
in order for the results to hold. This additional flexibility allows us to
consider the case of a varying quantity of contingent claims and also
contingent claims that depend on the individual markets. For example,
if $g:\R\rightarrow\R$ is bounded and continuous, then $f_n:=g(S^n_T)$
will satisfy \eqref{eqn:fn}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:optimal_wealths}
The study of the optimal terminal wealths and the optimal dual elements is
typical in utility maximization in addition to properties of
the value functions;
however, it is absent in the present work.
When varying both the volatility and drift of the risky assets, a major
hurdle to stability is handling the change in the primal and dual feasible
elements from market to market.
Here, we use the varying volatility as a tool for pricing
financial securities via a ``nearby'' models with good properties,
rather than using it for investment advice.
Because the study of optimal strategies is rather involved, it is beyond
the scope of the present work and would be an interesting question to
address in future research.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:kz_comparison}
A special case of stability with varying volatility is considered in
\cite{KZ11MF} (see their Remark 2.5). The authors consider a fixed
risky asset with varying \textit{equivalent} subjective probability
measures. However, this approach relies on the invertibility of the
volatility process in every market, which in particular implies completeness
for all markets.
In our model, such measures would correspond to the risky asset laws,
$\bP^n:=\bP\circ (S^n)^{-1}$. Due to the changes in the volatility
structure with $n$, the laws $\bP^n$ are \textit{nonequivalent} in the
present work. Moreover, our results do not rely on completeness.
\end{remark}
\section{Proofs}\label{section:proofs}
We begin by proving the results from Section \ref{section:counterex} for the power investor.
\subsection{Dual Problems and Power Investor Proofs}\label{subsection:counterex_dual}
We begin by proving Proposition \ref{prop:subreplication}. Example 1 of \cite{EKQ95JCO} uses the duality between $L^\infty(\bP)$ and $L^1(\bP)$ in order to establish a similar result when the contingent claim is independent of the traded assets. Without independence, we cannot apply the duality result directly, and instead we explicitly construct a sequence of martingale measures realizing the subreplication price.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:subreplication}]
Let $\rho\neq 0$ be given. We first seek to show that for all $0<t'<T$,
$$
\essinf_{\bQ\in\sD(\rho)} \E^\bQ[\phi(B_T)|\sF_{t'}] = \phimin,
$$
which implies that the subreplication price is $\phimin$. Subsequently, we will show \eqref{eqn:primal_bound}.
We fix $t'<T$ and let $T'\in (t',T)$ and $x\in\R$ be given. Then $B^\rho:= \sqrt{1-\rho^2} B + \rho W$ and $W^\rho:= \sqrt{1-\rho^2} W - \rho B$ are orthogonal $\bP$-Brownian motions. Equivalently, we have $B = \sqrt{1-\rho^2}B^\rho -\rho W^\rho$ and $W=\rho B^\rho+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}W^\rho$.
Consider the local martingale $Z$ defined for $t\in[0,T]$ by
$$
Z_t := \sE\left(-\mu\sqrt{V}\cdot B^\rho\right)_t
\sE\left(\frac{1}{\rho}\left(-\mu\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\sqrt{V}-\frac{x}{T}
+\frac{\eta\bI_{[T',T]}}{T-T'}\right)\cdot W^\rho\right)_t,
$$
where $\eta:= B_{T'} - xT'/T\in\sF_{T'}$.
In fact, $Z$ is a martingale, which we verify by applying Novikov's condition locally. The following procedure is standard; see, e.g., Section 6.2 Example 3(a) in \cite{LS01}. By Corollary 5.14 of \cite{KS91}, it suffices to find $\Delta>0$ and $t_n:= n\Delta$ such that for each $n\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:novikov}
\E\left[\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}d\left<M\right>_u\right)\right]
<\infty,
\end{equation}
where $M_t:=-\mu\left(\sqrt{V}\cdot B^\rho\right)_t +
\frac{1}{\rho}\left(\left(-\mu\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\sqrt{V}-\frac{x}{T}
+\frac{\eta\bI_{[T',T]}}{T-T'}\right)\cdot W^\rho\right)_t$ for $t\in[0,T]$. By applying Cauchy-Schwartz to \eqref{eqn:novikov}, it suffices to choose $\Delta>0$ such that for each $n\geq 1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:novikov2}
\E\left[\exp\left(\int_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}\frac{\mu^2}{\rho^2}V_u du\right)\right]
<\infty \ \ \text{ and } \ \
\E\left[\exp\left(\Delta\frac{\eta^2}{\rho^2(T-T')}\right)\right]
<\infty.
\end{equation}
Jensen's Inequality and Tonelli's Theorem imply that $\E\left[\exp\left(\int_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}\frac{\mu^2}{\rho^2}V_u du\right)\right] \leq \\ \E\left[\int_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}\exp\left(\frac{\Delta\mu^2}{\rho^2}V_u \right)\frac{du}{\Delta}\right] \leq \E\left[\exp\left(\frac{\mu^2}{\rho^2}\Delta V_T\right)\right]$. Thus, taking $\Delta := \rho^2\min\left(\frac{\kappa}{\mu^2\sigma^2(1-e^{-\kappa T})},\frac{T-T'}{4T'}\right)$ yields \eqref{eqn:novikov2}.
We define $\overline{\bQ}\in\sD(\rho)$ by $\frac{d\overline\bQ}{d\bP}:= Z_T$ and the processes $\overline{B}^\rho$ and $\overline{W}^\rho$ by
$$
\overline{B}^\rho_t := B^\rho_t +\mu\int_0^t \sqrt{V_u}\,du
$$
and
$$
\overline{W}^\rho_t := W^\rho_t + \frac{\mu\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}{\rho}\int_0^t \sqrt{V_u}\,du + \frac{x t}{\rho T} - \frac{\eta \int_0^t\bI_{[T',T]}}{\rho(T-T')}.
$$
By Girsanov's Theorem, $\overline{B}^\rho$ and $\overline{W}^\rho$ are orthogonal $\overline\bQ$-Brownian motions.
Moreover, $\eta = \sqrt{1-\rho^2}\overline{B}^\rho_{T'} - \rho\overline{W}^\rho_{T'}$, which implies that
$$
B_T = \left(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\overline{B}^\rho_T-\rho\overline{W}^\rho_T\right) + x - \left(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\overline{B}^\rho_{T'}-\rho\overline{W}^\rho_{T'}\right).
$$
Then, $\bP$-a.s.,
\begin{align*}
\E^{\overline{\bQ}}\left[\phi(B_T)\left.\right|\sF_{t'}\right]
&= \E^{\overline{\bQ}}\left[\phi\left(\left(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\overline{B}^\rho_T-\rho\overline{W}^\rho_T\right) - \left(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\overline{B}^\rho_{T'}-\rho\overline{W}^\rho_{T'}\right) +x\right)\left.\right|\sF_{t'}\right]\\
&= \E^{\overline{\bQ}}\left[\phi\left(\left(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\overline{B}^\rho_T-\rho\overline{W}^\rho_T\right) - \left(\sqrt{1-\rho^2}\overline{B}^\rho_{T'}-\rho\overline{W}^\rho_{T'}\right) +x\right)\right]\\
&= \E^\bP\left[\phi\left(B_T-B_{T'}+x\right)\right].
\end{align*}
The choice of $T'\in(t',T)$ and $x\in\R$ is arbitrary, and therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:subreplication_confirmed}
\essinf_{\bQ\in\sD(\rho)}\,\E^\bQ\left[\phi(B_T)\left.\right|\sF_{t'}\right]
=\phimin.
\end{equation}
Finally, we suppose that $x\in\R$ and $(H\cdot S^\rho)_T\in\sC(\rho)$ such that $x+(H\cdot S^\rho)_T+\phi(B_T)\geq 0$. Then for all $\bQ\in\sD(\rho)$, we have that $(H\cdot S^\rho)$ is a lower-bounded $\bQ$-local martingale, and hence a $\bQ$-supermartingale. For all $t'<T$, we have $0\leq x+(H\cdot S^\rho)_{t'} + \E^\bQ\left[\phi(B_T)|\sF_{t'}\right]$. By \eqref{eqn:subreplication_confirmed} above, we have $0\leq x+ (H\cdot S^\rho)_{t'}+\phimin$. Continuity with respect to time and taking $t'\rightarrow T$ yields \eqref{eqn:primal_bound}.
\end{proof}
As is typical in convex optimization, we introduce the dual problem as tool for proving Theorem \ref{thm:primal_convergence} and Corollary \ref{cor:indifference_prices}. For $y>0$, define $V(y):=\sup_{x>0}\left\{U(x)-xy\right\}$. For $U(x)=x^p/p$, we have $V(y) = \frac{1-p}{p}y^{p/(p-1)}$.
For $y>0$ and $z\geq \phimin$, we define
$$
V_c(y,z):=\sup_{x>-\phimin}\left\{U(x+z)-xy\right\}=
\begin{cases}
V(y)+yz, & \text{for } y< U'\left(z-\phimin\right), \\
U\left(z-\phimin\right)+y\phimin, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
$$
We can then define a constrained form of the dual value function for $\rho\in(-1,1)$ by,
\begin{equation}\label{def:constrained_v}
v_c(y,\rho):= \inf_{\bQ\in\sD(\rho)
\E\left[V_c\left(y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP},f\right)\right],
\ \ \text{ $y>0$}.
\end{equation}
For $Z^\rho_t := \sE\left(-\mu\sqrt{V}\cdot B\right)_t$, $t\in[0,T]$, the random variable $Z^\rho_T$ is the minimal martingale density corresponding to the $S^\rho$ market. The martingale property of $Z^\rho$ is shown in Lemma 5.2 of \cite{CL14RAPS}. In particular, $v_c(y,\rho)<\infty$ for all $y>0$ and $\rho\in(-1,1)$.
The constrained dual problem arises naturally from the endogenous primal admissibility constraint \eqref{eqn:primal_bound}. For $\rho\neq 0$, we could define a constrained primal problem, $u^\rho_c=u^\rho_c(x)$ for $x>-\phimin$, and a corresponding constrained optimization set, $\sC^\rho_c(x)$, analogously to $u_c$ and $\sC_c(x)$ in the $\rho=0$ case. In that case, we would have $u^\rho_c(x) = u(x,\rho)$ for all $x>-\phimin$ by \eqref{eqn:primal_bound}, and \eqref{def:constrained_v} would be the natural candidate for its dual conjugate. Indeed, for $\rho\neq 0$, \cite{LSZ14} prove that the constrained form of the
dual value function, \eqref{def:constrained_v},
is in fact equal to the dual value function
as it is defined in \cite{CSW01FS}, Equation (3.1).
(See \cite{LSZ14} Theorem 4.2.)
\begin{remark}\label{rmk:facelifting}
In \cite{LSZ14},
the authors consider the
problem of \textit{facelifting}, in which the primal and dual value
functions in the presence of unspanned random endowment are not continuous with respect to time to maturity as the maturity decreases to $0$.
At first glance, our stability problem differs from that of varying
maturity. However, both problems have the property that the random
endowment is non-replicable in every pre-limiting market yet replicable
in the limit. This property allows for the admissibility
constraint, \eqref{eqn:primal_bound}, to appear endogenously
in the pre-limiting
models, whereas \eqref{eqn:primal_bound} must be exogenously applied
in the limiting model.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:v_usc}
Let the assumptions of the model be as in Theorem
\ref{thm:primal_convergence}.
For $y>0$,
$$
\limsup_{\rho\rightarrow 0} v_c(y,\rho)\leq \E\left[V_c(yZ^0_T,f)\right],
$$
where $Z^0_T$ is the minimal martingale density for the $S^0$ market.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
One can show that $\{V(yZ^\rho_T)\}_\rho$ is uniformly integrable,
e.g., using the proof of Lemma 5.2 in \cite{CL14RAPS}.
For each $\rho\in(-1,1)$, $Z^\rho$ is a martingale, and hence
convergence in probability along with Scheffe's
Lemma implies that $Z^\rho_T\longrightarrow Z^0_T$ in $L^1(\bP)$ as
$\rho\rightarrow 0$. Convergence in $L^1(\bP)$ plus $f\in L^\infty(\bP)$
implies that $\{Z^\rho_T f\}_\rho$ is
uniformly integrable. Since $V_c(yZ^\rho_T,f)\longrightarrow V_c(yZ^0_T,f)$
in probability as $\rho\rightarrow 0$ and
$$
V_c(yZ^\rho_T,f) \leq V(yZ^\rho_T)+yZ^\rho_Tf
$$
for all $\rho\in(-1,1)$, Fatou's Lemma implies
\begin{align*}
\E\left[V_c\left(yZ^0_T,f\right)\right]
&\geq \limsup_{\rho\rightarrow 0}
\E\left[V_c\left(yZ^\rho_T,f\right)\right] \\
&\geq \limsup_{\rho\rightarrow 0} \ v_c(y,\rho).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:u_lsc}
Let the assumptions of the model be as in Theorem
\ref{thm:primal_convergence}.
Let $u$ and $u_c$ be as defined in
\eqref{def:primal} and \eqref{def:primal_constrained}, respectively.
For any $x>-\phimin$, $u_c(x)\leq\liminf_{\rho\rightarrow 0} u(x,\rho)$.
\end{lemma}
Before proving Lemma \ref{lemma:u_lsc}, we need two technical lemmas, which will again be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_result}. While the notions of integrability are defined separately for Sections \ref{section:counterex} and \ref{section:model}, the notions agree
and are not referred to separately in Lemmas \ref{lemma:H_approx1} and \ref{lemma:H_approx2} below.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:H_approx1}
Let $X$ be a semimartingale and $H$ be $X$-integrable. Suppose that there
exists $K>0$ such that $(H\cdot X)_t\geq -K$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
Then for any $\delta>0$ there exists a sequence of progressively measurable
integrands $\{H^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ such that for each $n\geq 1$, $H^n$ is
uniformly bounded in $t$ and $\omega$, while for all $t\in[0,T]$,
$$
(H^n\cdot X)_t\geq -K-\delta,
$$
and $(H^n\cdot X)_T\longrightarrow (H\cdot X)_T$ in probability
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $n\geq 1$, we define the integrands $H^n:=H\bI_{\{|H|\geq n\}}$, where
$\bI_A$ denotes the indicator function of a set $A\subset\Omega\times[0,T]$.
We define the stopping times
$$
\sigma_n:=\inf\left\{t\leq T: (H^n\cdot X)_t\leq -K-\delta\right\}.
$$
Then $(H^n\bI_{[0,\sigma_n]}\cdot X)_t\geq -K-\delta$ for all
$t\in[0,T]$. Moreover, $\sup_t|((H^n\bI-H)\cdot X)_t|\longrightarrow 0$
in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$ by Lemma 4.11 and Remark (ii)
following Definition 4.8 both in \cite{CS02}. This convergence implies that
$\bP(\sigma_n=T)\longrightarrow 1$ and hence
$(H^n\cdot X)_{\sigma_n}\longrightarrow (H\cdot X)_T$ in probability
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Considering the sequence $\{H^n\bI_{[0,\sigma^n]}\}_{n\geq 1}$ yields
the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:H_approx2}
Let $\{X^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ be a sequence of semimartingales such that
$X^n\longrightarrow X$ in the semimartingale topology as
$n\rightarrow\infty$. Suppose that $H$ is progressively measurable and
uniformly bounded in $t$ and $\omega$ and there exists a $K>0$ such
that $(H\cdot X)_t\geq -K$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Then for any $\delta>0$,
there exists a sequence $\{H^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ such that for all $n\geq 1$,
$H^n$ is uniformly bounded in $t$ and $\omega$,
for all $t\in[0,T]$,
$$
(H^n\cdot X^n)_t \geq -K -\delta,
$$
and $(H^n\cdot X^n)_T \longrightarrow (H\cdot X)_T$ in probability
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $H$ is uniformly bounded and progressively measurable, it is
$X$- and $X^n$-integrable for all $n\geq 1$. Moreover, the definition
of semimartingale convergence implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:semimg_integral_convergence}
(H\cdot X^n)\longrightarrow (H\cdot X)
\ \text{ in the semimartingale topology as $n\rightarrow\infty$}.
\end{equation}
For $n\geq 1$, we define the stopping times $\tau_n$ by
$$
\tau_n:=\inf\left\{t\leq T: (H\cdot X^n)_n< -K-\delta\right\}
$$
and let $H^n:= H\bI_{[0,\tau_n]}$. By definition of $\tau_n$, we have
$(H^n\cdot X^n)_t\geq -K-\delta$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Using
\eqref{eqn:semimg_integral_convergence},
\begin{align*}
\bP(\tau_n<T)
&= \bP\left(\exists\ t'< T: (H\cdot X^n)_{t'}< -K-\delta\right)\\
&\leq \bP\left(\sup_{t\leq T}\left|\left(H\cdot(X^n-X)\right)_t\right|
> \delta\right) +
\bP\left(\exists\ t'\leq T: (H\cdot X)_{t'}<-K\right) \\
&= \bP\left(\sup_{t\leq T}\left|\left(H\cdot(X^n-X)\right)_t\right|
> \delta\right) + 0 \\
&\longrightarrow 0 \ \text{ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.}
\end{align*}
Thus, $(H^n\cdot X^n)_T = (H\cdot X^n)_{\tau_n}\longrightarrow (H\cdot X)_T$
in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:u_lsc}]
Let $\eps>0$ be given. Since $u_c$ is concave, it is continuous on the interior of its domain, and hence we may choose $x'<x$ such that $u_c(x)<u_c(x')+\eps$. We choose $(H\cdot S^0)_T\in\sC_c(x')$ such that $u_c(x')\leq\E\left[U\left(x'+(H\cdot S^0)_T +f\right)\right]+\eps$
We define $\delta:=\frac{x-x'}{4}>0$. Since $H$ is $(\rho=0)$-admissible and $x'+(H\cdot S^0)_T\geq -\phimin$, Lemma \ref{lemma:H_approx1} provides us with a sequence of integrands $\{H^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ such that for each $n\geq 1$, $H^n$ is bounded uniformly in $t$ and $\omega$ while $x'+\delta+(H^n\cdot S^0)_t\geq -\phimin$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. In particular, for all $n\geq 1$, $(H^n\cdot S^0)_T\in\sC_c(x'+\delta)\subseteq\sC_c(x)$, and we have the uniform lower bound
$$
U\left(x+(H^n\cdot S^0)_T+f\right)
\geq U\left(x-x'-\delta+f-\phimin\right)
\geq U\left(\frac{3}{4}(x-x')\right) > -\infty.
$$
Fatou's Lemma implies that
\begin{align*}
u_c(x) &\leq u_c(x')+\eps \\
&\leq \E\left[U\left(x+(H\cdot S^0)_T +f\right)\right] + 2\eps \\
&\leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} \E\left[U\left(x+(H^n\cdot S^0)_T +f\right)\right] + 2\eps,
\end{align*}
which allows us to choose a sufficiently large $n$ such that the integrand $\tilde{H}:= H^n$ is uniformly bounded in $t$ and $\omega$, $(\tilde{H}\cdot S^0)_T\in \sC_c(x'+\delta)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:uc_approx}
u_c(x)
\leq \E\left[U\left(x+(\tilde{H}\cdot S^0)_T +f\right)\right] + 3\eps.
\end{equation}
Now that we have achieved sufficiently nice regularity of a nearly-optimal strategy, $\tilde{H}$, we proceed by varying the parameter $\rho$. Let $\rho_k\longrightarrow 0$ be a sequence realizing the $\liminf$ in $\liminf_{\rho\rightarrow 0} u(x,\rho)$. Since $S^{\rho_k}\longrightarrow S^0$ in the semimartingale topology as $k\rightarrow\infty$, Lemma \ref{lemma:H_approx2} allows us to choose $\{\tilde{H}^k\}_{k\geq 1}$ such that for each $k\geq 1$, $\tilde{H}^k$ is bounded uniformly in $t$ and $\omega$ while $x'+2\delta + (\tilde{H}^k\cdot S^{\rho_k})_t\geq -\phimin$. Moreover, $(\tilde{H}^k\cdot S^{\rho_k})_T\longrightarrow (\tilde{H}\cdot S^0)_T$ in probability as $k\rightarrow\infty$. For every $k\geq 1$, we have the uniform lower bound
$$
U(x+(\tilde{H}^k\cdot S^{\rho_k})_T+f)\geq U(x-x'-2\delta+f-\phimin)\geq U(\frac{1}{2}(x-x'))>-\infty.
$$
Therefore by Fatou's Lemma and \eqref{eqn:uc_approx} above,
\begin{align*}
u_c(x)
&\leq \E\left[U\left(x+(\tilde{H}\cdot S^0)_T +f\right)\right] + 3\eps \\
&\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty} \E\left[U\left(x'+(\tilde{H}^k\cdot
S^{\rho_k})_T +f\right)\right] + 3\eps \\
&\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty} \E\left[U\left(x+(\tilde{H}^k\cdot
S^{\rho_k})_T +f\right)\right] + 3\eps \\
&\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty} u(x,\rho_k) + 3\eps \\
&= \liminf_{\rho\rightarrow 0} u(x,\rho) + 3\eps.
\end{align*}
Since $\eps>0$ is arbitrary, the desired result holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:primal_convergence}]
Fix $\rho\neq 0$. For $x>-\phimin$, $X\in\sC(\rho)$ such that
$x+X\geq -\phimin$, $y>0$, and $\bQ\in\sD(\rho)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\E\left[U(x+X+f)\right]
&\leq \E\left[V_c\left(y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP},f\right)
+ y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}\left(x+X\right)\right] \\
&\leq \E\left[V_c\left(y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP},f\right)\right]+xy.
\end{align*}
This strengthening of Fenchel's inequality relies on the bound
$x+X\geq-\phimin$ in order to replace $V$ with $V_c(\cdot,f)$.
Next, we take the supremum over all $X\in\sC(\rho)$ with $x+X\geq-\phimin$
and the infimum over all $\bQ\in\sD(\rho)$, which yields
that for any $x>-\phimin$ and $y>0$,
$$
u(x,\rho)\leq v_c(y,\rho)+xy.
$$
This inequality along with Lemmas \ref{lemma:v_usc} and
\ref{lemma:u_lsc} shows that for any $x>-\phimin$ and $y>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inequality}
u_c(x)\leq\liminf_{\rho\rightarrow 0} u(x,\rho)
\leq \limsup_{\rho\rightarrow 0} v_c(y,\rho) + xy
\leq \E[V_c(yZ^0_T,f)] + xy\,.
\end{equation}
Next, we show that $u_c(\cdot)$ and $v_c(\cdot,0)$ are conjugates.
We let $y>0$ be given and define the candidate optimal
terminal wealth $\Xhat$ by
$$
\Xhat :=
\begin{cases}
-V'(yZ^0_T)-f\,, & \text{ if } yZ^0_T\leq U'(f-\phimin),\\
-\phimin\,, & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
$$
For $\frac{d\bQ^0}{d\bP}:=Z^0_T=\sE(-\mu\sqrt{V}
\cdot B)_T$,
we have that $\hat{X}\in L^2(\bQ^0)$.
By martingale representation and the strict positivity of $\sqrt{V}$ by the Feller condition,
we may write $\Xhat = \E^{\bQ^0}[\Xhat]+ (H\cdot S^0)_T$ for some
integrable $H$.
Since $\Xhat\geq -\phimin$ and $(H\cdot S^0)$ is a $\bQ^0$-martingale,
we know that $(H\cdot S^0)_t\geq -\phimin-\E^{\bQ^0}[\Xhat]>-\infty$
for all $t\in[0,T]$. Thus, $H$ is $S^0$-admissible.
We define $\xhat:= \E^{\bQ^0}[\Xhat]>-\phimin$
so that $\Xhat-\xhat\in\sC_c(\xhat)$.
For any $y>0$,
\begin{align*}
\E\left[V_c\left(yZ^0_T,f\right)\right]
&= \E\left[ U\left(\Xhat+f\right)-yZ^0_T\Xhat\right] \\
&= \E\left[U\left(\Xhat+f\right)\right] - y\xhat \\
&\leq \sup_{x>-\phimin}\left\{\sup_{X\in\sC_c(x)}
\E\left[U(x+X+f)\right]-yx\right\} \\
&= \sup_{x>-\phimin}\left\{u_c(x)-xy\right\}\,.
\end{align*}
Since the other direction of the inequality holds by \eqref{eqn:inequality},
we obtain that for any $y>0$,
$\E[V_c(yZ^0_T,f)] = \sup_{x>-\phimin}\left\{u_c(x)-xy\right\}$.
Since $u_c(\cdot)$ is concave and upper
semicontinuous on $(-\phimin,\infty)$, we have
$u_c(x) = \inf_{y>0}\left\{\E[V_c(yZ^0_T,f)]+xy\right\}$ for $x>-\phimin$.
Strict convexity of
$y\mapsto \E[V_c(yZ^0_T,f)]$ implies the differentiability of
$u_c(\cdot)$. (See, e.g., Proposition 6.2.1 on page 40 of
\cite{HUL96}.)
Now for any $x>-\phimin$, choosing
$y=\frac{d}{dx}u_c(x)$ yields equality in
\eqref{eqn:inequality}.
\end{proof}
Finally, we show that indifference prices do not converge as
$\rho\rightarrow 0$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:indifference_prices}]
Let $x>-\phimin$ be given. For any $\rho\in(-1,1)$,
$w(x,\rho)=w(x,0)$.
Suppose that for $\rho_n\longrightarrow 0$,
we have $p(x,\rho_n)\longrightarrow \bar{p}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
By being the limit of arbitrage-free prices in the
$\{\rho_n\}_n$ models, we must have
$\bar{p}\in [\inf\phi,\sup\phi]$.
Using that $\phi$ is not constant,
for $x>-\phimin$, we first note that $u_c(x)<u(x,0)$. This result
can be obtained, for example, by Theorem 2.2 of \cite{KS99AAP}
and $f$'s replicability in the $S^0$ market, which imply that
$u(x,0)=\E\left[U(I(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}u(x,0)Z^0_T))\right]$ where
$\bP\left(I(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}u(x,0)Z^0_T)
<f-\phimin\right)>0$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:primal_convergence},
$$
\lim_n u(x,\rho_n) = u_c(x) < u(x,0) = w(x+p(x,0),0).
$$
Taking $f=0$ in Theorem \ref{thm:primal_convergence} and using
the concavity of $w(\cdot,\rho)$ for every $\rho\in(-1,1)$, we
have that $w(\cdot,\rho)\longrightarrow w(\cdot,0)$ uniformly on compacts
in $(-\phimin,\infty)$ as $\rho\rightarrow 0$. Thus,
$$
\lim_n w(x+p(x,\rho_n),\rho_n)
= w(x+\bar{p},0),
$$
which implies that $w(x+\bar{p},0)<w(x+p(x,0),0)$. Since $w(\cdot,0)$
is strictly increasing, we conclude that $\bar{p}<p(x,0)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the Main Result}
The proof of the main result, Theorem \ref{thm:main_result}, follows Lemmas \ref{lemma:primal_lsc} and \ref{lemma:dual_usc} (below), which establish lower and upper semicontinuity-type results for the sequence of primal and dual value functions, respectively.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:primal_lsc}
Suppose that the sequence of markets satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:semimg},
and $\sM^\infty_V\neq\emptyset$.
Then for $x\in\R$ and $x_n\longrightarrow x$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
$$
u_\infty(x) \leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} u_n(x_n)\,.
$$
\end{lemma}
Significant difficulty in proving Lemma \ref{lemma:primal_lsc} stems from the nonequivalence of markets (the martingale drivers, $M^n$, differ).
The idea behind the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:primal_lsc} is that since the pre-limiting markets are ``close'' to the $S^\infty$ market, strategies in the $S^\infty$ market are ``close'' to being strategies in the pre-limiting markets. This idea will be made precise by appropriate approximation and stopping. First, we need a helper lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:S_semimg_convergence}
Under Assumption \ref{ass:semimg}, $S^n\longrightarrow S^\infty$ in the semimartingale topology as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $M^n\longrightarrow M^\infty$ in the semimartingale topology as $n\rightarrow\infty$, it remains to show that $\left(\lambda^n\cdot\left<M^n\right>\right)\longrightarrow\left(\lambda^\infty\cdot\left<M^\infty\right>\right)$ in the semimartingale topology. We seek to show
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:variation_converging}
A_n:=\sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^T \left|\lambda^n(\sigma^{n,i})^2-\lambda^\infty(\sigma^{\infty,i})^2\right| dt \longrightarrow 0 \ \text{ in probability as } n\rightarrow\infty,
\end{equation}
which will then imply the desired result.
The mapping $X\mapsto \left<X\right>$ is continuous in the space of semimartingales with respect to semimartingale convergence, and so Assumption \ref{ass:semimg} implies:
\begin{align}
\label{enum:Ms} \sum_{i=1}^d\int_0^T
\left(\sigma^{n,i}-\sigma^{\infty,i}\right)^2dt &\longrightarrow 0
\ \text{ in probability as } n\rightarrow\infty,\\
\label{enum:lambdaMs} \sum_{i=1}^d\int_0^T
\left(\lambda^n\sigma^{n,i}-\lambda^\infty\sigma^{\infty,i}\right)^2dt
&\longrightarrow 0 \ \text{ in probability as } n\rightarrow\infty
\end{align}
Let $\{A_n\}_{n\in N}$ be a subsequence of $\{A_n\}_{n\in\bN}$,
where for notational convenience
we denote the subsequence index $N$ as an infinite subset of $\bN$.
We choose a
further subsequence $\{A_n\}_{n\in N'}$, where $N'\subset N$, such that
the convergence in \eqref{enum:Ms} and \eqref{enum:lambdaMs} occurs
$\bP$-a.s. as $n\rightarrow\infty$ for $n\in N'$.
We define the random variable
$$
q:=\sup_{n\in N'} \sum_{i=1}^d\int_0^T \left(\left(\sigma^{n,i}\right)^2 + \left(\lambda^n\sigma^{n,i}\right)^2\right)dt.
$$
The almost-sure convergence along the subsequence $N'$ implies that
$q<\infty$, $\bP$-a.s., which allows us to define the equivalent probability
measure $\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}:= \frac{e^{-q}}{\E^\bP\left[e^{-q}\right]}$.
Under $\bQ$, we have more regularity of elements in $N'$; in particular,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:convergence_in_measure}
\sum_{i=1}^d \left(\sigma^{n,i}-\sigma^{\infty,i}\right)^2
+ \left(\lambda^n\sigma^{n,i}-\lambda^\infty\sigma^{\infty,i}\right)^2
\longrightarrow 0 \ \text{ in $L^1(\bQ\times\Leb)$
as $N'\ni n\rightarrow\infty$,}
\end{equation}
where $\Leb$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $[0,T]$.
Hence, $\{\sum_{i=1}^d (1+(\lambda^n)^2)(\sigma^{n,i})^2\}_{n\in N'}$
is $(\bQ\times\Leb)$-uniformly integrable. Since $\sum_{i=1}^d |\lambda^n(\sigma^{n,i})^2-\lambda^\infty(\sigma^{\infty,i})^2|\leq \sum_{i=1}^d [(1+(\lambda^n)^2)(\sigma^{n,i})^2+(1+(\lambda^\infty)^2)(\sigma^{\infty,i})^2]$ for all $n\geq 1$ and by \eqref{eqn:convergence_in_measure}, $\sum_{i=1}^d |\lambda^n(\sigma^{n,i})^2-\lambda^\infty(\sigma^{\infty,i})^2|\longrightarrow 0$ in $(\bQ\times\Leb)$-measure as $n\rightarrow\infty$, we have that
\begin{equation*}\label{eqn:L1Q_convergence}
\sum_{i=1}^d \left|\lambda^n(\sigma^{n,i})^2-
\lambda^\infty(\sigma^{\infty,i})^2\right|
\longrightarrow 0 \ \text{ in $L^1(\bQ\times\Leb)$ as }
N'\ni n\rightarrow\infty.
\end{equation*}
Now we choose a further subsequence $\{A_n\}_{n\in N''}$, where
$N''\subseteq N'$, such that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^T \left|\lambda^n(\sigma^{n,i})^2 -
\lambda^\infty(\sigma^{\infty,i})^2\right|
\longrightarrow 0 \ \text{ $\bQ$-a.s. as $N''\ni n\rightarrow\infty$},
\end{equation*}
and note that this convergence also holds $\bP$-a.s. by the equivalence
of $\bP$ and $\bQ$. Thus, we have shown
that for all subsequences $\{A_n\}_{n\in N}$, $N\subseteq \bN$,
there exists a further
subsequence $\{A_n\}_{n\in N''}$, $N''\subseteq N$,
such that $\sum_{i=1}^d \int_0^T
|\lambda^n(\sigma^{n,i})^2 - \lambda^\infty(\sigma^{\infty,i})^2|
\longrightarrow 0$ $\bP$-a.s. for $n\in N''$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Therefore, \eqref{eqn:variation_converging} holds, which completes the
proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:primal_lsc}]
First, we show that the supremum in the limiting primal optimization problem,
\eqref{def:primal_value_fn}, can be taken over all admissible wealth
processes whose integrands are bounded.
Let $H\in\adm^\infty$ be given, and let
$K\in (0,\infty)$ be such that $(H\cdot S^\infty)_t\geq -K$ for all
$t\in[0,T]$. Lemma \ref{lemma:H_approx1} provides us with
a sequence of integrands $\{H^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ such that for each $n\geq 1$,
$H^n$ is bounded uniformly in $t$ and $\omega$ while
$(H^n\cdot S^\infty)_t\geq -2K$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and
$(H^n\cdot S^\infty)_T\longrightarrow (H\cdot S^\infty)_T$
in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$. In particular,
$(H^n\cdot S^\infty)\in\adm^\infty$ with
$\{(H^n\cdot S^\infty)\}_{n\geq 1}$ sharing the same lower
admissibility bound, $-2K$. By Fatou's Lemma,
$$
\E\left[U\left(x+(H\cdot S^\infty)_T+f\right)\right]
\leq\liminf_n\rightarrow\infty \E\left[U\left(x+(H^n\cdot S^\infty)_T
+ f\right)\right].
$$
Therefore, it suffices to take the supremum in \eqref{def:primal_value_fn}
over all $\tilde{H}\in\adm^\infty$ such that $\tilde{H}$ is uniformly bounded in
$t$ and $\omega$.
That is,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:primal_sup}
u_\infty(x) = \sup_{\tilde{H}\in\adm^\infty,
\tilde{H}\text{ bdd}}
\E\left[U\left(x+(\tilde{H}\cdot S^\infty)_T+f\right)\right].
\end{equation}
Now let $\tilde{H}\in\adm^\infty$ be given such that $\tilde{H}$ is uniformly bounded in $t$
and $\omega$ by a constant $K\in(0,\infty)$.
Even though $\tilde{H}$ is $S^\infty$-admissible and
$S^n$-integrable for every $n$,
it is not necessarily admissible
for each $S^n$ market. Using Lemma \ref{lemma:H_approx2}, we
mitigate this issue by choosing $\{\tilde{H}^n\}_{n\geq 1}$ such that for
each $n\geq 1$, $\tilde{H}^n$ is bounded uniformly in $t$ and $\omega$ while
$(\tilde{H}^n\cdot S^n)_t\geq-3K$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $(\tilde{H}^n\cdot
S^n)_T\longrightarrow (\tilde{H}\cdot S^\infty)_T$ in probability as $n
\rightarrow\infty$.
Applying Fatou's Lemma gives us that
\begin{align*}
\E\left[U(x+(\tilde{H}\cdot S^\infty)_T+f)\right]
&\leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\E\left[U(x_n+(\tilde{H}^n\cdot S^n)_T+ f)\right] \\
&\leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} u_n(x_n).
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum over all uniformly bounded
$\tilde{H}\in\adm^\infty$, as in
\eqref{eqn:primal_sup}, yields the result.
\end{proof}
We next proceed to the second main lemma, which establishes an upper-semicontinuity result for the dual problem.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:dual_usc}
Let the assumptions of the model be as in Theorem \ref{thm:main_result}.
Then for $\{y_n\}_{1\leq n<\infty}\subseteq (0,\infty)$ such that
$y_n\longrightarrow y>0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
$$
v_\infty(y) \geq \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} v_n(y_n)\,.
$$
\end{lemma}
Using Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf}, the following lemma will further refine the collection $\sB$ over which the infimum is taken in the limiting market's dual problem.
We define $\sB'$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Bp}
\begin{split}
\sB' := \left\{L\in\sB: \right.&\exists \text{ constants } c=c(L),d=d(L), \\
&\left. 0<c\leq\sE(L)_t\leq d<\infty, \,\forall t\in[0,T], \text{ and }
\left<L\right>_T\leq d \right\}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The following lemma builds on Corollary 3.4 in \cite{LZ07SPA}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:bdd_L}
Suppose that the limiting market's dual problem satisfies
Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf} and that $\E[V(Z^\infty_T)]<\infty$,
where $Z^\infty_T$ is the minimal martingale density for $S^\infty$.
Let $\sB'$ be defined as in \eqref{eqn:Bp}. Then for $y>0$,
$$
v_\infty(y) = \inf_{L\in\sB'} \E\left[V\left(y Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)
+ y Z^\infty_T \sE(L)_T f\right]\,.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first part of the proof is based on the proof of Corollary 3.4
of \cite{LZ07SPA}. Let $L\in\sB$ be given.
By the convexity of $V$, we have
\begin{align*}
\E&\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{n-1}{n}\sE(L)_T\right)\right) + yZ^\infty_T\left(\frac{1}{n}+\frac{n-1}{n}\sE(L)_T\right)f\right] \\
&\leq \frac{1}{n}\E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\right)+yZ^\infty_T f\right]
+ \frac{n-1}{n}\E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)
+ yZ^\infty_T \sE(L)_T f\right] \\
&\longrightarrow \E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)
+ yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T f\right] \ \ \text{ as $n\rightarrow\infty$},
\end{align*}
because $V(yZ^\infty_T)\in L^1(\bP)$ by the
assumption that $\E[V(Z^\infty_T)]<\infty$ and reasonable asymptotic
elasticity, \eqref{eqn:ae}.
For each $n\geq 1$, we let $L^n$ denote the element $L^n\in\sB$ such that
$\frac{1}{n}+\frac{n-1}{n}\sE(L) = \sE(L^n)$.
Let $\eps>0$ be given, and choose $N$ sufficiently large such that
$$
\E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T\right)
+ yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T f\right]\leq
\E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)
+ yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T f\right] + \eps.
$$
We define the sequence of stopping times $\{\tau_k\}_{1\leq k<\infty}$ by
$\tau_k:=\inf\left\{t\leq T: \left<L^N\right>_t\geq k\right\}$.
Then $(L^N)^{\tau_k}\in\sB'$ for each $k$.
By continuity of $L^N$ and
finiteness of $\left<L^N\right>_T$, we have that $\sE(L^N)_{\tau_k}
\longrightarrow \sE(L^N)_T$ in probability as $k\rightarrow\infty$.
Scheffe's Lemma implies that the $L^1(\bP)-\lim_k Z^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_k} = Z^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T$, which implies that $\lim_k
\E\left[y Z^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_k}\, f\right]
= \E\left[y Z^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T f\right]$.
Convergence in probability of
$\left\{\sE(L^N)_{\tau_k}\right\}_{1\leq k<\infty}$ also
implies that $V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_k})
\longrightarrow V(y Z^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T)$
in probability as $k\rightarrow\infty$.
Let $C$ be the bound on $\sE(L^N)$ from above given to us in
definition of $\sB$. Since $\frac{1}{N}\leq \sE(L^N)_t\leq C$ for all
$t$,
we have for all $k$ that $V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_k})\leq
\max\left(V(\frac{1}{N}Z^\infty_T), V(CZ^\infty_T)\right)$, where
$\max\left(V(\frac{1}{N}Z^\infty_T), V(CZ^\infty_T)\right)$ is in $L^1(\bP)$
by reasonable asymptotic elasticity, \eqref{eqn:ae}. Thus,
$V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_k}) \longrightarrow V(y Z^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T)$
in $L^1(\bP)$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$.
We may choose $K$ sufficiently large so that
$\E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_K}\right)+yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_K}f\right]
\leq \E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T\right)+yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_T f\right]+\eps$,
which then implies
that
$$
\E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_K}\right)
+y Z^\infty_T\sE(L^N)_{\tau_K}\, f\right]
\leq \E\left[V\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)
+y Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\, f\right] + 2\eps.
$$
Since $\eps>0$ and $L\in\sB$ are arbitrary, Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf}
allows us to conclude the desired result.
\end{proof}
Establishing an upper-semicontinuity property for the dual problem is difficult because with small changes in the limiting market, we must produce a dual element of a pre-limiting market with appropriately small changes. Using the Kunita-Watanabe decomposition, we decompose elements $L\in\sB'$ in terms of strongly orthogonal components based on the varying martingale drivers, $M^n$. See \cite{KW67} for more general coverage of the Kunita-Watanabe decomposition.
A $\bP$-local martingale, $N$, is said to be in $H^2_0(\bP)$ provided $N_0=0$ and $\E[\left<N\right>_T]<\infty$, in which case $N$ is a martingale. A sequence of martingales $\{N^n\}_{1\leq n<\infty}\subseteq H^2_0(\bP)$ converges to $N$ in $H^2_0(\bP)$ if $\E[\left<N^n-N\right>_T]\longrightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. We say that two local martingales, $M$ and $N$, are \textit{strongly orthogonal} if $\left<M,N\right>_t = 0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:L_approximation}
Let $\left\{M^n\right\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$ be local
martingales such that $M^n\longrightarrow M^\infty$ in the
semimartingale topology as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
and suppose that $M^\infty$ satisfies Assumption \ref{ass:nondegeneracy}.
Let $L\in H^2_0(\bP)$ be strongly orthogonal
to $M^\infty$, and
for $1\leq n<\infty$, decompose $L$ into its
(unique) Kunita-Watanabe decomposition,
$$
L=L^n+(H^n\cdot M^n),
$$
where $L^n$ and $(H^n\cdot M^n)$ are in $H^2_0(\bP)$ and
$L^n$ is strongly orthogonal to $M^n$.
Then $L^n\longrightarrow L$ in $H^2_0(\bP)$
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The filtration $\bF=(\sF_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ is the ($\bP$-completed)
filtration generated by the $d$-dimensional Brownian motion
$(B^1,\ldots,B^d)$ on $(\Omega,\sF,\bF,\bP)$ with $\sF=\sF_T$.
For notational concreteness, we denote
$$
L = (\nu^1\cdot B^1)+\ldots+(\nu^d\cdot B^d),
$$
for $\nu^k\in\sL^2$, $1\leq k\leq d$.
For $\x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d),\y=(y_1,\ldots,y_d)\in\R^d$,
we let $|\x|$ denote the Euclidean norm,
$|\x|:=\sqrt{x_1^2+\cdots+ x_d^2}$, and let the inner product be
$\x\LargerCdot\y:=x_1y_1+\ldots+x_dy_d$.
We define the vector $\nu := (\nu^1,\ldots,\nu^d)$.
For $1\leq n<\infty$, we define
$$
H^n := \frac{\nu\LargerCdot\sigma^n}{|\sigma^n|^2}
\, \bI_{\{|\sigma^n|\neq 0\}}.
$$
Then $H^n$ is progressively measurable and $M^n$-integrable with
$(H^n\cdot M^n)\in H^2_0(\bP)$.
We define $L^n:= L-(H^n\cdot M^n)\in H^2_0(\bP)$.
$L^n$ and $M^n$ are strongly orthogonal,
and thus $L=L^n+(H^n\cdot M^n)$ is the
Kunita-Watanabe decomposition for $L$ with respect to $M^n$.
Since $L^n$ and $M^n$ are strongly orthogonal,
$L^n\longrightarrow L$ in $H^2_0(\bP)$ if and only if
$(H^n\cdot M^n)\longrightarrow 0$ in $H^2_0(\bP)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Hence, we seek to show that
$\E[\left<H^n\cdot M^n\right>_T]
= \E\left[\int_0^T \frac{(\nu\LargerCdot\sigma^n)^2}{|\sigma^n|^2}
\bI_{\{|\sigma^n|\neq 0\}}dt\right]\longrightarrow 0$ as
$n\rightarrow\infty$.
Since $L\in H^2_0(\bP)$, we have
for $1\leq n<\infty$,
$$
\frac{\left(\nu\LargerCdot\sigma^n\right)^2}
{|\sigma^n|^2}\,\bI_{\{|\sigma^n|\neq 0\}}
\leq |\nu|^2
\in L^1(\bP\times\Leb).
$$
The assumption that $M^n\longrightarrow M^\infty$ in the
semimartingale topology as
$n\rightarrow\infty$ implies that for $1\leq k\leq d$, $\sigma^{n,k}\longrightarrow\sigma^{\infty,k}$ in $(\bP\times\Leb)$-measure as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Since $\left<L,M^\infty\right>=0$,
we have that $\nu\LargerCdot\sigma^\infty=0$ $(\bP\times\Leb)$-a.e.
Assumption \ref{ass:nondegeneracy} ensures that
$|\sigma^\infty|\neq 0$ ($\bP\times\Leb$)-a.e., and hence,
$$
\frac{\left(\nu\LargerCdot\sigma^n\right)^2}{|\sigma^n|^2}
\, \bI_{\{|\sigma^n|\neq 0\}} \longrightarrow 0
\ \ \text{ in ($\bP\times\Leb$)-measure as $n\rightarrow\infty$.}
$$
Thus dominated convergence implies that
$\E[\left<H^n\cdot M^n\right>_T]\longrightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$,
which completes the proof of the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:dual_usc}]
We let $\sB'$ be defined as in \eqref{eqn:Bp} and let $L\in\sB'$ be given. Let $K\in(0,\infty)$ be the constant given in the definition of $\sB'$ such that $|L_t|\leq K$ for all $t$ and $\left<L\right>_T\leq K$.
We let $L^n$ be given as in Lemma \ref{lemma:L_approximation}. Then $L^n\longrightarrow L$ in $H^2_0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. For $1\leq n<\infty$, define stopping times $\tau_n:=\inf\{t\leq T: |L^n_t-L_t|\geq 1 \text{ or } \left<L^n\right>_t\geq K+1\}$. The $H^2_0(\bP)$ convergence of $\{L^n\}_{1\leq n<\infty}$ implies that $\left<L^n\right>_T\longrightarrow\left<L\right>_T$ in $L^1(\bP)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, while the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequalities additionally give us that $\bP(\sup_t |L^n_t-L_t|\geq 1)\longrightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Hence, $\bP(\tau_n=T)\longrightarrow 1$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. We conclude that $L^n_{\tau_n}\longrightarrow L_T$ and $\left<L^n\right>_{\tau_n}\longrightarrow\left<L\right>_T$ in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$, which yields
$$
\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}\longrightarrow \sE(L)_T
\ \ \text{ in probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$.}
$$
Furthermore, the definition of $\tau_n$ provides upper and lower bounds
on $\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}$, which are independent of $n$:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:exp_bound}
e^{-2K-2}\leq \sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}\leq e^{K+1}.
\end{equation}
Such uniform bounds and the choice of the $L^n$s are made possible by the choice of $L\in\sB'$.
For $1\leq n\leq\infty$, $Z^n$ is a martingale by Assumption \ref{ass:Z_mg}, and by Fatou's Lemma, $1 = \E[Z^\infty_T] \leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} \E[Z^n_T] = 1$. Hence, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \E[Z^n_T] = \E[Z^\infty_T]$. Scheffe's Lemma then implies that $Z^n_T\longrightarrow Z^\infty_T$ in $L^1(\bP)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, and in particular, $\{Z^n_T\}_{1\leq n\leq \infty}$ is uniformly integrable. By \eqref{eqn:exp_bound} and since $f\in L^\infty(\bP)$, we have that
$$
0 \leq y_n Z^n_T \sE(L^n)_{\tau_n} f
\leq \left(\sup_m y_m\right) e^{K+1} \|f\|_\infty Z^n_T,
$$
which implies that $\{y_nZ^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n} f\}_{1\leq n\leq\infty}$ is uniformly integrable. Convergence in probability and uniform integrability imply that
$$
y_nZ^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}f \longrightarrow y Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_Tf
\ \text{ in $L^1(\bP)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$}.
$$
We use \eqref{eqn:exp_bound} again in order to obtain uniform integrability of the remaining term in the dual value function. As mentioned in Assumption 1.2(i) of \cite{OZ09MF}, the reasonable asymptotic elasticity condition \eqref{eqn:ae} along with the $U(0)>0$ is equivalent to the following: for all $\lambda>0$ there exists $C>0$ such that $V(\lambda y)\leq C V(y)$ for all $y\geq 0$. Then for $1\leq n<\infty$,
\begin{align*}
0 &\leq V\left(y_nZ^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}\right) \\
&\leq V\left(y_nZ^n_T e^{K+1}\right)
\bI_{\{y_n Z^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}\geq U'(0)\}}
+ V\left(y_n Z^n_T e^{-2K-2}\right)
\bI_{\{y_n Z^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}< U'(0)\}} \\
&\leq V\left(\left(\sup_m y_m\right) e^{K+1}Z^n_T\right)
+ V\left(\left(\inf_m y_m\right)e^{-2K-2}Z^n_T\right) \\
&\leq (C_1+C_2)V(Z^n_T),
\end{align*}
where $C_1, C_2$ are the constants produced by the reasonable
asymptotic elasticity of $U$. The constants
$C_1, C_2$ depend on the choice of $L$, $K$,
$\inf_m y_m$, and $\sup_m y_m$ but not on $n$.
Assumption \ref{ass:V_ui} now guarantees the uniform integrability of
$\left\{V\left(y_n Z^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}\right)\right\}_{1\leq n<\infty}$.
Convergence in probability and uniform integrability imply that
$V\left(y_n Z^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}\right)\longrightarrow
V\left(y Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)$ in $L^1(\bP)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
Finally, we have
$$
\E\left[V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T)+yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_Tf\right]
= \lim_n \E\left[V(y_n Z^n_T\sE(L^n)_{\tau_n})
+ y_n Z^n_T \sE(L^n)_{\tau_n}f\right]
\geq \limsup_n v_n(y_n).
$$
Taking the infimum over all $L\in\sB'$ and applying Lemma \ref{lemma:bdd_L}
yields $v_\infty(y)\geq \limsup_n v_n(y_n)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_result}]\label{proof:main_result}
We first note that the assumption that
$\sM^\infty_V\neq\emptyset$ of Lemma \ref{lemma:primal_lsc} is satisfied by
Assumption \ref{ass:V_ui}. For $x_n\longrightarrow x\in\R$
and $y=y(x)$, Lemmas \ref{lemma:primal_lsc} and \ref{lemma:dual_usc} imply
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:inequality_chain}
u_\infty(x)
\leq \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty} u_n(x_n)
\leq \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} v_n(y)+x_ny
\leq v_\infty(y)+xy = u_\infty(x).
\end{equation}
The last equality can be shown by Theorem 1.1 of \cite{OZ09MF} by taking $\sE = x+f$ and $y=\E\left[\frac{d\hat{\mu}(x)}{d\bP}\right]$. Here, $\sE$ and $\hat{\mu}(x)$ refer to the notation used in \cite{OZ09MF}.
Moreover, the inequality chain \eqref{eqn:inequality_chain} shows
that for $y>0$,
$v_n(y)\longrightarrow v_\infty(y)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
For $y_n\longrightarrow y>0$, we also have that $v_n(y_n)\longrightarrow v_\infty(y)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ because the convexity of each $v_n$ implies
that $v_n\longrightarrow v_\infty$ uniformly on compacts in $(0,\infty)$
as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:indifference_price}]
Let $\{p_{n_k}(x)\}_{1\leq k<\infty}$ be a convergent subsequence of
$\{p_n(x)\}_{1\leq n<\infty}$
with $\lim_k p_{n_k}(x) = p\in\R$. By Theorem \ref{thm:main_result},
$$
u_\infty(x) = \lim_k u_{n_k}(x),
$$
while $w_{n_k}(x+p_{n_k}(x)) = u_{n_k}(x)$ for each $k\geq 1$ by the
definition of the indifference price. Next, we take the contingent
claim to be $0$ and note
that $\lim_k x+p_{n_k}(x) = x+p$, which allows us to conclude from Theorem
\ref{thm:main_result} that
$$
w_\infty(x+p) = \lim_k w_{n_k}(x+p_{n_k}(x)),
$$
which implies that $p=p_\infty(x)$. Since $f\in L^\infty(\bP)$,
$\{p_n(x)\}_n$ is bounded, hence any subsequence has a further subsequence
that converges to $p_\infty(x)$. Therefore, $\lim_n p_n(x)$ exists and
equals $p_\infty(x)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Examples}
\label{section:examples}
The first example shows that Assumption \ref{ass:nondegeneracy} is necessary in the sense that its absence can allow Theorem \ref{thm:main_result}'s conclusion to fail. The example is constructed in a very simple setting, but the same idea can generate more complex counterexamples whenever Assumption \ref{ass:nondegeneracy} fails.
\begin{example}\label{example:degeneracy_ass}
Let $d=1$, so that the probability space is generated by a $1$-dimensional
Brownian motion, $B$. We define the martingales $M^n:=\frac{1}{n} B$
for $1\leq n<\infty$ and $M^\infty:=0$. Let $\lambda^n := 0$ for all $1\leq n\leq\infty$ so that $S^\infty_t = 0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and for $1\leq n<\infty$, $S^n$ has the dynamics
$$
dS^n = \frac{1}{n}dB,\ \ \ S^n_0=0.
$$
The stock markets satisfy Assumptions \ref{ass:semimg}
and \ref{ass:Z_mg}, but the limiting market
does not satisfy Assumption \ref{ass:nondegeneracy}.
Let the contingent claim be given by $f := \bI_{\{B_T\geq 0\}}$. By
It\^o's representation theorem and the boundedness of $f$,
there exists a progressively measurable $H$ such that
$\E[\int_0^T H^2_t dt]<\infty$ and
$f = \frac{1}{2}+(H\cdot B)_T$. Moreover, $(H\cdot B)$ is bounded
since for all $t\in[0,T]$,
$$
(H\cdot B)_t = \E\left[(H\cdot B)_T \left| \right. \sF_t\right]
= \E\left[f-\frac{1}{2}\left|\right.\sF_t\right]
\in \left[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right], \ \text{ $\bP$-a.s.}.
$$
Hence, we can conclude by
Theorem 2.1 of \cite{S01AAP} that for all $1\leq n<\infty$ and $x\in\R$,
$$
u_n(x) = U\left(x+\frac{1}{2}\right).
$$
Yet for all $x\in\R$, Jensen's inequality implies that $u_\infty(x) = \E\left[U\left(x+f\right)\right] < U\left(x+\frac{1}{2}\right)$.
\end{example}
The following two examples provide sufficient conditions on the limiting market for Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf} to hold.
\begin{example}\label{ex:complete}
This example covers the original motivation for this work, where the contingent claim is replicable in the (possibly incomplete) limiting market. In this case, the limiting market consists of a driving Brownian motion, a replicable claim, and additional independent Brownian noise.
Recall that $(B^1,\ldots,B^d)$ is the $d$-dimensional Brownian motion generating the completed filtration, $\bF=(\sF_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$. Let $(\sF^1_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ denote the filtration generated by $B^1$, completed with all $\bP$-null sets.
The risky asset, $S^\infty$, has dynamics as in \eqref{eqn:S_dynamics} and is $(\sF^1_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$-adapted. The contingent claim, $f\in L^\infty(\Omega,\sF^1_T,\bP)$, is replicable: there exists an $S^\infty$-integrable $H$ and constant $c$ such that $f = c+(H\cdot S^\infty)_T$.
\begin{proposition}
Suppose that $S^\infty$ is $\left(\sF^1_t\right)_{0\leq t\leq T}$-adapted
with dynamics \eqref{eqn:S_dynamics} and satisfies Assumption
\ref{ass:nondegeneracy}. Suppose that
$f\in L^\infty(\Omega,\sF^1_T,\bP)$ is replicable.
Then Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf} is satisfied.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $y>0$ and $\bQ\in\sM^\infty_V$ be given. Write $\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}=Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T$ for its Radon-Nikodym density. We have that $Z^\infty_T\in\sF^1_T$, while Assumption \ref{ass:nondegeneracy} implies that $\left<L,B^1\right>_t=0$ for $t\in[0,T]$.
Note that $\E[\sE(L)_T|\sF^1_T] = 1$, $\bP$-a.s., since
$$
1 = \E[Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T]
= \E[Z^\infty_T\underbrace{\E[\sE(L)_T|\sF^1_T]}_{\leq \E[\sE(L)_0|\sF^1_T]\, =\, 1}\,]
\leq \E[Z^\infty_T] = 1,
$$
with equality holding if and only if $\E[\sE(L)_T|\sF^1_T]=1$, $\bP$-a.s.
By Jensen's inequality,
\begin{align*}
\E[V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T)]
&= \E\left[\E\left[V(yz\sE(L)_T)|\sF^1_T\right]|_{z=Z^\infty_T}\right]
\\%& \text{by independence lemma} \\
&\geq \E\left[V(yz\E\left[\sE(L)_T|\sF^1_T\right])|_{z=Z^\infty_T}\right]
\\%& \text{by Jensen's inequality}\\
&= \E[V(yZ^\infty_T)].
\end{align*}
Since $f$ is bounded and replicable, $\bQ\mapsto \E[\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}f]$ is constant on $\sM^\infty$. Hence, for all $\bQ\in\sM^\infty_V$,
$
\E[V(yZ^\infty_T)+yZ^\infty_T f]
\leq \E\left[V\left(y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}\right)
+ y\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}f\right],
$
which implies that $Z^\infty_T$ is the density of the dual minimizer, and so Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf} is satisfied.
\end{proof}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Exponential Investors]
For the exponential investor, Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf} is satisfied, under an easier-to-verify BMO assumption. We refer to \cite{Kaz94} for additional details on $\bmo$ martingales.
\begin{definition} \label{def:BMO}
A $\bP$-local martingale $N$
is said to be in $BMO(\bP)$ if
$$
\sup_{\tau}
\left\|\E^\bP\left[\left|N_T-N_\tau\right|\,
|\sF_\tau\right]\right\|_\infty
<\infty,
$$
where the supremum is taken over stopping times $\tau\leq T$.
\end{definition}
\begin{assumption}\label{ass:bmo}
$(\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)\in \bmo(\bP)$.
\end{assumption}
For the remainder of this section, we let $U(x)=-\exp(-\alpha x)$ for a positive constant $\alpha$. The conjugate to $U$ is $V(y)=\frac{y}{\alpha}\left(\log \frac{y}{\alpha}-1\right)$, $y>0$. We have the following relationships for $c\in\R$ and $y>0$:
\begin{gather}
\label{formula:Vprime} V'(cy) = V'(y)+\frac{1}{\alpha}\log c, \\
\label{formula:V} V(y)+yc = y\left(V'(ye^{\alpha c})-\frac{1}{\alpha}\right).
\end{gather}
For a set $A\in\sF$ and random variable $X\in L^1(\bP)$, we adopt the notation $\E[X; A] := \E[X\bI_A] = \int_A Xd\bP$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:exp_bmo_case}
Let $U(x) = -\exp(-\alpha x)$ for a positive constant $\alpha$ and assume that
Assumption \ref{ass:bmo} holds. Let $\Qmin$ denote the minimal martingale measure, $\frac{d\Qmin}{d\bP}:=Z^\infty_T=\sE(-\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)_T$, and suppose that $\bQ^\infty\in\sM^\infty_V$. Then Assumption
\ref{ass:bdd_inf} is satisfied.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in\R$ and $Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T=\sE(-(\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)+L)_T\in\sM^\infty_V$ be the dual optimizer for the dual problem \eqref{def:dual_value_fn} with $n=\infty$ and $y:=u_\infty'(x)$.
For $1\leq n<\infty$, we define the stopping times $\tau_n:=\inf\{t\leq T: \sE(L)_t\geq n\}$. Using that $V(0)=0$ and the definition of $\tau_n$, it is not difficult to verify that each probability density $Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}$ corresponds to a martingale measure in $\sM^\infty_V$.
Theorem 2.1 of \cite{KS02MF} implies that there exists an $S^\infty$-integrable $\hat{H}$ such that $\hat{H}$ is optimal for \eqref{def:primal_value_fn} with $n=\infty$ and $(\hat{H}\cdot S^\infty)$ is a martingale with respect to every measure $\bQ\in\sM^\infty_V$. The process $\hat{H}$ is a \textit{permissible} wealth process (in the $S^\infty$ market), rather than an admissible wealth process; see \cite{OZ09MF} Definition 1.1 for details.
Proposition 4.1 from \cite{OZ09MF} implies that $x+(\hat{H}\cdot S^\infty)_T +f= -V'\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T\right)$.
Hence, for any $\bQ\in\sM^\infty_V$, \eqref{formula:Vprime} with $c=x$ implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:0_expectation}
\E\left[\frac{d\bQ}{d\bP}V'\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T e^{\alpha f}\right)\right]
= \E\left[Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T V'\left(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T e^{\alpha f}\right)\right].
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{align*}
0 &\leq \E\left[V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n})
+yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}f\right] - v_\infty(y) \\
&= \E\left[V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n})
+yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}f\right] -
\E\left[V(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T)+yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_T f\right]\\
&=\E\left[yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}V'(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}e^{\alpha f})-yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_TV'(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_Te^{\alpha f})\right]
&\text{by \eqref{formula:V}}\\
&=\E\left[yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}\left(V'(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}
e^{\alpha f})-V'(yZ^\infty_T\sE(L)_Te^{\alpha f})\right)\right]
&\text{by \eqref{eqn:0_expectation}}\\
&=\frac{y}{\alpha}\E\left[Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_{\tau_n}
\left(\log\sE(L)_{\tau_n}-\log\sE(L)_T\right)\right]
&\text{by \eqref{formula:Vprime}}\\
&=\frac{y}{\alpha}\E^{\bQ^\infty}\left[n\log\left(\frac{n}{\sE(L)_T}
\right);\{\tau_n<T\}\right]\\
&=\frac{y}{\alpha}\left(n\log n\,\bQ^\infty(\tau_n<T)
-n\,\E^{\bQ^\infty}[\log\sE(L)_T;\{\tau_n<T\}]\right).
\end{align*}
In order to show Assumption \ref{ass:bdd_inf}, it now suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:to_show}
n\log n\,\Qmin(\tau_n<T)-n\E^{\Qmin}[\log\sE(L)_T;\{\tau_n<T\}]
\longrightarrow 0\ \ \text{ as $n\rightarrow\infty$}.
\end{equation}
Showing $n\log n\, \Qmin\left(\tau_n<T\right)\longrightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ will employ Doob's submartingale inequality, whereas $n\, \E^\Qmin[\log\sE(L)_T; \{\tau_n<T\}]\longrightarrow 0$ relies on the assumption that $(\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)\in \bmo(\bP)$.
Let $\phi(y):=y\log y$. We have that $\phi$ is convex, $\phi\geq -1/e$, and $\phi$ is increasing on $[1/e,\infty)$. Using that $Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T$ is the dual optimizer, it is not difficult to check that $\phi(\sE(L)_t)\in L^1(\Qmin)$ for each $t\in[0,T]$.
Convexity of $\phi$ implies that $\phi(\sE(L))$ is a $\Qmin$-submartingale. (Note that $\sE(L)$ is a $\Qmin$-martingale since $\E^\Qmin[\sE(L)_T] = \E^\bP[Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T]=1$.)
For a process $Y$, we let $Y^*:=\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} Y_t$. For any $n>1$,
$$
\sE(L)^* \geq n \ \text{ if and only if }\
\phi(\sE(L))^* = \left(\sE(L)\log\sE(L)\right)^*\geq n\log n.
$$
Doob's submartingale inequality implies that for $n>1$,
\begin{align*}
n\log n\, \Qmin(\sE(L)^*\geq n)
&= n\log n\, \Qmin\left(\phi(\sE(L))^*\geq n\log n\right) \\
&\leq
\E^\Qmin\left[\phi(\sE(L)_T)^+;
\left\{\phi(\sE(L))^*\geq n\log n\right\}\right] \\
&=
\E^\Qmin\left[\phi(\sE(L)_T)^+;
\left\{\sE(L)^*\geq n\right\}\right].
\end{align*}
Since $\phi(\sE(L)_T)\in L^1(\Qmin)$, we have that
\begin{align*}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \ n\log n\ \Qmin(\tau_n<T)
&\leq \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \ n\log n\ \Qmin(\sE(L)^*\geq n) \\
&\leq \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty} \
\E^\Qmin[\phi(\sE(L)_T)^+;\{\sE(L)^*\geq n\}] \\
&= 0.
\end{align*}
Now suppose that Assumption \ref{ass:bmo} holds. Then by Lemma 3.1 of \cite{6AP} the density of the dual optimizer, $Z^\infty\sE(L)$, satisfies $\sR_{L \log L}(\bP)$; that is, $Z^\infty\sE(L)$ is a $\bP$-martingale and
$$
\sup_{\tau} \left\| \E^\bP\left[\frac{Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T}{Z^\infty_\tau\sE(L)_\tau}\left.
\log\left(\frac{Z^\infty_T\sE(L)_T}{Z^\infty_\tau\sE(L)_\tau}\right)
\right|\sF_\tau\right]\right\|_\infty<\infty,
$$
where the supremum is taken over all stopping times $\tau\leq T$.
Lemma 2.2 of \cite{GR02AP} shows that $-(\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty)+L\in\bmo(\bP)$, which then implies that $L\in\bmo(\bP)$.
Since $\left<-\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty, L\right>_t=0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, then Theorem 3.6 of \cite{Kaz94} implies that $L = L-\left<-\lambda^\infty\cdot M^\infty,L\right> \in \bmo(\Qmin)$. Then by Theorem 2.4 of \cite{Kaz94}, $L$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:logplus}
\sup_\tau \left\|\E^\Qmin\left[\left.
\log^+\left(\frac{\sE(L)_\tau}{\sE(L)_T}\right)
\right|\sF_\tau\right]\right\|_\infty <\infty,
\end{equation}
where the supremum is taken over all stopping times $\tau\leq T$.
Re-writing \eqref{eqn:logplus}, and considering only the stopping times $\tau_n$ for $n\geq 1$, we have
$$
K:= \sup_n\left\|\E^\Qmin\left[\left(\log\sE(L)_{\tau_n}-\log\sE(L)_T\right)
\bI_{\left\{\sE(L)_{\tau_n}\geq\sE(L)_T\right\}}
|\sF_{\tau_n}\right]\right\|_\infty < \infty.
$$
For each $n\geq 1$, $\{\tau_n<T\}\in\sF_{\tau_n}$ and $\sE(L)_{\tau_n}=n$ on $\{\tau_n<T\}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
-\E^\Qmin &\left[\log\sE(L)_T; \{\sE(L)_{\tau_n}\geq\sE(L)_T\}\cap\{\tau_n<T\}\right] \\
&\leq \E^\Qmin \left[\log\sE(L)_{\tau_n}-\log\sE(L)_T; \{\sE(L)_{\tau_n}\geq\sE(L)_T\}\cap\{\tau_n<T\}\right] \\
&= \E^\Qmin\left[\E^\Qmin\left[\left(\log\sE(L)_{\tau_n}-\log\sE(L)_T\right)\bI_{\{\sE(L)_{\tau_n}\geq\sE(L)_T\}}|\sF_{\tau_n}\right];
\left\{\tau_n<T\right\}\right] \\
&\leq K\, \Qmin\left(\tau_n<T\right).
\end{align*}
Thus,
\begin{align*}
-n \E^\Qmin&\left[\log\sE(L)_T;\{\tau_n<T\}\right]\\
&= -n\E^\Qmin[\log\sE(L)_T;\{\sE(L)_T>n\}\cap\{\tau_n<T\}] \\
&\ \,\,\,\ -n\E^\Qmin[\log\sE(L)_T;\{\sE(L)_T\leq n\}\cap\{\tau_n<T\}] \\
&\leq 0 + nK\Qmin(\tau_n<T).
\end{align*}
Equation \eqref{eqn:to_show} now follows from
\begin{align*}
0
&\leq n\log n\, \Qmin(\tau_n<T)-n\,\E^\Qmin[\log\sE(L)_T;\,\{\tau_n<T\}] \\
&\leq n\log n\, \Qmin(\tau_n<T) + nK\,\Qmin(\tau_n<T)\\
&\longrightarrow 0, \ \ \text{ as $n\rightarrow\infty$}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{example}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The physics of non-linear clustering on scales of $\lesssim 1\,$Mpc
has not been well understood.
First, the observed
density profiles of dwarf galaxies are shallower than
the values predicted from $N$-body simulations, which is called the
'cusp-core problem' \citep{navarro1996, moore1999, swaters2003,
simon2005}. Second, the number of observed satellite galaxies in our Galaxy is
significantly smaller than the predicted value, which is known as
the 'missing satellites problem' \citep{klypin1999,moore1999}. Third, the observed circular
velocities of most massive subhalos in our Galaxy are also significantly
smaller than the predicted values, which is called the 'too big to fail
problem' \citep{boylan-kolchin2011, wang2012}.
In order to address these issues, it is important
to constrain the number density of
dark satellites in extragalactic halos. It has been known that
some quadruply lensed quasars show anomalies in the observed
flux ratios of lensed images provided that
the gravitational potential of the lens is
sufficiently smooth. Such a discrepancy is
called the ``anomalous flux ratio'' and
has been considered as an imprint of cold dark matter (CDM) subhalos
with a mass of $\sim 10^{8-9} M_{\odot}$ in lensing
galaxies \citep{mao1998,metcalf2001,chiba2002,dalal-kochanek2002,
keeton2003, metcalf2004,chiba2005,sugai2007,mckean2007,
more2009,minezaki2009, xu2009,xu2010}.
However, intergalactic halos in the line-of-sight
may act as perturbers as well\citep{chen2003,metcalf2005a,xu2012}.
Indeed, taking into account the astrometric shifts, recent studies
have found that the observed anomalous flux ratios can be
explained solely by these line-of-sight structures with a surface density $\sim
10^{7-8}\, h^{-1}M_{\odot}/\textrm{arcsec}^2$ \citep{inoue-takahashi2012,
takahashi-inoue2014,inoue-etal2014} without taking into account
subhalos in the lensing galaxies. The observed increase in the amplitude of
magnification perturbations as a function of the source redshift
strongly implies that the origin is associated with sources rather than lenses.
In order to determine the origin of flux-ratio anomalies, we need to
precisely measure the perturbation of
gravitational potential projected on a plane
perpendicular to the line-of-sight. If it is caused by a subhalo in the lensing galaxy halo,
then the perturbation effect is limited to the region around the
perturber. Even if the perturbation
is caused by a number of subhalos in the lensing galaxy,
we may be able to neglect
the spatial correlation of between perturbers, as
structures such as filaments and walls can be easily
destroyed due to tidal force in the potential of the parent
halo\footnote{If tidal streams in galaxy halos persist for long time, they
might mimic the lensing effects by filaments in the intergalactic space. }.
On the other hand, if the perturbation is caused by objects in the
line-of-sight, the spatial correlation between perturbers
may be important than previously thought.
In the CDM scenarios, the cosmic web structures appear on all the scales
that exceed the free-streaming scale. Therefore, any clumps formed on walls
and filaments should have spatial correlations between them. Moreover,
inter-galactic medium may reside along these structures and
enhance the lensing effect by these clumps due to radiative cooling. In fact,
recent studies on Lyman-$\alpha$ emission and high-velocity clouds around the Milky
Way suggest an existence of substantial cold gas
accreted on filaments (on scales $<$1Mpc) of the ancient cosmic web
\citep{dekel2009, cantalupo2014, martin2014}. These spatially extended
objects (filaments or walls) can perturb the fluxes of lensed images
if they are common in the universe.
In the following, we call them ``ministructures'' if the typical
length-scale of these structures (dark matter + baryon) is just $\sim
10-100 \,$kpc \citep{inoue-takahashi2012}, which is
significantly smaller than those (on scales of $10-100\,$Mpc)
usually discussed in literature \citep{colberg2005, mead2010,
higuchi2014}.
In this paper, we investigate whether the flux-ratio anomaly
in an anomalous quadruple lens MG0414+0534
can be explained by a minivoid or a minifilament in the line-of-sight
and study whether we can break the model degeneracy.
For simplicity, we put a perturber at the primary
lens plane where the deflection angle is relatively large
\citep{inoue-takahashi2012}. Although, the objects in the line-of-sight may have
complex structures, we use simple toy models to arrive at some quick and
dirty results. Since the gravitational effects of
non-linear ministructures are different from subhalos, we may be
able to distinguish between them by measuring the differential
magnification effect provided that the source size is sufficiently large.
In section 2, we present the observational data of
MG0414+0534. In section 3, we describe a simple lens model of a
tidally truncated singular isothermal sphere (SIS),
a compensated homogeneous filament and void.
In section 4, we show our results of
$\chi^2$ fitting and the gravitational effect
in models with a minifilament/minivoid.
In section 5, the differential magnification effect
in minifilament/minivoid models is discussed.
In section 6, we summarize our result
and discuss some relevant issues and future prospects.
In what follows, we assume a cosmology
with a matter density $\Omega_{m,0}=0.3134$, a baryon density
$\Omega_{b,0}=0.0487$, a cosmological constant $\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=0.6866$,
a Hubble constant $H_0=67.3\, \textrm{km}/\textrm{s}/\textrm{Mpc}$,
a spectral index $n_s=0.9603$, and the root-mean-square (rms)
amplitude of matter fluctuations at $8 h^{-1}\, \textrm{Mpc}$,
$\sigma_8=0.8421$, which are obtained from the observed
CMB (Planck+WMAP polarization; \citet{ade2013}). $G$ and $c$ denote
the gravitational constant and speed of light, respectively.
\section{MG0414+0534}
The fold-caustic lens MG0414+0534 consists of two bright images A1, A2 and
two faint images B, C. The images A1 and B are minima, and A2 and C are saddles.
A source quasar at $z_S=2.64$ is lensed by an elliptical galaxy
(hereinafter referred to as G) at
$z_L=0.96$ \citep{hewitt1992, lawrence1995, tonry1999}.
A simple lens model, a singular isothermal ellipsoid (SIE)
\citep{kormann1994} with
an external shear (ES) cannot fit the image positions as well as
the flux ratios. \citet{schechter1993} and \citet{ros2000}
suggested that another galaxy is necessary for
fitting the relative image positions.
As shown in table \ref{table1}, we use the
MIR flux ratios A2/A1 and B/A1 obtained from measurements
by \citet{minezaki2009} and \citet{macleod2013}, since the
radio fluxes might be hampered by Galactic refractive
scintillation\citep{koopmans2003}. For the astrometry,
we use the data from CASTLES data base. However, in our analysis,
we do not use the VLBI data \citep{ros2000,trotter2000}
as there is an ambiguity in identifying
components of jets and estimating the position errors
due to large shear at the places of lensed images.
Although, the observed image positions are well
fitted by an SIE and an external shear (SIE-ES) plus an SIS at the lens
redshift $z_l$, that accounts for object X, the
flux ratios are not well fitted. A possible subhalo
near A2 significantly improves the fit
\citep{minezaki2009,macleod2013}. The
orientation of the external shear
is in the same general direction as another
object G6 found $4.^{''}4$ southwest of image C in the HST H-band image
but it is not massive enough to fully account for the external shear
\citep{macleod2013}.
In this paper, we use a model that
consists of an SIE (for G) plus an
external shear (for environment), and an SIS (for X)
whose predicted positions of lensed images and centroids of galaxies
are fitted to the observed data. We do not use
the data of relative fluxes of lensed images for estimating the
unperturbed model. The flux ratios are used for parameter
fitting when a perturber (subhalo/filament/void) is
taken into account.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\hspace{0.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=82mm]{f1.eps}
\caption{The gravitational lens system MG0414+0534 (plots of data in
table 1).~~~~~~~~~~}
\label{mg0414}
\end{minipage}
\vspace*{0.6cm}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\makeatletter
\def\@captype{table}
\makeatother
\caption{The observed HST positions of lensed images (A1,A2,B,C)
and the centroids of the primary lens G and object X and the
MIR flux ratios in MG0414+0534.~~}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
\hline
Image & Position(arcsec) & MIR flux ratio(obs.) \\
\hline
A1 & $(-1.07\pm0.003,-0.667\pm0.003)$ & \\
A2 & $(-1.203\pm0.003,-0.274\pm0.003)$ & A2/A1=$0.919 \pm 0.021$ \\
B & $(-0.474\pm 0.000,1.276\pm 0.000)$ & B/A1=$0.347 \pm 0.013$ \\
C & $(0.871\pm0.003,-0.372\pm0.003)$ & \\
G & $(0.000 \pm0.003,0.000\pm0.003)$ & \\
X & $(0.383\pm0.011,1.457\pm0.009)$ & \\
\hline
\label{table1}
\end{tabular}
\\ Note: The positions are taken from CASTLES data base
(\citet{falco1997}) and are relative to image G.
The MIR flux ratios are taken from the combined results of
\citet{minezaki2009} and \citet{macleod2013}.
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\section{Lens model}
For simplicity, as a perturber, we
consider three types of models: a tidally truncated SIS halo,
a compensated homogeneous filament and a compensated homogeneous void.
Because of mass compensation, the gravitational potential of a perturber
vanishes at the outer boundary in the latter two cases. Any locally
uncompensated filaments (voids) can be modelled by adjusting the size of
the outer positive (negative) region.
\subsection{Subhalo}
As a simple model of subhalo in the primary lensing
galaxy, we consider a tidally truncated SIS (hereinafter referred to as
tSIS). At a distance
$R$ from the center of the primary lensing galactic
halo with a one-dimensional velocity dispersion $\sigma_0$, the tidal
radius $R_t$ (proper length) is approximately given by $R_t\approx R \sigma/\sigma_0$
where $\sigma$ is the one-dimensional velocity dispersion of a tSIS.
In terms of the Einstein radius (mass scale) $b_h$
of a tSIS and that of an SIS for a parent
galaxy halo $b_0$, the
tidal radius can be written as $R_t=R \sqrt{b_h/b_0}$.
In what follows, we assume that the tSIS
resides at the lens plane for simplicity. In this case, $R$ coincides
with the angular distance between the center of the primary lens and
that of a tSIS. In general, however, the tidal radius can be
larger than the value in which a tSIS resides at the lens plane for a given angular distance from
the center of the primary lens. The deflection angle $\hat{\bvec{\alpha}_h}$ is constant
inside but it decays as $\hat{\alpha_h} \propto 1/R $ outside the tidal radius.
\subsection{Compensated homogeneous filament}
We consider an infinitely long filament that
has a positive constant density $\rho_+$ inside
a radius $R_+$ (region I) and a negative constant density $\rho_-<0$ at
$R_+<R<R_-$ (region II), where $R$ denotes the proper
distance from the axis. At $R>R_-$ (region III), $\rho=0$ (Fig. 1). From
the compensating condition, we have
\begin{equation}
\rho_-=-\frac{\rho_+R_+^2}{R_-^2-R_+^2}.
\end{equation}
If we set the gravitational potential at region III equal to zero, i.e.,
$\psi_{III}(R)=0$, potentials at region I and II are
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_I(R)&=&\pi G
\rho_+\biggl[(R^2-R_+^2)+\frac{2R_+^2}{R_-^2-R_+^2}\biggl(R_-^2\ln\frac{R_+}{R_-}
\nonumber
\\
&-&\frac{R_+^2-R_-^2}{2}
\biggr) \biggr],
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\psi_{II}(R)=\frac{2 \pi G \rho_+ R_+^2}{R_-^2-R_+^2}\biggl[R_-^2\ln\frac{R}{R_-}-\frac{R^2-R_-^2}{2} \biggr].
\end{equation}
Integrating the gravitational potential $\psi(\bvec{R}_\perp,Z)$ at
$-\infty<Z<\infty$ where $\bvec{R}_\perp=(X,Y)$ are the orthogonal proper
coordinates at the lens
plane and $z$ is the proper coordinate along the line-of-sight, and taking
the gradient, we have the $X$-component of the
deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}_f$ at $\bvec{R}_\perp=(X,Y)$,
\begin{equation}
\hat{\alpha}_f= b_f\times \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \mbox{$R_- \le |\bvec{R}_\perp| $} \\
\dfrac{1}{R_-^2-R_+^2}
\biggl[ -X\sqrt{R_-^2-X^2}
\\ +R_-^2
\tan^{-1}\biggl(\dfrac{\sqrt{R_-^2-X^2}}{X}\biggr)
\biggr], & \mbox{$R_+< |\bvec{R}_\perp| < R_-$} \\
\dfrac{1}{R_-^2-R_+^2}
\biggl[ -X\sqrt{R_-^2-X^2}
\\
\\
+2X\sqrt{R_+^2-X^2}
\\
+R_-^2
\tan^{-1}\biggl(\dfrac{\sqrt{R_-^2-X^2}}{X}\biggr)
\\ -R_-^2
\tan^{-1}\biggl(\dfrac{\sqrt{R_+^2-X^2}}{X}\biggr)
\biggr], & \mbox{$0\le |\bvec{R}_\perp| < R_+$},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $b_f$ describes the mass scale, which
is given by
\begin{equation}
b_f \equiv \frac{8 \pi G R_+^2 \rho_+}{c^2}.
\end{equation}
In terms of linear density $\lambda$, $\theta_f$ can be also written as
\begin{equation}
b_f =\frac{8 G \lambda}{c^2}.
\end{equation}
Because the filament is axi-symmetric, $Y$-component of the deflection
angle $\hat{\bvec{\alpha}}_f $ is zero. The deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}_f$
as a function of $X/R_+$ is shown in Fig. \ref{plots-alpha}.
\vspace*{1.0cm}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=41mm]{f2a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=45mm]{f2b.eps}
\caption{Mass density of a compensated filament (left) and that of a compensated
void (right). }
\label{density}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{1.0cm}
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=42mm]{f3a.eps}
\hspace{-0.1cm}
\includegraphics[width=44mm]{f3b.eps}
\caption{Deflection angle of a compensated filament (left) and that of a compensated
void (right) }
\label{plots-alpha}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Compensated homogeneous void}
For simplicity, we consider homogeneous spherical voids
that are compensated in mass. We assume that
they have a negative constant density $\rho_-$ inside
a radius $R_-$ (region I) and a positive constant density $\rho_+$ at
$R_+<R<R_-$ (region II), where $R$ denotes the proper
distance from the center of a void. At $R>R_+$ (region III), the density
is vanishing, i.e., $\rho=0$ (Fig. 1). The mass deficient at $R<R_-$ is
$M_v=4 \pi \rho_- R_-^3/3$. Then, the $X$-component of
the deflection angle $\hat{\alpha}_v$ at
$\bvec{R}_\perp=(X,Y=0)$ in the lens plane
is \citep{amendola1999},
\begin{equation}
\hat{\alpha}_v= b_v\times \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \mbox{$ R_+ \le |\bvec{R}_\perp|$} \\
\\
\tilde{X}^{-1}(\tilde{d}^3+3\tilde{d}^2+3\tilde{d})^{-1}
\\
\times \bigl[(1+\tilde{d})^2-\tilde{X}^2)\bigr]^{3/2}
, & \mbox{$R_-<|\bvec{R}_\perp|< R_+$} \\
\\
\tilde{X}^{-1}(\tilde{d}^3+3\tilde{d}^2+3\tilde{d})^{-1}
\\
\times
\Bigl[ \bigl[(1+\tilde{d})^2-\tilde{X}^2)\bigr]^{3/2}
\\
-(1+\tilde{d})^3(1-\tilde{X}^2)^{3/2} \Bigr]
, & \mbox{$0\le |\bvec{R}_\perp| < R_-$},
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:void}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{X}\equiv X/R_-$, $\tilde{d}\equiv R_+/R_--1$,
and $b_v$ describes the mass scale, which
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b_v &\equiv& \frac{4 G M_v }{c^2 R_-}
\nonumber
\\
&=& \frac{16 \pi G R_v^2 \rho_-}{3 c^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The $Y$-component of $\hat{\bvec{\alpha}}_v$ is zero for $Y=0$.
For $Y\ne 0$, a rotation of coordinates by an angle
$\phi=\tan^{-1}(Y/X)$ gives the deflection angle
$\hat{\bvec{\alpha}}_v=(\hat{\alpha}_v,0)$
as the void is spherically symmetric.
The reduced deflection angle $\alpha_v$
as a function of $X/R_-$ is shown in Fig. \ref{plots-alpha}.
\section{Simulation}
For simplicity, we consider models
that consist of an SIE-ES (G) plus an SIS (X) perturbed by either a
tidally cut SIS, a compensated filament, or a compensated void.
The parameters of the SIE-ES is the mass scale
$b_\textrm{G}$\footnote{$b_{\textrm{G}}$ corresponds to the
Einstein radius $\theta_E$ of an SIS whose mass
inside $\theta_E$ is equal to the mass inside the critical curve of an
SIE \citep{kormann1994}.}, the position of
the primary lens $(x_\textrm{G}, y_\textrm{G})$,
the ellipticity $e(G)$, the external shear
$\gamma$, and their angles, $\phi_{e(G)}$, $\phi_\gamma$ measured in East of
North. The parameters of SIS
is the Einstein radius (mass scale)
$b_\textrm{X}$ and the position $(x_\textrm{X}, y_\textrm{X})$.
The parameters of perturbers are the positions $(x_h,y_h),(x_f,y_f),
(x_v,y_v)$ and the mass scales $b_h,b_f,b_v$ for the subhalo, filament
and void models, respectively. $(x_h,y_h)$ and $(x_v,y_v)$ correspond
to the centers of circular symmetry in a subhalo and a void, respectively.
$(x_f,y_f)$ denotes the position on the axis of a filament that is closest
to the center of the primary lens. The extent of filament and void
are specified by $R_+$ and $R_-$ (see section 3 for definition).
The position of a source is denoted as $(x_s,y_s)$.
As an unperturbed model, we adopt an SIE-ES plus an SIS
and use only observed positions of lensed images and centroids of
lensing galaxies for fitting. We assume that the gravitational
potential of the primary lens is sufficiently smooth on the
scale of the Einstein radius of the primary lens and the
fluxes of lensed images are perturbed by a pertuber whose
gravitational potential varies on scales smaller than
the Einstein radius. We do not use observed fluxes as they
would significantly distort the
unperturbed gravitational potential. For perturbed models, however,
we use the MIR flux ratios of lensed images as well as the
observed positions. For simplicity, we
assume that object X and a possible perturber reside at the lens plane.
We assume weak priors for the ellipticity $e$ and the external shear
$\gamma$ for the
primary lens galaxy G such that
$e=0.2\pm 0.2$ and $\gamma=0.1 \pm 0.1$. The expected value of
ellipticity $e$ is taken from the elliptical isophotes of HST images
\citep{falco1997}. The mean and 1-$\sigma$ error of external shear
$\gamma$ is obtained from quadruple lenses observed at the MIR band
\citep{takahashi-inoue2014}.
For the unperturbed model, we find that $\chi^2$ for the
images and the primary lens positions is extremely good as
$\chi^2_{\textrm{pos}}=0.006$ (table 2). This is not surprising
as the degree of freedom is zero if one does not impose the weak priors
on the ellipticity and external shear\footnote{The small
$\chi^2_{\textrm{pos}}$ may suggest that the actual
errors of obtained positions are much smaller than the estimated values.}.
However, $\chi^2$ for the fluxes are poor as $\chi^2_{\textrm{flux}}=37.2$.
The best-fit flux ratio A2/A1$=1.038$ is consistent with the prediction of
the fold-caustic relation A2/A1 $=1$ with an error of
$\sim 4\%$, but it is deviated from the
observed value A2/A1$=0.919\pm 0.021$ by $\sim 12\%$.
In order to reduce the number of model parameters, we adopt
the following assumptions: 1) In the subhalo model, the tidal radius of
an SIS is given by
$\theta_t=\sqrt{b_h/b_{\textrm{G}}}$, where $b_h$
and $b_{\textrm{G}}$ are the Einstein radii of
an SIS and an SIE, respectively. This approximation can be verified if the subhalo
resides near A2 in the lens plane as the angular distance between A2 and
G is $1.234\sim 1$arcsec. 2) In the filament model, the typical deflection
angle due to a filament is assumed to be $b_f=0.003\,$arcsec and
the filament is perpendicular to the line-of-sight.
3) In the void model, we assume that $R_-=b_{\textrm{G}}$ and $R_+=1.3\,b_{\textrm{G}}$.
This assumption can be verified as follows. If the radius of a void is significantly larger than $b_{\textrm{G}}$,
the density perturbation mainly contributes to the constant
convergence and shear of the unperturbed lens. If smaller than $b_{\textrm{G}}$,
the contribution of line-of-sight structures to convergence is expected to
decrease\citep{inoue-takahashi2012} in comparison with larger
structures. The width of a wall of stacked voids with a radius $\sim
20-50\,h^{-1}$Mpc is expected be equal to or
less than the radius \citep{sutter2014}. However, on much smaller scales
($\lesssim 5-10 \,h^{-1}$kpc), there have been no results yet.
As a working hypothesis, we assume that the width of the wall
is one third of the void radius, i.e., $d=0.3$.
Although our assumption seems too restrictive,
we can construct similar models with a different width of wall by
a scale transformation provided that a lensed image
lies near the edge of the wall and the width is sufficiently
thin, i.e., $\tilde{d} \ll 1$. Suppose that a lensed image X lies
at a distance $1+d-\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon>0$ from the center of a void.
Assuming $\varepsilon \ll d\ll 1 $, equation (\ref{eq:void}) gives
the approximated deflection angle
$\hat{\bvec{\alpha}}_v \approx (\theta_\varepsilon \tilde{X}, \theta_\varepsilon \tilde{Y})$
, where
\begin{equation}
\theta_\varepsilon = \frac{-2 \sqrt{2}b_v \varepsilon^{3/2}}{3
d}+O(\varepsilon^{5/2})+\cdots
\end{equation}
Thus, at the lowest order in $\varepsilon$,
the deflection angle $\hat{\bvec{\alpha}}_v$ is invariant
under a scale transformation $d\rightarrow \lambda d$ and
$b_v \rightarrow \lambda b_v$, where $\lambda$ is a constant.
As shown in table \ref{table2}, we find that the $\chi^2$ fit for
our compensated void model ($\chi^2_{\textrm{tot}}/$dof$\,=\!1.5$)
and filament model ($\chi^2_{\textrm{tot}}/$dof$\,=\!2.6$) are better than
that for the subhalo model ($\chi^2_{\textrm{tot}}/$dof$\,=\!2.8$).
This result suggests that our void and filament
models may explain the observed anomalies in MG0514+0534
as well as the subhalo model. As shown in Fig. \ref{caustics}, we find that A2 is close to the filament and the wall of the void in the best-fit models. This suggests that the flux-ratio anomaly may be caused by a positive density perturbation in the neighbourhood of A2.
We find that the truncated angular radius of the tSIS (corresponding to
$R_t$) in the best-fit model is $0.048$ arcsec
and the mean perturbation of convergence within $R_t$ is 0.048
(Fig. \ref{deltakappa}). The mass
inside $R_t$ is $7\times 10^8\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}$. The angular distance
between the center of the tSIS and A2 is $d(\textrm{A2})=0.13$ arcsec.
In the best-fit filament model, it turns out that
the surface density and the line density of the positive density
region are $8\times 10^8\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}/\textrm{arcsec}^2$ and
$2\times 10^8\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}/\textrm{arcsec}$, respectively.
The perturbation of convergence at A2 is $\delta \kappa \approx 0.008$.
In the best-fit void model, the mass deficit is turned out to be
$5\times 10^9\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}$ and the
surface densities of negative and positive density regions are
$-4 \times 10^9\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}/\textrm{arcsec}^2$ and
$6\times 10^9\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}/\textrm{arcsec}^2$, respectively.
The perturbation of convergence at A2 is $\delta \kappa \approx 0.004$.
Thus, the order of the surface density of a possible filament/void is
$10^{8-9}\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}/\textrm{arcsec}^2$, which can be called
``ministructures''. Within $b_{\textrm{G}}$, the corresponding
typical mass scale is $10^{8-9}\, h^{-1} M_{\odot}$.
One might notice that the amplitude of the
obtained surface density ($\sim 10^4$ times the mean cosmological mass
density) is too big in the negative density regions.
However, we need to remember that the obtained surface mass density
corresponds to the sum of contributions from the primary lens
and the line-of-sight structures, which cannot be separated
observationally. Therefore, if some portion of
a constant convergence is subtracted from the best-fit
SIE-ES model, and added to the line-of-sight perturbers,
such negative density regions can be compensated by positive mass.
\begin{table*}
\hspace{-5.6cm}
\begin{minipage}{127mm}
\caption{Best-fit model parameters for MG0414+0534}
\label{symbols}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc}
\hline
\hline
Model & Unperturbed & Subhalo & Filament & Void \\
\hline
$b_{\textrm{G}}('')$ & 1.103$\pm 0.001$ & 1.103$\pm 0.001$& 1.103$\pm 0.001$ & 1.1033$\pm 0.0008$ \\
\hline
$(x_s,y_s)('')$ & (-0.0696,0.2371) &(-0.0690,0.2372)& (-0.0694,0.2370) &
(-0.0695,0.2368) \\
\hline
$e(\textrm{G})$ & 0.231$\pm 0.001$ & 0.231$\pm 0.002$ & 0.231$\pm 0.001$ &0.231$\pm 0.001$ \\
\hline
$\phi_{e(\textrm{G})}$(deg)& -82.2$\pm 0.1$ & -82.22$\pm 0.05$
& -82.2$\pm0.1$ &-82.2$\pm 0.1$ \\
\hline
$\gamma$ & 0.1010$\pm 0.0004$ & 0.1010$\pm 0.0002 $ & 0.1010$\pm 0.0004$
&0.1010 $\pm 0.0003$ \\
\hline
$\phi_\gamma$(deg) & 53.9$\pm 0.1$ & 53.93$\pm 0.05$ & 53.9 $\pm 0.1$& 53.9 $\pm 0.1$ \\
\hline
$(x_{\textrm{G}}, y_{\textrm{G}})('')$ & (0.0000, -0.0001) &(0.0007,0.0000)
&(0.0000,-0.0001) &(0.0002, -0.0002) \\
\hline
$b_\textrm{X}('')$ &0.184$\pm 0.001$ &0.184$\pm 0.003$ &0.184$\pm 0.001$
&0.184$\pm 0.001$ \\
\hline
$(x_{\textrm{X}}, y_{\textrm{X}})('')$ & (0.383$\pm 0.008$, 1.457$\pm 0.008$) &
(0.383$\pm 0.009$,1.457$\pm 0.009$)
&(0.383$\pm 0.008$,1.457$\pm 0.008$) &(0.383$\pm 0.008$, 1.456$\pm 0.008$) \\
\hline
$b_h('')$ & &0.002537$\pm0.000008 $ & & \\
\hline
$(x_h, y_h)('')$ & &(-1.34$\pm 0.02$, -0.29$\pm 0.02$)
& & \\
\hline
$b_f('')$ & & &0.003(fixed) & \\
\hline
$(x_f, y_f)('')$ & &
&(-0.66$\pm 0.02$,0.48$\pm 0.02$) & \\
\hline
$b_v('')$ & & & & 0.035$\pm 0.002$ \\
\hline
$(x_v, y_v)('')$ & &
& &(-1.869$\pm 0.006$,0.990$\pm 0.003$) \\
\hline
$R_+('')$ & & & $0.12^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$
& $1.3~b_{\textrm{G}}$(fixed) \\
\hline
$R_-('')$ & & & $R_+$(fixed)
& $b_{\textrm{G}}$(fixed) \\
\hline
$\chi^2_{\textrm{pos}}$ &0.006 & 0.68 &0.01 & 0.07 \\
\hline
$\chi^2_{\textrm{flux}}$ &37.2 &4.87 &5.09 & 2.96 \\
\hline
$\chi^2_{\textrm{weak}}$ &0.024 &0.024 &0.024 & 0.024 \\
\hline
$\chi^2_{\textrm{tot}}/$dof &37/2 &5.6/2 & 5.1/2 &3.0/2 \\
\hline
A2/A1 & 1.038&0.926 &0.920 &0.920
\\
\hline
B/A1 &0.328 &0.334 &0.328 & 0.347
\\
\hline
\label{table2}
\end{tabular}
\\
\\
Note:
$\chi^2_{\textrm{tot}}$ is the sum of contributions from the
image and lens positions $(\chi^2_{\textrm{pos}})$, the flux ratios
$(\chi^2_{\textrm{flux}})$, and the weak priors $(\chi^2_{\textrm{weak}})$
on $e(\textrm{G})$ and $\gamma$. The parameter uncertainties were estimated
from the range over which $\Delta \chi^2_{\textrm{tot}} \le 1$ as each parameter
was varied and the other parameters were fixed at optimised values
except for the source position. The uncertainties of the primary lens
positions are not listed as they are well below the numerical accuracy.
\medskip
\end{minipage}
\vspace{1cm}
\end{table*}
The three models show different patterns of convergence perturbation at
the scale $b_\textrm{G}$ of the primary lens. In other
words, it implies that we can break the degeneracy of these models by
looking at global patterns of gravitational perturbations to the primary lens.
The typical amplitudes of perturbations in deflection angles
at the places of the lensed images are small as $\delta \alpha \lesssim
0.001\,\textrm{arcsec}$\,(Fig. \ref{deltaalpha}). Therefore,
the observational errors in positions of optical images
$(O(10^{-3})\,\textrm{arcsec})$ still admit
a variety of lens models that predict similar flux ratios
within the relative errors of $\lesssim 0.01$.
In order to check this point, we calculate the magnification perturbations
caused by perturbers.
Indeed, we find similar magnification perturbations
at the place of A2 for all the three models. However, the patterns of
magnification perturbations turn out to be different at other places.
This is due to the difference in convergence and shear on scales
$\lesssim b_\textrm{G}$. Therefore, we may be able to break the degeneracy
by measuring the differential magnifications, which will be discussed in
the next section.
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=90mm]{f4.eps}
\caption{Caustics (red) and critical curves (black) for the unperturbed
and perturbed best-fit models.
H, F, and V correspond to the centers of a subhalo, a
filament, and a void, respectively. S is the position of a point
source in each best-fit model.
G denotes the position of the observed centroid of the primary
lensing galaxy. X represents the position of the centroid of object X,
possibly a satellite galaxy. The central axis of the
filament is shown by a dashed line. The boundaries of positive
and negative density regions for the filament(void) model
are denoted by thin(thick) and thick(thin) blue lines(curves). }
\label{caustics}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-0.7cm}
\includegraphics[width=95mm]{f5.eps}
\caption{Convergence $\kappa$ in the unperturbed model
and the perturbation $\delta \kappa$ in the best-fit
perturbed models. The blank regions correspond to values
outside the range shown in each accompanying legend.}
\label{deltakappa}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-0.65cm}
\includegraphics[width=98mm]{f6.eps}
\caption{Amplitude of the deflection angle $\alpha $ (arcsec) in the unperturbed model
and the perturbation $\delta \alpha$ (arcsec) in the best-fit perturbed
models. The blank regions in the lower left panel correspond to values
outside the range shown in the accompanying legend.}
\label{deltaalpha}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\hspace{-0.45cm}
\includegraphics[width=95mm]{f7.eps}
\caption{Magnification $\mu$ in the unperturbed model and the
perturbations $\delta \mu$ in the best-fit perturbed models.
The blank regions correspond to values
outside the range shown in each accompanying legend. }
\label{deltamu}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{3cm}
\section{Differential magnification effect}
As shown in Fig. \ref{deltamu}, the perturbation of
magnification at the positions of lensed images are similar
in all the models. However, the global pattern of perturbation
differs in each case. In order to discriminate the three models,
we consider the differential magnification effect. For simplicity, as
the surface brightness of an extended source, we
assume a circular Gaussian profile centred at the best-fit position of a
point source. The source radius $r$ is represented by the standard deviation
$\sigma$. As one can see in Fig. \ref{flux-ratios}, the flux ratios
vary as a function of a source radius $r$. The flux ratios of
the void model and the subhalo model differ by $5\sim 50$\% for
$0<r<400$\,pc. On the other hand, the difference between the filament model
and the subhalo model is only $1 \sim 2$\% except for $r\sim
100\,$pc (see Fig. \ref{flux-ratios}). This is because that the pattern of magnification perturbations
of the filament and the subhalo model are similar in the neighbourhood
of A1 and A2. However, if the position of the extended source is not centred at
the position of the best-fit point source, we may detect a noticeable
change if the lensed image in the neighbourhood of B crosses
the filament. The red-blue decomposition of line emission may work
for this purpose.
With errors of the order of
$<0.1$ per cent in the flux ratios and $<0.1$ arcsec in the
angular resolution, we can discriminate the possible models that can
account for the anomaly in the flux ratios. Thus,
observation of continuum and line emissions of MG0414+0534
in the submillimeter bands with ALMA (Atacama Large
Millimeter/submillimeter Array) is of great importance to probe the
origin of the flux ratio anomalies. Multifrequency observation
may be necessary to break the model degeneracy.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{f8a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{f8b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{f8c.eps}
\caption{Flux ratios of the subhalo model (top), the
relative differences between the filament and subhalo models (middle) and
those between the void and subhalo models (bottom) as a function of the
source radius $r$. }
\label{flux-ratios}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{0cm}
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
In this paper, we have found
that the observed flux-ratio anomaly in MG0414+0534
can be explained by a presence of either
a minifilament or a minivoid in the line-of-sight with a
surface mass density of the order of
$10^{8-9}\,h^{-1}M_{\odot}/\textrm{arcsec}^2$ without taking into
account any subhalos in the lensing galaxy. The astrometric perturbation
by a possible minifilament/minivoid is $\lesssim
0.001\,\textrm{arcsec}$ and the amplitudes of convergence perturbations
due to these perturbers are
typically $\kappa \sim 0.004-0.008$ at the place of an
image A2 that shows anomaly in the flux. In order to discriminate
models with the line-of-sight ministructures
from those with a subhalo(s) in the lensing galaxy,
the differential magnification effect can be used
if the source size is $>100\,\textrm{pc}$.
In our analysis, we have used very simple models for
a filament and void. They are assumed to be locally homogeneous and
residing in the lens plane. We have found that all the best-fit
models show that image A2 is perturbed by a perturber with a
positive convergence. Although it is very important to study
more realistic mass distributions for modeling
the filament/void, the mass scale of possible
perturber would not change much. It is also important
to consider the cases in which multiple perturbers in the line-of-sight
affect the lensed images. In order to do so, we need
to carry out more realistic numerical simulations
in which these perturbers reside at arbitrary
places in the line-of-sight.
In order to break the degeneracy of possible models, we
need observation at the submillimeter band using
interferometers such as ALMA. If the perturber is massive enough,
we may be able to directly map the gravitational perturbation
by lensing \citep{inoue-chiba2003, inoue-chiba2005}. By observing continuum and
line emissions from circum-nuclear dusts around quasars
at multi-frequency sub-millimeter bands, we will be able to put
stringent constraints on possible models of perturbers.
Another possible way to break the model degeneracy is to use
time delay of optical or near-infrared lensed images. Although
the convergence perturbation around A2 are expected to be similar,
the gravitational potential projected along the line-of-sight
can be different in principle \citep{mccully2014,schneider2014}.
We expect that the perturbation of
time delay is conspicuous for matter distributions that are
locally over-compensating since the potential wells are deep.
This issue will be analyzed in detail in our future work.
If the anomaly is related to ministructures in the line-of-sight
rather than subhalos in the lensing galaxy, then
we expect a correlation between perturbed fluxes of lensed images.
If it is caused by subhalos, such a spatial
correlation is not expected as they reside
randomly in galactic halos. It is very important to assess
the number of lens systems necessary for making such distinction.
Minifilaments and walls of minivoids may retain plenty of
HI gas. Then HI 21-cm absorption systems in the line-of-sight
would have a correlation with magnification perturbations
as well as the optical-near-infrared colour due to the presence of dust.
The observed HI 21-cm absorption systems at $z=0.3-0.5$ in the line-of-sight
of MG0414+0534 \citep{tanna2013} may be connected with such
minifilaments or walls. Thus, correlation study between reddening,
absorption lines, and flux-ratio anomalies will be much important in near future
in order to understand the clustering property of dark matter and
baryons at $\sim 10\,$kpc scales.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The author thanks Masashi Chiba and Ryuichi Takahashi for
valuable discussion and useful comments.
This work is supported in part by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (B) (No. 25287062) ``Probing the origin
of primordial minihalos via gravitational lensing phenomena''.
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Acknowledgments}
\label{sec:acknowledgments}
We thank Christopher Condon, Robert Klemmer, Matthew Komor, and Michael Souza for their technical contributions to DarkSide.
We thank Matthias Laubenstein of LNGS for his numerous radiopurity measurements of \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ components.
We acknowledge support from the NSF (US, Grants PHY-0919363, PHY-1004072, PHY-1211308, and associated collaborative Grants), DOE (US, Contract Nos.~DE-FG02-91ER40671 and DE-AC02-07CH11359), the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy), and the NCN (Poland, Grant UMO-2012/05/E/ST2/02333).
This work was supported in part by the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago through grant NSF PHY-1125897 and an endowment from the Kavli Foundation and its founder Fred Kavli.
\section{Data Analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}
The goal of the analysis is to distinguish events that are induced by the scattering of WIMPs in the active \mbox{LAr}\ from those caused by any other process. The signature of a WIMP scattering event is a single-sited nuclear recoil (NR), that is, an energy deposition in one location in the TPC with observed properties consistent with a heavy recoiling particle (the argon atom) and no activity in the vetoes.
The dominant backgrounds by far are those from \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}\ decays in the materials of the TPC and cryostat. In the atmospheric argon used for the analysis reported here, the overwhelming majority of these events are due to $\beta$~decay of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:dsfdriftfieldly}. \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}\ decays give electron recoils (ER), and, as we have noted, in \mbox{LAr}\ the main ER/NR discriminant is the PSD available in the time structure of the \mbox{S1}\ pulse, with additional ER rejection available in \mbox{S2}/\mbox{S1}.
In this analysis, only PSD is used. The \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ cut and minimum and maximum energies define the WIMP search region in the \mbox{S1}-\mbox{f$_{90}$}\ plane, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:wimp_search}.
Neutron scattering in \mbox{LAr}\ gives nuclear recoils, and is thus a more pernicious background. Our inventory of radioactivity in the detector components indicates that the largest source of internal neutrons is the \mbox{TPC}\ {\mbox{PMT} s}, and Monte Carlo calculations matched to the observed conditions in Hall C indicate that internal radiogenic neutrons are more common than cosmogenic neutrons that penetrate the vetoes undetected, with the latter expected to be \SI{<3.E-4}{\neu}\ event in a multi-year \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ exposure~\cite{empl}.
We can distinguish neutrons from WIMPs by observing a coincident event (prompt or delayed) in the \mbox{LSV}. The TPC adds to this rejection, with $>$1 \mbox{S2}\ pulse in an event indicating multiple interactions that will not be present in a WIMP-induced event.
We use trace radioactivity measurements of three early-production samples of the {Hamamatsu R11065}\ PMT, the $(\alpha,n)$ yield in the PMT materials, and
Monte Carlo studies of neutron-induced nuclear recoil events in the TPC to estimate the expected number of neutron events. For the exposure reported here, we expect \dsfruntimeneuexp\ neutron events, with large ($>$ factor of 2) uncertainties, in the WIMP search region after all TPC cuts but before neutron veto cuts.
Surface backgrounds come from the $\alpha$ decays of radon daughters or other trace radioactivity on or just under surfaces in contact with the active \mbox{LAr}. Both the daughter nuclides and the alphas from these decays are NR background. Typical alphas, starting at energies well above that expected for NR from WIMP scattering, are only a problem if they start deeper beneath the surface. In \mbox{DarkSide-50}, all surfaces in contact with the \mbox{LAr}\ except the grid are coated with \mbox{TPB}.
In both decays on the \mbox{TPB}\ surface with daughter nuclei entering the \mbox{LAr}\ and decays beneath the \mbox{TPB}\ sending an $\alpha$ into the \mbox{LAr}, the $\alpha$ deposits energy in the \mbox{TPB}, giving a scintillation signal that mixes with \mbox{S1}~\cite{deap-pollmann}.
The \mbox{TPB}\ was evaporated onto the surfaces in a radon-suppressed clean room, and the coated parts remained in a radon-suppressed environment from then on. Fiducialization can be applied to remove potential surface background that remains.
The ER rejection needed to deal with \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ is so high
in atmospheric-argon based WIMP searches that surviving backgrounds from \mbox{$\gamma$-ray} s and other $\beta$ decays, notably \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}-emitting impurities in the LAr, are completely negligible.
An exception is multiple-sited events with one ER in the \mbox{LAr}\ and a second in a transparent material in the TPC, most notably the fused-silica anode, cathode, and \mbox{PMT}\ windows. The underlying event can be multiple Compton scattering of a \mbox{$\gamma$-ray}\ or a correlated $\beta+\gamma$ from radioactive decay(s). Prompt Cherenkov radiation of the recoiling electron in the transparent material mixes with the \mbox{S1}\ emission from the \mbox{LAr}, increasing \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ and, as there is no ionization collected from one of the ER, decreasing \mbox{S2}/\mbox{S1}. The major tool for dealing with such background from the fused silica is the fraction of \mbox{S1}\ light in a single \mbox{PMT}, as the Cherenkov light will usually be emitted in, or directly in front of, one \mbox{PMT}.
The present data set was acquired between November~2013 and May~2014.
The data set is divided into runs of typically \num{200000} or \num{400000} triggered events each, lasting up to about 8 hours. The usable livetime, defined as all runs taken in dark-matter search mode with a drift field of \SI{200}{\volt\per\centi\meter}\ and with all three detectors included, was \SI{53.8(2)}{\day}.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\begin{tabular*}{1.1\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}llSSSS}
\hline\hline
&{\bf Cut}
&{\bf Residual Livetime}
&{\bf Acceptance}
&{\bf Fiducial Mass}\\
\hline
\parbox[t]{3mm}{\multirow{3}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\bf Run}}}
&Usable runs &\SI{53.8(2)}{\day} & & \\
&Automated selection &\SI{51.1(2)}{\day} & & \\
&Single run &\SI{48.8(2)}{\day} & & \\
\hline
\parbox[t]{3mm}{\multirow{4}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\bf Quality}}}
&Baseline found &\SI{48.8(2)}{\day} & & \\
&Time since previous trigger &\SI{48.7(2)}{\day} & & \\
&Large gap &\SI{48.1(2)}{\day} & & \\
&Veto data present &\SI{47.1(2)}{\day} & & \\
\hline
\parbox[t]{3mm}{\multirow{9}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\bf Physics}}}
&Number of pulses & &\mbox{$0.95^{+0.00}_{-0.01}$} & \\
&First pulse time & &\mbox{$1.00^{+0.00}_{-0.01}$} & \\
&No \mbox{S1}\ saturation & &\nscutacc & \\
&\mbox{S2}\ pulse shape & &\vwcutacc & \\
&Minimum \mbox{S2} & &\mbox{$0.985^{+0.015}_{-0.042}$} & \\
&Max \mbox{S1}\ fraction per \mbox{PMT} & &\num{0.99} & \\
&Prompt \mbox{LSV} & &\cvcutacc & \\
&Delayed \mbox{LSV}\ and \mbox{WCD} & &\hvcutacc & \\
&Drift time fiducialization & & &\SI{36.9(6)}{\kg} \\
\hline
&Total &\vpcutliv &\mbox{$0.817^{+0.013}_{-0.036}$} &\SI{36.9(6)}{\kg} \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{List of cuts and their effects on livetime, acceptance, and fiducial volume.
Where quoted, the errors are systematic. We do not quote the statistical errors, which are negligibly small.}
\label{tab:acceptance}
\end{table*}
We set criteria for removing runs based on information automatically stored in the run database. We remove runs that were very short (which indicated DAQ problems), runs with inconsistent livetime, inhibit time, and elapsed time, and runs with an abnormally low live fraction. Finally, we eliminate \num{37} runs manually based on logbook entries that indicated, for example, that a single \mbox{PMT}\ was off or that the run was not to be used. The resulting livetime after applying the run selection criteria is \SI{49.2(2)}{\day}, shown in Table~\ref{tab:acceptance}.
Event-by-event data quality cuts are applied, eliminating events in which the baseline-finder failed on any TPC channel, there was no GPS-timestamp-matched veto data, or there was a $>$\SI{1}{\second}\ period since the previous trigger. The last two of these were due to occasional DAQ problems, the veto problem usually due to the veto DAQ ending its run before the TPC DAQ and the large gap between events leading to a suspect livetime. Events that occurred less than \SI{1.35}{\milli\second}\ after the previous trigger were cut to eliminate events whose \mbox{S1}\ might have occurred during the deadtime of the earlier event. This condition effectively reduced the livetime prior to the surviving events as well.
The data quality cuts together cost about \SI{3}{\percent} of the exposure, summarized in Table~\ref{tab:acceptance}.
The uncertainty on the total livetime for surviving events does not include statistical uncertainties, as these are small. The systematic uncertainty is dominated by the accuracy of the trigger board timer that measures the livetime, which has been verified to the level of \SI{0.5}{\percent}. Systematic uncertainty arising from the changing of the DAQ acquisition window or from effects on the livetime definition due to different triggering conditions are negligible with respect to the dominant uncertainty.
We performed a non-blind physics analysis on the surviving data set. The acceptance of each cut, shown in Table~\ref{tab:acceptance}, is checked using a combination of \mbox{SCENE}\ data~\cite{scene1,scene2}, Monte Carlo simulation, and data from \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ itself. We impose several classes of cuts:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Selection of single-sited events in the \mbox{TPC}, eliminating some neutron- and \mbox{$\gamma$-ray}-induced background, begins by requiring that events contain two pulses, allowing a third if its timing with respect to the second is consistent with an \mbox{S3}. The acceptance of this cut is evaluated by examining rejected events and individually studying and accounting for many cases (number of pulses and types of pulses) to determine the fraction of single-sited events that might fall into each category. The acceptance is \mbox{$0.95^{+0.00}_{-0.01}$}, with most of the loss due to accidentals or to events in which the pulse-finder identified one or more extra pulses, usually in the tail of S2. Losses due to inefficiency of the reconstruction algorithms in identifying S1 and S2 pulses are negligible in the WIMP search region.
\item Cuts to establish the validity of the \mbox{S1}-\mbox{S2}\ identification of the found pulses are applied to allow use of these pulses for PSD and fiducialization. We require that the first pulse occur at the expected time in the acquisition window to within \SI{50}{\ns}, consistent with our assumption that we triggered on \mbox{S1}. This cuts many classes of events, including ``junk" events like triggers on the tails of previous events. The acceptance loss for real WIMP scatters would be from accidentals. This is evaluated from the measured loss of events by correcting for the non-accidental fraction by hand-scanning.
We require that the \mbox{S1}\ pulse not saturate the electronics. Studying the effect on the \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ spectrum indicates that the acceptance is essentially unity in our WIMP search region. Note that we do not apply the saturation cut to \mbox{S2}\ in this analysis.
To confirm the identity of the second pulse as \mbox{S2}, we check its pulse shape, using \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ of the {\it second\/} pulse and requiring that it be less than \num{0.20}. Because the rise time of \mbox{S2}\ is $\sim$\SI{1}{\us}, its \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ is typically $<$\num{0.05}, and the acceptance of this cut is essentially unity. We also require that the \mbox{S2}\ pulse be larger than \SI{100}{\pe}, where a typical value is $>$\SI{1000}{\pe} for events at the lowest energies used in this analysis. The acceptance for this cut is estimated using SCENE 36 keV NR data \cite{scene1}, correcting for the relative light yields of the two detectors and taking into account the radial dependence of \mbox{S2}\ observed in \mbox{DarkSide-50}.
\item We see evidence for Cherenkov background, including a sample of events with both \mbox{f$_{90}$}$\approx$\num{1} and nearly all the \mbox{S1}\ signal in a single \mbox{PMT}. We cut events in which the \mbox{S1}\ light is abnormally concentrated in a single \mbox{PMT}. The cut is \mbox{S1}-dependent through the fluctuation statistics, and is position dependent, as events near the top and bottom of the \mbox{TPC}\ naturally have their scintillation light concentrated more on a single \mbox{PMT}. The cut is designed to retain 99\% of events in each bin in the drift time vs. \mbox{S1}\ plane. Monte Carlo studies suggest that the vast majority of such background events will result in a sufficient concentration of light in a single PMT to allow rejection by this approach.
\item Veto detector information is used to suppress events with either prompt energy deposition in the \mbox{LSV}\ from neutron thermalization, or delayed energy deposition from neutron-capture \mbox{$\gamma$-rays}, notably those from the dominant \mbox{$^{7}$Li$^{*}$}\ final state from capture on \mbox{$^{10}$B}\ in the scintillator. The prompt region of interest (ROI) is especially important in this analysis, as the high rates from \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ in this data preclude thresholds low enough to veto captures to the \mbox{$^{7}$Li}\ ground state. The prompt ROI is defined as \SIrange[range-units = single]{-10}{200}{\ns}\ relative to the observed time of coincidences with \mbox{TPC}\ events. Its duration is based on the light collection time in the \mbox{LSV}, the neutron time-of-flight, and the thermalization time. Events with more than \SI{10}{\pe}\ ($\sim$\SI{20}{\keV}) in the \mbox{LSV}\ prompt ROI are vetoed.
Two delayed ROIs are defined in the \mbox{LSV}. The first is the \hvcutsliderwidth\ window with the maximum observed charge in the interval from prompt to \hvcutdelwin. Events with more than \SI{80}{\pe}\ ($\sim$\SI{150}{\keV}) in this ROI are vetoed. This ROI covers four neutron capture lifetimes in the borated scintillator and its threshold is chosen above the bulk of the observed \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ signal. The second delayed ROI is the \hvcutsliderwidth\ window with the maximum observed charge in the interval between \hvcutdelwin\ and the end of the LSV acquisition gate. Events with more than \SI{110}{\pe}\ ($\sim$\SI{200}{\keV}) in this ROI are vetoed. This cut is intended to catch neutrons that thermalize in detector components with long capture lifetimes. Finally, events are cut if they have more than \SI{200}{\pe}\ recorded in the entire acquisition window of the \mbox{WCD}.
The rejection of single-sited neutron-induced events in the TPC WIMP search region by the \mbox{LSV}\ cuts is estimated with Monte Carlo to be a factor of about \odneutronrejectionachieved, which corresponds to a neutron detection efficiency of $\sim$0.98. The acceptance loss due to accidentals is determined by counting events rejected by the veto cuts, with the prompt ROI replaced by one of the same duration \SI{2}{\micro\second} before the prompt time. The accidental acceptance loss of all the veto cuts together is 11\%. The error is statistical and negligible.
\item The fiducial volume is limited in the vertical coordinate (measured by electron drift time) only -- no radial cut is applied. Signal-like (high \mbox{f$_{90}$}) events are observed near the grid and cathode, and their origin is under investigation.
We place a fiducial cut retaining events with drift times between \SI{40.0}{\micro\second}\ and \SI{334.5}{\micro\second}, corresponding to \SI{36.3}{\mm}\ below the grid and \SI{36.3}{\mm}\ above the cathode. This reduces the total active volume to \SI{36.9(6)}{\kg}, where the dominant uncertainty arises from the uncertainty on the shrinkage of the teflon body of the TPC when cooled from room temperature to cryogenic temperature.
The lowest-achieved level of surface contamination by alpha emitters is $<$10~$\alpha$'s/(m$^2$-d)~\cite{pocar,bx-vessels,sno-ncd}. Even at this level, we would expect to observe surface events from the TPB-coated cylindrical reflector, with additional contribution to the light signals from the TPB's own scintillation~\cite{deap-pollmann}. There is no such background left in the WIMP search region after all TPC cuts. Preliminary studies suggest that $x$-$y$ reconstruction of events in \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ should allow radial fiducialization to suppress any surface background that may become evident in longer running.
\end{enumerate}
Table~\ref{tab:acceptance} shows the effect of each cut on either the residual livetime, the acceptance for nuclear recoils, or the fiducial mass, along with the estimated systematic uncertainty of each. The final cuts, on minimum and maximum \mbox{S1}\ and \mbox{f$_{90}$}, define the WIMP search region and are discussed below.
\section{\mbox{PMT}\ Calibration}
\label{sec:pmt_calib}
The measurement of the \mbox{PMT}\ gains and the study of the PMT charge response are performed for the three detector subsystems by injecting light from pulsed laser diodes into their respective sensitive volumes through optical fibers. Optical filters are used to attenuate the laser intensity to provide an average occupancy of $<$\SI{0.1}{\pe}\ on most {\mbox{PMT} s}.
In the \mbox{TPC}, laser pulses have $\sim$\SI{10}{\ns}\ duration at \SI{440}{nm}\ wavelength.
Simultaneous triggers are sent at \SI{500}{\hertz}\ to the laser and the DAQ, which uses a \SI{3}{\micro\second}\ acquisition window for these laser runs.
We estimate the mean and variance of the single photoelectron (SPE) response for each channel using a statistical method that does not make any assumptions about the shape of the SPE charge spectrum. Two separate charge spectra are constructed, one from a \SI{108}{\ns}\ wide signal window around the arrival time of the laser pulses and a second from a pedestal window of the same width, but offset in time -- where no signal is expected. The mean of the charge spectrum in the signal window, \mbox{$\mu_q$}, can be expressed as \mbox{$\mu_q$}$=$\mbox{$\mu_{\rm ped}$}$+$\mbox{$\mu_{\si{\spe}}$}$\cdot$\mbox{$\mu_{\si{\pe}}$}, where \mbox{$\mu_{\rm ped}$}\ is the mean of contributions unrelated to the signal, including electronics noise; \mbox{$\mu_{\si{\spe}}$}\ is the mean of the SPE charge distribution; and \mbox{$\mu_{\si{\pe}}$}\ is mean number of photoelectrons produced per laser pulse. In order to estimate \mbox{$\mu_{\si{\spe}}$}, \mbox{$\mu_q$}\ is obtained directly from the charge spectrum of the signal window, \mbox{$\mu_{\rm ped}$}\ from the pedestal window, and \mbox{$\mu_{\si{\pe}}$}\ using a combination of the two spectra, assuming the number of photoelectrons follow a Poisson distribution. We use the same statistical procedure to estimate the variance. Using Monte Carlo simulations of fake single photoelectron signals overlaid on true electronics baselines, we estimate that the systematic uncertainty of this method in determining the SPE mean is $<$2.5\%.
\mbox{TPC}\ laser runs are taken at least daily and, over the course of \mbox{7 months}, the \si{\spe} mean decreased by \SI{2.5}{\percent}\ (\mbox{PMT}\ bias voltages were unchanged). The \mbox{TPC}\ light yield (\si{\pe/\keV}) measured from the endpoint of the \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ $\beta$ spectrum was stable to within \SI{0.7}{\percent}\ over the period of all data taking.
Calibration of the \si{\spe} charge response for \mbox{LSV}\ and \mbox{WCD}\ {\mbox{PMT} s} follows a similar procedure. An optical fiber in front of each \mbox{PMT}\ injects low intensity laser light at \SI{500}{\hertz}\ with simultaneous triggers to the laser and veto DAQ, and a charge spectrum is constructed by integrating the laser pulse found by the zero-suppression algorithm over a time window of 150~ns around the laser trigger.
A single Gaussian is fit to the \si{\spe} peak of the charge spectrum for each channel, and the fitted Gaussian mean is taken to be the mean \si{\spe} response.
\section{TPC Event Reconstruction}
\label{sec:recon}
The TPC event reconstruction software is built within the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory's {\it art} framework~\cite{art}.
During normal data taking, raw waveforms from the \mbox{TPC}\ and vetoes are separately analyzed to reconstruct the physical pulses in each detector. For each channel of the \mbox{TPC}, a baseline is determined and subtracted from the raw waveform. To account for slow variations, the baseline is defined as a moving average, with window length \SI{80}{\ns}, in regions of the waveform consistent with only electronic noise. In regions with sharp excursions (such as single photoelectrons or scintillation pulses), the baseline is linearly interpolated between the two nearest quiet regions. The moving baseline algorithm is effective at reducing noise contributions to integrated signal estimations, which is important for PSD.
The baseline-subtracted waveforms of each channel are then scaled by the corresponding \si{\spe} mean, zero-suppressed with a threshold of \SI{0.1}{\pe}/sample, and added together to form a sum channel, which is used for pulse finding. The use of zero-suppression is intended to reduce the effects of coherent noise across all channels. The pulse finding algorithm is general and can find both \mbox{S1}\ and \mbox{S2}\ with high efficiency. The algorithm does a coarse-grained search to discern pulses and a fine-grained search to identify pulse start times, using a threshold of \SI{0.3}{\pe}/sample. It is also adept at distinguishing overlapping pulses such as multiple \mbox{S2}\ signals from multi-sited depositions.
Using the start time found for each pulse, two integrals, with integration lengths \SI{7}{\micro\second}\ and \SI{30}{\micro\second}, are computed on the scaled baseline-subtracted waveform of each channel (without zero-suppression). The integrals are then summed across all channels to produce the total number of photoelectrons observed in each pulse. The \SI{7}{\micro\second}\ integration window is used for \mbox{S1}\ pulses and the \SI{30}{\micro\second}\ length for \mbox{S2}\ pulses. The use of fixed length integration windows simplifies electronic noise considerations, especially for \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ distributions.
For events with two pulses found, the earlier pulse is assumed to be \mbox{S1}\ and the later to be \mbox{S2}. Subsequent cuts establish the validity of these assumptions event-by-event. For events with three pulses found and the time difference between the second and third pulse approximately equal to the maximum drift time of the \mbox{TPC}, the first pulse is assumed to be \mbox{S1}, the second to be \mbox{S2}, and the third to be \mbox{S3}.
Several corrections are applied to the \mbox{S1}\ and \mbox{S2}\ integrals to account for geometrical variations of light production and collection.
Due to total internal reflection at the liquid surface, light collection of scintillation pulses varies by \sonezvariation\ between the top and bottom of the \mbox{TPC}. An empirical $z$-dependent correction, derived from \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ and \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ calibration data and normalized to the center of the \mbox{TPC}, is applied to \mbox{S1}.
Electronegative impurities in the \mbox{LAr}\ capture drifting electrons.
This results in the number of drifting electrons, and hence \mbox{S2}, decreasing exponentially with the time taken to drift between the interaction point and the liquid-gas interface.
We fit for this electron drift lifetime, then correct \mbox{S2}, normalizing to the top of the \mbox{TPC}. Our very high electron mean drift lifetime induces a maximum \mbox{7\%}\ correction for the runs acquired through February~2014. During a gap in the data taking that followed, the lifetime continued to improve. We do not apply any correction to data collected after this period, about 75\% of the total, since the electron drift lifetime has become too long to be measured reliably.
We discovered during commissioning that the amplitude of \mbox{S2}\ has a strong radial dependence, where events under the central \mbox{PMT}\ exhibit greater than three times more electroluminescence light than events at the maximum radius.
Only basic cuts on S2 are used in the present analysis, and this does not affect our results.
Preliminary $x$-$y$ reconstruction algorithms indicate that the radial variations can be empirically corrected using calibration data.
\section{Veto Event Reconstruction}
\label{sec:vetorecon}
Due to the use of DAQ-level zero-suppression, reconstruction of \mbox{LSV}\ and \mbox{WCD}\ signals is different from the \mbox{TPC}\ reconstruction. Pulses are naturally defined as the non-zero portion of each raw waveform for each channel.
The DAQ records \SI{20}{\sample}\ (\SI{16}{\ns}) before and after each pulse. The first \SI{15}{\sample}\
before the pulse are averaged to define a baseline, which is subtracted from
the waveform.
Each channel is then scaled by the corresponding \si{\spe} mean and the channels in each veto detector are summed together.
A clustering algorithm on the sum waveform identifies physical events in the \mbox{LSV}. To handle the high pile-up rate due to \mbox{$^{14}$C}, the algorithm is a ``top-down'' iterative process of searching for clusters from largest to smallest. These clusters are used only for building the \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ and \mbox{$^{60}$Co}\ spectra and determining the light yield of the \mbox{LSV}. Identification of coincident signals between \mbox{LSV}\ and \mbox{TPC}\ uses fixed regions of interest of the sum waveform and is described in Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis}. For tagging of muons in the \mbox{LSV}\ and \mbox{WCD}, the total integrated charge of each detector is used.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{ly.pdf}
\caption{The primary scintillation (\mbox{S1}) spectrum from a zero-field run of the \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ \mbox{TPC}. Blue: \mbox{S1}\ spectrum obtained while the recirculating argon was spiked with \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}, which decays with near-coincident conversion electrons summing to \mbox{41.5\,keV}. Red: fit to the \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}+\mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ spectrum, giving a light yield of \SI{7.91(24)}{\pe\per\keV}\ at zero drift field.
}
\label{fig:dsfdriftfieldly}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{TPC Energy Calibration and Light Yield }
\label{sec:energy}
In the data presented here, taken with atmospheric argon, the TPC trigger rate is dominated by \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ $\beta$ decays, with their \SI{565}{\keV}\ endpoint. The spectrum observed in the presence of the \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ source at zero drift field, clearly dominated by \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ decay, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dsfdriftfieldly}.
The measured rate of \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ events is \SIrange[range-units = single]{2}{3}{\hertz}.
Because it affects the optics of the detector, the gas pocket was maintained even when operating the detector at zero drift field to collect reference data for light yield.
The spectrum is fit to obtain the measurement of the light yield of the detector at the \mbox{41.5\,keV}\ reference line of \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}.
The fit of the entire spectrum, encompassing the \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ and \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ contributions, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dsfdriftfieldly}, returns a light yield of \SI{7.91(24)}{\pe\per\keV}\ at zero drift field, after including systematic errors. Fitting the light yield from the \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ peak alone gives the same result within the fitting uncertainty.
The resolution is about 7\% at the \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ peak energy.
The dominant uncertainty in the \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ light yield comes from the systematic uncertainties on the mean SPE response of the PMTs.
Table \ref{tab:ly} summarizes the values for the light yield from \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ with and without drift field.
Note that the value of the light yield has a larger uncertainty at zero field, where it is neither possible to account for non-uniformities in the \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ distribution in the active volume nor to correct for the $z$-dependent light collection variations described in Sec.~\ref{sec:recon}. Both effects are accounted for with the drift field on, where $z$-position information is available.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}ccccc}
\hline\hline
Experiment &Drift Field &Light Yield \\
\hline
\mbox{DarkSide-50}\ &\SI{200}{\volt\per\centi\meter} &\SI{7.01(2)}{\pe\per\keV} \\
\mbox{DarkSide-50}\ &Zero &\SI{7.91(24)}{\pe\per\keV} \\
\hline
\mbox{SCENE}\ (Jun~2013 Run) &Zero &\SI{6.3(3)}{\pe\per\keV} \\
\mbox{SCENE}\ (Oct~2013 Run) &Zero &\SI{4.8(2)}{\pe\per\keV} \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Reference \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ values of the light yields from \mbox{SCENE}\ and \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ used to correlate the \mbox{S1}\ and \mbox{S2}\ scales of \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ with the \mbox{SCENE}\ calibration.
Note that most of the systematic errors are correlated between the \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ \SI{200}{\volt\per\centi\meter}\ and zero-field light yields.}
\label{tab:ly}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular*}{0.8\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}cccccc}
\hline\hline
Energy [\si{keV}]
&$\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff,\,\mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}}$
&\mbox{S1}$_{\rm DS-50}$ [\si{\pe}]
\\
\hline
\num{16.9} &\num{0.202(8)} &\num{27.0(18)} \\
\num{20.5} &\num{0.227(10)} &\num{36.8(27)} \\
\num{25.4} &\num{0.224(10)} &\num{45.0(33)} \\
\num{36.1} &\num{0.265(10)} &\num{75.7(50)} \\
\num{57.2} &\num{0.282(13)} &\num{127.6(91)} \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{center}
\caption{Expected nuclear recoil responses of \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ based on \mbox{SCENE}\ calibration. Second column: $\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff,\,\mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}}$ is the quenching of nuclear recoils in \mbox{LAr}\ at \SI{200}{\volt\per\centi\meter}, relative to the yield of \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ at zero field, as measured and defined in Ref.~\cite{scene2}. Values are reported for all energy points of nuclear recoils examined in \mbox{SCENE}~\cite{scene2}. Third column: \mbox{S1}\ yields of nuclear recoils measured in SCENE at \SI{200}{\volt\per\centi\meter}, and projected to \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ by using the cross-calibration response of \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}.
}
\label{tab:scene}
\end{table*}
To obtain the best calibration of the response in \mbox{S1}\ and \mbox{S2}\ for nuclear recoils needed for the \mbox{DarkSide}\ program, members of the collaboration and others performed an experiment called \mbox{SCENE}~\cite{scene1,scene2}. The \mbox{SCENE}\ experiment measured the intrinsic scintillation and ionization yield of recoiling nuclei in liquid argon as a function of applied electric field by exposing a small \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}\ to a low energy pulsed narrowband neutron beam produced at the Notre Dame Institute for Structure and Nuclear Astrophysics. Liquid scintillation counters were arranged to detect and identify neutrons scattered in the \mbox{TPC}, determining the neutron scattering angles and thus the energies of the recoiling nuclei. The use of a low-energy narrowband beam and of a very small \mbox{TPC}\ allowed \mbox{SCENE}\ to measure the intrinsic yields for single-sited nuclear recoils of known energy, which is not possible in \mbox{DarkSide-50}.
The measurements performed in \mbox{SCENE}\ were referenced to the light yield measured with a \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ source at zero field. The use of the same \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ in \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ allows us to use the relative light yields of the two experiments (see Table \ref{tab:ly}) to determine, from the \mbox{SCENE}\ results, the expected \mbox{S1}\ and \mbox{S2}\ signals of nuclear recoils in \mbox{DarkSide-50}.
Table~\ref{tab:scene} summarizes the expected \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ \mbox{S1}\ yields derived with this method and thus provides nuclear recoil energy vs.\ \mbox{S1}\ for \mbox{DarkSide-50}.
For the analysis reported here, we interpolate linearly between the measured \mbox{SCENE}\ energies and assume that $\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff,\,\mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}}$ is constant above a nuclear recoil energy of \SI{57.2}{\keV}.
As part of the \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ program, we planned to deploy both gamma and neutron sources in the \mbox{LSV}\ near the cryostat for calibrations over a broad range of energies and for direct measurements of the \mbox{TPC}\ response to nuclear recoils and of the \mbox{LSV}\ response to neutrons. The equipment needed to deploy such sources through the \mbox{WCD}\ and \mbox{LSV}\ was not available during the running and analysis reported here. It has been recently completed and commissioned, and analyses for all these purposes are underway.
\section{LSV Energy Calibration and Light Yield }
\label{sec:lsvly}
The neutron veto light yield is measured by fitting the \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ and \mbox{$^{60}$Co}\ spectra. The high rate in the \mbox{LSV}, from \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ and a low-energy, low-PMT-multiplicity signal that decreased sharply during the run, requires clustering and pulse selection before fitting these spectra.
For the \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ fit, the fit parameters are the \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ rate, the light yield, the pedestal mean and variance, and a constant term. We use the variance of the \si{\spe} charge spectrum from the \si{\spe} calibration as a fixed parameter. A light-yield variance term that includes geometrical variations is determined empirically and kept fixed in the fit. The high rate of \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ decays, \lsvcforrate, requires allowance for pileup in the fit function.
We also studied the light yield at higher energies by observing coincident
\mbox{$\gamma$-ray}\ events in the TPC and the LSV from \mbox{$^{60}$Co}\ decays in the cryostat steel,
which dominate the rate above 1~MeV. The fit function was a single Gaussian (the two gammas are not resolved) with an exponential component modeling the background in the coincidence window.
By combining the \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ and \mbox{$^{60}$Co}\ results, we obtain an LSV light yield of \lsvly.
The error quoted on the light yield includes systematic uncertainties from the cuts used to suppress the low-energy background, the clustering algorithm, and the observed variation during the run.
In the current analysis, the \mbox{LSV}\ light yield is used only to infer the threshold of the veto cuts described in Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis} to estimate the neutron background rejection via Monte Carlo studies.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We report on the first underground operations for physics data taking using the complete \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ direct dark matter search detection system, including the \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}, the liquid scintillator shield/veto, and the water-Cherenkov shield/veto. An innovative closed-loop argon circulation system with external purification and cooling allows the \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}\ to achieve an electron drift lifetime of \SI{>5}{ms}. Photoelectron yield of \SI{7.91(24)}{\pe\per\keV}\ at null field is achieved for detection of the primary argon scintillation, giving the photoelectron statistics necessary for high performance pulse shape discrimination.
Figure~\ref{fig:dms} covers the range of energies from \SIrange{8.6}{65.6}{\keV} for \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}, and a total of \dsfnumareventsinplot\ \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ events were recorded over that energy range.
Event selection based on the \mbox{TPC}\ cuts is shown to completely suppress \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ background events in the present \SI{1422(67)}{\kg\day}\ exposure.
This exposure contains at least as many \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ events as \SI{215000}{\kg\day}, or \SI{0.6}{\tonne\year}, of running with \mbox{UAr}, proving that \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ could run for two decades with \mbox{UAr}\ and be free of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ background. Alternatively, we note that the WIMP search region in even the longest contemplated \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ \mbox{UAr}\ run, drawn to admit the same \SI{0.01}{\ev\per\bin}\ of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ as the analysis reported here, would move lower in \mbox{f$_{90}$}, giving higher WIMP acceptance at low energies.
Although the liquid scintillator veto was compromised by a high \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ content during this exposure, it was able to tag and remove the handful of neutron events expected. In the \mbox{UAr}\ run, we will be operating with a neutron veto that will be able to sustain lower thresholds, predicted to give considerably higher neutron rejection factor.
A WIMP search with the present dataset gives a limit as low as \SI{6.1E-44}{\square\centi\meter}\ at 100 GeV/$c^2$, the best result achieved to date with an argon target.
\section{Electronics and Data Acquisition}
\label{sec:daq}
The electronics and data acquisition (DAQ) are divided into two main sub-systems, one for the \mbox{TPC}\ and one for the vetoes~\cite{ds:daq}. In the \mbox{TPC}\ sub-system, the PMTs use resistive divider circuits on Cirlex substrates. The anode signal from each of the \mbox{TPC}\ {\mbox{PMT} s} is first amplified by a cryogenic preamplifier on the \mbox{PMT}\ voltage divider, immersed in liquid argon. This allows the {\mbox{PMT} s} to be operated at low gain (typically \num{4.E5}), reducing the occurrence of the sporadic light emission we have observed in R11065s, while maintaining a very high signal-to-noise ratio.
The fast pulse pre-amplifier (\SI{150}{\mega\hertz}\ bandwidth with extended low frequency response down to \SI{5.8}{\milli\second}) has an internal gain of \SI{3}{\volt/\volt}\ and is coupled to the anode of the PMT with a 200~$\Omega$ load. This value optimizes the impedance matching, giving an extra gain of 8 V/V with respect to the 25~$\Omega$ load that is normally used with a passive PMT readout (\dsfcoldamptermination\ on the anode and \dsfcoldamptermination\ input to the amplifier). The output swing of the back-terminated output is \SI{3}{\volt}, corresponding to about 1500 \si{\pe}, with a noise equivalent of \SI{45}{\micro\volt}\ (referred to the output). At room temperature, the signal is then further amplified $\times$\num{10}\ and split, with one copy sent to a high speed discriminator, set to \dsftriggereneth\ and used to form the \mbox{TPC}\ trigger. A second copy is filtered and sent to a \SI{12}{\bit}, \SI{250}{\MHz}\ digitizer channel (CAEN~1720~\cite{caen}).
In the veto subsystem, the anode signals from the \num{190}\ {\mbox{PMT} s} undergo amplification and splitting by means of a custom front-end board. A $\times$\num{10}\ amplified signal is sent to \num{190}\ channels of NI PXIe-5162 digitizer~\cite{ni} which sample at \oddigitsamplespeed\ with a \oddigitresolution\ resolution. Zero-suppression is performed on the fly and only sections of the waveform around identified peaks above threshold are stored. The zero-suppression threshold was set to a level about \odzerosuppressionrun\ times the amplitude of a single-photoelectron pulse for routine data taking.
The data readout in the three detector subsystems is managed by dedicated trigger boards: each subsystem is equipped with a user-customizable FPGA unit (CAEN V1495~\cite{caen}), in which the trigger logic is implemented. The inputs and outputs from the different trigger modules are processed by a set of electrical-to-optical converters (Highland V720 and V730~\cite{highland}) and the communication between the subsystems uses dedicated optical links.
To keep the TPC and the Veto readouts aligned, a pulse per second (PPS) generated by a GPS receiver is sent to the two systems, where it is acquired and interpolated with a resolution of \SI{20}{\ns}\ to allow offline confirmation of event matching.
The DAQ sub-systems are handled by a common run controller that can be configured to permit different acquisition modes -- either sharing a global trigger among all three detectors, or allowing independent triggers. In the shared global-trigger configuration, used for the physics data set, the photomultiplier signals from the \mbox{TPC}\ and veto are stored when at least three \mbox{TPC}\ \mbox{PMT}\ discriminators give signals within a 100\,ns\ window.
This trigger has an efficiency $>$\SI{99}{\percent}\ for \mbox{S1}$>$\SI{60}{\pe}.
After some initial running, the trigger was modified to reject the high-energy part of the \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ energy spectrum to save disk space.
To do this, the FPGA calculating the trigger condition counts the number of discriminator firings in the \mbox{TPC}\ in the \SI{5}{\micro\second} after the lower-level trigger and issues a flag for events above $\sim$\SI{600}{\pe}, outside of the WIMP region of interest.
The flagged events are pre-scaled by a factor \num{33}, reducing the trigger rate from the \SI{50}{\hertz}\ of the low-level trigger to
\SI{13}{\hertz}.
The TPC data acquisition window was \SI{440}{\us}\ for routine data taking, and, to reduce re-triggers on the tail of \mbox{S2}\ or on \mbox{S3}, we employed an \SI{810}{\us}\ inhibit after each trigger, during which the DAQ would not accept a new trigger.
Although a mean neutron capture time of \SI{2.2}{\micro\second}\ is expected in the boron-loaded liquid scintillator, Monte Carlo simulations show that some neutrons that interact in the \mbox{TPC}\ will capture in surrounding materials as long as several tens of \si{\micro\second} after the interaction in the \mbox{TPC}~\cite{wright}. Therefore, veto acquisition windows as long as \odacquisitionwin\ are used in order to include possible delayed neutron captures.
\section{The \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ Detectors}
\label{sec:detector}
The \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ apparatus consists of three nested detectors, see Fig.~\ref{fig:ds-50-detectors}. From the center outward, the three detectors are: the Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber, which is the dark matter detector; the Liquid Scintillator Veto (\mbox{LSV}), serving as shielding and as anti-coincidence for radiogenic and cosmogenic neutrons, {\mbox{$\gamma$-ray} s}, and cosmic muons; and the Water Cherenkov Detector (\mbox{WCD}), serving as shielding and as anti-coincidence for cosmic muons~\cite{ctf:results,ctf:scitech}. The detector system is located in Hall C of LNGS at a depth of \lngsequivdepth\ \cite{lngs-depth}, in close proximity to and sharing many facilities with, the Borexino solar neutrino detector~\cite{bx:detector,bx:plants}.
The \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}\ can exploit pulse shape discrimination and the ratio of scintillation to ionization to reject \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}\ background in favor of the nuclear recoil events expected from WIMP scattering~\cite{boulay,warp}. It can also exploit the \mbox{TPC}'s spatial resolution to reject surface backgrounds and to reject multi-sited events. Events due to neutrons from cosmogenic sources and from radioactive contamination in the detector components, which also produce nuclear recoils, are suppressed by the combined action of the neutron and cosmic ray vetoes. The liquid scintillator also provides additional rejection of $\gamma$-ray background from the detector materials. The water-plus-liquid scintillator design was motivated in part by the success of this shielding concept in achieving very low backgrounds in Borexino~\cite{bx:detector,bx:7be-precision,bx:phase-I}.
The \mbox{WCD}\ is an \SI{11}{\meter}-diameter, \SI{10}{\meter}-high cylindrical tank filled with high purity water. The tank was originally part of the Borexino Counting Test Facility. The inside surface of the tank is covered with a laminated Tyvek-polyethylene-Tyvek reflector~\cite{daya-bay}. An array of \num{80}\ \mbox{ETL 9351}\ \SI{8}{\inch}~{\mbox{PMT} s}, with \SI{27}{\percent}\ average quantum efficiency (QE) at \SI{420}{\nano\meter}, is mounted on the side and bottom of the water tank to detect Cherenkov photons produced by muons or other relativistic particles traversing the water.
The \mbox{LSV}\ is a \SI{4.0}{\m}-diameter stainless steel sphere filled with \SI{30}{\tonne}\ of borated liquid scintillator. The scintillator consists of equal amounts of pseudocumene (PC) and trimethyl borate (TMB), with the wavelength shifter Diphenyloxazole (PPO) at a concentration of \lsvppoconcentration. The sphere is lined with Lumirror~\cite{lumirror} reflecting foils. An array of \num{110}\ \mbox{Hamamatsu R5912}\ \SI{8}{\inch}~{\mbox{PMT} s}, with low-radioactivity glass bulbs and high-quantum-efficiency photocathodes (\SI{37}{\percent}\ average QE at \SI{408}{\nano\meter}), is mounted on the inside surface of the sphere to detect scintillation photons.
The neutron-capture reaction \mbox{$^{10}$B}($n$,$\alpha$)\mbox{$^{7}$Li}\ makes the borated scintillator a very effective veto of neutron background~\cite{wright}. The \mbox{TMB}, \mbox{B(OCH$_3$)$_3$}, contains $^{\rm nat}$B which has a \SI{20}{\percent}\ natural abundance of \mbox{$^{10}$B}\ with its large (\SI{3840}{\barn}) thermal neutron capture cross section. The thermal neutron capture time in the borated scintillator is calculated to be just \SI{2.2}{\micro\second}, compared to \SI{250}{\micro\second}\ for pure \mbox{PC}~\cite{bx:detector}.
The \mbox{$^{10}$B}\ neutron capture proceeds to the \mbox{$^{7}$Li}\ ground state with branching ratio \SI{6.4}{\percent}, producing a \SI{1775}{\keV}\ $\alpha$ particle, and to a \mbox{$^{7}$Li}\ excited state with branching ratio \SI{93.6}{\percent}\, producing a \SI{1471}{\keV}\ $\alpha$ particle and a gamma-ray of \SI{478}{\keV}. Because of quenching, the scintillation light output of the capture to \mbox{$^{7}$Li}(g.s.) is expected to be in the \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}-equivalent range \SIrange[range-units = single]{50}{60}{\keV}~\cite{greenwood,wang}.
Preliminary measurements with our scintillator appear consistent with this expectation.
The measured \mbox{LSV}\ photoelectron (\si{\pe}) yield is \lsvly, making this quenched energy readily detectable. The high \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ decay rate in the \mbox{LSV}\ and the fact that its spectrum covers the signal expected from the $\alpha$'s from neutron capture on \mbox{$^{10}$B}\ severely reduced the effectiveness of the neutron veto in the present data set. The rejection power is estimated from simulations to be \odneutronrejectionachieved\ instead of the design value of~\num{200}~\cite{wright}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.7\columnwidth]{ds-50-assembly.jpg}
\caption{The nested detector system of \mbox{DarkSide-50}. The outermost gray cylinder is the \mbox{WCD}, the sphere is the \mbox{LSV}, and the gray cylinder at the center of the sphere is the \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}\ cryostat.}
\label{fig:ds-50-detectors}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ \mbox{TPC}, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ds-50-detectors}, is contained in a stainless steel cryostat that is supported at the center of the \mbox{LSV}\ on a system of leveling rods. Its design was based on that of the \mbox{DarkSide-10}\ prototype, which operated for \dstexp\ at LNGS~\cite{ds:ds-10-run3}.
A cut-away view of of the \mbox{TPC}\ is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:ds-50-tpc}.
Ionizing events in the active volume of the \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}\ result in a prompt scintillation signal called ``\mbox{S1}''. Ionization electrons escaping recombination drift in the \mbox{TPC}\ electric field to the surface of the \mbox{LAr}, where a stronger electric field extracts them into an argon gas layer between the \mbox{LAr}\ surface and the \mbox{TPC}\ anode. The electric field in the gas is large enough to accelerate the electrons so that they excite the argon, resulting in a secondary scintillation signal, ``\mbox{S2}'', proportional to the collected ionization. Both the scintillation signal \mbox{S1}\ and the ionization signal \mbox{S2}\ are measured by the same \mbox{PMT}\ array. The temporal pulse shape of the \mbox{S1}\ signal provides discrimination between nuclear-recoil and electron-recoil events. The \mbox{S2}\ signal allows the three-dimensional position of the energy deposition to be determined and, in combination with \mbox{S1}, provides further discrimination of signal from background. A significant fraction of events also exhibit an ``\mbox{S3}" signal. The S3 pulse resembles \mbox{S2}\ in pulse shape but is typically \dsfstwooversthree\ times smaller and always follows \mbox{S2}\ by a fixed delay equal to the maximum drift time in the \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}. \mbox{S3}\ is believed to result from electrons released from the cathode (at the bottom of the TPC) when struck by the bright \mbox{S2}\ UV light.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4.0in]{50kg_Assembly_4-1-13_section_annotated_2.JPG}
\caption{The \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber.}
\label{fig:ds-50-tpc}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The active \mbox{LAr}\ is contained in a cylindrical region viewed by \num{38}\ {Hamamatsu R11065}\ \SI{3}{\inch}\ low-background, high-quantum-efficiency {\mbox{PMT} s}, nineteen each on the top and the bottom. The average quantum efficiency of the {\mbox{PMT} s} at room temperature is \dsfpmtqe\ at \SI{420}{\nano\meter}. The {\mbox{PMT} s} are submerged in liquid argon and view the active \mbox{LAr}\ through fused-silica windows, which are coated on both faces with transparent conductive indium tin oxide (\mbox{ITO}) films \SI{15}{\nano\meter}\ thick. This allows the inner window faces to serve as the grounded anode (top) and $-$HV cathode (bottom) of the \mbox{TPC}\ while maintaining their outer faces at the average \mbox{PMT}\ photocathode potential. The cylindrical wall is a \SI{2.54}{\centi\meter}-thick \mbox{PTFE}\ reflector fabricated with a modified annealing cycle to increase its reflectivity. The reflector and the windows at the top and bottom of the cylinder are coated with a wavelength shifter, tetraphenyl butadiene (\mbox{TPB}), that absorbs the \SI{128}{\nano\metre}\ scintillation photons emitted by liquid argon and re-emits visible photons (peak wavelength \SI{420}{\nano\meter}) that are reflected, transmitted, and detected with high efficiency. The thickness of the \mbox{TPB}\ coating on the windows varies from \dsftpbcenterthickness\ at the center to \dsftpbedgethickness\ at the edge of the active volume. The thickness of the \mbox{TPB}\ on the cylindrical wall is \dsftpbwallhalfthickness\ at half-height and \dsftpbwallbottomthickness\ at the top and bottom.
The fused silica anode window has a cylindrical rim extending downward to form the ``diving bell'' that holds the \SI{1}{\centi\meter}-thick gas layer of the \mbox{TPC}, produced by boiling argon within the cryostat (outside the \mbox{TPC}\ active volume) and delivering the gas to the diving bell. The gas then exits the bell via a bubbler that maintains the \mbox{LAr}/gas interface at the desired height.
The electron drift system consists of the \mbox{ITO}\ cathode and anode planes, a field cage, and a grid that separates the drift and electron extraction regions. The grid, \SI{5}{\milli\meter}\ below the liquid surface, is a hexagonal mesh etched from a \SI{50}{\micro\meter}-thick stainless steel foil and has an optical transparency of \SI{95}{\percent}\ at normal incidence.
Voltage is applied between the cathode and grid to produce a vertical electric field to drift the ionization electrons upward. Outside the cylindrical \mbox{PTFE}\ wall, copper rings at graded potentials keep the drift field uniform throughout the active volume. An independently-adjustable potential between the grid and anode creates the fields that extract the electrons into the gas and accelerate them to create the secondary scintillation signal. The data reported here were taken with a \SI{-12.7}{\kilo\volt}\ cathode potential and a \SI{-5.6}{\kilo\volt}\ grid potential, giving drift, extraction, and electroluminescence electric fields of \SI{200}{\volt\per\centi\meter}, \SI{2.8}{\kilo\volt\per\centi\meter}, and \SI{4.2}{\kilo\volt\per\centi\meter}, respectively. The choice of drift field was dictated by the results of the calibration experiment \mbox{SCENE}, which uncovered a drift-field-induced quenching of the S1 light yield for nuclear recoils~\cite{scene1,scene2}. The maximum drift time is \dsftdriftmaxanal, and the measured value of the drift speed is \espeedbelowmesh.
The active \mbox{LAr}\ volume is bounded by the cylindrical \mbox{PTFE}\ wall, the cathode, and the grid. When warm, it is 35.6\,cm\ in diameter and 35.6\,cm\ in height. This gives an active mass when cold of \SI{46.4(7)}{\kg}\ of liquid argon, where the uncertainty is primarily in the thermal contraction of the \mbox{PTFE}.
Cooling of the cryostat is done using an external circulation loop. Argon gas drawn from the cryostat at \SI{30}{\standard\liter\per\minute}\ passes out of the detector system to the cryogenic and purification system, located in the radon-suppressed clean room, which contains all equipment interfacing directly to the detectors. The gas passes through a SAES Monotorr PS4-MT50-R-2 getter~\cite{saes}, which reduces contaminants such as \mbox{O$_2$}\ and \mbox{N$_2$}\ to sub-ppb levels. The gas is then pre-cooled in a heat exchanger before passing through a cold-charcoal radon trap that is operated in the range \dsfcryorntrapartemp. The argon is then liquefied by a liquid-nitrogen-cooled heat exchanger. The loop cooling power is controlled to maintain a stable pressure in the cryostat. The pressure oscillates within a band of \SI{\pm0.1}{\milli\bar}\ around the set point of \SI{1080.0}{\milli\bar}. The electron mean drift lifetime as measured through \mbox{S2}/\mbox{S1}\ vs.~drift time was \SI{>3.5}{\ms}\ for the initial set of runs acquired in October-November 2013. For the runs acquired in~2014, which provide the large majority of the exposure, the electron mean life was \SI{>5}{ms}.
The cryogenic and purification system includes a \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ source~\cite{venos}, whose use in \mbox{LAr}\ detectors was introduced in Ref.~\cite{lippincott-kr}.
The argon flow can be directed through the source to introduce \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ into the TPC for calibration of the energy response of the detector. \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ is produced by the decay of \rbthree\ ($\tau$=\SI{124.4}{\day}), which was prepared in the form of RbCl and adsorbed on a pellet of synthetic activated charcoal.
The activity of \rbthree\ when the source was prepared (September 2012) was \SI{8.5}{\kilo\becquerel}.
While \rbthree\ is firmly adsorbed onto the activated charcoal, \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ escapes into the recirculation stream, and, after passing through a \SI{0.5}{\um} filter and the radon trap, flows to the TPC.
The \mbox{$^{83m}$Kr}\ decays with $\tau$=\SI{2.64}{\hour}\ to the ground state in two sequential electromagnetic transitions of \mbox{32.1\,keV}\ and \mbox{9.4\,keV}\ energy with an intermediate mean life of about \SI{222}{\ns}. Because of the slow component of \mbox{LAr}\ scintillation, the \mbox{TPC}\ is unable to resolve the two decays and sees a single deposition of \mbox{41.5\,keV}.
In liquid argon, scintillation is initiated both by excitation and by recombination after ionization. The \SI{128}{\nano\metre}\ scintillation photons are emitted from two nearly degenerate excimer states, a long-lived ($\sim$\SI{1.5}{\micro\second}) triplet state, and a short-lived (\SI{6}{\nano\second}) singlet state. The difference in ionization density between nuclear recoils (from WIMP or neutron scattering) and electron recoils (from \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}\ radiation) produces a significant difference in the radiative decay ratio of these states and hence in the time profile of the \mbox{S1}\ scintillation light~\cite{kubota,hitachi}. Nuclear recoils have more of the fast scintillation component than electron recoils, providing a very powerful ``pulse shape discrimination'' (PSD) between electron backgrounds and nuclear-recoil signals~\cite{boulay}. In the analysis presented here we use a simple PSD parameter, \mbox{f$_{90}$}, defined as the fraction of the \mbox{S1}\ signal (defined hereafter as the integral of the \mbox{S1}\ pulse over \SI{7}{\micro\second}, see Sec.~\ref{sec:recon}) that occurs in the first \SI{90}{\nano\second}\ of the pulse, which is typically~$\sim$\num{0.3} for \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}-events and~$\sim$\num{0.7} for nuclear recoils. For \mbox{$\beta/\gamma$}-events, the low density of electron-ion pairs also results in less recombination and therefore more free electrons, compared to a nuclear recoil track of the same \mbox{S1}~\cite{kubota,doke,xenon93}. The ratio of ionization (measured by S2) to scintillation (S1) can therefore also be used to distinguish electron recoils from nuclear recoils. In this paper, we use PSD and basic cuts on \mbox{S2}\ to reduce backgrounds, but we do not yet exploit the discrimination power of \mbox{S2}/\mbox{S1}.
\section{}
\input{introduction.tex}
\input{detectors.tex}
\input{daq.tex}
\input{calibration_recon.tex}
\input{analysis.tex}
\input{limit.tex}
\input{conclusions.tex}
\input{acknowledgments.tex}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The matter content of the universe appears to be dominated not by ordinary baryonic matter but by a non-luminous and non-baryonic component: dark matter. This surprising conclusion is derived from a wide range of observational evidence, ranging from studies of the internal motions of galaxies~\cite{Faber}, to the large scale inhomogeneities in the cosmic microwave background radiation~\cite{WMAP1}. The precise nature of this matter is recognized as one of the most important questions in fundamental physics~\cite{napp}.
A favored candidate for the dark matter is a big-bang relic population of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). These could in principle be detected through their collisions with ordinary nuclei in an instrumented target, producing low-energy (\SI{<100}{\keV}) nuclear recoils~\cite{goodman}. Very low interaction rates are expected for such particles, based on the model for their production and existing limits. To detect these WIMPs, target masses of 0.1-10 tons may be required, and ultra-low background must be achieved by a combination of measures. These include cosmic ray suppression by locating the experiments deep underground, selection of materials for low radioactivity, and instrumentation that can reject residual radioactive backgrounds in favor of the sought-after nuclear recoil events.
This paper reports the first physics data from the \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber (\mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}), operated in the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (LNGS) in Italy. The \mbox{LAr}\ \mbox{TPC}\ technique affords very strong background rejection by detecting both the scintillation light and the ionization electrons produced by recoiling nuclei \cite{warp,ds:ds-10-run3}. \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ is surrounded by a sophisticated water- and liquid scintillator-based veto system which further suppresses radiogenic and cosmogenic backgrounds.
The ultimate goal of \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ is to conduct a background-free dark matter search with its 50-kg \mbox{TPC}\ filled with argon derived from underground sources (\mbox{UAr}) \cite{ds:uar-extraction,ds:uar-distillation}, to reduce the rate of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ decays in the active volume. The present exposure amounts to \SI{1422(67)}{\kg\day}\ using an initial fill of atmospheric argon, obtained while the final purification of the UAr supply was still in progress.
Atmospheric argon contains approximately \SI{1}{\becquerel\per\kg}\ of cosmogenic \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}~\cite{loosli,warp:39ar}. Based on the measured upper limit of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ in our \mbox{UAr}, a factor $>$\num{150}\ below atmospheric argon~\cite{ds:uar-counting}, the present data contain \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ background equivalent to at least \SI{215000}{\kg\day}, or \SI{0.6}{\tonne\year}, with \mbox{UAr}. None of this background survives into the accepted event sample (see Sec.~\ref{sec:wimp_search}).
This key result directly shows that the \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ background in the full \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ run with \mbox{UAr}\ can be suppressed, and supports the claim that the order-of-magnitude larger \mbox{UAr}\ exposures envisioned for ton-scale \mbox{LAr}\ {\mbox{TPC} s} can be free of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ background.
During this period, the liquid scintillator veto performance was limited due to the unexpectedly high content of \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ in the trimethyl borate (\mbox{TMB}) that was added as a neutron capture agent.
Some of the \mbox{TMB}\ feedstock was derived from modern carbon, which has a much higher \mbox{$^{14}$C}\ content than petroleum-derived material. The \mbox{TMB}\ has since been removed and a source of low-activity \mbox{TMB}\ identified. The veto performance nevertheless has been adequate to measure and suppress the very low rate of neutron-induced events in the present data sample, another key goal of the \mbox{DarkSide}\ program.
\section{WIMP Search}
\label{sec:wimp_search}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{stat-dms-pl.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of the events in the scatter plot of \mbox{S1}\ vs. \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ after all quality and physics cuts. Shaded blue with solid blue outline: dark matter search box in the \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ vs. \mbox{S1}\ plane. Percentages label the \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ acceptance contours for nuclear recoils drawn connecting points (shown with error bars) determined from the corresponding SCENE measurements.
}
\label{fig:dms}
\end{figure*}
The total exposure (fiducial volume $\times$ livetime $\times$ acceptance) remaining after all cuts prior to the WIMP search box is \SI{1422(67)}{\kg\day}. The distribution of the remaining events in the scatter plot of \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ vs.~\mbox{S1}\ after all quality and physics cuts is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dms}.
There are \dsfnumareventsinplot\ events in this plot, dominated by \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ decays.
This distribution was studied by dividing the events into \SI{5}{\pe}-wide slices in \mbox{S1}\ and fitting the resulting distributions with an approximate, analytical statistical model of \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ introduced in Ref.~\cite{lippincott}
and used in Ref.~\cite{deap} to characterize the \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ distribution in \mbox{LAr}\ of a large statistics (\num{1.7E7}) sample of \mbox{$\gamma$-ray}-scatters.
The important parts of the model are the contributions to the variances of the prompt and late charges (in \si{\pe}) that determine \mbox{f$_{90}$}.
The largest contributions are from the photoelectron Poisson statistics, given by the mean charges themselves.
The variance of the SPE charge distribution itself is also known -- it is determined as part of the SPE calibration.
The remaining variance is parametrized empirically by two terms: a term proportional to the charge that applies to both the prompt and late charges and, for the late charge, a constant term to represent contributions including electronic noise.
(The variance of the prompt charge due to electronic noise is found to be negligible.)
With the measured variance of the \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ distribution in each slice used to constrain the constant term in terms of the other contributions, the only remaining unknown in the variance is the empirical term proportional to charge.
The model is then fit to each slice with the fraction of prompt light (median \mbox{f$_{90}$}), the unknown empirical factor, and an overall normalization factor the only fit parameters.
The empirical factor is found to be the same for all bins. Measured \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ distributions and fits are shown for the lowest bin in the WIMP search region (defined below) and a typical high energy bin in Fig.~\ref{fig:f90fits}. The model generally provides a good match to the tails of the experimental \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ distributions above \SI{120}{\pe}, while below this value the model overestimates the tails.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{stat-dms-b5.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{stat-dms-b25.pdf}
\caption{Fits of \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ experimental distributions using the \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ model introduced in Ref.~\cite{lippincott,deap}. Left: fit for the lowest bin in the WIMP search region, \SIrange{80}{85}{\pe}. Right: fit for a typical higher-energy bin, \SIrange{180}{185}{\pe}.}
\label{fig:f90fits}
\end{figure*}
Nuclear recoil acceptance curves in the \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ vs. \mbox{S1}\ plane are derived from \mbox{SCENE}\ \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ medians. These \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ median values from \mbox{SCENE}, linearly interpolated and assumed to be constant above the highest SCENE NR energy, are translated from true nuclear recoil energy
to \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ \mbox{S1}\ values using the information in Tables~\ref{tab:ly} and \ref{tab:scene}. This gives the 50\% contour for \mbox{DarkSide-50}.
The other contours and associated errors depend also on the width of the \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ distribution at each \mbox{S1}.
For this we use the same analytical \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ model described above. Aside from the \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ median at each \mbox{S1}, all the other parameters in the model remain fixed from the fits to the high-statistics \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ data at the same \mbox{S1}.
The resulting acceptance curves are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dms}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{acceptance-S1.pdf}
\caption{Nuclear recoil acceptance of the dark matter search box. Acceptance is fixed at $90\%$ between 120 and 460 PE (54 and \SI{206}{\keVr}).
}
\label{fig:accs1}
\end{figure}
The dark matter search box shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dms} is obtained by intersecting the \SI{90}{\percent} nuclear recoil acceptance line with the curve corresponding to a leakage of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ events of \SI{0.01}{\ev\per\bin}\ according to the statistical model for electron-recoil \mbox{f$_{90}$}\ described above. This bound leads to an expected leakage of \mbox{$^{39}$Ar}\ into the full search box, bounded by \SI{60}{\pe}$<$\mbox{S1}$<$\SI{460}{\pe}\ (\SI{31}{\keV}$<$$E_{\rm recoil}$$<$\socutenemaxpaper), of $<$\SI{0.1}{\ev}.
The lower bound in \mbox{S1}\ is chosen where the acceptance for WIMPs above the leakage curve drops below \SI{5}{\percent} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:accs1}),
while the upper bound is chosen to contain most of the integrated acceptance for WIMPs in the standard halo model discussed below.
There are no events in the search region.
We observe \num{4}\ events passing all \mbox{TPC}\ cuts and with nuclear-recoil-like \mbox{f$_{90}$}, but with energy depositions in the \mbox{LSV}\ above our veto cut threshold. In coincidence with one of these \num{4}\ neutron candidates, we recorded signals near saturation in both the \mbox{LSV}\ and the \mbox{WCD}, and therefore we classify that event as cosmogenic, leaving \num{3}\ radiogenic neutron candidates.
This is to be compared to the \dsfruntimeneuexp\ neutron-induced events expected from the Monte Carlo studies of PMT radioactivity discussed in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.
To derive a dark matter limit from Fig.~\ref{fig:dms}, we assume the standard isothermal-WIMP-halo model~\cite{lewin,savage} with \mbox{$v_{\rm escape}$}=\SI{544}{\km\per\s}~\cite{smith}, \mbox{$v_0$}=\SI{220}{\km\per\s}~\cite{smith},\linebreak\
\mbox{$v_{\rm Earth}$}=\SI{232}{\km\per\s}~\cite{gelmini}, \mbox{$\rho_{\rm dm}$}=\SI{0.3}{\GeV\per\square\c\per\cubic\cm}~\cite{savage}. Given the null result shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dms}, we derive a \SI{90}{\percent} C.L. exclusion curve corresponding to the observation of \SI{2.3}{\ev} for spin-independent interactions, and we compare it in Fig.~\ref{fig:sensitivity} with limits from recent experiments.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{sensitivity.pdf}
\caption{Spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross section \SI{90}{\percent}~C.L. exclusion plot for the \mbox{DarkSide-50}\ atmospheric argon campaign (solid blue) compared with results from LUX~\cite{lux} (solid black), XENON100~\cite{xenon-100} (dashed black), PandaX~\cite{pandax-i} (dotted black), CDMS~\cite{cdms} (solid red), and WARP~\cite{warp} (dashed blue).
}
\label{fig:sensitivity}
\end{figure}
|
\section{\label{Intro} INTRODUCTION}
The physics of competing interactions and their effect on the ground state of magnetic systems has remained a strong focus of interest in the scientific community. The CeGe$_{2-x}$ compounds are prototypical systems that lie close to an instability between ferromagnetic (FM) and antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering. This is indicated by the near zero value of the Weiss temperature, $\theta$, and the proximity of the Ce-Ce distance to the critical value for the boundary between FM and AFM order \cite{Lin_2002}. Furthermore, the Sommerfeld coefficient evaluated in CeGe$_{2-x}$ ($\gamma >$ 100 mJ/mol K$^{2}$) is significantly enhanced and qualifies CeGe$_{2-x}$ as a moderate heavy fermion system. For all of these reasons, CeGe$_{2-x}$ has been the subject of many structural and magnetic investigations over the past five decades.\cite{Matthias_1958,Gladyshevskii_1959,Gladyshevskii_1964,Eremenko_1971,Eremenko_1972,Yashima_1982,Mori_1985,Gokhale_1989,Schobinger_1991,Lambert_1994,Venturini_1999,Lin_2002,Zan_2003,Shcherban_2009,Zhang_2013,Budko_2014}
The $R$Ge$_{2-x}$ compounds form over a range of Ge concentrations ($x$ $\approx$ 0 to 0.4). Samples with $x$ $>$ 0.3 crystallize in the tetragonal ThSi$_2$-type structure (space group $I4_1/amd$) whereas samples with higher Ge content ($x$ $<$ 0.3) crystallize in the orthorhombic GdSi$_2$-type structure (space group $Imma$) shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig1}. However, a recent comprehensive survey \cite{Zhang_2013} of $R$Ge$_{2-x}$ compounds illustrated how partial or full ordering of the Ge-site vacancies gives rise to a variety of superstructures. In particular for $x$ = $\frac{1}{4}$, the NdGe$_{2-x}$\cite{Venturini_1999}, PrGe$_{2-x}$\cite{Shcherban_2009} and SmGe$_{2-x}$\cite{Zhang_2013} compounds form in the vacancy-ordered $R_4$Ge$_7$ structure with (\textbf{\emph{ab}}) plane dimensions four times larger than the parent orthorhombic cell. For $R$ = La and Ce, on the other hand, no long-range ordering of the vacancies was found, although selected-area electron diffraction images showed evidence of regions of both commensurate and incommensurate modulations in the (\textbf{\emph{ab}}) plane of the orthorhombic structure.\cite{Zhang_2013}
The range of superstructures and, in some cases, the coexistence between the orthorhombic and two distinct tetragonal structures within the same sample\cite{Lambert_1994} has led to confusion and conflicting results concerning the structure and physical properties of this class of compounds, For polycrystalline CeGe$_{2-x}$ samples with $0 \leq x \leq$ 0.29 ($Imma$), an AFM transition with $T_{\rm{N}} \approx$ 7~K followed by a FM transition with $T_{\rm{C}} \approx$ 4~K was reported.\cite{Zan_2003} For lower Ge concentrations, $0.29 \leq x \leq$ 0.34 ($I4_1/amd$), only a single AFM transition with $T_{\rm{N}} \approx$ 7~K was found.\cite{Zan_2003} These results, however, were contradicted by later studies,\cite{Nakano_2005} where two magnetic transitions, AFM ordering at 6.7~K followed by a FM transition at 5.3~K, were found for tetragonal CeGe$_{1.66}$. Recently, an extensive study of the physical properties of single crystals of CeGe$_{1.76}$, including resistivity, heat capacity, dc susceptibility, thermal expansion, and thermoelectric power has been reported,\cite{Budko_2014} which found evidence of three, rather than two transitions at $\approx$ 7~K, $\approx$ 5~K and $\approx$ 4~K, respectively.
Here, we describe the results of neutron diffraction measurements of the magnetic ordering in CeGe$_{1.76}$ single crystals produced by the solution-growth technique\cite{Canfield_1992} which identify three magnetic transitions in this system. At $T_{\rm{N}}$ $\approx$ 7~K, there is a transition from a paramagnetic state to an incommensurate magnetic structure characterized by a magnetic propagation vector (0~0~$\tau$) with $\tau$ $\approx$ $\frac{1}{4}$ and the magnetic moment along the orthorhombic \emph{\textbf{a}} axis. Upon further cooling below $T_{\rm{LI}}$ $\approx$ 5~K, the magnetic structure locks in to a commensurate structure with $\tau$ = $\frac{1}{4}$ and the magnetic moment remains along the \emph{\textbf{a}} axis. Below $T^{\star}$ $\approx$ 4~K, where FM ordering has previously been suggested by magnetization measurements\cite{Zan_2003,Budko_2014}, we find additional half-integer and integer indexed magnetic peaks, consistent with a second commensurately ordered AFM state. However, given the small value of the ferromagnetically ordered moment of $\approx$0.2 $\mu_{\rm{B}}$/Ce reported in Ref.~\onlinecite{Budko_2014}, we were unable to verify the presence of a FM component.
\section{\label{ExpDetails} Experimental Details}
|
\section{Introduction}
The collective excitations of conduction electrons in noble metals have been of great interest for a very long time. These excitations known as
plasmons play an important role in the optical properties of metals. Through strong plasmon-photon interactions, metals can support important phenomena, such as focusing beyond the diffraction limit,\cite{npho_4_83} squeezing the light down to nanoscale,\cite{nmat_9_205} and large local field enhancement.\cite{nature_424_824} Due to these features, plasmons in metals give rise to various potential applications, and especially form a bridge between the worlds of photonics and electronics which commonly work at different length scales.\cite{science_311_189} Developments in nanofabrication technology have stimulated a series of plasmon-based devices like waveguides,\cite{npho_2_496} filters,\cite{nl_12_4349} switches,\cite{nl_12_4977} and modulators.\cite{nl_9_4403} In many respects, plasmonic devices open a door to a better performance in speed and size, holding potential for faster dynamics than electronic devices while still having a smaller size footprint than the common all-dielectric photonic devices. However, the inherent Joule loss in metals severely hampers many practical applications of plasmonics.\cite{nmat_11_573} Alternatively, attempts have already been made to study plasmonics in materials other than metals,\cite{lpr_4_795} for example doped semiconductors\cite{pssrrl_4_295} and superconductors.\cite{apl_97_111106, npho_6_259}
Here we study the plasmonic properties of graphene flakes. In its pristine form graphene is a semimetal, but with appropriate doping it is emerging as a promising plasmonic material as well.\cite{prb_75_205418, prb_80_245435, nl_11_3370, ijmpb_27_1341001,Abajo:2014}
The charge carriers in graphene obey linear energy dispersion at lower energies close to the Dirac points, thus resembling the linear dispersion of photons.\cite{nmat_6_183, rmp_81_109, rmp_83_407} Experimental investigations of carrier transport show that the mobility limited by impurity scattering can exceed 15.000~$\textrm{cm}^2/\textrm{V}\textrm{s}$ at room temperature,\cite{nmat_6_183} which gives the intrinsic loss in graphene one order of magnitude less than the noble metals. Despite relaxation due to phonon scattering,\cite{npho_7_394, nl_14_2907} graphene achieves superior plasmonic performance in propagation length and field enhancement.\cite{nature_438_197, nature_438_201} The carrier density in graphene may be adjusted by electrostatic gating, which results in actively tunable plasmons beyond structural variations in metals, as has already been demonstrated experimentally.\cite{nnan_6_630, acsnano_7_2388} With the typical doping levels, the plasmonic response is generally in the terahertz (THz) to mid-infrared frequency range, thus allowing new progress in THz technology.\cite{acsnano_8_1086}
Because of these attractive plasmonic properties, it is worth to comprehensively study the optical properties of graphene. Here the fundamental quantity is the dielectric function. For graphene systems, the dielectric function can be obtained within the framework of linear-response theory and the random-phase approximation (RPA).\cite{prb_75_205418, prb_80_245435, njp_8_318} For infinite graphene sheets, the derived two-dimensional (2D) dielectric function $\varepsilon(q,\omega)$ is a function of both frequency and momentum. This is different from common three-dimensional (3D) photonic materials which are usually well-described by frequency-dependent functions, while spatial dispersion is negligible for good dielectrics and most metals (beyond the nanoscale). Two common approximations in the modelling of graphene structures are to adopt the local-response approximation (applying the small-$q$ limit) and to model graphene as a very thin conducting film, yet preserving its 3D representation.\cite{acsnano_6_431, prl_108_047401} Using dielectric functions so obtained, one can solve Maxwell's equations for arbitrarily shaped flakes of nanostructured graphene. For very small flakes of characteristic dimension $R$ ($R\sim \lambda_F$ with $\lambda_F\sim 10$\,nm being the Fermi wavelength corresponding to a Fermi energy of $\mu=0.4$\,eV), the common assumption $qR\gg 1$ is jeopardized and nonlocal response turns important. In this regime, both semiclassical hydrodynamic\cite{prb_87_195424, arxiv_1407_3920} and full quantum approaches have been proposed,\cite{acsnano_6_1766, prl_110_187401} similar to those recently developed for metals.\cite{ncom_5_3809, ncom_5_3548}. While previous studies have mainly focused on the optically bright dipole mode, here we will illustrate that structured graphene is also rich on higher-order modes. Although the latter are typically not excited by far-field radiation, they may be probed by near-field optical spectroscopy and/or electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS).
In this article, we study plasmon properties in individual graphene nanostructures and in dimers of such structures by means of both classical and quantum methods. In particular, we consider triangles of graphene and bow-tie structures formed by such triangles, while our methods can also be applied to other geometries (as we show in the Supplemental Material).
In our classical electrodynamical considerations, we treat the nanostructures as 2D materials characterized by a smooth surface conductivity (employing the sheet conductivity derived for bulk graphene), and formulate a closed-form eigenvalue problem on a 2D domain. Numerical solutions in arbitrarily shaped geometries are enabled by finite-element calculations. By its nature, this classical approach neglects the atomic details of the graphene flake. Some aspects e.g. of zigzag termination can be effectively accounted for by additional conductive channels\cite{arxiv_1407_3920}, but we will not adopt such effective schemes in our classical calculations here.
In our quantum treatment, we employ a tight-binding description\cite{acsnano_6_1766, prl_110_187401} to account for the actual position of all atoms in the flake and in particular the edge atoms which have the possibility for either armchair or zigzag configurations (More configurations can arise from the mixture of these two configurations, but they will not be discussed here). In both the classical and the quantum calculations, multiple plasmon modes are extracted including dipole, multipole, and breathing modes. Their hybridized counterparts in bow-tie nanostructures are also discussed. We show that plasmon excitations and hybridizations are extremely sensitive to the electronic edge effects. This illustrates how quantum plasmonics can manifest itself in graphene structures with dimensions much exceeding the length scales for nonlocal response in individual noble-metal nanoparticles.\cite{ncom_5_3809}
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Classical Description}
Modern computational electromagnetics is commonly optimized to explore the interaction of radiation with matter in a three-dimensional space, so that two-dimensional material problems are typically not efficiently addressed with existing numerical schemes. For example, a pragmatic approach is to simply mimic the atomically thin graphene layer with a homogenous dielectric film of a finite, yet small thickness $t$. This assumed 3D film has an effective bulk permittivity, $\varepsilon(\omega)=\varepsilon_0+i\sigma(\omega)/(\omega t)$ with $\sigma(\omega)$ denoting the surface conductivity as obtained from e.g.\ the local-response limit of the RPA.\cite{acsnano_6_431, prl_108_047401} Evidently, the effective thickness $t$ should be chosen sufficiently small compared with all other characteristic dimensions, yet sufficiently thick that meshing stays computationally feasible and the numerical problem remains tractable. Optimizing this tradeoff does not necessarily give an efficient method. Alternatively, in nanostructures with high symmetry, e.g.\ in ribbons\cite{prb_84_161407, prb_85_081405} or disks\cite{prb_33_5221,arxiv_1407_3920}, one may take advantage of modal expansion methods -- which, however, is not an appealing choice for more general structures. In the following, we develop a 2D finite-element approach to efficiently solve the electromagnetic problem self-consistently for graphene in terms of the electric potential and induced charge in general structural configurations.
With the typical sub-eV doping levels, plasmonic resonances typically occur in the mid-infrared regime. The associated free-space wavelength ( $\sim\!10\:\mu\mathrm{m}$) is then much larger than the geometrical extent of the hosting graphene nanostructures ($\sim\! 10-100\:\mathrm{nm}$). For such problems the electrostatic approximation is excellent. As a computationally very attractive consequence, the electric and constitutive response is governed by two coupled scalar equations for the potential $\phi$ and the induced density $\rho$. In particular, we note that the total potential $\phi(\bm r)$ is governed by Coulomb's law
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coulombslaw}
\phi(\bm r) =\phi_{\rm ext}(\bm r)+\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_{\rm s}L}\int_{2\textrm{D}}\mathrm{d}\bm r^\prime\frac{\rho(\bm r^\prime)}{|\bm r/L-\bm r^\prime/L|},
\end{equation}
where $\phi_{\rm ext}(\bm r)$ denotes the external potential, $L$ is an auxiliary quantity such as the feature length of the structure which make the surface integral dimensionless, $\rho(\bm r^\prime)$ the induced surface charge density, $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{s}}=(\varepsilon_{\rm above}+\varepsilon_{\rm below})/2$ the averaged dielectric constant of the medium above and below graphene. For simplicity, we only consider freely suspended graphene, so we will use $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{s}}=1$ throughout the remaining part of the paper.
The other scalar equation is obtained by inserting the constitutive equation $\bm J_{2\mathrm{D}} = -\sigma(\omega)\nabla_{2\textrm{D}}\phi(\bm r)$ into the continuity equation $i\omega\rho(\bm r)=\nabla\cdot\bm J_{2\mathrm{D}}$, which for $\bm r$ restricted to the plane of the graphene structure gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:constitutiveEQ}
\rho(\bm r) =\frac{i\sigma(\omega)}{\omega}\nabla_{2\textrm{D}}^2\phi(\bm r),
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
with $\nabla_{2\mathrm{D}}^2$ the 2D Laplace operator. Equation~\eqref{eq:constitutiveEQ} is solved subject to the assumption of charge neutrality, i.e.\ $\int_{2\mathrm{D}}\mathrm{d}\bm r\: \rho(\bm r)=0$, implying that $\hat{\bm n}\cdot \nabla_{2\mathrm{D}}\phi(\bm r)=0$ on the boundary of the domain, with $\hat{\bm n}$ denoting the in-plane surface normal.
The density $\rho$ in \eqref{eq:constitutiveEQ} is restricted to the graphene plane.
It may be obtained from a closed-form equation by eliminating the potential in \eqref{eq:constitutiveEQ} with the help of \eqref{eq:coulombslaw} (see Methods for additional details).\cite{prb_86_125450}. Once $\rho$ within the graphene plane is thus obtained, the potential $\phi$ in the entire space can be evaluated via~\eqref{eq:coulombslaw}.
Within the framework of the finite-element method (FEM), both equations~(\ref{eq:coulombslaw}) and (\ref{eq:constitutiveEQ}) can be recast as matrix equations. Concretely, by denoting the FEM-discretized potentials and induced charge densities by vectors, we find the equations $\bm \phi= \bm \phi_{\rm ext}+(4\pi\varepsilon_sL)^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{A}\bm\rho$ and $\bm \rho =i\sigma(\omega)\omega^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{B}\bm\phi $, which we combine to get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:matrixform}
\left[\mathbf{1}-f(\omega)\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}\right]\bm\rho
=i\sigma(\omega)\omega^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{B}\bm\phi_{\rm ext},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are geometry-dependent square matrices representing the Coulomb integral in Eq.~(1a) and the Laplacian in the Poisson equation~(1b) [see Methods part below for more details], while $f(\omega)=i\sigma(\omega)/(4\pi\varepsilon_sL\omega)$ is a geometry-independent scalar.\cite{acsnano_7_2388} Finally, the matrix in the square brackets on the left-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixform}) represents the effective frequency-dependent dielectric function $\varepsilon^{\textsc{cla}}(\omega)$. In the absence of an external potential ($\bm\phi_{\rm ext}=0$), Eq.~\eqref{eq:matrixform} becomes an eigenvalue problem for the matrix $\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}$. The resulting eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ are associated with plasmon frequencies $\omega_n$ through $f(\omega_{n})=\lambda_{n}^{-1}$, and the associated eigenvectors are induced charge densities ${\bm\rho}_{n}$ in a finite-element representation. The corresponding eigenpotentials are denoted as ${\bm\phi}_{n}$, and within the graphene plane they can be computed directly as ${\bm\phi}_{n}=\mathbf{A}{\bm \rho}_n$. Following this classical approach, all plasmonic eigenmodes for a specific structure can be obtained as the solution of a single eigenvalue problem. This constitutes an attractive computational approach that can give direct insight in the classical plasmonic eigenstates that one would be able to probe with various experimental techniques.
\subsection{Quantum Mechanical Tight-Binding Description}
In a quantum mechanical formalism, there are two key computational components: (i) electronic band structure, and (ii) determination of response functions. The graphene $\pi$ and $\pi^*$ bands (valence and conduction bands respectively) originating from the carbon $p_z$ orbitals are well separated in energy from the four $\sigma$ bands arising from $sp^2$ hybridization. The dynamics of low-energy excitations in graphene are well-described by inclusion of just the $\pi$ bands, which can be determined by a simple tight-binding model in a nearest-neighbor approximation.\cite{pr_71_622, prb_66_035412}
Specifically, a graphene nanostructure with $N$ carbon atoms results in an $N\times N$ matrix representation of the tight-binding Hamiltonian with elements determined by the $p_z$ orbital hopping integral. A direct diagonalization of the Hamiltonian yields $N$ eigenvalues and eigenvectors, corresponding to the electronic energy levels and the wave functions, respectively. The non-interacting density response function, or polarizability matrix $\mathbf{\chi^0}(\omega)$ is then built from the electronic states whose elements are given by \cite{prb_75_205418, prb_80_245435, njp_8_318}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rpa}
\chi^0_{ll^\prime}(\omega) = 2\sum_{jj^\prime}(f_j-f_{j^\prime})\frac{\psi_{j^\prime l}^*\psi_{jl}\psi_{jl^\prime}^*\psi_{j^\prime l^\prime}} {\epsilon_j-\epsilon_{j^\prime}-\hbar(\omega+i\tau^{-1})},
\end{equation}
where $f_j=1/[\text{exp}((\epsilon_j-\mu)/k_{\textsc{b}}T)+1]$ denotes the Fermi--Dirac distribution function associated with the state with energy $\epsilon_j$ and wave function $\psi_{jl}$ ($l$ the labels of the carbon atoms), while the factor 2 accounts for spin degeneracy. In both classical (or called semi-classical due to the conductivity including Fermi--Dirac distribution function) and quantum calculations, states are populated in accordance with a Fermi energy of $\mu=0.4\:\text{eV}$ and a temperature $T=300\:\text{K}$. We phenomenologically account for relaxation losses through $\hbar\tau^{-1}=6\:\mathrm{meV}$, commensurate with experimental data at the considered doping level\cite{science_341_620}. We use an efficient method to compute the non-interacting density response matrix $\mathbf{\chi^0}(\omega)$, based on Hilbert and fast Fourier transforms (see Ref.~\citenum{acsnano_6_1766} and Methods section below).
Including the effects of a self-consistent Hartree interaction, i.e. within the RPA, the interacting polarizability is given by~\cite{njp_8_318}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\chi^{\textsc{rpa}}}(\omega)=\frac{1}{1-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{\chi^0}(\omega)}\cdot\mathbf{\chi^0}(\omega),
\end{equation}
with the Coulomb interaction $V_{ll^\prime}\propto1/|\bm r_l -\bm r_{l^\prime}|$ for $l\neq l^\prime$, and a self-interaction of 0.58 atomic units at $l=l^\prime$. \cite{acsnano_6_1766} The poles of $\mathbf{\chi^{\textsc{rpa}}}(\omega)$ or equivalently the zeros of the denominator
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\varepsilon^{\textsc{rpa}}}(\omega) = \mathbf{1}-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{\chi^0}(\omega)
\end{equation}
give the plasmon frequencies. Since $\mathbf{\varepsilon^{\textsc{rpa}}}(\omega)$ is a matrix, we follow Ref.~\citenum{prb_86_245129} and look for the eigenvalues $\varepsilon_n(\omega)$ of the matrix which are approaching zero. In practice there is also loss, for example due to $\hbar\tau^{-1}$ in $\mathbf{\chi^0}(\omega)$. For real-valued frequencies the $\varepsilon_n(\omega)$ are therefore complex-valued, with imaginary parts denoting the plasmon peak broadening. On the real frequency axis it is therefore more accurate to define plasmon frequencies from the local maximum of $-\text{Im}[\varepsilon_n^{-1}(\omega)]$.\cite{prb_86_245129, prb_87_235433}
Numerically, the eigenvalues $\varepsilon_n(\omega)$ are obtained by diagonalizing the RPA dielectric function $\varepsilon^{\textsc{rpa}}(\omega)$ for each frequency. An $N$-atom nanostructure entails $N$ distinct eigenvalues. Out of these we focus in the following on eigenvalues with largest and second-largest value of $-\text{Im}[\varepsilon_n^{-1}(\omega)]$. Their corresponding eigenvectors are the induced charge densities $\bm{\rho}_n$, and similarly the eigenpotentials $\bm{\phi}_n$ can be obtained by performing coulomb integral. For comparison with the quantum treatment, we also calculate the eigenvalue loss spectrum in the classical framework by carrying out diagonalization of the classical effective dielectric function $\varepsilon^{\textsc{cla}}(\omega)$.
\subsection{Plasmonic Eigenmodes in Individual Triangles}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig1_singlespectrum.eps}
\caption{The eigenvalue loss spectrum $-\text{Im}[\varepsilon_{n}^{-1}(\omega)]$ in equilateral graphene triangles of sidelength $20\:\text{nm}$. Each peak defines a plasmon mode (labeled by $n=1,2,3,\ldots$ in order of decreasing imaginary part), and the coincidence of the maximum (blue solid) and the second maximum (red dotted) indicates the energy degeneracy. Results of the quantum tight-binding method in (a) for armchair edges, and in (b) for zigzag edges, while classical results are given in (c).}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
The calculated eigenvalue loss spectrum for 20~nm graphene equilateral triangles is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:1}. In the quantum description we distinguish between zigzag and armchair edge terminations, see Supporting Information. Multiple plasmon peaks are visible in the considered frequency regime. Additionally, at several frequencies, the two considered loss functions (largest and second largest value of $-\text{Im}[\varepsilon_n^{-1}(\omega)]$) exhibit nearly identical values, while at other frequencies one can be resonant while the other one is not. This is in full accordance with group-theoretical considerations for our structure with $m$-fold rotational symmetry where the $C_{m}$ point group leads to either non-degenerate eigenstates or pairs of eigenstates with a double degeneracy\cite{Sakoda:2005}. The degeneracy can be explored further by considering the eigenmodes, expressed e.g. by the in-plane potential, and in particular their symmetries. In the classical approach, the eigenmodes appear as eigenvectors of the matrix $\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixform}).
Considering the two lowest eigenstates causing the resonance around 0.3\,eV in Figure~\ref{fig:1}(c), we numerically find the eigenfrequencies to be 0.2964~eV and 0.2963~eV. The small energy difference of 0.1~meV illustrates the numerical accuracy (symmetry breaking) associated with the fact that our finite-element mesh does not comply with the threefold rotational symmetry of the graphene triangle. In Figure~\ref{fig:2} we show corresponding in-plane potential distributions of the twelve lowest-energy eigenmodes, again calculated in the classical framework. The eigenmodes are responsible for the primary features of Figure~\ref{fig:1}c; specifically, the loss-function exhibits peaks at the resonance energies of the eigenmodes. The peaks are each assigned a label ($n=1,2,3,\ldots$), corresponding to the eigenmode enumeration in Figure~\ref{fig:2}. A one-to-one correspondence is evident and whenever the spectrum in Figure~\ref{fig:1} suggests a pair of degenerate states, the corresponding modes in Figure~\ref{fig:2} support that they are indeed pairs of orthogonal and degenerate states. The energy degeneracies exhibited here are a direct consequence of the symmetries of the considered nanostructure, as required by group theory.\cite{jpcc_116_14591}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig2_clapattern.eps}
\caption{In-plane potentials ${\bm\phi}_{n}$ for the twelve lowest-energy plasmon modes calculated in the classical approach, from the eigenvectors of the matrix pair $\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixform}).}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
The plasmon modes 1 through 8, being doubly degenerate, are either symmetric or antisymmetric with respect to the mirror symmetry plane. The dipole modes, 1 and 2, with the electric field being polarized orthogonal to each other, are of particular interest due to their strong coupling to optical fields. They can be excited directly by far-field techniques, and the plasmonic local field enhancement is concentrated at the vertices. The modes 3 through 8 penetrate significantly into the bulk, and can be considered as hybridized modes originating from interaction between dipole and bulk modes, because the patterns at the vertices are similar to dipole modes 1 and 2; in addition, the modes $3 - 6$ have very small net dipole momenta, and can couple to far-field radiation. The modes $9 - 12$ are no longer doubly degenerate, and exhibit threefold rotational symmetry around the center. Although optically dark, these modes are still detectable by suitable near-field techniques. As an example, in an EELS experiment the breathing mode 12 would exhibit the strongest coupling to a nanometer-sized electron beam if this beam were passing through the center of the graphene triangle.\cite{nl_12_5780}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig3_aczzpattern.eps}
\caption{In-plane potential $\bm{\phi}_n$ extracted from the eigenvalue loss spectrum calculations. (a) The lowest 8 plasmon modes in an armchair triangle; (b) the corresponding plasmon modes in a zigzag triangle. }
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
Having described our classical results for graphene triangles, let us now turn to our corresponding tight-binding quantum results. In the quantum description, we calculate the eigenvalue loss spectrum, identify the plasmon mode eigenfrequencies, and then extract the corresponding eigenmodes.
Due to the geometrical symmetry, the plasmon eigenmodes should exhibit the same energy degeneracy features as the equilateral triangles in classical calculations, for instance in Figure panels~\ref{fig:1}(a) and ~\ref{fig:1}(b) several doubly degenerate plasmon modes occur. Figure~\ref{fig:3} shows the wave patterns from the quantum calculations, corresponding to the peak labeling in Figure~\ref{fig:1}(a) and \ref{fig:1}(b). We observe that for the armchair case the modes of the same type are blueshifted when compared to their classical counterparts. On the contrary, zigzag termination cause lower plasmon energies with a net redshift compared to the classical case. As an example, the eigenfrequencies of dipole modes are $0.326\:\text{eV}$, $0.275\:\text{eV}$, and $0.296\:\text{eV}$ for the armchair, zigzag, and classical cases, respectively. The associated mode patterns are only slightly different, yet it is clearly seen from the dipole modes, that in zigzag-terminated triangles the mode spreads much more into the bulk while for armchair termination the mode concentrates at the vertices in the same manner as for the classical results. This trend becomes even more evident in the modes 3 and 4 of which the patterns show no hot spots at the vertices. The somewhat different and unusual mode behavior for zigzag-terminated triangles is due to the electronic edge states which do not occur for armchair termination (see Supplementary Figure S3 for additional details). Similar edge-state effects on plasmon excitations have been discussed for graphene ribbons\cite{acsnano_6_1766} and disks\cite{prl_110_187401} and recently their importance has been illustrated explicitly through analytical calculations.\cite{arxiv_1407_3920}
\subsection{Plasmon Hybridization in Bow-Tie Triangles}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig4_bowtiespectrum.eps}
\caption{The eigenvalue loss spectrum $-\text{Im}\varepsilon_n(\omega)^{-1}$ in graphene bow-tie triangles with gap width $0.5\:\text{nm}$. Results obtained from quantum calculations in armchair triangles (a) and in zigzag triangles (b) are compared with classical calculations in (c).}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
Plasmon hybridization is of both fundamental and practical importance.\cite{science_302_419, nl_4_899} Hybridization through tuning of the gap distance can be used achieve better performance through careful design, such as the field enhancement in dimers\cite{nl_9_887} and the sensing capabilities in Fano structures.\cite{nl_8_3983}
Here, we study the plasmon hybridization in graphene bow-tie triangles, using the same classical and quantum methods as for individual triangles above. Figure~\ref{fig:4} shows the calculated eigenvalue loss spectra for a gap width of $0.5\:\text{nm}$. There are four modes ($n=1,2,3,4$) in the classical calculations, originating from the four (accounting degeneracy) low-energy dipole modes of the two un-coupled triangles. The hybridization process is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:5} with a focus on dipole modes, where energies are given with higher precision in order to display the tiny energy shifts associated with the hybridization. We find that each dipole mode in the individual triangles will split into two modes in the bow-tie triangles forming either bonding or antibonding states. The $x$-polarized dipole ($0.2964\:\text{eV}$, dipole aligned parallel to bow-tie axis) exhibits large energy splitting, and the corresponding bonding (antisymmetrically coupled) mode has lower energy. However, for the $y$-polarized dipole ($0.2963\:\text{eV}$, dipole aligned perpendicular to bow-tie axis) the reduced mode-overlap causes a very small energy splitting. In both cases, the bonding modes are optically active with a net dipole polarization along $x$ and $y$ direction, respectively.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig5_dipolehybridization.eps}
\caption{A schematic diagram of the dipole mode hybridization in classical calculations. There is a larger energy splitting for $x$-polarized dipole, and the antisymmetrically coupled modes have lower energy for both polarizations. Here the gap distance is 0.5 nm.}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
We find a very similar behavior in the armchair-terminated bow-tie triangles shown in Figure~\ref{fig:4}a, but with smaller energy splitting, which originates from a weaker mode overlap and weaker coupling strength when compared to the classical calculations. In the zigzag-terminated bow-tie triangles (see Figure~\ref{fig:4}b), the coupling strength is even weaker and the $x$-polarized dipole exhibits no appreciable energy splitting when compared to the line width of the uncoupled resonances. As a result of this approximate degeneracy, the coupled system exhibits a single broad peak with all four modes merged together. In contrast to the dipole modes, the higher-order plasmon modes show a weak lifting of degeneracy for antisymmetrical and symmetrical states. We mention that the hybridization picture given in Figure~\ref{fig:5} is very general, also being satisfied in quantum calculations but with different eigenfrequencies (hybridization diagrams not shown).
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{fig6_dipolegapfunction.eps}
\caption{The eigenfrequencies of the hybridized modes as a function of gap width for $x$-polarized dipoles in classical calculations and armchair triangles, respectively. The two dotted lines ($0.296\:\text{eV}$ and $0.324\:\text{eV}$) are the dipole eigenfrequencies associated with the individual triangles.}
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure}
The energy splitting or coupling strength depends on the gap width of the bow-tie structures, which can be investigated in the hybridization of $x$-polarized dipoles. We calculate the eigenfrequencies of the hybridized plasmon modes as a function of the width gap, and show the results in Figure~\ref{fig:6}. The modes in zigzag triangles exhibit very small energy splitting, so we do not show them here. Both in the classical calculations and armchair-terminated triangles, the energy splitting decreases as the gap width increases. The decrease is most pronounced for gap widths below $4\:\text{nm}$, while the variation is weaker for larger separations.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{fig7_clabowtie.eps}
\caption{Wave patterns for selected twelve plasmon modes calculated from the eigenvectors of the matrix pair $\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:matrixform}).}
\label{fig:7}
\end{figure}
We note that the hybridization of other dimer plasmon modes (other than dipole modes) can be analyzed with a similar result. Generally speaking, the eigenfrequencies of the resulting hybridized modes are decided by two factors: symmetry and coupling strength. Specifically, the antisymmetrically coupled modes (no matter which polarization) have lower energy and modes with less field concentration at the gap region cause weaker coupling and consequently exhibit smaller energy splitting. As a further evidence for this qualitative characterization, we show in Figure~\ref{fig:7} the selected twelve plasmon modes from classical calculations, corresponding to the peaks shown in Figure~\ref{fig:4}c. As compared with Figure~\ref{fig:2}, they can be understood as linear combinations of the wave patterns in individual structures. Likewise, it is straightforward to envision the wave patterns in armchair and zigzag bow-tie triangles based on the uncoupled modes from Figure~\ref{fig:3}.
\section{Conclusions}
In this article, we have considered and compared classical and quantum aspects of plasmonic eigenmodes in graphene triangular nanostructures. The 2D FEM-approach for calculation of the classical electromagnetic response represents a numerically highly efficient method for electrodynamics in general 2D morphologies of graphene structures in the electrostatic limit (see Supplementary Information for the calculation in hexagonal structures). The simple eigenvalue approach offers a direct pathway to extraction of all plasmonic eigenmodes, not limited to just the optically active, but including also dark modes and highly symmetric breathing modes. The quantum method adopted here is useful for investigating the quantum effects in plasmon excitations of smaller graphene structures, and it offers additional insight into the importance of the particular edge-termination of the underlying atomic lattice. By a sweep of the excitation energy, our calculation of the eigenvalue loss spectra enables direct identification of all plasmonic modes also in the quantum treatment.
We have applied both methods to equilateral triangles, of $20\:\mathrm{nm}$ sidelength, both in isolated and in bow-tie configurations. For the isolated nanotriangle we find that the plasmonic response of armchair-terminated triangles is qualitatively similar to the classical case, albeit with a significant and consistent blueshift of all resonances due to nonlocal response. Conversely, the response of zigzag-terminated triangles exhibits several significant differences from its classical counterpart. As a consequence of the existence of localized electronic edge states near zigzag edges, the eigenmodes extend further into the bulk, and are less intense at the vertices. Additionally, we observe a redshift and an pronounced readjustment of the loss-function intensity relative to the classical case.
In the bow-tie configuration we observe plasmon hybridization and associated eigenmode energy splitting, of varying degree depending on treatment; the largest splitting is observed in the classical approach, and the smallest in zigzag structures. Nevertheless, the effects of hybridization are qualitatively similar across the considered cases, with the antisymmetric hybridized modes exhibiting a lowered energy, and with the coupling strength - and associated energy splitting - decreasing when the constituent eigenmodes exhibit lower field intensities in the gap region.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Classical Calculations}
The classical calculations are performed on the 2D graphene surface. We generate the triangular meshes within the graphene domain (see Supplementary materials for details), and approximate the integration of Eq.~\eqref{eq:coulombslaw} by summing all the elements. For example, the $j$th element has three vertices $l$, $m$, and $n$, and the area is $s_j$, and thus Eq.~(1a) becomes
\begin{equation}
\phi(\bm r) =\sum_{j}\phi_{\rm ext}\left(\bm r_c\right)+\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_{\rm s}L}\sum_{j}s_j\frac{\rho(\bm r_c)}{|\bm r/L-\bm r_c/L|},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\bm r_c = \frac{\bm r_l+\bm r_m+\bm r_n}{3}, \\
&\rho(\bm r_c) = \frac{\rho_l+\rho_m+\rho_n}{3}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We can obtain the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ from Eq.~(6). Instead of assembling matrices $\mathbf{B}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:constitutiveEQ} directly, we use an idea behind FEM and multiply by $\phi_j^*(\bm r)$ and perform the integral, giving
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\int_{2\mathrm{D}} \! \mathrm{d}\bm r\:\phi_j^*(\bm r)\rho(\bm r) &=-\frac{\sigma(\omega)}{i\omega}\int_{2\mathrm{D}} \! \mathrm{d}\bm r\:\phi_j^*(\bm r)\nabla^2\phi(\bm r) \\
&=\frac{\sigma(\omega)}{i\omega}\int_{2\mathrm{D}} \! \mathrm{d}\bm r\:\nabla\phi_j^*(\bm r)\cdot\nabla\phi(\bm r),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the boundary condition $\hat{n}\cdot \nabla_{2\mathrm{D}}\phi(\bm r)=0$ has been applied at the second equality sign, and where $\phi_j(\bm r)$ is a linear test function at the $j$th element with $j$ running over all elements. Within a local coordinate system $(\eta, \xi)$, the position and wave function can be expressed as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\bm r = (1-\eta-\xi)\bm r_l+\eta\bm r_m+\xi\bm r_n, \\
&\phi(\bm r) = (1-\eta-\xi)\phi_l+\eta\phi_m+\xi\phi_n,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
and after straightforward algebra we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\nabla_{2D}\phi(\bm r) &= \left[(\phi_m -\phi_l)\frac{y_n-y_l}{2s_j}-(\phi_n-\phi_l)\frac{y_m-y_l}{2s_j}\right]\hat{e}_x \\
&+\left[-(\phi_m -\phi_l)\frac{x_n-x_l}{2s_j}+(\phi_n-\phi_l)\frac{x_m-x_l}{2s_j}\right]\hat{e}_y.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Finally, in each element the left-hand side of Eq.~(8) yields
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{B}_L=\frac{s_j}{12}
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
2 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 2 \end{array} \right],
\end{equation}
and the right-hand side yields
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{B}_R =\frac{1}{4s_j}
\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
|\bm r_m-\bm r_n|^2 & (\bm r_m -\bm r_n)\cdot(\bm r_n-\bm r_l) & (\bm r_m -\bm r_n)\cdot(\bm r_l-\bm r_m) \\
(\bm r_m -\bm r_n)\cdot(\bm r_n-\bm r_l) & |\bm r_n-\bm r_l|^2 & (\bm r_n -\bm r_l)\cdot(\bm r_l-\bm r_m) \\
(\bm r_m -\bm r_n)\cdot(\bm r_l-\bm r_m) & (\bm r_n -\bm r_l)\cdot(\bm r_l-\bm r_m) & |\bm r_l-\bm r_m|^2
\end{array} \right].
\end{equation}
The final matrix is given by $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{B}_L^{-1}\mathbf{B}_R$. We model the bulk conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ of graphene by its well-known local-response form \cite{jap_103_064302,epjb_56_281}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sigma(\omega)=&\frac{ie^2}{\pi\hbar}\frac{ k_{\textsc{b}}T}{\hbar(\omega+i\tau^{-1})}\bigg[\frac{\epsilon_{\textsc{f}}}{k_{\textsc{b}}T}
+2\ln\big(e^{-\epsilon_{\textsc{f}}/k_{\textsc{b}}T}+1\big)\bigg] \\
&+\frac{e^2}{4\hbar}\bigg[\theta(\hbar\omega-2\epsilon_{\textsc{f}})
+\frac{i}{\pi}\ln\bigg|\frac{\hbar\omega-2\epsilon_{\textsc{f}}}{\hbar\omega+2\epsilon_{\textsc{f}}}\bigg|\bigg],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with the first and second terms due to intra- and interband dynamics, respectively.
\subsection{Quantum Calculations}
The tight-binding Hamiltonian for the $\pi$-electrons is constructed by considering only nearest-neighbor interactions with a hopping strength $t = 2.8\:\text{eV}$. The associated Hamiltonian matrix-representation is real-valued and symmetric, giving rise to real eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
The direct evaluation of the noninteracting density response matrix $\chi^0(\omega)$ of Eq.~\eqref{eq:rpa} requires significant computational resources and time, amounting to $\sim\!\! N^4$ operations, which must additionally be repeated for each distinct frequency. Significant reduction of computational complexity, to $\sim\!\! N^3$, can be achieved with the aid of Hilbert and fast Fourier transform (FFT), following a procedure developed in density-functional theory (DFT),\cite{prb_74_035101, prb_61_7172} and recently implemented in Ref.~\citenum{acsnano_6_1766} for the tight-binding model of graphene considered here. We adopt the same technique in our computations.
Furthermore, consideration of the symmetry of $\chi^0(\omega)$, i.e.$\chi^0_{ll^\prime}(\omega)=\chi^0_{l^\prime l}(\omega)$, leads to an additional reduction of the computational requirements.
\begin{acknowledgement}
We thank Wei Yan, Xiaolong Zhu, and Nicolas Stenger for stimulating discussions. The Center for Nanostructured Graphene is sponsored by the Danish National Research Foundation, Project DNRF58. This work was also supported by the Danish Council for Independent Research--Natural Sciences, Project 1323-00087.
\end{acknowledgement}
\section{References and Notes}
\mciteErrorOnUnknownfalse
\providecommand{\latin}[1]{#1}
\providecommand*\mcitethebibliography{\thebibliography}
\csname @ifundefined\endcsname{endmcitethebibliography}
{\let\endmcitethebibliography\endthebibliography}{}
\begin{mcitethebibliography}{58}
\providecommand*\natexlab[1]{#1}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstSublistMode[1]{}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm[2]{}
\providecommand*\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
{\def\unskip.}{\unskip.}}
\providecommand*\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse
{\let\unskip.}\relax}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct[3]{}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd[3]{}
\providecommand*\unskip.}{}
\mciteSetBstSublistMode{f}
\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm{subitem}{(\alph{mcitesubitemcount})}
\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd
{\mcitemaxwidthsubitemform\space}
{\relax}
{\relax}
\bibitem[Gramotnev and Bozhevolnyi(2010)Gramotnev, and Bozhevolnyi]{npho_4_83}
Gramotnev,~D.~K.; Bozhevolnyi,~S.~I. Plasmonics Beyond the Diffraction Limit.
\emph{Nature Photon.} \textbf{2010}, \emph{4}, 83--91\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Atwater and Polman(2010)Atwater, and Polman]{nmat_9_205}
Atwater,~H.~A.; Polman,~A. Plasmonics for Improved Photovoltaic Devices.
\emph{Nature Mater.} \textbf{2010}, \emph{9}, 205--213\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Barnes \latin{et~al.}(2003)Barnes, Dereux, and
Ebbesen]{nature_424_824}
Barnes,~W.~L.; Dereux,~A.; Ebbesen,~T.~W. Surface Plasmon Subwavelength Optics.
\emph{Nature} \textbf{2003}, \emph{424}, 824--830\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Ozbay(2006)]{science_311_189}
Ozbay,~E. Plasmonics: Merging Photonics and Electronics at Nanoscale
Dimensions. \emph{Science} \textbf{2006}, \emph{311}, 189--193\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Oulton \latin{et~al.}(2008)Oulton, Sorger, Genov, Pile, and
X.]{npho_2_496}
Oulton,~R.~F.; Sorger,~V.~J.; Genov,~D.~A.; Pile,~D. F.~P.; Zhang, X. A Hybrid
Plasmonic Waveguide for Subwavelength Confinement and Long-Range Propagation.
\emph{Nature Photon.} \textbf{2008}, \emph{2}, 496--500\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Yokogawa \latin{et~al.}(2012)Yokogawa, Burgos, and
Atwater]{nl_12_4349}
Yokogawa,~S.; Burgos,~S.~P.; Atwater,~H.~A. Plasmonic Color Filters for CMOS
Image Sensor Applications. \emph{Nano Lett.} \textbf{2012}, \emph{12},
4349--4354\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Chang \latin{et~al.}(2012)Chang, Lassiter, Swanglap, Sobhani, Khatua,
Nordlander, Halas, and Link]{nl_12_4977}
Chang,~W.-S.; Lassiter,~J.~B.; Swanglap,~P.; Sobhani,~H.; Khatua,~S.;
Nordlander,~P.; Halas,~N.~J.; Link,~S. A Plasmonic Fano Switch. \emph{Nano
Lett.} \textbf{2012}, \emph{12}, 4977--4982\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Cai \latin{et~al.}(2009)Cai, White, and Brongersma]{nl_9_4403}
Cai,~W.~S.; White,~J.~S.; Brongersma,~M.~L. Compact, High-Speed and
Power-Efficient Electrooptic Plasmonic Modulators. \emph{Nano Lett.}
\textbf{2009}, \emph{9}, 4403--4411\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Hess \latin{et~al.}(2012)Hess, Pendry, Maier, Oulton, Hamm, and
Tsakmakidis]{nmat_11_573}
Hess,~O.; Pendry,~J.~B.; Maier,~S.~A.; Oulton,~R.~F.; Hamm,~J.~M.;
Tsakmakidis,~K.~L. Active Nanoplasmonic Metamaterials. \emph{Nature Mater.}
\textbf{2012}, \emph{11}, 573--584\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[West \latin{et~al.}(2010)West, Ishii, Naik, Emani, Shalaev, and
Boltasseva]{lpr_4_795}
West,~P.~R.; Ishii,~S.; Naik,~G.~V.; Emani,~N.~K.; Shalaev,~V.~M.;
Boltasseva,~A. Searching for Better Plasmonic Materials. \emph{Laser Photon.
Rev.} \textbf{2010}, \emph{4}, 795--808\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Naik and Boltasseva(2010)Naik, and Boltasseva]{pssrrl_4_295}
Naik,~G.~V.; Boltasseva,~A. Semiconductors for Plasmonics and Metamaterials.
\emph{Phys. Status Solidi RRL} \textbf{2010}, \emph{4}, 295--297\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tsiatmas \latin{et~al.}(2010)Tsiatmas, Buckingham, Fedotov, Wang,
Chen, de~Groot, and Zheludev]{apl_97_111106}
Tsiatmas,~A.; Buckingham,~A.~R.; Fedotov,~V.~A.; Wang,~S.; Chen,~Y.;
de~Groot,~P. A.~J.; Zheludev,~N.~I. Superconducting Plasmonics and
Extraordinary Transmission. \emph{Appl. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{2010},
\emph{97}, 111106\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tassin \latin{et~al.}(2012)Tassin, Koschny, Kafesaki, and
Soukoulis]{npho_6_259}
Tassin,~P.; Koschny,~T.; Kafesaki,~M.; Soukoulis,~C.~M. A Comparison of
Graphene, Superconductors and Metals as Conductors for Metamaterials and
Plasmonics. \emph{Nature Photon.} \textbf{2012}, \emph{6}, 259--264\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Hwang and Das~Sarma(2007)Hwang, and Das~Sarma]{prb_75_205418}
Hwang,~E.~H.; Das~Sarma,~S. Dielectric Function, Screening, and Plasmons in
Two-Dimensional Graphene. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2007}, \emph{75},
205418\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Jablan \latin{et~al.}(2009)Jablan, Buljan, and Solja\ifmmode
\check{c}\else \v{c}\fi{}i\ifmmode~\acute{c}\else \'{c}\fi{}]{prb_80_245435}
Jablan,~M.; Buljan,~H.; Solja\ifmmode \check{c}\else
\v{c}\fi{}i\ifmmode~\acute{c}\else \'{c}\fi{},~M. Plasmonics in Graphene at
Infrared Frequencies. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2009}, \emph{80},
245435\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Koppens \latin{et~al.}(2011)Koppens, Chang, and Garc\'{i}a~de
Abajo]{nl_11_3370}
Koppens,~F. H.~L.; Chang,~D.~E.; Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Graphene
Plasmonics: A Platform for Strong Light-Matter Interaction. \emph{Nano Lett.}
\textbf{2011}, \emph{11}, 3370--3377\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Bludov \latin{et~al.}(2013)Bludov, Ferreira, Peres, and
Vasilevskiy]{ijmpb_27_1341001}
Bludov,~Y.~V.; Ferreira,~A.; Peres,~N. M.~R.; Vasilevskiy,~M.~I. A Primer on
Surface Plasmon-Polaritons in Graphene. \emph{Int. J. Mod. Phys. B}
\textbf{2013}, \emph{27}, 1341001\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Garc\'{\i}a~de Abajo(2014)]{Abajo:2014}
Garc\'{\i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Graphene Plasmonics: Challenges and Opportunities.
\emph{ACS Photonics} \textbf{2014}, \emph{1}, 135--152\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Geim and Novoselov(2007)Geim, and Novoselov]{nmat_6_183}
Geim,~A.~K.; Novoselov,~K.~S. The Rise of Graphene. \emph{Nature Mater.}
\textbf{2007}, \emph{6}, 183--191\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Castro~Neto \latin{et~al.}(2009)Castro~Neto, Guinea, Peres, Novoselov,
and Geim]{rmp_81_109}
Castro~Neto,~A.~H.; Guinea,~F.; Peres,~N. M.~R.; Novoselov,~K.~S.; Geim,~A.~K.
The Electronic Properties of Graphene. \emph{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{2009},
\emph{81}, 109--162\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Das~Sarma \latin{et~al.}(2011)Das~Sarma, Adam, Hwang, and
Rossi]{rmp_83_407}
Das~Sarma,~S.; Adam,~S.; Hwang,~E.~H.; Rossi,~E. Electronic Transport in
Two-Dimensional Graphene. \emph{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{2011}, \emph{83},
407--470\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Yan \latin{et~al.}(2013)Yan, Low, Zhu, Wu, Freitag, Li, Guinea,
Avouris, and Xia]{npho_7_394}
Yan,~H.; Low,~T.; Zhu,~W.; Wu,~Y.; Freitag,~M.; Li,~X.; Guinea,~F.;
Avouris,~P.; Xia,~F. Damping Pathways of Mid-Infrared Plasmons in Graphene
Nanostructures. \emph{Nature Photon.} \textbf{2013}, \emph{7}, 394--399\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Zhu \latin{et~al.}(2014)Zhu, Wang, Yan, Larsen, B\o{}ggild, Pedersen,
Xiao, Zi, and Mortensen]{nl_14_2907}
Zhu,~X.; Wang,~W.; Yan,~W.; Larsen,~M.~B.; B\o{}ggild,~P.; Pedersen,~T.~G.;
Xiao,~S.; Zi,~J.; Mortensen,~N.~A. Plasmon--Phonon Coupling in Large--Area
Graphene Dot and Antidot Arrays Fabricated by Nanosphere Lithography.
\emph{Nano Lett.} \textbf{2014}, \emph{14}, 2907--2913\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Novoselov \latin{et~al.}(2005)Novoselov, Geim, Morozov, Jiang,
Katsnelson, Grigorieva, Dubonos, and Firsov]{nature_438_197}
Novoselov,~K.~S.; Geim,~A.~K.; Morozov,~S.~V.; Jiang,~D.; Katsnelson,~M.~I.;
Grigorieva,~I.~V.; Dubonos,~S.~V.; Firsov,~A.~A. Two-Dimensional Gas of
Massless Dirac Fermions in Graphene. \emph{Nature} \textbf{2005}, \emph{438},
197--200\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Zhang \latin{et~al.}(2005)Zhang, Tan, Stormer, and
Kim]{nature_438_201}
Zhang,~Y.; Tan,~Y.-W.; Stormer,~H.~L.; Kim,~P. Experimental Observation of the
Quantum Hall Effect and Berry's Phase in Graphene. \emph{Nature}
\textbf{2005}, \emph{438}, 201--204\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Ju \latin{et~al.}(2011)Ju, Geng, Horng, Girit, Martin, Hao, Bechtel,
Liang, Zettl, Shen, and Wang]{nnan_6_630}
Ju,~L.; Geng,~B.; Horng,~J.; Girit,~C.; Martin,~M.; Hao,~Z.; Bechtel,~H.~A.;
Liang,~X.; Zettl,~A.; Shen,~Y.~R. \latin{et~al.} Graphene Plasmonics for
Tunable Terahertz Metamaterials. \emph{Nature Nanotechnol.} \textbf{2011},
\emph{6}, 630--634\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Fang \latin{et~al.}(2013)Fang, Thongrattanasiri, Schlather, Liu, Ma,
Wang, Ajayan, Nordlander, Halas, and Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo]{acsnano_7_2388}
Fang,~Z.; Thongrattanasiri,~S.; Schlather,~A.; Liu,~Z.; Ma,~L.; Wang,~Y.;
Ajayan,~P.~M.; Nordlander,~P.; Halas,~N.~J.; Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Gated
Tunability and Hybridization of Localized Plasmons in Nanostructured
Graphene. \emph{ACS Nano} \textbf{2013}, \emph{7}, 2388--2395\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Low and Avouris(2014)Low, and Avouris]{acsnano_8_1086}
Low,~T.; Avouris,~P. Graphene Plasmonics for Terahertz to Mid-Infrared
Applications. \emph{ACS Nano} \textbf{2014}, \emph{8}, 1086--1101\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Wunsch \latin{et~al.}(2006)Wunsch, Stauber, Sols, and
Guinea]{njp_8_318}
Wunsch,~B.; Stauber,~T.; Sols,~F.; Guinea,~F. Dynamical Polarization of
Graphene at Finite Doping. \emph{New J. Phys.} \textbf{2006}, \emph{8},
318\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Christensen \latin{et~al.}(2011)Christensen, Manjavacas,
Thongrattanasiri, Koppens, and Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo]{acsnano_6_431}
Christensen,~J.; Manjavacas,~A.; Thongrattanasiri,~S.; Koppens,~F. H.~L.;
Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Graphene Plasmon Waveguiding and Hybridization in
Individual and Paired Nanoribbons. \emph{ACS Nano} \textbf{2011}, \emph{6},
431--440\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Thongrattanasiri \latin{et~al.}(2012)Thongrattanasiri, Koppens, and
Garc\'{\i}a~de Abajo]{prl_108_047401}
Thongrattanasiri,~S.; Koppens,~F. H.~L.; Garc\'{\i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Complete
Optical Absorption in Periodically Patterned Graphene. \emph{Phys. Rev.
Lett.} \textbf{2012}, \emph{108}, 047401\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Wang and Kinaret(2013)Wang, and Kinaret]{prb_87_195424}
Wang,~W.; Kinaret,~J.~M. Plasmons in Graphene Nanoribbons: Interband
Transitions and Nonlocal Effects. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2013},
\emph{87}, 195424\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Christensen \latin{et~al.}()Christensen, Wang, Jauho, Wubs, and
Mortensen]{arxiv_1407_3920}
Christensen,~T.; Wang,~W.; Jauho,~A.-P.; Wubs,~M.; Mortensen,~N.~A. Classical
and Quantum Plasmonics in Graphene Nanodisks: the Role of Edge States.
arXiv:1407.3920\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Thongrattanasiri \latin{et~al.}(2012)Thongrattanasiri, Manjavacas, and
Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo]{acsnano_6_1766}
Thongrattanasiri,~S.; Manjavacas,~A.; Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Quantum
Finite-Size Effects in Graphene Plasmons. \emph{ACS Nano} \textbf{2012},
\emph{6}, 1766--1775\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Thongrattanasiri and Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo(2013)Thongrattanasiri, and
Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo]{prl_110_187401}
Thongrattanasiri,~S.; Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Optical Field Enhancement by
Strong Plasmon Interaction in Graphene Nanostructures. \emph{Phys. Rev.
Lett.} \textbf{2013}, \emph{110}, 187401\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Mortensen \latin{et~al.}(2014)Mortensen, Raza, Wubs, S\o{}ndergaard,
and Bozhevolnyi]{ncom_5_3809}
Mortensen,~N.~A.; Raza,~S.; Wubs,~M.; S\o{}ndergaard,~T.; Bozhevolnyi,~S.~I. A
Generalized Non-Local Optical Response Theory for Plasmonic Nanostructures.
\emph{Nature Commun.} \textbf{2014}, \emph{5}, 3809\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Manjavacas and Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo(2014)Manjavacas, and Garc\'{i}a~de
Abajo]{ncom_5_3548}
Manjavacas,~A.; Garc\'{i}a~de Abajo,~F.~J. Tunable Plasmons in Atomically Thin
Gold Nanodisks. \emph{Nature Commun.} \textbf{2014}, \emph{5}, 3548\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Nikitin \latin{et~al.}(2011)Nikitin, Guinea, Garc\'{\i}a-Vidal, and
Mart\'{\i}n-Moreno]{prb_84_161407}
Nikitin,~A.~Y.; Guinea,~F.; Garc\'{\i}a-Vidal,~F.~J.; Mart\'{\i}n-Moreno,~L.
Edge and Waveguide Terahertz Surface Plasmon Modes in Graphene Microribbons.
\emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2011}, \emph{84}, 161407\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Nikitin \latin{et~al.}(2012)Nikitin, Guinea, Garcia-Vidal, and
Martin-Moreno]{prb_85_081405}
Nikitin,~A.~Y.; Guinea,~F.; Garcia-Vidal,~F.~J.; Martin-Moreno,~L. Surface
Plasmon Enhanced Absorption and Suppressed Transmission in Periodic Arrays of
Graphene Ribbons. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2012}, \emph{85}, 081405\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Fetter(1986)]{prb_33_5221}
Fetter,~A.~L. Magnetoplasmons in a Two-Dimensional Electron Fluid: Disk
Geometry. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{1986}, \emph{33}, 5221--5227\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Wang \latin{et~al.}(2012)Wang, Apell, and Kinaret]{prb_86_125450}
Wang,~W.; Apell,~S.~P.; Kinaret,~J.~M. Edge Magnetoplasmons and the Optical
Excitations in Graphene Disks. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2012}, \emph{86},
125450\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Wallace(1947)]{pr_71_622}
Wallace,~P.~R. The Band Theory of Graphite. \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{1947},
\emph{71}, 622--634\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Reich \latin{et~al.}(2002)Reich, Maultzsch, Thomsen, and
Ordej\'on]{prb_66_035412}
Reich,~S.; Maultzsch,~J.; Thomsen,~C.; Ordej\'on,~P. Tight-Binding Description
of Graphene. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2002}, \emph{66}, 035412\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tassin \latin{et~al.}(2013)Tassin, Koschny, and
Soukoulis]{science_341_620}
Tassin,~P.; Koschny,~T.; Soukoulis,~C.~M. Graphene for Terahertz Applications.
\emph{Science} \textbf{2013}, \emph{341}, 620--621\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Andersen \latin{et~al.}(2012)Andersen, Jacobsen, and
Thygesen]{prb_86_245129}
Andersen,~K.; Jacobsen,~K.~W.; Thygesen,~K.~S. Spatially Resolved Quantum
Plasmon Modes in Metallic Nano-Films from First-Principles. \emph{Phys. Rev.
B} \textbf{2012}, \emph{86}, 245129\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Andersen \latin{et~al.}(2013)Andersen, Jensen, Mortensen, and
Thygesen]{prb_87_235433}
Andersen,~K.; Jensen,~K.~L.; Mortensen,~N.~A.; Thygesen,~K.~S. Visualizing
Hybridized Quantum Plasmons in Coupled Nanowires: From Classical to Tunneling
Regime. \emph{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{2013}, \emph{87}, 235433\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Sakoda(2005)]{Sakoda:2005}
Sakoda,~K. \emph{Optical Properties of Photonic Crystals}, 2nd ed.; Springer
Series in Optical Sciences; Springer: Berlin, 2005; Vol.~80\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Awada \latin{et~al.}(2012)Awada, Popescu, Douillard, Charra, Perron,
Yockell-Leli\`{e}vre, Barudrion, Adam, and Bachelot]{jpcc_116_14591}
Awada,~C.; Popescu,~T.; Douillard,~L.; Charra,~F.; Perron,~A.;
Yockell-Leli\`{e}vre,~H.; Barudrion,~A.-L.; Adam,~P.-M.; Bachelot,~R.
Selective Excitation of Plasmon Resonances of Single Au Triangles by
Polarization-Dependent Light Excitation. \emph{J. Phys. Chem. C}
\textbf{2012}, \emph{116}, 14591--14598\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Schmidt \latin{et~al.}(2012)Schmidt, Ditlbacher, Hohenester, Hohenau,
Hofer, and Krenn]{nl_12_5780}
Schmidt,~F.-P.; Ditlbacher,~H.; Hohenester,~U.; Hohenau,~A.; Hofer,~F.;
Krenn,~J.~R. Dark Plasmonic Breathing Modes in Silver Nanodisks. \emph{Nano
Lett.} \textbf{2012}, \emph{12}, 5780--5783\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Prodan \latin{et~al.}(2003)Prodan, Radloff, Halas, and
Nordlander]{science_302_419}
Prodan,~E.; Radloff,~C.; Halas,~N.~J.; Nordlander,~P. A Hybridization Model for
the Plasmon Response of Complex Nanostructures. \emph{Science} \textbf{2003},
\emph{302}, 419--422\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Nordlander \latin{et~al.}(2004)Nordlander, Oubre, Prodan, Li, and
Stockman]{nl_4_899}
Nordlander,~P.; Oubre,~C.; Prodan,~E.; Li,~K.; Stockman,~M.~I. Plasmon
Hybridization in Nanoparticle Dimers. \emph{Nano Lett.} \textbf{2004},
\emph{4}, 899--903\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Zuloaga \latin{et~al.}(2009)Zuloaga, Prodan, and Nordlander]{nl_9_887}
Zuloaga,~J.; Prodan,~E.; Nordlander,~P. Quantum Description of the Plasmon
Resonances of a Nanoparticle Dimer. \emph{Nano Lett.} \textbf{2009},
\emph{9}, 887--891\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Hao \latin{et~al.}(2008)Hao, Sonnefraud, Van~Dorpe, Maier, Halas, and
Nordlander]{nl_8_3983}
Hao,~F.; Sonnefraud,~Y.; Van~Dorpe,~P.; Maier,~S.~A.; Halas,~N.~J.;
Nordlander,~P. Symmetry Breaking in Plasmonic Nanocavities: Subradiant LSPR
Sensing and a Tunable Fano Resonance. \emph{Nano Lett.} \textbf{2008},
\emph{8}, 3983--3988\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Hanson(2008)]{jap_103_064302}
Hanson,~G.~W. Dyadic Green's Functions and Guided Surface Waves for a Surface
Conductivity Model of Graphene. \emph{J. Appl. Phys.} \textbf{2008},
\emph{103}, 064302\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Falkovsky and Varlamov(2007)Falkovsky, and Varlamov]{epjb_56_281}
Falkovsky,~L.~A.; Varlamov,~A.~A. Space-time Dispersion of Graphene
Conductivity. \emph{Eur. Phys. J. B} \textbf{2007}, \emph{56}, 281--284\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Shishkin and Kresse(2006)Shishkin, and Kresse]{prb_74_035101}
Shishkin,~M.; Kresse,~G. Implementation and Performance of the
Frequency-Dependent $GW$ Method within the PAW Framework. \emph{Phys. Rev. B}
\textbf{2006}, \emph{74}, 035101\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Miyake and Aryasetiawan(2000)Miyake, and Aryasetiawan]{prb_61_7172}
Miyake,~T.; Aryasetiawan,~F. Efficient Algorithm for Calculating Noninteracting
Frequency-Dependent Linear Response Functions. \emph{Phys. Rev. B}
\textbf{2000}, \emph{61}, 7172--7175\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\end{mcitethebibliography}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Nearly K\"{a}hler manifolds were defined by Gray \cite{Gray2} as almost Hermitian manifolds $(M,J,g)$ such that the Levi-Civita connection satisfies \begin{equation*}
(\nabla_{X}J)Y + (\nabla_{Y}J)X = 0
\end{equation*}
for any vector fields $X$ and $Y$ on $M$. The development of nearly K\"{a}hler geometry is mainly due to the studies of Gray \cite{Gray2}, \cite{Gray3}, \cite{Gray} and, more recently, to the work of Nagy (\cite{Nagy1}, \cite{Nagy2}). Nearly Sasakian manifolds where introduced by Blair, Yano and Showers in \cite{BlairSY} as an odd dimensional counterpart of nearly K\"{a}hler manifolds, together with nearly cosymplectic manifolds, studied by Blair and Showers some years earlier (\cite{BLAIR_cos}, \cite{BLAIR-cos2}). Namely, a smooth manifold $M$ endowed with an almost contact metric structure $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is said to be nearly Sasakian or nearly cosymplectic if, respectively,
\begin{gather*}
(\nabla_X\phi)Y+(\nabla_Y\phi)X=2g(X,Y)\xi-\eta(X)Y-\eta(Y)X,\\
(\nabla_X\phi)Y+(\nabla_Y\phi)X=0
\end{gather*}
for every vector fields $X$ and $Y$ on $M$. Since the foundational articles of Blair and his collaborators, these two classes of almost contact structures were studied by some authors and, later on, have played a role in the Chinea-Gonzalez's classification of almost contact metric manifolds (\cite{Chinea}). Recently, they naturally appeared in the study of harmonic almost contact structures (cf. \cite{Gonzalez}, \cite{Vergara2}, \cite{Vergara1}).
Actually it is more difficult than expected to find relations between nearly Sasakian and nearly K\"{a}hler manifolds, like for Sasakian / K\"{a}hler geometry. For instance, it is known that, like Sasakian manifolds, the Reeb vector field $\xi$ of any nearly Sasakian manifold $M$ defines a Riemannian foliation. Then one would expect that the space of leaves of this foliation is nearly K\"{a}hler, but this happens if and only if $M$ is Sasakian, and in that case the space of leaves is K\"{a}hler. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that the cone over $M$ is nearly K\"{a}hler if and only if $M$ is Sasakian and, again, in this case the cone is K\"{a}hler. Similar results hold also in the nearly cosymplectic setting. For instance, if one applies the Morimoto's construction \cite{morimoto} to the product $N$ of two nearly cosymplectic manifolds $M_1$ and $M_2$, one finds that $N$ is nearly K\"{a}hler if and only if both $M_1$ and $M_2$ are coK\"{a}hler.
In the present paper we show in fact that there are many differences between nearly K\"{a}hler and nearly Sasakian manifolds, much more than in K\"{a}hler / Sasakian setting.
It is known that the structure $(1,1)$-tensor field $\phi$ of a Sasakian manifold is given by the opposite of the covariant derivative of the Reeb vector field. Thus in any nearly Sasakian manifold one is lead to define a tensor field $h$ by
\begin{equation*}
\nabla\xi = - \phi + h.
\end{equation*}
This tensor field measures, somehow, the non-Sasakianity of the manifold and plays an important role in our study. Namely, first we prove that the eigenvalues of the symmetric operator $h^2$ are constants and its spectrum is of type
\begin{equation*}
\textrm{Spec}(h^2) = \left\{0, -\lambda_{1}^{2}, \ldots, -\lambda_{r}^{2} \right\}
\end{equation*}
with $\lambda_i \neq 0$ for each $i\in\left\{1,\ldots,r\right\}$. Then we prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{struttura}
Let $M$ be a (non-Sasakian) nearly Sasakian manifold with structure $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$. Then the tangent bundle of $M$ splits as the orthogonal sum
\begin{equation*}
TM = {\mathcal D}(0)\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{1}^2)\oplus\cdots\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{r}^2)
\end{equation*}
of the eigendistributions of $h^2$. Moreover,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] the distribution ${\mathcal D}(0)$ is integrable and defines a totally geodesic foliation of $M$ of dimension $2p+1$. If $p>0$ then the leaves of ${\mathcal D}(0)$ are Sasakian manifolds;\medskip
\item[b)] each distribution $[\xi]\oplus {\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^2)$ is integrable and defines a totally geodesic foliation of $M$ whose leaves are $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian non-Sasakian manifolds.
\end{enumerate}
Furthermore, if $p>0$ the distribution $[\xi]\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{1}^2)\oplus\cdots\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{r}^2)$ is integrable and defines a Riemannian foliation with totally geodesic leaves, whose leaf space is K\"{a}hler.
\end{theorem}
As a consequence of Theorem \ref{struttura} we shall prove that in every nearly Sasakian manifold the $1$-form $\eta$ is a contact form. This establishes a sensible difference with respect to nearly K\"{a}hler geometry, since in any nearly K\"{a}hler manifold the K\"{a}hler form is symplectic if and only if the manifold is K\"{a}hler.
The point b) of Theorem \ref{struttura} motivates us to further investigate $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifolds. Some early studies date back to Olszak (\cite{Olszak1}) who proved that $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian non-Sasakian manifolds are Einstein and of scalar curvature $>20$.
In the present paper we characterize nearly Sasakian structures in terms of $SU(2)$-structures defined by a $1$-form $\eta$ and a triple $(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3})$ of $2$-forms according to \cite{CS}.
One of our main results is to prove that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between nearly Sasakian structures on a $5$-manifold and $SU(2)$-structures satisfying the following equations
\begin{equation}\label{nearluSU2}
d\eta=-2\omega_3+2\lambda\omega_1,\qquad d\omega_1=3\eta\wedge\omega_2,\qquad d\omega_2=-3\eta\wedge\omega_1-3\lambda\eta\wedge\omega_3,
\end{equation}
for some real number $\lambda\neq 0$ which depends only on the geometry of the manifold via the formula $s=20(1+\lambda^2)$,
where $s$ is the scalar curvature. By deforming $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ we obtain a Sasaki-Einstein structure with the same underlying contact form (up to a multiplicative factor) and, conversely, each Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifold carries a nearly Sasakian structure (in fact, a $1$-parameter family of nearly Sasakian structures).
In Section 5 we get analogous results in terms of $SU(2)$-structures for nearly cosymplectic $5$-manifolds. In particular we prove that any nearly cosymplectic $5$-manifold is Einstein with positive scalar curvature. We also show that nearly cosymplectic structures arise naturally both in nearly Sasakian and in Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifolds. In particular, it is known that any Sasaki-Einstein $SU(2)$-structure can be described by the data of three almost contact metric structures $(\phi_1,\xi,\eta,g)$, $(\phi_2,\xi,\eta,g)$, $(\phi_3,\xi,\eta,g)$, with the same Reeb vector field, satisfying the quaternionc-like relations
\begin{equation*}
\phi_i\phi_j=\phi_k=-\phi_j\phi_i
\end{equation*}
for any even permutation $(i,j,k)$ of $(1,2,3)$ and such that $(\phi_3,\xi,\eta,g)$ is Sasakian with Einstein Riemannian metric $g$. Actually we prove that $(\phi_{1},\xi,\eta,g)$ and $(\phi_{2},\xi,\eta,g)$ are both nearly cosymplectic.
In Section \ref{hypersurfaces} we study the (orientable) hypersurfaces of a nearly K\"{a}hler $6$-manifolds. In particular we study the $SU(2)$-structures induced on hypersurfaces whose second fundamental form is of type $\sigma = \beta(\eta\otimes\eta)\nu$ or $\sigma=(-g+\beta(\eta\otimes\eta))\nu$, for some function $\beta$, where $\nu$ denotes the unit normal vector field. In both cases we prove that the hypersurface carries a Sasaki-Einstein structure, thus generalizing a result of \cite{FISU}.
Finally, in the last section of the paper, we try to define a canonical connection for nearly Sasakian manifolds, which may play a role similar to the Gray connection in the context of nearly K\"{a}hler geometry, i.e. the unique Hermitian connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion. In \cite{FrIv} Friedrich and Ivanov provided necessary and sufficient conditions for an almost contact metric manifold to admit a (unique) connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion parallelizing all the structure tensors. One can easily deduce that a nearly Sasakian manifold admits such a connection if and only if it is Sasakian. Thus, weakening some hypotheses, we define a family of connections, parameterized by a real number $r$, which parallelize the almost contact metric structure and such that the torsion is skew-symmetric on the contact distribution $\ker(\eta)$. In particular, if $M$ is a Sasakian manifold our connection coincides with the Okumura connection \cite{Okumura}. In dimension $5$ the connection corresponding to the value $r = \frac{1}{2}$ parallelizes all the tensors in the associated $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$, as well as the torsion tensor field. Then for Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifolds we prove that the Okumura connection corresponding to $r=\frac{1}{2}$ parallelizes the whole $SU(2)$-structure.
\medskip
All manifolds considered in this paper will be assumed to be smooth i.e. of the class $C^{\infty}$, and connected. We use the
convention that $u\wedge v = u \otimes v - v \otimes u$. Unless in the last Section, we shall implicitly assume that all the nearly Sasakian (respectively, nearly cosymplectic) manifolds considered in the paper are non-Sasakian (respectively, non-coK\"{a}hler).
\section{Preliminaries}
An almost contact metric manifold is a differentiable manifold $M^{2n+1}$ endowed with a
structure $(\phi, \xi, \eta, g)$, given by a tensor field $\phi$ of type $(1,1)$, a
vector field $\xi$, a $1$-form $\eta$ and a Riemannian metric
$g$ satisfying
\[\phi^2={}-I+\eta\otimes\xi,\quad \eta(\xi)=1,\quad g(\phi X,\phi Y)=g(X,Y)-\eta(X)\eta(Y)\]
for every vector fields $X,Y$ on $M$. From the definition it follows that $\phi\xi=0$ and $\eta\circ\phi=0$. Moreover one has that $g(X,\phi Y)=-g(\phi X, Y)$ so that the bilinear form $\Phi:=g(-,\phi-)$ defines in fact a $2$-form on $M$, called \emph{fundamental $2$-form}.
Two remarkable classes of almost contact metric manifolds are given by Sasakian and coK\"{a}hler manifolds. An almost contact metric manifold is said to be \emph{Sasakian} if tensor field $N_{\phi}:=[\phi,\phi]+\eta\otimes\xi$ vanishes identically and $d\eta=2\Phi$, \emph{coK\"{a}hler} if $N_{\phi}\equiv 0$ and $d\eta=0$, $d\Phi=0$. The Sasakian and coK\"{a}hler conditions can be equivalently expressed in terms of the Levi-Civita connection by, respectively,
\begin{gather*}
(\nabla_{X}\phi)Y=g(X,Y)\xi-\eta(Y)X,\\
\nabla \phi =0.
\end{gather*}
For further details on Sasakian and coK\"{a}hler manifolds we refer to \cite{BLAIR,boyergalicki2008} and \cite{CappDenYud}, respectively.
An almost contact metric manifold $(M,\phi, \xi,\eta,g)$ is called \emph{nearly Sasakian} if the covariant derivative of $\phi$ with respect to the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{main}
(\nabla_X\phi)Y+(\nabla_Y\phi)X=2g(X,Y)\xi-\eta(X)Y-\eta(Y)X
\end{equation}
for every vector fields $X,Y$ on $M$, or equivalently,
\[(\nabla_X\phi)X=g(X,X)\xi-\eta(X)X\]
for every vector field $X$ on $M$. This notion was introduced in \cite{BlairSY} in order to study an odd dimensional counterpart of nearly K\"{a}hler geometry, and then it was studied by other authors.
One can easily check that \eqref{main} is also equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{dPhi}
3g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z)=-d\Phi(X,Y,Z)-3\eta(Y)g(X,Z)+3\eta(Z)g(X,Y).
\end{equation}
We recall now some basic properties satisfied by nearly Sasakian structures which will be used in the following. We refer to \cite{BlairSY, Olszak, Olszak1} for the details.
It is known that the characteristic vector field $\xi$ is Killing and the Levi-Civita connection satisfies $\nabla_\xi\xi=0$ and $\nabla_\xi\eta=0$.
One can define a tensor field $h$ of type $(1,1)$ by putting
\begin{equation}\label{nablaxi}
\nabla_X\xi=-\phi X+hX.
\end{equation}
The operator $h$ is skew-symmetric and anticommutes with $\phi$. Moreover, $h\xi=0$ and $\eta\circ h=0$. The vanishing of $h$ provides a necessary and sufficient condition for a nearly Sasakian manifold to be Sasakian (\cite{Olszak1}). Applying \eqref{main} and \eqref{nablaxi}, one easily gets
\begin{equation}\label{nablaxiphi}
\nabla_{\xi}\phi=\phi h.
\end{equation}
We remark the circumstance that the operator $h$ is also related to the Lie derivative of $\phi$ with respect to $\xi$. Indeed, using \eqref{nablaxiphi} and \eqref{nablaxi}, we get
\[(\mathcal{L}_\xi\phi )X=[\xi,\phi X]-\phi[\xi, X] =(\nabla_\xi\phi)X-\nabla_{\phi X}\xi+\phi(\nabla_X\xi) = 3\phi hX. \]
Denote by $R$ the Riemannian curvature tensor. Olszak proved the following formula in \cite{Olszak}:
\begin{equation}\label{Rxi}
R(\xi,X)Y=(\nabla_X\phi)Y-(\nabla_Xh)Y=g(X-h^2X,Y)\xi-\eta(Y)(X-h^2X).
\end{equation}
The above equation, together with \eqref{nablaxiphi}, gives
\begin{equation}\label{nablaxih}
\nabla_\xi h=\nabla_\xi \phi=\phi h.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, taking $Y=\xi$ in \eqref{Rxi}, we obtain
\[R(X,\xi)\xi=-\eta(X)\xi+X-h^2X=-\phi^2X-h^2X\]
and the $\xi$-sectional curvatures for every unit vector field $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$ are
\[K(\xi,X)=g(R(X,\xi)\xi,X)=1+g(hX,hX)\geq 1.\]
Notice that \eqref{Rxi} also implies that
\begin{equation}\label{RXYxi}
R(X,Y)\xi=\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y-\eta(Y)h^2X+\eta(X)h^2Y.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the Ricci curvature satisfies
\begin{equation*}\label{Ricci3}
\textrm{Ric}(\phi X,\phi Y)=\textrm{Ric}(X,Y)-(2n-\mathrm{tr} (h^2))\eta(X)\eta(Y).
\end{equation*}
In particular it follows that the Ricci operator commutes with $\phi$. Finally, Olszak proved that the symmetric operator $h^2$ has constant trace and the covariant derivatives of $\phi$ and $h^2$ satisfy the following relations:
\begin{equation}\label{varie5}
g((\nabla_X\phi)Y, hZ)=\eta(Y)g(h^2X,\phi Z)-\eta(X)g(h^2Y,\phi Z)+\eta(Y)g(hX,Z),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{varie7}
(\nabla_Xh^2)Y=\eta(Y)(\phi -h)h^2X+g((\phi -h)h^2X,Y)\xi.
\end{equation}
\medskip
We now recall some facts about nearly cosymplectic manifolds. A \emph{nearly cosymplectic manifold} is an almost contact metric manifold $(M,\phi, \xi,\eta,g)$ such that the covariant derivative of $\phi$ with respect to the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{main_c}
(\nabla_X\phi)Y+(\nabla_Y\phi)X=0
\end{equation}
for every vector fields $X,Y$. The above condition is equivalent to $(\nabla_X\phi)X=0$, or also to
\begin{equation}\label{dPhi_c}
3g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z)=-d\Phi(X,Y,Z)
\end{equation}
for any $X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak{X}(M)$.
Also in this case we have that $\xi$ is Killing, $\nabla_\xi\xi=0$ and $\nabla_\xi\eta=0$.
The tensor field $h$ of type $(1,1)$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{nablaxi_c}
\nabla_X\xi=hX
\end{equation}
is skew-symmetric and anticommutes with $\phi$. It satisfies $h\xi=0$, $\eta\circ h=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{nearlycos-nablaxiphi}
\nabla_\xi\phi=\phi h.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, $h$ is related to the Lie derivative of $\phi$ in the direction of $\xi$. Indeed,
\[({\mathcal L}_\xi\phi)X=(\nabla_\xi\phi)X-\nabla_{\phi X}\xi+\phi(\nabla_X\xi)=3\phi hX.\]
Finally, the following formulas hold (\cite{E}):
\begin{align}
g((\nabla_X\phi)Y, hZ)&=\eta(Y)g(h^2X,\phi Z)-\eta(X)g(h^2Y,\phi Z),\label{nablaphi_hc}\\
(\nabla_Xh)Y&=g(h^2X,Y)\xi-\eta(Y)h^2X,\label{nablah_c}\\
\mathrm{tr}(h^2)&=\mathrm{constant}.\label{tr}
\end{align}
\section{The foliated structure of a nearly Sasakian manifold}\label{foliationsection}
In this section we show that any nearly Sasakian manifold is foliated by two types of foliations, whose leaves are respectively Sasakian or $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian non-Sasakian manifolds. An important role in this context is played by the symmetric operator $h^2$ and by its spectrum $\textrm{Spec}(h^2)$. We recall the following result.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Olszak}]\label{condizione-olszak}
If a nearly Sasakian manifold $M$ satisfies the condition
\begin{equation*}
h^2 = \lambda (I-\eta\otimes\xi)
\end{equation*}
for some real number $\lambda$, then $\dim(M)=5$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proposition}
The eigenvalues of the operator $h^2$ are constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mu$ be an eigenvalue of $h^2$ and let $Y$ be a local unit vector field orthogonal to $\xi$ such that $h^2Y=\mu Y$. Applying \eqref{varie7} for any vector field $X$, and taking $Y=Z$
we get
\begin{align*}
0&=g((\nabla_Xh^2)Y,Y)\\
&=g(\nabla_X(h^2Y),Y)-g(h^2(\nabla_XY),Y)\\
&=X(\mu)g(Y,Y)+\mu g(\nabla_XY,Y)-g(\nabla_XY,h^2Y)\\
&=X(\mu)g(Y,Y)
\end{align*}
which implies that $X(\mu)=0$.
\end{proof}
\medskip
Notice that $0$ is an eigenvalue of $h^2$, since $h\xi=0$. Furthermore, being $h$ skew-symmetric,
the non-vanishing eigenvalues of $h^2$ are negative, so that the spectrum of $h^2$ is of type
\[\textrm{Spec}(h^2)=\{0,-\lambda_1^2,\ldots,-\lambda_r^2\},\]
$\lambda_i\ne0$ and $\lambda_i\neq\lambda_j$ for $i\ne j$.
Further, if $X$ is an eigenvector of $h^2$ with eigenvalue $-\lambda_i^2$, then $X$, $\phi X$, $hX$, $h\phi X$ are orthogonal eigenvectors of $h^2$ with eigenvalue $-\lambda_i^2$.
In the following we denote by $[\xi]$ the $1$-dimensional distribution generated by $\xi$,
and by ${\mathcal D}(0)$ and ${\mathcal D}(-\lambda_i^2)$ the distributions of the eigenvectors $0$ and
$-\lambda_i^2$ respectively.
\begin{theorem}\label{main1}
Let $M$ be a nearly Sasakian manifold with structure $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ and let
$\mathrm{Spec}(h^2)=\{0,-\lambda_1^2,\ldots,-\lambda_r^2\}$ be the spectrum of $h^2$.
Then the distributions $\mathcal D(0)$ and $[\xi]\oplus\mathcal D(-\lambda_i^2)$
are integrable with totally geodesic leaves. In particular,
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textrm{a)}] the eigenvalue $0$ has multiplicity $2p+1$, $p\geq0$. If $p>0$, the leaves of $\mathcal D(0)$ are
$(2p+1)$-dimensional Sasakian manifolds;
\item[\textrm{b)}] each negative eigenvalue $-\lambda_i^2$ has multiplicity $4$ and the leaves of the
distribution $[\xi]\oplus {\mathcal D}(-\lambda_i^2)$ are $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian (non-Sasakian) manifolds.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, the dimension of $M$ is $1+2p+4r$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider an eigenvector $X$ with eigenvalue $\mu$. From \eqref{nablaxi} we deduce that
$\nabla_X\xi$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $\mu$.
On the other hand, \eqref{varie7} implies $\nabla_\xi h^2=0$,
so that $\nabla_\xi X$ is also an eigenvector with eigenvalue $\mu$.
Now, if $X,Y$ are eigenvectors with eigenvalue $\mu$,
orthogonal to $\xi$, from \eqref{varie7}, we get
\[h^2(\nabla_XY)=\mu\nabla_XY-\mu g(\phi X-hX,Y)\xi.\]
If $\mu=0$, we immediately get that $\nabla_XY\in {\mathcal D}(0)$. If $\mu\ne 0$, we have
\[h^2(\phi^2\nabla_XY)=\phi^2(h^2\nabla_XY)=\mu \phi^2(\nabla_XY)\]
and thus $\nabla_XY=-\phi^2 \nabla_XY +\eta(\nabla_XY)\xi$ belongs to the distribution
$[\xi]\oplus {\mathcal D}(\mu)$. This proves the first part of the Theorem.
If $X$ is an eingenvector of $h^2$ orthogonal to $\xi$, with eigenvalue $\mu$, also
$\phi X$ is an eingenvector with the same eigenvalue $\mu$. Hence, the eigenvalue $0$ has odd multiplicity $2p+1$, for some integer $p\geq 0$. If $p>0$ the structure $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ induces a nearly Sasakian structure on the leaves of the distribution $\mathcal D(0)$ whose associated tensor $h$ vanishes. Therefore, the induced structure is Sasakian.
As regards b), since $\phi$ preserves each distribution ${\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^{2})$, the structure $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ induces a nearly Sasakian structure on the leaves of the distribution $[\xi]\oplus\mathcal D(-\lambda_i^2)$, which we denote in the same manner. For such a structure the operator $h$ satisfies
\[h^2=-\lambda_i^2(I-\eta\otimes\xi).\]
By Theorem \ref{condizione-olszak}, the leaves of this distribution are $5$-dimensional, so that the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $-\lambda_i^2$ is $4$.
\end{proof}
Now using Theorem \ref{main1} we prove that every nearly Sasakian manifold is foliated by another foliation, which is both Riemannian and totally geodesic, and such that the leaf space is K\"{a}hler. Before we need the following preliminary result.
\begin{lemma}\label{utile}
Let $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a nearly Sasakian manifold. For any $X\in{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^{2})$, $i\in\left\{1,\ldots,r\right\}$, and for any $Z\in{\mathcal D}(0)$ one has that $\nabla_{Z}X\in {\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{1}^{2})\oplus\cdots\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{r}^{2})\oplus[\xi] $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $Z'\in{\mathcal D}(0)$ orthogonal to $\xi$, since the distribution ${\mathcal D}(0)$ is integrable with totally geodesic leaves, we have that
$g\left(\nabla_{Z}X , Z'\right) = - g\left( \nabla_{Z}Z' , X\right)=0.$
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{main6}
With the notation of Theorem \ref{main1}, assuming $p>0$, the distribution $\mathcal{D}(-\lambda_{1}^2)\oplus\cdots\oplus\mathcal{D}(-\lambda_{r}^2)\oplus\left[\xi\right]$ is integrable and defines a transversely K\"{a}hler foliation with totally geodesic leaves.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We already know that each distribution $[\xi]\oplus\mathcal{D}(-\lambda_i^2)$ is integrable with totally geodesic leaves. Moreover, by \eqref{varie7}, one has for any $X\in{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^2)$, $Y\in{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{j}^2)$ and $Z\in{\mathcal D}(0)$ orthogonal to $\xi$,
\[
g(\nabla_{X}Y,Z)=-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{2}}g(\nabla_{X} h^{2}Y,Z)=-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{2}}g( (\nabla_{X}h^2)Y + h^{2}\nabla_{X}Y , Z )=-\frac{1}{\lambda_{j}^{2}} g(\nabla_{X}Y, h^{2}Z)=0.
\]
Now we prove that $\mathcal{D}(-\lambda_{1}^2)\oplus\cdots\oplus\mathcal{D}(-\lambda_{r}^2)\oplus\left[\xi\right]$ defines a Riemannian foliation. First, for any $Z,Z'\in{\mathcal D}(0)$, $({\mathcal L}_{\xi}g)(Z,Z')=0$ since $\xi$ is Killing.
Next, by applying Lemma \ref{utile} we conclude that, for any $X \in {\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^2)$,
\begin{equation*}
({\mathcal L}_{X}g)(Z,Z') =g(\nabla_{Z}X,Z') + g(\nabla_{Z'}X,Z)=0.
\end{equation*}
Now let us prove that also the tensor field $\phi$ is projectable, i.e. it maps basic vector fields into basic vector fields. Let $Z \in {\mathcal D}(0)$, $Z$ orthogonal to $\xi$, be a basic vector field, that is $[\xi,Z], [X,Z] \in {\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{1}^{2})\oplus\cdots\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{r}^{2})\oplus[\xi]$ for any $X\in{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^{2})$. Let us prove that $g([X,\phi Z], Z')=0$ for any $Z'\in{\mathcal D}(0)$ orthogonal to $\xi$. By using \eqref{dPhi} and Lemma \ref{utile} we get
\begin{align}\label{intermedia2}
g\left( [X,\phi Z], Z'\right) &=g\left(\nabla_{X}\phi Z,Z'\right) - g\left(\nabla_{\phi Z}X,Z'\right) \nonumber \\
&= g\left( (\nabla_{X}\phi)Z,Z'\right) + g\left(\phi\nabla_{X}Z,Z'\right) \nonumber\\
&=-\frac{1}{3}d\Phi(X,Z,Z')- g(\nabla_{X}Z,\phi Z').
\end{align}
Let us check that each summand in \eqref{intermedia2} vanishes. First notice that, since $Z$ is basic and again by Lemma \ref{utile}, one has $g(\nabla_{X}Z,\phi Z')=g(\nabla_{Z}X, \phi Z') + g([X,Z],\phi Z')=0$.
Further, since the Riemannian metric $g$ is bundle-like, and using Lemma \ref{utile} and \eqref{dPhi}, we have
\begin{align*}
d \Phi(X,Z,Z') &= X(\Phi(Z,Z')) - \Phi([X,Z],Z') - \Phi([Z,Z'],X) - \Phi([Z',X],Z)\\
&=X(g(Z,\phi Z')) - g([X,Z],\phi Z') - g([Z',X],\phi Z)\\
&=g([X, \phi Z'],Z) - g([Z',X],\phi Z)\\
&=g(\nabla_{X}\phi Z', Z) - g(\nabla_{\phi Z'}X,Z) -g(\nabla_{Z'}X,\phi Z) + g(\nabla_{X}Z',\phi Z)\\
&=g\left(\left(\nabla_{X}\phi\right)Z',Z\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{3}d\Phi(X,Z,Z'),
\end{align*}
from which it follows that $d \Phi(X,Z,Z')=0$. Therefore, in view of \eqref{intermedia2}, we have $g\left( [X,\phi Z], Z'\right)=0$ for any $Z'\in{\mathcal D}(0)$ orthogonal to $\xi$, and thus we conclude that $\phi Z$ is basic.
Thus we have proved that the Riemannian metric $g$ and the tensor field $\phi$ are projectable with respect to the foliation ${\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{1}^{2})\oplus\cdots\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{r}^{2})\oplus[\xi]$. Finally, from \eqref{Rxi}, the integrability of ${\mathcal D}(0)$ and $h\xi=0$ it follows that ${\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{1}^{2})\oplus\cdots\oplus{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{r}^{2})\oplus[\xi]$ is transversely K\"{a}hler.
\end{proof}
In view of Theorem \ref{main1} it becomes of great importance the study of $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifolds. This will be precisely the subject of the next Section.
\section{Nearly Sasakian manifolds and $SU(2)$-structures}\label{SU2section}
Let $M$ be a $5$-dimensional manifold. An $SU(2)$-structure on $M$, that is an $SU(2)$-reduction of the bundle $L(M)$ of linear frames on $M$, is equivalent to the existence of three almost contact metric structures $(\phi_1,\xi,\eta,g)$, $(\phi_2,\xi,\eta,g)$, $(\phi_2,\xi,\eta,g)$ related by
\begin{equation}\label{quaternionic}
\phi_i\phi_j=\phi_k=-\phi_j\phi_i
\end{equation}
for any even permutation $(i,j,k)$ of $(1,2,3)$. In \cite{CS} Conti and Salamon proved that, in the spirit of special geometries, such a structure is equivalently determined by a quadruplet $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$, where $\eta$ is a $1$-form and $\omega_i$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, are $2$-forms, satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{SU2}
\omega_i\wedge\omega_j=\delta_{ij}v
\end{equation}
for some $4$-form $v$ with $v\wedge\eta\ne0$, and
\begin{equation}\label{SU2b}
X\lrcorner\,\omega_1=Y\lrcorner\,\omega_2\Longrightarrow\omega_3(X,Y)\geq 0.
\end{equation}
The endomorphisms $\phi_i$ of $TM$, the Riemannian metric $g$ and the $2$-forms $\omega_i$ are related by
\[\omega_i(X,Y)=g(\phi_i X,Y),\]
(see also \cite{BV}). A well-known class of $SU(2)$-structures on a $5$-dimensional manifold is given by \emph{Sasaki-Einstein structures}, characterized by the following differential equations:
\begin{equation}\label{S-E}
d\eta=-2\omega_3,\qquad d\omega_1=3\eta\wedge\omega_2,\qquad d\omega_2=-3\eta\wedge\omega_1.
\end{equation}
For such a manifold the almost contact metric structure $(\phi_3,\xi,\eta,g)$ is Sasakian, with Einstein Riemannian metric $g$. A Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifold may be equivalently defined as a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ such that the product $M\times \mathbb{R}_+$ with the cone metric $dt^2+t^2g$ is K\"ahler and Ricci-flat (Calabi-Yau).
In \cite{CS}, Conti and Salamon introduced hypo structures as a natural generalization of Sasaki-Einstein structures. Indeed, an $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ is called \emph{hypo} if
\begin{equation}\label{hypo}
d\omega_3=0,\qquad d(\eta\wedge\omega_1)=0,\qquad d(\eta\wedge\omega_2)=0.
\end{equation}
These structures arise naturally on hypersurfaces of $6$-manifolds endowed with an integrable $SU(3)$-structure.
In \cite{FISU} the authors introduced \emph{nearly hypo} structures, defined as $SU(2)$-structures $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
d\omega_1=3\eta\wedge\omega_2,\qquad d(\eta\wedge\omega_3)=-2\omega_1\wedge\omega_1.
\end{equation}
Such structures arise on hypersurfaces of nearly K\"ahler $SU(3)$-manifolds.
We shall provide an equivalent notion of nearly Sasakian $5$-manifolds in terms of $SU(2)$-structures. First we state the following lemmas.
\begin{lemma}\label{SU2-nablaphi}
Let $M$ be a $5$-manifold with an $SU(2)$-structure $\left\{(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)\right\}_{i\in\left\{1,2,3\right\}}$. Then for any even permutation $(i,j,k)$ of $(1,2,3)$, we have
\begin{align}\label{N}
g(N_{\phi_i}(X,Y),\phi_j Z)&={}-d\omega_j(X,Y,Z)+d\omega_j(\phi_i X,\phi_i Y,Z)\\&\quad\,\,{}+d\omega_k(\phi_i X,Y,Z)+d\omega_k(X,\phi_i Y,Z).\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A simple computation using the quaternionic identities \eqref{quaternionic} shows that
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{i}(\nabla_Z\phi_{j})\phi_{i}=-\phi_{i}\nabla_Z\phi_{k}-\nabla_Z\phi_{j}+(\nabla_Z\phi_{k})\phi_{i}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore
\begin{align}\label{nablaomega}
(\nabla_Z\omega_{j})(\phi_{i}X,\phi_{i}Y)&=-g(\phi_{i}(\nabla_Z\phi_{j})\phi_{i}X,Y)\nonumber\\
&=-(\nabla_Z\omega_{k})(X,\phi_{i}Y)+(\nabla_Z\omega_{j})(X,Y)-(\nabla_Z\omega_{k})(\phi_{i}X,Y).
\end{align}
The tensor field $N_{\phi_{i}}$ can be written as
\begin{align*}
N_{\phi_{i}}(X,Y)&=(\nabla_{\phi_{i}X}\phi_{i})Y-(\nabla_{\phi_{i}Y}\phi_{i})X+(\nabla_X\phi_{i})\phi_{i}Y-(\nabla_Y\phi_{i})\phi_{i}X+\eta(X)\nabla_Y\xi-\eta(Y)\nabla_X\xi\\
&=(\phi_{i}(\nabla_Y\phi_{i})-\nabla_{\phi_{i}Y}\phi_{i})X-(\phi_{i}(\nabla_X\phi_{i})-\nabla_{\phi_{i}X}\phi_{i})Y+((\nabla_X\eta)(Y)-(\nabla_Y\eta)(X))\xi.
\end{align*}
It follows that
\[\phi_{j}N_{\phi_{i}}(X,Y)=-\phi_{k}(\nabla_Y\phi_{i})X-\phi_{j}(\nabla_{\phi_{i}Y}\phi_{i})X+\phi_{k}(\nabla_X\phi_{i})Y-\phi_{j}(\nabla_{\phi_{i}X}\phi_{i})Y.\]
Now, a straightforward computation shows that
\begin{align*}
g(N_{\phi_{i}}(X,Y),\phi_{j}Z)&=-d\omega_{j}(X,Y,Z)+d\omega_{j}(\phi_{i}X,\phi_{i}Y,Z)+d\omega_{k}(X,\phi_{i}Y,Z)+d\omega_{k}(\phi_{i}X,Y,Z)\\
&\quad\,\,+(\nabla_Z\omega_{j})(X,Y)-(\nabla_Z\omega_{k})(X,\phi_{i}Y)-(\nabla_Z\omega_{k})(\phi_{i}X,Y)\\
&\quad-(\nabla_Z\omega_{j})(\phi_{i}X,\phi_{i}Y).
\end{align*}
Applying \eqref{nablaomega}, we get \eqref{N}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $M$ be a $5$-manifold endowed with an $SU(2)$-structure $\left\{(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)\right\}_{i\in\left\{1,2,3\right\}}$. Then for any even permutation $(i,j,k)$ of $(1,2,3)$ we have
\begin{align}\label{nablaphi}
2g((\nabla_X\phi_{i})Y,Z)&={}-d\omega_{i}(X,\phi_{i} Y,\phi_{i} Z)+d\omega_{i}(X,Y,Z)-d\omega_{j}(Y,Z,\phi_{k}X) \nonumber \\
&\quad+d\omega_{j}(\phi_{i}Y,\phi_{i}Z,\phi_{k}X)+d\omega_{k}(Y,\phi_{i}Z,\phi_{k}X)+d\omega_{k}(\phi_{i}Y,Z,\phi_{k}X) \nonumber \\
&\quad+d\eta(\phi_{i}Y,Z)\eta(X)-d\eta(\phi_{i}Z,Y)\eta(X)+d\eta(\phi_{i}Y,X)\eta(Z)-d\eta(\phi_{i}Z,X)\eta(Y).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The covariant derivative of $\phi_i$ is given by (see \cite[Lemma 6.1]{BLAIR}):
\begin{align}\label{nablaphi0}
2g((\nabla_X\phi_{i})Y,Z)&={}-d\omega_{i}(X,\phi_{i} Y,\phi_{i} Z)+d\omega_{i}(X,Y,Z)+g(N_{\phi_{i}}(Y,Z),\phi_{i}X)\nonumber\\
&\quad\,\,{}+d\eta(\phi_{i}Y,Z)\eta(X)-d\eta(\phi_{i}Z,Y)\eta(X)+d\eta(\phi_{i}Y,X)\eta(Z)-d\eta(\phi_{i}Z,X)\eta(Y).
\end{align}
Applying \eqref{N} to vector fields $Y,Z$ and $\phi_k X$, being $\phi_j\phi_k=\phi_i$, we have
\begin{align}\label{N1}
g(N_{\phi_{i}}(Y,Z),\phi_{i} X)&={}-d\omega_{j}(Y,Z,\phi_{k}X)+d\omega_{j}(\phi_{i}Y,\phi_{i} Z,\phi_{k}X)\\&\quad\,\,{}+d\omega_{k}(Y,\phi_{i}Z,\phi_{k}X)+d\omega_{k}(\phi_{i}Y,Z,\phi_{k}X).\nonumber
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{nablaphi0} and \eqref{N1}, we get the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{main2}
Nearly Sasakian structures on a $5$-dimensional manifold are in one-to-one correspondence with $SU(2)$-structures $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{mainSU}
d\eta=-2\omega_3+2\lambda\omega_1,\qquad d\omega_1=3\eta\wedge\omega_2,\qquad d\omega_2=-3\eta\wedge\omega_1-3\lambda\eta\wedge\omega_3
\end{equation}
for some real number $\lambda\ne0$. These $SU(2)$-structures are nearly hypo.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a nearly Sasakian $5$-manifold. The associated tensor $h$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{h-5dim}
h^2=-\lambda^2(I-\eta\otimes\xi),
\end{equation}
for some non-vanishing constant $\lambda$. Since $h$ is skew-symmetric, anticommutes with $\phi$ and satisfies $h\xi=0$, the structure tensors $\xi$, $\eta$ and $g$, together with the $(1,1)$-tensor fields
\begin{equation}\label{quaternionic1}
\phi_1:=\frac{1}{\lambda}h,\qquad \phi_2:=\frac{1}{\lambda}\phi h,\qquad \phi_3:=\phi,
\end{equation}
determine an $SU(2)$-reduction of the frame bundle over $M$. Taking the $2$-forms $\omega_i$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, defined by
$\omega_i(X,Y):=g(\phi_i X,Y)$,
we prove that the structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ satisfies \eqref{mainSU}. Using \eqref{nablaxi}, we compute
\begin{align*}
d\eta(X,Y)&= X(\eta(Y))-Y(\eta(X))-\eta([X,Y])\\
&=g(Y,\nabla_X\xi)-g(X,\nabla_Y\xi)\\
&=2 g(-\phi X+hX,Y)\\
&= -2\omega_3(X,Y)+2\lambda\omega_1(X,Y),
\end{align*}
which proves the first equation in \eqref{mainSU}. In particular we have $d\omega_3=\lambda d\omega_1$. Now, by \eqref{dPhi}
\[
d\omega_3(X,Y,Z)= 3g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z)+3\eta(Y)g(X,Z)-3\eta(Z)g(X,Y).
\]
For $X=\xi$, applying \eqref{nablaxiphi}, we get
\[d\omega_3(\xi,Y,Z)=3g((\nabla_\xi\phi)Y,Z)=3g(\phi hY,Z)=3\lambda\omega_2(Y,Z).\]
On the other hand, equation \eqref{varie5} implies that for every vector fields $X,Y,Z$ orthogonal to $\xi$, $g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z)=0$ and thus $d\omega_3(X,Y,Z)=0$. Therefore
$d\omega_3=3\lambda\eta\wedge\omega_2$. Being also $d\omega_3=\lambda d\omega_1$, we obtain the second equation in \eqref{mainSU}. \ Now, using the first two equations in \eqref{mainSU}, and \eqref{SU2}, we have $\eta\wedge d\omega_2=d\eta\wedge \omega_2=0$,
and thus, for every vector fields $X,Y,Z$ orthogonal to $\xi$,
\[d\omega_2(X,Y,Z)=(\eta\wedge d\omega_2)(\xi,X,Y,Z)=0.\]
From \eqref{nablaxih}, we get $\nabla_\xi(\phi h)=-\lambda^2\phi-h$.
Hence, for every vector fields $Y$, $Z$, using also \eqref{nablaxi}, we compute
\begin{align*}
\lambda d\omega_2(\xi,Y,Z)&=g((\nabla_\xi\phi h)Y,Z)+g((\nabla_Y\phi h)Z,\xi)+g((\nabla_Z\phi h)\xi,Y)\\
&=-3g(hY+\lambda^2\phi Y,Z)\\
&=-3\lambda \omega_1(Y,Z)-3\lambda^2\omega_3(Y,Z),
\end{align*}
and this completes the proof of the third equation in \eqref{mainSU}.
As for the converse, assume that $M$ is a $5$-manifold with an $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSU} for some non-vanishing real number $\lambda$. Consider the associated almost contact metric structures $(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$.
Applying \eqref{nablaphi} and \eqref{mainSU} we compute the covariant derivative of $\phi_3$:
\begin{align*}
2g((\nabla_X\phi_3)Y,Z)&=-3\lambda\eta(X)\omega_2(\phi_3 Y,\phi_3 Z)+3\lambda\eta(X)\omega_2(Y,Z)
+3\lambda\eta(Y)\omega_2(Z,X) \\
&\quad+3\lambda\eta(Z)\omega_2(X,Y)-3\eta(Y)\omega_2(Z,\phi_2X)-3\eta(Z)\omega_2(\phi_2X,Y) \\
&\quad-3\eta(Y)\omega_1(\phi_3Z,\phi_2X)-3\lambda\eta(Y)\omega_3(\phi_3Z,\phi_2X)-3\eta(Z)\omega_1(\phi_2X,\phi_3Y) \\
&\quad-3\lambda\eta(Z)\omega_3(\phi_2X,\phi_3Y)-2\omega_3(\phi_3Y,Z)\eta(X)+2\lambda\omega_1(\phi_3Y,Z)\eta(X) \\
&\quad+2\omega_3(\phi_3Z,Y)\eta(X)-2\lambda\omega_1(\phi_3Z,Y)\eta(X)-2\omega_3(\phi_3Y,X)\eta(Z) \\
&\quad+2\lambda\omega_1(\phi_3Y,X)\eta(Z)+2\omega_3(\phi_3Z,X)\eta(Y)-2\lambda\omega_1(\phi_3Z,X)\eta(Y) \\
&=\eta(X)\{3\lambda g(\phi_2 Y,Z)+3\lambda g(\phi_2 Y,Z)-2g(\phi_3^2Y,Z)-2\lambda g(\phi_2Y,Z)+2g(\phi_3^2Z,Y) \\
&\quad+2\lambda g(\phi_2Z,Y)\}+\eta(Y)\{3\lambda g(\phi_2 Z,X)-3 g(\phi_2Z,\phi_2X)+3 g(\phi_2Z,\phi_2X) \\
&\quad +3\lambda g(Z,\phi_2 X)+2 g(\phi_3^2Z,X)+2\lambda g(\phi_2Z,X)\}+\eta(Z)\{3\lambda g(\phi_2 X,Y) \\
&\quad-3g(\phi_2^2 X,Y)-3g(\phi_3 X,\phi_3Y)-3\lambda g(\phi_2X,Y)-2g(\phi_3^2Y,X)-2\lambda g(\phi_2 Y,X)\} \\
&=2\lambda\eta(X)\omega_2(Y,Z)+2\lambda\eta(Y)\omega_2(Z,X)+2\lambda\eta(Z)\omega_2(X,Y)-2\eta(Y)g(X,Z)\\
&\quad+2\eta(Z)g(X,Y)
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
&=2\lambda (\eta\wedge\omega_2)(X,Y,Z)-2\eta(Y)g(X,Z)+2\eta(Z)g(X,Y) \\
&=\frac{2}{3}d\omega_3(X,Y,Z)-2\eta(Y)g(X,Z)+2\eta(Z)g(X,Y) \\
&=-\frac{2}{3}d\Phi(X,Y,Z)-2\eta(Y)g(X,Z)+2\eta(Z)g(X,Y)
\end{align*}
thus proving \eqref{dPhi}, so that $(\phi_3,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a nearly Sasakian structure. Now, considering the structure tensor field $h=\nabla\xi+\phi_3$, we prove that $h=\lambda\phi_1$.
Indeed, by \eqref{nablaxiphi}, $\nabla_\xi\phi_3=\phi_3h$. On the other hand, using \eqref{dPhi} and \eqref{mainSU}, we have
\[g((\nabla_\xi\phi_3)Y,Z)=\frac{1}{3}d\omega_3(\xi,Y,Z)=\lambda(\eta\wedge\omega_2)(\xi,Y,Z)=\lambda g(\phi_2Y,Z).\]
Therefore, $\nabla_\xi\phi_3=\lambda \phi_2=\phi_3h$, which implies that $h=-\lambda\phi_3\phi_2=\lambda\phi_1$.
Finally, from \eqref{mainSU} one gets $d(\eta\wedge\omega_3)=-2\omega_1\wedge\omega_1$, so that the $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ is nearly hypo.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\emph{In \cite{BV} the authors determine explicit formulas for the scalar curvature and the Ricci tensor of the metric induced by an $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ on a $5$-manifold in terms of the intrinsic torsion. For an $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSU}, the only non-vanishing torsion forms are $\phi_1=2\lambda$, $\phi_3=-2$, $f_{12}=3$ and $f_{23}=-3\lambda$. Therefore, from (3.2) and Theorem 3.8 in \cite{BV}, it follows that $\mathrm{Ric}=4(1+\lambda^2)g$. We thus reacquire the result of Olszak (\cite{Olszak1}) stating that each $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifold is Einstein and of scalar curvature $s>20$. In particular, \begin{equation}\label{scalar_S}
s=20(1+\lambda^2)
\end{equation}
implying that the constant $\lambda$ in \eqref{mainSU} is determined by the Riemannian geometry of the manifold.}
\end{remark}
Thus to any $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifold $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ there are attached two other almost contact metric structures $(\phi_{1},\xi,\eta,g)$ and $(\phi_{2},\xi,\eta,g)$, with the same metric and characteristic vector field of $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$, such that the quaternionic relations \eqref{quaternionic} hold. In the following we investigate the class to which these two supplementary almost contact metric structures belong.
To begin with, we recall a slight generalization of nearly Sasakian manifolds. Namely, a \emph{nearly $\alpha$-Sasakian manifold} is an almost contact metric manifold $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ satisfying the following relation
\begin{equation*}
(\nabla_X\phi)Y+(\nabla_Y\phi)X=\alpha\left(2g(X,Y)\xi-\eta(X)Y-\eta(Y)X\right)
\end{equation*}
for some real number $\alpha\neq 0$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemmanablaphi}
Let $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifold. Then for all vector fields $X$, $Y$ on $M$ one has
\begin{gather}
(\nabla_{X}\phi)Y = \eta(X) \phi h Y - \eta(Y) (X + \phi h X) + g(X+\phi h X, Y)\xi,\label{nablaphi-completo}\\
(\nabla_{X}h)Y = \eta(X)\phi h Y - \eta(Y) (h^2 X + \phi h X) + g(h^{2}X + \phi h X,Y)\xi, \label{nablah-completo}\\
(\nabla_{X}\phi h)Y = g(\phi h^2 X - hX,Y)\xi + \eta(X)(\phi h^2 Y - hY) - \eta(Y) (\phi h^2 X - hX). \label{nablaphih-completo}
\end{gather}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first equation follows by a direct computation using \eqref{dPhi}, \eqref{mainSU} and \eqref{quaternionic1}. Combining \eqref{Rxi} and \eqref{nablaphi-completo} one easily obtains \eqref{nablah-completo}. Finally, equations \eqref{nablaphi-completo} and \eqref{nablah-completo} imply \eqref{nablaphih-completo}.
\end{proof}
Now, from \eqref{nablah-completo} and \eqref{nablaphih-completo} it follows that
\begin{gather}
(\nabla_{X}h)Y + (\nabla_{Y}h)X = -\lambda^{2}\left(2g(X,Y)\xi - \eta(X)Y - \eta(Y)X\right) \label{nearly h}\\
(\nabla_{X}\phi h)Y + (\nabla_{Y}\phi h)X = 0. \label{nearly phih}
\end{gather}
Thus we can state the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{main3}
Let $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifold and let $(\phi_{i},\xi,\eta,g)$, $i\in\left\{1,2,3\right\}$, be the almost contact metric structures defined by the associated $SU(2)$-structure. Then $(\phi_{2},\xi,\eta,g)$ is nearly cosymplectic and $(\phi_{1},\xi,\eta,g)$ is nearly $\alpha$-Sasakian with $\alpha=-\lambda$.
\end{theorem}
We now find some applications of Theorem \ref{main2}, pointing out the relationship between nearly Sasakian geometry and Sasaki-Einstein manifolds.
\begin{corollary}\label{main5}
Each nearly Sasakian $5$-dimensional manifold carries a Sasaki-Einstein structure. \ Conversely, \ each Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifold \ carries \ a \ $1$-parameter \ family \ of \ nearly \ Sasakian structures.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a $5$-dimensional manifold.
Let $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ be a nearly Sasakian $SU(2)$-structure on $M$, i.e. $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ is an $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSU} for some real number $\lambda\ne0$.
Put
\begin{align}\label{Sasaki-E}
\tilde\eta &:=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,\eta,\\
\tilde\omega_1&:=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,(\omega_1+\lambda\omega_3),\nonumber\\
\tilde\omega_2&:=(1+\lambda^2)\,\omega_2,\nonumber\\
\tilde\omega_3&:=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,(\omega_3-\lambda\omega_1).\nonumber
\end{align}
One can easily check that $\tilde\omega_i\wedge\tilde\omega_j=\delta_{ij}\tilde v$, where $\tilde v=(1+\lambda^2)^2\omega_i\wedge\omega_i$, and $\tilde\eta\wedge\tilde v\ne0$. Furthermore, suppose that $X\lrcorner\,\tilde\omega_1=Y\lrcorner\,\tilde\omega_2$ for some vector fields $X,Y$. Let $\{(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)\}_{i\in\{1,2,3\}}$ be the almost contact metric structures associated to $(\eta,\omega_i)$. Then
\[\phi_1X+\lambda \phi_3X=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,\phi_2Y\]
and applying $\phi_2$, we have $-\phi_3X+\lambda \phi_1X=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,(-Y+\eta(Y)\xi)$.
Then,
\begin{align*}
\tilde\omega_3(X,Y)&=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,g(\phi_3X-\lambda \phi_1X,Y)\\&=(1+\lambda^2)(g(Y,Y)-\eta(Y)^2)\\
&=(1+\lambda^2)g(\phi_iY,\phi_iY)\geq0.
\end{align*}
It is straightforward to verify that the $SU(2)$-structure $(\tilde\eta,\tilde\omega_1,\tilde\omega_2,\tilde\omega_3)$
satisfies \eqref{S-E} and thus it is a Sasaki-Einstein structure.
Analogously, given a Sasaki-Einstein structure $(\tilde\eta,\tilde\omega_1,\tilde\omega_2,\tilde\omega_3)$ on $M$, for any real number $\lambda\ne 0$, one can define the nearly Sasakian structure
\begin{align}\label{Sasaki-Enearly}
\eta &:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,\tilde\eta,\\
\omega_1&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}(1+\lambda^2)}\,(\tilde\omega_1-\lambda\tilde\omega_3),\nonumber\\
\omega_2&:=\frac{1}{1+\lambda^2}\,\tilde\omega_2,\nonumber\\
\omega_3&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}(1+\lambda^2)}\,(\lambda\tilde\omega_1+\tilde\omega_3).\nonumber
\end{align}
\end{proof}
Corollary \ref{main5} provides a way of finding new examples of nearly-Sasakian manifolds. In particular, each Sasaki-Einstein metric of the infinite family of Sasakian structures on $S^{2}\times S^{3}$ recently discovered in \cite{MarSpa} gives examples of nearly Sasakian structures.
\medskip
We point out that, in terms of almost contact metric structures, the Sasaki-Einstein structure $(\tilde\phi,\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta,\tilde g)$ associated to any $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifold $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{deformation}
\tilde\phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,(\phi-h),\quad \tilde\xi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,\xi,\quad \tilde\eta=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,\eta,\quad\tilde g=(1+\lambda^2)g.
\end{equation}
The scalar curvatures $s$ and $\tilde s$ of $g$ and $\tilde g$, respectively, are related by $s=(1+\lambda^2)\tilde s$, coherently with \eqref{scalar_S}, since the scalar curvature of a $5$-dimensional Sasaki-Einstein structure is $\tilde s =20$.
\begin{remark}
\emph{One can find a more direct proof that the structure $(\tilde\phi,\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta,\tilde g)$ in \eqref{deformation} is Sasakian. Indeed,}
\[
d\eta(X,Y)= g(Y,\nabla_X\xi)-g(X,\nabla_Y\xi)=2 g(X,(\phi-h)Y)
\]
\emph{and thus} $d\tilde\eta(X,Y)=2\tilde g(X,\tilde\phi Y)$,
\emph{implying that $(\tilde\phi,\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta,\tilde g)$ is a contact metric structure. Applying \eqref{RXYxi}, a straightforward computation yields
\[\tilde R(X,Y)\tilde\xi=R(X,Y)\tilde\xi=\tilde\eta(Y)X-\tilde\eta(X)Y,\]
which ensures that the structure is Sasakian (\cite[Proposition 7.6]{BLAIR}).}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{main4}
\emph{Explicitly, the almost contact metric structures $(\tilde\phi_{i},\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta,\tilde{g})$ associated to the Sasaki-Einstein $SU(2)$-structure \eqref{Sasaki-E} is given by}
\begin{align*}
\tilde\phi_{1}&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}h + \lambda \phi\right) = { \frac{1}{3\lambda\sqrt{1+\lambda^{2}}} } {\mathcal L}_{\xi}\phi h\,, \\
\tilde\phi_{2}&:=\frac{1}{\lambda}\phi h = \frac{1}{3\lambda} {\mathcal L}_{\xi}\phi\,,\\
\tilde\phi_{3}&:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^{2}}}\left(\phi - h \right).
\end{align*}
\emph{Using Lemma \ref{lemmanablaphi} one can prove that $(\tilde\phi_{1},\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta,\tilde{g})$ and $(\tilde\phi_{2},\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta,\tilde{g})$ are nearly cosymplectic. Actually we will see in Corollary \ref{SE-nearly} that this result holds for \emph{any} Sasaki-Einstein $SU(2)$-structure.}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\emph{The Sasaki-Einstein structure \eqref{Sasaki-E} defined on the nearly Sasakian manifold $M$ determines an integrable $SU(3)$-structure on $M\times\mathbb{R}_+$ which is given by the closed forms (see \cite{CS})}
\begin{align*}
F&= \sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\left\{t^2\omega_3+t\eta\wedge dt-\lambda t^2\omega_1\right\},\\
\Psi_+&=(1+\lambda^2)\left\{t^2(t\omega_1\wedge\eta-\omega_2\wedge dt)+\lambda t^3\omega_3\wedge\eta\right\},\\
\Psi_-&=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\left\{t^2(t\omega_2\wedge \eta+\omega_1\wedge dt)+\lambda t^2\omega_3\wedge dt+\lambda^2 t^3\omega_2\wedge\eta\right\}.
\end{align*}
\emph{In particular, the K\"ahler and Ricci-flat structure $(G,J)$ of the metric cone is given by}
\begin{align*}
G&=dt^2+(1+\lambda^2)t^2g,\\
JX&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,(\phi X-hX)+\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,\eta(X)\Upsilon,\\
J\Upsilon&=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,\xi,\quad \Upsilon=t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\,.
\end{align*}
\emph{On the other hand, following \cite[Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.8]{FISU}, one can define on the product $M\times[0,\pi]$ an $SU(3)$-structure which is nearly K\"ahler for $0<t<\pi$:}
\begin{align*}
F&= \sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\left\{\sin^2t(\sin t\,\omega_1+\cos t\,\omega_3)+\sin t\,\eta\wedge dt+\lambda\sin^2 t(\sin t\,\omega_3-\cos t\,\omega_1)\right\},\\
\Psi_+&=\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\left\{\sin^3t\,\eta\wedge\omega_2+\sin^2t(\cos t\,\omega_1-\sin t\,\omega_3)\wedge dt\right.\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.+\lambda^2\sin^3 t\,\eta\wedge\omega_2+\lambda\sin^2 t\,(\cos t\,\omega_3+\sin t\,\omega_1)\wedge dt\right\},\\
\Psi_-&=(1+\lambda^2)\left\{\sin^3t\,(-\cos t\,\omega_1+\sin t\,\omega_3)\wedge\eta+\sin^2t\,\omega_2\wedge dt\right.\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\left.-\lambda\sin^3 t(\cos t\,\omega_3+\sin t\,\omega_1)\wedge\eta+\lambda^2\sin^2 t\,\omega_2\wedge dt\right\}.
\end{align*}
\emph{In this case, the Riemannian metric and the almost complex structure are given by}
\begin{align*}
G&=dt^2+(1+\lambda^2)\sin^2t\,g,\\
JX&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,\left\{\sin t\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}h X+\lambda\phi X\right)+\cos t(\phi X-hX)\right\}+\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}\,\eta(X)\Upsilon,\\
J\Upsilon&=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\lambda^2}}\,\xi,\quad \Upsilon=\sin t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
Corollary \ref{main5} together with Theorem \ref{main1} have an interesting application for a general nearly Sasakian manifold in any dimension.
\begin{corollary}
Every nearly Sasakian manifold is a contact manifold.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a nearly Sasakian manifold of dimension $2n+1$ with structure $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$. With the notation used in Section \ref{foliationsection} preliminarly we prove that for any $X\in{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^{2})$, $Y\in{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{j}^{2})$
\begin{equation}\label{contatto1}
d\eta(X,Y)=0,
\end{equation}
for each $i,j\in\left\{1,\ldots,r\right\}$, $i\neq j$. Indeed,
\[d\eta(X,Y)=g(Y,\nabla_{X}\xi)-g(X,\nabla_{Y}\xi)=2g(X,\phi Y) + 2g(hX,Y)=0\]
since the operators $\phi$ and $h$ preserve ${\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^2)$ and the distributions ${\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^2)$ and ${\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{j}^2)$ are mutually orthogonal. In a similar way one can prove that for any $X\in{\mathcal D}(-\lambda_{i}^{2})$ and $Z\in{\mathcal D}(0)$
\begin{equation}\label{contatto1b}
d\eta(X,Z)=0.
\end{equation}
Now, fix a point $x \in M$. By a) in Theorem \ref{main1} there exists a basis $\{\xi_{x}, e_{1}, \ldots, e_{2p}\}$ of ${\mathcal D}_{x}(0)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{contatto2}
\eta\wedge (d\eta)^{p}(\xi_{x}, e_{1}, \ldots, e_{2p})\neq 0.
\end{equation}
By b) in Theorem \ref{main1} and Corollary \ref{main5}, \ for each $i\in\left\{1,\ldots,r\right\}$ \ one can find a basis \ $\{\xi_{x}, v_{1}^{i}, v_{2}^{i}, v_{3}^{i}, v_{4}^{i}\}$ of ${\mathcal D}_{x}(-\lambda_{i}^{2})$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{contatto3}
\eta\wedge (d\eta)^{2}(\xi_{x}, v_{1}^{i}, v_{2}^{i}, v_{3}^{i}, v_{4}^{i})\neq 0.
\end{equation}
Then by \eqref{contatto1}, \eqref{contatto1b}, \eqref{contatto2} and \eqref{contatto3} one has
\begin{align*}
\eta \wedge (d\eta)^{n} & \left( \xi_{x}, e_{1}, \ldots, e_{2p}, v_{1}^{1}, v_{2}^{1}, v_{3}^{1}, v_{4}^{1}, \ldots, v_{1}^{r}, v_{2}^{r}, v_{3}^{r}, v_{4}^{r}\right) \\
&= \eta(\xi_{x}) (d\eta)^{p}(e_{1}, \ldots, e_{2p}) (d\eta)^{2}(v_{1}^{1}, v_{2}^{1}, v_{3}^{1}, v_{4}^{1}) \cdots (d\eta)^{2}(v_{1}^{r}, v_{2}^{r}, v_{3}^{r}, v_{4}^{r}) \neq 0.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{main3} shows that any $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifold is naturally endowed with a nearly cosymplectic structure, via the nearly Sasakian $SU(2)$-structure \eqref{mainSU}. On the other hand, as pointed out in Remark \ref{main4}, the deformed $SU(2)$-structure \eqref{Sasaki-E}, which is Sasaki-Einstein, carries two other nearly cosymplectic structures. Thus we devote the next section to further investigate nearly cosymplectic structures on $5$-dimensional manifolds: we show that they are nothing but deformations of Sasaki-Einstein $SU(2)$-structures.
\section{Sasaki-Einstein $SU(2)$-structures and nearly cosymplectic manifolds}
First, we remark that in any $5$-dimensional nearly cosymplectic manifold $(M,\phi, \xi,\eta,g)$ the vanishing of the operator $h$ defined in \eqref{nablaxi_c} provides a necessary and sufficient condition for the structure to be coK\"{a}hler. Indeed, if $h=0$ then the distribution $\mathcal D$ orthogonal to $\xi$ is integrable with totally geodesic leaves; the manifold $M$ turns out to be locally isometric to the Riemannian product $N\times \mathbb{R}$, where $N$ is an integral submanifold of ${\mathcal D}=\ker(\eta)$ endowed with a nearly K\"ahler structure $(g,J)$ induced by the structure tensors $(g,\phi)$. On the other hand, it is known that $4$-dimensional nearly K\"ahler manifolds are K\"ahler (see \cite[Theorem 5.1]{Gray}), and this implies that $(\phi, \xi,\eta,g)$ is a coK\"{a}hler structure.
\medskip
Let $(M,\phi, \xi,\eta,g)$ be a $5$-dimensional nearly cosymplectic manifold.
Let $X$ be a local eigenvector field of the operator $h^2$ with eigenvalue $\mu\ne0$. Then $\{\xi, X, \phi X, hX, h\phi X\}$ is a local orthogonal frame, and $\phi X, hX, h\phi X$ are eigenvector fields of $h^2$ with the same eigenvalue $\mu$. Then one has $h^2=\mu(I-\eta\otimes\xi)$ which, together with \eqref{tr}, implies that $\mu$ is constant. On the other hand, being $h$ skew-symmetric, necessarily $\mu<0$. We put $\mu=-\lambda^2$, $\lambda\ne 0$. In fact $M$ is endowed with an $SU(2)$-structure, as described in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
A nearly cosymplectic structure on a $5$-dimensional manifold is equivalent to an $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{mainSUc}
d\eta=-2\lambda\omega_3,\qquad d\omega_1=3\lambda\eta\wedge\omega_2,\qquad d\omega_2=-3\lambda\eta\wedge\omega_1
\end{equation}
for some real number $\lambda\ne0$. These $SU(2)$-structures are hypo.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a nearly cosymplectic $5$-manifold. The operator $h$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}\label{nearlycos-h}
h^2=-\lambda^2(I-\eta\otimes\xi),
\end{equation*}
for some real number $\lambda\ne0$. Arguing as in Theorem \ref{main2}, the tensor fields
\[\phi_1:=-\frac{1}{\lambda}\phi h,\qquad \phi_2=\phi,\qquad \phi_3:=-\frac{1}{\lambda} h\]
determine an $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$, with $\omega_i(X,Y):=g(\phi_i X,Y)$.
We prove that this structure satisfies \eqref{mainSUc}. Indeed, using \eqref{nablaxi_c}, a simple computation shows that
\[
d\eta(X,Y)=2 g(hX,Y)= -2\lambda\omega_3(X,Y).\]
By \eqref{dPhi_c}, we have
\[
d\omega_2(X,Y,Z)= 3g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z).
\]
For $X=\xi$, using \eqref{nearlycos-nablaxiphi}, we get
\[d\omega_2(\xi,Y,Z)=3g((\nabla_\xi\phi)Y,Z)=3g(\phi hY,Z)=-3\lambda\omega_1(Y,Z).\]
Equation \eqref{nablaphi_hc} implies that for every vector fields $X,Y,Z$ orthogonal to $\xi$, $g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z)=0$ and thus $d\omega_2(X,Y,Z)=0$. Therefore
$d\omega_2=-3\lambda\eta\wedge\omega_1$. In particular we get $d(\eta\wedge\omega_1)=0$ and hence, by \eqref{SU2},
\[\eta\wedge d\omega_1=d\eta\wedge \omega_1=0.\]
Therefore, for every vector fields $X,Y,Z$ orthogonal to $\xi$,
\[d\omega_1(X,Y,Z)=(\eta\wedge d\omega_1)(\xi,X,Y,Z)=0.\]
Now, from \eqref{nablah_c} we have $\nabla_\xi h=0$, and thus, by \eqref{nearlycos-nablaxiphi},
\[\nabla_\xi(\phi h)=(\nabla_\xi\phi) h=\phi h^2=-\lambda^2\phi.\]
Hence, for every vector fields $Y$, $Z$, using also \eqref{nablaxi_c}, we compute
\[\lambda d\omega_1(\xi,Y,Z)=-g((\nabla_\xi\phi h)Y,Z)-g((\nabla_Y\phi h)Z,\xi)-g((\nabla_Z\phi h)\xi,Y)=3\lambda^2g(\phi Y,Z)\]
which implies $d\omega_1(\xi,Y,Z)=3\lambda\omega_2(Y,Z)$.
Consequently, $d\omega_1=3\lambda\eta\wedge\omega_2$ and this completes the proof of \eqref{mainSUc}.
As for the converse, assume that $M$ is a $5$-manifold with an $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSUc} for some real number $\lambda\ne0$. Consider the associated almost contact metric structures $(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$. By using \eqref{nablaphi} and \eqref{mainSUc}, a straightforward computation shows that the covariant derivative of $\phi_2$ is given by:
\[g((\nabla_X\phi_2)Y,Z)=-\frac{1}{3}\,d\Phi(X,Y,Z)\]
so that $(\phi_2,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a nearly cosymplectic structure. The associated operator $h=\nabla\xi$ coincides with $-\lambda\phi_3$. Indeed, applying \eqref{mainSUc},
\[g((\nabla_\xi\phi_2)Y,Z)=\frac{1}{3}\,d\omega_2(X,Y,Z)=-\lambda(\eta\wedge\omega_1)(\xi,Y,Z)=-\lambda g(\phi_1Y,Z),\]
and thus $\nabla_\xi\phi_2=-\lambda\phi_1$. On the other hand, by \eqref{nearlycos-nablaxiphi}, $\nabla_\xi\phi_2=\phi_2h$. Hence, $h=\lambda\phi_2\phi_1=-\lambda\phi_3$.
Finally, form \eqref{mainSUc} the forms $\omega_3$, $\eta\wedge\omega_1$, $\eta\wedge\omega_2$ are closed so that the structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ is hypo.
\end{proof}
Note that if $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ is an $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSUc} and $(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, are the associated almost contact metric structures, then applying \eqref{nablaphi} one can verify that also $(\phi_1,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a nearly cosymplectic structure, while the covariant derivative of $\phi_3$ is given by
\[(\nabla_X\phi_3)Y=\lambda(g(X,Y)\xi-\eta(Y)X),\]
and thus $(\phi_3,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a $\lambda$-Sasakian structure. In particular, for $\lambda=1$, equations \eqref{mainSUc} reduce to the equations of a Sasaki-Einstein structure, so that we deduce the following results.
\begin{corollary}\label{SE-nearly}
Let $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ be an $SU(2)$-structure satisfying the Sasaki-Einstein equations \eqref{S-E}. Let $(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, be the associated almost contact metric structures. Then, for $i=1,2$, $(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a nearly cosymplectic structure.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{nearlycos-se}
Each nearly cosymplectic $5$-dimensional manifold carries a Sasaki-Einstein structure. Conversely, each Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifold carries a $1$-parameter family of nearly cosymplectic structures.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a $5$-dimensional manifold and let $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ be an $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSUc} for some real number $\lambda\ne0$.
Put
\begin{equation}\label{Sasaki-Ec}
\tilde\eta :=\lambda\eta,\quad\tilde\omega_1:=\lambda^2\omega_1,\quad\tilde\omega_2:=\lambda^2\omega_2,\quad\tilde\omega_3:=\lambda^2\omega_3.
\end{equation}
Obviously $(\tilde\eta,\tilde\omega_1,\tilde\omega_2,\tilde\omega_3)$ is an $SU(2)$-structure and one can easily check that it satisfies \eqref{S-E}.
Conversely, given a Sasaki-Einstein structure $(\tilde\eta,\tilde\omega_1,\tilde\omega_2,\tilde\omega_3)$ on $M$, for any real number $\lambda\ne 0$, one can define the $SU(2)$-structure
\begin{equation*}\label{Sasaki-Enearlyc}
\eta :=\frac{1}{\lambda}\,\tilde\eta,\quad\omega_1:=\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\,\tilde\omega_1,\quad
\omega_2:=\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\,\tilde\omega_2,\quad
\omega_3:=\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\,\tilde\omega_3,
\end{equation*}
which satisfies \eqref{mainSUc}.
\end{proof}
In terms of almost contact metric structures, the Sasaki-Einstein structure $(\tilde\phi,\tilde\xi,\tilde\eta,\tilde g)$ attached to any $5$-dimensional nearly cosymplectic manifold $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$, stated by Corollary \ref{nearlycos-se}, is given by
\begin{equation*}
\tilde\phi=-\frac{1}{\lambda}h,\quad \tilde\xi=\frac{1}{\lambda}\,\xi,\quad \tilde\eta=\lambda\eta,\quad\tilde g=\lambda^2g.
\end{equation*}
In particular, the scalar curvatures $s$ and $\tilde s$ of $g$ and $\tilde g$, respectively, are related by
\begin{equation}\label{scalar_c}
s=\lambda^2\tilde s=20\lambda^2.
\end{equation}
Therefore we have the following
\begin{theorem}
Every nearly cosymplectic (non-coK\"{a}hler) $5$-dimensional manifold is Einstein with positive scalar curvature.
\end{theorem}
\section{Hypersurfaces of nearly K\"ahler manifolds}\label{hypersurfaces}
Let $(N,J,\tilde g)$ be an almost Hermitian manifold of dimension $2n+2$. Let $\iota:M\to N$ be a $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ orientable hypersurface and $\nu$ a unit normal vector field. As it is known (see \cite[Section 4.5.2]{BLAIR}) on $M$ it is induced a natural almost contact metric structure $(\phi, \xi,\eta,g)$ given by
\[J\iota_*X=\iota_*\phi X+\eta(X)\nu,\qquad J\nu=-\iota_*\xi,\qquad g=\iota^*\tilde g.\]
We recall now the following fundamental results providing necessary and sufficient conditions for a hypersurface of a nearly K\"ahler manifold to be nearly cosymplectic or nearly Sasakian.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{BLAIR_cos}]\label{hyp_cosym}
Let $M$ be a hypersurface of a nearly K\"ahler manifold $(N,J,g')$. Then the induced almost contact metric manifold $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is nearly cosymplectic if and only if the second fundamental form is given by $\sigma=\beta(\eta\otimes\eta)\nu$ for some function $\beta$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}[\cite{BlairSY}]\label{hyp_sas}
Let $M$ be a hypersurface of a nearly K\"ahler manifold $(N,J, g')$. Then the induced almost contact metric manifold $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is nearly Sasakian if and only if the second fundamental form is given by $\sigma=(-g+\beta(\eta\otimes\eta))\nu$ for some function $\beta$.
\end{theorem}
Concerning $6$-dimensional nearly K\"ahler manifolds, we shall further investigate the $SU(2)$-structure induced on hypersurfaces satisfying the conditions stated in Theorems \ref{hyp_cosym} and \ref{hyp_sas}. First recall that, as proved in \cite{Gray}, any $6$-dimensional nearly K\"ahler non-K\"ahler manifold $(N,J, g')$ is Einstein and of constant type, i.e. it satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{nearlyK}
\|(\nabla'_XJ)Y\|^2=\frac{s'}{30}\left(\|X\|^2\cdot\|Y\|^2-g'(X,Y)^2-g'(X,JY)^2\right)
\end{equation}
where $\nabla'$ is the Levi-Civita connection and $s'>0$ is the scalar curvature of $g'$.
\begin{theorem}\label{hypersurface_c}
Let $(N,J,g')$ be a $6$-dimensional nearly K\"ahler non-K\"ahler manifold and let $M$ be a hypersurface such that the second fundamental form is given by $\sigma=\beta(\eta\otimes\eta)\nu$ for some function $\beta$. Let $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be the induced nearly cosymplectic structure on $M$ and $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ the associated $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSUc}. Then the operator $h$ coincides with the covariant derivative $\nabla'_\nu J$ and the constant $\lambda$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\lambda^2=\frac{s'}{30}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, the scalar curvature of the Einstein Riemannian metric $g$ is $s=\frac{2}{3}s'$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First notice that the hypothesis on the second fundamental form implies that, for any vector fields $X,Y\in\frak{X}(M)$,
\[\nabla'_XY=\nabla_XY+\beta\eta(X)\eta(Y)\nu,\qquad\nabla'_X\nu=-\beta\eta(X)\xi.\]
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
(\nabla'_\nu J)X &= -(\nabla'_X J)\nu\\
&= \nabla'_X\xi+J(\nabla'_X\nu)\\
&= \nabla_X\xi+\beta\eta(X)\nu-\beta\eta(X)J\xi\\
&= hX.
\end{align*}
Now, taking a unit vector field $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$ and applying \eqref{nearlyK}, we have
\[\|hX\|^2=\|(\nabla'_\nu J)X\|^2=\frac{s'}{30}.\]
On the other hand, being $h^2=-\lambda^2(I-\eta\otimes\xi)$, then $\|hX\|^2=-g(h^2X,X)=\lambda^2$.
The assertion on the scalar curvature is consequence of \eqref{scalar_c}.
\end{proof}
Under the hypothesis of the above theorem, applying the deformation \eqref{Sasaki-Ec} to the $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$, one obtains a Sasaki-Einstein structure. Therefore,
\begin{corollary}
Every hypersurface of a $6$-dimensional nearly K\"ahler non-K\"ahler manifold such that the second fundamental form is proportional to $(\eta\otimes\eta)\nu$ carries a Sasaki-Einstein structure.
\end{corollary}
The above Corollary generalizes Lemma 2.1 of \cite{FISU} concerning totally geodesic hypersurfaces of nearly K\"ahler manifolds.
Analogously, we prove the following
\begin{theorem}
Let $(N,J,g')$ be a $6$-dimensional nearly K\"ahler non-K\"ahler manifold and let $M$ be a hypersurface such that the second fundamental form is given by $\sigma=(-g+\beta(\eta\otimes\eta))\nu$ for some function $\beta$. Let $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be the induced nearly Sasakian structure on $M$ and $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ the associated $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSU}. Then the operator $h$ coincides with the covariant derivative $\nabla'_\nu J$ and the constant $\lambda$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\lambda^2=\frac{s'}{30}
\end{equation*}
Therefore, the scalar curvature of the Einstein Riemannian metric $g$ is $s=20+\frac{2}{3}s'$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For every vector fields $X,Y\in\frak{X}(M)$, we have
\[\nabla'_XY=\nabla_XY-g(X,Y)\nu+\beta\eta(X)\eta(Y)\nu,\qquad\nabla'_X\nu=X-\beta\eta(X)\xi.\]
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
(\nabla'_\nu J)X &= -(\nabla'_X J)\nu\\
&= \nabla'_X\xi+J(\nabla'_X\nu)\\
&= \nabla_X\xi-\eta(X)\nu+\beta\eta(X)\nu+J X-\beta\eta(X)J\xi\\
&= -\phi X+hX+\phi X\\
&= hX.
\end{align*}
Taking a unit vector field $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$ and applying \eqref{nearlyK}, we have $\|hX\|^2=\frac{s'}{30}$.
On the other hand, $\|hX\|^2=-g(h^2X,X)=\lambda^2$.
The assertion on the scalar curvature is consequence of \eqref{scalar_S}.
\end{proof}
In this case, applying the deformation \eqref{Sasaki-E} to the $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$, we obtain a Sasaki-Einstein structure. Therefore,
\begin{corollary}
Every hypersurface of a $6$-dimensional nearly K\"ahler non-K\"ahler manifold such that the second fundamental form is given by $\sigma=(-g+\beta(\eta\otimes\eta))\nu$, for some function $\beta$, carries a Sasaki-Einstein structure.
\end{corollary}
In particular the above Corollary holds for totally umbilical hypersurfaces of nearly K\"ahler manifolds with shape operator $A=-I$.
\begin{example}
\emph{We recall two basic examples of $5$-dimensional nearly cosymplectic and nearly Sasakian manifolds (\cite{BLAIR_cos, BlairSY}). First consider $\mathbb{R}^7$ as the imaginary part of the Cayley numbers $\mathbb{O}$, with the product vector $\times$ induced by the Cayley product. Let $S^6$ be the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^7$ and $N=\sum_{i=1}^7x^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}$ the unit outer normal. One can define an almost complex structure $J$ on $S^6$ by $JX=N\times X$. It is well known that this almost complex structure is nearly K\"ahler (non-K\"ahler) with respect to the induced Riemannian metric.}
\emph{Consider $S^5$ as a totally geodesic hypersurface of $S^6$ defined by $x^7=0$ with unit normal $\nu=-\frac{\partial}{\partial x^7}$. Let $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be the induced almost contact metric structure on $S^5$, with
\[\xi=-J\nu=N\times\frac{\partial}{\partial x^7}=x^1\frac{\partial}{\partial x^6}-x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x^5}-x^3\frac{\partial}{\partial x^4}+x^4\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}
+x^5\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}-x^6\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1},\]
and $\eta$ given by the restriction of $x^1dx^6-x^6dx^1+x^5dx^2-x^2dx^5+x^4dx^3-x^3dx^4$ to $S^5$. This almost contact metric structure is nearly cosymplectic non-coK\"ahler. Considering the associated $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ satisfying \eqref{mainSUc}, we have $\lambda^2=1$ since the scalar curvature of $S^6$ is $s'=30$. Coherently with Theorem \ref{hypersurface_c}, the scalar curvature of $S^5$ is $s=20$.}
\emph{Now consider $S^5$ as a totally umbilical hypersurface of $S^6$ defined by $x^7=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}$, with unit normal at each point $x$ given by $\nu=x-\sqrt{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^7}=\sum_{i=1}^{6}x^i\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^7}$, so that the shape operator is $A=-I$. Let $(\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be the induced almost contact metric structure, where
\[\xi=-J\nu=\sqrt{2}\left(x^1\frac{\partial}{\partial x^6}-x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x^5}-x^3\frac{\partial}{\partial x^4}+x^4\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}
+x^5\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}-x^6\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1}\right)\,,\]
and $\eta$ given by the restriction of $\sqrt{2}\left(x^1dx^6-x^6dx^1+x^5dx^2-x^2dx^5+x^4dx^3-x^3dx^4\right)$ to $S^5$. This structure is nearly Sasakian, but not Sasakian and again, taking into account the associated $SU(2)$-structure satisfying \eqref{mainSU}, the constant $\lambda$ satisfies $\lambda^2=1$. The scalar curvature of the hypersurface is $40$, coherently with the fact that it has constant sectional curvature $2$.}
\end{example}
\section{Canonical connections on nearly Sasakian manifolds}
It is well known that nearly Kahler manifolds are endowed with a canonical Hermitian connection $\bar\nabla$, called \emph{Gray connection}, defined by
\begin{equation*}
\bar\nabla_{X}Y = \nabla_{X}Y + \frac{1}{2}(\nabla_{X}J)JY,
\end{equation*}
which is the unique Hermitian connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion. To the knowledge of the authors there does not exist any canonical connection, analogous to $\bar\nabla$, in the context of nearly Sasakian geometry. In particular, in \cite{FrIv} Friedrich and Ivanov proved that an almost contact metric manifold $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ admits a (unique) linear connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion parallelizing all the structure tensors, if and only if $\xi$ is Killing and the tensor $N_\phi$ is totally skew-symmetric. Using this result, we prove the following
\begin{proposition}
A nearly Sasakian manifold $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ admits a linear connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion parallelizing all the structure tensors if and only if it is Sasakian.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the tensor field $N_\phi$ is also given by
\[N_{\phi}(X,Y)=(\nabla_{\phi X}\phi)Y-(\nabla_{\phi Y}\phi)X+(\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y-(\nabla_Y\phi)\phi X+\eta(X)\nabla_Y\xi-\eta(Y)\nabla_X\xi.\]
Setting $N(X,Y,Z):=g(N_{\phi}(X,Y),Z)$, a straightforward computation using the above formula, \eqref{nablaxi} and \eqref{nablaxiphi}, gives
\[N(X,Y,\xi)+N(X,\xi,Y)=g(hX,Y).\]
Hence, if $N_\phi$ is totally-symmetric, then $h=0$ and the structure is Sasakian.
\end{proof}
Thus it makes sense to find adapted connections which can be useful in the study of nearly Sasakian manifolds. We have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Let $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a nearly Sasakian manifold. Fix a real number $r$. Then, there exists a unique linear connection $\bar\nabla$ which parallelizes all the structure tensors and such that the torsion tensor $\bar T$ of $\bar\nabla$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] $\bar T$ is totally skew-symmetric on $\mathcal D=\ker(\eta)$,
\item[2)] the $(1,1)$-tensor field $\tau$ defined by
\[\tau X=\bar T(\xi, X)\]
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{tau_phi}
\tau\phi+\phi\tau=-2(r+1)\phi^2.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
This linear connection is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{canonic0}
\bar\nabla_XY=\nabla_XY+H(X,Y)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{canonic}
H(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}(\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y-r\,\eta(X)\phi Y+\eta(Y)(\phi-h)X-\frac{1}{2}g((\phi-h)X,Y)\xi.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let \ us \ consider \ the \ $(0,3)$-tensors \ defined \ by \ $H(X,Y,Z):=g(H(X,Y),Z)$ \ and \ $\bar T(X,Y,Z):=g(\bar T(X,Y),Z)$. First,
we prove that the linear connection defined by \eqref{canonic0} and \eqref{canonic} parallelizes the structure.
Notice that $H(X,\xi)=\phi X-hX=-\nabla_X\xi$, and thus $\bar\nabla_X\xi=0$. The linear connection is metric if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{H-metric}
H(X,Y,Z)+H(X,Z,Y)=0.
\end{equation}
We compute,
\begin{align}\label{nablaphi2}
(\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y+\phi (\nabla_X\phi)Y&=(\nabla_X\phi^2)Y\nonumber\\&=(\nabla_X\eta)(Y)\xi+\eta(Y)\nabla_X\xi\nonumber\\
&= g(Y,\nabla_X\xi)\xi+\eta(Y)\nabla_X\xi\nonumber\\
&={}-g(Y,\phi X-hX)\xi-\eta(Y)(\phi X-hX).
\end{align}
A straightforward computation using \eqref{canonic} and \eqref{nablaphi2} gives \eqref{H-metric}.
Moreover, $\bar \nabla$ satisfies $\bar\nabla\phi=0$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{Hphi_parallel}
(\nabla_X\phi)Y+H(X,\phi Y)-\phi H(X,Y)=0,
\end{equation}
which is proved again by a simple computation using \eqref{nablaphi2}.
The torsion of $\bar\nabla$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\bar T(X,Y)&=H(X,Y)-H(Y,X)\\
&=\frac{1}{2}((\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y-(\nabla_Y\phi)\phi X)-g((\phi-h)X,Y)\xi\\
&\quad -(r+1)(\eta(X)\phi Y-\eta(Y)\phi X)+\eta(X)hY-\eta(Y)hX.
\end{align*}
Now, applying \eqref{main} and \eqref{H-metric} we get
\begin{align*}
(\nabla_Y\phi)\phi X&=-\phi (\nabla_Y\phi)X-g(X,\phi Y-hY)\xi-\eta(X)(\phi Y-hY)\\
&= \phi (\nabla_X\phi)Y+\eta(X)\phi Y+\eta(Y)\phi X+g(\phi X-hX, Y)\xi-\eta(X)(\phi Y-hY)\\
&=-(\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y+\eta(X)hY+\eta(Y)hX.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\bar T(X,Y)
&= (\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y-(r+1)(\eta(X)\phi Y-\eta(Y)\phi X)\\
&\quad +\frac{1}{2}\eta(X)hY-\frac{3}{2}\eta(Y)hX-g((\phi-h)X,Y)\xi.
\end{align*}
In particular, for every $X,Y,Z\in\mathcal{D}$, applying \eqref{nablaphi2}, we have
\begin{align*}
\bar T(X,Y,Z)+\bar T(X,Z,Y
&=g((\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y+\phi(\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z)=0
\end{align*}
which proves condition 1). Finally,
\[\tau=(\nabla_\xi\phi)\phi-(r+1)\phi+\frac{1}{2}h=\frac{3}{2}h-(r+1)\phi,\]
which implies \eqref{tau_phi}.
We prove the uniqueness of the connection. Suppose that $\bar\nabla$ is a linear connection parallelizing the structure and whose torsion satisfies 1) and 2). We determine the tensor $H$ defined by \eqref{canonic0}.
First we prove that for every $X,Y,Z\in \mathcal{D}$,
\begin{equation}\label{HD}
H(X,Y,Z)=\frac{1}{2}g((\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y,Z).
\end{equation}
Since $\bar\nabla$ is a metric connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion on $\mathcal D$,
for every $X,Y,Z\in \mathcal D$ we have
\begin{align*}
\bar T(X,Y,Z)&= \bar T(X,Y,Z)-\bar T(Y,Z,X)+\bar T(Z,X,Y)\\
&= H(X,Y,Z)- H(Y,X,Z)-H(Y,Z,X)\\&\quad+H(Z,Y,X)+H(Z,X,Y)-H(X,Z,Y)\\
&= 2H(X,Y,Z),
\end{align*}
and thus the tensor $H$ is totally skew-symmetric on $\mathcal D$.
Being $\bar\nabla\phi=0$, \eqref{Hphi_parallel} holds. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{Hphi}
H(X,Y,\phi Z)+H(X,\phi Y,Z)= - g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z).
\end{equation}
Now, we take the cycling permutation sum of the above formula. By the skew-symmetry of $H$ and \eqref{main}, we get
\[2\mathop{\Large{\frak S}}_{XYZ}H(X,Y,\phi Z)=-3g((\nabla_X\phi)Y,Z).\]
Substituting $Y$ with $\phi Y$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Hcyclic}
2H(X,\phi Y,\phi Z)+2H(\phi Y,Z,\phi X)-2H(Z, X,Y)=-3g((\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y,Z).
\end{equation}
Now, applying \eqref{Hphi} and \eqref{main},
\begin{align*}
H(X,\phi Y,\phi Z)+H(\phi Y,Z,\phi X)&=-H(\phi Y,X,\phi Z)-H(\phi Y,\phi X,Z)\\
&=g((\nabla_{\phi Y}\phi)X,Z)\\
&=-g((\nabla_X\phi)\phi Y,Z).
\end{align*}
Hence, substituting in \eqref{Hcyclic}, we get \eqref{HD}.
Now, being $\bar\nabla\xi=0$, for every vector field $X$, we have $H(X,\xi)=-\nabla_X\xi=\phi X-hX$.
Moreover, since $\bar\nabla$ is a metric connection, then $H(X,Y,\xi)=-H(X,\xi,Y)$.
Therefore, it remains to determine $H(\xi,X)$.
By $\bar\nabla\phi=0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
H(\xi,\phi X)-\phi H(\xi,X)=-(\nabla_\xi\phi)X=-\phi hX.
\end{equation*}
We compute
\begin{align*}
(\tau\phi-\phi\tau)X&=\bar T(\xi,\phi X)-\phi \bar T(\xi,X)\\
&=H(\xi,\phi X)-H(\phi X,\xi)-\phi H(\xi,X)+\phi H(X,\xi)\\
&= -\phi hX-(\phi^2X-h\phi X)+\phi(\phi X-hX)\\
&= 3h\phi X.
\end{align*}
Combining the above formula with condition 2), we obtain
\[2\tau\phi=3h\phi-2(r+1)\phi^2.\]
Now, being $\tau\xi=0$, we get
\[\tau=\frac{3}{2}h-(r+1)\phi.\]
It follows that
\[H(\xi,X)=\bar T(\xi,X)+H(X,\xi)=\frac{1}{2}hX-r\phi X.\]
This completes the proof that $H$ coincides with the tensor defined in \eqref{canonic}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\emph{Suppose that $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a Sasakian manifold. Recall that the covariant derivative of $\phi$ is given by
\[(\nabla_X\phi)Y=g(X,Y)\xi-\eta(Y)X\]
(see \cite[Theorem 6.3]{BLAIR}). Then the tensor $H$ in \eqref{canonic} becomes:}
\[H(X,Y) = g(X,\phi Y)\xi-r\,\eta(X)\phi Y+\eta(Y)\phi X.\]
\emph{It follows that $\bar\nabla$ coincides with the linear connection defined by Okumura in \cite{Okumura} (see also \cite{Tak}). In the case $r=-1$, this is the Tanaka-Webster connection (cf. \cite{Tanno}). In the case $r=1$, this is the unique linear connection on the Sasakian manifold $M$ parallelizing the structure and with totally skew-symmetric torsion defined in \cite{FrIv}.}
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}
Let $(M,\phi,\xi,\eta,g)$ be a $5$-dimensional nearly Sasakian manifold. Let $\bar\nabla$ be the canonical connection defined in \eqref{canonic0} and \eqref{canonic}. Then the structure tensor $h$ is parallel with respect to $\bar\nabla$ if and only if $r=\frac{1}{2}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using \eqref{canonic} and \eqref{nablaphi-completo}, we can compute
\begin{equation}\label{H5}
H(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\eta(X)hY-r\eta(X)\phi Y+\eta(Y)(\phi X-hX)-g(\phi X-hX,Y)\xi.
\end{equation}
Now, using the above formula and \eqref{nablah-completo}, a straightforward computation gives
\begin{equation*}
(\bar\nabla_Xh)Y=(\nabla_Xh)Y +H(X,hY)-hH(X,Y)=(1-2r)\eta(X)\phi hY
\end{equation*}
which proves our claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{remark_canonic}
\emph{The canonical connection corresponding to $r=\frac{1}{2}$ actually parallelizes the $SU(2)$-structure $\{(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)\}_{i\in\{1,2,3\}}$, or equivalently $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$, associated to the nearly Sasakian non-Sasakian structure. Furthermore the torsion of the canonical connection is given by}
\[\bar T(X,Y)=\frac{3}{2}\{\eta(Y)(\phi X-hX)-\eta(X)(\phi Y-hY)\}-2g(\phi X-hX,Y)\xi,\]
\emph{which turns out to satisfy $\bar\nabla\bar T=0$.}
\emph{Now, if we apply the deformation \eqref{Sasaki-E}, also the Sasaki-Einstein $SU(2)$-structure $(\tilde\eta,\tilde\omega_1,\tilde\omega_2,\tilde\omega_3)$ is parallel with respect to the canonical connection $\bar\nabla$. Furthermore, by \eqref{h-5dim} and \eqref{deformation}, we obtain}
\[H(X,Y)=\tilde g(X,\tilde \phi Y)\tilde \xi-\frac{1}{2}\,\tilde \eta(X)\tilde \phi Y+\tilde \eta(Y)\tilde \phi X.\]
\emph{Therefore, the canonical connection $\bar\nabla$ coincides with the Okumura connection associated to the Sasakian structure $(\tilde \phi,\tilde \xi,\tilde \eta,\tilde g)$ for $r=\frac{1}{2}$.}
\end{remark}
In general, for a Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifold we have the following
\begin{proposition}
Let $M$ be a Sasaki-Einstein $5$-manifold with $SU(2)$-structure $(\eta,\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$. Then the Okumura connection corresponding to $r=\frac{1}{2}$ and associated to the Sasakian structure $(\phi_3,\xi,\eta, g)$ parallelizes the whole $SU(2)$-structure.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The Okumura connection corresponding to $r=\frac{1}{2}$ and associated to the Sasakian structure $( \phi_3, \xi, \eta, g)$ is given by
\[\bar\nabla_XY=\nabla_XY+H(X,Y),\]
where
\begin{equation}\label{ok}
H(X,Y) = g(X,\phi_3 Y)\xi-\frac{1}{2}\eta(X)\phi_3 Y+\eta(Y)\phi_3 X.
\end{equation}
By Corollary \ref{SE-nearly}, the almost contact metric structure $(\phi_2,\xi,\eta,g)$ is nearly cosymplectic, and thus
\[3g((\nabla_X\phi_2)Y,Z)=d\omega_2(X,Y,Z)=-3(\eta\wedge\omega_1)(X,Y,Z).\]
Therefore, an easy computation gives
\[(\nabla_X\phi_2)Y=g(X,\phi_1Y)\xi-\eta(X)\phi_1Y+\eta(Y)\phi_1X.\]
Using the above equation, \eqref{ok} and $\phi_2\phi_3=\phi_1=-\phi_3\phi_2$, we have
\[(\bar\nabla_X\phi_2)Y=(\nabla_X\phi_2)Y+H(X,\phi_2 Y)-\phi_2 H(X,Y)=0.\]
Hence, all the structure tensors $(\phi_i,\xi,\eta,g)$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, are parallel with respect to $\bar\nabla$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum query complexity is an important method of understanding the power of quantum computers. In this model we are given a black-box containing a boolean string $x=x_1\cdots x_N$, and we would like to calculate some function $f(x)$ with as few quantum accesses to the black-box as possible. It is often easier to give bounds on the query complexity than to the time complexity of a problem, and insights from the former often prove useful in understanding the power and limitations of quantum computers. One famous example is Grover's algorithm for unstructured search \cite{grover-1997}; by casting this problem into the query model it was shown that $\Theta(\sqrt{N})$ queries was required \cite{bbbv-1997}, proving that Grover's algorithm is optimal.
Several methods have been proposed to bound the quantum query complexity. Upper bounds are almost always proven by finding better query algorithms. Some general methods of constructing quantum algorithms have been proposed, such as quantum walks \cite{ambainis-2003,szegedy-2004,magniez-2006,jeffery-2012} and learning graphs \cite{belovs-2011}. For lower bounds, the main methods are the polynomial method \cite{beals-1998} and adversary method \cite{ambainis-2000}. In particular, the general adversary lower bound \cite{hoyer-2007} has been shown to tightly characterize quantum query complexity \cite{reichardt-2009,reichardt-2011,lee-2010}, but calculating such a tight bound seems difficult in general. Nevertheless, the general adversary lower bound is valuable as a theoretical tool, for example in proving composition theorems \cite{reichardt-2011,lee-2010,kimmel-2013} or showing nonconstructive (!) upper bounds \cite{kimmel-2013}.
\subsection*{Our work}
To improve our understanding of quantum query complexity, we introduce and study an alternative oracle model, which we call the \emph{bomb oracle} (see Section \ref{sect:bomb query} for the precise definition). Our model is inspired by the concept of \emph{interaction free measurements}, illustrated vividly by the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb testing problem \cite{elitzur-1993}, in which a property of a system can be measured without disturbing the system significantly. Like the quantum oracle model, in the bomb oracle model we want to evaluate a function $f(x)$ on a hidden boolean string $x=x_1\cdots x_N$ while querying the oracle as few times as possible. In this model, however, the bomb oracle is a controlled quantum oracle with the extra requirement that the algorithm fails if the controlled query returns a 1. This seemingly impossible task can be tackled using the quantum Zeno effect \cite{misra-1977}, in a fashion similar to the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester \cite{kwiat-1995} (Section \ref{sect:elitzur-vaidman}).
Our main result (Theorem \ref{thm:main result}) is that the bomb query complexity, $B(f)$, is characterized by the square of the quantum query complexity $Q(f)$:
\begin{repthm}{thm:main result}
\begin{equation}
B(f) = \Theta(Q(f)^2).
\end{equation}
\end{repthm}
We prove the upper bound, $B(f) = O(Q(f)^2)$ (Theorem \ref{thm:upperbound}), by adapting Kwiat et al.'s solution of the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb testing problem (Section \ref{sect:elitzur-vaidman}, \cite{kwiat-1995}) to our model. We prove the lower bound, $B(f) = \Omega(Q(f)^2)$ (Theorem \ref{thm:lowerbound}), by demonstrating that $B(f)$ is lower bounded by the square of the general adversary bound \cite{hoyer-2007}, $(\text{Adv}^\pm(f))^2$. The aforementioned result that the general adversary bound tightly characterizes the quantum query complexity \cite{reichardt-2009,reichardt-2011,lee-2010}, $Q(f)= \Theta(\text{Adv}^\pm(f) )$, allows us to draw our conclusion.
This characterization of Theorem \ref{thm:main result} allows us to give \emph{nonconstructive} upper bounds to the quantum query complexity for some problems. For some functions $f$ a bomb query algorithm is easily designed by adapting a classical algorithm: specifically, we show that (stated informally):
\begin{repthm}{thm:classical}[informal]
Suppose there is a classical algorithm that computes $f(x)$ in $T$ queries, and the algorithm guesses the result of each query (0 or 1), making no more than an expected $G$ mistakes for all $x$. Then we can design a bomb query algorithm that uses $O(TG)$ queries, and hence $B(f) = O(TG)$. By our characterization of Theorem \ref{thm:main result}, $Q(f)=O(\sqrt{TG})$.
\end{repthm}
This result inspired us to look for an explicit quantum algorithm that reproduces the query complexity $O(\sqrt{TG})$. We were able to do so:
\begin{repthm}{thm:classical to quantum}
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:classical}, there is an explicit algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:classical}) for $f$ with query complexity $O(\sqrt{TG})$.
\end{repthm}
Using Algorithm \ref{alg:classical}, we were able to give an $O(n^{3/2})$ algorithm for the single-source shortest paths (SSSP) problem in an unweighted graph with $n$ vertices, beating the best-known $O(n^{3/2} \sqrt{\log n})$ algorithm \cite{furrow-2008}. A more striking application is our $O(n^{7/4})$ algorithm for maximum bipartite matching; in this case the best-known upper bound was the trivial $O(n^2)$, although the time complexity of this problem had been studied in \cite{ambainis-2006} (and similar problems in \cite{dorn-2008}).
Finally, in Section \ref{sect:projective query} we briefly discuss a related query complexity model, which we call the \emph{projective query complexity} $P(f)$, in which each quantum query to $x$ is immediately followed by a classical measurement of the query result. This model seems interesting to us because its power lies between classical and quantum: we observe that $P(f) \le B(f) = \Theta(Q(f)^2)$ and $Q(f) \le P(f) \le R(f)$, where $R(f)$ is the classical randomized query complexity. We note that Regev and Schiff \cite{regev-2008} showed that $P(OR)=\Theta(N)$.
\subsection*{Past and related work}
Mitchison and Jozsa have proposed a different computational model called \emph{counterfactual computation} \cite{mitchison-2001}, also based on interaction-free measurement. In counterfactual computation the result of a computation may be learnt without ever running the computer. There has been some discussion on what constitutes counterfactual computation; see for example \cite{hosten-2006,mitchison-2006,hosten-2006-2,vaidman-2006,hosten-2006-3,salih-2013,vaidman-2013}.
There have also been other applications of interaction-free measurement to quantum cryptography. For example, Noh has proposed counterfactual quantum cryptography \cite{noh-2009}, where a secret key is distributed between parties, even though a particle carrying secret information is not actually transmitted. More recently, Brodutch et al. proposed an adaptive attack \cite{brodutch-2014} on Wiesner's quantum money scheme \cite{wiesner-1983}; this attack is directly based off Kwiat et al.'s solution of the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb testing problem \cite{kwiat-1995}.
Our Algorithm \ref{alg:classical} is very similar to Kothari's algorithm for the oracle identification problem \cite{kothari-2014}, and we refer to his analysis of the query complexity in our work.
The projective query model we detail in Section \ref{sect:projective query} was, to our knowledge, first considered by Aaronson in unpublished work in 2002 \cite{aaronson-2014}.
\subsection*{Discussion and outlook}
Our work raises a number of open questions. The most obvious ones are those pertaining to the application of our recipe for turning classical algorithms into bomb algorithms, Theorem \ref{thm:classical}:
\begin{itemize}
\item Can we generalize our method to handle non-boolean input and output? If so, we might be able to find better upper bounds for the adjacency-list model, or to study graph problems with weighted edges.
\item Can our explicit (through Theorem \ref{thm:classical to quantum}) algorithm for maximum bipartite matching be made more \emph{time} efficient? The best known quantum algorithm for this task has time complexity $O(n^2\log n)$ in the adjacency matrix model \cite{ambainis-2006}.
\item Finally, can we find more upper bounds using Theorem \ref{thm:classical}? For example, could the query complexity of the maximum matching problem on general nonbipartite graphs be improved with Theorem \ref{thm:classical}, by analyzing the classical algorithm of Micali and Vazirani \cite{micali-1980}?
\end{itemize}
Perhaps more fundamental, however, is the possibility that the bomb query complexity model will help us understand the relationship between the classical randomized query complexity, $R(f)$, and the quantum query complexity $Q(f)$. It is known \cite{beals-1998} that for all total functions $f$, $R(f) = O(Q(f)^6)$; however, there is a long-standing conjecture that actually $R(f) = O(Q(f)^2)$. In light of our results, this conjecture is equivalent to the conjecture that $R(f) = O(B(f))$. Some more open questions, then, are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item Can we say something about the relationship between $R(f)$ and $B(f)$ for specific classes of functions? For example, is $R(f) = O(B(f)^2)$ for total functions?
\item Referring to the notation of Theorem \ref{thm:classical}, we have $B(f) = O(TG)$. Is the quantity $G$ related to other measures used in the study of classical decision-tree complexity, for example the certificate complexity, sensitivity \cite{cook-1986}, block sensitivity \cite{nisan-1991}, or (exact or approximate) polynomial degree? (For a review, see \cite{buhrman-1999}.)
\item What about other query complexity models that might help us understand the relationship between $R(f)$ and $Q(f)$? One possibility is the projective query complexity, $P(f)$, considered in Section \ref{sect:projective query}. Regev and Schiff \cite{regev-2008} have shown (as a special case of their results) that even with such an oracle, $P(OR)=\Theta(N)$ queries are needed to evaluate the OR function.
\end{itemize}
We hope that further study on the relationship between bomb and classical randomized complexity will shed light on the power and limitations of quantum computation.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{The Elitzur-Vaidman bomb testing problem} \label{sect:elitzur-vaidman}
The Elitzur-Vaidman bomb testing problem \cite{elitzur-1993} is a well-known thought experiment to demonstrate how quantum mechanics differs drastically from our classical perceptions. This problem demonstrates dramatically the possibility of \emph{interaction free measurements}, the possibility of a measurement on a property of a system without disturbing the system.
The bomb-testing problem is as follows: assume we have a bomb that is either a dud or a live bomb. The only way to interact with the bomb is to probe it with a photon: if the bomb is a dud, then the photon passes through unimpeded; if the bomb is live, then the bomb explodes. We would like to determine whether the bomb is live or not without exploding it. If we pass the photon through a beamsplitter before probing the bomb, we can implement the \emph{controlled probe}, pictured below:
\begin{align} \label{circ:bombEV}
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{c}}& \ctrl{1} & \rstick{\ket{c}} \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{0}}& \gate{I\text{ or }X} &\meter & \rstick{\text{explodes if 1}}
}
\end{align}
The controlled gate is $I$ if the bomb is a dud, and $X$ if it is live. It was shown in \cite{kwiat-1995} how to determine whether a bomb was live with arbitrarily low probability of explosion by making use of the quantum Zeno effect \cite{misra-1977}. Specifically, writing $R(\theta)=\exp(i\theta X)$ (the unitary operator rotating $\ket{0}$ to $\ket{1}$ in $\pi/(2\theta)$ steps), the following circuit determines whether the bomb is live with failure probability $O(\theta)$:
\begin{align}
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{0}} & \qw &\gate{R(\theta)}& \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & &&\gate{R(\theta)} & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw \\
& &\lstick{\ket{0}} &\gate{I\text{ or }X} & \meter & & \ustick{\dots} & &\lstick{\ket{0}}&\gate{I\text{ or }X} & \meter & \\
&&&&\dstick{{\pi/(2\theta)}\,\text{times in total}} \gategroup{1}{3}{2}{11}{1.0em}{--} \\
} \\
\, \nonumber
\end{align}
If the bomb is a dud, then the controlled probes do nothing, and repeated application of $R(\theta)$ rotates the control bit from $\ket{0}$ to $\ket{1}$. If the bomb is live, the bomb explodes with $O(\theta^2)$ probability in each application of the probe, projecting the control bit back to $\ket{0}$. After $O(1/\theta)$ iterations the control bit stays in $\ket{0}$, with only a $O(\theta)$ probability of explosion. Using $O(1/\theta)$ operations, we can thus tell a dud bomb apart from a live one with only $O(\theta)$ probability of explosion.
\subsection{Quantum query complexity} \label{sect:quantum query}
Throughout this paper, all functions $f$ which we would like to calculate are assumed to have boolean input, i.e. the domain is $D \subseteq \{0,1\}^N$.
For a boolean strings $x \in \{0,1\}^N$, the quantum oracle $O_x$ is a unitary operator that acts on a one-qubit record register and an $N$-dimensional index register as follows ($\oplus$ is the XOR function):
\begin{equation}
O_x\ket{r,i} = \ket{r\oplus x_i,i}
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{r}}&\multigate{1}{O_x} & \rstick{\ket{r\oplus x_i}}\qw\\
\lstick{\ket{i}}& \ghost{O_x} & \rstick{\ket{i}} \qw } \nonumber
\end{align}
We want to determine the value of a boolean function $f(x)$ using as few queries to the quantum oracle $O_x$ as possible. Algorithms for $f$ have the general form as the following circuit, where the $U_t$'s are unitaries independent of $x$:
$$
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
&\multigate{5}{U_0} & \multigate{1}{O_x} &\multigate{5}{U_1} & \multigate{1}{O_x} &\multigate{5}{U_2} & \multigate{1}{O_x} &\multigate{5}{U_3}&\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0} &\ghost{O_x} &\ghost{U_1} &\ghost{O_x} &\ghost{U_0} &\ghost{O_x} &\ghost{U_0}&\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} & \rstick{\dots}\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw
}
$$
The quantum query complexity $Q_{\delta}(f)$ is the minumum number of applications of $O_x$'s in the circuit requried to determine $f(x)$ with error no more than $\delta$ for all $x$. By gap amplification (e.g. by performing the circuit multiple rounds and doing majority voting), it can be shown that the choice of $\delta$ only affects the query complexity by a $\log(1/\delta)$ factor. We therefore often set $\delta = 0.01$ and write $Q_{0.01}(f)$ as $Q(f)$.
\section{Bomb query complexity} \label{sect:bomb query}
In this section we introduce a new query complexity model, which we call the \emph{bomb query complexity}. A circuit in the bomb query model is a restricted quantum query circuit, with the following restrictions on the usage of the quantum oracle:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have an extra control register $\ket{c}$ used to control whether $O_x$ is applied (we call the controlled version $CO_x$):
\begin{equation}
CO_x\ket{c,r,i} = \ket{c,r\oplus(c\cdot x_i),i}.
\end{equation}
where $\cdot$ indicates boolean AND.
\item The record register, $\ket{r}$ in the definition of $CO_x$ above, \emph{must} contain $\ket{0}$ before $CO_x$ is applied.
\item After $CO_x$ is applied, the record register is immediately measured in the computational basis (giving the answer $c\cdot x_i$), and the algorithm \emph{terminates immediately if a 1 is measured} (if $c\cdot x_i = 1$). We refer to this as \emph{the bomb blowing up} or \emph{the bomb exploding}.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{align} \label{circ:bomb}
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{c}}& \ctrl{1} &\qw & \rstick{\ket{c}} \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{0}}& \multigate{1}{O_x} &\meter & \measure{\text{bomb}}\cw & \rstick{\text{explodes if }c\cdot x_i =1} \\
\lstick{\ket{i}}&\ghost{O_x} &\qw & \rstick{\ket{i}} \qw
}
\end{align}
We define the \emph{bomb query complexity} $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)$ to be the minimum number of times the above circuit needs to be applied in an algorithm such that the following hold for all input $x$:
\begin{itemize}
\item The algorithm reaches the end without the bomb exploding with probability at least $1-\epsilon$. We refer to the probability that the bomb explodes as the \emph{probability of explosion}.
\item The total probability that the bomb either explodes or fails to output $f(x)$ correctly is no more than $\delta \ge \epsilon$.
\end{itemize}
The above implies that the algorithm outputs the correct answer with probability at least $1-\delta$.
The effect of the above circuit is equivalent to applying the following projector on $\ket{c,i}$:
\begin{align}
M_x = CP_{x,0} &= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\ket{0,i}\bra{0,i} + \sum\limits_{x_i=0}\ket{1,i} \bra{1,i} \\
&= I - \sum\limits_{x_i=1}\ket{1,i} \bra{1,i}.
\end{align}
$CP_{x,0}$ (which we will just call $M_x$ in our proofs later on) is the controlled version of $P_{x,0}$, the projector that projects onto the indices $i$ on which $x_i = 0$:
\begin{align}
P_{x,0} = \sum\limits_{x_i=0}\ket{i}\bra{i}.
\end{align}
Thus Circuit \ref{circ:bomb} is equivalent to the following circuit :
\begin{align}
&\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{c}}& \ctrl{1} &\qw & \rstick{\ket{c}} \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{i}}&\gate{P_{x,0}} &\qw & \rstick{(1-c \cdot x_i)\ket{i}} \qw
}
\end{align}
In this notation, the square of the norm of a state is the probability that the state has survived to this stage, i.e. the algorithm has not terminated. The norm of $(1-c \cdot x_i)\ket{x_i}$ is 1 if $c \cdot x_i = 0$ (the state survives this stage), and 0 otherwise (the bomb blows up).
A general circuit in this model looks like the following:
$$
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
&\multigate{5}{U_0} & \ctrl{1} &\multigate{5}{U_1} & \ctrl{1} &\multigate{5}{U_2} & \ctrl{1} &\multigate{5}{U_3}&\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0} &\gate{P_{x,0}} &\ghost{U_1} &\gate{P_{x,0}} &\ghost{U_0} &\gate{P_{x,0}} &\ghost{U_0}&\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} & \rstick{\dots}\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw \\
&\ghost{U_0}& \qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw & \ghost{U_1} &\qw
}
$$
It is not at all clear that gap amplification can be done efficiently in the bomb query model to improve the error $\delta$; after all, repeating the circuit multiple times increases the chance that the bomb blows up. However, it turns out that the complexity $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)$ is closely related to $Q_{\delta}(f)$, and therefore the choice of $\delta$ affects $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)$ by at most a $\log^2(1/\delta)$ factor as long as $\delta \ge \epsilon$ (see Lemma \ref{lem:delta}). We therefore often omit $\delta$ by setting $\delta = 0.01$, and write $B_{\epsilon,0.01}(f)$ as $B_{\epsilon}(f)$. Sometimes we even omit the $\epsilon$.
Finally, note that the definition of the bomb query complexity $B(f)$ is inherently \emph{asymmetric} with respect to $0$ and $1$ in the input: querying $1$ causes the bomb to blow up, while querying $0$ is safe. In Section \ref{sect:generalize bomb}, we define a \emph{symmetric} bomb query model and its corresponding query complexity, $\tilde{B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)$. We prove that this generalized symmetric model is asymptotically equivalent to the original asymmetric model, $\tilde B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = \Theta({B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f))$, in Lemma \ref{lem:equivalent}. This symmetric version of the bomb query complexity will turn out to be useful in designing bomb query algorithms.
\section{Main result}
Our main result is the following:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:main result} For all functions $f$ with boolean input alphabet, and numbers $\epsilon$ satisfying $0 < \epsilon \le 0.01$,
\begin{equation}
B_{\epsilon,0.01}(f) = \Theta\L(\frac{Q_{0.01}(f)^2}{\epsilon}\right).
\end{equation}
Here 0.01 can be replaced by any constant no more than $1/10$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The upper bound $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = O(Q_\delta(f)^2/\epsilon)$ is proved in Theorem \ref{thm:upperbound}. The lower bound $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = \Omega(Q_{0.01}(f)^2/\epsilon)$ is proved in Theorem \ref{thm:lowerbound}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem:delta} For all functions $f$ with boolean input alphabet, and numbers $\epsilon$, $\delta$ satisfying $0 < \epsilon \le \delta \le 1/10$,
\begin{align}
B_{\epsilon,0.1}(f) = O(B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)),\quad B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)= O(B_{\epsilon,0.1}(f)\log^2(1/\delta)).
\end{align}
In particular, if $\delta$ is constant,
\begin{align}
B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)=\Theta (B_{\epsilon,0.1}(f)).
\end{align}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Theorem \ref{thm:upperbound} and the fact that $Q_{0.1}(f)= O(Q_{\delta}(f))$ and $Q_{\delta}(f)= O(Q_{0.1}(f)\log(1/\delta))$.
\end{proof}
Because of this result, we will often omit the $0.01$ in $B_{\epsilon,0.01}$ and write simply $B_{\epsilon}$.
\subsection{Upper bound}
\begin{thm} \label{thm:upperbound}
For all functions $f$ with boolean input alphabet, and numbers $\epsilon$, $\delta$ satisfying $0 < \epsilon \le \delta \le 1/10$,
\begin{equation}
B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = O(Q_{\delta}(f)^2 / \epsilon).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
The proof follows the solution of Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-testing problem (\cite{kwiat-1995}, or Section \ref{sect:elitzur-vaidman}). By taking advantage of the Quantum Zeno effect \cite{misra-1977}, using $O({Q(f) \over \epsilon})$ calls to $M_x$, we can simulate one call to $O_x$ with probabilty of explosion $O({\epsilon \over Q(f)})$. Replacing all $O_x$ queries with this construction results in a bounded error algorithm with probability of explosion $O({\epsilon \over Q(f) } Q(f)) =O(\epsilon)$.
\begin{proof} Let $\theta = \pi/(2L)$ for some large positive integer $L$ (chosen later), and let $R(\theta)$ be the rotation
\begin{align}
\bpm
\cos\theta &-\sin \theta \\
\sin\theta &\cos\theta
\epm
\end{align}
We claim that with $2L$ calls to the bomb oracle $M_x = CP_{x,0}$, we can simulate $O_x$ by the following circuit with probability of explosion less than $\pi^2/(2L)$ and error $O(1/L)$.
\begin{align}
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{r}} &\qw &\qw&\qw&\qw&\qw&\qw&\qw &\targ &\gate{X} &\qw &\qw&\qw&\qw&\qw&\qw&\qw&\rstick{ \ket{r\oplus x_i}}\qw \\
\lstick{\ket{0}} &\gate{R(\theta)}& \ctrl{1} &\qw& &&\gate{R(\theta)} & \ctrl{1}
& \ctrl{-1} &\qw &\gate{R(-\theta)}& \ctrl{1} &\qw& &&\gate{R(-\theta)} & \ctrl{1} &\rstick{\ket{0}\text{ (discard)}}\qw \\
\lstick{\ket{i}} &\qw &\gate{P_{x,0}} &\qw & \ustick{\dots} & &\qw&\gate{P_{x,0}} & \qw &\qw
& \qw&\gate{P_{x,0}} &\qw & \ustick{\dots} & &\qw&\gate{P_{x,0}} &\rstick{\ket{i}}\qw\\
&&&&\dstick{{L}\,\text{times in total}} &&&&&&&&&&\dstick{\,{L}\,\text{times in total}} \gategroup{2}{2}{3}{8}{.7em}{--} \gategroup{2}{11}{3}{17}{.7em}{--} \\
} \nonumber \\
\, \label{eq:B2O}
\end{align}
In words, we simulate $O_x$ acting on $\ket{r,i}$ by the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Append an ancilla qubit $\ket{0}$, changing the state into $\ket{r,0,i}$.
\item Repeat the following $L$ times: \label{step:zeeno}
\begin{enumerate}
\item apply $R(\theta)$ on the second register
\item apply $M_x$ on the third register controlled by the second register.
\end{enumerate}
At this point, if the bomb hasn't blown up, the second register should contain $1-x_i$.
\item Apply $CNOT$ on the first register controlled by the second register; this copies $1-x_i$ to the first register.
\item Apply a $NOT$ gate to the first register.
\item Repeat the following $L$ times to uncompute the second (ancilla) register \label{step:uncomp}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item apply $R(-\theta)$ on the second register
\item apply $M_x$ on the third register controlled by second register
\end{enumerate}
\item Discard the second (ancilla) register.
\end{enumerate}
We now calculate explicitly the action of the circuit on an arbitrary state to confirm our claims above. Consider how the circuit acts on the basis state $\ket{r,0,i}$ (the second register being the appended ancilla). We break into cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $x_i=0$, then $P_{x,0}\ket{i} = \ket{i}$, so the controlled projections do nothing. Thus in Step 2 the rotation $R(\theta)^L = R(\pi/2)$ is applied to the ancilla qubit, rotating it from $0$ to $1$. After Step 2 then, the state is $\ket{r,1,i}$. Step 3 and 4 together do not change the state, while Step 5 rotates the ancilla back to $0$, resulting in the final state $\ket{r,0,i}$.
\item If $x_i=1$, then $P_{x,0}\ket{i} = 0$, and
\begin{equation}
M_x\ket{0,i} = \ket{0,i}, \quad M_x\ket{1,i} = 0 \quad \text{(for } x_i = 1 \text{)}
\end{equation}
Therefore in Step 2 and Step 5, after each rotation $R(\pm\theta)$, the projection $CP_{x,0}$ projects the ancilla back to 0:
\begin{equation}
M_xR(\theta)\ket{0,i} = M_x(\cos\theta\ket{0} + \sin\theta\ket{1})\ket{i} = \cos\theta\ket{0,i} \quad \text{(for } x_i = 1 \text{)}
\end{equation}
Each application of $M_xR(\theta)$ thus has no change on the state other than to shrink its amplitude by $\cos\theta$. The CNOT in Step 3 has no effect (since the ancilla stays in 0), and Step 4 maps $\ket{r}$ to $\ket{r\oplus 1}$. Since there are $2L$ applications of this shrinkage (in Step 2 and 5), the final state is $\cos^{2L}\theta \ket{r\oplus 1,0,i}$.
\end{itemize}
We can now combine the two cases: by linearity, the application of the circuit on a general state $\sum_{r,i}a_{r,i}\ket{r,i}$ (removing the ancilla) is
\begin{align}
\sum\limits_{r,i}a_{r,i}\ket{r,i} &\rightarrow \sum\limits_{r \in \{0,1\}, x_i = 0}a_{r,i}\ket{r,i} + \sum\limits_{r \in \{0,1\}, x_i = 1}a_{r,i}\cos^{2L}(\theta)\ket{r\oplus 1,i} \\
&= \sum\limits_{r,i}a_{r,i}\cos^{2Lx_i}\left(\frac{\pi}{2L}\right)\ket{r \oplus x_i,i} \equiv \ket{\psi'}
\end{align}
Thus the effect of this construction simulates the usual quantum oracle $\ket{r,i} \rightarrow \ket{r \oplus x_i,i}$ with blowing up probability no more than
\begin{equation}
1 - \cos^{4L}\left(\frac{\pi}{2L}\right) \le 1 - \left(1 - \frac{\pi^2}{4L^2}\right)^{2L} \le \frac{\pi^2}{2L}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the difference between the output of our circuit, $\ket{\psi'}$, and the output on the quantum oracle, $\ket{\psi}=\sum_{r,i}a_{r,i}\ket{r\oplus x_i,i}$, is
\begin{align}
\L\| \ket{\psi'} - \ket{\psi} \right\| &= \L\| \sum\limits_{r \in \{0,1\}, x_i = 1}a_{r,i}(1-\cos^{2L}(\theta))\ket{r\oplus 1,i} \right\| \\
&\le 1 - \cos^{2L}\frac{\pi}{2L} \le \frac{\pi^2}{4L}.
\end{align}
Given this construction, we can now prove our theorem. Suppose we are given a quantum algorithm that finds $f(x)$ with $Q_{\delta'}(f)$ queries, making at most $\delta' = \delta - \epsilon$ error. We construct an algorithm using bomb oracles instead by replacing each of the applications of the quantum oracle $O_x$ by our circuit construction (\ref{eq:B2O}), where we choose
\begin{equation}
L = \L\lceil \frac{\pi^2}{2\epsilon} Q_{\delta'}(f)\right\rceil
\end{equation}
Then the blowing up probability is no more than
\begin{equation}
\frac{\pi^2}{2L} Q_{\delta'}(f) \le \epsilon
\end{equation}
and the difference between the final states, $\ket{\psi_f}$ and $\ket{\psi'_f}$, is at most
\begin{equation}
\L\| \ket{\psi'_{f}} - \ket{\psi_{f}} \right\| \le \frac{\pi^2}{4L} Q_{\delta'}(f) \le \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\end{equation}
Therefore
\begin{align}
\L|\bra{\psi'_{f}}P\ket{\psi'_{f}} - \bra{\psi_{f}}P\ket{\psi_{f}}\right| &\le \L|\bra{\psi'_{f}}P\ket{\psi'_{f}} - \bra{\psi_{f}}P\ket{\psi'_{f}}\right| + \L|\bra{\psi'_{f}}P\ket{\psi_{f}} - \bra{\psi_{f}}P\ket{\psi_{f}}\right| \\
&\le \L\| \ket{\psi'_f} \right\| \L\| P\L(\ket{\psi'_f}-\ket{\psi_f}\right)\right\| + \L\| P\L(\ket{\psi'_f}-\ket{\psi_f}\right)\right\| \L\| \ket{\psi_f} \right\| \\
&\le \epsilon/2 + \epsilon/2 = \epsilon
\end{align}
for any projector $P$ (in particular, the projector that projects onto the classical answer at the end of the algorithm). The algorithm accumulates at most $\epsilon$ extra error at the end, giving a total error of no more than $\delta' + \epsilon = \delta$. This algorithm makes $2LQ_{\delta'}(f) < \frac{\pi^2}{\epsilon} Q_{\delta'}^2(f) + 2Q_{\delta'}(f)$ queries to the bomb oracle, and therefore
\begin{align}
B_{\epsilon,\delta} (f) &< \frac{\pi^2}{\epsilon}Q_{\delta-\epsilon}(f)^2 + 2Q_{\delta-\epsilon}(f)\\
&= O\L(\frac{Q_{\delta-\epsilon}(f)^2}{\epsilon}\right). \label{eq:temp upper bound}
\end{align}
From this we can derive that $B_{\epsilon,\delta} (f) = O(Q_{\delta}(f)^2/\epsilon)$:
\begin{align}
B_{\epsilon,\delta} (f) &< B_{\epsilon/2,\delta} (f) \\
&= O\L(\frac{Q_{\delta-\epsilon/2}(f)^2}{\epsilon}\right),\quad \text{by } \ref{eq:temp upper bound} \\
&= O\L(\frac{Q_{\delta}(f)^2}{\epsilon}\right),\quad \text{since } \frac{\delta}{2} \ge \delta - \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Lower bound} \label{sect:lower bound}
\begin{thm} \label{thm:lowerbound}
For all functions $f$ with boolean input alphabet, and numbers $\epsilon$, $\delta$ satisfying $0 < \epsilon \le \delta \le 1/10$,
\begin{equation}
B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = \Omega(Q_{0.01}(f)^2/\epsilon).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
The proof of this result uses the generalized adversary bound $\text{Adv}^\pm(f)$ \cite{hoyer-2007}: we show that $B_{\epsilon}(f) = \Omega(\text{Adv}^\pm(f)^2/\epsilon)$, and then use the known result that $Q(f) = O(\text{Adv}^\pm(f))$ \cite{lee-2010}. The complete proof is given in Appendix \ref{app:lower bound proof}.
\section{Generalizations and Applications}
We now discuss applications of the result $B_{\epsilon}(f) = \Theta(Q(f)^2/\epsilon)$ that could be useful.
\subsection{Generalizing the bomb query model} \label{sect:generalize bomb}
We consider modifying the bomb query model as follows. We require that the input string $x$ can only be accessed by the following circuit:
\begin{align}
\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{c}}& \ctrl{1} &\ctrl{1} &\qw & \rstick{\ket{c}} \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{0}}& \multigate{1}{O_x} &\targ & \meter & \measure{\text{bomb}}\cw & \rstick{\text{explodes if 1}} \\
\lstick{\ket{i}}&\ghost{O_x} & \qw &\qw & \rstick{\ket{i}} \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{a}}&\qw & \ctrl{-2} & \qw & \qw
}
\end{align}
Compare with Circuit \ref{circ:bomb}; the difference is that there is now an extra register $\ket{a}$, and the bomb explodes only if both $x_i=a$ and the control bit is 1. In other words, the bomb explodes if $c \cdot (x_i \oplus a) = 1$. The three registers $c$, $i$, and $a$ are allowed to be entangled, however. If we discard the second register afterwards, the effect of this circuit, written as a projector, is
\begin{align}
\tilde{M}_x = \sum_{i \in [N],a \in \{0,1\}}\ket{0,i,a}\bra{0,i,a} + \sum_{i,a: x_i = a}\ket{1,i,a}\bra{1,i,a}.
\end{align}
Let $\tilde{B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)$ be the required number of queries to this modified bomb oracle $\tilde{M}_x$ to calculate $f(x)$ with error no more than $\delta$, with a probability of explosion no more than $\epsilon$. Using Theorem \ref{thm:main result}, we show that $\tilde{B}$ and $B$ are equivalent up to a constant:
\begin{lem} \label{lem:equivalent}
If $f:\: D \rightarrow E$, where $D \subseteq \{0,1\}^N$, and $\delta \le 1/10$ is a constant, then $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = \Theta(\tilde{B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f))$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It should be immediately obvious that $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) \ge \tilde{B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)$, since a query in the $B$ model can be simulated by a query in the $\tilde{B}$ model by simply setting $a=0$. In the following we show that $B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = O(\tilde{B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f))$.
For each string $x \in \{0,1\}^N$, define the string $\tilde{x} \in \{0,1\}^{2N}$ by concatenating two copies of $x$ and flipping every bit of the second copy. In other words,
\begin{align} \label{eq:tildex}
\tilde{x}_i = \begin{cases} x_i &\mbox{if } i \le N \\ 1-x_{i-N} &\mbox{if } i > N \end{cases}.
\end{align}
Let $\tilde{D} = \{\tilde{x}: x \in D\}$. Given a function $f:\: D \rightarrow \{0,1\}$, define $\tilde{f}:\: \tilde{D} \rightarrow \{0,1\}$ by $\tilde{f}(\tilde{x}) = f(x)$.
We claim that a $\tilde{B}$ query to $x$ can be simulated by a $B$ query to $\tilde{x}$. This can be seen by comparing $\tilde{M}_x$:
\begin{align}
\tilde{M}_x = \sum_{i \in [N],a}\ket{0,i,a}\bra{0,i,a} + \sum_{i\in[N],a: x_i = a}\ket{1,i,a}\bra{1,i,a}.
\end{align}
and $M_{\tilde{x}}$:
\begin{align}
M_{\tilde{x}} = \sum_{\tilde{i} \in [2N]}\ket{0,\tilde{i}}\bra{0,\tilde{i}} + \sum_{\tilde{i} \in [2N]: \tilde{x}_i=0}\ket{1,\tilde{i}}\bra{1,\tilde{i}}.
\end{align}
Recalling the definition of $\tilde{x}$ in \ref{eq:tildex}, we see that these two projectors are exactly equal if we encode $\tilde{i}$ as $(i,a)$, where $i \equiv \tilde{i} \mod N$ and $a = \lfloor i / N \rfloor$.
Since $\tilde{f}(\tilde{x}) = f(x)$, we thus have $\tilde{B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) = B_{\epsilon,\delta}(\tilde{f})$. Our result then readily follows; it can easily be checked that $Q(f) = Q(\tilde{f})$, and therefore by Theorem \ref{thm:main result},
\begin{align}
\tilde{B}_{\epsilon,\delta}(f) &= B_{\epsilon,\delta}(\tilde{f}) = \Theta\L(\frac{Q(\tilde{f})^2}{\epsilon}\right) \nonumber \\
&= \Theta\L(\frac{Q(f)^2}{\epsilon}\right)
\end{align}
\end{proof}
There are some advantages to allowing the projector $\tilde{M}_x$ instead of $M_x$. First of all, the inputs 0 and 1 in $x$ are finally manifestly symmetric, unlike that in $M_x$ (the bomb originally blew up if $x_i=1$, but not if $x_i=0$). Moreover, we now allow the algorithm to \emph{guess} an answer to the query (this answer may be entangled with the index register $i$), and the bomb blows up only if the guess is wrong, controlled on $c$. This flexibility may allow more leeway in designing algorithms for the bomb query model, as we soon utilize.
\subsection{Using classical algorithms to design bomb query algorithms}
We now demonstrate the possibility that we can prove \emph{nonconstructive} upper bounds on $Q(f)$ for some functions $f$, by creating bomb query algorithms and using that $Q(f) = \Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon B_{\epsilon}(f)})$. Consider for example the following classical algorithm for the OR function:
\begin{alg}[Classical algorithm for OR]
Pick some arbitrary ordering of the $N$ bits, and query them one by one, terminating as soon as a 1 is seen. Return 1 if a 1 was queried; otherwise return 0.
\end{alg}
We can convert this immediately to a bomb query algorithm for OR, by using the construction in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:upperbound}. That construction allows us to implement the operation $O_x$ in $O(\epsilon^{-1})$ queries, with $O(\epsilon)$ error and probability of explosion if $x_i=1$ (but no error if $x_i=0$). Thus we have the following:
\begin{alg}[Bomb algorithm for OR]
Query the $N$ bits one-by-one, and apply the construction of Theorem \ref{thm:upperbound} one bit at a time, using $O(1/\epsilon)$ operations each time. Terminate as soon as a 1 is seen, and return 1; otherwise return 0 if all bits are 0.
\end{alg}
Since the algorithm ends as soon as a 1 is found, the algorithm only accumulates $\epsilon$ error in total. Thus this shows $B_{\epsilon}(OR) = O(N/\epsilon)$.
Note, however, that we have already shown that $Q(f) = \Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon B_{\epsilon}(f)})$ for boolean $f$. An $O(N/\epsilon)$ bomb query algorithm for OR therefore implies that $Q(OR) = O(\sqrt{N})$. We have showed the existence of an $O(\sqrt{N})$ quantum algorithm for the OR function, without actually constructing one!
We formalize the intuition in the above argument by the following theorem:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:classical}
Let $f:\:D \rightarrow E$, where $D \subseteq \{0,1\}^N$. Suppose there is a classical randomized query algorithm $\mathcal{A}$, that makes at most T queries, and evaluates $f$ with bounded error. Let the query results of $\mathcal{A}$ on random seed $s_{\mathcal{A}}$ be $x_{p_1},x_{p_2},\cdots,x_{p_{\tilde{T}(x)}}$, $\tilde{T}(x) \le T$, where $x$ is the hidden query string.
Suppose there is another (not necessarily time-efficient) randomized algorithm $\mathcal{G}$, with random seed $s_{\mathcal{G}}$, which takes as input $x_{p_1},\cdots,x_{p_{t-1}}$ and $s_\mathcal{A}$, and outputs a guess for the next query result $x_{p_{t}}$ of $\mathcal{A}$. Assume that $\mathcal{G}$ makes no more than an expected total of $G$ mistakes (for all inputs $x$). In other words,
\begin{equation}
{\rm I\kern-.3em E}_{s_{\mathcal{A}},s_{\mathcal{G}}} \L\{\sum_{t=1}^{\tilde{T}(x)}\L| \mathcal{G}(x_{p_1},\cdots,x_{p_{t-1}},s_{\mathcal{A}},s_{\mathcal{G}}) - x_{p_t} \right| \right\} \le G \quad \forall x.
\end{equation}
Note that $\mathcal{G}$ is given the random seed $s_{\mathcal{A}}$ of $\mathcal{A}$, so it can predict the next query index of $\mathcal{A}$. \\
Then $B_{\epsilon}(f) = O(TG/\epsilon)$, and thus (by Theorem \ref{thm:main result}) $Q(f) = O(\sqrt{TG})$.
\end{thm}
As an example, in our simple classical example for OR we have $T=N$ (the algorithm takes at most $N$ steps) and $G=1$ (the guessing algorithm always guesses the next query to be 0; since the algorithm terminates on a 1, it makes at most one mistake).
\begin{proof}[Proof of theorem \ref{thm:classical}]
We generalize the argument in the OR case. We take the classical algorithm and replace each classical query by the construction of Theorem \ref{thm:upperbound}, using $O(G/\epsilon)$ bomb queries each time. On each query, the bomb has a $O(\epsilon/G)$ chance of exploding when the guess is wrong, and no chance of exploding when the guess is correct. Therefore the total probability of explosion is $O(\epsilon/G)\cdot G = O(\epsilon)$. The total number of bomb queries used is $O(TG/\epsilon)$.
For the full technical proof, see Appendix \ref{app:nonconstructive}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Explicit quantum algorithm for Theorem \ref{thm:classical}}
In this section we give an explicit quantum algorithm, in the setting of Theorem \ref{thm:classical}, that reproduces the given query complexity. This algorithm is very similar to the one given by R. Kothari for the oracle identification problem \cite{kothari-2014}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:classical to quantum}
Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:classical}, there is an explicit quantum algorithm for $f$ with query complexity $O(\sqrt{TG})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We will construct this algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:classical}) shortly. We need the following quantum search algorithm as a subroutine:
\begin{thm}[Finding the first marked element in a list] \label{thm:first marked element}
Suppose there is an ordered list of $N$ elements, and each element is either marked or unmarked. Then there is a bounded-error quantum algorithm for finding the \textbf{first} marked element in the list (or determines that no marked elements exist), such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item If the first marked element is the $d$-th element of the list, then the algorithm uses an expected $O(\sqrt{d})$ time and queries.
\item If there are no marked elements, then the algorithm uses $O(\sqrt{N})$ time and queries, but always determines correctly that no marked elements exist.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
This algorithm is straightforward to derive given the result in \cite{durr-1996}, and was already used in Kothari's algorithm \cite{kothari-2014}. We give the algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:first marked element}) and its analysis in Appendix \ref{app:first marked element}.
We now give our explicit quantum algorithm.
\begin{alg}[Simulating a classical query algorithm by a quantum one] \label{alg:classical} \leavevmode
\setlength{\parskip}{0.5em}
\noindent \emph{Input.} Classical randomized algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ that computes $f$ with bounded error. Classical randomized algorithm $\mathcal{G}$ that guesses queries of $\mathcal{A}$. Oracle $O_x$ for the hidden string $x$.
\noindent \emph{Output.} $f(x)$ with bounded error.
The quantum algorithm proceeds by attempting to produce the list of queries and results that $\mathcal{A}$ would have made. More precisely, given a randomly chosen random seed $s_{\mathcal{A}}$, the quantum algorithm outputs (with constant error) a list of pairs $(p_1(x), x_{p_1(x)}),\cdots,(p_{\tilde{T}(x)}(x), x_{\tilde{T}(x)}{p_i(x)})$. This list is such that on random seed $s_\mathcal{A}$, the $i$-th query algorithm of $\mathcal{A}$ is made at the position $p_i(x)$, and the query result is $x_{p_i(x)}$. The quantum algorithm then determines the output of $\mathcal{A}$ using this list.
\setlength{\parskip}{0em}
The main idea for the algorithm is this: we first assume that the guesses made by $\mathcal{G}$ are correct. By repeatedly feeding the output of $\mathcal{G}$ back into $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{G}$, we can obtain a list of query values for $\mathcal{A}$ without any queries to the actual black box. We then search for the first deviation of the string $x$ from the predictions of $\mathcal{G}$; assuming the first deviation is the $d_1$-th query, by Theorem \ref{thm:first marked element} the search takes $O(\sqrt{d_1})$ queries (ignoring error for now). We then know that all the guesses made by $\mathcal{G}$ are correct up to the $(d_1-1)$-th query, and incorrect for the $d_1$-th query.
With the corrected result of the first $d_1$ queries, we now continue by assuming again the guesses made by $\mathcal{G}$ are correct starting from the $(d_1+1)$-th query, and search for the location of the next deviation, $d_2$. This takes $O(\sqrt{d_2-d_1})$ queries; we then know that all the guesses made by $\mathcal{G}$ are correct from the $(d_1+1)$-th to $(d_2-1)$-th query, and incorrect for the $d_2$-th one. Continuing in this manner, we eventually determine all query results of $\mathcal{A}$ after an expected $G$ iterations.
We proceed to spell out our algorithm. For the time being, we assume that algorithm for Theorem \ref{thm:first marked element} has no error and thus requires no error reduction.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize random seeds $s_\mathcal{A}$ and $s_\mathcal{G}$ for $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{G}$. We will simulate the behavior of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ on these random seeds. Initialize $d= 0$. $d$ is such that we have determined the values of all query results of $\mathcal{A}$ up to the $d$-th query. Also initialize an empty list $\mathcal{L}$ of query pairs.
\item Repeat until either all query results of $\mathcal{A}$ are determined, or $100G$ iterations of this loop have been executed: \label{step:loop}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Assuming that $\mathcal{G}$ always guesses correctly starting from the $(d+1)$-th query, compute from $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ a list of query positions $p_{d+1},p_{d+2},\cdots$ and results $\tilde{a}_{d+1},\tilde{a}_{d+2},\cdots$. This requires no queries to the black box.
\item \label{step:d*}Using our algorithm for finding the first marked element (Theorem \ref{thm:first marked element}, Algorithm \ref{alg:first marked element}), find the first index $d^* > d$ such that the actual query result of $\mathcal{A}$ differs from the guess by $\mathcal{G}$, i.e. $x_{p_d} \neq \tilde{a}_d$; or return that no such $d^*$ exists. This takes $O(\sqrt{d^*-d })$ time in the former case, and $O(\sqrt{T-d})$ time in the latter.
\item We break into cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If an index $d^*$ was found in Step \ref{step:d*}, then the algorithm decides the next mistake made by $\mathcal{G}$ is at position $d^*$. It thus adds the query pairs $(p_{d+1},\tilde{a}_{d+1}),\cdots,(p_{d^*-1},\tilde{a}_{d^*-1})$, and the pair $(p_{d^*},1-\tilde{a}_{d^*})$, to the list $\mathcal{L}$. Also set $d=d^*$.
\item If no index $d^*$ was found in Step \ref{step:d*}, the algorithm decides that all remaining guesses by $\mathcal{G}$ are correct. Thus the query pairs $(p_{d+1},\tilde{a}_{d+1}),\cdots,(p_{\tilde{T}(x)},\tilde{a}_{\tilde{T}(x)})$ are added to $\mathcal{L}$, where $\tilde{T}(x) \le T$ is the number of queries made by $\mathcal{A}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\item If the algorithm found all query results of $\mathcal{A}$ in $100G$ iterations of step \ref{step:loop}, use $\mathcal{L}$ to calculate the output of $\mathcal{A}$; otherwise the algorithm fails.
\end{enumerate}
\end{alg}
We now count the total number of queries. Suppose $g \le 100G$ is the number of iterations of Step \ref{step:loop}; if all query results have been determined, $g$ is the number of wrong guesses by $\mathcal{G}$. Say the list of $d$'s found is $d_0 = 0, d_1,\cdots,d_{g}$. Let $d_{g+1} = T$. Step 2 is executed for $g+1$ times, and the total number of queries is
\begin{equation}
O\L(\sum_{i=1}^{g+1} \sqrt {d_i-d_{i-1}}\right) = O\L(\sqrt{Tg} \right) = O\L(\sqrt{TG} \right)
\end{equation}
by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
We now analyze the error in our algorithm. The first source of error is cutting off the loop in Step \ref{step:loop}: by Markov's inequality, for at least 99\% of random seeds $s_{\mathcal{G}},s_{\mathcal{G}}$, $\mathcal{G}$ makes no more than $100G$ wrong guesses. For these random seeds all query results of $\mathcal{A}$ are determined. Cutting off the loop thus gives at most $0.01$ error.
The other source of error is the error of Algorithm \ref{alg:first marked element} used in Step \ref{step:d*}: we had assumed that it could be treated as zero-error, but we now remove this assumption. Assuming each iteration gives error $\delta'$, the total error accrued could be up to $O(g\delta')$. It seems as if we would need to set $\delta' = O(1/G)$ for the total error to be constant, and thus gain an extra logarithmic factor in the query complexity.
However, in his paper for oracle identification \cite{kothari-2014}, Kothari showed that multiple calls to Algorithm \ref{alg:first marked element} can be composed to obtain a bounded-error algorithm based on span programs without an extra logarithmic factor in the query complexity; refer to \cite[Section 3]{kothari-2014} for details. Therefore we can replace the iterations of Step \ref{step:loop} with Kothari's span program construction and get a bounded error algorithm with complexity $O(\sqrt{TG})$.
\end{proof}
Note that while Algorithm \ref{alg:classical} has query complexity $O(\sqrt{TG})$, the time complexity may be much higher. After all, Algorithm \ref{alg:classical} proceeds by simulating $\mathcal{A}$ query-by-query, although the number of actual queries to the oracle is smaller. Whether or not we can get a algorithm faster than $\mathcal{A}$ using this approach may depend on the problem at hand.
\section{Improved upper bounds on quantum query complexity}
We now use Theorem \ref{thm:classical to quantum} to improve the quantum query complexity of certain graph problems.
\subsection{Single source shortest paths for unweighted graphs}
\begin{problem}[Single source shortest paths (SSSP) for unweighted graphs] The adjacency matrix of a directed graph $n$-vertex graph $G$ is provided as a black box; a query on the pair $(v,w)$ returns $1$ if there is an edge from $v$ to $w$, and $0$ otherwise. We are given a fixed vertex $v_{start}$. Call the length of a shortest path from $v_{start}$ to another vertex $w$ the \emph{distance} $d_w$ of $w$ from $v_{start}$; if no path exists, define $d_w = \infty$. Our task is to find $d_w$ for all vertices $w$ in $G$.
\end{problem}
In this section we shall show the following:
\begin{thm}
The quantum query complexity of single-source shortest paths in an unweighted graph is $\Theta(n^{3/2})$ in the adjacency matrix model.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The lower bound of $\Omega(n^{3/2})$ is known \cite{durr-2004}. We show the upper bound by applying Theorem \ref{thm:classical to quantum} to a classical algorithm. The following well-known classical algorithm (commonly known as \emph{breadth first search}, BFS) solves this problem:
\begin{alg}[Classical algorithm for unweighted SSSP] \label{alg:bfs} \leavevmode
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize $d_w := \infty$ for all vertices $w\neq v_{start}$, $d_{v_{start}}:=0$, and $\mathcal{L}:=(v_{start})$. $\mathcal{L}$ is the ordered list of vertices for which we have determined the distances, but whose outgoing edges we have not queried.
\item Repeat until $\mathcal{L}$ is empty:
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $v$ be the first (in order of time added to $\mathcal{L}$) vertex in $\mathcal{L}$. For all vertices $w$ such that $d_w = \infty$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Query $(v,w)$.
\item If $(v,w)$ is an edge, set $d_w:= d_v + 1$ and add $w$ to the end of $\mathcal{L}$.
\end{itemize}
\item Remove $v$ from $\mathcal{L}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{alg}
We omit the proof of correctness of this algorithm (see for example \cite{clrs}). This algorithm uses up to $T=O(n^2)$ queries. If the guessing algorithm always guesses that $(v,w)$ is not an edge, then it makes at most $G=n-1$ mistakes; hence $Q(f) = O(\sqrt{TG}) = O(n^{3/2})$.\footnote{It seems difficult to use our method to give a corresponding result for the adjacency list model; after all, the result of a query is much harder to guess when the input alphabet is non-boolean.}
\end{proof}
The previous best known quantum algorithm for unweighted SSSP, to our best knowledge, was given by Furrow \cite{furrow-2008}; that algorithm has query complexity $O(n^{3/2}\sqrt{\log n})$.
We now consider the quantum query complexity of unweighted $k$-source shortest paths (finding $k$ shortest-path trees rooted from $k$ beginning vertices). If we apply Algorithm \ref{alg:bfs} on $k$ different starting vertices, then the expected number of wrong guesses is no more than $G = k(n-1)$; however, the total number of edges we query need not exceed $T = O(n^2)$, since an edge never needs to be queried more than once. Therefore
\begin{cor}
The quantum query complexity of unweighted $k$-source shortest paths in the adjacency matrix model is $O(k^{1/2}n^{3/2})$, where $n$ is the number of vertices.
\end{cor}
We use this idea -- that $T$ need not exceed $O(n^2)$ when dealing with graph problems -- again in the following section.
\subsection{Maximum bipartite matching}
\begin{problem}[Maximum bipartite matching] We are given as black box the adjacency matrix of an $n$-vertex bipartite graph $G=(V=X\cup Y,E)$, where the undirected set of edges $E$ only run between the bipartite components $X$ and $Y$. A \emph{matching} of $G$ is a list of edges of $G$ that do not share vertices. Our task is to find a maximum matching of $G$, i.e. a matching that contains the largest possible number of edges.
\end{problem}
In this section we show that
\begin{thm}
The quantum query complexity of maximum bipartite matching is $O(n^{7/4})$ in the adjacency matrix model, where $n$ is the number of vertices.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Once again we apply Theorem \ref{thm:classical to quantum} to a classical algorithm. Classically, this problem is solved in $O(n^{5/2})$ time by the Hopcroft-Karp \cite{hopcroft-1973} algorithm (here $n = |V|$). We summarize the algorithm as follows (this summary roughly follows that of \cite{ambainis-2006}):
\begin{alg}[Hopcroft-Karp algorithm for maximum bipartite matching {\cite{hopcroft-1973}}] \label{alg:hopcroft-karp} \leavevmode
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize an empty matching $\mathcal{M}$. $\mathcal{M}$ is a matching that will be updated until it is maximum.
\item Repeat the following steps until $\mathcal{M}$ is a maximum matching:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Define the \emph{directed} graph $H=(V',E')$ as follows:
\begin{align}
V' &= X \cup Y \cup \{s,t\} \nonumber \\
E' &= \{(s,x)\: | \: x \in X, (x,y) \not\in \mathcal{M} \: \text{ for all } y \in Y\} \nonumber \\
&\cup \{(x,y)\: | \: x \in X, y \in Y, (x,y) \in E, (x,y)\not\in\mathcal{M}\} \nonumber \\
&\cup \{(y,x)\: | \: x \in X, y \in Y, (x,y) \in E, (x,y)\in\mathcal{M}\} \nonumber \\
&\cup \{(y,t)\: | \: y \in Y, (x,y) \not\in \mathcal{M} \: \text{ for all } x \in X\}
\end{align}
where $s$ and $t$ are two extra auxilliary vertices. Note that if $(s,x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,\cdots,x_\ell,y_\ell,t)$ is a path in $H$ from $s$ to $t$, then $x_i \in X$ and $y_i \in Y$ for all $i$. Additionally, the edges (aside from the first and last) alternate from being in $\mathcal{M}$ and not being in $\mathcal{M}$: $(x_i,y_i) \not\in\mathcal{M}$, $(y_i,x_{i+1}) \in \mathcal{M}$. Such a path is called an \emph{augmenting path} in the literature.
We note that a query to the adjacency matrix of $E'$ can be simulated by a query to the adjacency matrix of $E$.
\item Using the breadth-first search algorithm (Algorithm \ref{alg:bfs}), in the graph $H$, find the length of the shortest path, or distance, of all vertices from $s$. Let the distance from $s$ to $t$ be $2\ell+1$.
\item Find a maximal set $S$ of vertex-disjoint shortest paths from $s$ to $t$ in the graph $H$. In other words, $S$ should be a list of paths from $s$ to $t$ such that each path has length $2\ell+1$, and no pair of paths share vertices except for $s$ and $t$. Moreover, all other shortest paths from $s$ to $t$ share at least one vertex (except for $s$ and $t$) with a path in $S$. We describe how to find such a maximal set in Algorithm \ref{alg:modified dfs}.
\item If $S$ is empty, the matching $M$ is a maximum matching, and we terminate. Otherwise continue:
\item Let $(s,x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,\cdots,x_\ell,y_\ell,t)$ be a path in $S$. Remove the $\ell-1$ edges $(x_{i+1},y_i)$ from $\mathcal{M}$, and insert the $\ell$ edges $(x_i,y_i)$ into $\mathcal{M}$. This increases $|\mathcal{M}|$ by 1. Repeat for all paths in $S$; there are no conflicts since the paths in $S$ are vertex-disjoint.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{alg}
Once again, we omit the proof of correctness of this algorithm; the correctness is guaranteed by Berge's Lemma \cite{berge-1957}, which states that a matching is maximum if there are no more augmenting paths for the matching. Moreover, $O(\sqrt{n})$ iterations of Step 2 suffice \cite{hopcroft-1973}.
We now describe how to find a maximal set of shortest-length augmenting paths in Step 2(c). This algorithm is essentially a modified version of depth-first search:
\begin{alg}[Finding a maximal set of vertex-disjoint shortest-length augmenting paths] \label{alg:modified dfs} \leavevmode
\begin{alg_in}
The directed graph $H$ defined in Algorithm \ref{alg:hopcroft-karp}, as well as the distances $d_v$ of all vertices $v$ from $s$ (calculated in Step 2(b) of Algorithm \ref{alg:hopcroft-karp}).
\end{alg_in}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Initialize a set of paths $S := \emptyset$, set of vertices $R:=\{s\}$, and a stack\footnote{A stack is a data structure such that elements that are first inserted into the stack are removed last.} of vertices $\mathcal{L}:=(s)$. $\mathcal{L}$ contains the ordered list of vertices that we have begun, but not yet finished, processing. $R$ is the set of vertices that we have processed. $S$ is the set of vertex-disjoint shortest-length augmenting paths that we have found.
\item Repeat until $\mathcal{L}$ is empty:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the vertex in the front of $\mathcal{L}$ is $t$, we have found a new vertex-disjoint path from $s$ to $t$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Trace the path from $t$ back to $s$ by removing elements from the front of $\mathcal{L}$ until $s$ is at the front. Add the corresponding path to $S$.
\item Start again from the beginning of Step 2.
\end{itemize}
\item Let $v$ be the vertex in the front of $\mathcal{L}$ (i.e. the vertex \emph{last} added to, and still in, $\mathcal{L}$). Recall the distance from $s$ to $v$ is $d_v$.
\item Find $w$ such that $w \not\in R$, $d_w = d_v+1$, and $(v,w)$ (as an edge in $H$) has not been queried in this algorithm. If no such vertex $w$ exists, remove $v$ from $\mathcal{L}$ and start from the beginning of Step 2.
\item Query $(v,w)$ on the graph $H$.
\item If $(v,w)$ is an edge, add $w$ to the \emph{front} of $\mathcal{L}$. If $w \neq t$, add $w$ to $R$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Output $S$, the maximal set of vertex-disjoint shortest-length augmenting paths.
\end{enumerate}
\end{alg}
We now return to Algorithm \ref{alg:hopcroft-karp} and count $T$ and $G$. There is obviously no need to query the same edge more than once, so $T = O(n^2)$. If the algorithm always guesses, on a query $(v,w)$, that there is no edge between $(v,w)$, then it makes at most $G = O(n^{3/2})$ mistakes: in Step 2(b) there are at most $O(n)$ mistakes (see Algorithm \ref{alg:bfs}), while in Step 2(c)/Algorithm \ref{alg:modified dfs} there is at most one queried edge leading to each vertex aside from $t$, and edges leading to $t$ can be computed without queries to $G$. Since Step 2 is executed $O(\sqrt{n})$ times, our counting follows.
Thus there is a quantum query algorithm with complexity $Q= O(\sqrt{TG}) = O(n^{7/4})$.
\end{proof}
To our knowledge, this is the first known nontrivial upper bound on the query complexity of maximum bipartite matching.\footnote{The trivial upper bound is $O(n^2)$, where all pairs of vertices are queried.} The time complexity of this problem was studied by Ambainis and Spalek in \cite{ambainis-2006}; they gave an upper bound of $O(n^2\log n)$ time in the adjacency matrix model. A lower bound of $\Omega(n^{3/2})$ for the query complexity of this problem was given in \cite{berzina-2004,zhang-2005}.
For readers familiar with network flow, the arguments in this section also apply to Dinic's algorithm for maximum flow \cite{dinic-1970} on graphs with unit capacity, i.e. where the capacity of each edge is 0 or 1. On graphs with unit capacity, Dinic's algorithm is essentially the same as Hopcroft-Karp's, except that augmenting paths are over a general, nonbipartite flow network. (The set $S$ in Step 2(c) of Algorithm \ref{alg:hopcroft-karp} is generally referred to as a \emph{blocking flow} in this context.) It can be shown that only $O(\min\{m^{1/2},n^{2/3}\})$ iterations of Step 2 are required \cite{karzanov-1973,even-1975}, where $m$ is the number of edges of the graph. Thus $T=O(n^2)$, $G = O(\min\{m^{1/2},n^{2/3}\}n)$, and therefore
\begin{thm}
The quantum query complexity of the maximum flow problem in graphs with unit capacity is $O(\min\{n^{3/2}m^{1/4},n^{11/6}\})$, where $n$ and $m$ are the number of vertices and edges in the graph, respectively.
\end{thm}
It is an open question whether a similar result for maximum matching in a general nonbipartite graph can be proven, perhaps by applying Theorem \ref{thm:classical to quantum} to the classical algorithm of Micali and Vazirani \cite{micali-1980}.
\section{Projective query complexity} \label{sect:projective query}
We end this paper with a brief discussion on another query complexity model, which we will call the \emph{projective query complexity}. This model is similar to the bomb query model in that the only way of accessing $x_i$ is through a classical measurement; however, in the projective query model the algorithm does not terminate if a 1 is measured. Our motivation for considering the projective query model is that its power is intermediate between the classical and quantum query models. To the best of our knowledge, this model was first considered in 2002 in unpublished results by S. Aaronson \cite{aaronson-2014}.
A circuit in the projective query complexity model is a restricted quantum query circuit, with the following restrictions on the use of the quantum oracle:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have an extra control register $\ket{c}$ used to control whether $O_x$ is applied (we call the controlled version $CO_x$):
\begin{equation}
CO_x\ket{c,r,i} = \ket{c,r\oplus(c\cdot x_i),i}.
\end{equation}
where $\cdot$ indicates boolean AND.
\item The record register, $\ket{r}$ in the definition of $CO_x$ above, \emph{must} contain $\ket{0}$ before $CO_x$ is applied.
\item After $CO_x$ is applied, the record register is immediately measured in the computational basis, giving the answer $c\cdot x_i$. The result, a classical bit, can then be used to control further quantum unitaries (although only controlling the next unitary is enough, since the classical bit can be stored).
\end{enumerate}
\begin{align} \label{circ:cp}
&\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.7em {
\lstick{\ket{c}}& \ctrl{1} &\qw & \rstick{\ket{c}} \qw \\
\lstick{\ket{0}}& \multigate{1}{O_x} &\meter & \rstick{c \cdot x_i} \cw \\
\lstick{\ket{i}}&\ghost{O_x} &\qw & \rstick{\ket{i}} \qw
}
\end{align}
We wish to evaluate a function $f(x)$ with as few calls to this \emph{projective oracle} as possible. Let the number of oracle calls required to evaluate $f(x)$, with at most $\delta$ error, be $P_{\delta}(f)$. By gap amplification, the choice of $\delta$ only affects $P_{\delta}(f)$ by a factor of $\log(1/\delta)$, and thus we will often omit $\delta$.
We can compare the definition in this section with the definition of the bomb query complexity in Section \ref{sect:bomb query}: the only difference is that if $c \cdot x_i=1$, the algorithm terminates in the bomb model, while the algorithm can continue in the projective model. Therefore the following is evident:
\begin{obs}
$P_{\delta}(f) \le B_{\epsilon,\delta}(f)$, and therefore $P(f) = O(Q(f)^2)$.
\end{obs}
Moreover, it is clear that the projective query model has power intermediate between classical and quantum (a controlled query in the usual quantum query model can be simulated by appending a 0 to the input string), and therefore letting $R_{\delta}(f)$ be the classical randomized query complexity,
\begin{obs}
$Q_{\delta}(f) \le P_{\delta}(f) \le R_{\delta}(f)$.
\end{obs}
For explicit bounds on $P$, Regev and Schiff \cite{regev-2008} have shown that for computing the OR function, the projective query complexity loses the Grover speedup:
\begin{thm}[{\cite{regev-2008}}] \label{thm:por}
$P(OR) = \Omega(N)$.
\end{thm}
Note that this result says nothing about $P(AND)$, since the definition of $P(f)$ is asymmetric with respect to 0 and 1 in the input.\footnote{We could have defined a symmetric version of $P$, say $\tilde{P}$, by allowing an extra guess on the measurement result, similar to our construction of $\tilde{B}$ in Section \ref{sect:generalize bomb}. Unfortunately, Regev and Schiff's result, Theorem \ref{thm:por}, do not apply to this case, and we see no obvious equivalence between $P$ and $\tilde{P}$.}
We observe that there could be a separation in both parts of the inequality $Q \le P \le B$:
\begin{equation}
Q(OR) = \Theta(\sqrt{N}),\quad P(OR) = \Theta(N),\quad B(OR) = \Theta(N)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Q(PARITY) = \Theta(N),\quad P(PARITY) = \Theta(N),\quad B(PARITY) = \Theta(N^2)
\end{equation}
In the latter equation we used the fact that $Q(PARITY)=\Theta(N)$ \cite{beals-1998}. It therefore seems difficult to adapt our lower bound method in Section \ref{sect:lower bound} to $P(f)$.
It would be interesting to find a general lower bound for $P(f)$, or to establish more clearly the relationship between $Q(f)$, $P(f)$, and $R(f)$.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Scott Aaronson and Aram Harrow for many useful discussions, and Scott Aaronson and Shelby Kimmel for valuable suggestions on a preliminary draft. We also thank Andrew Childs for giving us permission to make use of his online proof of the general adversary lower bound in \cite{childs-2013}. Special thanks to Robin Kothari for pointing us to his paper \cite{kothari-2014}, and in particular his analysis showing that logarithmic factors can be removed from the query complexity of Algorithm \ref{alg:classical}. This work is supported by the ARO grant Contract Number W911NF-12-0486. CYL gratefully acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\bibliographystyle{utphys}
|
\section{Introduction}
Until recently, it was thought that the chiral condensate of QCD at infinite coupling would remain non-zero for any number of fundamental fermion flavours $N_f$. This is in contrast to the restoration of chiral symmetry which is observed at some critical $N_f$ for more moderate couplings, resulting in the appearance of a conformal window (see for example \cite{Deuzeman:2012ee,Cheng:2013xha,Fodor:2011tu,Lin:2012iw,Itou:2013faa,Bursa:2010xn} for a selection of lattice simulation results with fundamental representation fermions). The belief that the chiral symmetry remains broken for $g = \infty$ is based on the results of a few studies in the $80$'s. Among these is the work of \cite{KlubergStern:1982bs}, in which the authors calculate the normalized chiral condensate $\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ from a $1/d$ expansion. They obtain a non-zero result which is independent of $N_f$ for the first two orders in the expansion.
The approach in \cite{KlubergStern:1982bs} is considered to be reliable. In the limit $N_f \rightarrow 0$ the normalized chiral condensate approaches the result in \cite{Blairon:1980pk}, which employed a quite different analytic lattice diagrammatic approach, up to ${\cal O}(1/d)$ corrections. Subsequently, the diagrammatic lattice approach of \cite{Blairon:1980pk} was extended in \cite{Martin:1982tb} by systematically removing certain diagrams which lead to over-counting. In this way the authors in \cite{Martin:1982tb} obtain a result for $\frac{1}{N_f N_c}\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ as $N_f \rightarrow 0$, which is equivalent to that in \cite{KlubergStern:1982bs}, including the ${\cal O}(1/d)$ corrections.
More recently, lattice simulations have been performed with $g = \infty$ and the chiral condensate was obtained as a function of $N_f$ \cite{deForcrand:2012vh}. Surprisingly these simulations on $4^4$ and $6^4$ lattices indicate that the chiral condensate drops discontinuously to a value close to zero at a critical value of $N_f \sim 13$ staggered flavours. These results are clearly in contrast with the results in \cite{KlubergStern:1982bs} from the $1/d$ expansion. Moreover, the authors of \cite{deForcrand:2012vh} also show that in contrast to their simulation results, a mean field calculation \cite{Damgaard:1985bn} of the critical temperature $T_c$, above which chiral symmetry is expected to be restored, gives a non-zero result for all $N_f$.
Shortly after the simulation results in \cite{deForcrand:2012vh} appeared, the presence of a possible transition in the chiral condensate at some critical $N_f$ at infinite coupling was also indicated using a lattice diagrammatic approach in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}. The approach used in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr} is an extension of the earlier works \cite{Blairon:1980pk,Martin:1982tb}, to the case of $N_f \ne 0$, by including in the resummation a second type of ``mesonic" graph (each bond in the diagram contains one gauge link $U$ and one gauge link $U^{\dag}$), which contains a closed loop, contributing an $N_f$-dependence. The result is that the normalized chiral condensate is non-zero up to a critical value of $N_f \sim 10.7$ staggered flavours, beyond which only complex-valued solutions exist.
The motivation of this work is to examine the effect on $\frac{1}{N_f N_c}\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ of including various different types of diagrams in an approach which is inspired by \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}, and is also an extension of \cite{Blairon:1980pk,Martin:1982tb}. Focussing specifically on generalising \cite{Martin:1982tb}, the different types of base diagrams are resummed in a hopping expansion, to form all possible diagrams made out of these building blocks, and from these obtain the chiral condensate. Our results indicate that, up to the order at which we work, there are multiple solutions for the normalized chiral condensate as a function of $N_f$. Only one of these solutions has a sensible $N_f \rightarrow 0$ limit, matching onto the results of \cite{KlubergStern:1982bs,Martin:1982tb}. This solution for the chiral condensate approaches zero extremely slowly as a function of $N_f$, and there is no sign of any discontinuity, or of chiral symmetry restoration at any finite $N_f$. However, one can show that there is a second solution for the chiral condensate which is much larger at small $N_f$, and decreases more rapidly towards zero as $N_f$ increases. There is also no discontinuity or chiral symmetry restoration at any $N_f$ for the second solution. However, it cannot be ruled out that the chiral condensate jumps from one of these solutions to the other at some critical $N_f$.
As a technical by-product of this work, we will present a technique for evaluating group integrals, using Young projectors. Indeed, in order to calculate higher order diagrams with multiple overlapping gauge links $U$ and $U^\dag$, it becomes necessary to evaluate SU$(N_c)$ group integrals of the form
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} \cdots U_{a_m}^{\ b_m} (U^\dag)_{c_1}^{\ d_1} \cdots (U^\dag)_{c_n}^{\ d_n} \, ,
\end{equation}
for some number of $U_{a}^{\ b}$, $(U^\dag)_{c}^{\ d}$. We propose a simplified technique for evaluating this type of integral, using Young projectors. We comment on how this technique is related to previous approaches that appeared in \cite{Bars:1979xb,Creutz:1984mg,Cvitanovic:2008zz,Wilson:1975id}.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section \ref{tomboulis}, we will review how the chiral condensate at infinite coupling can be obtained from a lattice diagrammatic expansion \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}. In Section \ref{martin-siu}, we will explain how the diagrammatic expansion can be resummed in a hopping expansion, that allows one to calculate the normalized chiral condensate from irreducible diagrams. Here, we generalize the analysis of \cite{Martin:1982tb}, that only included $N_f$-independent tree graph contributions (that enclose zero area), to include irreducible diagrams that are built out of $N_f$-dependent base sub-diagrams that no longer lead to tree graphs. The relevant fundamental base sub-diagrams are given and calculated in Section \ref{diags}. In Section \ref{groupsection} we comment on various techniques to calculate SU$(N_c)$ group integrals and explain a technique to evaluate these integrals in terms of Young projectors. In Section \ref{errorsection}, we discuss sources of error that are associated with our techniques and we show how over-counting of diagrams can be reduced. Our results are contained in Section \ref{results}, where we also compare our methods with the ones used in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}. We conclude in Section \ref{concl}.
\section{Expansion of $\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ at $g = \infty$}
\label{tomboulis}
Our objective is to investigate the behaviour of the chiral condensate as a function of the number of fermion flavours $N_f$. To extend the procedure of obtaining $\frac{1}{N_f N_c}\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ in \cite{Blairon:1980pk,Martin:1982tb}, for $N_f \rightarrow 0$, and in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr} for $N_f \ne 0$, to systematically account for the contributions which dominate in a diagrammatic expansion, order by order, it is necessary to understand how the diagrams contribute mathematically. Using the notation in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}, the chiral condensate $\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ is obtained from
\EQ{
\langle {\bar \psi}(x) \psi(x) \rangle = - \lim_{m\rightarrow 0} \partial_m \log Z \, ,
}
where the partition function $Z$ (after integrating out the fermion fields) is given by
\EQ{
Z = \int dU\, {\rm det}\left[ 1 + K^{-1} M(U) \right] \, ,
\label{defZ}
}
with
\EQ{
M_{xy} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \sum_\mu \left[ \gamma_{\mu} U_{\mu}(x) \delta_{y,x+{\hat \mu}} - \gamma_{\mu} U_{\mu}^{\dag}(x-{\hat \mu}) \delta_{y,x-{\hat \mu}} \right] \, ,
}
\EQ{
K_{xy} = m {\field I}_{N_f} {\field I}_{N_c} \delta_{x y} \, ,
}
for $\mu = 1, ..., d$, including $N_f$ fermion flavours, and $N_c$ colours. The chiral condensate is thus given by \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}
\EQ{
\langle {\bar \psi}(x) \psi(x) \rangle = - \lim_{m\rightarrow 0} {\rm tr} \left[ G(x,x) \right]\, ,
\label{2ptcorr}
}
where
\EQ{
G(x,x) = \frac{\int dU \, {\rm det}\left[ 1 + K^{-1} M(U) \right] \left[ \left[ 1 + K^{-1} M(U) \right]^{-1} K^{-1} \right]_{xx}}{\int dU \, {\rm det}\left[ 1 + K^{-1} M(U) \right]} \, .
\label{Gxx}
}
Expanding in powers of $K^{-1} M(U)$ one obtains
\EQ{
{\rm det}\left[ 1 + K^{-1} M \right] = \exp {\rm tr} \left[ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n} (K^{-1} M)^n \right] \, ,
\label{detD}
}
\EQ{
\left[ \left[ 1 + K^{-1} M \right]^{-1} K^{-1} \right]_{xx} = \frac{1}{m} \left[ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} (-1)^n (K^{-1}M)^n \right]_{xx} \, .
}
Note that ${\rm tr} \left[ \text{odd \# of} ~\gamma_{\mu}\text{'s} \right] = 0$ implies that only contributions from $(K^{-1}M)^n$ with $n$ even contribute to the integrals in (\ref{Gxx}). The trace in (\ref{detD}) (and (\ref{2ptcorr})) extends over colour, flavour, and spinor degrees of freedom. For example,
\SP{
\left[ (K^{-1} M)^2\right]_{xx} = &\frac{1}{(2 m)^2} \sum_{\mu, \nu} \sum_{y} \left[ \gamma_{\mu} \gamma_{\nu} \right] \\
&\times \left[ U_{\mu}(x) \delta_{y,x+{\hat \mu}} - U_{\mu}^{\dag}(x-{\hat \mu}) \delta_{y,x-{\hat \mu}} \right] \left[ U_{\nu}(y) \delta_{x,y+{\hat \nu}} - U_{\nu}^{\dag}(y-{\hat \nu}) \delta_{x,y-{\hat \nu}} \right] \, ,
}
and so on. In general, the trace in \eqref{detD} leads to a closed loop of link variables, because the first and last lattice site are identified. Each loop also comes with a factor of $N_f$. The traces over the gamma matrices can be determined from
\EQ{
\{\gamma_{\mu}, \gamma_{\nu}\} = 2 \delta_{\mu \nu} {\field I}_{N_s} \, ,
}
where $\gamma_{\mu}$ are the Euclidean gamma matrices and $N_s$ denotes the number of spinor degrees of freedom.
It is also useful to notice that certain types of contributions will lead to cancellations with the denominator in \eqref{Gxx}. Since all diagrams resulting from the determinant are closed loops, the contributions to $\langle \bar{\psi} \psi \rangle$ which cancel are closed loop diagrams which can be disconnected from the path of gauge links beginning and ending at $x$. For example, in the diagram
\noindent
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\def 0 {4.5}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) rectangle (2.0+0,2.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
the closed loops on the right cancel with a contribution from the denominator. Note that this would even be true when there is partial overlap with links coming from $\left[ \left[ 1 + K^{-1} M \right]^{-1} K^{-1} \right]_{xx}$, as in
\noindent
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\def 0 {2.2}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) rectangle (2.0+0,2.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.3+0,1.0) {\Large{
$= \frac{1}{N_c}$
}};
\def 0 {7.4}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\def 0 {9.6}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (0.2+0,2.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.3+0,1.0) {\large{
$=$
}};
\def 0 {11.8}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the second equality is obtained by using
\EQ{
U_{a}^{\ b} (U^{\dag})_{b}^{\ c} = \delta_a^c \,,
}
due to the unitarity of the $U$'s. So one sees that, even in this case, where there is partial overlap, the integrations can be separated.
\section{Building $\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ from irreducible diagrams}
\label{martin-siu}
To generalise the diagram building procedure of \cite{Martin:1982tb} we calculate the chiral condensate obtained (from $\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle = - \lim_{m\rightarrow0} {\rm tr}[G(x,x)]$) by performing a hopping expansion, summing over gauge links order by order in the number of links
\EQ{
\frac{{\rm tr} [G(x,x)]}{N_s N_f N_c} = \frac{1}{m} \sum_{L=0}^{\infty} (-1)^L \frac{A(L)}{(2 m)^{2L}} \, ,
}
where $A(L)$ is the contribution from all graphs with $2 L$ links which start and end at some site $x$. A general graph can be obtained by combining irreducible graphs $I(l)$ of $2 l$ links which start and end at $x$, where an irreducible graph is defined as one that cannot be separated into smaller segments which start and end at $x$.
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\def 0 {8.0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,1.8+0);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,1.8+0) -- (-1.0+0,3.2+0) -- (-0.8+0,3.4+0) -- (0.2+0,1.9+0) -- (0.4+0,3.8+0) -- (0.6+0,3.7+0) -- (0.4+0,2.0+0) -- (2.1+0,2.8+0) -- (2.3+0,2.6+0) -- (0.2+0,1.7+0);
\draw [directed] (0.2+0,1.7+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0-0.5,-0.5) {\Large{
$x$
}};
\node[anchor=west] at (0-2.0,5.0) {\Large{
Irreducible
}};
\end{tikzpicture}\\
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\def 0 {14.0}
\draw (0.0+0,0.0) -- (-1.0+0,1.4) -- (-0.8+0,1.6) -- (0.2+0,0.25);
\draw [directed] (0.2+0,0.25) -- (2.1+0,1.0) -- (2.3+0,2.9) -- (2.5+0,2.8) -- (2.3+0,0.8) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0-0.5,-0.5) {\Large{
$x$
}};
\node[anchor=west] at (0-1.7,4.0) {\Large{
Reducible
}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{minipage}
\noindent The contribution $A(L)$ obeys the recursion relation
\EQ{
A(L) = \sum_{l=1}^{L} I(l) A(L-l) \, , \hspace{1cm} L \ge 1 \, ; \hspace{1cm} A(0) = 1 \, ,
}
where the irreducible graphs are built iteratively out of all possible combinations of smaller segments
\SP{ \label{IL}
I(L) = &2 d F_0(L-1) - 4 d(d-1) \frac{N_f}{N_c} F_1(L-4)^7 + ... \,,
}
with $I(0) = 0$, and the quantity $F_n(L)$ represents all possible graphs of length $2 L$ which start and end on a site on a sub-diagram of area $n$. It is given by
\EQ{ \label{Fn}
F_n(L) = \sum_{\substack{l_i = 1, 2, ... ,\\ k_j = 4, 8, ...,\\ \sum l_i + k_j = L - 1}} I_a(l_1) I_a(l_2) ... I_a(l_p) I_b(k_1) I_b(k_2) ... I_b(k_q) ... ~ \widehat{a}_n^p\, \widehat{b}_n^q ... \, ,
}
with $F_n(0) = 1$. In this formula, $I_a$ refers to irreducible graphs which begin with an `$a$-type' sub-diagram,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw (0.0,2.0) -- (0.2,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,2.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
, and $I_b$ refers to irreducible graphs which begin with a $L=4$ box, that is a `$b$-type' sub-diagram,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\def 0 {0.0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2+0) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8+0);
\end{tikzpicture}
. Further types of sub-diagrams that can appear at larger $L$ will be denoted by `$c$-type', `$d$-type', ... and will be defined later on in Section \ref{diags}. In \eqref{Fn}, we have also introduced the notation ${\widehat x}_n \equiv \frac{x_n}{d_x}$, where $x_n$ is the dimensionality of an attachment of type $x$ to an area $n$ diagram, and $d_x$ is the total dimensionality of a type $x$ diagram. These are catalogued in Appendix \ref{A}. For example,
\EQ{
{\widehat a}_0 = \frac{2d-1}{2d} \, ,
}
\EQ{
{\widehat b}_0 = \frac{4(d-1)^2}{4d(d-1)} = \frac{d-1}{d} \, .
}
In particular, an $a$-type sub-diagram,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw (0.0,2.0) -- (0.2,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,2.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
attaches with dimensionality $2 d {\widehat a}_n$, to a graph of area $n$. All ``tree" graphs are of this type (tree graphs don't include internal plaquettes). A $b$-type sub-diagram,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\def 0 {0.0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2+0) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8+0);
\end{tikzpicture}
attaches with dimensionality $4d(d-1) {\widehat b}_n$, to a graph of area $n$, such as $b$-type diagrams attached to $a$-type diagrams or other area $1$ diagrams. The specific forms of ${\widehat a}_n, {\widehat b}_n, ...$ have been determined to avoid over-counting of graphs \footnote{Regardless, there is some over-counting of attachments to certain winding diagrams, which will be discussed later.}.
As an illustration of \eqref{IL} and \eqref{Fn}, we note that the irreducible graphs $I(L)$ have the following form\\
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\node[anchor=east] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$I(1) = ~$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw (0.0,2.0) -- (0.2,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,2.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$= I_a(1) = 2 d$\ ,
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\node[anchor=east] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$I(2) = ~$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.7) -- (2.1,2.5) -- (0.2,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.2,1.8) -- (0.2,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$= I_a(2) = 2 d ~ \left[ I_a(1) ~ {\widehat a}_0 \right]$\ ,
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {6.0}
\node[anchor=east] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$I(3) = ~$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.0,2.0) -- (1.9,2.7) -- (1.5,4.5) -- (1.7,4.5) -- (2.2,2.5) -- (0.2,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.2,1.8) -- (0.2,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$\hspace{20mm}+$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,1.8) -- (-1.5+0,3.2) -- (-1.4+0,3.4) -- (0.1+0,2.0) -- (1.9+0,2.7) -- (2.1+0,2.5) -- (0.2+0,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.2+0,1.8) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2+0,1.0) {\large{
$~~= I_a(3) = 2 d \left[ I_a(2) {\widehat a}_0 + I_a(1)^2 {\widehat a}_0^2 \right]$\ ,
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {6.0}
\node[anchor=east] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$I(4) = ~$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.0,2.0) -- (1.9,2.7) -- (1.5,4.5) --(3.0,6.2) -- (3.2,6.0) -- (1.8,4.5) -- (2.2,2.5) -- (0.2,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.2,1.8) -- (0.2,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$\hspace{20mm}+$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,1.8) -- (1.9+0,2.7) -- (0.5+0,4.2) -- (0.6+0,4.4) -- (2.1+0,2.8) -- (3.0+0,4.7) -- (3.2+0,4.6) -- (2.2+0,2.6) -- (0.2+0,1.7);
\draw [directed] (0.2+0,1.7) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\def 0 {12.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2+6.0,1.0) {\large{
$\hspace{20mm}+ ~~2$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,1.8) -- (-1.0+0,3.2) -- (-0.8+0,3.4) -- (0.2+0,1.9) -- (2.1+0,2.8) -- (2.3+0,4.7) -- (2.5+0,4.6) -- (2.3+0,2.6) -- (0.2+0,1.7);
\draw [directed] (0.2+0,1.7) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\def 0 {2.0}
\def 0 {-4.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2-3.0,1.0+0) {\large{
$\hspace{20mm}+$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,1.8+0);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,1.8+0) -- (-1.0+0,3.2+0) -- (-0.8+0,3.4+0) -- (0.2+0,1.9+0) -- (0.4+0,3.8+0) -- (0.6+0,3.7+0) -- (0.4+0,2.0+0) -- (2.1+0,2.8+0) -- (2.3+0,2.6+0) -- (0.2+0,1.7+0);
\draw [directed] (0.2+0,1.7+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\def 0 {7.0}
\def 0 {-4.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2+1.5,1.0+0) {\large{
$\hspace{20mm}+$
}};
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2+0) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8+0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2-2.5,-6.0) {\large{
$~~= I_a(4)+ I_b(4)$
}};
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2-2.5,-9.0) {\large{
$~~= 2 d \left[ I_a(3) {\widehat a}_0 + 2 I_a(1) I_a(2) {\widehat a}_0^2 + I_a(1)^3 {\widehat a}_0^3 \right] - 4d(d-1) \frac{N_f}{N_c}$\ ,
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {6.0}
\node[anchor=east] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{
$...$\ .
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
The generating function, which gives the total contribution of all irreducible graphs including the mass dependence, is
\EQ{
W_I = \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} \left( -\frac{1}{4 m^2} \right)^l I(l) \, .
}
Using \eqref{IL} for the $I(l)$ and defining $x = - \frac{1}{4 m^2}$ results in
\EQ{
W_I = W_a + W_b + ... \, ,
}
where $W_a$ is all irreducible graphs starting with an $a$-type base diagram
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw (0.0,2.0) -- (0.2,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,2.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
. $W_b$ is all irreducible graphs starting with a $b$-type base diagram
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\def 0 {0.0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2+0) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8+0);
\end{tikzpicture}
, etc. These take the form
\EQ{
W_a = 2 d x \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[ {\widehat a}_0 W_a + {\widehat b}_0 W_b + ... \right]^n = \frac{2 d x}{1 - {\widehat a}_0 W_a - {\widehat b}_0 W_b - ...} \, ,
}
\EQ{
W_b = -4d(d-1) \frac{N_f}{N_c} x^4 \left[ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[ {\widehat a}_1 W_a + {\widehat b}_1 W_b + ...\right]^n \right]^7 = \frac{-4d(d-1)\frac{N_f}{N_c} x^4}{(1 - {\widehat a}_1 W_a - {\widehat b}_1 W_b - ... )^7} \, ,
}
\EQ{
... \, .
}
where the ``$...$" include higher order (in $x$) base diagrams. The normalized chiral condensate is obtained by adding all possible combinations of irreducible graphs, such that
\EQ{
\frac{\langle \bar{\psi} \psi \rangle}{N_s N_f N_c} = \lim_{m\rightarrow0}\frac{{\rm tr} [G(x,x)]}{N_s N_f N_c} = \lim_{m \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{m} \left( \frac{1}{1-W_I} \right) \, .
}
In order to take the massless limit it is convenient to introduce the variables $g_x \equiv - \frac{2 m W_x}{d_x}$, for dimensional pre-factors $d_a = 2 d$, $d_b = 4d(d-1)$, $d_c = 12d(d-1)(2d-3)$, ..., such that the chiral condensate can be obtained from
\EQ{
g \equiv d_a g_a + d_b g_b + ... \, ,
\label{gser}
}
with, taking $m \rightarrow 0$,
\EQ{
g_a = \frac{1}{a_0 g_a + b_0 g_b + ...} \, ,
\label{ga}
}
\EQ{
g_b = \frac{\frac{N_f}{N_c}}{(a_1 g_a + b_1 g_b + ...)^7} \, ,
\label{gb}
}
\EQ{
g_c = \frac{\frac{N_f}{N_c}}{(a_2 g_a + b_2 g_b + ...)^{11}} \, ,
}
\EQ{
... \, ,
\label{gall}
}
using
\EQ{
\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}\frac{{\rm tr} [G(x,x)]}{N_s N_f N_c} = \frac{2}{g} \, .
\label{chicong}
}
We derive the pre-factors $x_n$ in (\ref{ga}) - (\ref{gall}) in Section \ref{over-counting}. What we find is that the contributions to $g$ from the $g_x$ in general decrease in magnitude with increasing number of links in the base diagram (See Figure \ref{g-figs} in Section \ref{results}). Thus it appears that the series in (\ref{gser}) tends towards convergence.
A few comments are in order. First, it is useful to notice that for all $N_f$, diagram contributions with unit area will dominate over contributions with higher areas $n$. Since at leading order in $d$, the $x_n$ are the same for all $n$ and equivalent to $d_x$, then at this order the quantity $a_n g_a + b_n g_b + ...$ is independent of $n$ and equivalent to $d_a g_a + d_b g_b + ...$. In general the results in Section \ref{results} indicate that\footnote{In general we find in Section \ref{results} that $g > 1$ except at very small $N_f$ for solution $2$ when working only to order $L = 4$.}
\EQ{
g = d_a g_a + d_b g_b + ... > 1 \, .
}
This is already true at $N_f \rightarrow 0$, and the magnitude of $d_a g_a + d_b g_b + ... $ grows as a function of $N_f$, causing the magnitude of the chiral condensate to decrease. This implies that diagrams with a higher power of $(a_n g_a + b_n g_b + ...)^{-1}$ are suppressed at a fixed order in $N_f$. However, for sufficiently large $N_f$, diagrams which are higher order in $N_f$ will dominate regardless of whether they have higher powers of $(a_n g_a + b_n g_b + ...)^{-1}$. Therefore since larger areas result in more powers of $(a_n g_a + b_n g_b + ...)^{-1}$, at each order in $N_f$, the diagrams with the smallest area dominate.
In addition, the prefactors $x_n$ in the system of equations in \eqref{ga} - \eqref{gall} can be adjusted to reduce over-counting resulting from certain types of diagram attachments. The prefactors $x_n$ are derived in Section \ref{over-counting}, and tabulated in Appendix \ref{A}. These considerations are taken into account in the results for the normalized chiral condensate in Section \ref{results}.
\section{Fundamental base diagrams}
\label{diags}
In this section we calculate the leading order fundamental base diagrams, from which irreducible graphs can be built. The contributions can be categorised based on the information in Sections \ref{tomboulis}, \ref{martin-siu}. The calculations include the following components:
\begin{itemize}
\item A factor $\frac{1}{i!} (-N_f N_s)^i$, for a number $i$, of overlapping closed internal loops,
\item A mass factor $\left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^n$, for $n$ pairs of links,
\item $(-1)^k$ for $k$ permutations of $\gamma$ matrices,
\item $\left[ ... \right]$, containing the result obtained by performing the group integrations,
\item $\{ ... \}$, containing the dimensionality of the graph.
\end{itemize}
The group integrations can be performed using the techniques described in the next section (based on e.g. \cite{Bars:1979xb,Creutz:1984mg,Cvitanovic:2008zz,Wilson:1975id}). For this section, we will in particular need the expressions \eqref{I1} and \eqref{I2}, that we repeat here for convenience:
\EQ{
\int_{SU(N_c)} d U \, U_{a}^{\ b} (U^\dag)_{c}^{\ d} = \frac{1}{N_c} \delta_{a}^{d} \delta_{c}^{b} \, ,
}
\begin{align}
& \int_{SU(N_c)} d U \, \Useries{U}{2}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} = \frac{1}{2 N_c(N_c+1)} \left( \delta_{a_1}^{d_1} \delta_{a_2}^{d_2} + \delta_{a_1}^{d_2} \delta_{a_2}^{d_1} \right) \left( \delta_{c_1}^{b_1} \delta_{c_2}^{b_2} + \delta_{c_1}^{b_2} \delta_{c_2}^{b_1} \right) \nonumber \\
&\qquad \qquad + \frac{1}{2 N_c(N_c-1)} \left( \delta_{a_1}^{d_1} \delta_{a_2}^{d_2} - \delta_{a_1}^{d_2} \delta_{a_2}^{d_1} \right) \left(\delta_{c_1}^{b_1} \delta_{c_2}^{b_2} - \delta_{c_1}^{b_2} \delta_{c_2}^{b_1} \right) \, .
\end{align}
These integrals are sufficient to calculate diagrams with up to $4$ overlapping links. In the next section, we will explain in more generality how group integrals can be calculated. The techniques explained there will enable us to also calculate diagrams that contain more than $4$ overlapping links.
In the case of finite $N_c$, it is necessary to include additional `baryonic' contributions, arising from integrals \eqref{baryonint}
\begin{equation}
\int_{SU(N_c)} d U\, U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} \cdots U_{a_{N_c}}^{\ b_{N_c}} = \frac{1}{N_c!}\epsilon_{a_1 \cdots a_{N_c}} \epsilon^{b_1\cdots b_{N_c}} \,.
\end{equation}
In the following, we will list such contributions explicitly for the case $N_c = 3$. We will moreover also restrict ourselves to the case of staggered fermions, for which $N_s = 1$ and for which backtracking of the gauge links results in non-zero contributions.
The base diagrams up to order $L = 9$ are as follows, where we also indicate the type the diagram belongs to.
\subsection{$L=1$ : `$a$-type'}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw (0.0,2.0) -- (0.2,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,2.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (0.2,1.0) {\large{$= - \frac{1}{4m^2} \{ 2d \}$}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{type-a}
\end{flalign}
\subsection{$L=4$ : `$b$-type'}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^4 (-1)^2 (-N_f) \left[ \frac{1}{N_c} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{type-b}
\end{flalign}
\subsection{$L=6$}
\subsubsection{`$c$-type'}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (4.0,2.0) -- (4.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (3.8,1.8);
\node[anchor=west] at (4.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^6 (-N_f) \left[ \frac{1}{N_c} \right] \{ 12d(d-1)(2d-3) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\subsubsection{$N_c = 3$ : `$d$-type'}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \frac{1}{2!} \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^6 (-1)^3 (-N_f)^2 \left[ \frac{1}{3} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{type-d31}
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (-0.2,0.2);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^6 (-1)^3 (-N_f) \left[ -\frac{1}{3} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0)
-- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2)
-- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (-0.4,0.4);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^6 (-1)^3 \left[ \frac{1}{3} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.4) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2) -- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (0.2,0.4);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^6 (-1)^3 (-N_f) \left[ - \frac{1}{3} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{type-d34}
\end{flalign}
\subsection{$L=7$ : `$e$-type'}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (4.0,2.0) -- (4.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.9,1.8);
\draw [reverse directed] (2.1,0.2) rectangle (3.8,1.8);
\node[anchor=west] at (4.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \frac{1}{2!} \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^7 (-1)^2 (-N_f)^2 \left[ \frac{1}{N_c^2} \right] \{ 12d(d-1)(2d-3) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\subsection{$L=8$ }
\subsubsection{`$f$-type'}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (6.0,2.0) -- (6.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (5.8,1.8);
\node[anchor=west] at (6.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^8 (-1)^2 (-N_f) \left[ \frac{1}{N_c} \right] \{ 48 d (d-1) (2d-3)^2 \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\subsubsection{`$g$-type'}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (1.4,1.4);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \frac{3}{3!} \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^8 (-1)^4 (-N_f)^3 \left[ \frac{2}{N_c} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{type-g1}
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.4) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2) -- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (0.2,0.4);
\draw [directed] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (1.4,1.4);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \frac{2}{2!} \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^8 (-1)^4 (-N_f)^2 \left[ 0 \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{type-g2}
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (-0.2,0.2);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.4,0.6) -- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (0.6,0.4) -- (0.6,1.4) -- (1.4,1.4) -- (1.4,0.6) -- (0.4,0.6);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^8 (-1)^4 (-N_f) \left[ \frac{2}{N_c} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{type-g3}
\end{flalign}
\subsection{$L=9$}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.6]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (6.0,2.0) -- (6.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (3.9,1.8);
\draw [reverse directed] (4.1,0.2) rectangle (5.8,1.8);
\node[anchor=west] at (6.0,1.0) {\large{
$= 2 \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^9 (-1)^2 (-N_f)^2 \left[ \frac{1}{N_c^2}\right] \{ {48 d(d-1)(2d-3)^2} \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\subsubsection{$N_c=3$}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (4.0,2.0) -- (4.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.9,1.8);
\draw [directed] (2.1,0.2) rectangle (3.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (2.3,0.4) rectangle (3.6,1.6);
\node[anchor=west] at (4.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \frac{2}{2!} \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^9 (-1)^3 (-N_f)^3 \left[ \frac{1}{9} \right] \{ 12d(d-1)(2d-3) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\noindent
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (4.0,2.0) -- (4.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (3.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (3.6,1.6);
\node[anchor=west] at (4.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \frac{1}{2!} \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^9 (-N_f)^2 \left[ \frac{1}{3} \right] \{ 12d(d-1)(2d-3) \}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\section{Calculating SU($N_c$) group integrals} \label{groupsection}
To obtain diagrams up to ${\cal O}\left(\left( \frac{1}{m^2} \right)^{16}\right)$, we need the following additional group integrals for general number of colours $N_c$
\begin{align} \label{3and4int}
& \int_{SU(N_c)} d U \, \Useries{U}{3}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} \,, \nonumber \\ & \int_{SU(N_c)} d U \, \Useries{U}{4}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{4}{c}{d} \,.
\end{align}
Moreover, since we are interested in the case $N_c=3$, the following integrals also give a non-zero contribution at this order
\begin{align} \label{Ncis3ints}
& \int_{SU(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{4}{a}{b} (U^\dag)_{c_1}^{\ d_1} \,, \quad \int_{SU(3)} d U\, \Useries{U}{6}{a}{b} \,, \nonumber \\
& \int_{SU(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{5}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} \,.
\end{align}
In this section, we will explain how integrals of this type can be calculated in full generality. Methods to calculate integrals of this type have appeared in the literature at various occasions (see e.g. \cite{Bars:1979xb,Creutz:1984mg,Cvitanovic:2008zz,Wilson:1975id}). In this section, we will employ a method that is loosely based on techniques that appeared in \cite{Cvitanovic:2008zz} and that, to our knowledge, has not yet appeared in the literature. It uses tensor product decompositions to write the required integrals in terms of Young projectors. It has the advantage that it can easily be implemented using a symbolic computer algebra system. This method, that we will explain in Section \ref{sec:sec61} can be used to perform the group integrations associated to general diagrams. Diagrammatic methods to do these group integrations are given in \cite{Creutz:1984mg}. For more complicated diagrams, these can quickly become cumbersome. For relatively simple diagrams, they can however be quick and useful, so we will give a brief summary of these techniques in Section \ref{sec:sec62}.
\subsection{General procedure} \label{sec:sec61}
In order to calculate the diagrams considered in this work, we need to evaluate various integrals of products of matrix elements of SU($N_c$) group elements. Let us first focus on integrals of the form
\begin{equation} \label{mUmUdag}
I_m = \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} \cdots U_{a_m}^{\ b_m} (U^\dag)_{c_1}^{\ d_1} \cdots (U^\dag)_{c_m}^{\ d_m} \,,
\end{equation}
where $U$ represents a SU($N_c$) group element in the fundamental representation. Integrals of this form were calculated in an implicit manner in \cite{Bars:1979xb}, where an
iterative way of calculating the quantities
\begin{equation}
F_m(A) = \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, \left(\mathrm{tr} A U \right)^m \left(\mathrm{tr} A^\dag U^\dag \right)^m \,,
\end{equation}
for an arbitrary, constant matrix $A$, was given. In particular, it was argued that $F_{m}(A)$ is a linear combination of $(\mathrm{tr}(A A^\dag))^k\mathrm{tr}(A A^\dag)^{m-k}$
(for $k = 0, \cdots, m$) and that the coefficients of the linear combination can be obtained from knowledge of $F_{1}(A)$, $\cdots$, $F_{m-1}(A)$. Once such an
expression for $F_{m}(A)$ is obtained, it can be used to extract the integral \eqref{mUmUdag}, by writing out all traces explicitly in terms of matrix elements and
Kronecker delta symbols. The integral \eqref{mUmUdag} can then be found in terms of Kronecker delta symbols as the coefficient of $A_{b_1}^{\ a_1}\cdots A_{b_m}^{\ a_m} (A^\dag)_{d_1}^{\ c_1}\cdots (A^\dag)_{d_m}^{\ c_m}$,
as can be seen by writing
\begin{align}
& \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, \left(\mathrm{tr} A U \right)^m \left(\mathrm{tr} A^\dag U^\dag \right)^m = \nonumber \\
& \sum_{a_i, b_i, c_i,d_i} A_{b_1}^{\ a_1}\cdots A_{b_m}^{\ a_m} (A^\dag)_{d_1}^{\ c_1}\cdots (A^\dag)_{d_m}^{\ c_m} \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} \cdots U_{a_m}^{\ b_m} (U^\dag)_{c_1}^{\ d_1} \cdots (U^\dag)_{c_m}^{\ d_m}\,.
\end{align}
Note that in extracting the integral \eqref{mUmUdag} in this way, care has to be taken of making sure that the result has the correct symmetry properties for the indices.
In particular, various symmetrizations have to be performed by hand. While in principle this gives a straightforward way to calculate the integrals \eqref{mUmUdag}, calculating
the $F_m(A)$ and extracting the wanted integrals from it can be cumbersome, especially as $m$ gets larger. For the purpose of this paper, we will therefore use a different
method, that allows one to directly and explicitly construct the integrals $I_m$, in a way that can be easily implemented using a symbolic computer program. We have
explicitly checked that the results we get for $I_m$ agree with the results one can get from the formulas of \cite{Bars:1979xb} for $m=1,\cdots,4$. We will now
outline our method and illustrate it in two examples.
The general procedure to evaluate $I_m$ consists of the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, one writes the decomposition of $m$ fundamental representations. This decomposition is given by the sum of all standard Young tableaux with $m$ entries.
\item Next, one constructs the Young projectors associated with the standard Young tableaux that appear in this decomposition. These Young projectors can be constructed by symmetrizing the expression $\delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \cdots \delta_{a_m}^{b_m}$ in the $a_i$-indices of the first row of the Young tableau. The resulting expression is then symmetrized in the $a_i$-indices appearing in the second row of the Young tableau and one continues this symmetrization procedure for all rows (from top to bottom). The result of this symmetrization is then antisymmetrized in the $a_i$-indices that appear in the first column of the tableau and similarly for all columns (from left to right). The Young projector is given by the result of these consecutive symmetrizations and antisymmetrizations, multiplied by a factor that is the inverse of the product of all hook lengths of the tableau. This factor guarantees that the Young projector squares to itself.
\item Using the decomposition of step 1, the integral \eqref{mUmUdag} can be turned into a sum of integrals that are schematically of the form \cite{Cvitanovic:2008zz}
\begin{equation} \label{rulecvit}
\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U\, R_\alpha{}^\beta (S^\dag)_\gamma{}^\delta = \frac{1}{d_R} \, \mathbb{P}^R_\alpha{}^{\bar{\delta}}\, \mathbb{P}^S_\gamma{}^{\bar{\beta}}\, \delta_{R,S} \,.
\end{equation}
In this formula $R$ and $S$ are irreducible representations, that correspond to standard Young tableaux in the tensor product of $m$ fundamental representations. The dimension of $R$ has been denoted by $d_R$, while $\mathbb{P}^R_\alpha{}^\beta$ corresponds to the Young projector that picks out the representation $R$ in the tensor product. The $\delta_{R,S}$ indicates that the above integral is only non-zero when $R$, $S$ correspond to representations with the same Young tableau shape. Note that we have used a schematic notation for the indices $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ of the matrix elements of $R$ and $S$. These indices are composite and consist of $m$ indices in the fundamental representation, with symmetry properties indicated by the standard Young tableau that corresponds to $R$ or $S$. Note that in \eqref{rulecvit}, the composite index $\delta$ has symmetry properties indicated by the Young tableau corresponding to $S$, whereas it has to appear in the Young projector corresponding to $R$. In
case $R$ and $S$ correspond to different standard Young tableaux, one must reorder the indices that make up the composite index $\delta$ in such a way that the reordered collection, indicated by $\bar{\delta}$ in \eqref{rulecvit}, has symmetry properties of the Young tableau that corresponds to $R$. Such a reordering is possible for Young tableaux with the same shape. An analogous remark holds for the composite index $\beta$.
\end{enumerate}
All integrals $I_m$ can be calculated along the lines described above. The simplest integral is of course $I_1$, which by directly applying \eqref{rulecvit} is given by
\begin{equation} \label{I1}
I_1 = \int_{\mathrm{SU(N_c)}} d U \, U_a^{\ b} (U^\dag)_c^{\ d} = \frac{1}{N_c} \delta_a^d \delta_c^b \,.
\end{equation}
Let us now illustrate the above procedure via the calculation of $I_2$ and $I_3$.
Consider first the integral $I_2$
\begin{equation} \label{2U2Udag}
I_2 = \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, \Useries{U}{2}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} \,.
\end{equation}
Since $\Useries{U}{2}{a}{b}$ acts in the tensor product of two fundamental representations ($\ytableausetup{aligntableaux=center}\ytableaushort[a_]{1} \otimes \ytableaushort[a_]{2}$) and since
\begin{equation} \label{decomp21}
\ytableausetup{aligntableaux=center}
\ytableaushort[a_]{1} \otimes \ytableaushort[a_]{2} = \ytableaushort[a_]{12} \oplus \ytableaushort[a_]{1,2}\,,
\end{equation}
we can write
\begin{equation} \label{decomp2}
\Useries{U}{2}{a}{b} = \tens{S}{2}{a}{b} +\tens{A}{2}{a}{b} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\tens{S}{2}{a}{b}$ acts in the representation $\ytableaushort[a_]{12}$ and $\tens{A}{2}{a}{b}$ acts in the representation $\ytableaushort[a_]{1,2}$.
The symmetric and antisymmetric representation matrices $\tens{S}{2}{a}{b}$, $\tens{A}{2}{a}{b}$ can be obtained explicitly via
\begin{align}
\tens{S}{2}{a}{b} & = \proj{S}{2}{a}{c}\left(U_{c_1}^{\ d_1} U_{c_2}^{\ d_2} \right) \proj{S}{2}{d}{b}\,, \nonumber \\
\tens{A}{2}{a}{b} & = \proj{A}{2}{a}{c}\left(U_{c_1}^{\ d_1} U_{c_2}^{\ d_2} \right) \proj{A}{2}{d}{b}\,,
\end{align}
where the Young projectors $\proj{S}{2}{a}{b}$, $\proj{A}{2}{a}{b}$ on the symmetric and anti-symmetric representations are given by
\begin{align}
\proj{S}{2}{a}{b} & = \frac12 \left(\delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \right) \,, \nonumber \\
\proj{A}{2}{a}{b} & = \frac12 \left(\delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \right) \,.
\end{align}
Using the decomposition \eqref{decomp2}, the integral \eqref{2U2Udag} can be written as a sum of four terms
\begin{align}
I_2 & = \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{S}{2}{a}{b} \tens{(S^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{A}{2}{a}{b} \tens{(A^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} \nonumber \\ & \quad + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{S}{2}{a}{b} \tens{(A^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{A}{2}{a}{b} \tens{(S^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} \,.
\end{align}
The last two terms involve an integral of a product of two representations with different Young tableau shape and are therefore zero according to \eqref{rulecvit}. The first two terms can be evaluated using the same rule, resulting in
\begin{equation} \label{I2}
I_2 = \frac{2}{N_c(N_c+1)} \proj{S}{2}{a}{d}\ \proj{S}{2}{c}{b} + \frac{2}{N_c(N_c-1)} \proj{A}{2}{a}{d}\ \proj{A}{2}{c}{b} \,.
\end{equation}
As a slightly more involved example, let us also consider the integral
\begin{equation} \label{3U3Udag}
I_3 = \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, \Useries{U}{3}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{3}{c}{d}\,.
\end{equation}
In this case, we can use the decomposition
\begin{equation} \label{decomp31}
\ytableausetup{aligntableaux=center}
\ytableaushort[a_]{1} \otimes \ytableaushort[a_]{2} \otimes \ytableaushort[a_]{3} = \ytableaushort[a_]{123}\ (S) \oplus \ytableaushort[a_]{12,3}\ (M)\oplus \ytableaushort[a_]{13,2}\ (\tilde{M}) \oplus \ytableaushort[a_]{1,2,3}\ (A) \,,
\end{equation}
where in brackets we have given a shorthand notation to denote the corresponding tableaux, to write
\begin{equation} \label{decomp32}
U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} U_{a_2}^{\ b_2}U_{a_3}^{\ b_3} = \tens{S}{3}{a}{b} + \tens{M}{3}{a}{b} +\tens{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{b}
+ \tens{A}{3}{a}{b} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\tens{S}{3}{a}{b}$, $\tens{M}{3}{a}{b}$, $\tens{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{b}$, $\tens{A}{3}{a}{b}$ act in the representations indicated by the Young tableaux on the right-hand-side of eq. \eqref{decomp31}. They are explicitly obtained by acting with the appropriate Young projectors
\begin{align} \label{defSMA3}
\tens{S}{3}{a}{b} & = \proj{S}{3}{a}{c}\left(U_{c_1}^{\ d_1} U_{c_2}^{\ d_2} U_{c_3}^{\ d_3} \right) \proj{S}{3}{d}{b}\,, \nonumber \\
\tens{M}{3}{a}{b} & = \proj{M}{3}{a}{c}\left(U_{c_1}^{\ d_1} U_{c_2}^{\ d_2} U_{c_3}^{\ d_3} \right) \proj{M}{3}{d}{b}\,, \nonumber \\
\tens{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{b} & = \proj{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{c}\left(U_{c_1}^{\ d_1} U_{c_2}^{\ d_2} U_{c_3}^{\ d_3} \right) \proj{\tilde{M}}{3}{d}{b}\,, \nonumber \\
\tens{A}{3}{a}{b} & = \proj{A}{3}{a}{c}\left(U_{c_1}^{\ d_1} U_{c_2}^{\ d_2} U_{c_3}^{\ d_3} \right) \proj{A}{3}{d}{b}\,,
\end{align}
where the Young projectors are given by
\begin{align} \label{youngproj}
\proj{S}{3}{a}{b} &= \frac16 \Big( \delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_3} \delta_{a_3}^{b_2} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_3} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \delta_{a_3}^{b_2} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_3} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_1} \nonumber \\ & \qquad + \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_3} \delta_{a_3}^{b_1} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} \Big) \,, \nonumber \\
\proj{M}{3}{a}{b} &=\frac13 \Big(\delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_3} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_1} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_3} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \delta_{a_3}^{b_2}\Big)\,, \nonumber \\
\proj{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{b} &=\frac13 \Big(\delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_3} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_1} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_3} \delta_{a_3}^{b_1}\Big)\,, \nonumber \\
\proj{A}{3}{a}{b} &= \frac16 \Big( \delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_1} \delta_{a_2}^{b_3} \delta_{a_3}^{b_2} + \delta_{a_1}^{b_3} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \delta_{a_3}^{b_2} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_3} \delta_{a_2}^{b_2} \delta_{a_3}^{b_1} \nonumber \\ & \qquad + \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_3} \delta_{a_3}^{b_1} - \delta_{a_1}^{b_2} \delta_{a_2}^{b_1} \delta_{a_3}^{b_3} \Big) \,.
\end{align}
Using the decomposition \eqref{decomp32}, the integral \eqref{3U3Udag} can be written as a sum of integrals of the form \eqref{rulecvit}
\begin{align} \label{I3inbetween}
I_3 &= \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{S}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(S^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{A}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(A^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} \nonumber \\ & \quad + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{M}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(M^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(\tilde{M}^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} \nonumber \\ & \quad + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{M}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(\tilde{M}^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} + \int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(M^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} \,,
\end{align}
where we have not written down the integrals involving representations with different Young tableau shape, as they are zero.
The above integrals can be evaluated using the rule \eqref{rulecvit}, with the understanding that for the two integrals on the last line, proper care should be taken of the correct placement of the indices. Specifically, in the integral
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{M}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(\tilde{M}^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} \,,
\end{equation}
the indices $d_1$, $d_2$, $d_3$ have the symmetry property indicated by the Young tableau $\ytableaushort[d_]{13,2}$ of $\tilde{M}$. According to \eqref{rulecvit}, they should be distributed on the Young projector corresponding to $M$, i.e. they should be re-ordered such that they have the symmetry property indicated by $\ytableaushort[d_]{12,3}$. This is done by interchanging $d_2$ and $d_3$.
A similar remark holds for the indices $b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$, so that
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \tens{M}{3}{a}{b} \tens{(\tilde{M}^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} = \frac{3}{N_c(N_c^2-1)} \projnc{M}{3}{a}{d}{{1,3,2}}\ \projnc{\tilde{M}}{3}{c}{b}{{1,3,2}} \,.
\end{equation}
The last term of \eqref{I3inbetween} can be evaluated from analogous considerations. One then finds the following results for the integral \eqref{3U3Udag}
\begin{align} \label{I3}
I_3 & = \frac{6}{N_c(N_c+1)(N_c+2)}\proj{S}{3}{a}{d}\ \proj{S}{3}{c}{b} + \frac{3}{N_c(N_c^2-1)} \proj{M}{3}{a}{d} \ \proj{M}{3}{c}{b} \nonumber \\ & \quad + \frac{3}{N_c(N_c^2-1)}\proj{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{d} \ \proj{\tilde{M}}{3}{c}{b} +\frac{3}{N_c(N_c^2-1)} \projnc{M}{3}{a}{d}{{1,3,2}}\ \projnc{\tilde{M}}{3}{c}{b}{{1,3,2}} \nonumber \\ & \quad + \frac{3}{N_c(N_c^2-1)} \projnc{\tilde{M}}{3}{a}{d}{{1,3,2}}\ \projnc{M}{3}{c}{b}{{1,3,2}}+ \frac{6}{N_c(N_c-1)(N_c-2)} \proj{A}{3}{a}{d} \ \proj{A}{3}{c}{b} \,.
\end{align}
The other $I_m$ can be calculated in a similar manner. We have given the result for $I_4$ in Appendix \ref{B}.
Using the above results, other non-zero integrals can be derived by making use of the $\mathrm{SU}(N_c)$ identities
\begin{align}\label{suncid}
U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} & = \frac{1}{(N_c-1)!} \epsilon_{a_1 a_2 \cdots a_N} \epsilon^{b_1 b_2 \cdots b_N} (U^\dag)_{b_2}^{\ a_2} \cdots (U^\dag)_{b_N}^{\ a_N} \,, \nonumber \\
(U^\dag)_{a_1}^{\ b_1} & = \frac{1}{(N_c-1)!} \epsilon_{a_1 a_2 \cdots a_N} \epsilon^{b_1 b_2 \cdots b_N} U_{b_2}^{\ a_2} \cdots U_{b_N}^{\ a_N} \,.
\end{align}
These identities often allow one to reduce group integrals to integrals of the form of $I_m$, that can be calculated according to the method outlined above. In this way, one can for instance calculate the baryonic integral
\begin{equation} \label{baryonint}
\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} \cdots U_{a_{N_c}}^{\ b_{N_c}} = \frac{1}{N_c !} \epsilon_{a_1 \cdots a_{N_c}} \epsilon^{b_1 \cdots b_{N_c}} \,.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the calculation of \eqref{Ncis3ints} can now be reduced to the calculation of \eqref{3and4int}
\begin{align}
& \int_{\mathrm{SU}(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{4}{a}{b} (U^\dag)_{c_1}^{\ d_1} = \nonumber \\ & \qquad \qquad \frac12 \epsilon_{a_4 d_2 d_3} \epsilon^{b_4 c_2 c_3} \int_{\mathrm{SU}(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{3}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{3}{c}{d} \,, \nonumber \\
& \int_{\mathrm{SU}(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{6}{a}{b} = \nonumber \\ &
\quad \frac14 \epsilon_{a_5 d_1 d_2 } \epsilon^{b_5 c_1c_2}\epsilon_{a_6 d_3 d_4 } \epsilon^{b_6 c_3 c_4}\int_{\mathrm{SU}(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{4}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{4}{c}{d} \,, \nonumber \\
& \int_{\mathrm{SU}(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{5}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{2}{c}{d} = \nonumber \\
& \qquad \frac12 \epsilon_{a_5 d_3 d_4} \epsilon^{b_5 c_3 c_4} \int_{\mathrm{SU}(3)} d U \, \Useries{U}{4}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{4}{c}{d} \,.
\end{align}
Finally, let us note for the sake of completeness that an expression for integrals of the type
\begin{equation}
\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} d U \, U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} \cdots U_{a_{N_c}}^{\ b_{N_c}} U_{a_{N_c+1}}^{\ b_{N_c+1}} \cdots U_{a_{2 N_c}}^{\ b_{2 N_c}} \cdots U_{a_{(p-1)N_c + 1}}^{\ b_{(p-1)N_c +1}} \cdots U_{a_{p N_c}}^{\ b_{p N_c}}\,,
\end{equation}
is known in terms of $\epsilon$-symbols (see e.g. \cite{Creutz:1984mg} for a derivation). In particular, the result is given by
\begin{align} \label{creutzform}
& \frac{2! \cdot 3! \cdots (N_c - 1)!}{(p+1)! \cdots (p+N_c-1)!} \epsilon_{a_1 \cdots a_{N_c}}\epsilon^{b_1 \cdots b_{N_c}} \cdots \epsilon_{a_{(p-1)N_c + 1} \cdots a_{p N_c}}\epsilon^{b_{(p-1)N_c + 1} \cdots b_{p N_c}} \nonumber \\ & \qquad + \mathrm{permutations}\,,
\end{align}
where `$+$ permutations' indicates that one has to add similar terms as the first, where however the indices of the first term are permuted in such a way as to render the resulting expression symmetric under the interchange of all $(a_i,b_i)$ index pairs. In principle, one can use this result along with the SU$(N_c)$ identities \eqref{suncid} to calculate the integrals \eqref{mUmUdag}. One can then rewrite the result in terms of Kronecker-deltas by contracting the various $\epsilon$-symbols and using the identity
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{a_1 \cdots a_{N_c}} \epsilon^{b_1 \cdots b_{N_c}} = N_c!\ \delta_{[a_1}^{[b_1} \cdots \delta_{a_{N_c}]}^{b_{N_c}]} \,.
\end{equation}
Given the number of permutations one has to add by hand in \eqref{creutzform}, extracting the integrals \eqref{mUmUdag} in this way can however be rather cumbersome.
\subsection{Diagrammatic techniques} \label{sec:sec62}
The technique described in the above section is general and can be used to calculate any type of non-zero $\mathrm{SU}(N_c)$ integral. Since a diagram consists of a number of links attached to each other, the group integrals associated to a diagram can be obtained by multiplying the integrals corresponding to the links and by properly contracting their group indices. These contractions can easily be carried out by a symbolic computer program. For simple diagrams, the contractions can also be easily done using diagrammatic techniques explained in reference \cite{Wilson:1975id,Creutz:1984mg}, to which we refer for diagrammatic notations and conventions. For example the result for the integral $\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, U_a^{\ b} (U^\dag)_c^{\ d}$ (given in \eqref{I1}) can be written diagrammatically as
\noindent
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.0+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\frac{1}{N_c}$
}};
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Carefully identifying the links which are connected it is possible to calculate any of the diagrams in Section \ref{diags} diagrammatically using the appropriate integral equations in Section \ref{groupsection}. As a simple example consider the diagram
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\def 0 {0.0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2+0) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8+0);
\end{tikzpicture}
in (\ref{type-b}). This can be evaluated as
\noindent
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (-0.5+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{[} \frac{1}{N_c}$
}};
\draw [dashed] (0.9+0,0.0) -- (1.5+0,0.0);
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\node[anchor=west] at (3.0+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{]}$
}};
\def 0 {3.5}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.0+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{[} \frac{1}{N_c}$
}};
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\node[anchor=west] at (3.0+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{]}$
}};
\def 0 {7.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.0+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{[} \frac{1}{N_c}$
}};
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\node[anchor=west] at (3.0+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{]}$
}};
\def 0 {10.5}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.0+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{[} \frac{1}{N_c}$
}};
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\draw [dashed] (3.2+0,0.0) -- (3.8+0,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (3.5+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{]}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation*}
\noindent
\begin{equation*}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {1.5}
\node[anchor=west] at (-0.5,0.5) {\Large{
$= \bigg{[} \frac{1}{N_c} \bigg{]}^4 \bigg{[}$
}};
\draw [dashed] (0.9+0,0.0) -- (1.5+0,0.0);
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\def 0 {3.2}
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\def 0 {4.9}
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\def 0 {6.6}
\draw (1.5+0,0) arc (-90:90:5mm);
\draw (3.2+0,1) arc (90:270:5mm);
\draw [dashed] (3.2+0,0.0) -- (3.8+0,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (3.5+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{]}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation*}
\noindent
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {1.5}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.0,0.5) {\Large{
$= \bigg{[} \frac{1}{N_c} \bigg{]} \bigg{[}$
}};
\draw (1.3+0,0.5) arc (180:360:5mm);
\def 0 {1.3}
\node[anchor=west] at (2.5+0,0.5) {\Large{
$\bigg{]}$
}};
\end{tikzpicture} \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Similarly the result for $\int_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)} dU \, \Useries{U}{2}{a}{b} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{2}{c}{d}$ (given in \eqref{I2}) can be written as
\noindent
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.0+0,0.6) {\Large{
$\bigg{[}$
}};
\draw (1.0+0,0.75) arc (-90:90:2.2mm);
\draw (1.0+0,0) arc (-90:90:2.2mm);
\draw (2.0+0,1.2) arc (90:270:2.2mm);
\draw (2.0+0,0.45) arc (90:270:2.2mm);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.1+0,0.6) {\Large{
$+$
}};
\def 0 {2.3}
\draw (1.0+0,0.0) arc (-90:90:6mm);
\draw (1.0+0,0.4) arc (-90:90:2.2mm);
\draw (2.5+0,1.2) arc (90:270:6mm);
\draw (2.5+0,0.8) arc (90:270:2.2mm);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.6+0,0.6) {\Large{
$\bigg{]} \alpha_+$
}};
\node[anchor=west] at (4.5+0,0.6) {\Large{
$+$
}};
\def 0 {8.0}
\node[anchor=west] at (0.0+0,0.6) {\Large{
$\bigg{[}$
}};
\draw (1.0+0,0.75) arc (-90:90:2.2mm);
\draw (1.0+0,0) arc (-90:90:2.2mm);
\draw (2.2+0,1.2) arc (90:270:6mm);
\draw (2.2+0,0.8) arc (90:270:2.2mm);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.3+0,0.6) {\Large{
$+$
}};
\def 0 {10.5}
\draw (1.0+0,0.0) arc (-90:90:6mm);
\draw (1.0+0,0.4) arc (-90:90:2.2mm);
\draw (2.2+0,1.2) arc (90:270:2.2mm);
\draw (2.2+0,0.45) arc (90:270:2.2mm);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.2+0,0.6) {\Large{
$\bigg{]} \alpha_-$
}};
\end{tikzpicture} \ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent with
\EQ{
\alpha_{\pm} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \left[ \frac{1}{N_c(N_c+1)} \pm \frac{1}{N_c(N_c-1)} \right] \, ,
}
which can be used to calculate diagrams with four overlapping links, and so on.
Diagrams of one-tile area, that are open in one corner, can also be easily integrated. Since such diagrams have only two free indices, the final result must be given by a constant $C$ times a Kronecker delta for the two indices
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\draw [directed] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw [directed] (0,1) -- (1,1);'
\draw [directed] (1,1) -- (1,0);
\draw [directed] (1,0) -- (0.2,0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.4,0.3) -- (0.4,0.6) -- (0.6,0.6) -- (0.6,0.4) -- (0.3,0.4);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.3,0.4) -- (0.3,0.7) -- (0.7,0.7) -- (0.7,0.3) -- (0.4,0.3);
\node at (0.5,0.1) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.15) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.2) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.8) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.85) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.9) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.1,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.15,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.2,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.8,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.85,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.9,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node [below] at (0,-0.06) {\scriptsize$a$};
\node [below] at (0.2,0) {\scriptsize$b$};
\node [right] at (1.1,0.5) {$=C$};
\draw [black] (2.1,0.4) to[out=90,in=90, distance=6pt] (2.3,0.4);
\node [below] at (2.1,0.39) {\scriptsize$a$};
\node [below] at (2.3,0.45) {\scriptsize$b$};
\end{tikzpicture} \, .
\label{OpenIntDelta}
\end{equation}
In order to determine the constant $C$ we multiply by $\delta_{ab}$. This leads to a closed diagram. By calculating this closed diagram in two different ways, the constant $C$ can be calculated, as illustrated in the following diagrammatic equation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\hspace{-11.5mm}
\draw [directed] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw [directed] (0,1) -- (1,1);'
\draw [directed] (1,1) -- (1,0);
\draw [directed] (1,0) -- (0.2,0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.4,0.3) -- (0.4,0.6) -- (0.6,0.6) -- (0.6,0.4) -- (0.3,0.4);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.3,0.4) -- (0.3,0.7) -- (0.7,0.7) -- (0.7,0.3) -- (0.4,0.3);
\node at (0.5,0.1) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.15) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.2) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.8) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.85) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.9) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.1,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.15,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.2,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.8,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.85,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.9,0.5) {\tiny$.$};
\draw [black] (0,0) to[out=270,in=270, distance=6pt] (0.2,0);
\node at (1.9,0.5) {$\displaystyle = \left\{ \begin{array}{c} \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\end{array} \right.$};
\hspace{23mm}
\draw [directed] (0,0.75) -- (0,1.75);
\draw [directed] (0,1.75) -- (1,1.75);
\draw [directed] (1,1.75) -- (1,0.75);
\draw [directed] (1,0.75) -- (0,0.75);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.4,1.05) -- (0.4,1.35) -- (0.6,1.35) -- (0.6,1.15) -- (0.3,1.15);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.3,1.15) -- (0.3,1.45) -- (0.7,1.45) -- (0.7,1.05) -- (0.4,1.05);
\node at (0.5,0.84) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.9) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,0.95) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,1.55) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,1.60) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.5,1.65) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.1,1.25) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.15,1.25) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.2,1.25) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.8,1.25) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.85,1.25) {\tiny$.$};
\node at (0.9,1.25) {\tiny$.$};
\node [right] at (1.2,1.25) {$= \, I$};
\node [right] at (0,-0.25) {$C \hspace{5mm} = \, N_c C$};
\draw [black] (0.6,-0.23) to[out=270,in=270, distance=6pt] (0.8,-0.23);
\draw [black] (0.6,-0.23) to[out=90,in=90, distance=6pt] (0.8,-0.23);
\end{tikzpicture} \hspace{11.5mm}\,.
\end{equation}
The $I$ in the upper equation on the r.h.s. is the value of the integrated closed diagram, while the lower equation is obtained from \eqref{OpenIntDelta}, and using that $\delta_{aa} = N_c$ for the fundamental representation. Equating these two different ways of calculating the same diagram, we can thus write
\SP{
C = \frac{1}{N_c} I = \frac{1}{N_c}\int_{{\rm SU}(N_c)} \hspace{-8mm} d U \, \cdots \, ,
\label{CByIntegral}
}
where the integrand indicated by $\cdots$ depends on the diagram under consideration. Since $I$ corresponds to a closed one-tile diagram, there can be no free indices and the integrand indicated by $\cdots$ is given entirely in terms of traces of powers of $U$ and $U^\dag$. As a rule of thumb that can be used to write this integrand down, one can use that for every loop in the diagram that winds around $n$ times in one direction, one should include a factor of ${\rm tr}\,U^n$ in the integrand. Likewise a factor of ${\rm tr}\,{U^\dag}^n$ should be included in the integrand for every loop that winds around $n$ times in the other direction. These one-tile closed diagram integrals can then be evaluated very easily using the Young projector formulas of the previous section, or using the diagrammatic techniques of \cite{Creutz:1984mg}. In this way, the calculation of this type of diagrams can be reduced to calculating a single group integral, instead of calculating four group integrals (one for every link) and multiplying and contracting the results.
As an illustrative example we calculate the value of the diagram
\begin{equation} \label{opendiagramex}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\draw [directed] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw [directed] (0,1) -- (1,1);
\draw [directed] (1,1) -- (1,0);
\draw [directed] (1,0) -- (0.2,0);
\draw [directed] (0.1,0.1) -- (0.1,0.9);
\draw [directed] (0.1,0.9) -- (0.9,0.9);
\draw [directed] (0.9,0.9) -- (0.9,0.1);
\draw [directed] (0.9,0.1) -- (0.1,0.1);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) -- (0.2,0.8) -- (0.8,0.8) -- (0.8,0.3) -- (0.3,0.3) -- (0.3,0.7) -- (0.7,0.7) -- (0.7,0.2) -- (0.2,0.2);
\node [below] at (0,-0.08) {\scriptsize$a$};
\node [below] at (0.2,0) {\scriptsize$b$};
\end{tikzpicture} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the corresponding closed diagram is
\begin{equation} \label{closeddiagram}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\draw [directed] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw [directed] (0,1) -- (1,1);
\draw [directed] (1,1) -- (1,0);
\draw [directed] (1,0) -- (0,0);
\draw [directed] (0.1,0.1) -- (0.1,0.9);
\draw [directed] (0.1,0.9) -- (0.9,0.9);
\draw [directed] (0.9,0.9) -- (0.9,0.1);
\draw [directed] (0.9,0.1) -- (0.1,0.1);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) -- (0.2,0.8) -- (0.8,0.8) -- (0.8,0.3) -- (0.3,0.3) -- (0.3,0.7) -- (0.7,0.7) -- (0.7,0.2) -- (0.2,0.2);
\end{tikzpicture} \, .
\end{equation}
Using equations \eqref{OpenIntDelta} and \eqref{CByIntegral} the open diagram evaluates to
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=1.0, every node/.style={transform shape}]
\draw [directed] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw [directed] (0,1) -- (1,1);
\draw [directed] (1,1) -- (1,0);
\draw [directed] (1,0) -- (0.2,0);
\draw [directed] (0.1,0.1) -- (0.1,0.9);
\draw [directed] (0.1,0.9) -- (0.9,0.9);
\draw [directed] (0.9,0.9) -- (0.9,0.1);
\draw [directed] (0.9,0.1) -- (0.1,0.1);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) -- (0.2,0.8) -- (0.8,0.8) -- (0.8,0.3) -- (0.3,0.3) -- (0.3,0.7) -- (0.7,0.7) -- (0.7,0.2) -- (0.2,0.2);
\node [below] at (0,-0.07) {\scriptsize$a$};
\node [below] at (0.2,0) {\scriptsize$b$};
\hspace{11.5 mm}
\node [right] at (0,0.5) {$\displaystyle = \frac{\delta_{ab}}{N_c}\int_{{\rm SU}(N_c)} \hspace{-8mm} d U \,{\rm tr}^2U^\dag \, {\rm tr}\,U^2$};
\end{tikzpicture} \hspace{11.5mm} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the integral corresponds to the value of the closed diagram \eqref{closeddiagram}. The integrand is determined using the above stated rule of thumb, by noting that the closed diagram consists of three loops : the outer two winding one time in one direction, while the inner loop winds two times in the other direction. This integral can be very easily evaluated using e.g. the Young projector formula \eqref{I2} as
\begin{align}
\int_{{\rm SU}(N_c)} \hspace{-8mm} d U \, {\rm tr}^2U^\dag \, {\rm tr}\,U^2 & = \int_{{\rm SU}(N_c)} \hspace{-8mm} d U \, U_{a_1}^{\ b_1} U_{b_1}^{\ a_1} \Useries{(U^\dag)}{2}{c}{c} = 0 \,,
\end{align}
where the last equation is obtained by plugging the indices in in \eqref{I2} and evaluating the resulting formula explicitly. We thus find that the diagram \eqref{opendiagramex} evaluates to zero.
\section{Sources of error} \label{errorsection}
\subsection{Mis-counting of overlapping graphs} \label{overlap}
One of the potentially problematic aspects of our approach is that since each diagram type can be placed at a site $x$, any number of times, in any possible direction, over-counting will result from contributions with overlapping diagrams\footnote{We note that overlapping diagrams are not mis-counted when including only $a$-type contributions, as in the $N_f = 0$ calculations \cite{Blairon:1980pk,Martin:1982tb}.}. This is a problem which arises at $N_f \ne 0$ due to the link integrations. It is in principle possible to systematically account for mis-counted graphs order by order by adding the appropriate counter term. However, practically speaking, it is difficult to do this within the formulation we are using. Here are some examples of mis-counted overlapping graphs.
\subsubsection{$L=8$}
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (-0.2,0.2);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (1.4,1.4);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= \frac{1}{2!} \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^{8} (-1)^4 (-N_f)^2 \left[ 0 \right] \, ,$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\end{flalign}
\noindent however, it gets counted as
\EQ{
\left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^{8} (-1)^4 (-N_f)^2 \left[ \frac{1}{N_c^2} \right] \, .
}
To account for the above mis-counting, it is necessary to add a counter term at $L = 8$ of the form
\begin{flalign}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (-0.2,0.2);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (1.4,1.4);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,0.0){\large{c.t.}};
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\large{
$= - \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^{8} (-1)^4 (-N_f)^2 \left[ \frac{1}{N_c^2} \right] \{ 4d(d-1) \} \, .$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}&&
\label{ctL8}
\end{flalign}
\subsubsection{$L=12$}
\noindent
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\def 1.0 {1.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0+1.0) -- (2.0+1.0,2.0+1.0) -- (2.0+1.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0) -- (0.2,1.8+1.0) -- (1.8+1.0,1.8+1.0) -- (1.8+1.0,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2) -- (0.4,1.6+1.0) -- (1.6+1.0,1.6+1.0) -- (1.6+1.0,0.4) -- (-0.2,0.4);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (1.4+1.0,1.4+1.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.8,0.8) rectangle (1.2+1.0,1.2+1.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (1.0,1.0) rectangle (1.0+1.0,1.0+1.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0+1.0,1.0+0.5) {\large{
$= \left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^{12} (-1)^6 (-N_f)^3 \left[ 0 \right] \, ,$
}};
\end{tikzpicture}\\
\noindent for $N_c \ge 3$. For $N_c = 2$ the result is $\left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^{12} (-1)^6 (-N_f)^3 \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \right]$. However, in either case it gets counted as
\EQ{
\left( - \frac{1}{4m^2} \right)^{12} (-1)^6 (-N_f)^3 \left[ \frac{1}{N_c^3} \right] \, .
}
The difficulties in adding counter terms are 1.) it is difficult to determine where exactly to add them within our formulation, and 2.) the counter terms lead to mis-counting at higher orders, requiring the addition of even more counter terms. Since the second issue can be resolved order by order, the first issue is the most critical. If one naively adds the counter term (\ref{ctL8}) as a base diagram at order $L=8$, then indeed the wrong contributions obtained with two overlapping $b$-type diagrams can be cancelled off. However, in addition, new diagrams would be created with both contributions from overlapping $b$-type diagrams, and counter terms of the form (\ref{ctL8}). These mixed diagrams should not be included and would introduce a different, difficult to quantify source of error. Therefore, at this point, we don't attempt to correct for errors resulting from overlapping diagrams. A proper treatment of the issue of overlapping diagrams is left for future research.
\subsection{Avoiding over-counting of graphs}
\label{over-counting}
Another source of error results from over-counting or under-counting of graphs. This happens, for example, when attaching a trunk,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw (0.0,2.0) -- (0.2,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,2.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
($a$-type), to either of two adjacent corners of a box,
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]
\def 0 {0.0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,2.0+0) -- (2.0+0,0.0+0) -- (0.2+0,0.0+0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2+0) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8+0);
\end{tikzpicture}
($b$-type) diagram. This results in graphs of the form \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.4) -- (2.0,2.4) -- (2.0,2.2) -- (0.2,2.2) -- (0.2,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (1.8+0,2.0) -- (1.8+0,2.2) -- (0.0+0,2.2) -- (0.0+0,2.4) -- (2.0+0,2.4) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent which are identical since the same sequence of links, $U_{\nu}(x) U_{\mu}(x+\hat{\nu}) U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x+\hat{\nu}) U_{\mu}(x+\hat{\nu}) U_{\nu}^{\dagger}(x+\hat{\mu}) U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x)$ (outside, plus inside plaquette), appears in both diagrams. To deal with this issue we follow \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr} and subtract off one possible direction when attaching a trunk ($a$-type) to a box ($b$-type) diagram. At one corner it is necessary to subtract off two directions to avoid over-counting either of
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,1.8) -- (-0.2,1.8) -- (-0.2,0.0) -- (-0.4,0.0) -- (-0.4,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,-0.4) -- (0.2+0,-0.4) -- (0.2+0,-0.2) -- (1.8+0,-0.2) -- (1.8+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture} \ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent which also appear by attaching both an $a$-type and $b$-type diagram directly at $x$ (when irreducible diagrams are combined). That is, they correspond to
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (-0.4,0.0) -- (-0.4,2.0) -- (-0.2,2.0) -- (-0.2,0.2) -- (0.0,0.2) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,-0.2) -- (2.0+0,-0.2) -- (2.0+0,-0.4) -- (0.0+0,-0.4);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent respectively. This result can be generalised for attachment of an $a$-type diagram to any area $1$-type diagram. Therefore, the dimensionalities are $a_1 = 2d-1$, $a_1' = 2(d-1)$, where $a_1'$ corresponds to attachment at one (outer) corner of an area $1$ diagram, and $a_1$ corresponds to attachment at any of the other $6$ possible locations. For example, one can choose the outer corner farthest from $x$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\def 0 {0.2}
\def 0 {0.2}
\fill [green][rotate around={120:(0.0-0,2.0+0)}] (0.0-0,2.0+0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\fill [blue][rotate around={60:(2.0 + 0,2.0+0)}] (2.0 + 0,2.0+0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\fill [green][rotate around={-60:(2.0 + 0,0.0-0)}] (2.0 + 0,0.0-0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\def 0 {0.24}
\def 0 {0.24}
\fill [green][rotate around={60:(0.2+0,0.2+0)}] (0.2+0,0.2+0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\fill [green][rotate around={-60:(0.2+0,1.8-0)}] (0.2+0,1.8-0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\fill [green][rotate around={-120:(1.8-0,1.8-0)}] (1.8-0,1.8-0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\fill [green][rotate around={120:(1.8-0,0.2+0)}] (1.8-0,0.2+0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the blue leaf corresponds to an $a_1'$ attachment site and the green leaves correspond to an $a_1$ attachment site.
\subsubsection{Overlapping of $b$-type graphs}
In the calculation of the dimensionality for attaching $b$-type graphs one can also make improvements by removing contributions which lead to over-counting. One example results from allowing $b$-type diagrams to overlap. For example,
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.4,1.8) -- (1.4,1.6) -- (0.4,1.6) -- (0.4,0.4) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (1.6,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.2,0.2);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (1.4,1.4);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,1.8) -- (1.6+0,1.8) -- (1.6+0,0.4) -- (0.4+0,0.4) -- (0.4+0,1.6) -- (1.8+0,1.6) -- (1.8+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,0.2);
\draw [directed] (0.6+0,0.6) rectangle (1.4+0,1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent The first graph is already counted as it corresponds to
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.4,1.0) {\Large{
$\times$
}};
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,1.8) -- (1.4+0,1.8) -- (1.4+0,1.6) -- (0.4+0,1.6) -- (0.4+0,0.4) -- (1.6+0,0.4) -- (1.6+0,1.8) -- (1.8+0,1.8) -- (1.8+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,0.2);
\end{tikzpicture} \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Since it factorises into a separately integrable contribution from the correlator (left) and a contribution from the determinant (right), the contribution from the determinant cancels against the denominator, resulting in a contribution already contained in
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture} \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent The second graph is not already included so one could allow for it. However, performing the group integrations, the contribution from this graph is
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,1.8) -- (1.6+0,1.8) -- (1.6+0,0.4) -- (0.4+0,0.4) -- (0.4+0,1.6) -- (1.8+0,1.6) -- (1.8+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,0.2);
\draw [directed] (0.6+0,0.6) rectangle (1.4+0,1.4);
\node[anchor=west] at (2.0,1.0) {\Large{
$= 0$
}};
\end{tikzpicture} \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Since this graph would be counted incorrectly by multiplying the separate contributions of the two $b$-type graphs we should disallow it as well. The same arguments can be used to justify disallowing overlapping $b$-type diagrams of the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (1.6,2.0) -- (1.6,1.8) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (0.2,0.2) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (1.8,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.6,0.6) rectangle (1.4,1.4);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (1.8+0,2.0) -- (1.8+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,0.2) -- (0.2+0,1.8) -- (2.0+0,1.8) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.4+0,0.4) rectangle (1.6+0,1.6);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.6+0,0.6) rectangle (1.4+0,1.4);
\end{tikzpicture} \ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Allowing $b$-type graphs to overlap as in the first diagram would result in over-counting due to factorisation. Allowing them to overlap as in the second diagram would also result in mis-counting, since the diagram evaluates to zero.
\subsubsection{Avoiding over-counting of $b$-type graphs}
To improve the dimensionality $b_1$, for attaching $b$-type graphs to area $1$ type graphs, it is useful to subtract off dimensions which lead to over-counting. For example, attaching a $b$-type graph to the leaf in
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\def 0 {0.2}
\def 0 {0.2}
\fill [green][rotate around={120:(0.0-0,2.0+0)}] (0.0-0,2.0+0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent could result (among others) in diagrams of the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {8.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,1.8) -- (-0.2,1.8) -- (-0.2,0.0) -- (-2.2,0.0) -- (-2.2,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (-2.0,0.2) rectangle (-0.4,1.8);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,1.8) -- (-2.2+0,1.8) -- (-2.2+0,0.0) -- (-0.2+0,0.0) -- (-0.2+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [directed] (-2.0+0,0.2) rectangle (-0.4+0,1.6);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent which would lead to over-counting. The first diagram corresponds to attaching
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [reverse directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (0.0+0,1.8) -- (0.2+0,1.8) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\node[anchor=west] at (1.0,1.0) {\Large{
$\times$
}};
\def 0 {5.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0+0,0.0) -- (-1.8+0,0.0) -- (-1.8+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (-1.6+0,0.2) rectangle (0.0+0,1.8);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent at $x$. The second corresponds to
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {0.0}
\draw [directed] (-0.2+0,0.0) -- (-0.2+0,1.8) -- (-2.2+0,1.8) -- (-2.2+0,0.2) -- (0.0+0,0.2) -- (0.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,2.0) -- (2.0+0,0.0) -- (0.2+0,0.0);
\draw [directed] (-2.0+0,0.4) rectangle (-0.4+0,1.6);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2+0,0.2) rectangle (1.8+0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent which is formed by combining two $b$-type diagrams at $x$. Avoiding also direct overlap of $b$-type diagrams discussed in the previous subsection, the dimensionality at the external corners neighbouring $x$ is $b_1 = 4(d-1)^2$.
Consider the addition of a $b$-type diagram at one of the internal corners
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\def 0 {0.24}
\def 0 {0.24}
\fill [blue][rotate around={-120:(1.8-0,1.8-0)}] (1.8-0,1.8-0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent One possible attachment would look like
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (2.2,1.8) -- (2.2,0.0) -- (4.2,0.0) -- (4.2,1.6) -- (1.8,1.6) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.2,0.2);
\draw [reverse directed] (2.4,0.2) rectangle (4.0,1.4);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent however, this one is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.4) -- (4.2,0.4) -- (4.2,2.0) -- (2.2,2.0) -- (2.2,0.2) -- (0.2,0.2);
\draw [reverse directed] (2.4,0.6) rectangle (4.0,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the attachment is at the lower right internal corner. It is therefore important, when attaching a neighbouring area $1$-diagram, to remove the contributions to the dimensionality from re-tracing along the internal plaquette. There are $2(d-1)$ ways to attach in this way from one of the internal corners, and we need to remove an additional contribution from direct overlap of area $1$-diagrams by backtracking along a link. The remaining contribution is $b_1' = 4d(d-1)-[2(d-1)+1]$.
Finally consider attachment to the far external corner
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\def 0 {0.2}
\def 0 {0.2}
\fill [green][rotate around={60:(2.0 + 0,2.0+0)}] (2.0 + 0,2.0+0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent One possible attachment is
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.2,2.0) -- (2.2,0.0) -- (4.2,0.0) -- (4.2,1.8) -- (2.0,1.8) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (2.4,0.2) rectangle (4.0,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {4.0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.2) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (4.2,0.0) -- (4.2,1.8) -- (2.2,1.8) -- (2.2,0.2) -- (0.2,0.2);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.4) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (2.4,0.2) rectangle (4.0,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Including all possible ways of folding the diagram which would lead to double counting, the contribution to subtract off the dimensionality is $2(d-1)$. Since an area-$1$ diagram can also neighbour the top link in the same way this amount needs to be subtracted twice. The total dimensionality at the external corner is therefore $b_1 = 4(d-1)^2$.
\subsection{Over-counting resulting from symmetries}
\label{winding}
In this section we examine diagrams with symmetries. In the first case, this symmetry leads to over-counting, and in the second case it does not.
Consider a graph of the form (\ref{type-d34}),
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.4) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2) -- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (0.2,0.4);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent which contains a gauge field loop that winds twice before closing on itself. The graphs in (\ref{type-g2}), (\ref{type-g3}) also belong to this category. One source of over-counting comes about when asymmetric attachments are made to the multiply-wound loop. In this case, the over-counting results due to symmetry under rotations by $4$ lattice sites of the internal loop. For example, consider two different attachments, represented by the green and blue leaves in
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.4) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2) -- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (0.2,0.4);
\fill [green][rotate around={120:(1.4-0,0.6+0)}] (1.4-0,0.6+0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\fill [blue][rotate around={-60:(1.95+0,0.05-0)}] (1.95+0,0.05-0) ellipse (0.3 and 0.18);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ .
\end{equation}
\noindent Since these are both attached to the same loop in the same corner it makes no difference if one attaches at the green leaf or the blue one. Such attachments result in identical diagrams which can be transformed into each other under rotations by $4$ lattice sites. Therefore if attachment at both sites is allowed with the same dimensionality then there will be over-counting. Over-counting also results when the attachments are made in two different corners on the same loop, since the attachments can be shifted $4$ sites along the loop to give an identical diagram, which gets counted separately. Notice that, if identical attachments are made at both the green and blue attachment sites simultaneously then there is no over-counting. We have not yet accounted for this effect in our calculations, so it is a source of error.
It is important to note that not all symmetries lead to over-counting. There also exists a symmetry in diagrams of the form
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.center),scale=0.7]
\def 0 {0}
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\end{tikzpicture}\ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent with respect to interchange of the two internal loops (also true in $L=8$ diagrams of the form (\ref{type-g1})). In this case there is no over-counting when making asymmetric attachments to the internal loops. The contributions from the internal loops come down from the exponential in (\ref{detD}), so if one of the loops takes a different shape, then it is necessary to count it twice.
\section{Results}
\label{results}
Using the procedure outlined in Section \ref{martin-siu}, and the considerations outlined in the previous section for reducing over-counting, it is possible to obtain the chiral condensate to some order by solving the appropriate truncated system of equations. In what follows we present results including area $0$ and $1$ diagrams up to order $L = 8$.
\subsection{Asymptotic solutions for large $N_f/N_c$}
First consider the contributions up to $L = 4$, that is all possible diagrams formed from type $a$ (\ref{type-a}) and type $b$ (\ref{type-b}) sub-diagrams. The system of equations, using (\ref{ga}), (\ref{gb}), and the considerations in Section \ref{over-counting}, is
\EQ{
g_a = \frac{1}{a_0 g_a + b_0 g_b} \, ,
\label{ga-1}
}
\EQ{
g_b = \frac{\frac{N_f}{N_c}}{(a_1 g_a + b_1' g_b)^4 (a_1 g_a + b_1 g_b)^2 (a_1' g_a + b_1 g_b)} \, ,
\label{gb-1}
}
where the dimensionalities $x_n$ are given in Appendix \ref{A}. The chiral condensate as a function of $N_f$ can be obtained from (\ref{gser}) and (\ref{chicong}).
We are interested in finding real roots of the set of self-consistent equations for large $N_f/N_c$, where we will take $d=4$ in what follows. Solving \eqref{ga-1} for $g_b$ and plugging this solution in \eqref{gb-1}, we find that solutions for $g_a$ are determined by the roots of the polynomial equation
\begin{align} \label{polyga}
& \frac{2825761}{10504375}-\frac{32255028}{10504375} g_a^2 +\frac{15618171}{1500625}g_a^4-\frac{707824}{42875}g_a^6+\left(\frac{2403}{175}-\frac{60466176}{10504375}\frac{N_f}{N_c} \right) g_a^8 \nonumber \\ & \qquad -\frac{204}{35}g_a^{10} +g_a^{12}=0 \,.
\end{align}
Once real solutions for $g_a$ of the above polynomial have been found, the corresponding real solutions for $g_b$ are found from \eqref{ga-1}
\begin{equation} \label{gbsol}
g_b = \frac{1}{b_0 g_a} - \frac{a_0}{b_0} g_a \,.
\end{equation}
The number of real roots of \eqref{polyga} in a certain interval can be found by applying Sturm's theorem. For generic\footnote{For very small values of $N_f/N_c$ ($N_f/N_c < 2 \cdot 10^{-6}$), the polynomial \eqref{polyga} has four real roots.} values of $N_f/N_c$, one finds that the number of real roots in the interval $(0,+\infty)$ is given by 2. Since the polynomial \eqref{polyga} is even in $g_a$, the negatives of these roots are also roots and hence there are four real roots in total.
Here, we are interested in finding asymptotic expansions for the roots of \eqref{polyga}, for large $N_f/N_c \gg 1$. Multiplying \eqref{polyga} by $\epsilon = N_c/N_f$, we wish to apply perturbation theory to obtain real solutions of
\begin{align} \label{polyga2}
& \epsilon \frac{2825761}{10504375}- \epsilon \frac{32255028}{10504375} g_a^2 +\epsilon \frac{15618171}{1500625}g_a^4-\epsilon \frac{707824}{42875}g_a^6+\left(\epsilon \frac{2403}{175}-\frac{60466176}{10504375}\right) g_a^8 \nonumber \\ & \qquad -\epsilon \frac{204}{35}g_a^{10} +\epsilon g_a^{12}=0 \,,
\end{align}
for $\epsilon \ll 1$. Asymptotic expansions in $\epsilon$ for the roots of this polynomial can then be found via singular perturbation theory \cite{SimmondsMann,BenderBook}. In particular, one looks for roots of the form
\begin{equation}
g_a = \epsilon^P w(\epsilon) \,,
\end{equation}
where $w(\epsilon)$ is regular in the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ and $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} w(\epsilon)$ is assumed to be non-zero. The exponent $P$ can be determined via singular perturbation theory to be either $-1/4$ or $1/8$. Let us focus on solutions with $P=-1/4$ first. Plugging $g_a = \epsilon^{-1/4} w(\epsilon)$ in \eqref{polyga2}, one obtains
\begin{align}
& \frac{2825761}{10504375}\epsilon^3-\frac{32255028}{10504375}\epsilon^{5/2} w(\epsilon)^2+\frac{15618171}{1500625}\epsilon^2 w(\epsilon)^4-\frac{707824}{42875}\epsilon^{3/2} w(\epsilon)^6 \nonumber \\ & \qquad -\frac{60466176}{10504375}w(\epsilon)^8 +\frac{2403}{175} \epsilon w(\epsilon)^8-\frac{204}{35} \sqrt{\epsilon} w(\epsilon)^{10}+w(\epsilon)^{12} = 0\,.
\end{align}
Upon renaming $\epsilon = \beta^2$, one obtains an expression that only involves integer powers of $\beta$
\begin{align} \label{polygabeta}
& \frac{2825761}{10504375}\beta^6-\frac{32255028}{10504375}\beta^{5} w(\beta)^2+\frac{15618171}{1500625}\beta^4 w(\beta)^4-\frac{707824}{42875}\beta^{3} w(\beta)^6 \nonumber \\ & \qquad -\frac{60466176}{10504375}w(\beta)^8 +\frac{2403}{175} \beta^2 w(\beta)^8-\frac{204}{35} \beta w(\beta)^{10}+w(\beta)^{12} = 0\,.
\end{align}
One can then propose an ordinary series solution for $w(\beta)$
\begin{equation} \label{seriesw}
w(\beta) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \omega_i \beta^i\,.
\end{equation}
The coefficients $\omega_i$ can be solved for by plugging \eqref{seriesw} in \eqref{polygabeta} and requiring that the result is zero at every order in $\beta$. This leads to a set of equations for $\omega_i$, that can be solved in an iterative manner. Restricting ourselves to sixth order in $\beta$, we thus obtain asymptotic expansions for two solutions, that are each others negatives. Expressed again in terms of $\epsilon$, these are given by
\begin{align}
g_a & = \pm \frac{1}{\epsilon^{1/4}}\Bigg(\frac{36 \sqrt{6}}{35 7^{1/4}}+\frac{17 7^{1/4} \sqrt{\epsilon }}{12 \sqrt{6}}-\frac{45185 7^{3/4} \epsilon }{124416 \sqrt{6}}+\frac{11150869975 7^{1/4} \epsilon ^{3/2}}{8707129344 \sqrt{6}} \nonumber \\ &\quad \quad -\frac{145105138793125 7^{3/4} \epsilon ^2}{180551034077184 \sqrt{6}} +\frac{616080011402463125 7^{1/4} \epsilon ^{5/2}}{155996093442686976 \sqrt{6}}\nonumber \\ &\quad \quad -\frac{43215120505930210709375 7^{3/4} \epsilon ^3}{14556307471324007104512 \sqrt{6}}\Bigg) \,.
\end{align}
Similarly, for $P = 1/8$, one obtains asymptotic expansions for two solutions, that are each others negatives and are given by
\begin{align}
g_a & = \pm \epsilon ^{1/8} \Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{41}}{6 6^{1/4}}-\frac{13 \sqrt{41} \epsilon ^{1/4}}{48 6^{3/4}}+\frac{3995 \sqrt{41} \sqrt{\epsilon }}{62208 6^{1/4}}-\frac{2827435 \sqrt{41} \epsilon ^{3/4}}{13436928 6^{3/4}} +\frac{85021433 \sqrt{41} \epsilon }{859963392 6^{1/4}}\nonumber \\ & \quad \quad -\frac{141672440399 \sqrt{41} \epsilon ^{5/4}}{557256278016 6^{3/4}}+\frac{13186932605159 \sqrt{41} \epsilon ^{3/2}}{80244904034304 6^{1/4}}\Bigg) \,.
\end{align}
Asymptotic expansions for $g_b$ can then be found by using these expansions for $g_a$ in \eqref{gbsol}. The expansions for $g_a$ and $g_b$ can be used to obtain approximate solutions for the chiral condensate, that are valid for $N_f/N_c \gg 1$. In particular, one obtains two positive solutions for the chiral condensate $\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}\mathrm{tr}\left[G(x,x) \right]/(N_s N_f N_c) = 2/g$, given by
\begin{align} \label{cc1}
\frac{2}{g} & = \frac{35 \cdot 7^{1/4}}{24 \sqrt{6}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{1/4}-\frac{1225\cdot 7^{3/4}}{11664 \sqrt{6}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{3/4} +\frac{1651587875 \cdot7^{1/4}}{5804752896 \sqrt{6}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{5/4} \nonumber \\ & \quad-\frac{1810166421875\cdot 7^{3/4}}{11284439629824 \sqrt{6}}\left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{7/4}+\frac{2087791584389809375\cdot 7^{1/4}}{2807929681968365568 \sqrt{6}}\left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{9/4}\nonumber \\ & \quad -\frac{163362753019994171875 \cdot 7^{3/4} }{303256405652583481344 \sqrt{6}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{11/4} + {\cal O} \left((N_c/N_f)^{13/4} \right)\,,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align} \label{cc2}
\frac{2}{g} & = \frac{\sqrt{41}}{4\cdot 6^{1/4}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{1/8}-\frac{35 \sqrt{41}}{288 \cdot 6^{3/4}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{3/8}-\frac{10073 \sqrt{41}}{124416\cdot 6^{1/4}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{5/8}\nonumber \\ & \quad+\frac{35399 \sqrt{41}}{2985984\cdot 6^{3/4}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{7/8} -\frac{103461197 \sqrt{41}}{15479341056\cdot 6^{1/4}}\left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{9/8}\nonumber \\ & \quad+\frac{171638444453\cdot \sqrt{41}}{1114512556032\cdot 6^{3/4}} \left(\frac{N_c}{N_f}\right)^{11/8} + {\cal O}\left((N_c/N_f)^{13/8} \right)\,.
\end{align}
These two solutions are plotted (for large $N_f/N_c$) in Figure \ref{figcc}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.54]{images/plot_largeNf_1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.54]{images/plot_largeNf_2.pdf}
\caption{Plots of the two (positive) approximate solutions for the chiral condensate, for large $N_f/N_c$. The left figure represents the solution of \eqref{cc1}, the right figure the solution of \eqref{cc2}.} \label{figcc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical results for $N_c = 3$}
Consider again the contributions up to $L = 4$, formed from type $a$ (\ref{type-a}) and type $b$ (\ref{type-b}) sub-diagrams. The system of equations for $g_a$ and $g_b$ is as in the previous subsection given by (\ref{ga-1}), (\ref{gb-1}), including the considerations in Section \ref{over-counting}, such that the chiral condensate as a function of $N_f$ can be obtained from (\ref{gser}) and (\ref{chicong}) by solving the system of equations numerically.
Results for $\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle \bar{\psi} \psi \rangle$, including base diagrams up to $L=4$, with $N_c = 3$ and $d = 4$ are shown in Figure \ref{chi-bd} (left). As in the previous section, solving the system of equations results in two solutions. One of these, solution $1$, approaches the result of \cite{KlubergStern:1982bs,Martin:1982tb} as $N_f \rightarrow 0$. For the other, solution $2$, $\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle \rightarrow \infty$ as $N_f \rightarrow 0$. In the limit $N_f \rightarrow \infty$, both solutions approach zero, solution $2$ falling off more quickly. There is no sign of a discontinuity, at any $N_f$, for either of the solutions.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_chicon_L4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_chicon_L6.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{$\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ vs. $N_f$ including area $1$ diagrams up to order $L = 4$ (left), and $L = 6$ (right).}
\label{chi-bd}
\end{figure}
To determine the effect of including higher order diagrams consider the contributions of area $1$ diagrams up to $L = 6$, formed from type $a$, $b$, and $d$ (\ref{type-d31}) - (\ref{type-d34}) sub-diagrams. The system of equations is
\EQ{
g_a = \frac{1}{a_0 g_a + b_0 g_b + b_0 g_d} \, ,
\label{ga-2}
}
\EQ{
g_b = \frac{\frac{N_f}{N_c}}{(a_1 g_a + b_1' g_b + b_1' g_d)^4 (a_1 g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d)^2 (a_1' g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d)} \, ,
}
\EQ{
g_d = \frac{\frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{1}{2} N_f^2 + 2 N_f + 1 \right)}{(a_1 g_a + b_1' g_b + b_1' g_d)^8 (a_1 g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d)^2 (a_1' g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d)} \, .
\label{gd-2}
}
In \eqref{gd-2}, we have explicitly set $N_c = 3$, as the contribution from $d$-type diagrams is otherwise zero.
The results for $\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ from \eqref{ga-2} - \eqref{gd-2} as a function of $N_f$ (and with $N_c=3$) are shown in Figure \ref{chi-bd} (right). The results are quite similar to the case of $L = 4$, suggesting that the solutions are converging, however, solution $2$ now approaches a finite value around $1.2$ in the limit $N_f \rightarrow 0$. For all $N_f$, the values of $\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ have decreased. In the limit $N_f \rightarrow \infty$, the differences from the $L=4$ truncation become more apparent but both solutions still approach zero, without exhibiting any discontinuities.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_chicon_L8.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\end{minipage}
\caption{$\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ vs. $N_f$ including area $1$ diagrams up to order $L = 8$ (left).}
\label{chi-g}
\end{figure}
Finally, consider the effect of including contributions of area $1$ diagrams up to $L = 8$, formed from type $a$, $b$, $d$, and $g$ (\ref{type-g1}) - (\ref{type-g3}) sub-diagrams. The system of equations is
\EQ{
g_a = \frac{1}{a_0 g_a + b_0 g_b + b_0 g_d + b_0 g_g} \, ,
\label{ga-all}
}
\EQ{
g_b = \frac{\frac{N_f}{N_c}}{(a_1 g_a + b_1' g_b + b_1' g_d + b_1' g_g)^4 (a_1 g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d + b_1 g_g)^2 (a_1' g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d + b_1 g_g)} \, ,
}
\EQ{
g_d = \frac{\frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{1}{2} N_f^2 + 2 N_f + 1 \right)}{(a_1 g_a + b_1' g_b + b_1' g_d + b_1' g_g)^8 (a_1 g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d + b_1 g_g)^2 (a_1' g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d + b_1 g_g)} \, ,
\label{gd-all}
}
\EQ{
g_g = \frac{\frac{1}{N_c} \left( N_f^3 + 2 N_f \right)}{(a_1 g_a + b_1' g_b + b_1' g_d + b_1' g_g)^{12} (a_1 g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d + b_1 g_g)^2 (a_1' g_a + b_1 g_b + b_1 g_d + b_1 g_g)} \, .
\label{gg-all}
}
The results for $\frac{1}{N_f N_c}\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ as a function of $N_f$ are given in Figure \ref{chi-g}. While the data points haven't shifted so much from the $L = 6$ results, one notable difference is the absence of real solutions for $\frac{1}{N_f N_c}\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ for non-integer values of $N_f$. At lower orders, the two real solutions were continuous solutions for all $N_f$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_chicon_1.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_chicon.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{$\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ vs. $N_f$ including area $1$ diagrams up to order $L = 4, 6, 8$ for solution $1$ (left), and solution $2$ (right).}
\label{sols}
\end{figure}
The results for each solution of $\frac{1}{N_f N_c}\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ as a function of $N_f$ from (\ref{ga-all}) - (\ref{gg-all}) for the $L = 8$ truncation are reproduced in Figure \ref{sols}, along with those from the $L = 6$ truncation in (\ref{ga-2}) - (\ref{gd-2}), and from the $L = 4$ truncation in (\ref{ga-1}) - (\ref{gb-1}), showing how the solutions change as a function of the truncation order $L$. In both cases the solution appears to be converging, at least for the smaller values of $N_f$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_gs_1.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_gs.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{$g_x$ vs. $N_f$ including area $1$ diagrams up to order $L = 8$ for solution $1$ (left), and solution $2$ (right).}
\label{g-figs}
\end{figure}
Finally, to check convergence, the values of each contribution $d_b g_b$, $d_d g_d$, $d_g g_g$ to (\ref{gser}), that solve the system of equations in (\ref{ga-all}) - (\ref{gg-all}), are plotted in Figure \ref{g-figs}. While in both solutions the higher order contributions from $d_d g_d$ and $d_g g_g$ are smaller in magnitude, the contributions have the potential to become more significant at larger values of $N_f$, since $g_d$ goes like $N_f^2$ (\ref{gd-all}), and $g_g$ goes like $N_f^3$ (\ref{gg-all}).
\subsection{Restricting to reduced graphs}
In order to compare with \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr} we now examine the effects of allowing only reduced graphs, i.e. graphs where each closed loop is separated from all other closed loops as well as the origin by at least one double link. The set of reduced graphs can be obtained by modifying the diagrams used in the construction by inserting extra double links separating the loops. Since reduced graphs are already included in the building of graphs, there is no reason to discard the unreduced graphs in our approach. Furthermore, due to the extra double links the reduced diagrams will have higher powers of $(a_n g_a + b_n g_b + ...)^{-1}$ and could as such be subdominant compared to the corresponding unreduced diagrams, by the arguments at the end of Section \ref{martin-siu}. Regardless of this we will calculate the chiral condensate with a restriction to reduced graphs in order to compare with the results of \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[.5\textwidth][]{
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0);
\draw (0.0,2.0) -- (0.2,2.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,2.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{reda}}
\hspace{5cm}
\subfloat[.5\textwidth][]{
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
\draw [directed] (0.0,-2.0) --(0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0)-- (0.2,-2.0);
\draw [reverse directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{redb}}
\hspace{5cm}
\subfloat[.5\textwidth][]{
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.2) rectangle (1.8,1.8);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\draw (0.0,-2.0) --(0.0,0.0);
\draw(0.2,0.0)-- (0.2,-2.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{redc}}
\hspace{5cm}
\subfloat[.5\textwidth][]{
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (-0.2,0.2);
\draw [directed] (0.4,0.4) rectangle (1.6,1.6);
\draw (0.0,-2.0) --(0.0,0.0);
\draw(-0.2,0.2)-- (-0.2,-2.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{redd}}
\hspace{5cm}
\subfloat[.5\textwidth][]{
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0)
-- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2)
-- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (-0.2,0.4);
\draw (0.0,-2.0) --(0.0,0.0);
\draw(-0.2,0.4)-- (-0.2,-2.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{rede}}
\hspace{5cm}
\subfloat[.5\textwidth][]{
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
\draw [directed] (0.0,0.0) -- (0.0,2.0) -- (2.0,2.0) -- (2.0,0.0) -- (0.2,0.0);
\draw [directed] (0.2,0.4) -- (0.2,1.8) -- (1.8,1.8) -- (1.8,0.2) -- (0.4,0.2) -- (0.4,1.6) -- (1.6,1.6) -- (1.6,0.4) -- (0.2,0.4);
\draw (0.0,-2.0) --(0.0,0.0);
\draw(0.2,0.0)-- (0.2,-2.0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{redf}}
\caption{Lowest order diagrams used for constructing the set of reduced graphs.}
\label{reduced}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{images/plot_reduced.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\end{minipage}
\caption{$\frac{1}{N_f N_c} \langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ for unreduced, reduced, doubly reduced, and triply reduced graphs.}
\label{reducedplot}
\end{figure}
The lowest order base diagrams in Section \ref{diags} are modified as shown in Figure \ref{reduced}. These imply the following set of equations for the set of reduced graphs (where $g_d=0$ for $N_c\ne3$).
\begin{align}
g_a & = \frac{1}{a_0 g_a + b_0 g_b+b_0g_d} \,, \label{eq1}\\
g_b & = - \frac{N_f/N_c}{\left(a_1 g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)^8 \left(a_1' g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)} \label{eq2} \,,\\
g_d & = - \frac{\frac{1}{3}(\frac{1}{2}N_f^2+2N_f+1)}{\left(a_1 g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)^{12} \left(a_1' g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)} \label{eq3} \,,\end{align}
and
\SP{\frac{\VEV{\bar{\psi \psi}}}{N_cN_f}=\frac{2}{d_a g_a + d_F g_b + d_F g_d}\, ,}
where $d_F=8d^2(d-1)$ is the dimensionality of a flag type diagram (Figures \ref{redb}-\ref{redf}). Solving these equations for $N_c=3$ and $d=4$ we find the chiral condensate for reduced graphs as shown in Figure \ref{reducedplot} compared to the condensate including the (partially) unreduced graphs built from the base diagrams of Section \ref{diags} \footnote{Note that Figure \ref{reducedplot} only shows one of the two solutions. For the second solution we do not observe a clear trend but the critical $N_f$ are the same in the cases where there is one.}. We see that the $N_f\to0$ limit is unchanged, as expected since the only diagrams that have been changed are those that depend on $N_f$. What is different is that when excluding unreduced graphs, the chiral condensate increases with $N_f$, and at $N_f\gapprox8$ staggered flavours it turns complex.
In order to examine closer the effects of excluding graphs in the recursive building we define a doubly (triply) reduced graph as a graph where each closed loop is separated from any other closed loop and the origin by at least two (three) tree segments and so on. Now if reduced graphs were in fact dominant, then by the same arguments, doubly reduced graphs (which are clearly also reduced) would be dominant among the reduced graphs. The set of doubly reduced graphs is generated by attaching an extra double link on the diagrams in Figures \ref{redb}-\ref{redf}, which leads to a change of the sign in equations \ref{eq2} and \ref{eq3} as well as an increase in the dimensionality $d_F\to16d^3(d-1)$. Restricting to doubly reduced graphs results in
\begin{align}
g_a & = \frac{1}{a_0 g_a + b_0 g_b+b_0g_d} \,, \\
g_b & = \frac{N_f/N_c}{\left(a_1 g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)^{10} \left(a_1' g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)} \,,\\
g_d & = \frac{\frac{1}{3}(\frac{1}{2}N_f^2+2N_f+1)}{\left(a_1 g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)^{14} \left(a_1' g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)} \,.\end{align}
The chiral condensate including only doubly reduced graphs (see Figure \ref{reducedplot}) is again a decreasing function of $N_f$, which is real for all values of $N_f$, as was the case including unreduced diagrams, built from the base diagrams in Section \ref{diags}.
Going one step further and restricting to triply reduced graphs, the sign of $g_b$ and $g_d$ changes again,
\begin{align}
g_a & = \frac{1}{a_0 g_a + b_0 g_b+b_0g_d} \,, \\
g_b & = - \frac{N_f/N_c}{\left(a_1 g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)^{12} \left(a_1' g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)} \,,\\
g_d & = - \frac{\frac{1}{3}(\frac{1}{2}N_f^2+2N_f+1)}{\left(a_1 g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)^{16} \left(a_1' g_a + d_F g_b+ d_F g_d \right)} \,,\end{align}
with $d_F=32d^4(d-1)$. As shown in Figure \ref{reducedplot}, the chiral condensate becomes an increasing function of $N_f$ turning complex already for $N_f\ge5$. This trend continues, such that for graphs reduced any even number of times we obtain a real decreasing condensate for all $N_f$, while for any odd number of double links separating the loops, the condensate turns complex at some critical $N_f$. This critical value of $N_f$ decreases with the number of required links, such that for quintuply reduced graphs and beyond the condensate is complex for all $N_f\gapprox1$.
This suggests that the existence of a critical $N_f$ above which the chiral condensate is complex as found in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr} is a direct consequence of the reduced approximation due to the change of sign in the equations for the $N_f$-dependent $g_x$ for type $x$-diagrams with an uneven number of double links attached to the loop diagrams. This is further supported by including (partially) unreduced graphs in the recursive building formulated instead as in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}. This leads to a normalized chiral condensate that decreases with $N_f$ and remains real for all numbers of flavours.
\section{Discussion and conclusions} \label{concl}
Overall, what we can conclude from our results for $\frac{1}{N_f N_c}\langle {\bar \psi} \psi \rangle$ is that the diagrammatic expansion appears to converge at smaller values of $N_f$, giving two real solutions in which the chiral condensate slowly approaches zero as a function of $N_f$, but does not exhibit discontinuities, other than the non-existence of solutions for non-integer $N_f$ in the $L = 8$ truncation. At each order, the contributions from new sub-diagrams come with the same sign \footnote{In general, we have not been able to find a diagram (which is not a superposition) that has a different sign.}. Our results indicate that the chiral condensate always decreases when more contributions are included, such that the solutions obtained appear to provide an upper bound.
We have dealt with various sources of error resulting from over-counting, however certain errors remain difficult to avoid. In particular, we note that the contribution of mistakes due to non-factorisation of integrations of overlapping diagrams could be important (see Section \ref{overlap}) and we have not accounted for this effect in these results. In addition the effect of over-counting resulting from symmetries in winding diagrams (see Section \ref{winding}) should be investigated more thoroughly. This effect comes in at $L=6$ for $N_c = 3$ and at $L=8$ for $N_c > 3$. Finally, higher order graphs can become important at larger $N_f$ so there is still room for interesting behaviour in this regime. We leave the precise quantification of these errors for future research.
We believe the differences from \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr} are as follows. The most clear difference is that we have included more contributions. Our calculations include higher order contributions up to $L=8$, \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr} includes contributions up to $L=4$. Another difference is that we allow area $1$ diagrams to attach directly to each other, resulting in ``unreduced" and ``partially reduced" graphs, using the terminology in \cite{Tomboulis:2012nr}. Another notable difference is that the type of attachments we use all come with a negative sign. We note, however, that additional counter-diagrams could be added to correct for mis-counted overlapping diagrams and some of these would come in with a positive sign.
Higher dimensional representation fermions such as the symmetric, antisymmetric, and adjoint can also be considered however the calculations of diagrams with gauge fields in higher dimensional representations is not simply a replacement of all instances of $N_c$ with $d_R$. This is an interesting topic which we are currently investigating.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Poul Damgaard, Matti J\"{a}rvinen, Seyong Kim, Kim Splittorff, and Ben Svetitsky for useful discussions. JCM would like to thank the Sapere Aude program of the Danish Council for Independent Research for supporting this work. The work of JR is supported by the START project Y 435-N16 of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF).
|
\section{Introduction}
The Kirchhoff law of voltage is a simple yet powerful rule that is presented in virtually all Electromagnetism books.
This law is a direct application of the energy conservation, yet there are other assumptions that are not normally discussed.
Most of the literature argue that the typical size of circuit must be much smaller than the wavelength of the
emitted radiation~\cite{zozaya}, as a condition for the validity of this law but some other assumptions
have to be taken into account.
One of them is based on Faraday's law that states that the electromotive force, defined as the line
integral of the electric field vector around the circuit closed loop,
is proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the loop, and can be written
as the following:
\begin{equation}
{\cal{E}} = \oint \vec{E} \cdot d\vec{l} = - \frac{d}{dt} \iint \vec{B} \cdot d\vec{s} \,,
\end{equation}
and if the current
varies in the time the electromotive force is not zero, leading to an additional term in the Kirchhoff law.
This can be circumvented by assuming the area of the circuit, as well as the variation of the magnetic field,
are small enough or by assuming that the current is slowly varying~\cite{zozaya}.
The second assumption, not normally stated but related to the first one, assumes that the energy
radiated by the circuit is negligible when compared with other energy scales involved in the problem.
In this work we intend to overcome these hypotheses and present a simple model that hopefully clarifies the situation to some extent.
We consider a simple $LC$ circuit. If we assume ideal capacitor, inductor and wires in the classical description,
one obtains a perpetually oscillating current. However, intuitively we known that this result is not very realistic.
If we consider a circular (or a square) mesh [see Fig. (\ref{fig:circular_mesh})], on the other hand, we could add into the
recipe a term related to the magnetic and electric dipole radiation, given by the Larmor formula~\cite{griffiths}.
In doing so, we obtain an effective resistance, which depends basically of the geometry of the mesh, of its natural
frequency and the inductor geometry. The overall electric effective resistance is related to all sort of loss of energy,
by the mechanical work done over the current carrying electrons and by the energy that flows out in an
irreversible way in the form of radiation, as stated by the Poynting's theorem.
We have analysed elsewhere~\cite{RBEF} the problem of the two capacitors, the discharge of a capacitor
associated with an identical and initially discharged, where the equilibrium state as well as the
energy dissipated in the process are always the same, regardless the presence of a resistor in the system.
We have made clear how this system reaches equilibrium, and
we have discussed the dissipation mechanisms and the role played by both the
Joule effect and radiation. In this sense the present paper generalize the former and goes beyond in
order to complement the Kirchhoff's circuit law.
What motivate us to write this article is the fact that most of the students do not well understand the fact
that when the electric circuit radiates the traditional equation of the RLC circuit is no longer valid and must undergo correction.
Here we try to give a direction of how to understand the problem and how to approach it,
giving a support for students and teachers in this subject that can be quite tricky~\cite{jackson}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{rlc_circuit_1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{A circular loop with radius $a$ composed by a $RLC$ circuit showing the capacitor radiating as electric dipole.
The loop and the inductor also radiate (not shown) as magnetic dipole.}
\label{fig:circular_mesh}
\end{figure}
\section{Usual description of the $RLC$ circuit}
The Kirchhoff's circuit law states that for a structure such as a mesh or a circuit loop, starting from a
point and adding voltages difference across the circuit elements, after describing a complete loop the same
potential as that of the starting point is obtained, and its mathematical formulation is written as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=0}^{n} V_{i} = 0\,,
\end{equation}
where $V_{i}$ is the potential difference between the terminals of an element in the circuit, and $n$ the number of elements.
This result can be derived from the general energy balance.
We can think in terms of the Poynting's theorem, related to the conservation of energy in the
system formed by the electromagnetic field and matter.
In its integral form this theorem can be written as~\cite{griffiths}
\begin{equation}
\int_{V} \vec{J} \cdot \vec{E}\,dV + \oint_{A} \vec{S} \cdot d \vec{A} = -\frac{d}{dt}
\int_{V}\frac{1}{2}(\vec{E}\cdot\vec{D} + \vec{H}\cdot\vec{B})\,dV \, ,
\label{teoremapoynting}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\vec{J}$ is the current density vector, $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{B}$, as stated before, the electric and magnetic fields,
$\vec{S}$ is the Poynting's vector, and $\vec{D}$ and $\vec{H}$ are, respectively,
the electric displacement and the auxiliar magnetic field vector.
This equation states that the time variation of electromagnetic energy in the field,
the right hand side, is due to the work carried out on the charges,
represented here by the Joule effect and by the work done over the charges by the battery,
the first term in the left-hand side of equation (\ref{teoremapoynting}),
and the energy that flows to the outside, represented by the surface integral of the Poynting vector,
that represents the energy radiated by the circuit. This last term is normally neglected in
order to calculate the current flowing in the circuit, as an approximation.
For an $RLC$ circuit forced by a battery, for example, with the assumption that the system does not radiate,
the Poynting theorem can be cast in the form
\begin{equation}
- R I^{2} - \frac{d }{dt} \left( \frac{L I^2}{2} \right) - \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{Q^2}{2C} \right) + {\cal{E}} I = 0 \,,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal{E}} I $ is the power supplied by the battery, $L I^2/2 $ is the magnetic energy stored in the inductor,
$Q^2/2C $ is the electric energy stored in the capacitor and $ R I^{2} $ is the power dissipated in the resistor.
Using the definition of current $I = dQ/dt$ we get the standard circuit law
\begin{equation}
R I + L \frac{d I}{dt} + \frac{Q}{C} = {\cal{E}} \,.
\label{RLC}
\end{equation}
In the derivation of the above equations the hypothesis that the system does not radiate is implicit, and
there is only one mechanism of energy dissipation due to the Joule effect. This assumption is not so bad when
the electrical resistance is large enough, that is,
much greater than the radiation loss from the circuit, but when
we are dealing with a circuit without electric resistance such as an $LC$ circuit,
we are induced to think that the current never stops, even without a battery source.
In order to clarify this discussion we could remember a curious fact about superconducting
(i.e., with no Joule dissipation at all) current carrying wires, which is somewhat
related to the issues discussed in this work. A steady electric current flowing in a superconducting
circular loop does not radiate, thus maintaining this current eternal. One could believe that due to
the presence of accelerated charges this system would radiate, but the fact is that stationary currents
do not radiate (for a detailed proof for the case of a superconducting circular loop see,
for instance, reference \cite{Mcdonald01whydoesnt}).
However, for the case of an $LC$ circuit formed by superconducting wires we find that the current $I(t)$
slowly decays as the time passes, and therefore is not stationary. Even more, we find a slowly
decaying oscillating current, in a similar way as one can see in an $RLC$ circuit with small electrical resistance.
As we will see later, this current leads to oscillating magnetic and electric dipoles.
As a consequence, even an ideal $LC$ circuit radiates, which means that the current eventually vanishes.
The main question to be addressed here is what sort of changes we have to make
in the Kirchhoff law in order to include radiation from the circuit, and derive a differential
equation that allows us to solve and get the circuit current as a function of time.
\section{Dissipation Mechanisms}
There are some different mechanisms for dissipation that could be included in an $RLC$ circuit aside the Joule effect,
like the magnetic and electric dipole radiation.
The electric dipole radiation would be due to the oscillating charge in capacitor,
and the magnetic counterpart would be due to the geometry of the mesh and to the inductor,
both behaving like an oscillating magnetic dipole.
These terms are very similar, as we will see on the next subsections.
\subsection{Joule Effect}
The first contribution that we could take into account is due to the Joule effect. As stated by the law that bears the
same name, when an electric current $I$ passes through a conductor, there is an irreversible energy transfer from the
conductor to the medium in which it is embedded, whose power is given by $P_{R}= RI^{2}$, where $R$ is the electric
resistance of the conductor.
This contribution is well understood and established, and leads, in the case of an $RLC$ circuit, to an electric current
that decays exponentially.
\subsection{Electric dipole radiation}
Here we go into another well understood dissipation mechanism, although not frequently included in circuit analysis.
Considering the accumulated charge on the capacitor plates, we have an electric dipole which is given by
\begin{equation}
\vec{p}(t) = q(t) \vec{d} \; ,
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $d$ is the distance between the plates of the capacitor (we consider a simple capacitor of parallel plates).
As the current varies the electric dipole $p$ is also modified, and we could include a dissipated power due to this
electric dipole for the radiation zone ($r\gg a$, where $a$ is the radius of the RLC mesh), which is given by the Larmor formula.
The total radiated power is given by \cite{griffiths}
\begin{equation}
P_{E} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c} \Big[\ddot{\vec{p}}(t)\Big]^{2} .
\label{electric_dipole_contribution}
\end{equation}
Since $\vec{p}(t)$ varies harmonically, this quantity can be easy calculated..
\subsection{Magnetic dipole radiation}
For the magnetic dipole radiation, there are two different sources. First, we can consider that the circular loop
constitutes a magnetic dipole $\vec{m}_{M}(t)$, which intensity is given by
\begin{equation}
m_{M} = I(t) A \; ,
\label{magnetic_dipole_mesh}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $A = \pi a^{2}$ is the area of the circular loop.
But there is also a magnetic dipole due to the inductor, that would be given by
\begin{equation}
m_{I} = N I(t) A^{'} \; ,
\label{magnetic_dipole_inductor}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $N$ is the number of turns of the inductor and $A^{'}$ is the area of each one of the turns.
Depending on the ratio between $NA^{'}$ and $A$, one of the terms could be more important than the other.
However, for both of them, we can calculate the emitted radiation power by using
Larmor formula, given in this case by \cite{griffiths}
\begin{equation}
P_{M} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c^{3}} \big[\ddot{\vec{m}}(t)\big]^{2} \; .
\label{magnetic_dipole_contributions}
\end{equation}
With equations (\ref{electric_dipole_contribution}) and (\ref{magnetic_dipole_contributions}) we can extend the
Kirchhoff law of voltage, which is derived in the next section.
\section{Generalization of Kirchhoff's Law}
As previously discussed, the usual $RLC$ circuit leads to an exponentially decaying current. If, in the other hand,
we consider an $LC$ circuit, one obtains a perpetual oscillating current. However, this last result is somewhat artificial.
In order to clarify this question, as pointed previously, one could consider a circular loop of radius $a$
(and a corresponding area $A = \pi a^{2}$). Related to this circuit, the rate of energy dissipation,
due to the electric and magnetic dipole radiation, is given by equations (\ref{electric_dipole_contribution})
and (\ref{magnetic_dipole_contributions}) (this latter has two terms, see Eq. (\ref{magnetic_dipole_mesh})
and Eq. (\ref{magnetic_dipole_inductor})),
\begin{equation}
P_{rad} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c^{3}} \big[\ddot{\vec{m}}_{I}(t)\big]^{2} + \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c^{3}}
\big[\ddot{\vec{m}}_{M}(t)\big]^{2} + \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c} \Big[\ddot{\vec{p}}(t)\Big]^{2} \; ,
\label{radiaton_terms}
\end{equation}
in SI units.
If we require energy conservation again,
by adding this time the power formula given by Eq. (\ref{radiaton_terms}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
R I^2 + \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{LI^{2}}{2}\Big) + \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{Q^{2}}{2C}\Big) = {\cal{E}}I - P_{rad} \,.
\end{equation}
It is important to remark that we are neglecting retardation effect of the emitted field
over the electric current dynamics in the circuit. This is a reasonable assumption since the
circuit is much greater than the emitted wavelength, as stated before.
If we assume that the current in the circuit still oscillate in the form $I(t) = I_{0} \, e^{-\gamma t}\cos {\omega t}$,
where $\omega$ is the frequency of the external electromotive force, and $\gamma$ is the damping term,
all terms in Eq. (\ref{radiaton_terms}) leads to
\begin{equation}
P_{rad} \propto \big[ \ddot{I}(t)\big]^{2} \propto I^2.
\label{eq:radiation_resistance}
\end{equation}
This means that both, the electric and magnetic terms are responsible for the circuit's radiation, and are very similar
to the typical dissipated power due to an electric resistance. With this in mind, albeit the radiative
terms appear to be much more complicated, from the form of the radiative power, we again obtain an exponentially
decaying current, and we can put all types of dissipation together in just one term in the differential equation.
Indeed, in antenna theory, this is very well known subject, since antennas are designed to radiate \cite{balanis}.
Usually, for an efficient antenna, the radiation resistance is the most significant contribution to the overall resistance.
Therefore, in order to correctly describe the radiating circuits, we also need to modify the Kirchhoff voltage law,
so that we have a consistent theory.
In the next section we perform a comparison between the contributions of each of these terms.
For now, all we can say is, although we have followed the same steps normally used on the
derivation of the Kirchhoff Law of Voltage, if one includes the radiation terms the perpetually oscillating
current no longer holds, giving rise to an exponential decaying current.
\section{Comparison of dissipative contributions}
To perform a comparison between each of radiative terms and the Joule effect contribution itself,
first we need to obtain an expression for the effective resistance due to the radiation terms.
So, we need to write the dissipated power in terms of $R_{ef}I^{2}$. The $R_{ef}$ constant would be the effective resistance.
For the Eq. (\ref{electric_dipole_contribution}), one finds that
\begin{equation}
P_{E} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c} \Big[ \ddot{\vec{p}}(t)\Big]^{2} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c} d^{2} \omega^{2} I^{2} \; ,
\end{equation}
\noindent
since $\vec{p}(t) = q(t) \vec{d}$ and we have assumed that $I(t) = I_{0} \, e^{-\gamma t}\cos {\omega t}$. This leads to
the following effective electric radiation resistance,
\begin{equation}
R_{ef}^{E} = \frac{\mu_{0}}{6\pi c} d^{2} \omega^{2} \; .
\label{effective_resistance_elec}
\end{equation}
Similarly, the Eq. (\ref{magnetic_dipole_contributions}) gives
\begin{equation}
R_{ef}^{M} = \frac{\mu_{0} \omega^{4}}{6 \pi c^{3}}\Big[ (N A^{'})^{2} + A^{2} \Big] \; .
\label{effective_resistance_mag}
\end{equation}
As previously stated, the relative relevance of the two terms of the magnetic
dipole radiation depends of the ratio between $N A^{'}$ and $A$.
The ratio between $R_{ef}^{E}$ and $R_{ef}^{M}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_{ef}^{E}}{R_{ef}^{M}} = \Big(\frac{dc}{\omega} \Big)^{2}\frac{1}{(N A^{'})^{2} + A^{2}}
\label{ratio_elec_mag}
\end{equation}
We can perform some estimations for the parameters that appears in Eqs. (\ref{effective_resistance_elec})
and (\ref{effective_resistance_mag}). Using S.I. units we can also compare their contributions with typical
values for the electric resistance $R$, since all of then would be measured in ohms. Under the following
values ($\mu_{0} \sim 4 \pi \times 10^{-7}$ $H m^{-1}$, $c = 3 \times 10^8 $
$m/s$, $d = 10^{-3}$ $m$, $C = 9 \times 10^{-13}$ $F$, $L = 100$ $\mu H$, $A^{'} = 0.002$ $m^2$ and $A = 0.05$ $m^{2}$) one finds
\begin{equation}
R_{ef}^{E} \sim 10^{-9}\Omega \;\; , \;\; R_{ef}^{M} \sim 10^{-7} \Omega.
\label{comparative}
\end{equation}
As expected, both effective radiating resistances are small when compared to typical values of electric resistance.
However, appropriate choices for the parameters would make then comparable, enabling one to observe experimentally a
decaying current contribution due to radiation in a superconducting circuit, or even in a ``real" suitable circuit.
This is in fact what happens in an efficient antenna. The radiation resistance are designed to be much greater than the ohmic
resistance \cite{balanis}. An antenna has a more complicated geometry and the electric current is not uniform,
although the radiation mechanism is essentially the same.
\section{Time scales and spectrum}
Given that the system heats and radiates it is interesting to know the spectrum associated with
these losses, that is, we would like to calculate the
total power dissipated by Joule effect and radiation in a given frequency range.
The power spectrum, or the dissipated power per unit frequency is given by the expression~\cite{mandel}
\begin{equation}
P(\omega) = Re\left[ (V(\omega))^{*} I(\omega)\right] =
Re\left[ (Z(\omega)I(\omega))^{*} I(\omega)\right] =
R_{T} I(\omega) I(-\omega) \,,
\end{equation}
where $R_{T}= R + R_{rad}$ is the total resistance present in the circuit.
A particular solution of equation (\ref{RLC}) can be obtained by Fourier transform method.
Setting the battery voltage source as ${\cal{E}} (t) = V_{0} \cos \omega t$ we get the following power spectrum
\begin{equation}
P(\omega) = \frac{\frac{1}{2} R_{T} V_{0}^{2}}{R_{T}^{2} + \left( \omega L - 1/\omega C \right)^{2}} \,,
\end{equation}
where $V_{0}$ is the amplitude of battery voltage [see Fig. (\ref{fig:P_X_w})].
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{spectro2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The power spectrum showing its line width as function of the total resistance that include magnetic and electric radiation.}
\label{fig:P_X_w}
\end{figure}
It is interesting to compare this spectrum for different loss mechanisms,
when the Joule effect is more important, and when the radiation is preponderant.
The width of the distribution is determined by the resistance $R_ {T}$ that is
present in the circuit, and it becomes very narrow when the electrical resistance is zero,
in this case the width of the spectral line is entirely defined by the radiation resistance, as can be seen in
Fig. (\ref{fig:P_X_w}).
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we have made a modification in the Kirchhoff law
of voltage, by including the Larmor power formula for both electric and magnetic dipole
radiation in the energy conservation law, that gives rise to a differential equation for the current,
which takes into account both Joule and radiative dissipation effects.
It is interesting to note the similarity in the expressions associated with the Joule
dissipation, and the dipole radiation given by the Larmor formula,
both proportional to the square of the current. It is precisely this similarity
that allows for a simple unified analysis for dissipation.
It is also important to have some awareness of how one can go beyond simple
small antennas to compute the radiation resistance for circuits of arbitrary
complexity.
If we have used another radiation system, other than a dipole that emits
just in one frequency, we would have a different equation for the current,
and its solution would be not so simple,
but in any case the presented change in the Kirchhoff's voltage law would still be valid.
This is a challenge that we try to confront in the next future.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
We would like to acknowledge the financial support of Brazilian agencies CAPES and CNPq,
and for Nivaldo Lemos who proofread the manuscript.
|
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank the support of the Center for Bio-Inspired Energy Science (CBES), which is an
Energy Frontier Research Center funded by the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences under Award DESC0000989.
{G.I.G.-G. acknowledges the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) for the financial
support via the program ``Catedras CONACYT''. }
The computer cluster where part of the simulations were performed was funded by the Office of the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering (DDR\&E) and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) under Award
no. FA9550-10-1-0167. This work is part of the D-ITP consortium, a program of The Netherlands Organisation for
Scientific Research (NWO), that is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW).
\bibliographystyle{h-physrev}
|
\section{Introduction}
A main goal of topological polymer statistics is that of determining
up to what extent the thermodynamics of macromolecular chains is affected by
the presence of a fixed topological entanglement~\cite{Orlandini&Whittington:2007:Rev-Mod_Phys,Deguchi-tsurusaki:1997,IdealKnotsBook, Dai:2001,Renner:2014,Matthews:2010:EPL,Matthews:2012:Macrolett,Narros:2013:Macro,Poier:2014:Macro,Katritch:1996:Nature,Arsuaga:2005:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:15958528,Marenduzzo:2009:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:20018693,Tang:2011:PNAS,Tubiana:2011:PRL,Marenduzzo:2013:PNAS,Katritch:2000:PRE,Farago:2002:EPL,Marcone:2005:J-Phys-A,Marcone:2007:PRE,Rawdon:Macromol:2008a,Rawdon:Macromol:2008b,Orlandini:2003:PRE,Hanke:2003:PRE,Orlandini:2004:J-Stat-Phys,Baiesi:2011:PRL,Baiesi:2007:PRL}.
Clarifying issues related to knots and links in polymer physics has been since long
recognized of key importance in a variety of fields, ranging from molecular biology
to nanotechnology~\cite{Arai:1999:Nature,Ayme:2012:NC,Podtelezhnikov:1999:PNAS,Arsuaga:2005:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:15958528,Marenduzzo:2009:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:20018693,Tang:2011:PNAS,Tubiana:2011:PRL,Marenduzzo:2013:PNAS,Tkalec:2011,Irvine:2014}.
So far, for isolated ring polymers, which are the object of the present study, most
theoretical and numerical approaches provided
informations referring to ensembles with unrestricted topology. This means
that information on the frequency of occurrence of different knots is in general
not available for models of random ring polymer configurations. One
does not have an idea of the extent to which, at least for long chains, these
frequencies could reveal universal features, possibly connected to topological
invariants. Thus, it remains unclear how different topologies
contribute to the global free energy of systems described in such ensembles.
This situation contrasts with the fact that ring polymers are not expected to change their
topology in most experimental situations. Another
fundamental problem is that of understanding if the presence of a fixed
topology can give rise to thermodynamic effects, which would not
be revealed within mixed topology ensembles.
The difficulty of answering questions like those above and the complexity of
the scenarios the answers outline, depend in first place on the degree of
localization of topological entanglement in the conditions considered
for the polymer~\cite{Katritch:2000:PRE}.
For example, when dealing with polymers in good solvent, we
know that the prime components of a knot are weakly
localized~\cite{Farago:2002:EPL,Marcone:2005:J-Phys-A,Marcone:2007:PRE}.
Each prime component of the knot behaves almost like a small bead sliding along the backbone.
This makes it relatively simple to guess the gross structure of finite
size corrections to the free energy expected for a knotted ring~\cite{Baiesi:2010:JSM}. The form
of these corrections and the behavior of asymptotic relative frequencies of different
knots are now known in great detail thanks to studies based on samples of configurations
of extremely long knotted self-avoiding rings on a
lattice~\cite{Orlandini:1998:J-Phys-A,Yao:2001:J-Phys-A,Baiesi:2010:JSM,Rensburg&Rechnitzer:2011:JPA,Baiesi:2012:PRE}.
Indeed, while as established also by rigorous theorems~\cite{Sumners&Whittington:1988:J-Phys-A,Diao:1994:JKTR}, unknotted configurations in good solvent
should occur with zero frequency in infinite chains, it is necessary to consider
very long rings in order to observe with appreciable frequency knotted configurations.
For swollen polymers the decay to zero with increasing backbone length of the frequency of initially
dominant, unknotted configurations is too slow to allow a
rich enough sampling of knots with short rings.
The situation is quite different, and in several aspects more interesting,
in the case of globular ring polymers. For chains in bad solvent
it is well established that topological entanglement is delocalized and spreads
along the whole backbone~\cite{Marcone:2005:J-Phys-A,Orlandini:2003:PRE,Hanke:2003:PRE,Orlandini:2004:J-Stat-Phys,Baiesi:2011:PRL}.
This delocalization is accompanied by the fact that
models for generating random polymer configurations show a rich spectrum of
knots already for relatively short chains. The unknot in this case does not
occur with zero probability relative to any knotted configuration in the
limit of infinitely long rings. To the contrary, there is evidence of an
asymptotic spectrum in which the relative frequencies of all knots with respect to
the unknot approach finite, nonzero limits~\cite{Baiesi:2007:PRL}. Additional interest
in the globuli is due to some recently discovered~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}, remarkable
thermodynamic properties directly linked to topology, which manifest themselves
in processes like translocation through membrane pores.
The first steps towards a characterization of the spectrum of knots in ring polymers
in the globular phase were made in Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2007:PRL}. Due to the difficulty of
sampling dense configurations by Monte Carlo, the investigation was limited to a
single temperature below the $\Theta$ point of self-avoiding rings on cubic lattice
with attractive nearest neighbor interactions. This study showed that the relative frequencies
of different knots tend to finite asymptotic values and have a ranking consistent
with a Zipf law. A further result concerns the dependence of the globular free
energy on the topological invariants of the knot: while in the infinite ring limit
the free energy per monomer is independent of topology, a dependence on
the minimal crossing number ($n_c$) of the knot enters in one of its subleading finite
size corrections Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2007:PRL,Baiesi:2011:PRL}
(an example of knot with $n_c=5$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:BFACF}).
This last result suggests that the value of $n_c$
could play a relevant role in the thermodynamics of a knotted globule.
A way to shed light on this role consists in studying the behavior
of the globule under geometrical constraints which interfere with the
topology. In Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL} this kind of investigation was first performed
using slipping links which divide the single globule in two interacting and
possibly knotted loops in equilibrium. The simulations showed that indeed the
respective minimal number of crossings precisely determines the way in which
the two loops share the total ring length on average. The findings of
Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL} on the topological correction to the free energy per monomer
were also the basis for explaining a remarkable and unexpected phenomenon
occurring when the slip link is replaced by a hole in a repulsive plane
separating the ring in two non-interacting globuli with different topologies.
This configuration schematizes a ring polymer translocating through a membrane
pore. The different minimal number of crossings of the two knotted loops induces an
asymmetry in the free energies of the competing globuli favoring configurations
in which the globule with more crossings keeps most of the available
backbone length. This asymmetry thus distorts the two otherwise symmetrical
global free energy minima due to the surface tension of the globuli.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig01a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.57\columnwidth]{fig01b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\columnwidth]{fig01c.pdf}
\caption{Example of a collapsed interacting self-avoiding ring with $N=500$ steps on the cubic lattice,
and its shortened form after the BFACF~\cite{Aragao&Caracciolo:1983:J-Physique,Berg&Foester:1981:Phys-Lett-B}
reduction procedure with a low fugacity per step.
The latter reveals that the ring holds a $5_2$ knot,
whose projection with the minimal crossing number $n_c=5$ is also shown.
}
\label{fig:BFACF}
\end{figure}
While being of fundamental interest, the problems mentioned above
should be directly relevant for practical applications. Besides the
translocation processes, of central importance for biology,
the study of topological spectra of DNA extracted from viral capsids
is a typical context where the knowledge of spectra for specific models
of random polymers is very
valuable~\cite{Arsuaga:2005:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:15958528,Marenduzzo:2009:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:20018693,Tubiana:2011:PRL}.
Model calculations like those carried
out in the present work could also help in addressing issues like the known
relative rarity of knots one finds in native globular proteins~\cite{Virnau:2006:PLoS-Comput-Biol:16978047,Sulkowska12162008,Potestio:2010:PLoS-Comput-Biol:20686683}.
The investigation of the effects of topological constraints on globular
polymers, both in and out of equilibrium, is also expected to be a
key to understand chromosomal architecture~\cite{Dorier:2009:Nucleic-Acid-Res,Grosberg:2012:PolScie}.
In the present work we considerably extend and discuss in further detail some of
the results presented in Refs.~\cite{Baiesi:2007:PRL,Baiesi:2011:PRL}.
Rather than assuming the more global perspective implicit in
the Zipf law, here we look at the relative asymptotic frequencies of the simplest
knots in globular ring polymers. The results furnish a clear evidence of the independence
of temperature of these frequencies in the whole region below the $\Theta$ point and
suggest the intriguing possibility that they represent universal, topology related
numbers. This investigation proceeds in parallel with a better
determination of the topological correction to the free energy of the globuli
already postulated in~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}. The analysis of data in a whole range of low
temperatures gives stronger support to the conjectured form and corroborates
the explanation of the already mentioned bias due to topology in the translocation
of the globuli. Our analysis also shows that the strength of the topological
correction is connected to the length of the knots in their ideal, minimal
length form~\cite{Katritch:1996:Nature,IdealKnotsBook,Rensburg&Promislow:1995:JKTR,Diao:1993:JKTR,Janse:2011:JSM}.
This connection sheds light on
the reason why the correction itself seems to be determined primarily and
almost exclusively by the minimal crossing number of the knots.
This article is organized as follows. In the next section we define the
model and describe the methods of Monte Carlo simulation used for our
analysis. Section {\em Relative frequencies and free energies of knotted globuli}
is devoted to the analysis of the data for
relative frequencies at different temperatures and to their extrapolation
for infinitely long rings. The form of the finite size topological
correction to the free energy and its dependence on both the minimal number of
crossings and temperature are discussed in this section. In Section
{\em The role of $n_c$ in the thermodynamics of the globule}
we present results concerning the interference of geometrical constraints
due to slip-links with topology.
In Section {\em Effects of the topological correction in translocation}
we refine our discussion of the effects of constraints
due to translocation set-ups, and verify their consistency with the
postulated topological finite size correction for the globular free energy.
We also discuss the evidence of a connection between the topological correction
and the properties of ideal knots.
The last section is devoted to conclusions.
\section{Model and Simulations}
We model cyclic, flexible polymers with excluded volume as
$N$-step self-avoiding rings on a cubic lattice (see Fig.~\ref{fig:BFACF}). In order to induce collapse
at low enough temperature $T$, we introduce an attractive interaction
($\epsilon =-1$) between nearest neighbors sites visited by the
ring which are not consecutive along the backbone.
\subsection{Variable topology}
A first problem encountered in our analysis is that of generating
a sufficient number of uncorrelated collapsed configurations by Monte Carlo.
To this purpose we have to fix the temperature below the $\Theta$ point, which in our units
is at $T_{\Theta} \simeq 3.72$~~\cite{Tesi_et_al:1996:J_Phys_A,Grassberger:1997:PRE}.
The pruned enriched Rosenbluth method (PERM) is efficient in generating
collapsed polymer configurations~\cite{Grassberger:PRE:2002,Baiesi:2007:PRL}; as discussed below,
we could obtain reasonably rich samplings
down to $T = 1.92$, for chains with length up to $N=1400$.
Of course, the study of the topological spectrum of
the generated ring configurations involves another task, which is even more demanding:
that of determining the knot type of each sampled configuration.
This constitutes the bottleneck of our simulations.
Indeed, it turns out to be a relatively minor problem the fact that PERM generates open chains and that we
must discard most of them, keeping only those becoming rings upon addition of a further step.
Since the collapsed configurations are geometrically very intricated,
with planar projections presenting huge numbers of crossings,
before attempting a successful analysis of the knot type we need
to simplify each configuration while keeping its topology
unaltered. This simplification is achieved with
a grand-canonical algorithm of the BFACF
type~\cite{Madras&Slade:1993,Aragao&Caracciolo:1983:J-Physique,Berg&Foester:1981:Phys-Lett-B},
which has the property of preserving the knot type
because it lets the configurations evolve only with local and
crankshaft deletion/insertion moves. In our case the simplification is
achieved with a bias toward deletion that emerges from choosing
a low fugacity $K$ per step. After a rapid shrinking of the ring (Fig.~\ref{fig:BFACF}),
it is eventually possible to analyze the knot type on the basis of
HOMFLY polynomials within the "Knotscape" program~\cite{knotscape}.
\subsection{Fixed topology}
For studying the effects of external geometrical constraints on globular rings
with fixed topology, we apply the BFACF grand canonical simulation
method.
As already explained in Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}, there is
a drawback of this method when applied to polymers below the $\Theta$ point:
The length $N$ of the generated configurations does not grow continuously to
$+ \infty$ with the step fugacity, upon approaching its critical value
from below~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}. This behavior, consistent with the tricritical character
of the $\Theta$ point, is due to the fact that the globule
for $T<T_{\Theta}$ has an interfacial free energy growing
as its surface, i.e. $\sim N^{2/3}$, in addition to the bulk
one growing like $N$.
As a consequence, it is not possible to gradually tune the length of the simulated rings
just by varying $K$. In order to do so, as already explained in
Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}, we introduce an extra $N$-dependent Gaussian weight
multiplying the grand-canonical one for the configurations (an alternative method
was recently proposed in~\cite{Baiesi:2014:PRE}). This
weight is maximum at a tunable $\overline{N}$ and has a sufficiently small
width, so that $N\sim \overline{N}$ during the simulation. Thus, the sampling is essentially
canonical up to relatively small fluctuations in $N$.
This canonical character is needed in the analysis of
how the competition between geometry and topology evolves
as a function of the length of the rings, keeping the other
parameters fixed.
\section{Relative frequencies and free energies of knotted globuli}
The form of the free energy of a ring polymer at $T<T_{\Theta}$
can be guessed on the basis of an analogy with the swollen case and
of the peculiar physical features of the globular phase.
In particular, we can expect two facts: i) the free energy per monomer $f$
in the bulk of the globules is lower than the free energy $f_s$ of monomers
on the interface between the globule and the solvent; ii) the number of monomers
on the surface of a (smooth) globule scales asymptotically as $N^{2/3}$.
Thus, a plausible
starting ansatz~\cite{Owczarek_PB_PRL93:collapsed,Baiesi:2007:PRL}
for the canonical partition function of a collapsed
ring with $N$ steps, in an ensemble with unrestricted topology, is
\begin{equation}
Z_N(T) \simeq A e^{\kappa N} e^{\sigma N^{2/3}} N^{\alpha-2}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa =-\frac{f}{k_B T} >0$
and $\sigma N^{2/3}$ is a dimensionless interfacial correction to the bulk free energy.
Indeed the number of monomers on the smooth globular surface
grow as $N^{2/3}$, and $\sigma < 0$.
The factor $N^{\alpha -2}$ is just written in
analogy with the swollen case and accounts for a possible further non
extensive logarithmic correction to the free energy.
In fact even tentative estimates of $\alpha$ for the globular phase
were not available until quite recently, when some of the present authors
proposed a Monte Carlo method for its determination~\cite{Baiesi:2014:PRE}.
Here we focus on an ansatz for $Z_{k,N}$, the partition function of a
globule with specific knot $k$. As a first hypothesis we could expect that
at least some of the quantities in Eq.~(1) assume a dependence on $k$ in
order to represent the physics of a globule with fixed knot:
\begin{equation}
\label{Zk}
Z_{k,N} \simeq A_k e^{\kappa_k N} e^{\sigma_k N^{2/3}} N^{\alpha_k-2}
\end{equation}
Studies of the self-avoiding rings at $T=\infty$, for which $\sigma=0$,
have shown that
in the swollen phase the amplitude $A_k$ indeed depends on $k$, while
$\kappa_k$ does not seem to vary with the knot type~\cite{Orlandini:1998:J-Phys-A,Baiesi:2010:JSM}
For all temperatures $T> T_{\Theta}$ is also expected
(and known exactly in the limit $T\to \infty$~\cite{Sumners&Whittington:1988:J-Phys-A})
that $\kappa_{\emptyset} < \kappa$ where $k=\emptyset$ denotes the unknot.
Remarkable in that case is the marked $k$ dependence of $\alpha$, which
is increasing by one unit for each prime component of
$k$~\cite{Orlandini:1998:J-Phys-A,Baiesi:2010:JSM}.
Thus, the frequencies of different knots relative to
the unknot turn out to diverge for $N \to \infty$ with a factor
$N$ raised to a power equal to the number of prime components
of $k$. This behavior as a function of $N$ is a strong
confirmation that $\kappa_k$ does not depend on $k$ in that case.
\subsection{Knot frequencies}
We have sampled collapsed rings with the PERM algorithm at five
different temperatures well below the $\Theta$ point:
$1/T = 0.37$, $0.4$, $0.44$, $0.48$, $0.52$. The $N$'s chosen for sampling
are $400$, $500$, $600$, $700$, $800$, $1000$, $1200$ and
$1400$. However, in some cases we will show only data up to $N=1000$ or $N=1200$
because the statistics (especially of some complex knots) was not rich enough
for the larger $N$'s at the lower temperatures.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig02.pdf}
\caption{Logarithm of the frequency of unknot configurations as a function of $N$, for five different temperatures.
}
\label{fig:P0}
\end{figure}
When analyzing the globular phase, a first key property to study
is the (absolute) probability $P_\emptyset$ of the unknotted configuration
within the ensemble with unrestricted topology. As in the case of
$T \to \infty$, the frequency of unknotted configurations is
exponentially decreasing with $N$, but much more rapidly. As
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:P0}, the decay constant
$N_\emptyset$ is of the order of $400$ for all $T$, while for self-avoiding polygons
without attraction it would be of the order of $200000$. This
explains why simulations in the globular phase generate a much
richer variety of knotted configurations than in the swollen phase
already for moderately long chains.
In Table~\ref{tab:1} we list the estimated $N_\emptyset$ values for all temperatures.
A trend of $N_\emptyset$ becoming lower with the temperature is evident.
For $T\to 0$ one might expect that $N_\emptyset$ tends to a value similar or equal to
the one estimated for Hamiltonian walks~\cite{LUA:2004:Pol}.
\begin{table}[!b]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c }
\hline
$1 / T$\ \ & $N_\emptyset$ & $C(T)$ & $a$ & $C(T)$ \\
\hline
0.37 & 678(14) & 242 & 1.30 & 223 \\
0.40 & 450(30) & 198 & 1.33 & 197\\
0.44 & 460(45) & 171 & 1.33 & 170\\
0.48 & 435(25) & 154 & 1.33 & 155\\
0.52 & 380(40) & 138 & 1.36 & 145\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Some parameters for data at different temperatures: the
$N_\emptyset$ for the exponential decay of the probability of unknots, the
$C(T)$ \& $a$ for fits $C(T) n_c^{a}$ of data in Fig.~\ref{fig:Mk}, and $C(T)$ of the fits
$C(T) n_c^{1.33}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Mk}.
}
\label{tab:1}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig03.pdf}
\caption{Frequency of knot types relative to the frequency of the unknot,
at temperature $T=1/0.48$ in the collapsed phase, as a function of $1/N$.
Colors distinguish knots according to their minimal crossing number. There are also two cases
of composite knots (thick lines).
}
\label{fig:1N}
\end{figure}
We made a systematic analysis of the frequencies $P_k$ of knots
of increasing complexity, relative to that of the unknot. A first summary of
our findings is provided in Fig.~\ref{fig:1N} where we plot the relative
frequencies at $1/T=0.48$ for the first few knots
and for chain length ranging from $N=400$ up to $N=1000$.
The plots report the logarithms of the frequencies as a function
of $\frac{1}{N}$, and show two remarkable features: in all cases
the extrapolation to $N\to \infty$ appears to give a finite limit;
furthermore, the linearity of the plots suggests a correction
$\sim 1/N$ for the total free energy of the globules. The slope
is approximately the same for different knots having the same
minimal number of crossings, $n_c$. From the fact that the relative
frequencies approach finite limits, we argue that, at the given
temperature, if Eq.~(2) applies, the parameters $\kappa_k$, $\sigma_{k}$
and $\alpha_k$ should be independent of $k$, while only
the amplitudes $A_k$ should account for the different asymptotic
frequencies. This could have been expected for the first two parameters,
but marks an important difference from the swollen case as far as $\alpha_k$ is
concerned. On the other hand, the $k$ dependence of $\alpha_k$ for
$T\to \infty$ clearly originates from the localized character of prime
knots, which does not hold in the globular phase.
Fig.~\ref{fig:1N} also suggests
that there is a finite size correction to the free energy whose topology
dependence is, at least to a good approximation, only through the minimal
number of crossings of the knot $n_c$. The relative character of our
frequency determinations does not in principle exclude that
the part of globule free energy independent of topology
could have a form different from that implied by
Eq.~(3) with $k$ independent parameters. In particular other topology
independent finite size corrections could be present.
In this work we focus on the
topology dependent correction and on its consequences for the physics of
the globule.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig04a.pdf}
\hskip 0.05\columnwidth
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig04c.pdf}
\hskip 0.05\columnwidth
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig04e.pdf}
\vskip 0.05\columnwidth
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig04b.pdf}
\hskip 0.05\columnwidth
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig04d.pdf}
\hskip 0.05\columnwidth
\includegraphics[width=0.65\columnwidth]{fig04f.pdf}
\caption{Probability of occurrence of a given knot type
($6$ cases shown, one for each panel) relative to the unknotting probability.
In each panel $5$ different temperatures are considered:
$1/T=0.37$ ({\large $\circ$}), $0.4$ ($\Box$), $0.44$ ({\large $\diamond$}), $0.48$ ($\vartriangle$), and
$0.52$ ($\triangledown$). }
\label{fig:5T}
\end{figure*}
At this point it is important to check how the scenario provided by
Fig.~\ref{fig:1N} changes upon varying the temperature of the globuli. At the
same time one should determine as accurately as possible the dependence
of the found topological free energy correction on both $n_c$ and $T$.
In the first panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:5T} we report,
for five different temperatures below $T_{\Theta}$,
the behavior with $1/N$ of the topological free energy correction
applying to the knot $3_1$.
A most remarkable feature in Fig.~\ref{fig:5T} is the fact that all the
plots at different temperatures appear to extrapolate linearly to the same asymptotic
relative frequency $\ln (A_{3_1}/A_\emptyset)$ for $1/N \to 0$.
Hence, the figure suggests that a fit of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fit}
\ln \left (\frac{A_{3_1}}{A_\emptyset} \right )- M_{3_1}(T) \frac{1}{N}
\end{equation}
can be applied to all data, with the same asymptotic ratio
and temperature-dependent slopes $M_{3_1}(T)$.
The dashed lines are indeed a global fit of the data based on this assumption,
confirming a nice consistency with it. The fact that the slope
of the linear fits, $M_{3_1}$, decreases in modulus with temperature
shows that the amplitude of the correction sensibly depends on
temperature, contrary to previous expectations~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}.
A finite, temperature-independent asymptotic relative frequency
of a knot with respect to the unknot $\emptyset$ remains a
valid assumption also for the knots $4_1$, $5_1$, $5_2$, $6_1$, $3_1 \# 3_1$
(see the panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:5T}) and for all other
simple knots we have considered (not shown).
In the case of the two different knots with $n_c =5$ we see also that, while
the asymptotic relative frequencies are different, the slopes of the linear plots at
the same temperature are approximately the same. Thus, as
already verified in the case of Fig.~\ref{fig:1N}, the amplitude
of the topological correction depends on temperature and, at least to a good
approximation, on the minimal crossing number $n_c$ of the knot alone.
The asymptotic relative frequencies $\ln (A_k/A_\emptyset)$ extrapolated
from the above plots are reported in Table~\ref{tab:2}. These frequencies
are referring to knots which are delocalized into globules of
increasing size. It is thus legitimate to expect that, besides
being independent of temperature, they could be also universal
with respect to the type of lattice in which the knotted
configurations are realized. Remarkable universalities of
quantities related to asymptotic amplitudes have been detected
also in the study of the spectrum of knotted rings at $T\to\infty$
phase~\cite{Rensburg&Rechnitzer:2011:JPA,Baiesi:2012:PRE}.
A challenge posed by Table~\ref{tab:2} and its possible extensions
concerns the verification of such universality and the
possible link of the frequencies with topological invariants.
For sure our data seem to exclude that, if the amplitude ratios
depend on topological invariants, these could just reduce to
$n_c$ alone. The spectrum of ring polymers in the globular phase
is a remarkable case where topological polymer statistics puts all
knots an a sort of equal footing, independent of their prime or
composite character.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{fig05.pdf}
\caption{Estimates of $M_k$ for knots up to $n_c=7$, at five temperatures
(see color/symbol code of previous figures).
Note that data with the same $T$ and $n_c$ are quite well clustered.
The dashed curves refer to fits of the form $\sim C(T) n_c^{1.33}$
(those in which $\sim C(T) n_c^{a}$, with $a$ being a parameter free to vary
are similar).
Inset: Estimates of $C$ as a function of temperature.
Filled diamonds are values determined by not fixing the exponent $a$ in the fits,
while empty circles refer to estimates obtained by fixing
$a=1.33$ (i.e.~the weighted average of the $a$ estimates obtained at the five
different temperatures considered).
The dashed line is a guide to the eye showing that $C(T)\sim T$ is indeed
an acceptable ansatz.
Fits of the most asymptotic black dots (not shown) give also
asymptotic $T\to 0$ extrapolations to a value $C(0)$ consistent with zero.
}
\label{fig:Mk}
\end{figure}
What one can efficiently extract from the data at finite
$N$ reported in Figs.~\ref{fig:1N}-\ref{fig:5T}, is a tentative fitting form
for the topological correction as a function of temperature
and of $n_c$, assuming that these are the only parameters
determining it. If in the various plots one assumes an
asymptotic form as in Eq.~(3), an expression
of the form $M_k(T)= C(T) n_c^a$, factorizing the dependences,
seems reasonable for the correction amplitude, as already assumed
in~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}. This fitting form is applied globally in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Mk} to the data collected for different knots and different temperatures.
The estimates, listed in Table~\ref{tab:1}, show that
an optimal determination for the exponent is $a \simeq 1.33$~\footnote{Previously
$a \simeq 1.45$ was found~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}. Moreover,
we have discovered that the value of $T=2.5$ quoted in Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2011:PRL}
is not correct: simulations were actually run at $T=2$, which explains
some discrepancies found in estimates of $C(T)$.}.
We have thus fitted again data with the one-parameter form $C(T) n_c^{1.33}$ and obtained
similar values of $C(T)$, see Table~\ref{tab:1}.
In the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:Mk} we report the determinations of the amplitude $C(T)$
resulting from the last fits.
Even if the temperature range covered by our determinations remains limited,
there is evidence that the postulated $C(T)$ could vary
linearly with temperature and could approach zero for $T\to 0$.
An important fact are the relatively large values
of $C$ determined for all temperatures considered. Such large values
show that the topological correction is quite substantial
for not too large globules. Notice that both $C(T)$ and the exponent $a$ are just intended
to provide a convenient fitting for the quantities $M_k(T)$ reported in Table~\ref{tab:2}.
In particular, one should not assign a particular meaning to the value of the exponent $a$.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
{ \footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l }
\hline
knot\ \ \ & $M'(0.48)$\ \ \ \ \ & $\ln(A_k/A_{\emptyset})$ & $M(0.37)$ & $M(0.4)$ & $M(0.44)$ & $M(0.48)$ & $M(0.52)$ & $\overline{l}$ &
Eq.~(10)\\
\hline
$3_1$ & 714(21) & 0.39(0.12) & 1020(73) & 885(71) & 765(59) & 696(57) & 652(54) & 49(1) & 66(11) \\
\hline
$4_1$ & 929(15)& -0.36(0.14) & 1434(89) & 1224(85) & 1055(72) & 953(68) & 897(64) & 67(2) & 80(12)\\
\hline
$5_1$ & 1260(30)& -0.74(0.18) & 1910(120) & 1600(120) & 1380(100) & 1250(90) & 1170(90) & 77(2) & 94(14)\\
$5_2$ & 1290(40)&-0.10(0.17) & 1960(120) & 1670(110) & 1420(90) & 1280(90) & 1200(80) & 85(6) & 96(14)\\
\hline
$6_1$ & 1660(80)& -0.73(0.27) & 2400(190) & 2050(180) & 1750(150) & 1600(140) & 1480(130) & & \\
$6_2$ & 1690(40)& -0.41(0.22) & 2570(160) & 2180(150) & 1880(130) & 1720(120) & 1570(110) & 105(6) & 114(16)\\
$6_3$ & 1795(85)& -0.78(0.42) & 2700(300) & 2310(280) & 1970(240) & 1780(230) & 1630(210) & & \\
$3_1$\#$3_1$ & 1805(35)& 0.00(0.26) & 2490(180) & 2190(170) & 1950(150) & 1800(140) & 1680(130) & & \\
\hline
$7_1$&& -2.17(0.53) & 2980(390) & 2460(360) & 2110(320) & 1930(290) & 1830(270) & & \\
$7_2$&& -1.24(0.49) & 2980(360) & 2590(330) & 2210(290) & 2000(270) & 1890(250) & & \\
$7_3$&& -1.56(0.43) & 2920(320) & 2450(290) & 2110(250) & 1940(240) & 1800(210) & & \\
$7_4$ & 2260(60)& -1.94(0.50) & 3040(350) & 2650(340) & 2310(300) & 2080(290) & 1890(250) & & \\
$7_5$&& -0.95(0.35) & 3050(250) & 2670(240) & 2300(210) & 2100(190) & 1980(180) & & \\
$7_6$&& -0.75(0.28) & 3160(200) & 2740(190) & 2350(170) & 2110(160) & 2000(140) & & \\
$7_7$&& -1.50(0.43) & 3150(310) & 2740(300) & 2350(260) & 2120(250) & 2030(220) & & \\
$3_1$\#$4_1$ & 2110(55) & -0.60(0.44) & 2960(320) & 2650(300) & 2310(260) & 2150(250) & 2000(220) & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Estimates of the knot-dependent constants for some simple knots
in globules. The column $M'$ refers to parameters from fits of $\ln( P_k/P_\emptyset )$
vs. $1/N$ only at $1/T=0.48$,
while the following columns are from fits assuming that all data at different $T$
converge to the same asymptotic value $\ln( A_k/A_\emptyset )$, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:5T}.
The last two columns contain the
estimates of the typical globule length $\overline{l}$ for some knots for which we had clear peaks in the
distributions $P(l_1)$ for the competition of Fig.~\ref{fig:sl}(b). The column $\overline{l}$ shows direct
estimates (positions of the peaks in the limit of long chain lengths, not shown),
to be compared with predictions from Eq.~(10) in the last column
(we used $\sigma=-0.96(5)$, see Ref.~\cite{Baiesi:2014:PRE}, and values in the column $M(0.48)$).
}
\label{tab:2}
\end{table*}
\section{The role of $n_c$ in the thermodynamics of the globule}
Since globules in experiments are necessarily finite, the above
findings about the topological correction to the globule free energy
suggest that the invariant $n_c$ could play an important
role in the thermodynamic behavior of collapsed knotted rings.
In order to shed light on this role, a natural way is to apply
to the globule geometrical constraints which can interfere with
topology, and in particular with the topological invariant under
examination. The response to such constraints could reveal
interesting ways in which topology controls the behavior of
the globule. A further possibility is that of considering geometrically
constrained situations which allow a direct check of the presence and
effects of the postulated free energy correction. In this section we
pursue the first ways of analysis.
Since now we are interested in configurations
with fixed topology, we use the BFACF method described in the previous section,
and we tune the parameters to sample chains longer than those obtained by PERM
for unrestricted topology. In this way, we arrive at lengths $N$ up to $7000$.
\begin{figure}[bt!]
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{fig06a.pdf} & &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\columnwidth]{fig06b.pdf} \\
(a) & \phantom{( )}& (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Sketch of a polymer ring with a slip-link separating two loops, the first holding
a $3_1$ knot and the second a $4_1$. Each knot is confined in its loop because the holes in the slip-link
are narrow enough to prevent the passage of a blob containing more than one monomer.
However, in this way the loop lengths may vary.
In case (a) the two loops interact as a single globule, while in (b) they form two
separate globules because the slip-link is in an impenetrable wall.}
\label{fig:sl}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[bt!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig07.pdf}
\caption{Probability distributions of the fraction of
length of one of the two loops in a slip-link competition of knots [Fig.~\ref{fig:sl}(a)], for
different ring length:
(a) $3_1$ vs.~$3_1$, for $N=500$ (green), $1000$ (red), $4500$ (blue);
(b) $3_1$ vs.~$4_1$, for $N=500$, $1000$, $5000$;
(c) $6_1$ vs.~$3_1\#3_1$, for $N=1000$, $2000$, $4000$;
(d) $3_1$ vs.~$7_1$, for $N=500$, $2000$, $7000$.
}
\label{fig:Pl}
\end{figure}
We first consider the effect of a slipping link on the statistics
of the globule. The slipping link, sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:sl}(a) is such to divide
the ring in two loops, of length $l_1$ and $l_2=N-l_1$. Each loop
has a given knot, respectively $k_1$ and $k_2$, and the slipping
link is narrow enough to prevent the translocation of the knots
from one loop to the other. This is the interference between geometry
and topology mentioned above. It should be stressed that the
two loops are attractively interacting in this set up, so that
they are forming a single globule.
It is interesting to analyze
the fluctuations in the lengths of the two loops in equilibrium,
and to verify in which way they possibly depend on the two knots
in the loops. To this purpose we use the quasi-canonical simulation
method preserving topology described in Section {\em Relative frequencies and free energies of knotted globuli}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl} we report the probability density function $P(l_1/N)$
of the fraction of total backbone taken on average by loop 1,
for different $N$ and for different competing knots $k_1$ and $k_2$.
All runs were rather extensive and performed at $T=2$, below the $\Theta$ point.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl}(a) we see the competition between two $3_1$ knots.
The tendency of the distribution to become
broader and flatter with increasing $N$ indicates that
$l_1$ undergoes broad fluctuations, which grow proportional to $N$ itself.
The same tendency is observed in other knot competitions displayed in
Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl}. A case of $3_1$ in loop 1 competing with
$4_1$ in loop 2 is reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl}. In this case
there is an increasing skewness of the distribution for increasing $N$,
showing that configurations in which the loop 1 is shorter than loop 2
are favored. This dominance occurs again in the presence of
broad fluctuations, as indicated by the fact that the distribution broaden
with increasing $N$.
The distributions become more skewed in general if
$n_{c1}$ is much different from $n_{c2}$, as one can see
for a $3_1$ vs. $7_1$ competition in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl} (d)], while they
remain (approximately) symmetrical even for different knots
if $n_{c1}= n_{c2}$ [case of a $6_1$ vs.~$3_1\#3_1$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl}(c)].
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig08.pdf}
\caption{Average length of each of the two loops in which the globule is partitioned by the slip-link, see
Fig.~\ref{fig:sl}(a). The knots hosted by the two loops are
(a) $3_1$ and $4_1$ ;
(b) $3_1$ and $7_1$;
(c) $6_1$ and $3_1\#3_1$.
Straight lines have slopes predicted by Eq.~(4). }
\label{fig:ll}
\end{figure*}
Given the reported increasingly broad distributions of loop lengths, it is
not straightforward to predict the scaling of their averages $\mean{l_1}$
and $\mean{l_2}$ with $N$. However, the plots of $\mean{l_1}$ and $\mean{l_2}$
as a function of $N$ reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:ll}
reveal a surprisingly simple linear behavior.
For example, for the case $k_1=3_1$ vs $k_2=4_1$
in Fig.~\ref{fig:ll}(a) we observe that $\mean{l_1}$ and $\mean{l_2}$
approximately grow proportional to $\frac 3 7 N$ and $\frac 4 7 N$,
respectively (see the straight lines).
This suggests that $n_c$ is the controlling parameter in the competition.
Another example of competition is a $3_1$ against $7_1$,
as reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:ll}(b). Here again we have seen that the fluctuations
of $P(l_1/N)$ are broad, yet the average loop lengths are determined on the basis of
the minimal crossing numbers of the competing knots,
as $\frac 3 {10} N$ and $\frac 7 {10} N$.
A further confirmation of the fact that $n_c$ alone determines the
loop statistics, is given by the competition $3_1 + 3_1$ vs $6_1$.
In this case [Fig.~\ref{fig:ll}(c)] we see that the symmetry of $P(l_1/N)$ shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl}(c)
is also well reflected by the behavior of the average loop lengths
$\mean{l_1}\simeq\mean{l_2}\simeq N/2$.
On the basis of the above simulations one can postulate that
the average loop lengths are determined according to
\begin{equation}
\label{l1l2}
\mean{l_i}= \frac{n_{ci}}{n_{c1} +n_{c2}} N
\end{equation}
where $n_{ci}$ is the minimal number of crossings in loop $i$.
This is a deceptively simple law which could, however, be hardly guessed
a priori. Of course, the provided evidence that this law applies is
limited by simulation capabilities. Like in the case of the results
presented in the previous section, there is the risk that the exclusive
and sharp role postulated for $n_c$ is valid only to a very good
approximation. For example, looking at the data for the $3_1\#3_1$
vs $6_1$ competition, the circumstance that the two loops are going
to a fully symmetrical equilibrium for large $N$ can be reasonably
guessed, rather than given for certain. On the other hand, even in
the perspective of establishing approximate laws, the results presented
here appear remarkable. Thinking to the enormous geometrical
intricacy in which the essential topological crossings are hidden
within the globule configurations, one would guess at first sight
that the role of $n_c$ should not be so important.
\section{Effects of the topological correction in translocation}
A way to make direct contact with the ansatz for the knotted
globule free energy presented in the previous section is to replace
the slipping link with an impenetrable wall presenting a hole through which
the knotted ring is passing (Fig.~\ref{fig:sl}). In this setting the two loops would
be not interacting with each other, and would constitute independent
knotted globuli just competing for backbone length, each one with its own surface
exposed to the solvent. This resembles the translocation of a globular ring polymer through
a membrane or a solid state nanopore (though in our setup the hole does not allow a
full translocation, preserving the knots in each loop). Situations like this should be
in principle within the reach of experimental investigation nowadays,
thanks to progresses in nanophysics and nanotechnology.
Important here is the fact that the free energy
of the whole system reduces to the sum of the free energies of the two
globuli, due to their independence. Moreover, in the limit of one short loop, the complementary
long loop acts just as a monomer reservoir. Below we show that $M_k$
is related to the typical chain length selected by the
globule in that limit and to the length of ideal knots.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig09.pdf}
\caption{Probability distributions of the relative
length of one of the two loops in a competition of two globular knots separated by a wall [Fig~\ref{fig:sl}(b)],
for different knot pairs.
In each case five different $N$ values ($500$, $700$, $1000$, $1400$, and $2000$) are considered.
The sequence (a)-(b)-(c) refers to the knot $3_1$ vs a progressively more complex knot:
one can note an increasing unbalance in the distributions.
The sequence (a)-(e)-(f)-(g) is for progressively more complex knots,
showing that the minimum between the two maxima of the distributions occurs for longer $N$'s if the hosted
knots become more and more complex; this is due to a larger minimal knot size.
Finally, (d) and (h) are examples of knots competing with other knots that have
the same minimal number of crossings $n_c$ but are otherwise topologically
different: the symmetry of the distributions confirms that $n_c$ is
a good number to look at when knots are competing in the globular phase.
}
\label{fig:Pl8}
\end{figure*}
The logarithmic weight (or minus dimensionless free energy) of the first globule
of length $l_1$, defined as $\varphi_{k_1}(l_1) \equiv -{F_{k_1}(l_1)} / {k_B T}$
(where $F_{k_1}$ is the total loop free energy), is written as
\begin{equation}
\label{F}
\varphi_{k_1}(l_1) = \ln A_k + \kappa l_1 + \sigma l_1^{2/3}
+(\alpha-2)\ln l_1 - \frac{M_{k_1}}{l_1}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$, $\sigma$, and $M_{k_1}$ are functions of $T$
(we are omitting further knot-independent corrections to scaling).
Thus, for the translocating ring one can write the probability of the first loop length
when competing with a knot $k_2$,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{k_1,k_2}(l_1) &\propto& \exp\left[\varphi_{k_1}(l_1) + \varphi_{k_2}(N-l_1)\right]
\end{eqnarray}
With the free energy form given in Eq.~(5), in the case of
$n_{c1}=n_{c2}$ one would expect $M_{k_1}\approx M_{k_2}$, i.e. a symmetric $P$, with two
equivalent maxima determined by the surface tension term.
This is what we observe by analyzing our simulations,
for example in the case $6_1$ vs $3_1\#3_1$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl8}(d),
or $7_4$ vs $3_1\#4_1$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl8}(h)),
where we plot distributions of the rescaled variable $x = l_1 / N$,
for a better comparison of data with different $N$.
The plots show that for increasing $N$ there is a
competition between two stable minima of the free energy,
corresponding to states in which one of the globules
takes the largest part of the backbone length.
When the same type of simulation is performed for a case
like $3_1$ vs $4_1$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl8}(a)), the scenario changes:
$P$ becomes very asymmetric, showing a pronounced, dominant
peak for configurations in which the globule with $k=4_1$
takes most of the backbone length. The peak for opposite
configurations with dominating $3_1$ is considerably depressed
and almost disappears in comparison. Panels (b)-(c) and (e)-(g)
of Fig.~\ref{fig:Pl8} show similar cases. The message is very clear:
the dominance of only one peak is a consequence of topology
and thus should be ascribed to the topological correction.
To check whether these knot-plus-wall simulations yield results compatible with the data from
isolated polymers, one may consider combinations of the data
that depend exclusively on the expected topological correction.
For instance, one can consider the weight ``unbalance'' (or free energy difference)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Delta}
U_{k_1,k_2}(l_1;N) &\equiv& \ln [ P_{k_1,k_2}(l_1)/P_{k_1,k_2}(N-l_1) ]\nonumber\\
&\simeq& \varphi_{k_1}(l_1) + \varphi_{k_2}(N-l_1) \nonumber\\&&
-\left[ \varphi_{k_1}(N-l_1) + \varphi_{k_2}(l_1)\right]
\nonumber \\
&\simeq& (M_{k_1}-M_{k_2})\frac{N-2 l_1}{l_1(N-l_1)}\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{M_{k_1}-M_{k_2}}N \frac{1- 2 x }{x(1-x)}
\end{eqnarray}
One can note that only a difference $\Delta M = M_{k_2}-M_{k_1}$ determines this distribution.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Delta} we show a plot of $\ln [ P_{k_1,k_2}(l_1)/P_{k_1,k_2}(N-l_1) ]$
and of its fit $U_{k_1,k_2}(l_1;N)$ (for $T=1/0.48$, $N=500$, $k_1=3_1$, $k_2=4_1$) vs
$x=l_1/N$.
The value $\Delta M \simeq 224$ from the fit is reasonably consistent with the determinations
$M_{4_1}-M_{3_1}\simeq 263$ and $M'_{4_1}-M'_{3_1}\simeq 215$ based on the
results for knot frequencies (which were summarized in Table~\ref{tab:2}).
This agreement is found for other knot pairs as well, see Table~\ref{tab:3} where,
for each knot combination and for both $N=500$ and $N=1000$, we list two estimates:
$\Delta M_0$ from fits of all data and
$\Delta M_1$ from fits of data with $0.2\le x \le 0.8$.
The estimate $\Delta M_1$ is introduced because it could be less sensible to
knot-independent corrections to scaling, which should be relevant when one
of the loops becomes too short.
From Table~\ref{tab:3} one can see that both estimates are quite consistent with a null value for cases
$n_{c1}=n_{c2}$ or with values coming from the data for isolated knots.
Thus, the results concerning the competition of globules in
a translocation set up give further independent confirmation
of the presence of the topological free energy correction
and show at the same time its importance for the physics of
this process. The outlined intriguing scenario calls for possible
fundamental justifications or interpretations of the presence of
this correction.
\begin{table*}[!bt]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c l l c c c c }
\hline
& & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$N=500$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$N=1000$}\\
$k_1$ & $k_2$ &$M_{2}-M_{1}$ &$M'_{2}-M'_{1}$ & $\Delta M_0$ & $\Delta M_1$ & $\Delta M_0$ & $\Delta M_1$ \\
\hline
$3_1$ & $4_1$ & 263 & 215(36) & 224(3) & 225(3) & 224(6) & 189(32)\\
$3_1$ & $5_1$ & 560 & 546(48) & 385(2) & 408(3) & 401(6) & 469(30)\\
$3_1$ & $6_2$ & 1018 & 979(56) & 735(5) & 763(3) & 1469(10) & 1526(11)\\
$4_1$ & $5_1$ & 297 & 331(42) & 163(2) & 183(3) & 191(3) & 253(16)\\
$5_2$ & $6_2$ & 428 & 401(71) & 297(3) & 298(2) & 322(4) & 392(10)\\
$6_2$ & $7_4$ & 383 & 570(95) & 286(4) & 292(3) & 308(3) & 362(5)\\
$6_2$ & $3_1$\#$3_1$ & 75 & 112(68) & -53(2) & -48(2) & -53(3) & -9(5)\\
$7_4$ & $3_1$\#$4_1$ & 24 & -152(112) & -12(3) & -14(2) & -3(3) & 14(4)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Fits of $\ln P(l/N)/P(1-l/N)$, for several knots at $1/T = 0.48$:
here $\Delta M_0$ is from the fit of the whole data while
$\Delta M_1$ is from only data with $0.2\le l/N \le 0.8$.
Each value is computed for the global ring lengths $N=500$ and $N=1000$.
The values $M_{2}-M_{1}$ and $M'_{2}-M'_{1}$ are determined with
the simulations described in the previous section, see Table~\ref{tab:2}}
\label{tab:3}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig10.pdf}
\caption{Free energy differences vs. the rescaled loop length for a $3_1$ competing with a $4_1$
in the configuration of Fig.~\ref{fig:sl}(b) for $N=500$.
Points are data in the form $\ln [ P_{k_1,k_2}(l_1)/P_{k_1,k_2}(N-l_1) ]$ while
the solid curve is a plot of $U_{k_1,k_2}(l_1;N)$
fitted with Eq.~(\ref{Delta}) through these data.
}
\label{fig:Delta}
\end{figure}
Referring to our ansatz for the globule free energy, Eq.~(5),
the condition $\frac{\partial}{\partial l_1}[\varphi_{k_1}(l_1)+\varphi_{k_2}(N-l_1)] = 0$
determining the most probable value of $l_1$
becomes independent on $\varphi_{k_2}$ if one looks for small values of $l_1$ with long $N$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{2}{3} \sigma l_1^{-1/3}+(\alpha-2) l_1^{-1} + M_{k_1} l_1^{-2} \simeq 0
\end{equation}
The solution $\overline{l_1}$ is indeed a relatively short length. This
in spite of the fact that we assume still validity of the
form in Eq.~(5) for the first globule. The last equation gives for
$M_k$ a leading behavior
\begin{equation}
M_{k_1}(T) \simeq -\frac{2}{3} \sigma(T) \overline{l_1}^{5/3} -(\alpha-2)\overline{l_1}
\end{equation}
(we recall that $\sigma<0$).
The second term on the righthand side is a small correction, and the relation
may be approximately inverted to express the typical length $\overline{l_1}$ as a function of $M_{k_1}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{l_1_bar}
\overline{l_1}(T) \simeq \left[-\frac {3 M_{k_1}(T)}{2 \sigma(T) }\right]^{3/5}
\end{equation}
Recent results~\cite{Baiesi:2014:PRE} give estimates of $\sigma(T)$ in the range $0.32 \le 1/T \le 0.5$.
From these results, at the inverse temperature $1/T=0.48$ we interpolate $\sigma= - 0.96(5)$, which can be used
to check that the predictions of (10) are fairly consistent with
direct estimates of $\overline{l_1}$ from the maxima of $P(l_1)$ , see the last two columns of Table~\ref{tab:2}.
There could be a bias of the indirect estimates toward larger values, which might come from
knot-independent corrections to scaling. However, the general trend follows closely that of the
$\overline{l_1}$ of probability maxima.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig11a.pdf}
\hskip 3mm
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig11b.pdf}
\caption{
Ratio between correction-to-scaling constants and ideal knot lengths
to the power $5/3$ (top panel for minimal lengths on the cubic lattice, bottom panel for
ideal lengths of knotted curves in three dimensions), for different temperatures.
Abscissas are equal to the knot crossing number plus $1/10$ of the knot index
(with $3_1\#3_1$ at $3.4$ and $3_1\#4_1$ at $7.8$).
}
\label{fig:ideal}
\end{figure*}
The relation between the typical length and the corrections to scaling may be extended
to include a further relation with the length of ideal knots.
For off-lattice knotted flexible yet impenetrable tubes of thickness $D$ and length $L$,
the ideal length $l^{\rm id}$ of a given knot is the smallest ratio $L/D$ one
can achieve~\cite{Katritch:1996:Nature,IdealKnotsBook}.
For a lattice knot the ``ideal'' configurations are those with the minimal number ($l^{\rm min}$) of
steps~\cite{Diao:1993:JKTR,Janse:2011:JSM}.
The probability maxima discussed above are located at relatively small values
of $\overline{l_1}$, not too far from $l^{\rm min}_{k_1}$. This suggests that the configurations taken by
the loop with $k_1$ for $l_1\approx \overline{l_1}$ could be somehow reminiscent,
up to temperature dependent moderate deviations, of the configurations
of minimal length, with $\overline{l_1} \sim l^{\rm min}_{k_1}$. Evidence of
the plausibility of this relation is obtained by reporting our determinations of
$M_{k_1}$ divided by $(l^{\rm min}_{k_1})^{5/3}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ideal}(a), and
divided by $(l^{\rm id }_{k_1})^{5/3}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ideal}(b) (note that the
known values suggest that to a first approximation $l^{\rm min}\propto l^{\rm id}$).
Thus, the existence of the topological correction and its
dependence on topology should ultimately
follow from the fact that tight knots have a minimal length depending
primarily on $n_c$. This is but another instance in which
the ideal form of knots is in close relation with their physical behavior~\cite{IdealKnotsBook}.
We conclude by adding that in principle the terms in Eq.~(5) may be complemented
with knot-independent corrections to scaling. While we have assessed with nonlinear
fits of the distributions $P(l_1)$ that any
correction $\sim 1/l_1$ would be present with a prefactor of order unity (as opposed
the $M_k$'s, which are at least $\gtrsim 700$), there remains to understand
whether corrections such as $B/l_1^\Delta$ with $0<\Delta<1$ would play a role. Preliminary results
appear to show that $B \approx 100$ if $\Delta=1/2$ is assumed. With this magnitude, the corrections would
just slightly modify quantitatively but not qualitatively our conclusions above.
\section{Conclusions}
Globular or dense polymers are known as an hard subject in
statistical physics, from both theoretical and numerical points
of view. With the present contribution we tried to show that
they provide an unexpectedly rich context in which to pursue
the goals of topological polymer statistics.
Indeed, many of the results we obtained are rather unexpected
and surprising, in some cases also for their deceptive simplicity.
Going deeper into these issues constitutes an open challenge.
When considering rings in the globular phase, any planar projection
of the configurations yields an enormous number of crossings~\cite{Grassberger:2001:JPA},
growing like $N^{4/3}$. This huge number of crossings
makes extremely difficult the analysis
of the type of knot, which requires to sort out
the few crossings which are essential characterization of the
knot. In spite of this, we showed that the thermodynamics of
the globule is driven by the number of these minimal crossings
in several ways, and that in some situations $n_c$ can become
unexpectedly a key parameter for determining the stability of the
system.
In first place we clarified the role of topology in determining
the spectrum of globular knots in a standard model of collapsed
polymer rings. This provides a unique example so far of spectrum
in which all knots, prime or composite, enter with comparable
frequencies (for swollen rings such
balance occurs only within subclasses of knots
with the same number of prime components).
The remarkable independence of the relative frequencies on temperature
suggests that they are universal ratios and poses the question of their
link with the knot topological invariants.
Another surprising result is provided by the topological free energy
correction and its dependence on the minimal crossing number $n_c$.
Under the constraint imposed by a slip link, which does not allow trespassing of the knots from
one loop to the other, $n_c$ appears to control very sharply
and exclusively the average share of backbone between the loops.
At the same time this average behavior results from an interesting
regime of broad fluctuations obeying a form of Taylor scaling~\cite{Zoltan:2008:AP}.
The numerical experiments concerning the translocation of
the globule through a repulsive plane with a hole are perhaps
the most interesting both within the context of the present
investigation, and in the perspective of future applications.
Besides providing a strong support to the
postulated form of the topological free energy correction, our
results indicate how far reaching can be the influence
of $n_c$ in determining behaviors such as entropic forces driven
by topology. Notably, we found that these features are related to the
concept of ideal knots, whose signature thus emerges in the statistics
of random globular knotted polymers.
\begin{acknowledgement}
EO acknowledges support from the Italian Ministry of Education grant PRIN 2010HXAW77.
\end{acknowledgement}
\providecommand*\mcitethebibliography{\thebibliography}
\csname @ifundefined\endcsname{endmcitethebibliography}
{\let\endmcitethebibliography\endthebibliography}{}
\begin{mcitethebibliography}{59}
\providecommand*\natexlab[1]{#1}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstSublistMode[1]{}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm[2]{}
\providecommand*\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
{\def\unskip.}{\unskip.}}
\providecommand*\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse
{\let\unskip.}\relax}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct[3]{}
\providecommand*\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd[3]{}
\providecommand*\unskip.}{}
\mciteSetBstSublistMode{f}
\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm{subitem}{(\alph{mcitesubitemcount})}
\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd
{\mcitemaxwidthsubitemform\space}
{\relax}
{\relax}
\bibitem[{E. Orlandini, S. G.
Whittington}(2007)]{Orlandini&Whittington:2007:Rev-Mod_Phys}
{E. Orlandini, S. G. Whittington}, \emph{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{2007},
\emph{79}, 611--642\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Deguchi and Tsurusaki(1997)Deguchi, and
Tsurusaki]{Deguchi-tsurusaki:1997}
Deguchi,~T.; Tsurusaki,~K. \emph{Lectures at Knots 96 (World Scientific,
Singapore)} \textbf{1997}, 95--122\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Stasiak et~al.(1998)Stasiak, Katrich, and Kauffmann]{IdealKnotsBook}
Stasiak,~A., Katrich,~V., Kauffmann,~L.~H., Eds. \emph{Ideal Knots}; Series on
Knots and Everything; World Scientific: Singapore, 1998; Vol.~19\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Dai et~al.(2012)Dai, {van der Maarel}, and Doyle]{Dai:2001}
Dai,~L.; {van der Maarel},~J.; Doyle,~P. \emph{ACS Macro Lett} \textbf{2012},
\emph{1}, 732--736\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Renner and Doyle(2014)Renner, and Doyle]{Renner:2014}
Renner,~C.; Doyle,~P. \emph{ACS Macro Lett.} \textbf{2014}, \emph{3},
963--967\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Matthews et~al.(2010)Matthews, Louis, and Yeomans]{Matthews:2010:EPL}
Matthews,~R.; Louis,~A.~A.; Yeomans,~J.~M. \emph{Europhys. Lett.}
\textbf{2010}, \emph{89}, 20001\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Matthews et~al.(2012)Matthews, Louis, and
Likos]{Matthews:2012:Macrolett}
Matthews,~R.; Louis,~A.~A.; Likos,~C.~N. \emph{ACS Macro Lett.} \textbf{2012},
\emph{1}, 1352--1356\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Narros et~al.(2013)Narros, Moreno, and Likos]{Narros:2013:Macro}
Narros,~A.; Moreno,~A.~J.; Likos,~C.~N. \emph{Macromol.} \textbf{2013},
\emph{46}, 3654--3666\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Poier et~al.({2014})Poier, Likos, and Matthews]{Poier:2014:Macro}
Poier,~P.; Likos,~C.~N.; Matthews,~R. \emph{{Macromol.}} \textbf{{2014}},
\emph{{47}}, {3394--3400}\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{V. Katritch, J. Bednar, D. Michoud, R. G. Scharein, J. Dubochet, A.
Stasiak}({1996})]{Katritch:1996:Nature}
{V. Katritch, J. Bednar, D. Michoud, R. G. Scharein, J. Dubochet, A. Stasiak},
\emph{{Nature}} \textbf{{1996}}, \emph{{384}}, 142--145\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{J. Arsuaga, M. V{\'a}zquez, P. McGuirk, S. Trigueros, D. W. Sumners,
J. Roca}(2005)]{Arsuaga:2005:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:15958528}
{J. Arsuaga, M. V{\'a}zquez, P. McGuirk, S. Trigueros, D. W. Sumners, J. Roca},
\emph{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{2005}, \emph{102}, 9165--9169\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Marenduzzo et~al.(2009)Marenduzzo, Orlandini, Stasiak, Sumners,
Tubiana, and Micheletti]{Marenduzzo:2009:Proc-Natl-Acad-Sci-U-S-A:20018693}
Marenduzzo,~D.; Orlandini,~E.; Stasiak,~A.; Sumners,~D.~W.; Tubiana,~L.;
Micheletti,~C. \emph{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{2009}, \emph{106},
22269--22274\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tang et~al.(2011)Tang, Du, and Doyle]{Tang:2011:PNAS}
Tang,~J.; Du,~N.; Doyle,~P.~S. \emph{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{2011},
\emph{108}, 16153--16158\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tubiana et~al.(2011)Tubiana, Orlandini, and
Micheletti]{Tubiana:2011:PRL}
Tubiana,~L.; Orlandini,~E.; Micheletti,~C. \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\textbf{2011}, \emph{107}, 188302\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Marenduzzo et~al.(2013)Marenduzzo, Micheletti, Orlandini, and
Sumners]{Marenduzzo:2013:PNAS}
Marenduzzo,~D.; Micheletti,~C.; Orlandini,~E.; Sumners,~D.~W. \emph{Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{2013}, \emph{110}, 20081--20086\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{V. Katritch, W. K. Olson, A. Vologodskii, J. Dubochet, A.
Stasiak}({2000})]{Katritch:2000:PRE}
{V. Katritch, W. K. Olson, A. Vologodskii, J. Dubochet, A. Stasiak},
\emph{{Phys. Rev. E}} \textbf{{2000}}, \emph{{61}}, 5545--5549\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{O. Farago, Y. Kantor, M. Kardar}({2002})]{Farago:2002:EPL}
{O. Farago, Y. Kantor, M. Kardar}, \emph{{Europhys. Lett.}} \textbf{{2002}},
\emph{{60}}, 53--59\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{B. Marcone, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, F.
Zonta}({2005})]{Marcone:2005:J-Phys-A}
{B. Marcone, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, F. Zonta}, \emph{{J. Phys. A: Math.
Gen.}} \textbf{{2005}}, \emph{{38}}, L15--L21\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{B. Marcone, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, F.
Zonta}({2007})]{Marcone:2007:PRE}
{B. Marcone, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, F. Zonta}, \emph{{Phys. Rev. E}}
\textbf{{2007}}, \emph{{75}}, 041105--11\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Rawdon et~al.(2008)Rawdon, Dobay, Kern, Millett, Piatek, Plunkett, and
Stasiak]{Rawdon:Macromol:2008a}
Rawdon,~E.; Dobay,~A.; Kern,~J.~C.; Millett,~K.~C.; Piatek,~M.; Plunkett,~P.;
Stasiak,~A. \emph{Macromol.} \textbf{2008}, \emph{41}, 4444--4451\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Rawdon et~al.(2008)Rawdon, Kern, Piatek, Plunkett, Stasiak, and
Millett]{Rawdon:Macromol:2008b}
Rawdon,~E.~J.; Kern,~J.~C.; Piatek,~M.; Plunkett,~P.; Stasiak,~A.;
Millett,~K.~C. \emph{Macromol.} \textbf{2008}, \emph{41}, 8281--8287\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, C.
Vanderzande}({2003})]{Orlandini:2003:PRE}
{E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, C. Vanderzande}, \emph{{Phys. Rev. E}}
\textbf{{2003}}, \emph{{68}}, 031804\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{A. Hanke, R. Metzler, P. G. Dommersnes, Y. Kantor, M.
Kardar}({2003})]{Hanke:2003:PRE}
{A. Hanke, R. Metzler, P. G. Dommersnes, Y. Kantor, M. Kardar}, \emph{{Europ.
Phys. J. E}} \textbf{{2003}}, \emph{{12}}, 347--354\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, C.
Vanderzande}({2004})]{Orlandini:2004:J-Stat-Phys}
{E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, C. Vanderzande}, \emph{{J. Stat. Phys.}}
\textbf{{2004}}, \emph{{115}}, 681--700\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, F.
Zonta}({2011})]{Baiesi:2011:PRL}
{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella, F. Zonta}, \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett}
\textbf{{2011}}, \emph{{106}}, 258301\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella}(2007)]{Baiesi:2007:PRL}
{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella}, \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{2007},
\emph{99}, 058301\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Y. Arai, R. Yasuda, K. Akashi, Y. Harada, H. Miyata, T. Kinosita, H.
Itoh, H}(1999)]{Arai:1999:Nature}
{Y. Arai, R. Yasuda, K. Akashi, Y. Harada, H. Miyata, T. Kinosita, H. Itoh, H},
\emph{Nature} \textbf{1999}, \emph{399}, 446--448\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Ayme et~al.(2012)Ayme, Beves, Leigh, McBurney, Rissanen, and
Schultz]{Ayme:2012:NC}
Ayme,~J.-F.; Beves,~J.~E.; Leigh,~D.~A.; McBurney,~R.~T.; Rissanen,~K.;
Schultz,~D. \emph{Nat. Chem.} \textbf{2012}, \emph{4}, 15--20\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{A. A. Podtelezhnikov, N. R. Cozzarelli, A. V.
Vologodskii}(1999)]{Podtelezhnikov:1999:PNAS}
{A. A. Podtelezhnikov, N. R. Cozzarelli, A. V. Vologodskii}, \emph{Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{1999}, \emph{96}, 12974--12979\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tkalec et~al.(2011)Tkalec, Ravnik, {\v C}opar, {\v Z}umer, and Mu{\v
s}evi{\v c}]{Tkalec:2011}
Tkalec,~U.; Ravnik,~M.; {\v C}opar,~S.; {\v Z}umer,~S.; Mu{\v s}evi{\v c},~I.
\emph{Science} \textbf{2011}, \emph{333}, 62--65\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Irvine and Kleckner(2014)Irvine, and Kleckner]{Irvine:2014}
Irvine,~W. T.~M.; Kleckner,~D. \emph{Nat. Mat.} \textbf{2014}, \emph{13},
229\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella}({2010})]{Baiesi:2010:JSM}
{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini, A. L. Stella}, \emph{{J. Stat. Mech.}}
\textbf{{2010}}, \emph{{10}}, {P06012}\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{E. Orlandini, M.C. Tesi, E. J. {Janse van Rensburg}, S. G.
Whittington}({1998})]{Orlandini:1998:J-Phys-A}
{E. Orlandini, M.C. Tesi, E. J. {Janse van Rensburg}, S. G. Whittington},
\emph{{J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.}} \textbf{{1998}}, \emph{{31}},
5953--5967\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{A. Yao, H. Matsuda, H. Tsukahara, M. K. Shimamura, T.
Deguchi}({2001})]{Yao:2001:J-Phys-A}
{A. Yao, H. Matsuda, H. Tsukahara, M. K. Shimamura, T. Deguchi}, \emph{{J.
Phys. A: Math. Gen.}} \textbf{{2001}}, \emph{{34}}, 7563--7577\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{E. J. {Janse van Rensburg}, A.
Rechnitzer}(2011)]{Rensburg&Rechnitzer:2011:JPA}
{E. J. {Janse van Rensburg}, A. Rechnitzer}, \emph{J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.}
\textbf{2011}, \emph{44}, 162002\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini}(2012)]{Baiesi:2012:PRE}
{M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini}, \emph{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{2012}, \emph{86},
031805\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{D. W. Sumners, S. G.
Whittington}({1988})]{Sumners&Whittington:1988:J-Phys-A}
{D. W. Sumners, S. G. Whittington}, \emph{{J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.}}
\textbf{{1988}}, \emph{{21}}, 1689--1694\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Y. Diao, N. Pippenger, D. W. Sumners}({1994})]{Diao:1994:JKTR}
{Y. Diao, N. Pippenger, D. W. Sumners}, \emph{{J. Knot Theory Ramif.}}
\textbf{{1994}}, \emph{{3}}, 419--429\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{C. Aragao de Carvalho, S.
Caracciolo}({1983})]{Aragao&Caracciolo:1983:J-Physique}
{C. Aragao de Carvalho, S. Caracciolo}, \emph{{J. Physique}} \textbf{{1983}},
\emph{{44}}, 323--331\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{B. Berg, D. Foester}({1981})]{Berg&Foester:1981:Phys-Lett-B}
{B. Berg, D. Foester}, \emph{{Phys. Lett. B}} \textbf{{1981}}, \emph{{106}},
323--326\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Virnau et~al.(2006)Virnau, Mirny, and
Kardar]{Virnau:2006:PLoS-Comput-Biol:16978047}
Virnau,~P.; Mirny,~L.~A.; Kardar,~M. \emph{PLoS Comput Biol} \textbf{2006},
\emph{2}, e122\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Sulkowska et~al.(2008)Sulkowska, Sulkowski, Szymczak, and
Cieplak]{Sulkowska12162008}
Sulkowska,~J.~I.; Sulkowski,~P.; Szymczak,~P.; Cieplak,~M. \emph{Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{2008}, \emph{105}, 19714--19719\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Potestio et~al.(2010)Potestio, Micheletti, and
Orland]{Potestio:2010:PLoS-Comput-Biol:20686683}
Potestio,~R.; Micheletti,~C.; Orland,~H. \emph{PLoS Comput Biol} \textbf{2010},
\emph{6}, e1000864\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{J. Dorier, A. Stasiak}(2009)]{Dorier:2009:Nucleic-Acid-Res}
{J. Dorier, A. Stasiak}, \emph{Nucl. Acid Res.} \textbf{2009}, \emph{37},
6316--6322\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{A. Y. Grosberg}({2012})]{Grosberg:2012:PolScie}
{A. Y. Grosberg}, \emph{{Polymer Science}} \textbf{{2012}}, \emph{{54}},
1--10\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{E. J. {Janse van Rensburg} and S. D.
Promislow}(1995)]{Rensburg&Promislow:1995:JKTR}
{E. J. {Janse van Rensburg} and S. D. Promislow}, \emph{J. Knot Theory Ramif.}
\textbf{1995}, \emph{4}, 115\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Y. Diao}(1993)]{Diao:1993:JKTR}
{Y. Diao}, \emph{J. Knot Theo. Ramif.} \textbf{1993}, \emph{2}, 413--425\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{Janse van Rensburg} and Rechnitzer(2011){Janse van Rensburg}, and
Rechnitzer]{Janse:2011:JSM}
{Janse van Rensburg},~E.~J.; Rechnitzer,~A. \emph{J. Stat. Mech.}
\textbf{2011}, P09008\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tesi et~al.(1996)Tesi, {Janse van Rensburg}, Orlandini, and
Whittington]{Tesi_et_al:1996:J_Phys_A}
Tesi,~M.; {Janse van Rensburg},~E.~J.; Orlandini,~E.; Whittington,~S.~G.
\emph{J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.} \textbf{1996}, \emph{29}, 2451--2463\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Grassberger(1997)]{Grassberger:1997:PRE}
Grassberger,~P. \emph{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{1997}, \emph{56}, 3682--3693\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Grassberger and Hsu(2002)Grassberger, and Hsu]{Grassberger:PRE:2002}
Grassberger,~P.; Hsu,~H.~P. \emph{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{2002}, \emph{65},
031807\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{N. Madras and G. Slade}({1993})]{Madras&Slade:1993}
{N. Madras and G. Slade}, \emph{{The {Self}-{Avoiding} {Walk}}};
{Birkh\"auser}: Boston, {1993}\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{J. Hoste and M. Thistlethwaite}()]{knotscape}
{J. Hoste and M. Thistlethwaite},
http://www.math.utk.edu/~morwen/knotscape.html.\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Baiesi and Orlandini(2014)Baiesi, and Orlandini]{Baiesi:2014:PRE}
Baiesi,~M.; Orlandini,~E. \emph{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{2014}, \emph{89},
062601\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Owczarek et~al.(1993)Owczarek, Prellberg, and
Brak]{Owczarek_PB_PRL93:collapsed}
Owczarek,~A.~L.; Prellberg,~T.; Brak,~R. \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{1993},
\emph{70}, 951--953\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{R. C. Lua, A. L. Borowinskiy, A. Y. Grosberg}(2004)]{LUA:2004:Pol}
{R. C. Lua, A. L. Borowinskiy, A. Y. Grosberg}, \emph{Polymer} \textbf{2004},
\emph{45}, 717\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Grassberger(2001)]{Grassberger:2001:JPA}
Grassberger,~P. \emph{J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.} \textbf{2001}, \emph{34},
9959\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Eisler et~al.(2008)Eisler, Bartos, and Kert\'esz]{Zoltan:2008:AP}
Eisler,~Z.; Bartos,~I.; Kert\'esz,~J. \emph{Adv. Phys.} \textbf{2008},
\emph{57}, 89--142\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\end{mcitethebibliography}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The theory of Kazhdan--Lusztig bases for Iwahori-Hecke algebras and its subsequent generalisation by Lusztig to canonical bases for quantum groups and their integrable modules was an important breakthrough in representation theory. Remarkably, this theory can also be approached through Kashiwara's crystal and global crystal bases and thus results in more applications. For example, it serves as an important motivation for the categorification of quantum enveloping algebras since its geometric construction provides a first model of categorification.
Naturally, generalising the canonical basis (or crystal) theory to the quantum supergroups attracts lots of attention and becomes rather challenging. For example, Benkart--Kang--Kashiwara \cite{BKK} developed a crystal basis theory for a certain class of representations of the quantum general linear Lie superalgebras; while Clark--Hill--Wang \cite{CHW} constructed crystal/canonical bases for quantum supergroups with no isotropic odd roots which includes $\mathfrak{sop}(1|2n)$ as the only finite type example. More recently, building on the work of Leclerc \cite{Lec} on quantum shuffles algebras, they \cite{CHW2} established the existence of the canonical basis (called the pseudo-canonical basis loc. cit.) of a quantum supergroup of special type, including the quantum supergroups ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$.
In this paper, we will provide a new construction of the canonical basis for the most fundamental quantum supergroup ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$, different from the one given in \cite{CHW2}. This approach was motivated by the following. First, canonical bases have been constructed in \cite{DR} for quantum Schur superalgebras, which are quotients of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$. Second, the quantum supergroup ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ can be realised as a ``limit algebra'' of quantum Schur superalgebras \cite{DG}, which generalises the construction of quantum $\mathfrak{gl}_{n}$ by Beilinson, Lusztig and MacPherson \cite{BLM}.
Thus, it is natural to expect the existence of the canonical basis for (the $\pm$-parts of) ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ as a ``limit basis''
of the canonical bases for quantum Schur superalgebras.
The main discovery in the paper is the identification of the realisation bases of the $\pm$-parts with PBW type bases. It was observed by Du--Parshall \cite{DP} in the quantum $\mathfrak{gl}_{n}$ case that the BLM realisation bases for the $\pm$-parts share the same multiplication formula of a basis element by generators as the Ringel--Hall algebra of a linear quiver. In the super case, the nonexistence of Ringel--Hall algebras made us to seek a similar relation directly. Thus, under the realisation isomorphism, we prove in Theorem \ref{PBW basis} that the realisation basis for the $+$-part coincides with the PBW type bases considered in \cite{Z}. Now the realisation basis has a triangular relation to a certain monomial basis as discovered in the proof of Theorem \cite[Th.~8.1]{DG} via a similar relation in the quantum Schur superalgebras \cite[Th.~7.1]{DG}. Thus, we obtain a triangular relation between a monomial basis and a PBW basis. This relation is the key to the existence of the canonical bases (Theorem \ref{canonical basis}) and makes it computable, following an algorithm used in \cite{CX}. We will also see in Theorem \ref{canonical basis of two parts} how this canonical basis, as a ``limit basis'', is connected to the canonical bases of quantum Schur superalgebras
The canonical basis for the negative part in the nonsuper case induces nicely canonical bases for simple representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{n})$. However, in the super case, this nice property is no longer true in general. Clark, Hill and Wang conjectured in \cite[Conj.~8.9]{CHW2} that the property should hold for ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|1})$ and their polynomial representations. We will prove this part of their conjecture in Corollary~\ref{CHWConj}. In general,
we will show that, for a simple polynomial representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$, any basis induced from the canonical basis of a quantum Schur superalgebra ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$ coincides with the one induced by the canonical basis of the negative part of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$.
It would be interesting to identify the canonical bases introduced here with the pseudo-canonical bases introduced in \cite[(7.3)]{CHW2} and to make a comparison with the canonical basis for the quantum coordinate superalgebra given in \cite{ZZ, ZHC}.
We organise the paper as follows. We will collect the basic theory of quantum Schur superalgebras in \S2, including a construction of the canonical basis. We provide in \S3 some multiplication formulas of high order in order to construct the Lusztig type form of the $\pm$-parts and prove that its defining basis is nothing but a PBW type basis in \S4. In \S5, we construct the canonical bases for the $\pm$-parts and describe a relation between this basis and that for quantum Schur superalgebras. As examples, we compute the canonical bases for the supergroups ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1})$ and ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|2})$. Finally, in the last section, we discuss simple polynomial representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ and relate their bases induced by the canonical bases of ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$ and of the negative part of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$. As an application, we prove the conjecture \cite[Conj.~8.9]{CHW2} for polynomial representations.
Throughout, let $m,n$ be nonnegative integers, not both zero. For any integers $i,t,s$ with $0\leq t\leq s$, define\vspace{-1ex}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{i}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&0,& \text{ if } 1\leq i\leq m;\\
&1,&\text{ if }m+1\leq i\leq m+n,
\end{aligned}
\right.\;\;\text{ and }\;\; \left[\!\!\left[t\atop s\right]\!\!\right]=\frac{[\![s]\!]^!}{[\![t]\!]^![\![s-t]\!]^!}={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{s(t-s)}\left[t\atop s\right],\vspace{-1ex}
\end{equation}
where $[\![r]\!]^{!}:=[\![1]\!][\![2]\!]\cdots[\![r]\!]$ with $[\![i]\!]=1+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2+\cdots+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{2(i-1)}$ and $[i]=\left[i\atop 1\right]=\frac{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^i-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-i}}{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}}$.
Let ${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}$ be an indeterminate and let ${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_a={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{(-1)^{\widehat a}}$ for all $1\leq a\leq m+n$.
\section{Canonical bases for quantum Schur superalgebras}
Let ${\mathfrak S}_r$ be the symmetric group on $r$ letters and let $S=\{(k,k+1)\mid 1\leq k<r\}$ be the set of basic transpositions. Form the Coxeter system $({\mathfrak S}_r,S)$ and denote the length function with respect to $S$ by
$l:W\to\mathbb{N}$ and the Bruhat order on ${\mathfrak S}_r$ by $\leq$.
An $N$-tuple
$\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\cdots,\lambda_N)\in\mathbb N^N$ of non-negative integers is
called a composition of $r$ into $N$ parts if
$|{\lambda}|:=\sum_i{\lambda}_i=r$. Let ${\Lambda}(N,r)$ denote the set of compositions of $r$ into $N$-parts. A partition $\pi$ of $r$ is a weakly decreasing sequence $(\pi_1,\pi_2,\cdots,\pi_t)$ of nonzero integers. Let $\Pi(r)$ denote the set of partitions of $r$.
The parabolic (or standard Young)
subgroup ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}$ of ${\mathfrak S}_r$ associated with a composition ${\lambda}$
consists of the permutations of $\{1,2,\cdots,r\}$ which leave
invariant the following sets of integers
$$R_1^{\lambda}=\{1,2,\cdots,\lambda_1\},R_2^{\lambda}=\{\lambda_1+1,\lambda_1+2,\cdots,\lambda_1+\lambda_2\},\cdots.$$
We will also denote by ${\mathcal D}_{\lambda}:=\mathcal{D}_{{\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}}$ (resp., ${\mathcal D}_{\lambda}^+$) the set of all
distinguished or shortest (resp., longest) coset representatives of the right
cosets of ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}$ in ${\mathfrak S}_r$.
Let
$\mathcal{D}_{{\lambda}\mu}=\mathcal{D}_{\lambda}\cap\mathcal{D}^{-1}_{\mu}$, where $\mu\in{\Lambda}(N,r)$.
Then $\mathcal{D}_{{\lambda}\mu}$ (resp., $\mathcal{D}^+_{{\lambda}\mu}$) is the set of shortest (resp., longest)
${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}$-${\mathfrak S}_\mu$ double coset representatives. For
$d\in\mathcal{D}_{{\lambda}\mu}$, the subgroup ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}^d\cap
{\mathfrak S}_\mu=d^{-1}{\mathfrak S}_{\lambda} d\cap {\mathfrak S}_\mu$ is a parabolic subgroup associated
with a composition which is denoted by ${\lambda} d\cap\mu$. In other
words, we define
\begin{equation}\label{ladmu}
{\mathfrak S}_{{\lambda} d\cap\mu}={\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}^d\cap {\mathfrak S}_\mu.
\end{equation}
The composition ${\lambda} d\cap\mu$ can be easily described in terms of the following matrix.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{jmath}
\jmath({\lambda},d,\mu)=(a_{i,j}),\qquad\text{where }a_{i,j}=|R^{\lambda}_i\cap d(R^\mu_j)|,
\end{equation}
be the $N\times N$ matrix associated to the
double coset ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda} d {\mathfrak S}_\mu$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{ladmu}
{\lambda} d\cap\mu=(\nu^1,\nu^2,\ldots,\nu^N),
\end{equation}
where $\nu^j=(a_{1,j},a_{2,j},\ldots,a_{N,j})$ is the $j$th column of $A$.
In this way, the matrix set
$$M(N,r)=\{\jmath({\lambda},d,\mu)\mid{\lambda},\mu\in{\Lambda}(N,r),d\in{\mathcal D}_{{\lambda}\mu}\}$$
is the set of all $N\times N$ matrices over $\mathbb N$ whose entries sum to $r$.
For $A\in M(N,r)$, let
$${\rm ro}(A):=(\sum_{j=1}^Na_{1,j},\ldots,\sum_{j=1}^Na_{N,j})={\lambda}\,\text{ and }\,{\rm co}(A):=(\sum_{i=1}^Na_{i,1},\ldots,\sum_{i=1}^Na_{i,N})=\mu.$$
For nonnegative integers (not both zero) $m,n$, we often write a composition ${\lambda}=({\lambda}_1,\ldots,{\lambda}_{m+n})\in{\Lambda}(m+n,r)$ as ${\lambda}=(\lambda^{(0)}|\lambda^{(1)})$, where
$$\lambda^{(0)}=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_m),\lambda^{(1)}=(\lambda_{m+1},\cdots,\lambda_{m+n}),$$
to indicate the``even''
and ``odd'' parts of ${\lambda}$ and identify $\Lambda(m+n,r)$ with the set
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(m|n,r)&=\{\lambda=(\lambda^{(0)}|\lambda^{(1)}) \mid{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m+n,r)\}\\
&=\bigcup_{r_0+r_1=r}({\Lambda}(m,r_0)\times{\Lambda}(n,r_1)).\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}Let
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^+(m|n,r)&=\{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)\mid {\lambda}_1\geq\cdots\geq{\lambda}_m,{\lambda}_{m+1}\geq\cdots\geq{\lambda}_{m+n}\},\\
{\Lambda}(m|n)&=\bigcup_{r\geq0}{\Lambda}(m|n,r)=\mathbb N^{m+n},\text{ and }{\Lambda}^+(m|n)=\bigcup_{r\geq0}{\Lambda}^+(m|n,r)\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Thus, a parabolic subgroup ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}$ associated with $\lambda=(\lambda^{(0)}|\lambda^{(1)})\in \Lambda(m,r_0)\times\Lambda(n,r_1)$ has the even part
${\mathfrak S}_{({\lambda}^{(0)}|1^{r_1})}$, briefly denoted by ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda^{(0)}}$ , and the odd part ${\mathfrak S}_{(1^{r_0}\mid {\lambda}^{(1)})}$, denoted by ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda^{(1)}}$.
For
${\lambda},\mu\in\Lambda(m|n,r)$, let
\begin{equation}\label{Dcirc}
\mathcal{D}^\circ_{{\lambda}\mu}=\{d\in\mathcal{D}_{{\lambda}\mu}\mid
{\mathfrak S}^d_{{\lambda}^{(0)}}\cap {\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(1)}}=1,{\mathfrak S}^d_{{\lambda}^{(1)}}\cap
{\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(0)}}=1\}.
\end{equation}
This set is the super version of the usual ${\mathcal D}_{{\lambda}\mu}$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{M(m|n)}
\aligned
M(m|n,r)&=\{\jmath({\lambda},d,\mu)\mid{\lambda},\mu\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r),d\in{\mathcal D}_{{\lambda}\mu}^\circ\}\text{ and }\\
M(m|n)&=\bigcup_{r\geq0}M(m|n,r).\endaligned
\end{equation}
Actually, from \cite[Prop.3.2]{DR}, if $(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n,r)$, then $a_{i,j}=0$ \mbox{ or } $1$ if $ i\leq m<j$ or $ j\leq m<i$.
We may extends the Bruhat order to $M(m|n,r)$ by setting, for $A=\jmath({\lambda},d,\mu),A'=\jmath({\lambda}',d',\mu')\in M(m|n,r)$,
\begin{equation}\label{Bruhat}
A\leq A'\iff {\lambda}={\lambda}', \mu=\mu', \text{ and }d\leq d'.
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{Z}=\mathbb Z[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}},{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}]$. The Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}={\mathcal H}({\mathfrak S}_r)$ associated to
${\mathfrak S}={\mathfrak S}_r$ is a free ${\mathcal Z}$-module with basis $\{T_w; w\in
{\mathfrak S}_r\}$ and the multiplication is defined by the rules: for $s\in S$,
\begin{equation}
{T}_w{T}_s=\left\{\begin{aligned} &{T}_{ws},
&\mbox{if } l(ws)>l(w);\\
&({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2-1)T_w+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2{T}_{ws}, &\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
The bar involution on ${\mathcal H}$ is the ring automorphism $\bar{\ }:{\mathcal H}\to{\mathcal H}$ defined by $\bar{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}$ and $\bar T_w=(T_{w^{-1}})^{-1}$
for all $w\in{\mathfrak S}$.
For each $\lambda=(\lambda^{(0)}|\lambda^{(1)})\in \Lambda(m|n,r)$, define
$$x_{\lambda^{(0)}}=\sum_{w\in {\mathfrak S}_{\lambda^{(0)}}}T_w,y_{\lambda^{(1)}}=\sum_{w\in {\mathfrak S}_{\lambda^{(1)}}}(-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2)^{-l(w)}T_w.$$
\begin{definition}\label{S(m|n,r)} Let ${\mathfrak T}(m|n,r)=\bigoplus_{\lambda\in\Lambda(m|
n,r)}x_{\lambda^{(0)}}y_{\lambda^{(1)}}\mathcal{H}.$
The algebra
$${\mathcal S}(m|n,r):=
{\text{\rm End}}_{\mathcal{H}}({\mathfrak T}(m|n,r))$$ is called a ${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}$-{\it Schur superalgebra} over
${\mathcal Z}$ on which the $\mathbb Z_2$-graded structure is induced from the $\mathbb Z_2$-graded structure on ${\mathfrak T}(m|n,r)$ defined by
$${\mathfrak T}(m|n,r)_i=\bigoplus_{{\lambda\in\Lambda(m|
n,r)}\atop {|{\lambda}^{(1)}|\equiv i(\text{mod}2)}}x_{\lambda^{(0)}}y_{\lambda^{(1)}}\mathcal{H}_{R} \;\;(i=\bar 0,\bar1).$$
\end{definition}
Following \cite{DR}, define, for $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda(m|n,r)$ and
$d\in\mathcal{D}^\circ_{\lambda\mu}$,
$$T_{{\mathfrak S}_\lambda d {\mathfrak S}_\mu}:=\sum_{\substack{w_0w_1
\in {\mathfrak S}_\mu\cap \mathcal{D}_{{\lambda} d\cap\mu},\\
w_0\in {\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(0)}},w_1\in {\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(1)}}}}(-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2)^{-\ell(w_1)}x_{\lambda^{(0)}}y_{\lambda^{(1)}}T_dT_{w_0}T_{w_1}.$$
There exists $\mathcal{H}$-homomorphism
$$\phi_{{\lambda}\mu}^d(x_{\alpha^{(0)}}y_{\alpha^{(1)}})=\delta_{\mu,\alpha}T_{{\mathfrak S}_\lambda d
{\mathfrak S}_\mu}h, \forall \alpha\in\Lambda(m|
n,r),h\in\mathcal{H}.$$
If $A=\jmath(\lambda,d,\mu)$, denote $\phi_A:=\phi^d_{\lambda\mu}$.
The following result is given in {\cite[5.8]{DR}}.
\begin{lemma}\label{DR5.8} The set $\{\phi_A\mid
A\in M(m|n,r)\}$
forms a ${\mathcal Z}$-basis for ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r )$.
\end{lemma}
In order to define the canonical basis, we use the normalised basis $\{\varphi_A\mid
A\in M(m|n,r)\}$ defined as follow.
For $\lambda,\mu\in \Lambda(m|n,r)$ and $d\in \mathcal{D}^\circ_{\lambda\mu}$, set $d^*$ (resp. $^*d$) to be the longest element in the double coset ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda^{(0)}} d {\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(0)}}$(resp. ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda^{(1)}} d {\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(1)}}$ ). If $A=\jmath(\lambda,d,\mu)$, by \cite[(6.0.2)]{DR}, let\footnote{We have corrected some typos given in \cite[(6.2.1)]{DR}.}
$$\mathcal{T}_A={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-l(d^*)+l(^*d)-l(d)}T_A\;\;\text{ and }\;\;\varphi_A={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-l(d^*)+l(^*d)-l(d)+l(w_{0,\mu^{(0)}})-l(w_{0,\mu^{(1)}})}\phi_A,$$
where $w_{0,{\lambda}}$ denotes the longest element in ${\mathfrak S}_{\lambda}$.
The {\it bar involution} on ${\mathcal H}$ can be extended to the quantum Schur superalgebra
\begin{equation}\label{bar on S}
\bar{\ }:{\mathcal S}(m|n,r)\longrightarrow {\mathcal S}(m|n,r) \text{ satisfying }\bar{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}, \overline{{\varphi}_A}=\sum_{B\leq A}r_{B,A}{\varphi}_B,
\end{equation}
where $r_{B,A}$ is defined by $\overline{\mathcal{T}_A}=\sum_{B\leq A}r_{B,A}\mathcal T_B$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{hatA}
[A]=(-1)^{\widehat A}{\varphi}_A\quad\text{ where }\widehat A=\sum_{\substack{m<k<i\leq m+n\\1\leq j<l\leq m+n}}a_{i,j}a_{k,l}.
\end{equation}
Recall from \cite[\S8]{DR} that the ${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}$-Schur superalgebra ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$ can also be defined as the endomorphism algebra ${\text{\rm End}}_{{\mathcal H}}(V(m|n)^{\otimes r})$ of the tensor space $V(m|n)^{\otimes r}$; see Corollary 8.4 there. Here $V(m|n)$ is a free ${\mathcal Z}$-module of rank $m+n$ with basis $v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_{m+n}$, where $v_1,v_2,\cdots,v_m$ are even and $v_{m+1},\cdots,v_{m+n}$ are odd. Its tensor product $V(m|n)^{\otimes r}$ has the basis
$\{v_{\boldsymbol i}:=v_{i_1}\otimes v_{i_2}\otimes\cdots \otimes v_{i_r}\}_{{\boldsymbol i}\in I(m|n,r)}$ where
$$I(m|n,r)=\{{\boldsymbol i}=(i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_r)\mid 1\leq
i_j\leq m+n,\forall j\}.$$
The place
permutation (right) action of the symmetric group ${\mathfrak S}_r$ acts on $I(m|n, r)$ induces right ${\mathcal H}$-module structure on $V(m|n)^{\otimes r}$; see \cite[(1.1.1)]{DG}.
For $A=\jmath(\lambda,d,\mu)\in M(m|n,r)$, let $\zeta_A\in{\text{\rm End}}_{{\mathcal H}}(V(m|n)^{\otimes r})$ be defined by
$$\zeta_A(v_\mu)=(v_\mu) N_{{\mathfrak S}_r,{\mathfrak S}^d_\lambda\cap {\mathfrak S}_\mu}(e_{\mu,\lambda
d})=\sum_{w\in\mathcal{D}_{{\lambda} d\cap\mu}\cap{\mathfrak S}_\mu}(-{\boldsymbol q})^{-l(w_1)}(v_{{\boldsymbol i}_{\lambda} d})T_w,$$
where $N_{{\mathfrak S}_r,{\mathfrak S}^d_\lambda\cap {\mathfrak S}_\mu}(e_{\mu,\lambda
d})$ is the relative norm defined in \cite[(1.1.2)]{DG}, $v_\mu=v_{{\boldsymbol i}_\mu}$ with
$$
{\boldsymbol i}_\mu=(\underbrace{1,\ldots,1}_{\mu_1},\underbrace{2,\ldots,2}_{\mu_2},\ldots,\underbrace{m+n,\ldots,m+n}_{\mu_{m+n}})=(1^{{\lambda}_1},2^{{\lambda}_2},\ldots,(m+n)^{{\lambda}_{m+n}})$$
and $w_1$ is an ``odd'' component of $w=w_0w_1$ with $w_i\in{\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(i)}}$.
Following \cite[(4.2.1)]{DG}, let
\begin{equation}
{\xi}_A={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-d(A)}\zeta_A\quad\text{where }d(A)=\sum_{i>k,j<l}a_{i,j}a_{k,l}+\sum_{j<l}(-1)^{\widehat{i}}a_{i,j}a_{i,l}.
\end{equation}
We have the following identification between the bases $\{[A]\}$ and $\{\xi_A\}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{DRB-DHB} By identifying ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$ with ${\text{\rm End}}_{{\mathcal H}}(V(m|n)^{\otimes r})$ under the isomorphism given in
\cite[Cor.~8.4]{DR}, we have ${\xi}_A=[A]=(-1)^{\widehat A}{\varphi}_A$ for all $A\in M(m|n,r)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By \cite[Prop.8.3]{DR}, the map $f: V_R(m|n)^{\otimes r} \rightarrow{\mathfrak T}_R(m|n,r)$ sending $(-1)^{\widehat{d}}v_{{\boldsymbol i}_\lambda d}$ to $x_{\lambda^{(0)}}y_{\lambda^{(1)}}T_d$, for any $\lambda\in\Lambda(m|n,r)$ and $d\in \mathcal{D}_\lambda$, is an $\mathcal{H}$-module isomorphism. Here $\widehat d=\sum_{k=1}^{r-1}\sum_{k<l,i_k>i_l}\widehat{i_k}\widehat{i_l}$ for ${\boldsymbol i}={\boldsymbol i}_{\lambda} d$. It is direct to check that $\phi_A\circ f=(-1)^{\widehat{d}}f\circ\zeta_A$
Now, for $A\in M(m|n,r)$ with $A=\jmath(\lambda, d,\mu)$, we have by Remark \cite[Remark 4.3]{DG}, $d(A)=l(d^*)-l(^*d)+l(d)-l(w_{0,\mu^{(0)}})+l(w_{0,\mu^{(1)}})$ and, by \cite[Lem.~2.3]{DG}, $\widehat A=\widehat d$. The assertion follows immediately.
\end{proof}
In \cite{DR}, a canonical basis $\{\Theta_A\}_{A}$ is constructed relative to the basis $\{{\varphi}_A\}_A$ and the bar involution defined in \cite[Th.~6.3]{DR}. By the lemma above, the canonical basis $\{\Xi_A\}_{A}$ relative to the basis $\{[A]\}_A$ and the same bar involution can be similarly defined.
\begin{corollary}\label{basis Xi} Let $\mathscr C_r=\{\Xi_A\mid A\in M(m|n,r)\}$ (resp., $\{\Theta_A\mid A\in M(m|n,r)\}$) be the canonical basis defined relative to basis $\{[A]\}_A$ (resp., $\{{\varphi}_A\}_A$), the bar involution \eqref{bar on S}, and the Bruhat order $\leq$. Then $\Xi_A=(-1)^{\widehat A}\Theta_A$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}Since $\{\Xi_A\}_{A}$ (resp., $\{\Theta_A\}_{A}$) is the unique basis satisfying $\overline{\Xi_A}=\Xi_A$ (resp., $\overline{\Theta_A}=\Theta_A$) and
$$\Xi_A-[A]\in\sum_{B< A}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}{\mathbb Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}][B]\quad (\text{resp., }\Theta_A-{\varphi}_A\in\sum_{B< A}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}{\mathbb Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}]{\varphi}_B).$$
If we write $\Theta_A={\varphi}_A +\sum_{B< A}p_{B,A}{\varphi}_B$, then, by the lemma above,
$$(-1)^{\widehat A}\Theta_A=[A]+ \sum_{B< A}(-1)^{\widehat A+\widehat B}p_{B,A}[B]\text{ and }\overline{(-1)^{\widehat A}\Theta_A}=(-1)^{\widehat A}\Theta_A.$$
The uniqueness forces $\Xi_A=(-1)^{\widehat A}\Theta_A$.
\end{proof}
We will discuss a PBW type basis for ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$ at the end of \S5.
\section{Multiplication formulas and a stabilisation property}
We first record the following multiplication formulas discovered in \cite[Props.~4.4-5]{DG}.
For a fixed matrix $A\in M( m|n,r)$, $h\in[1,m+n)$ and $p\geq 1$, let
\begin{equation}\label{UL}
\aligned
U_p=U_p(h,{\rm ro}(A))&=\operatorname{diag}({\rm ro}(A)-p{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1})+pE_{h,h+1}\in M(m|n,r)\\
L_p=L_p(h,{\rm ro}(A))&=\operatorname{diag}({\rm ro}(A)-p{\boldsymbol e}_{h})+pE_{h+1,h}\in M(m|n,r).\endaligned
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}\label{integral basis multiplication}Maintain the notation above. The
following multiplication formulas hold in the ${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}$-Schur
superalgebra $\mathcal{S}(m|n,r)$ over $\mathcal{Z}$:
\noindent
If {\bf $\boldsymbol{h\neq m}$}, then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1$^+$)] $[U_p][A]=\sum_{\substack{\nu\in\Lambda(m|n,p)\\\nu\leq
{\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A)}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop\nu_k\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}
[A+\sum_l\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})],$\\
\item[(1$^-$)]$[L_p][A]=\sum_{\substack{\nu\in\Lambda(m|n,p)\\\nu\leq
{\text{\rm row}}_{h}(A)}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_{h+1}^{g_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[a_{h+1,k}+\nu_k\atop\nu_k\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_{h+1}^2}
[A-\sum_l\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})],$
\end{itemize}
where ${\lambda}\leq\mu\iff {\lambda}_i\leq\mu_i\;\forall i$,
\begin{equation}\label{beta_h1}
\aligned
f_h(\nu,A)&=\sum_{j\geq
t}a_{h,j}\nu_t-\sum_{j>t}a_{h+1,j}\nu_t+\sum_{t<t'}\nu_t\nu_{t'},\text{ and }\\
g_h(\nu,A)&=\sum_{j\leq
t}a_{h+1,j}\nu_t-\sum_{j<t}a_{h,j}\nu_t+\sum_{t<t'}\nu_t\nu_{t'}.\endaligned
\end{equation}
\noindent
If {\bf$\boldsymbol{h= m}$}, then $[U_p][A]=0=[L_p][A]$ for all $p>1$ and
$$\aligned
(2^+)\; [U_1][A]&=\sum_{\substack{k\in[1,m+n]\\ a_{m+1,k}\geq
1}}(-1)^{\sum_{i>m,j<k}a_{i,j}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_m^{f_m({\boldsymbol e}_k,A)}\overline{[\![a_{m,k}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2_m}[A+E_{m,k}-E_{m+1,k}];\\
(2^-)\; [L_1][A]&=\sum_{\substack{k\in[1,m+n]\\ a_{m,k}\geq
1}}(-1)^{\sum_{i>m,j<k}a_{i,j}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_{m+1}^{g_m({\boldsymbol e}_k,A)}\overline{[\![a_{m+1,k}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2_{m+1}}[A-E_{m,k}+E_{m+1,k}],\endaligned$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{beta_m gamma_m}
f_m({\boldsymbol e}_k,A)=\sum_{j\geq k}a_{m,j}+\sum_{j>k}a_{m+1,j}\text{ and }
g_m({\boldsymbol e}_k,A)=\sum_{j\leq
k}a_{m+1,j}+\sum_{j<k}a_{m,j}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
We now describe a stabilisation property from these formulas which is the key to a realisation of the supergroup ${\mathbf U}({\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n}})$.
For $A=(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n,r)$, let
\begin{equation}\label{signAbar}
\bar{A}=\sum_{\substack{m+n\geq i> m\geq k\geq1
\\m<j<l\leq m+n}}a_{i,j}a_{k,l}.
\end{equation}
Note that this number is different from the number $\widehat A$ defined in \eqref{hatA}.
Consider the set of matrices with zero diagonal:
$$M(m|n)^\pm=\{A=(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n)\mid a_{i,i}=0,
1\leq i\leq m+n\}.$$
Define $M(m|n)^+$ (resp., $M(m|n)^-$) as the subset of upper (resp., lower) triangular elements in $M(m|n)^\pm$.
For $A\in M_{m+n}({\mathbb Z})$ and
${\boldsymbol j}=(j_1,j_2,\cdots,j_{m+n})\in\mathbb{Z}^{m+n}$, define
\begin{equation}\label{Ajr}
A({\boldsymbol j},r)=\begin{cases}\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in\Lambda(m|n,r-|A|)}}(-1)^{\overline{A+\operatorname{diag}(\lambda)}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{\lambda\centerdot{\boldsymbol j}}[{A+\operatorname{diag}(\lambda})],&\text{ if }A\in M(m|n)^\pm,|A|\leq r;\\
0,&\text{ otherwise,}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\centerdot=\centerdot_s$ denotes the super (or signed) ``dot product'':
\begin{equation}\label{dot product}
\lambda\centerdot{\boldsymbol j}=\sum_{i=1}^{m+n}(-1)^{\widehat{i}}\lambda_ij_i={\lambda}_1j_1+\cdots+{\lambda}_mj_m-{\lambda}_{m+1}j_{m+1}-\cdots-{\lambda}_{m+n}j_{m+n}.
\end{equation}
We have the following stabilisation property.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[5.3, 5.6]{DG}}] \label{DGMF}
For all $r\geq0$, the set
$$\mathcal L_r=\{A({\boldsymbol j},r)\mid A\in M(m|n)^\pm,{\boldsymbol j}\in\mathbb{Z}^{m+n}\}$$ spans the ${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}$-Schur superalgebra ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$ over $\mathbb Q({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$. Moreover, $E_{h,h+1}({\mathbf 0},r)A({\boldsymbol j},r)$ and $E_{h+1,h}({\mathbf 0},r)A({\boldsymbol j},r)$ can be written as a linear combination of certain (linearly independent) elements of $\mathcal L_r$ with coefficients independent of $r$ for all $r\geq|A|$.
\end{proposition}
We write explicitly a special case of these multiplication formulas.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[6.2]{DG}}]\label{integral generators} For fixed $A=(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n)^+$ and $1\leq h<m+n$, let
\begin{equation}\label{sigmaf}
\aligned\sigma(k)&=\sigma_{A}(k):=\sum_{i\leq m,j>k}a_{i,j}\\
f(h,k)&=f_{A}(h,k):=\sum_{j\geq k}a_{h,j}-(-1)^{\delta_{m,h}}\sum_{j>k}a_{h+1,j},\endaligned \qquad(1\leq k\leq m+n).
\end{equation}
The following multiplication formulas hold in ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$ for all $r\geq |A|$:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
E_{h,h+1}(\mathbf{0},r)&A(\mathbf{0},r)=(-1)^{\sigma(h+1)\delta_{h,m}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f(h,h+1)}\overline{[\![a_{h,h+1}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2_h}(A+E_{h,h+1})(\mathbf{0},r)\\
&\!\!\!\!\!+\sum_{k>h+1,a_{h+1,k}\geq
1}(-1)^{\sigma(k)\delta_{h,m}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f(h,k)}\overline{[\![a_{h,k}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^2_h}(A+E_{h,k}-E_{h+1,k})(\mathbf{0},r);\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
We now generalise this property to the higher order situation. By Proposition \ref{integral basis multiplication}(2$^\pm$), we only need to consider the $h\neq m$ case.
\begin{lemma}\label{pEA}
Let $A=(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n)^+$ and $h\in[1,m+n]$ with $h\neq m$ and let $p$ be any positive integer. Then, for all $r\geq|A|$, the following multiplication formula holds in ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$:
$$(pE_{h,h+1})({\bf0},r)A({\bf0},r)=\sum_{\nu\in\Lambda (m|n,p)\atop \nu-\nu_{h+1}{\bf e}_{h+1}\leq {\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A)}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}A^{[\nu]}({\bf0},r),$$
where $f_h(\nu,A)$ is defined in \eqref{beta_h1} and
$A^{[\nu]}=A+\nu_{h+1}E_{h,h+1}+\sum_{l\neq h+1}\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l}).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For notational simplicity, let
$${\Lambda}':=\Lambda(m|n,r-|A|)\text{ and }A^\mu=(a_{i,j}^\mu):=A+\operatorname{diag}(\mu)\;\;\forall \mu\in {\Lambda}'.$$
By definition and Proposition \ref{integral basis multiplication}, the left hand side becomes
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\text{LHS}&=\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda(m|n,r-p)}[{pE_{h,h+1}+\operatorname{diag}(\lambda})]\sum_{\mu\in{\Lambda}'}(-1)^{\overline{A^\mu}}[{A^\mu}]\\
&=\sum_{\mu\in{\Lambda}'}(-1)^{\overline{A^\mu}}\sum_{\substack{\nu\in\Lambda(m|n,p)\\\nu\leq{\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A^\mu)}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A^\mu)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a^\mu_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}[{A^\mu+\sum_{l}\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})}]\\
&=\sum_{\mu\in {\Lambda}'}\sum_{\substack{\nu\in\Lambda(m|n,p)\\\nu\leq{\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A^\mu)}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}(-1)^{\overline{A^\mu}}[{A^\mu+\sum_{l}\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})}],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where the last equality is seen as follows. Since $A\in M(m|n)^+$, the first $h$ entries of ${\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A^\mu)$ are zero. Hence,
$\nu=(\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_h,\nu_{h+1},\ldots)$. Thus,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
f_h(\nu,A^\mu)&=\sum_{j\geq t}a^\mu_{h,j}\nu_t-\sum_{j>t}a^\mu_{h+1,j}\nu_t+\sum_{t<t'}\nu_t\nu_{t'}\\
&=\sum_{j\geq t>h}a^\mu_{h,j}\nu_t-\sum_{j>t>h}a^\mu_{h+1,j}\nu_t+\sum_{t<t'}\nu_t\nu_{t'}\\
&=\sum_{j\geq t>h}a_{h,j}\nu_t-\sum_{j>t>h}a_{h+1,j}\nu_t+\sum_{t<t'}\nu_t\nu_{t'}=f_h(\nu,A)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
and
$$\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a^\mu_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}
=\prod_{k>h}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}
=\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}.$$
Let ${\Lambda}''(\mu)=\{\nu\in{\Lambda}(m|n,p)\mid \nu\leq{\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A^\mu)\}$. Then, for $p'=\min(p,r-|A|)$,
$${\mathcal X}:=\{(\mu,\nu)\mid\mu\in{\Lambda}',\nu\in{\Lambda}''(\mu)\}=\bigcup_{a=0}^{p'}{\mathcal X}_a,$$
where the union is disjoint and
$${\mathcal X}_a=\{(\mu,\nu)\in{\mathcal X}\mid\nu_{h+1}=a\}=\{(\mu,\nu)\mid \mu\in {\Lambda}', \mu_{h+1}\geq a,\nu\in{\Lambda}''(\mu),\nu_{h+1}=a\}.$$
Clearly there is a bijection between sets
$$\{\nu\in{\Lambda}''(\mu)\mid \nu_{h+1}=a\}\text{ and }\{\nu'\in{\Lambda}(m|n,p-a)\mid\nu'\leq{\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A)\},$$
where $\nu'=\nu-\nu_{h+1}{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1}=(\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{h+1},\nu_{h+1},\ldots)$.
Moreover, since $h\neq m$, by \eqref{signAbar},
$$\overline{A^\mu}=\overline{A^\mu+\sum_l\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})}=\overline{A^{[\nu]}+\operatorname{diag}({\lambda}-\mu_{h+1}{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1})}.$$
Continuing our computation by swapping the summations yields
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\text{LHS}
&=\sum_{a=0}^{p'}\sum_{(\mu,\nu)\in{\mathcal X}_a}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}(-1)^{\overline{A^\mu}}[{A^\mu+\sum_{l}\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})}]\\
&=\sum_{a=0}^{p'}\sum_{\mu\in{\Lambda}',\atop \mu_{h+1}\geq a}\sum_{\nu'\in\Lambda(m|n,p-a)\atop \nu'\leq {\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A)}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}(-1)^{\overline{A^\mu}}\\
&\quad\,\cdot[{A^\mu+a(E_{h,h+1}-E_{h+1,h+1})+\sum_{l\neq h+1}\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})}],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\nu=\nu'+a{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1}$,
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
\text{\qquad\;}&=\sum_{a=0}^{p'}\sum_{\nu'\in\Lambda(m|n,p-a),\atop\nu'\leq {\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A)}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}\\
&\,\quad\cdot\sum_{\mu\in{\Lambda}'\atop \mu_{h+1}\geq a}(-1)^{\overline{A^\mu}}[{A+aE_{h,h+1}+\sum_{l\neq h+1}\nu_l(E_{h,l}-E_{h+1,l})}+\operatorname{diag}(\mu-a{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1})]\\
&=\sum_{\nu\in\Lambda (m|n,p)\atop \nu-\nu_{h+1}{\bf e}_{h+1}\leq {\text{\rm row}}_{h+1}(A)}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_h(\nu,A)}\prod_{k=1}^{m+n}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[{a_{h,k}+\nu_k\atop \nu_k}\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^2}A^{[\nu]}({\bf0},r)=\text{RHS}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{The realisation of a PBW basis for ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$}
We now use the stabilisation property developed in Lemmas \ref{integral generators} and \ref{pEA} to give a realisation of the Lusztig form $U_{\mathcal Z}^\pm(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ of the $\pm$-parts of
${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ and introduce the canonical basis for $U_{\mathcal Z}^\pm(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$. We first recall the realisation of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ via the stabilisation property mentioned in Proposition \ref{DGMF}.
Recall also the definition of the super commutator on homogeneous elements of a superalgebra with parity function $\widehat\ \,$:
$$[X,Y]=XY-(-1)^{\widehat X\widehat Y}YX.$$
\begin{definition}[\cite{Z}] \label{sgroup}The quantum supergroup
${\mathbf U}={\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ is the superalgebra over $\mathbb Q({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$ with
$$\aligned
\text{even generators:}\;&{\mathsf K}_a,{\mathsf K}_a^{-1}, {\mathsf E}_{h},{\mathsf F}_{h},\;1\leq a,h\leq m+n,h\neq m,m+n,\text{ and }\\
\text{odd generators:}\;&{\mathsf E}_{m}, {\mathsf F}_{m}\\
\endaligned$$
which satisfy the following relations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(QS1)] ${\mathsf K}_a{\mathsf K}_a^{-1}=1,{\mathsf K}_a{\mathsf K}_b={\mathsf K}_b{\mathsf K}_a;$
\item[(QS2)] ${\mathsf K}_a
{\mathsf E}_{h}={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{{\boldsymbol e}_a\centerdot_s\alpha_h}{\mathsf E}_{h}{\mathsf K}_a,
{\mathsf K}_a{\mathsf F}_{h}={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-{\boldsymbol e}_a\centerdot_s\alpha_h}{\mathsf F}_{h}{\mathsf K}_a;$
\item[(QS3)]
$[{\mathsf E}_{h},{\mathsf F}_{k}]=\delta_{h,k}\frac{{\mathsf K}_{h}{\mathsf K}_{h+1}^{-1}-{\mathsf K}_{h}^{-1}{\mathsf K}_{h+1}}{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{-1}},$
\item[(QS4)] ${\mathsf E}_{h}{\mathsf E}_{k}={\mathsf E}_{k}{\mathsf E}_{h},
{\mathsf F}_{h}{\mathsf F}_{k}={\mathsf F}_{k}{\mathsf F}_{h},$ if $|k-h|>1;$
\item[(QS5)] For $h\neq m$ and $|h-k|=1$,
$$\aligned&{\mathsf E}^2_{h}{\mathsf E}_{k}-({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{-1}){\mathsf E}_{h}{\mathsf E}_{k}{\mathsf E}_{h}+{\mathsf E}_{k}{\mathsf E}^2_{h}=0,\\
&{\mathsf F}_{h}^2{\mathsf F}_{k}-({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{-1}){\mathsf F}_{h}{\mathsf E}_{k}{\mathsf F}_{h}+{\mathsf F}_{k}{\mathsf F}_{h}^2=0,
\endaligned$$
\item[(QS6)] ${\mathsf E}_{m}^2={\mathsf F}_{m}^2=[{\mathsf E}_{m},{\mathsf E}_{m-1,m+2}]=[{\mathsf F}_{m},{\mathsf E}_{m+2,m-1}]=0$, where
${\mathsf E}_{m-1,m+2}$, ${\mathsf E}_{m+2,m-1}$ denote respectively the elements
$$\aligned
&{\mathsf E}_{m-1}{\mathsf E}_{m}{\mathsf E}_{m+1}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}{\mathsf E}_{m-1}{\mathsf E}_{m+1}{\mathsf E}_{m}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}{\mathsf E}_{m}{\mathsf E}_{m+1}{\mathsf E}_{m-1}+{\mathsf E}_{m+1}{\mathsf E}_{m}{\mathsf E}_{m-1},\\
&{\mathsf F}_{m+1}{\mathsf F}_{m}{\mathsf F}_{m-1}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}{\mathsf F}_{m}{\mathsf F}_{m+1}{\mathsf F}_{m-1}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}{\mathsf F}_{m-1}{\mathsf F}_{m+1}{\mathsf F}_{m}+{\mathsf F}_{m-1}{\mathsf F}_{m}{\mathsf F}_{m+1}.
\endaligned$$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Clearly, ${\mathbf U}$ admits a ${\mathbb Q}({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$-algebra anti-involution (i.e., anti-automorphism of order two):
\begin{equation}\label{tau}
\tau:{\mathbf U}\longrightarrow{\mathbf U},\quad {\mathsf E}_h\longmapsto{\mathsf F}_h,{\mathsf F}_h\longmapsto{\mathsf E}_h,{\mathsf K}_i^{\pm1}\longmapsto{\mathsf K}_i^{\pm1}.
\end{equation}
The {\it quantum root vectors} ${\mathsf E}_{a,b}$,
for $a,b\in[1,m+n]$ with $|a-b|\geq 1$, are defined by recursively setting ${\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}={\mathsf E}_h,{\mathsf E}_{h+1,h}={\mathsf F}_h,$ and
\begin{equation}\label{qbrackets}
{\mathsf E}_{a,b}=\begin{cases}
{\mathsf E}_{a,c}{\mathsf E}_{c,b}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}_c{\mathsf E}_{c,b}{\mathsf E}_{a,c}, &\mbox{ if } a<b;\\
{\mathsf E}_{a,c}{\mathsf E}_{c,b}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_c{\mathsf E}_{c,b}{\mathsf E}_{a,c}, &\mbox{ if } a>b,\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $c$ can be taken to be an arbitrary index strictly between $a$ and $b$, and ${\mathsf E}_{a,b}$ is homogeneous of degree $\widehat E_{a,b}:=\widehat{a}+\widehat{b}$ . We remarks that $\tau$ does not send the positive root vector to negative root vectors, i.e., $\tau({\mathsf E}_{a,b})\neq {\mathsf E}_{b,a}$ for all $a+1<b$.
Let $\Pi=\{{\alpha}_h={\boldsymbol e}_h-{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1}\mid 1\leq h\leq m+n\}$. Then ${\mathbf U}$ has a natural grading over ${\mathbb Z}\Pi$:
\begin{equation}\label{grading}
{\mathbf U}=\bigoplus_{\nu\in{\mathbb Z}\Pi}{\mathbf U}_\nu
\end{equation}
such that ${\mathsf K}_i\in{\mathbf U}_0,{\mathsf E}_h\in{\mathbf U}_{{\alpha}_i}$ and ${\mathsf F}_h\in{\mathbf U}_{-{\alpha}_i}.$ We will write ${\text{gd}}(x)=\nu$ if $x\in{\mathbf U}_\nu$, called the {\it graded degree} of $x$.
Consider the subspace ${\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n)$ of the ${\mathbb Q}({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$-algebra
$${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n):=\prod_{r\geq0}{\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$$ spanned by the linear independent set
$$\{A({\boldsymbol j}):=\sum_{r\geq0} A({\boldsymbol j},r)\mid A\in M(m|n)^\pm,{\boldsymbol j}\in\mathbb{Z}^{m+n}\}.$$
By \cite[Ths.~9.1\&9.4]{DG} (deduced from Proposition~\ref{DGMF}), ${\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n)$ is a subalgebra isomorphic to ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$. Moreover, there is an algebra isomorphism given by
\begin{equation}\label{eta}
\eta:{\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})\longrightarrow{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n);
{\mathsf E}_h\mapsto E_{h,h+1}(\mathbf{0}),\;
{\mathsf F}_h\mapsto E_{h+1,h}(\mathbf{0}),\;{\mathsf K}_i^{\pm1}\mapsto O(\pm{\boldsymbol e}_i).
\end{equation}
Let $U_{\mathcal Z}^+=U_{\mathcal Z}^+(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ be the ${\mathcal Z}$-subalgebra of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ generated by all divided powers ${\mathsf E}_h^{(l)}:=\frac{{\mathsf E}_h^l}{[l]_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}^!}$, where $l\geq 1$ for all $h\neq m$. We have the following realisation of $U_{\mathcal Z}^+$.
\begin{theorem} \label{A(0) basis}The ${\mathcal Z}$-submodule ${\mathfrak A}_{\mathcal Z}^+$ spanned by
$$\mathscr B=\{A({\mathbf 0})\mid A\in M(m|n)^+\}$$ is a subalgebra of ${\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n)$ which is isomorphic to $U_{\mathcal Z}^+$. In other words, we have $\eta(U_{\mathcal Z}^+)={\mathfrak A}_{\mathcal Z}^+$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The proof is somewhat standard; see e.g.,\cite[Th.~9.1]{DG}. Let ${\mathfrak A}_1^+$ be the ${\mathcal Z}$-subalgebra generated by $(lE_{h,h+1})({\mathbf 0})$ for all $l>0$ and $h\in[1,m+n)$ ($l=1$ if $h=m$). Then, by Lemmas \ref{integral generators} and \ref{pEA}, ${\mathfrak A}_1^+\subseteq{\mathfrak A}_{\mathcal Z}^+$.
Further, by Lemma \ref{pEA}, the triangular relation \cite[(9.1.1)]{DG} can be taken over ${\mathcal Z}$ (see \eqref{monomial} below). In particular, we can use this relation to prove that
${\mathfrak A}^+_{\mathcal Z}\subseteq{\mathfrak A}_1^+$.
\end{proof}
{\it We will identify ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ and $U_{\mathcal Z}^+$ with ${\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n)$ and $\mathfrak A_{\mathcal Z}^+$, respectively, under $\eta$ in the sequel.}
We now take a closer look at the triangular relation mentioned in the proof. The order relation involved in the triangular relation is the following relation: for $A=(a_{i,j}),A'=(a'_{i,j})\in M(m|n)$,
\begin{equation}\label{prec}
A'\preceq A\iff
\begin{cases}
(1)\quad \sum_{i\leq s,j\geq t}a'_{i,j}\leq \sum_{i\leq
s,j\geq t}a_{i,j},&\text{for all $s<t$};\\
(2)\quad \sum_{i\geq s,j\leq t}a'_{i,j}\leq \sum_{i\geq
s,j\leq t}a_{i,j},&\text{for all $s>t$.}\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Note that this definition is independent of the diagonal entries of a matrix. So $\preceq$ is not a partial order on $M(m|n)$. However, its restriction to $M(m|n)^\pm$ is a partial order. In particular, we have posets $(M(m|n)^+,\preceq)$ and $(M(m|n)^-,\preceq)$.
Moreover, the following is taken from
\cite[Lem.~3.6(1)]{BLM} (see also \cite[Lem.~13.20,13.21]{DDPW}): for $A,B\in M(m|n,r)$,
\begin{equation}\label{prec order}
A\leq B\,(\text{the Bruhat order})\implies A\preceq B.
\end{equation}
We may also introduce another partial order $\preceq_{{\rm rc}}$ on $M(m|n,r)$ defined by\footnote{This order relation is denoted by $\sqsubseteq$ in \cite{BLM}.}
\begin{equation}\label{prec rc}
X\preceq_{{\rm rc}} Y\iff {\rm ro}(X)={\rm ro}(Y), {\rm co}(X)={\rm co}(Y),\text{ and }X\preceq Y.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark} \label{Xi relative to order rc}
Since $X\leq Y\implies X\preceq_{{\rm rc}} Y\implies X\preceq Y$, the canonical bases $\{\Xi_A\mid A\in M(m|n,r)\}$ defined in Corollary \ref{basis Xi} can also be defined relative to the basis $\{[A]\}_A$, the bar involution and the order $\preceq_{\rm rc}$.
\end{remark}
For any $A=(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n)^\pm$ and ${\boldsymbol j}\in\mathbb{Z}^{m+n}$, we have the following triangular relation in the ${\mathbb Q}({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$-algebra
${\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n)$
$$\prod^{(\leq_2)}_{i,h,j}(a_{j,i}E_{h+1,h})(\mathbf{0})\cdot \prod^{(\leq_1)}_{i,h,j}(a_{i,j}E_{h,h+1})(\mathbf{0})=A({\mathbf 0})+\sum_{\substack{B\in M(m|n)^\pm,{\boldsymbol j}\in{\mathbb Z}^{m+n}\\B\prec A}}g_{B,A,{\boldsymbol j}}B({\boldsymbol j}),$$
where $i,h,j$ satisfy $1\leq i\leq h<j\leq m+n$ and the products follow the orders $\leq_i$ which are defined as in \cite[(13.7.1)]{DDPW}. In particular, by Lemma \ref{pEA}, a single product for $A\in M(m|n)^+$ can be simplified as
\begin{equation}\label{monomial}
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_A:= \prod^{(\leq_1)}_{1\leq i\leq h<j\leq m+n}(a_{i,j}E_{h,h+1})(\mathbf{0})=A({\bf0})+\sum_{B\in M(m|n)^+,B\prec A}g_{B,A}B({\bf0}),
\end{equation}
where $g_{B,A}\in{\mathcal Z}$. Then, applying the anti-involution $\tau$ in \eqref{tau} yields
\begin{equation}\label{mon-}
{{\mathfrak m}}^{-}_{A^t}:=\tau({{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_A)=\prod^{(\leq_1^{\text{op}})}_{i,h,j}(a_{i,j}E_{h+1,h})(\mathbf{0}).
\end{equation}
\begin{corollary}\label{monomial basis}
The set $\{{\mathfrak m}^{+}_A\mid A\in M(m|n)^+\}$ (resp., $\{{\mathfrak m}^{-}_A\mid A\in M(m|n)^-\}$) forms a ${\mathcal Z}$-basis, {\sf a monomial basis}, for $U^+_{\mathcal Z}$ (resp., $U^-_{\mathcal Z}$).
\end{corollary}
We end this section by showing that the basis $\mathscr B=\{A({\mathbf 0})\mid A\in M(m|n)^+\}$ identifies a PBW basis for $U^+_{\mathcal Z}$.
For a root vector ${\mathsf E}_{k,l}$ with $k<l$ and $p>0$, if ${\mathsf E}_{k,l}^{p}\neq 0$ define the usual divided powers ${\mathsf E}_{k,l}^{(p)}=\frac{{\mathsf E}_{k,l}^p}{[p]_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_k}^!}$. If we order linearly the set
$$\mathcal{J}'=\{(i,j)\mid 1\leq i<j\leq m+n\}$$ by setting,
for $(i,j),(i',j')\in \mathcal{J}'$, $(i,j)<_3 (i',j')$ if and only if
$j> j'$ or $j=j',i>i' $, and use the order to define, for any $A=(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n)^+$, the product and its `transpose'
\begin{equation}\label{E_A}
{\mathsf E}_{A}=\prod_{(i,j)\in \mathcal{J}'}^{(\leq_3)}{\mathsf E}_{i,j}^{(a_{i,j})}\;\text{ and }\;{\mathsf F}_{A^t}=\tau({\mathsf E}_A).
\end{equation}
then the set $\{{\mathsf E}_{A}\mid A\in M(m|n)^+\}$ (resp. $\{{\mathsf F}_{A}\mid A\in M(m|n)^-\}$) forms a PBW basis of $U_{\mathcal Z}^+$ (resp., $U_{\mathcal Z}^-$). We now prove that this basis is nothing but the same basis given in Theorem \ref{A(0) basis}.
For any $A\in M(m|n)$, set $$\|A\|=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq m+n}\frac{(j-i)(j-i+1)}{2}(a_{i,j}+a_{j,i}).$$
Refer to \cite[Lem. 13.21]{DDPW}, for $A,B\in M(m|n)$,
$$B\prec A\implies \|B\|<\|A\| \;(\mbox{and } B\preceq A\implies \|B\|\leq \|A\|).$$
\begin{theorem}\label{PBW basis}
For any $A\in M(m|n)^+$, we have
${\mathsf E}_{A}=A({\bf0})$. In other words, with the isomorphism $\eta$ given in \eqref{eta}, we have $\eta({\mathsf E}_A)=A({\mathbf 0}).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $A=(a_{i,j})$.
We apply induction on $\|A\|$ to prove the assertion. If $\|A\|=1$, then $A$ must be of the form $E_{i,i+1}$ for some
$1\leq i<m+n$. Thus, this case is clear from the definition of $\eta$. So
${\mathsf E}_{i,i+1}=(E_{i,i+1})({\bf0}),$ as desired.
Assume now $\|A\|>1$ and that, for any $B\in M(m|n)^+$ with $\|B\|<\|A\|$, ${\mathsf E}_{B}=B({\bf0})$.
Consider the entries of $A$ and choose $1\leq h<l\leq m+n$ such that $a_{h,l}>0$ and $a_{i,j}=0$ for all $j>l$ or $i>h$ whenever $j=l$. In other words, ${\mathsf E}_{h,l}^{(a_{h,l})}$ is the first factor in the product ${\mathsf E}_A$. Then, by the definition,
$${\mathsf E}_{A}=\frac{1}{[a_{h,l}]_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}}{\mathsf E}_{h,l}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}.$$
Since $A-E_{h,l}\prec A$, $\|A-E_{h,l}\|<\|A\|$. By induction, we have ${\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}=(A-E_{h,l})({\bf0})$ and also ${\mathsf E}_{h,l}=E_{h,l}({\mathbf 0})$.
There are two cases to consider.
{\bf Case 1: $l=h+1$.} For this case, we directly use the multiplication formula given in Lemma \ref{integral generators}. By the selection of indices $h,l$, all $a_{h+1,j}=0=a_{h,j}$ if $j>h+1=l$. Thus, by \eqref{sigmaf}, $f_{A-E_{h,h+1}}(h,h+1)=a_{h,h+1}-1$. So
\begin{equation*}
{\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,h+1}}=(E_{h,h+1})({\bf0})(A-E_{h,h+1})({\bf0})={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a_{h,h+1}-1}_h\overline{[\![a_{h,h+1}]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}A({\bf0}).
\end{equation*}
But then
${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a_{h,h+1}-1}_h\overline{[\![a_{h,h+1}]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}=[a_{h,h+1}]_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}$. Hence,
${\mathsf E}_{A}=A({\bf0})$, as desired.
{\bf Case 2: $l>h+1$.} In this case, write ${\mathsf E}_{h,l}={\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}_{h+1}{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}$.
Since $A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l}\prec A$, by induction,
\begin{equation}\label{EEA0}
{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}={\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l}}=(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l})({\bf0})
\end{equation}
and, on the other hand,
\begin{equation}\label{EEA2}
\begin{split}
{\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}&{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}=(E_{h,h+1})({\bf0})(A-E_{h,l})({\bf0})\\
&=(-1)^{\sigma_{A-E_{h,l}}(h+1)\delta_{h,m}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_{A-E_{h,l}}(h,h+1)}\overline{[\![a_{h,h+1}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1})({\bf0})\\
&+\sum_{a_{h+1,j}\geq 1}(-1)^{\sigma_{A-E_{h,l}}(j)\delta_{h,m}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_{A-E_{h,l}}(h,j)}\overline{[\![a_{h,j}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j})({\bf0}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Now multiplying \eqref{EEA0} by ${\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}$ and applying Lemma \ref{integral generators} yields
\begin{equation}\label{EEA1}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}&{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}=(E_{h,h+1})({\bf0})(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l})({\bf0})\\
&=(-1)^{\sigma(h+1)\delta_{h,m}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_{h}^{f(h,h+1)}\overline{[\![a_{h,h+1}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l}+E_{h,h+1})({\bf0})\\
&+\sum_{a_{h+1,j}\geq 1,j\neq l}(-1)^{\sigma(j)\delta_{h,m}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f(h,j)}\overline{[\![a_{h,j}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{a_{h,l}-1}\overline{[\![a_{h,l}]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}A({\bf0}),\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(k)=\sigma_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l}}(k)=\sigma_A(k)-\delta_{h,m}$ and $f(h,k)=f_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h+1,l}}(h,k)$.
We now compute multiplying \eqref{EEA2} by ${\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}$.
Note that, since $a_{h+1,j}=0$ for all $j\geq l$, the summation in \eqref{EEA2} is taken over all $j$ with $a_{h+1,j}\geq 1$ and $j<l$.
But $j<l$ implies
$$A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1}\prec A\text{ and }A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j}\prec A.$$
Thus, by induction,
$$\aligned
{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1}}&=(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1})({\bf0})\\
{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j}}&=(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j})({\bf0}).\endaligned
$$
Hence, by induction again,
$$\aligned
{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1}}&={\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1}+E_{h+1,l}}=(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1}+E_{h+1,l})({\bf0})\\
{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j}}&={\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j}+E_{h+1,l}}\\
&=(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j}+E_{h+1,l})({\bf0}),\\
\endaligned$$
since $A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1}+E_{h+1,l}\prec A$ and $A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j}+E_{h+1,l}\prec A.$
Thus, for ${\varepsilon}=\delta_{h,m}$,
\begin{equation}\label{EEA3}
\begin{aligned}
&{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}={\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}\cdot(\text{RHS of \eqref{EEA2}})\\
&=(-1)^{{\varepsilon}\sigma_{A-E_{h,l}}(h+1)}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_{A-E_{h,l}}(h,h+1)}\overline{[\![a_{h,h+1}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,h+1}+E_{h+1,l})({\bf0})\\
&+\sum_{a_{h+1,j}\geq 1}(-1)^{{\varepsilon}(\sigma_{A-E_{h,l}}(j))}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h^{f_{A-E_{h,l}}(h,j)}\overline{[\![a_{h,j}+1]\!]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}(A-E_{h,l}+E_{h,j}-E_{h+1,j}+E_{h+1,l})({\bf0}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Finally, since $$f(h,j)=f_{A-E_{h,l}}(h,j)-(-1)^{\varepsilon},$$ and $\sigma(j)-{\varepsilon}=\sigma_{A-E_{h,l}}(j)$ for $h=m$,
Combining \eqref{EEA1} and \eqref{EEA3} gives
\begin{equation*}
{\mathsf E}_{h,l}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}={\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}_{h+1}{\mathsf E}_{h+1,l}{\mathsf E}_{h,h+1}{\mathsf E}_{A-E_{h,l}}
=[a_{h,l}]_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_h}A({\bf0}),
\end{equation*}
proving ${\mathsf E}_{A}=A({\bf0})$.
\end{proof}
\section{Canonical basis for $U_{\mathcal Z}^\pm(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$}
We are now ready to introduce the canonical basis for $U^\pm_{\mathcal Z}$ via the PBW basis described in \eqref{E_A} and the partial order $\preceq$ used in the triangular relation \eqref{monomial}. We need another ingredient---a bar involution.
By Definition \ref{sgroup}, we may define the bar involution
\begin{equation}\label{bar on U}
\bar{\ }:{\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})\rightarrow{\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})\text{ with }\bar{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1},\bar{\mathsf E}_h={\mathsf E}_h,\bar{\mathsf F}_h={\mathsf F}_h, \bar{\mathsf K}_i^\pm={\mathsf K}_i^\mp.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark} \label{bar compatibility}
(1) If we denote $\flat$ to be the involution on the direct product ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n)=\prod_{r\geq0}{\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$ defined by baring on every component (see \eqref{bar on S}), then the restriction of $\flat$ to
${\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n)={\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ coincides with the bar involution on ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$. This can be seen as follows.
If $A=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda)$ or $\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})+E_{h,h+1}$, then $A$ is minimal under the Bruhat ordering. Thus, \eqref{bar on S} implies $\overline{[A]}=[A]$. Since $E_{h,h+1}({\bf0},r)=\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda(m|n,r-1)}[{E_{h,h+1}+\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})}]$ and $O({\boldsymbol e}_i,r)=\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{{\lambda}_i}[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]$, it follows that $\overline{E_{h,h+1}({\bf0},r)}=E_{h,h+1}({\bf0},r)$ and $\overline{O({\boldsymbol e}_i,r)}=O(-{\boldsymbol e}_i,r)$.
Similarly, $\overline{E_{h+1,h}({\bf0},r)}=E_{h+1,h}({\bf0},r)$. Hence, $\flat(E_{h,h+1}({\bf0}))=E_{h,h+1}({\bf0})$, $\flat(O({\boldsymbol e}_i))=O(-{\boldsymbol e}_i)$, and $\flat(E_{h+1,h}({\bf0}))=E_{h+1,h}({\bf0})$. This is the same bar involution as defined in \eqref{bar on U}.
(2) Matrix transposing induces ${\mathbb Q}({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$-algebra anti-involutions
$$\tau_r:{\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)\longrightarrow {\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r),\quad \xi_A\longmapsto\xi_{A^t},$$
which induce anti-involution $\tau$ on ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n)$ and, hence, on ${\boldsymbol{\mathfrak A}}(m|n)={\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$. This is the same $\tau$ as defined in \eqref{tau}. Hence, $\tau(A({\mathbf 0}))=A^t({\mathbf 0})$ for all $A\in M(m|n)^+$. In particular, by \eqref{E_A}, we have ${\mathsf F}_A=A({\mathbf 0})$ for all $A\in M(m|n)^-$.
(3) Let $\iota=\flat\circ\tau=\tau\circ\flat$. Then $\iota$ is a ring anti-involution
\begin{equation}\label{iota}
\iota:{\mathbf U}\longrightarrow{\mathbf U},\quad {\mathsf E}_h\longmapsto{\mathsf F}_h,{\mathsf F}_h\longmapsto{\mathsf E}_h,{\mathsf K}_i^{\pm1}\longmapsto{\mathsf K}_i^{\mp1},{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{\pm1}\longmapsto{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{\mp1}.
\end{equation}
Note that $\iota({\mathsf E}_{a,b})={\mathsf E}_{b,a}$ for all $a\neq b$ (cf. the remark after \eqref{qbrackets}).
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}\label{canonical basis}The basis $\{A({\mathbf 0})\}_{A\in M(m|n)^+}$, the bar involution, and the partial order $\preceq$ define uniquely the canonical $\mathscr{C}^+=\{{\mathsf C}_A\mid A\in M(m|n)^+\}$ for $U^+_{\mathcal Z}$. In other words, the elements ${\mathsf C}_A$ are uniquely defined by the conditions $\bar {\mathsf C}_A={\mathsf C}_A$ and
$${\mathsf C}_A-A({\mathbf 0})\in\sum_{B\in M(m|n)^+,B\prec A}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}{\mathbb Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}]B({\mathbf 0}).$$
Applying the anti-involution $\tau$ yields the canonical basis
\begin{equation}\label{C-}
\mathscr C^-=\{{\mathsf C}_A=\tau({\mathsf C}_{A^t})\mid A\in M(m|n)^-\}
\end{equation}
of $U^-_{\mathcal Z}$ which can be defined similarly relative to $\{A({\mathbf 0})\}_{A\in M(m|n)^-}$ etc.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By \eqref{monomial}, we may write the basis $\{A({\mathbf 0})\}_{A\in M(m|n)^+}$ in terms of the monomial basis:
$$A({\bf0})={\mathfrak m}_A^++\sum_{B\in M(m|n)^+,B\prec A}h_{B,A}{\mathfrak m}_B^+,$$
where $h_{B,A}\in {\mathcal Z}$. Applying the bar involution and \eqref{monomial} yields
$$\aligned
\overline{A({\mathbf 0})}&={\mathfrak m}_A^++\sum_{B\in M(m|n)^+,B\prec A}\overline{h_{B,A}}\,{\mathfrak m}_B^+\\
&=A({\mathbf 0})+\sum_{A'\in M(m|n)^+,A'\prec A}f_{A',A}\,A'({\mathbf 0})\quad(f_{A',A}\in{\mathcal Z}).
\endaligned$$
Thus, a standard construction (see, e.g., \cite[\S0.5]{DDPW}) shows that there exist polynomials $p_{B,A}$ with $p_{A,A}=1$ and $p_{B,A}\in{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}{\mathbb Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}]$ if $B\prec A$ such that the elements
\begin{equation}\label{C_A}
{\mathsf C}_A=A({\bf0})+\sum_{B\in M(m|n)^+,B\prec A}p_{B,A}B({\bf0})\quad (A\in M(m|n)^+)
\end{equation}
form the required basis. For the last assertion, see \eqref{mon-} and Remark \ref{bar compatibility}(2).\end{proof}
Recall from \cite[Cor.6.4]{DG} that there are $\mathbb Q({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$-superalgebra epimorphisms
\begin{equation}
\eta_r:{\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})\longrightarrow {\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)
\end{equation}
sending ${\mathsf E}_h,{\mathsf F}_h$ and ${\mathsf K}^{\pm1}$ to $E_{h,h+1}({\bf0},r),E_{h+1,h}({\bf0},r)$ and $O(\pm{\boldsymbol e}_i,r)$, respectively.
Note that it was these epimorphisms that induce the isomorphism $\eta$ in \eqref{eta}.
Note also that the epimorphism $\eta_r$ is compatible with the bar involutions by the remark above.
Let $ {\mathcal S}^-(m|n,r)=\eta_r({U_{\mathcal Z}^-})$ and $ {\mathcal S}^+(m|n,r)=\eta_r({U_{\mathcal Z}^+})$. The subalgebra $ {\mathcal S}^-(m|n,r)$ (resp. $ {\mathcal S}^+(m|n,r)$) has a basis $$\mathscr B^-_r=\{A({\bf0},r)\mid A\in M(m|n)^-_{\leq r}\} \quad(\mbox{resp. }\mathscr B^+_r= \{A({\bf0},r)\mid A\in M(m|n)^+_{\leq r}\}),$$
where $M(m|n)^*_{\leq r}=\{A\in M(m|n)^*,|A|\leq r\}$ for $*=+,-$.
\begin{corollary}\label{image of canonical basis} For any $r>0$, let ${\mathsf c}_A=\eta_r({\mathsf C}_A)$ for all $A\in M(m|n)^+_{\leq r}$. Then
$\{{\mathsf c}_A\}_{A\in M(m|n)_{\leq r}^+}$ forms a basis for $ {\mathcal S}^+(m|n,r)$ which satisfies the following properties:
$$\overline{{\mathsf c}_A}={\mathsf c}_A \mbox{ and } {\mathsf c}_A-A({\bf0},r)\in \sum_{B\prec A}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}\mathbb{Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}]B({\bf0},r).$$
In other words, this is the canonical basis relative to $\mathscr B_r^+$ and the restrictions of the bar involution \eqref{bar on S} and $\preceq$.
Moreover, we have
\begin{equation}
\eta_r({\mathsf C}_A)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&{\mathsf c}_A, \mbox{ if } A\in M(m|n)_{\leq r}^+,\\
&0,\mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
A similar result holds for $ {\mathcal S}^-(m|n,r)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}Applying $\eta_r$ to \eqref{monomial} yields a triangular relation in ${\mathcal S}^+(m|n,r)$ between the monomial basis and $\mathscr B^+_r$. So the canonical basis, defined by the basis $\mathscr B^+_r$, the bar involution and the order $\preceq$, exists.
By Remark \ref{bar compatibility} and \eqref{C_A}, ${\mathsf c}_A$ does satisfy the described conditions. Hence, it is the required canonical basis.
\end{proof}
We now make a comparison between the canonical bases $\mathscr C^-$ for $U_{\mathcal Z}^-$ and $\mathscr C_r$ for the quantum Schur superalgebra given in Corollary \ref{basis Xi}. Note that $\mathscr C_r$ can be defined by using the order $\preceq_{\rm rc}$ (see Remark \ref{Xi relative to order rc}).
Let $U_{\mathcal Z}^0$ be the ${\mathcal Z}$ subalgebra of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ generated by ${\mathsf K}_i$ and $\big[{{\mathsf K}_i;0\atop t}\big]$ for $1\leq i\leq m+n$ and $t\geq1$, where\footnote{We have corrected typos in line 3 from \cite[Th.~8.4]{DG}.}
$$\bigg[{{\mathsf K}_i;0\atop t}\bigg]=\prod_{a=1}^t\frac{{\mathsf K}_i{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{-a+1}-{\mathsf K}_i^{-1}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{a-1}}{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{a}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{-a}}.$$
Since, for any ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)$, $\eta_r\big(\prod_{i=1}^{m+n}\big[{{\mathsf K}_i;0\atop {\lambda}_i}\big]\big)=[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]$, the ${\mathcal Z}$-subalgebra
${\mathcal S}^{\geq0}(m|n,r):=\eta_r(U_{\mathcal Z}^0U_{\mathcal Z}^+)$ is spanned by $\{[\operatorname{diag}(\mu)]A({\mathbf 0},r)\mid A\in M(m|n,r)^+,\mu\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)\}$. This is called a Borel subsuperalgebra.
For $A\in M(m|n)$, define the ``hook sums''
$${\mathfrak h}_i(A)=a_{i,i}+\sum_{i<j}(a_{i,j}+a_{j,i})\text{ and } {\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)=({\mathfrak h}_1(A),\ldots,{\mathfrak h}_{m+n}(A)).$$
If we write $A=A^-+A^0+A^+$, where $A^\pm\in M(m|n)^\pm$ and $A^0$ is diagonal, then
$${\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)=(a_{1,1},\cdots,a_{n,n})+{\rm co}(A^-)+{\rm ro}(A^+).$$
Set ${\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)\leq{\lambda}$ if and only if ${\mathfrak h}_i(A)\leq \lambda_i$ for every $i$.
For $A\in M(m|n)^-$ and ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)$ with ${\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)={\rm co}(A)\leq{\lambda}$, let
\begin{equation}\label{Ala}
A_\lambda:=A+\operatorname{diag}({\lambda}-{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)).
\end{equation}
It is clear that $[A_{\lambda}]=A({\mathbf 0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]$ and the set
$$\{[A_{\lambda}]\mid A\in M(m|n,r)^-,{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r),{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)\leq{\lambda}\}$$
forms a basis for ${\mathcal S}^{\leq0}(m|n,r)$.
We have the following theorem (cf. \cite[Th. 8.3]{DP}).
\begin{theorem}\label{canonical basis of two parts} For any $A\in M(m|n)^-$, if $|A|\leq r$, then ${\mathsf c}_A=\sum_{{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)\leq{\lambda}}(-1)^{\bar A_{\lambda}}\Xi_{A_{\lambda}}$.
In other words, the image ${\mathsf c}_A$ of the canonical basis element ${\mathsf C}_A\in U_{\mathcal Z}^-$ under $\eta_r$ is either zero or a sum of the canonical basis elements $\Xi_{A_{\lambda}}={\mathsf c}_A[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]\in{\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$ (${\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)\leq {\lambda}$). Moreover,
$$\mathscr{C}_r^{\leq 0}=\{\Xi_{A_{\lambda}}\mid A\in M(m|n,\leq r)^-,\lambda\in\Lambda(m|n,r),\sigma_i(A)\leq \lambda_i\}=\mathscr C_r\cap{\mathcal S}^{\leq 0}(m|n,r)$$
forms the canonical basis for the Borel subsuperalgebra ${\mathcal S}^{\leq0}(m|n,r)$.
A similar result holds for ${\mathcal S}^{\geq0}(m|n,r)$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Remark \ref{bar compatibility} and Corollary \ref{image of canonical basis}, we have $\overline{{\mathsf c}_A}={\mathsf c}_A$ and $\overline{[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]}=[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]$. Hence, $\overline{{\mathsf c}_A[\operatorname{diag}(\lambda)]}={\mathsf c}_A[\operatorname{diag}(\lambda)]$.
Since, by definition,
${\mathsf c}_A=A({\bf0},r)+\sum_{B\prec A} p_{B,A} B({\bf0},r)$, where $p_{B,A}\in {\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}\mathbb{Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}]$, it follows that
$$\aligned
{\mathsf c}_A[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]&=A({\bf0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]+\sum_{B\prec A} p_{B,A} B({\bf0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]\\
&=(-1)^{\overline{A_\lambda}}[A_\lambda]+\sum_{B\prec A} p_{B,A}(-1)^{\overline{B_\lambda}}[B_\lambda].
\endaligned
$$
By definition, $B\prec A$ implies $B_\lambda\prec A_\lambda$. Also, ${\lambda}={\rm co}(A_{\lambda})$. Thus, if $\mu={\rm ro}(A_{\lambda})$, then
${\mathsf c}_A[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]=[\operatorname{diag}(\mu)]{\mathsf c}_A$.
By Corollary \ref{image of canonical basis}, we obtain
$$(-1)^{\overline{A_\lambda}}{\mathsf c}_A[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]=[A_\lambda]+\sum_{B_\lambda\prec_{{\rm rc}} A_\lambda}(-1)^{\overline{A_\lambda}+\overline{B_\lambda}} p_{B,A}[{B_\lambda}],$$
where $\preceq_{{\rm rc}}$ is the partial order relation on $M(m|n,r)$ defined in \eqref{prec rc}. Now, by Remark \ref{Xi relative to order rc} and the uniqueness of canonical basis, we must have $(-1)^{\overline{A_\lambda}}{\mathsf c}_A[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]=\Xi_{A_{\lambda}}$.
\end{proof}
We end this section with description of a PBW type basis for ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{PBW for S} Maintain the notation in \eqref{Ala}.
For $A\in M(m|n)^\pm$ and ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
A^-({\mathbf 0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]A^+({\mathbf 0},r)
={\varepsilon}_{{\lambda},{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)}(-1)^{\overline{A_{\lambda}}}[A_{\lambda}]+(\text{lower terms w.r.t. $\preceq_{\rm rc}$}),
\end{equation*}
where ${\varepsilon}_{{\lambda},{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)}=1$ if ${\lambda}\geq{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)$ and 0 otherwise.
In particular, the set $$\{A^-({\mathbf 0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]A^+({\mathbf 0},r)\mid A\in M(m|n)^\pm,\,{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r),\,{\lambda}\geq{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)\}$$ forms a ${\mathcal Z}$-basis for ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} For $A\in M(m|n)^\pm$, write $A=A^++A^-$ where
$A^+\in M(m|n)^+$ and $A^-\in M(m|n)^-$. Then $\mathfrak{h}(A)={\rm ro}(A^+)+{\rm co}(A^-)$.
Since
$$A^-({\mathbf 0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]A^+({\mathbf 0},r)=A^-({\mathbf 0},r)A^+({\mathbf 0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda}+{\rm co}(A^+)-{\rm ro}(A^+))]$$ and, by \cite[(8.1.1)]{DG} and the argument after \cite[(8.1.2)]{DG} (cf. \cite[Th.~7.1]{DG}, \cite[Th.~13.44]{DDPW}),
$$A^-({\mathbf 0},r)A^+({\mathbf 0},r)=A({\mathbf 0},r)+(\text{lower terms w.r.t. $\preceq_{\rm rc}$}),$$
the first assertion follows the fact that $A({\mathbf 0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda}+{\rm co}(A^+)-{\rm ro}(A^+)]\neq 0$ implies ${\rm co}(A)+\mu={\lambda}+{\rm co}(A^+)-{\rm ro}(A^+)$ for some $\mu\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r-|A|)$ (so $\mu={\lambda}-{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)$). The last assertion is clear since, if ${\lambda}\geq{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)$, then $A^-({\mathbf 0},r)[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]A^+({\mathbf 0},r)$ has the leading term $(-1)^{\overline{A_{\lambda}}}[A_{\lambda}]$.
\end{proof}
\section{Examples: Canonical bases for $U_{\mathcal Z}^+(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1})$ and $U_{\mathcal Z}^+(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|2})$}
Recall from \S5 that the relation \eqref{monomial} was used to show the existence of canonical bases. In this section, we will see how this relation is used to compute the canonical basis element ${\mathsf C}_A$.
Let $A\in M(m|n)^+$. We use the order $\leq_1$ to write down the monomial ${\mathfrak m}_A^+$, i.e., the left hand side of \eqref{monomial}. Then apply the formula in Lemma \ref{pEA} to compute the right hand side of \eqref{monomial}:
$$
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_A=A({\bf0})+\sum_{B\in M(m|n)^+,B\prec A}g_{B,A}B({\bf0}) \quad(g_{B,A}\in{\mathcal Z}).
$$
If all $g_{B,A}\in{\mathcal Z}^-:={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}\mathbb{Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}]$, then
by Theorem \ref{canonical basis}, ${\mathsf C}_A={\mathfrak m}_A^+$. Suppose now some $g_{B,A}\not\in{\mathcal Z}^-$.
Partition the poset ideal
$${\mathcal I}_{\prec A}=\{B\in M(m|n)^+\mid B\prec A\}={\mathcal I}^1_{\prec A}\cup{\mathcal I}^2_{\prec A}\cup\cdots\cup{\mathcal I}^t_{\prec A},$$
into subsets ${\mathcal I}^i_{\prec A}$ which consists of the maximal elements of ${\mathcal I}_{\prec A}\setminus\bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1}{\mathcal I}^j_{\prec A}$ for all $1\leq i\leq t$. In particular, ${\mathcal I}^1_{\prec A}$ consists of all maximal elements of ${\mathcal I}_{\prec A}$. Choose $B$ so that $g_{B,A}\not\in{\mathcal Z}^-$ and $B\in{\mathcal I}_{\prec A}^a$ with $a$ minimal. Thus, $g_{B',A}\in{\mathcal Z}^-$ if $B\prec B'$ or $B'\in{\mathcal I}_{\prec A}^i$ for some $i<a$.
Since every polynomial $g\in{\mathcal Z}$ can be written as $g'+g''$ with $g'\in{\mathcal Y}:=\{h+\bar h\mid h\in\mathbb{Z}[{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}]\}$ and $g''\in{\mathcal Z}^-$, there exist $f_{B,A}\in {\mathcal Z}$ and $g'_{B,A}\in{\mathcal Y}$ such that
\begin{equation*}\label{equation2}
{{\mathfrak m}}^+_{A}-\sum_{B\in {\mathcal I}^a_{\prec A}}g'_{B,A} {{\mathfrak m}}^+_{B}
-\bigg(A({\bf0})+\sum_{B\in{\mathcal I}^i_{\prec A},i>a}f_{B,A}B({\bf0})\bigg)\in\sum_{B\prec A}{\mathcal Z}^-B({\mathbf 0}).
\end{equation*}
By a similar argument with $f_{B,A}$ and continuing if necessary, we can eventually find an ${\mathfrak m}\in\sum_{B\prec A}{\mathcal Y}{\mathfrak m}_B^+$ such that
$${{\mathfrak m}}^+_{A}+{\mathfrak m}
-A({\bf0})\in\sum_{B\prec A}{\mathcal Z}^-B({\mathbf 0}).$$
Since $\overline{{{\mathfrak m}}^+_{A}+{\mathfrak m}}={{\mathfrak m}}^+_{A}+{\mathfrak m}$, we must have ${\mathsf C}_A={{\mathfrak m}}^+_{A}+{\mathfrak m}$ by Theorem \ref{canonical basis}. We have proved the following.
\begin{lemma} \label{m=c} For $A\in M(m|n)^+$, there exists ${\mathfrak m}\in\sum_{B\prec A}{\mathcal Y}{\mathfrak m}_B^+$ such that the canonical basis element ${\mathsf C}_A={{\mathfrak m}}^+_{A}+{\mathfrak m}$.
\end{lemma}
This algorithm has been used before (see, e.g., \cite{CX}). We now use the algorithm to compute some small rank examples.
\begin{example}
The canonical basis of $U_{\mathcal Z}^+(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1})$ has been found in \cite{Kh} and \cite[8.1]{CHW2}. We now follow the algorithm via our multiplication formulas to show that it consists of
\begin{equation}\label{canonical A2}
\begin{aligned}
&{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}=(aE_{1,2})({\bf0}),\\
&{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}^{(a)}_{1}=(E_{2,3}+aE_{1,2})({\bf0}),\\
&{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}^{(a)}_{1}-[a]{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}^{(a+1)}_{1}=(aE_{1,2}+E_{1,3})({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-(a+1)}((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3})({\bf0}),\\
&{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}^{(a)}_{1}=(aE_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{2,3})({\bf0}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We observe the following.
From \cite[Example 3.4]{Lu3}, ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{3})$ has the canonical basis consisting of tight monomials
$$\{{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(b)}{\mathsf E}_{2}^{(b+c)}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}\mid c\geq a\}\cup\{{\mathsf E}_{2}^{(c)}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+b)}{\mathsf E}_{2}^{(b)}\mid c<a\}.$$
If we regard ${\mathsf E}_2$ as an odd generator and only consider
the power ${\mathsf E}_{2}^{(a)}$ with $a=0,1$, we obtain the following elements from the classical canonical basis above:
$${\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)},\quad {\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2},\quad{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)},\quad{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}.$$
Then we claim that they coincide with the canonical basis above. Indeed, by
the multiplication formulas given in Lemma \ref{pEA}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& {\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}=(aE_{1,2}+E_{1,3})({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-(a+1)}((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3})({\bf0}).\\
&{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}=(aE_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{2,3})({\bf0}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{example}
\noindent
which are the third and fourth elements in \eqref{canonical A2}. Hence, the canonical basis for $U_{\mathcal Z}^+(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|1})$ consists of tight monomials.
We now compute the canonical basis of $U_{\mathcal Z}^+(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|2})$.
We will use the following abbreviation for a $4\times4$ matrix in $M(2|2)^+$:
$$A=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
a&b&d\\
&c&e\\
&&f
\end{array}
\right]:=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0&a&b&d\\
0&0&c&e\\
0&0&0&f\\
0&0&0&0
\end{array}
\right)\in M(2|2)^+
$$
where $a,f\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0},b,c,d,e\in \{0,1\}$.
\begin{example} The canonical basis of $U_{\mathcal Z}^+(\mathfrak{gl}_{2|2})$ is listed in the following 18 cases. Each case is displayed in the form: $A$, ${\mathfrak m}_A^++{\mathfrak m}={\mathsf C}_A$ as in Lemma \ref{m=c} where ${\mathfrak m}$ is a ${\mathcal Y}$-linear combinations of monomial basis.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(0)]$A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&0\\
&0&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}=A({\bf0}).$ This is the only even case.
\item[(1)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}=A({\bf0}).$
\item[(2)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&0&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0}).$
\item[(3)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}-[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}
=A({\bf0})-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0}).$
\item[(4a)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&1\\
&0&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]
$ with $a\leq f$,
$$\aligned
&\quad\,{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
-[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&\quad\,+(2[a][f+2]+[f-a+1]-[a+1][f+1]){\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&1&0\\
&0&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}\right]({\bf0})
-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-a-2}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}\right]({\bf0})
\endaligned
$$
\item[(4b)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&1\\
&0&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]
$ with $f=a-1$,
$$\aligned
&\quad\,{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
-[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&\quad\,+(2[a][f+2]-[a+1][f+1]){\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&1&0\\
&0&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}\right]({\bf0})
+(*)
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}\right]({\bf0})
\endaligned
$$
where $*={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}[a]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}[f+2]$.
\item[(4c)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&1\\
&0&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]
$ with
$f\leq a-2$,
$$\aligned
&\quad\,{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
-[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&\quad\,+(2[a][f+2]-[a-f-1]-[a+1][f+1]){\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&1&0\\
&0&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}\right]({\bf0})
-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-a-2}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}\right]({\bf0}).
\endaligned
$$
\item[(5)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}=A({\bf0}).$
\item[(6)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$ ${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}=A({\bf0}).$
\vspace{-2ex}
\item[(7)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
$\aligned
&\\
&{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
-[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}\\
&=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
\endaligned
$
\vspace{.2cm}
\item[(8a)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&1\\
&1&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right] (a=0),
$
${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-2}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0}).
$
\item[(8b)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&1\\
&1&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right] (a>0),
$
$\aligned
&\\
&{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}
-[a-1]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a}+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2})
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0}).
\endaligned
$
\item[(9)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&0&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
$$\aligned
&\quad\,{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}
-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&\quad\,-[a+1]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
+[a+1]^2{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+2)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&1\\
&1&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&1&0\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-2a-4}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+2&0&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0}).
\endaligned$$
\item[(10)]
$A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$ ${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}=A({\bf0}).$
\item[(11)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&1&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
$\aligned
&\\
&{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}
-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
\endaligned
$
\vspace{-2ex}
\item[(12)]
$A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&0&1\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$
$\aligned
&\\
&{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}
+[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}\\
&=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0}).
\endaligned
$
\item[(13a)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]
$ with $a\leq f$,
$$\aligned
&\quad\;{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}+[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}\\
&\quad\;-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
-(2[a][f+2]+[f-a+1]){\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&1\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-a-2}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&1&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
\endaligned$$
\item[(13b)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]
$ with $f=a-1$,
$$\aligned
&\quad\;{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}
+[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}\\
&\quad\;-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}
-2[a][f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&1\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+(**)
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&1&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
\endaligned$$
where $(**)={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}[f+2]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}[a]$
\item[(13c)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&0&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]
$ with $f\leq a-2$,
$$\aligned
&\quad\;{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}+[f+2]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}\\
&\quad\;-[a]{\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}-(2[a][f+2]-[a-\!f\!-1]){\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f+1)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a+1)}\\
&=A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&1&0\\
&&f+1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&0&1\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-f-a-2}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a+1&1&0\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]({\bf0})
\endaligned$$
\item[(14)] $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&1&1\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right],
$ ${\mathsf E}_{3}^{(f)}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{3}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}{\mathsf E}_{2}{\mathsf E}_{1}^{(a)}=A({\bf0}).$
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
We just give a proof for (9). The other cases can be proved in a similar way.
For $A=\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&1&1\\
&0&0\\
&&f
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]=aE_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{1,4}+fE_{3,4}$, by definition,
$${{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}={\mathsf E}^{(f)}_{3,4}\cdot{\mathsf E}_{1,2}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}{\mathsf E}_{3,4}\cdot{\mathsf E}_{1,2}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}\cdot{\mathsf E}_{1,2}^{(a)}.$$
Repeatedly applying the multiplication formula in Lemma \ref{integral generators} yields
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}=&{\mathsf E}^{(f)}_{3,4}\big((aE_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{1,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,4})({\bf0})\\
&+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-2}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]})((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{2,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}((a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a+1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}[f+1]((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,3}+E_{3,4})({\bf0})\big)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For $C=(c_{i,j})\in M(2|2)^+$, by the multiplication formula in Lemma \ref{pEA},
$${\mathsf E}^{(f)}_{3,4}C({\bf0})={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_3^{fc_{3,4}}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[f+c_{3,4}\atop f\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_3}(C+fE_{3,4})({\bf0}).$$
Then, noting ${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_3^{f}\overline{\left[\!\!\left[f+1\atop f\right]\!\!\right]}_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_3}=[f+1]_{{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_3}=[f+1],$
$${\mathsf E}^{(f)}_{3,4}C({\bf0})=\begin{cases}(C+fE_{3,4})({\bf0}),&\text{ if }c_{3,4}=0;\\
[f+1](C+fE_{3,4})({\bf0}),&\text{ if }c_{3,4}=1.\end{cases}$$
Thus,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}
=&A({\bf0})
+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-2}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]})((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}((a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a+1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}[f+1]((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,3}+(f+1)E_{3,4})({\bf0})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Observing the summands above, the maximal matrix $B$ such that $B\prec A$ is
$B_1=(a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,4}+fE_{3,4}$, and the coefficient of $B_1({\bf0})$ is
$${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}=[a]+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}.$$
So we compute ${{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}-[a]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}$. By the multiplication formulas, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}=&{\mathsf E}^{(f)}_{3,4}{\mathsf E}_{1,2}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}{\mathsf E}_{3,4}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}{\mathsf E}_{1,2}^{(a+1)}\\
=&B_1({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}((a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation}\label{MAMB1}
\aligned
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}&-[a]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}B_1({\bf0})\\
&+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-2}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}[a])((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}[a])((a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a+1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}[f+1]((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,3}+(f+1)E_{3,4})({\bf0})
\endaligned
\end{equation}
Now the maximal matrices $B$ in \eqref{MAMB1} such that $B\prec B_1$ is $$B_2=(a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{1,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4}.$$
Since the coefficient of $B_2({\bf0})$ in \eqref{MAMB1} is
$$\aligned
{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-2}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-1}[a]\\
&=[a-1]+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a}+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2}+[a+1]-[a-1]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a}={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2}+[a+1],
\endaligned$$
We now compute ${{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}-[a]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}-[a+1]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_2}$. Since
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_2}=&{\mathsf E}^{(f)}_{3,4}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}{\mathsf E}_{3,4}{\mathsf E}_{1,2}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}{\mathsf E}_{1,2}^{(a+1)}\\
=&B_2({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^a\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}((a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}[f+1]((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,3}+(f+1)E_{3,4})({\bf0}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
it yields
\begin{equation*}
\aligned
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}&-[a]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}-[a+1]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_2}=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}B_1({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2}B_2({\bf0})\\
&+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}[a]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^a[a+1]\overline{[\![a+2]\!]})\\
&((a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
&+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a+1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}[f+1]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}[a+1][f+1])((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,3}+(f+1)E_{3,4})({\bf0})
\endaligned
\end{equation*}
But the coefficient of $((a+1)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{1,3}+(f+1)E_{3,4})({\bf0})$ is
$${\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a+1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}[f+1]-[a+1]{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}[f+1]={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}[a+1][f+1]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}[a+1][f+1]=0,$$
so
\begin{equation}
\aligned
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}&-[a]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}-[a+1]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_2}=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}B_1({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2}B_2({\bf0})\\
&+({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}[a]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^a[a+1]\overline{[\![a+2]\!]})\\
&\quad\;((a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4})({\bf0})\\
\endaligned
\end{equation}
Let $B_3=(a+2)E_{1,2}+E_{2,3}+E_{2,4}+fE_{3,4}$ and rewrite coefficient of $B_3({\bf0})$ as
$$\aligned
{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+1]\!]}&{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{a-1}\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}[a]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^a[a+1]\overline{[\![a+2]\!]}\\
&={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}[a]-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2}[a+1]+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-2a-2}+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-2a-4}-[a+1]^2\\
&={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-2a-4}-[a+1]^2.
\endaligned
$$
Finally, we compute ${{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}-[a]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}-[a+1]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_2}+[a+1]^2 {{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_3}.$ Since
$$
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_3}={\mathsf E}^{(f)}_{3,4}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}{\mathsf E}_{3,4}{\mathsf E}_{2,3}{\mathsf E}_{1,2}^{(a+2)}
=B_3({\bf0}),
$$
it follows that
$$
\aligned
{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{A}-[a]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_1}&-[a+1]{{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_2}+[a+1]^2 {{\mathfrak m}}^{+}_{B_3}\\
&=A({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-1}B_1({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-a-2}B_2({\bf0})+{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-2a-4}B_3({\bf0})\\
\endaligned
$$
is the required canonical basis element ${\mathsf C}_A$.
\end{proof}
\section{Simple polynomial representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$}
For a finite dimensional ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$-module $M$ and ${\lambda}\in\mathbb Z^{m+n}$, let
$$M_{\lambda}=\bigg\{x\in M\mid K_ix={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{{\lambda}_i}x, 1\leq i\leq m+n\bigg\}.$$
If $M_{\lambda}\neq 0$, then $M_{\lambda}$ is called the weight space of $M$ of weight ${\lambda}$.
Call $M$ an {\it integral weight module} (of type {\bf 1}) if $M=\bigoplus_{\lambda} M_{\lambda}$ and denote by wt$(M)$ the set of all weights of $M$. A weight module $M$ is called a {\it polynomial representation} of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ if
wt$(M)\subset \mathbb N^{m+n}$. Clearly, a tensor power of a polynomial representation is polynomial. In particular, the tensor power $V^{\otimes r}$ of the natural representation $V$ of $U(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ is a polynomial representation.
Let ${\mathbf U}={\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ and ${\mathbf U}_{\bar0}={\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m}\oplus\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ and ${\mathbf U}_{\bar 1}^\pm={\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}^\pm_{m|n,\bar1})$.
For $\lambda\in {\Lambda}^+(m|n)$, let $L^{\bar0}(\lambda)$ be the (finite dimensional) irreducible module of $ {\mathbf U}_{\bar{0}}$ with the highest
weight $\lambda$. Then $L^{\bar0}(\lambda)$ becomes a
module of the parabolic superalgebra ${\mathbf U}_{\bar{0}} {\mathbf U}^+_{\bar{1}}$ via the trivial action of $E_{a,b}$ on $L^{\bar0}(\lambda)$ for all $1\leq a\leq m<b\leq m+n$.
Define the {\it Kac--module} (see \cite{Z})
$$K(\lambda)=\mathrm{Ind}^{{\mathbf U}}_{{\mathbf U}_{\bar{0}} {\mathbf U}^+_{\bar{1}}}L^{\bar0}(\lambda)={\mathbf U}\otimes_{{\mathbf U}_{\bar{0}} {\mathbf U}^+_{\bar{1}}}L^{\bar0}({\lambda}).$$
Since $ {\mathbf U}$ is a free $ {\mathbf U}_{\bar{0}} {\mathbf U}^+_{\bar{1}}$ module,
as vector spaces, we have
$$K(\lambda)\cong {\mathbf U}^-_{\bar{1}}\otimes L^{\bar0}(\lambda).$$
Note that, for all $\mu\in\text{wt}(K({\lambda}))$, $|{\lambda}|=|\mu|$ and $\mu\unlhd{\lambda}$ (meaning ${\lambda}-\mu$ is a sum of positive roots).\footnote{Since
${\lambda}-\mu=({\lambda}_1-\mu_1){\boldsymbol e}_1+\cdots+({\lambda}_n-\mu_n){\boldsymbol e}_n=(\tilde{\lambda}_1-\tilde\mu_1)({\boldsymbol e}_1-{\boldsymbol e}_2)+\cdots+(\tilde{\lambda}_{n-1}-\tilde\mu_{n-1})({\boldsymbol e}_{n-1}-{\boldsymbol e}_n)$ ($\tilde a_j=\sum_{i=1}^ja_i$), this order is the usual dominance order $\unrhd$ if ${\lambda},\mu$ are regarded as compositions.} Thus, we say that $K({\lambda})$ is a representation of ${\mathbf U}$ at {\it level} $|{\lambda}|$. Moreover, every $K({\lambda})$ has a unique maximal submodule and hence defines an simple module $L({\lambda})$. In fact, the set $\{L({\lambda})\mid{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}^+(m|n)\}$ forms a complete set of finite dimensional simple ${\mathbf U}$-modules.
Since every irreducible finite dimensional module $L(\lambda)$ of ${\mathbf U}$ is a quotient module of a Kac module $K(\lambda)$, $L({\lambda})$ is a representation at the same level as $K(\lambda)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{inflate}
The irreducible polynomial representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ at level $r\geq0$ are all inflated via $\eta_r$ from the irreducible representations of ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Clearly, if $M$ is an ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$-module, then $M=\bigoplus_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)}M_{\lambda}$ as a ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$-module, where $M_{\lambda}=\xi_{\lambda} M$ with $\xi_{\lambda}=[\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]$. This is seen easily since $\eta_r(K_i)=\sum_{{\lambda}}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{{\lambda}_i}\xi_{\lambda}$. Hence, every inflated module is a module at level $r$.
Assume now $M$ is an irreducible polynomial representation of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ at level $r$.
For any $0\neq x\in M_\mu$,
$$\aligned
K_1K_2\cdots K_mK^{-1}_{m+1}\cdots K^{-1}_{m+n}\cdot x&={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{\sum_{i=1}^{m+n}\mu_i}x= {\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^rx\\
(K_i-1)(K_i-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i)\cdots (K_i-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^r)\cdot x&=\prod_{j=0}^r({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^{\mu_j}-{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_i^j)x=0x=0.\endaligned
$$
By the presentation for ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$ given in \cite{TK}, we see that $M$ is in fact an inflation of a simple ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$-module.
\end{proof}
By this lemma, the study of simple polynomial representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ is reduced to that of simple ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$-modules for all $r\geq0$. Simple ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$-modules have been classified and constructed in \cite{DR} via a certain cellular basis.
We now use the cellular bases adjusted with a sign as in defining the canonical basis $\{\Xi_A\}_A$ to see how the canonical bases for $U_{\mathcal Z}^-$ and ${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)$ induce related bases for these modules.
For $A=\jmath({\lambda},d,\mu)$ as in \eqref{jmath}, define compositions ${\alpha},\beta$ by \eqref{Dcirc},
\begin{equation}\label{beta}
{\mathfrak S}_{{\alpha}|\beta}:={\mathfrak S}_{{\lambda} d\cap\mu}\cong ({\mathfrak S}_{{\lambda}^{(0)}}^d\cap{\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(0)}})\times ({\mathfrak S}_{{\lambda}^{(1)}}^d\cap{\mathfrak S}_{\mu^{(1)}}).
\end{equation}
Let $\xi_A'={\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{l(w_{0,\beta})}P_{{\mathfrak S}_\beta}({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}^{-2})\xi_A$ (cf. \cite[(6.3.1)]{DR}). Using this basis and the bar involution defined in \eqref{bar on S} (cf. \cite[Th.~6.3]{DR}), one defines another canonical basis $\{\Xi'_A\mid A\in M(m|n,r)\}$ for ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$. Note that this basis is not integral basis over ${\mathcal Z}$ but a cellular basis over ${\mathbb Q}({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$. We now describe its cellularity.
For ${\lambda}\in \Lambda(m|n,r),\mu\in \Lambda(m'|n',r)$, let
$${\mathcal D}_{{\lambda},\mu}^{+,-}={\mathcal D}^+_{({\lambda}^{(0)}|1^{a_1}),(\mu^{(0)}|1^{b_1})}\cap {\mathcal D}_{(1^{a_0}|{\lambda}^{(1)}),(1^{b_0}|\mu^{(1)})},\qquad(\text{see \cite[(3.0.4)]{DR}})$$
where $a_i=|{\lambda}^{(i)}|$ and $b_i=|\mu^{(i)}|$. Then the map \eqref{jmath} induces a bijection
$$\jmath^{+,-}:{\mathcal D}(m|n,r)^{+,-}\longrightarrow M(m|n,r),$$
where
$${\mathcal D}(m|n,r)^{+,-}=\{({\lambda},w,\mu)\mid {\lambda},\mu\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r),w\in{\mathcal D}^{+,-}_{{\lambda},\mu}\}.$$
\begin{definition}Let
$A=\jmath^{+,-}({\alpha},y,\beta),B=\jmath^{+,-}({\lambda},w,\mu)\in M(m|n,r)$. Define
$$A\leq_LB \iff y\leq_Lw \mbox{ and } \mu=\beta,$$
where $y\le_Lw$ is the order relation $\le_L$ on ${\mathfrak S}_r$ defined in \cite{KL}.
\end{definition}
With this order relation, the structure constants for the basis $\{\Xi'_A\}_{A\in M(m|n,r)}$ satisfy the following order relation.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[7.2]{DR}}]\label{DR,7.2}
For $A,B\in M(m|n,r)$, if $\Xi'_A\Xi'_B=\sum_{C\in M(m|n,r)}f_{A,B,C} \Xi'_C$, then $f_{A,B,C}\neq0$ implies $C\leq_LB$ and $C\leq_R A$.
\end{lemma}
Define $A\leq_R B$ if $A^t\leq_L B^t$. Let $\leq_{LR}$ be the preorder generated by $\leq_L$ and $\leq_R$. The relations give rise to three equivalence relations $\sim_L,\sim_R$ and $\sim_{LR}$ on $M(m|n,r)$. Thus, $A\sim_X B$ if and only if $A\leq_X B\leq_X A$ for all $X\in\{L,R,LR\}$. The corresponding equivalence classes in $M(m|n,r)$ with respect to $\sim_L,\sim_R$ and $\sim_{LR}$ are called {\it left cells, right cells} and {\it two-sided cells} respectively.
Like the symmetric group case, the cells defined here can also be described in terms of a super version of the Robinson--Schensted correspondence.
Let $\Pi(r)$ be the set of all partitions of $r$ and let
$$\Pi(r)_{m|n}=\{\pi\in\Pi(r)\mid \pi_{m+1}\leq n\}.$$
For $\pi\in \Pi(r)_{m|n}$ and
$\mu\in \Lambda(m|n,r)$. A $\pi$-tableau ${\mathsf T}$ of content $\mu$ is called a {\it semi-standard $\pi$-supertableau} of type $\mu$ if, in addition,
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)]the entries are weakly increasing in each row and each column of ${\mathsf T}$;
\item[b)] the numbers in $\{1,2,\cdots,m\}$ are strictly increasing in the columns and the numbers in $\{m+1,m+2,\cdots,m+n\}$ are strictly increasing in the rows.
\end{itemize}
Let $\mathbf{T}^{su}(\pi,\mu)$ be the set of all semi-stardard $\pi$-supertableaux of content $\mu$. In particular, for the given partition $\pi$, if we set
\begin{equation}\label{pitilde}
\tilde\pi^{(0)}=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\cdots,\pi_m),\quad \tilde\pi^{(1)}=(\pi_{m+1},\pi_{m+2},\cdots,\pi_{m+n})^t,
\end{equation}
then $\tilde\pi=(\tilde\pi^{(0)}|\tilde\pi^{(1)})\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)$ and $\mathbf{T}^{su}(\pi,\tilde\pi)$ contains a unique element, denoted by ${\mathsf T}_\pi$. We also write ${\text{\rm sh}}({\mathsf T})=\pi$ if ${\mathsf T}\in\mathbf{T}^{su}(\pi,\mu)$, called the {\it shape} of ${\mathsf T}$.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[4.7,7.3]{DR}}]\label{DR,7.3} There is a bijective map
$$\text{\rm RSKs}:M(m|n,r)\longrightarrow\bigcup_{{\lambda},\mu\in{\Lambda}(m|n,r)\atop \pi\in\Pi(r)_{m|n}}{\mathbf T}^{su}(\pi,{\lambda})\times{\mathbf T}^{su}(\pi,\mu),\quad A\longrightarrow({\mathsf p}(A),{\mathsf q}(A))$$ such that ${\lambda}={\rm ro}(A)$, $\mu=co(A)$ and,
for $A,B\in M(m|n,r)$ with $\pi^t={\text{\rm sh}}({\mathsf p}(A)), \nu^t={\text{\rm sh}}({\mathsf p}(B))$,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $A\sim_L B$ if and only if ${\mathsf q}(A)={\mathsf q}(B)$.
\item[(2)]$A\sim_R B$ if and only if ${\mathsf p}(A)={\mathsf p}(B)$.
\item[(3)] $A\leq_{LR}B$ implies $\pi\unrhd\nu$. Hence, $A\sim_{LR} B$ if and only if ${\mathsf p}(A),{\mathsf p}(B)$ have the same shape.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
For $\pi\in \Pi(r)_{m|n}$, let
$$I(\pi)=\bigcup_{\lambda\in\Lambda(m|n,r)}\mathbf{T}^{su}(\pi,\lambda).$$
By the super RSK correspondence, if $A\overset{\text{RSKs}}\longrightarrow({\mathsf S},{\mathsf T})\in I(\pi)$, we relabel the basis element $\Xi'_A$ as $\Xi^{\prime\pi}_{S,T}:=\Xi'_A$.
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[7.4]{DR}}]\label{DR 7.4}
The $\mathbb{Q}({\boldsymbol{\upsilon}})$-basis for ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$
$$\{\Xi^{\prime\pi}_{{\mathsf S},{\mathsf T}}\mid \pi\in {\Lambda}^+(r)_{m|n},{\mathsf S},{\mathsf T}\in I(\pi)\}=\{\Xi'_A\mid A\in M(m|n,r)\}.$$
is a cellular basis in the sense of \cite{GL}.
\end{lemma}
The cellular basis defines cell modules $C(\pi),\pi\in\Pi(r)_{m|n}$ (see \cite{GL} or \cite[(C.6.3)]{DDPW}). Since
${\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$ is semisimple, all $C(\pi)$ are irreducible.
\begin{theorem} \label{ID}
As a ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$-module via $\eta_r:{\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})\to {\boldsymbol{\sS}}(m|n,r)$, $C(\pi)\cong L(\tilde\pi)$, where $\tilde\pi$ is defined in \eqref{pitilde}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By the construction, for any fixed ${\mathsf Q}\in I(\pi)$, $C(\pi)$ is spanned by $v_{\mathsf S}:=\Xi'_{{\mathsf S},{\mathsf Q}}+{\boldsymbol{\sS}}^{\rhd\pi}$, ${\mathsf S}\in I(\pi)$, where ${\boldsymbol{\sS}}^{\rhd\pi}$ is spanned by all $\Xi'_A$ with ${\text{\rm sh}}({\mathsf p}(A))\rhd\pi$.
Let $v_{\tilde\pi}=v_{{\mathsf T}_\pi}$. Then the weight of $v_{\tilde\pi}$ is $\tilde \pi$. We now prove that $\tilde\pi$ is the highest weight. It suffices to prove that if $\mathbf{T}^{su}(\pi,\mu)\neq\emptyset$ then $\tilde\pi\unrhd\mu$.
Let ${\mathsf T}\in \mathbf{T}^{su}(\pi,\mu)$ and, for $s\in[1,m+n]$, let ${\mathsf T}_{\leq s}$ be the subtableau obtained by removing the entries $>s$ and their associated boxes from ${\mathsf T}$. If $s\leq m$, then it is known that $\tilde\pi_1+\cdots+\tilde\pi_s\geq\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_s$ (see, e.g., \cite[Lem.~8.42]{DDPW}). Assume now $s>m$. Let ${\mathsf T}'_{\leq s}$ be the subtableau consists of top $m$ row of ${\mathsf T}_{\leq s}$ and ${\mathsf T}_{\leq s}''$ the subtableau obtained by removing ${\mathsf T}'_{\leq s}$ from ${\mathsf T}_{\leq s}$. We also break ${\mathsf T}_\pi$ into two parts ${\mathsf T}_{\pi,\leq s}'$ and ${\mathsf T}_{\pi,\leq s}''$. Then, by definition, the shape of ${\mathsf T}_{\leq s}'$ must be contained in ${\mathsf T}_{\pi,\leq s}'$, while the shape of ${\mathsf T}_{\leq s}''$ must be contained in ${\mathsf T}_{\pi,\leq s}''$. Hence, $\tilde\pi_1+\cdots+\tilde\pi_s\geq\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_s$. This proves the inequality for all $s\ge0$. Hence, $\tilde\pi\unrhd\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{remark}
Unlike the nonsuper case, the cellular basis $\{\Xi'_A\mid A\in M(m|n,r)\}$ does not canonically induce a basis for $C(\pi)$. In other words, the set $\{\Xi'_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}\mid A\in M(m|n,r)\}\setminus\{0\}$ does not form a basis for the
cell module $C(\pi)$. This can be seen as follows. Suppose $\Xi'_A=\Xi^{\prime\nu}_{{\mathsf S},{\mathsf T}}$. Then
$$0\neq \Xi'_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}=\Xi^{\prime\nu}_{{\mathsf S},{\mathsf T}}\Xi^{\prime\pi}_{{\mathsf T}_\pi,{\mathsf Q}}+{\boldsymbol{\sS}}^{\rhd\pi}=\sum_{C}f_{C}(A,{\mathsf T}_\pi)\Xi^{\prime\pi}_{C}+{\boldsymbol{\sS}}^{\rhd\pi}$$ implies ${\rm co}(A)=\tilde\pi$, $\tilde\nu\unrhd\tilde\pi$ by the proof above, and $C\leq_RA$ by Lemma \ref{DR,7.2}. Hence,
$\pi\unrhd\nu$ by Lemma \ref{DR,7.3}(3). Thus, we must have $\tilde\pi^{(0)}=\tilde\nu^{(0)}$ and $\tilde\pi^{(1)}\unlhd\tilde\nu^{(1)}$ (equivalently, $\pi^{(1)}\unrhd\nu^{(1)}$). Cosequently, we do not have $\nu=\pi$ in general unless $n=1$ and so the cardinality of the set could be larger than $\dim C(\pi)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{primitive vector} We have
${\mathcal S}(m|n,r)^+v_{\tilde{\pi}}=0$. In other words, by regarding $C(\pi)$ as a ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$-module, $v_{\tilde\pi}$ is a primitive vector.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} We first observe that, if ${\rm co}(E_{h,h+1}+\operatorname{diag}({\lambda}))=\tilde\pi$, i.e., ${\lambda}+{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1}=\tilde\pi$, then ${\lambda}=\tilde\pi-{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1}$. Since $E_{h,h+1}({\mathbf 0},r)\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}=[E_{h,h+1}+\operatorname{diag}({\lambda})]v_{\tilde\pi}$ has weight $\tilde\pi+{\boldsymbol e}_h-{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1}$ and $\tilde\pi+{\boldsymbol e}_h-{\boldsymbol e}_{h+1}\rhd\tilde\pi$, we must have $E_{h,h+1}({\mathbf 0},r)\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}=0$ by the theorem above.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{canonical basis of simple module1} Let $M(m|n,r)^{\leq0}=\{(a_{i,j})\in M(m|n,r)\mid a_{i,j}=0\;\forall i<j\}$. Then
the set $\{\Xi_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}\mid A\in M(m|n,r)^{\leq0}\}$ spans the cell module $C(\pi)$.
\end{corollary}
It would be interesting to extract a basis for $C(\pi)$ from this spanning set in some ``canonical'' way. This is because such a basis can also be induced from the canonical basis $\mathscr C^-$ of $U^-_{\mathcal Z}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ as shown in the following result.
For $\pi\in\Pi(r)_{m|n}$, define a subset $M(m|n,\pi)$ of $M(m|n,r)^{\leq0}$ by the condition that
$$\{\Xi_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}\mid A\in M(m|n,\pi)\}\text{ forms a basis for $C(\pi)$.}$$
Note that ${\rm co}(A)=\tilde\pi$ for $A\in M(m|n,\pi)$. Recall the notation $A_{\lambda}$ defined in \eqref{Ala}.
\begin{theorem}\label{ngeq1}
Let $\mathscr C^-$ be the canonical basis for $U^-_{\mathcal Z}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ and let $L(\mu)$ be a simple polynomial representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|n})$ at level $r\ge0$. Then there exists a partition $\pi\in\Pi(r)_{m|n}$ such that $\mu=\tilde\pi$ and
$$\{{\mathsf C}_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}\mid A\in M(m|n)^-, A_{\tilde\pi}\in M(m|n,\pi)\}$$
forms a basis for $L(\mu)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The first assertion follows from Lemma \ref{inflate} and Theorem \ref{ID}. Thus, $L(\mu)\cong C(\pi)$. By Theorem \ref{canonical basis of two parts},
$${\mathsf C}_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}={\mathsf c}_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}=\sum_{{\lambda}:{\lambda}\geq{\boldsymbol{\fh}}(A)}(-1)^{\bar A_{\lambda}}\Xi_{A_{\lambda}}\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}=(-1)^{\bar A_{\tilde\pi}}\Xi_{A_{\tilde\pi}}\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}.$$
The last assertion follows from the definition of $M(m|n,\pi)$.
\end{proof}
We end the paper with a canonical description of $M(m|n,\pi)$ for $n=1$. This case has already been considered in \cite{CHW2} is a natural application of the observation in Remark \ref{remark}.
\begin{theorem}\label{n=1}
For $\pi\in \Pi(r)_{m|1}$, the set $\{\Xi_A\cdot v_\pi\mid A\in M(m|1,r)\}\setminus\{0\}$ forms a basis for the
cell module $C(\pi)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We first claim that the set $\{\Xi'_A\cdot v_\pi\mid A\in M(m|1,r)\}\setminus\{0\}$ forms a basis for $C(\pi)$. Indeed,
assume $\Xi'_A=\Xi^{\prime\nu}_{{\mathsf S},{\mathsf T}}$. By Remark \ref{remark},
$\Xi'_A\cdot v_{\tilde\pi}\neq0$
implies ${\rm co}(A)=\tilde\pi$, $\pi\unrhd\nu$ and $\tilde\pi^{(0)}=\tilde\nu^{(0)}$. Since $|\pi|=|\nu|$ and $n=1$, we must have $\pi_{m+1}=\nu_{m+1}$, forcing $\pi=\nu$ and ${\mathsf T}={\mathsf T}_\pi$. Thus, a dimensional comparison proves the claim.
Further, for $\pi\in \Pi(r)_{m|1}$, $\pi_{m+1}\leq 1$. This forces the subgroup ${\mathfrak S}_\beta$ defined in \eqref{beta} is trivial. Hence, $\xi'_A=\xi_A$. By the argument given around \cite[Rem.~6.5]{DR}, we also have $\Xi'_A=\Xi_A$ whenever ${\rm co}(A)=\tilde\pi$. Now the result follows from the claim above.
\end{proof}
With this theorem, the index set $M(m|1,\pi)$ can have the following canonical description:
$$\aligned
M(m|1,\pi)&=\{A\in M(m|1,r)\mid \Xi'_A \cdot v_\pi\neq 0\}\\
&=\{A\in M(m|1,r)\mid {\mathsf p}(A)\in I(\pi), {\mathsf q}(A)={\mathsf T}_\pi\}.
\endaligned $$
Theorems \ref{ngeq1} and \ref{n=1} gives immediately the following.
\begin{corollary}\label{CHWConj}
Let $\mathscr C^-=\{{\mathsf C}_A\mid A\in M(m|1)^-\}$ be the canonical basis for $U^-_{\mathcal Z}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|1})$ as given in \eqref{C-} and let $L(\mu)$ be a simple polynomial representations of ${\mathbf U}(\mathfrak{gl}_{m|1})$ with highest weight vector $v_\mu$. Then
$$\{{\mathsf C}_A\cdot v_\mu\mid A\in M(m|1)^-\}\setminus \{0\}$$
forms a basis for $L(\mu)$.
\end{corollary}
We have proved the conjecture \cite[Conj.~8.9]{CHW2} for polynomial representations.
\vspace{.3cm}
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgement.} The authors would like to thank Weiqiang Wang for the reference \cite{CHW2}. The first author also thanks him for various discussions during his visit to Charlottesville in January 2014 and for his comments on the canonical property in the $\mathfrak{gl}_{m|1}$ case.
|
\section{Introduction}
Modeling is a central activity in all sciences and well-known examples span many fields, including the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, the standard model of particle physics, climate models, and many others. Although these models apply to a diverse range of phenomena or processes, each model encodes and communicates understanding through specific diagrams, equations, and words. Each of these scientific models abstracts and simplifies a process in the natural world by highlighting the most salient features and ignoring the extraneous details. However, experts use models in complex ways and the process is often not made explicit in laboratory courses. We have developed a framework to describe the modeling process in physics laboratory activities. The framework attempts to abstract and simplify the complex modeling process undertaken by experts. We demonstrate that the framework captures several salient features of model-based reasoning in a way that can reveal common student difficulties and guide the development of curricula that emphasize modeling in the laboratory.
For the last several decades, models and modeling have gained increasing attention within the science curriculum. Although models have long been taught as content in the curriculum, only in recent decades has an explicit discussion of modeling been elevated to a central role. By 1992, David Hestenes, theoretical physicist and co-founder of the Modeling Instruction curriculum, claimed in Ref. \onlinecite{Hestenes1992} (p. 732) that, ``The great game of science is modeling the real world, and each scientific theory lays down a system of rules for playing the game.'' The 1996 National Science Education Standards (NSES) highlighted ``Evidence, Models, and Explanations'' as one of the unifying concepts and processes that all students should develop an understanding of and ability in.\cite{NSES1996} The 2012 Framework for K-12 Science Education and the 2013 Next Generation Science Standards articulate ``Developing and Using Models'' as one of eight key science and engineering practices that should be emphasized throughout the K-12 curriculum.\cite{NGSS2013,NationalResearchCouncil2012a} At the college level, the emphasis extends beyond the physical sciences as well. The 2011 AAAS Vision and Change report, which is guiding substantial innovation in undergraduate biology education, says ``Studying biological dynamics requires a greater emphasis on modeling, computation, and data analysis than ever before.''\cite{AAAS2011} More recently the American Association of Physics Teachers Committee on Laboratories has produced a set of updated laboratory guidelines that highlight modeling as one of six central themes of the physics laboratory.\cite{AAPT2014} Although the curricular canon of core physics ideas may gradually shift, and though new subfields of science may emerge, modeling as a tool for understanding remains essential.
In this paper, we first articulate the salient features of modeling as they are most frequently described in the physics and science education literature. Then, we discuss limitations of prior frameworks for use in upper-division laboratory work, and describe a framework that builds on these to explicitly include modeling of measurement tools along with the physical system. We then present results from a series of think-aloud laboratory activities where we analyze students' model-based reasoning using the framework. Different facets of students' model-based reasoning are presented through quotes from the think-aloud activity, and we also describe two common difficulties in modeling that were observed. Finally, we suggest future steps for investigating model-based reasoning during laboratory or experimental work.
\section{Defining models and modeling}
There is consistent agreement among several authors and national reports as to the key facets that constitute models and modeling. Fig.\ \ref{fig:model_components} encapsulates what is included in a well-defined model. First, a scientific model is directed at explaining or understanding some aspect of the real world. There is a \textit{target system or phenomena} of interest. Hestenes describes models as ``A surrogate object, a conceptual representation of a real thing.''\cite{Hestenes1987} Or the NSES states, ``Models are tentative schemes or structures that correspond to real objects, events, or classes of events, and that have explanatory power. Models help scientists and engineers understand how things work.''\cite{NSES1996}
Second, models are always externally articulated or \textit{represented} through words, mathematics, diagrams, and other means. A Framework for K-12 Science Education says, ``Conceptual models...are...\textit{explicit representations} that are in some ways analogous to the phenomena they represent. Conceptual models allow scientists and engineers to better visualize and understand a phenomenon under investigation or develop a possible solution to a design problem.''\cite{NationalResearchCouncil2012a} It is equally important to note that a representation by itself does not constitute the entirety of the model. Schwarz et al state, ``…not all representations are models. Models are specialized representations that embody aspects of mechanism, causality, or function to illustrate, explain, and predict phenomena."\cite{Schwarz2009} Not every mathematical equation is a model, but it is typically the goal of most physics courses to demonstrate that the math is more than symbols and that equations have physical meaning and explanatory power. In Fig.\ \ref{fig:model_components}, the arrows between the representations highlight that no single representation is sufficient, and students (and experts) must continually translate among these representations in their attempts to explain phenomena.
Third, all models are simplified and contain assumptions. Schwarz and colleagues in the MoDeLS Project point out that a scientific model ``\textit{abstracts and simplifies} [emphasis added] a system by focusing on key features to explain and predict scientific phenomena.''\cite{Schwarz2009} All users of a model should be aware of the simplifications and know when the model can be accurately applied to a system. Further, because of these assumptions and simplifications, models are tentative and undergo refinement. Schwarz et al. summarize this aspect of modeling as ``models change as our understanding improves,'' which becomes a central dimension in their metamodeling learning progression.\cite{Schwarz2009}
The fourth component of the model as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:model_components} is the \textit{known principles and concepts} upon which the model is based. Models are developed using our prior understanding of principles and concepts that may apply to the target system or phenomena. For instance, much of Newtonian mechanics can be viewed as an application of a few principles of motion (e.g., $\vec{F} = m\vec{a}$, conservation of energy), which are used to develop mathematical representations that describe particular mechanical systems (e.g. pendulum, rolling balls, falling objects). Halloun, another co-founder of Modeling Instruction makes this link explicit, ``A scientific model is … a conceptual system mapped, \textit{within the context of a specific theory} [emphasis added], onto a specific pattern in the structure and/or behavior of a set of physical systems so as to reliably represent the pattern in question and serve specific functions in its regard.''\cite{Halloun2004}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, clip, trim=0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm]{Defining_a_model_graphic.pdf}
\caption{Key components of a well-defined model include articulation of a target system, assumptions, key principles, and external representations.}
\label{fig:model_components}
\end{figure}
One limitation of Fig.\ \ref{fig:model_components} is that it treats the model as a static object. Yet every model must be constructed. Every model must be used to make predictions or explanations. Every model should be tested empirically by evaluating the soundness of assumptions and by comparing its predictions to observations of the target phenomenon. Finally, while a model can be well-defined, it is always tentative and subject to refinement. As new experiments are conducted under a wider range of circumstances or with greater precision, previously satisfactory explanations no longer suffice and iterative model refinement must occur. By \textit{modeling}, we mean this dynamic process of constructing and using models. It is our goal here to present a framework for modeling that changes the static picture of Fig.\ \ref{fig:model_components} into a dynamic process that is descriptive of students' model-based reasoning in the laboratory.
Although this discussion of modeling has entirely focused on models that have external representations, we acknowledge students' mental models also play an important role in learning science. The Framework for K-12 Science Education makes the distinction that ``mental models are internal, personal, idiosyncratic, incomplete, unstable, and essentially functional.'' It is the permanence of external representations that enables models to be effective tools for communication and scientific explanation, and it is these external representations that can be gradually be improved through the work of a community researchers separated in space and time.
\section{Framework for modeling in labs}
\label{sec:framework}
\subsection{Review of prior frameworks}
\label{sec:framework_prior}
One of the earlier schematics for the modeling process is a linear 4-step scheme developed by Hestenes and Halloun that includes: model description, formulation, ramification, and validation.\cite{Hestenes1987} A later version also used by Hestenes and Halloun includes an iterative process of prediction, analysis, and validation.\cite{Halloun1996} Both frameworks are targeted at developing models of physical systems discussed in standard lecture courses (e.g., developing models of mechanical systems in motion). Windschitl et al. created a highly iterative framework where they reframe the entire task of inquiry-based science as centered around modeling, something they call Model-Based Inquiry.\cite{Windschitl2008} The Model-Based Inquiry framework is perhaps the most comprehensive look at a broad range of scientific practices (e.g., asking questions, building models, generating hypothesis, constructing arguments, and seeking evidence) within a framework that emphasizes modeling as the primary tool for scientific explanation. Another framework from Schwarz et al. is directed at learning progressions and emphasizes the interconnectedness between metamodeling knowledge and the elements of modeling (e.g., construction, prediction, evaluation, revision), but doesn't describe how these elements form a process. The Framework for K-12 Science Education lays out a very general schematic for how modeling fits among several other scientific practices important to scientists and engineers.\cite{NationalResearchCouncil2012a} Finally, the prior framework that most tightly couples experiments with modeling is the learning cycle utilized throughout the introductory-level Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) curriculum. The ISLE cycle progresses through making observations, identifying patterns, creating explanations, articulating assumptions, making predictions, testing predictions, and revising models and experiments.\cite{Etkina2007a}
\subsection{The need for a upper-division lab modeling framework}
The broad challenge that inspired our new framework was the desire to describe modeling in a way that could be readily applied to upper-division physics lab courses for analyzing student reasoning or design of curricula. The earlier frameworks were focused on general K-12 science and introductory college physics. While there are many extremely helpful insights in each of the frameworks cited above, none of them has upper-division physics labs or experimental physics research in mind. In the language of modeling, upper-division physics labs were outside of their domain of applicability. Some frameworks operate at too general a level to really link to the details of the lab; some do not fully capture the iterative nature of the lab; and some do not present the connections between the elements of modeling. The frameworks that accompany Modeling Instruction\cite{Hestenes1987, Halloun1996} are some of the most detailed and relevant to physics, yet they have a singular focus on the development of models of physical systems, and give little attention to the experimental tools that must be used to make the measurements.
In order to demonstrate why the new framework includes measurement tools while prior frameworks were able to largely ignore them, it is worth contrasting the apparatus and measurement tools in introductory labs, where the goal is often making a quick connection to fundamental principles, with upper-division labs, which are closer to authentic physics research in their complexity and instrumentation. Introductory labs commonly employ two techniques to quickly elucidate physical principles. First, many introductory lab experiments are engineered to make the behavior of the system agree with highly simplified models that are easily derived from principles. The experimental details are arranged so as not to distract students' attention from the principles. For instance, the canonical ``block sliding down a plane'' is commonly implemented using a cart with wheels. The knife edge wheels are designed to have low rolling resistance, are mounted to low friction axles, and their low mass and radius result in a small moment of inertia that ensures the rotational kinetic energy in the wheels is small compared to the translational kinetic energy of the cart. One manufacturer explicitly states that the carts are designed to ensure that ``student data more closely matches theory.'' \cite{PASCO} The second technique employed in many introductory labs is the use of sensors and automated data acquisition \cite{Sokoloff2007,Thornton1990}. The various sensors do an excellent job of quickly obtaining quantitative data and providing real-time graphic visualizations of the data. With such tools, students can quickly compare predictions to measurements, make refinements to their models, and run a test again. However, the principles of operation and performance limitations of the measurement tools are rarely discussed. The measurement tools are engineered so that any deviation from ideal measurement operation can be ignored when used for common introductory experiments. Further, the model of the measurement tool is often integrated into the apparatus and software, so every sensor directly outputs the quantity of interest. For example, force sensors output newtons while position sensors output meters even when those quantities are not directly measured (e.g., a motion detector converts a time delay between emitted and received pulses into a distance). Students are encouraged to focus on the relationship between force and motion rather than on how these measurements work or on statistical uncertainty and systematic errors of the sensors.
While prioritizing basic physics principles is natural for an introductory course, upper-division physics majors need a more holistic view of the experimental process. This holistic view should include a deep understanding of the principles of physics underlying the entire apparatus, including the measurement tools. In a recent survey about laboratory learning goals, faculty frequently mentioned the importance of understanding the ``black boxes'' in the laboratory through an understanding of the principles and limitations of operation.\cite{Zwickl2013} Modeling the full apparatus affords an important professional development opportunity for students pursuing careers in physical science or engineering. Physicists, as a community, are frequently pushing the limits of commercially available measurement tools and are often on the leading edge of designing new measurement techniques (e.g., Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which is only possible through a deep intellectual engagement with the entire experiment. Thus, what is needed is a extension of existing modeling frameworks \cite{Hestenes1992,Schwarz2009} that is more applicable to the complex apparatus of upper-division labs.
\subsection{A framework for modeling in upper-division labs}
As described earlier in Sec.\ \ref{sec:framework_prior}, most frameworks for describing modeling at the introductory level emphasize the development of new principles and concepts, while the measurement process is largely taken for granted. Hestenes does say, ``...there is a critical theoretical component to the design of every piece of apparatus and everything [experimentalists] do in the laboratory'' and later quotes Martin Deutsch, ``How it is possible that important and reliable conclusions are drawn from this experimentation? The answer lies in the fact that the experimenter starts out with a well structured image of the actual connections between the events [of turning a knob and the recorded measurement].''\cite{Hestenes1992} Despite this acknowledgment, the modeling frameworks don't explicitly include measurement tools. Beyond the omission of measurement tools, most upper-division physics labs do not seek to inductively develop new fundamental principles (e.g., Maxwell's equations), but more commonly to apply known principles to explain observable phenomena or test predictions. Although the underlying physics principles are typically assumed to be prior knowledge for the students, there is still substantial opportunity for constructing models, identifying key principles and parameters, making relevant assumptions, and making predictions that are testable. Because many upper-division labs involve advanced concepts and use equipment that is often unfamiliar, students must do significant intellectual work in order to understand the experiment.
The holistic framework for modeling in the laboratory in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_framework} divides the full experimental apparatus into the \textit{physical system} (right side of Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_framework}) and the \textit{measurement tools} (left side of Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_framework}). (Italics are used throughout the paper to highlight the connections to key stages in the framework in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_framework} and in the modeling codes used in Figs.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} and \ref{fig:Modeling_codes} and Table\ \ref{tab:codes}.) This conceptual division between measurement tools and physical system is useful because it recognizes that models used to understand the physical system (e.g., a block sliding down a ramp) are quite different from those used to understand the measurement tools (e.g., a motion detector). Sometimes the division is obvious in an experiment, while other times, the measurement tools and physical system are more integrated. In such cases, while there might be multiple ways to conceptually divide the system into a physical system and measurement tools, any reasonable division is still a helpful for modeling the full apparatus. The left-right symmetry of the framework emphasizes that the measurement tools, in addition to the physical system, can be understood through mechanisms rooted in principles of physics.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth, clip, trim=0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm]{Modeling_framework_v10.pdf}
\caption{The modeling framework describes a process that includes constructing models of the measurement tools and physical system, making predictions, making measurements, interpreting measurements using the measurement model, comparison between predictions and measurements, and several pathways for revision of the models and apparatus. The labels in italics correspond to key facets of modeling that are also coded in the think-aloud laboratory activities (see Figs.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} and \ref{fig:Modeling_codes}). The \textit{model construction} phases shown in the top right and top left aligns with the key components of models shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:model_components} Color is used in the diagram to highlight the distinct phases of the modeling process and to highlight the symmetry between the modeling process for the measurement tools and physical system.}
\label{fig:Modeling_framework}
\end{figure}
To begin working through the modeling diagram, we will start at the model \textit{construction} phase,\footnote{Italics denote aspects of the modeling framework that also serve as codes in the later analysis of student work.} depicted in the top left of Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_framework} (for measurement tools) and top right (for the physical system). Following the description of key model components in Fig.\ \ref{fig:model_components}, a model is an abstraction of some real device, and the construction requires an input of principles and concepts, \textit{limitations} and assumptions, and key parameters. Although the construction stage is important for both the measurement tools model and the physical system model, there are typically differences in the details of the construction process. The construction of the physical system model typically builds heavily on core ideas from undergraduate courses, while the principles, limitations, and parameters for the measurement tools model are largely supplied through manufacturers' documentation. Reading a data sheet is reframed as an exercise in model-based reasoning. Regarding use, the physical system model is used to make \textit{predictions} (a stage represented in other modeling frameworks), but the measurement tools model is used to \textit{interpret raw data} or translate raw observations into physically meaningful quantities (e.g., a motion detector converts a time delay between sent and received pulses into a position). The predictions and interpreted measurements converge at a \textit{comparison}, and the results of that comparison are either satisfactory, or prompt a revision in the models or apparatus. The framework identifies four major pathways for \textit{revision}: refine the measurement tools apparatus, refine the measurement tools model (e.g., calibrate the measurement tools), refine the physical system apparatus, or refine the physical system model. Depending on likely sources of discrepancies (e.g., limitations were identified in the model construction phase, or a parameter was unknown in the apparatus) and upon which revisions are most easy to implement, the various pathways can be prioritized and explored. The process is represented as a cycle that can be repeated until the experimental goal is met.
\subsection{Application of the framework to lab design}
In order to briefly demonstrate the general utility and detail included in the modeling framework in Fig. \ref{fig:Modeling_framework}, we first apply it to analyze the structure of an introductory lab activity and then apply it as a curriculum design tool that can guide the creation of activities that emphasize different aspects of modeling. For a more in-depth discussion of the framework applied to upper-division laboratory design, see Ref. \onlinecite{Zwickl2014b}, where the framework was used to develop a lab activity on the polarization of light.
To demonstrate the application of the framework in the analysis of modeling in an activity, consider a standard lab activity where students construct a simple pendulum of length $L$ and measure it's period $T$ for small angle oscillations to determine the gravitational acceleration $g$ using a relationship previously derived in class ($T = 2\pi\sqrt{L/g}$). Applying the framework to this hypothetical activity, we identify the physical system as the pendulum, while the measurement tool is a stop watch. The model \textit{construction} stage for the physical system was mostly accomplished prior to the lab, perhaps by the instructor or textbook. The relevant principles and simplifications were already applied in the derivation of the period. The only missing element in the model are two parameters: $L$, the pendulum length, which may be chosen by the student, and $g$, which is treated as an unknown model parameter. The measurement tools produce \textit{raw data}, which are the total time elapsed on the stop watch $\Delta t$ and the number of oscillations $N$. The \textit{measurement tools model} is very simple and has a mathematical representation as $T=\Delta t/N$. The use of the measurement tools model gives the \textit{interpreted data}, which is the period per oscillation. Viewed as a modeling exercise, this ``measurement of $g$'' lab is an exercise where Newton's laws of motion are known, the gravitational force has been mathematically modeled, but we imagine that within this theory of the gravitational force, there is an unknown parameter $g$, which must be found. There is a small degree of model \textit{refinement} in the activity, in the sense that the previously ``unknown'' parameter $g$ is optimally chosen to produce the best agreement between the predicted period and the measured period. Although this activity has some elements of modeling, it only explores a limited subset of the modeling process.
As a curriculum design tool, the framework offers a way to generate various alternative pendulum labs that emphasize additional aspects of the modeling process that go beyond measuring a particular parameter or physical constant. Based on the different stages of the framework, the lab could: (a) Emphasize model \textit{construction}. Students could apply principles to develop the model of the pendulum if it has not been covered in class already. (b) Emphasize \textit{limitations}, simplifications, and assumptions of the pendulum and measurement tools. Students could articulate all the assumptions in the simple pendulum (e.g., small angle, point mass, etc.), describe the limits of validity for each assumption, and justify whether or not their pendulum experiment satisfies those conditions. Students could then test the gradual breakdown of the model as the real pendulum is designed and operated in a regime that goes beyond the model's limits of validity. (c) Emphasize testing a broader set of \textit{predictions} of the simple pendulum theory, such as, $T\propto\sqrt{L}$, $T\propto1/\sqrt{g}$, or that $T$ does not depend on mass $m$ or amplitude of oscillation. Students could then design experiments to test each of these predictions. (d) Emphasize \textit{limitations} and \textit{refinement} of measurement tools. For instance, video analysis of an oscillating pendulum (e.g., using Vernier Logger Pro or Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling Tool\footnote{Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling Tool, https://www.cabrillo.edu/$\sim$dbrown/tracker/}) offers several opportunities to discuss limitations and refinement of measurement models as students' discover the need to keep their camera at a fixed position and orientation, choose an appropriate camera angle, and understand the geometric distortion of the images due to the lens. While these alternatives don't constitute an exhaustive list of possibilities, they do exemplify how the framework can inspire a broad range of modeling activities by repurposing standard lab equipment.
\section{Think-aloud lab activities}
\label{sec:interviews}
In addition to using the framework for curriculum design, we also use the framework to measure students' engagement in different aspects of the modeling process in the laboratory. Because one new and significant component of our framework was the emphasis on modeling the measurement tools, we wanted to find examples of how students engage in a modeling process with their measurement tools during laboratory activities (Sec.\ \ref{sec:student_excerpts}). Further, we were curious if students found particular aspects of the modeling process to be especially challenging (Secs. \ref{sec:assumptions} and \ref{sec:insufficient_concepts}).
In order to capture students' experimental work involving modeling, we designed a short laboratory activity that would provide students with ample opportunities to design, use, test, and refine models of the physical system and measurement tools. The think-aloud activity was based on an instructional lab that students had previously completed in a junior-level electronics course. Students were given an LED connected to a DC power supply and asked to measure the LED's optical power output and compare that to a value they predict using information from a product data sheet. The short prompt for the activity is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:activity_sheet}, and Fig.\ \ref{fig:Lab_bench} shows the lab bench and equipment that students were able to use during the activity. The experiment was designed to provide students opportunities to construct and refine models of the measurement tools and the LED with varying assumptions and levels of sophistication.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, clip, trim=0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm]{Activity_sheet.pdf}
\caption{Written prompts used for the think-aloud experimental activity.}
\label{fig:activity_sheet}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, clip, trim=0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm]{Optics_Lab_Bench_v1_cropped.pdf}
\caption{Laboratory bench used for the think-aloud experimental activity.}
\label{fig:Lab_bench}
\end{figure}
The \textit{physical system} consisted of a red LED connected to a DC power supply in series with a resistor to limit the maximum current through the LED. A multimeter was used to measure current through the LED. The \textit{measurement tools} used to determine the optical power output were a Thorlabs PDA36A Adjustable Gain Photodetector and an oscilloscope. Students were also provided with data sheets for the LED, photodetector, multimeter, and oscilloscope along with assorted optical mounts.
In order to elucidate the design of the LED activity, we describe one possible approach that would lead to an accurate prediction and measurement of the LED's optical power output. The first step, predicting the optical power output, requires knowledge of the typical angular intensity (given on the LED data sheet as $I_\text{ang} = 670$\ \textmu W/steradian) and an estimate of the solid angle of the cone of light emitted by the LED. The width of the cone was specified as $\theta = 22\degree$ (0.38 rad). Assuming the cone width is small ($\theta <<\pi$), the area $A$ illuminated by the cone at a distance, $R$, from the LED is $A\approx \pi(R \theta/2)^2$. The solid angle subtended by the cone is $\Omega = A/R^2 = \pi (\theta /2)^2 \approx 0.11$ steradians. The predicted optical output power is $P = I_\text{ang}\Omega \approx 76$ \textmu W. The second part, measuring the optical power output, requires setting the LED current to the manufacturer's test condition (20 mA) and positioning the photodetector extremely close to the LED so as to capture the entire cone of light in one measurement. The measured voltage from the photodetector can be converted into incident optical power using the known gain setting on the detector and the wavelength of the emitted light (LED has a peak wavelength at 635 nm and and a spectral width of 45 nm). Finally, there may be an offset voltage in the photodetector output due to ambient light in the room or the internal operation of the detector, which should be subtracted from the measurements of the LED power output. This offset voltage can be determined by measuring the photodetector output voltage with the LED turned off.
The student participants were drawn from an upper-division optics and modern physics lab course for physics majors at a large public research university. The course has a typical enrollment of 20-25 students. All students enrolled in the course were invited to participate in the think-aloud interview, and eight students responded. All eight participants were male, which reflected the fact that 20 of 21 students enrolled in the course during the semester of data collection were male. As an upper-division lab course where nearly all students complete their assignments, course grades are typically split between A's and B's. Of the eight students who were interviewed, four received A's and four received B's. Of the three students analyzed in detail in Sec. \ref{sec:Results} and Figs.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} and \ref{fig:Modeling_codes}, two received an A and one received a B. The participants received a \$20 incentive for their time and effort, but participants did not earn any credit or extra credit in the lab course. The particular sampling of students was not chosen in order to make generalizable claims about specific patterns in student reasoning, but rather to provide evidence that the new framework for modeling offers significant utility for capturing and differentiating student reasoning during a complex lab activity.
The interviews were conducted during the final two weeks of the semester, by which time the lab space and equipment shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Lab_bench} (other than the LED) were part of their weekly lab experience. The think-aloud lab portion of the interview typically took 30-45 minutes. After the activity, there was a 20-30 minute follow-up discussion where the students' models were reviewed in order to clarify missing details from the think-aloud portion. At the very end, the participants were allowed to request explanations for any of the physical or mathematical details of the experiment.
Audio and video of the think-aloud interviews were collected along with written observations and copies of students' work. The full interviews were transcribed, but only the think-aloud laboratory portion was coded for instances of model-related activity identified in the framework. Table \ref{tab:codes} provides a list of high-level modeling codes and a brief description of the coding criteria. Several of the codes (\textit{model construction}, \textit{predictions}, \textit{comparison}, \textit{limitations}, \textit{revision}) are common to most frameworks that discuss modeling. Several of the high-level codes had more refined sub-codes (e.g., revision had sub-codes to indicate whether apparatus or models were revised), but these are not described in Table\ \ref{tab:codes} or shown in the data. Several other modeling codes in Table\ \ref{tab:codes} are unique to the framework: \textit{physical system}, \textit{measurement tools}, \textit{interpretation of data}, and \textit{making measurements}. Finally, some significant moments of student reasoning were placed into categories that were outside the framework. \textit{Troubleshooting} was coded whenever a student recognized a problem with the apparatus and attempted to solve it. Sometimes the resolution was simple and unexpected (pressing the ``autoset'' button on the oscilloscope), while other times students engaged in what appeared to be a rapid modeling cycle involving a series of qualitative predictions and qualitative measurements (e.g., if I put my hand in front of the detector, the photodetector output voltage should decrease) in order to identify the source of the problem. In these model-based troubleshooting episodes, the timespan for a series of predictions, measurements, comparison, and refinement could occur in the span of a minute or less. Although not all troubleshooting utilized model-based reasoning, it was remarkable to see how the process of identifying and solving the problem became a genuine episode of scientific inquiry activity where the solution was unknown to the student and yet of the utmost importance to find.
The three interviews that are included in this analysis (see Figs.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys}, \ref{fig:Modeling_codes}) were independently coded by two of us and then compared for consistency. As the coding criteria were refined, the two coders were able to come to an agreement level exceeding 95\% for the high-level modeling codes presented.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| p{3cm} | p{13cm} |}
\hline
\textbf{Code} & \textbf{Criteria} \\ \hline
Physical System & Any activity, discussion, or modeling related to the LED and the power supply that provides current to the LED. \\ \hline
Measurement Tools & Any activity, discussion, or modeling activity related to the photodetector and the oscilloscope. \\ \hline
Construction & Student identifies principles, assumptions, parameters that go into the models of physical system or measurement tools. Includes constructing verbal representations (typically a conceptual discussion) and mathematical representations of the model.\\ \hline
Prediction & Student uses the physical system model to predict the power output of the LED. \\ \hline
Interpretation of Data & Student uses the measurement tools model to convert raw (or direct) measurements (i.e., voltage) into a more useful quantity (i.e., optical power) so they can be compared with something else, typically a prediction.\\ \hline
Making Measurements & Student gets raw results from measurement tools (primarily info from the oscilloscope, multimeter, or an observation of the phenomena made with the naked eye). \\ \hline
Comparison & Student makes a comparison between a prediction and measurement or with some prior knowledge \\ \hline
Limitation & Student identifies a non-ideal feature of the experimental setup or model. Includes making assumptions and justifying assumptions. \\ \hline
Revision & Student modifies some aspect of the the apparatus or models related to the physical system or measurement tool. \\ \hline
Troubleshooting & Student recognizes there is a problem (some aspect of the apparatus of measurement does not work right or does not work at all) with an unidentified source and the student tries to fix it. Typically involves a series of qualitative predictions and simple qualitative experimental tests to identify the source of the problem. \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{High-level modeling codes and brief descriptions of the coding criteria.}
\label{tab:codes}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
\label{sec:Results}
There are three main results in the sections that follow. The first, and most important result, is that students do engage in meaningful modeling of the measurement tools. Students' modeling is significant in both duration and in quality as Figs.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} and \ref{fig:Modeling_codes} and several interview excerpts will demonstrate. The second and third results are about common challenges that students' had during the modeling process. The second result reviews challenges in identifying assumptions during model construction and in justifying those assumptions and connecting to limitations. The third result describes difficulties students had during model construction because of they had insufficient understanding of key concepts in the experiment. This result emphasizes a link between students' conceptual understanding and their engagement scientific practices such as modeling and experimental design.
\subsection{Students' modeling of measurement tools}
\label{sec:student_excerpts}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth, clip, trim=0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm]{Combo_graph_v3.pdf}
\caption{Comparisons of students activity related to the measurement tools vs physical system for three students. Each of the three students spent more time using and modeling the measurement tools.}
\label{fig:Meas_vs_phys}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} shows the occurrences of physical system (LED) and measurement tools (photodetector and oscilloscope) codes throughout the interview. As Fig.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} shows, each of the students spent a significant fraction of their time using and modeling the measurement tools in this particular upper-division lab activity. Based on Fig.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} alone, it would be impossible to understand the character or quality of the measurement tools activity because it may just be that the students were mindlessly turning knobs and writing down measurements. We demonstrate the quality in two ways. First, Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_codes} shows the occurrences of specific modeling codes for Student A over the entire think-aloud activity. The \textit{making measurements} code does specifically code the activity of turning knobs and making observations, but Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_codes} shows this only occupies about 4 minutes of the activity, while a broad range of other modeling activities occur for comparable lengths of time throughout the interview (e.g., construction, interpretation of data, comparison, revision). Although the pattern of codes does vary for each student, Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_codes} is representative in the frequency of different modeling activities. Second, we use several interview excerpts to show of the quality of students' model-based reasoning. Examples are provided that span four different aspects of modeling in relation to the measurement tools: construction, identification of assumptions and limitations, interpretation of data, and revision. The primary claim, which follows from Figs.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} and \ref{fig:Modeling_codes} and the transcript excerpts below, is that frameworks for modeling in the lab must explicitly include the use of measurement tools. If a modeling framework does not explicitly include the measurement tools, it may overlook frequently occurring episodes of model-based reasoning, which are especially likely to occur in upper-division physics labs that involve sophisticated measurement equipment.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth, clip, trim=0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm]{one_student_meas_tools_v5.pdf}
\caption{Detailed view of Student A's modeling codes throughout the laboratory activity. Darker shades are modeling activities specific to the measurement tools. Lighter shades are modeling activities related to the physical system.}
\label{fig:Modeling_codes}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Excerpt: Model construction---Principles and concepts.} One element of model construction is identifying the key principles and concepts in the model. In this excerpt, Student A is trying to understand the physical mechanism by which the incident light on the detector is converted to the output voltage $V$ being measured by the oscilloscope. The student realizes that the intensity of the broadly dispersed light from the LED must be integrated over some area to get a total incident power $P_{in}$. The student correctly identifies that the power from the absorbed light produces a current in the photodiode (according to a material-dependent proportionality constant $R$, known as the responsivity). The current is converted to a voltage using a circuit known as a transimpedance amplifier with gain $G$ in volts per amp. Mathematically, this model is represented as $V = GRP_{in}$.
\textit{``I've got to figure out how to turn voltage measurements into power. I guess I don't have any idea how to do that honestly.} (Student is reading data sheet) \textit{Tell me power to voltage...voltage to power... spectral responsivity. I kind of remember this stuff. Something like when light [is] incident on the photo detector and that intensity is integrated into a power and that power causes a current and the current transimpedance gain... So I have voltage and I'm looking for a power . This is figuring out power from a measured voltage.''} The student goes on to successfully construct a quantitative model connecting a measured voltage to an incident power. However, by first identifying the principles of operation, the mathematical equation that is used is not just a computational tool, but has been clearly linked to the physical setup.
\textbf{Excerpt: Model construction---Limitations.} A second element of model construction is identifying the limitations in the models and apparatus. Student B recognizes and addresses two limitations. First, the LED emits light over a range of angles, but the photodetector's small size may not be large enough to capture the entire cone of light. The effect of the limitation can be minimized by bringing the detector as close as possible to the LED. Second, the student observes that ambient light is also incident on the detector, the effect of this limitation can be reduced by blocking more ambient light.
\textit{``I think I'm just gonna put the photodiode directly in front of the LED and hope that it's in between the 23 degrees of the viewing angle so I get approximately 100 percent of the relative intensity...I just put the photodiode close so, that makes sure that I get as much of the intensity as I can. I'm gonna put this [light blocking tube] on to eliminate a lot of the sunlight.''}
\textbf{Excerpt: Interpretation of data.} Student B constructs a model of the measurement tools, complete with actual device parameters for the peak wavelength of the LED, the responsivity of the photodetector, and the transimpedance amplifier gain. The student then uses this mathematical model with parameters to obtain the desired measurement (optical power output of the LED) from the raw voltage measurements.
\textit{``I know the voltage is proportional to the intensity. I know the photodiode has got a small diode in there and it's only picking up a small area of intensity from the LED so, that's the area, if I knew that area and multiplied it by I, I'd get watts. Power equals $I$ times $A$. I'm still struggling to figure out how I'll get voltage into intensity. Once I have intensity, I can get the power. I know volts are watts per amp...I know I need to use this responsivity which is an amp per watt in the peak wavelength for the LEDs is 635 [nm], so 635 on this gives me a responsivity of 0.4 amps per watts. So I need to get this into power. So, one over responsivity gives me watts per amp so, I need to calculate the current from the photodiode. I'm gonna use the gain which is at 0 dB setting so the gain is volts per amp which I believe is $1.51\times10^3$ volts per amp. That times the responsivity of 0.4 gives us volts per watt which is 604 volts per watt, so one over that gives me the wattages per amp er... per volt. ...So, now multiplying our $\Delta V$ which is 22.2 mV times this watts per volt gives us the intensity as seen in the photodiode. I get a power of $3.84\times 10^{-5}$ W. That was the power, the measured power from the photodiode.''}
\textbf{Excerpt: Revision of apparatus and model.} Student B revises the apparatus to minimize ambient light and revises the model of the photodetector to include an offset in the photodetector output voltage that is present even when the LED is off (i.e., $V = GRP_{in}+V_{off}$). It is interesting to see the use of two simultaneous model revision strategies, which represent two of the four pathways shown in the revision stage of Fig.\ \ref{fig:Modeling_framework}---revising the measurement apparatus to be more ideal (lower the offset due to background light) and generalize the measurement tools model to account for remaining offset voltage $V_{off}$.
\textit{``It looks like the photodiode is definitely detecting [light]. Okay the photo diode is detecting a lot of sunlight. It's detecting the diode but the sunlight is definitely affecting the reading I'm just trying to think of the best way to get it. I think I'm just gonna put the diode right up against this thing to minimize all the stray light.It looks like with the LED off there's an offset voltage of just under 20 mV. ...With the LED on, the voltage goes up to 39.2 mV. ...The difference is 23.2 mV from the diode being on to off. Now, we're gonna turn the voltage output into total power emitted by the LED.''}
Both the quantitative and qualitative data support the idea that modeling frameworks applicable to upper-division physics labs must include modeling of the measurement tools. The ratio of students' effort devoted to modeling the physical system versus measurement tools will almost certainly vary depending on the particular laboratory activity. The particular balance shown in Figs.\ \ref{fig:Meas_vs_phys} and \ref{fig:Modeling_codes} is due in part to the intentional use of a common measurement tool (the photodetector), which requires modeling as a natural part of gathering and analyzing data. However, most upper-division laboratories include a wide variety of measurement tools and techniques for which this modeling framework will be well-suited.
\subsection{Students' challenges in model construction when articulating assumptions}
\label{sec:assumptions}
Although articulating assumptions is a common element of modeling in nearly all descriptions of model construction, we found several instances during the think-alound interviews where students would utilize a model, but not recognize the assumptions that supported that model. This difficulty is significant because it may hinder other aspects of the modeling process. First, an unidentified assumption is not going to be justified, and so will be included without any critical evaluation as to its appropriateness. Second, the assumptions will not be connected to limitations of the model. Finally, those unidentified limitations are unlikely to inspire any iterative refinements to the experiment.
A common occurrence in the think-aloud activity was that students predicted the optical power using $P=IV$ where $V$ is the voltage drop across the LED and $I$ is the current through the LED. Students identified the relevant parameters in the LED data sheet and computed a numerical result for the power $P=IV$. For example, Student B said, \textit{``I need to predict that total power of the LED. And so the power is the current times the voltage. And the forward voltage drop is like 2 volts . . .well, I'll try and put 20 milliamps in it because that's what it told me to do... which means my power should be 2 volts times .02 is 0.04 watts. So predicted power is 0.04 Watts, so good stuff.''} The student used a particular principle from electronic circuits ($P=IV$), and identified relevant parameters in the device, yet did not recognize that the model assumes 100\% of the electrical energy used would be converted into light. Because the assumption was not identified, no attempt was made to justify its appropriateness, and a modification of the assumption was never an option for model revision. Toward the end of the interview, after the think-aloud portion was complete, the student was directly asked \textit{``So you calculated [power] based on the voltage drop across the diode, the current running through the diode. So, what assumption were you making about the optical power output?''} The student replied, \textit{``I guess that the optical power output would be the same as the power used in the circuit like whatever power was in the circuit was all emitted light, which isn't necessarily the case I guess.''} In this case, with a direct question, the student did reflect upon the LED model and recognize the assumption and that it didn't have any justification. A general pattern was that when a mathematical representation for the model could be readily identified (e.g., $P=IV$), then an explicit discussion of the assumptions was bypassed.
A second example was in the construction of the measurement model involving the conversion of optical power $P$ into photodetector output voltage $V$. A mathematical relationship was provided in the photodetector data sheet: $V = GRP_{in}$, where the responsivity $R$ depends on the material (in this case silicon) and the wavelength of the light. However, the LED emitted a spectrum of wavelengths with a spectral width of about 45 nm. When listing the various assumptions that were made as part of the prediction or measurement, none of the students listed the assumption that the light was monochromatic, although many other assumptions were listed. When specifically asked if there were any assumptions about the spectral properties of light, all students immediately responded that they assumed the wavelength of the LED was a single wavelength at the peak of the spectrum shown on the data sheet. One of the students went on to justify this assumption: \textit{``I would expect that half of the wavelengths [in the spectrum] would give less responsivity and half would give more because we are kind of in this spot where [the responsivity] is almost linear but it does vary... So half would be less [and] half would be more responsivity which would lead to hopefully the same calculated [value as when assuming a monochromatic source].''} In this case, the student was able to provide a justification, but only when the assumption was brought to the student's attention.
\subsection{Students' challenges in model construction from insufficient conceptual understanding}
\label{sec:insufficient_concepts}
In addition to recognizing assumptions, there is a certain amount of prior knowledge that is needed for the construction of a model. In the think-aloud activity, the most accurate model for predicting the optical power output of the LED required the use of an angular distribution of power in microwatts per steradian. Because LEDs are designed to have a particular emission pattern for the light output depending on their application, the data sheet provided a polar coordinate plot of the relative intensity as a function of angle. Also, the data sheet specified the numerical value of the maximum power output per unit solid angle (in microwatts per steradian) and the approximate angular width of the emission pattern. We anticipated students would be able to estimate the emitted power by roughly determining the solid angle of the emitted cone of light and multiplying that solid angle by the peak angular intensity.
The following brief explanatory comment about solid angle was also provided on the data sheet: ``A steradian is a measure of solid angle, which is the area of the angular region on a unit sphere. A full sphere subtends $4\pi$ steradians.'' Despite the explanatory comment and the fact that a similar activity in a prerequisite lab course used solid angle, most students were unsure about the meaning of steradians as a unit. Within the interviews, the related concept of intensity as power per unit area was used by the students. However, the conceptual modification of angular intensity as power per solid angle produced significant confusion in the think-aloud activity.
After Student A completed the entire think-aloud activity, the interviewer mentioned the student had omitted any reference to the use of angular intensity in microwatts/steradian on the data sheet. When asked \textit{``What do you make of this angular intensity spec?''} Student A replied that, \textit{``I guess I kind of glossed over that.''} Student A's response could have indicated a simple oversight, but only after a 10 minute back-and-forth discussion was the student able to get a rough estimate of the solid angle of the LED emission pattern and use it to produce a new prediction for the optical output power. This indicates that the student's oversight was likely connected to a lack of familiarity with the concept of solid angle and the unit of steradian.
Other students also had difficulty with the concept of solid angle. In the process of making predictions, Student B said \textit{``I am calculating the power $IV$ for the diode according to the data sheet. I'm not sure what to do with the angular intensity. I don't know the units of microwatts per steradian.''} Student C, when first reading through the provided data sheet, expressed \textit{``What is that kind of graph? Relative intensity...I have no idea what that is.''}
Each of these students ended up utilizing a $P=IV$ model for optical power output because it was the most obvious model that avoided the concepts of solid angle and steradians. Further consultation with undergraduate instructors confirmed that the one-week lab done in the earlier electronics lab course was probably the only time in their core curriculum where the concept of solid angle was directly addressed.
When a lab activity utilizes concepts that are largely outside of students' prior knowledge, it has a significant impact on how they engage in the laboratory. In this case, it caused most students to largely ignore key information in the data sheet, and construct significantly less accurate models of the optical output power (the $P=IV$ model produced a prediction about 500 times larger than using angular intensity in the model). Beyond model construction and predictions, the angular emission pattern played an additional role in designing the experiment, as it provides one justification for whether or not the photodetector could capture the full emission pattern of the LED.
\section{Conclusions}
Reviewing the prior literature on modeling suggests most earlier modeling frameworks emphasize modeling physical systems that closely relate to core physics ideas (e.g., mechanics or electricity and magnetism). In these frameworks, much of the experimental apparatus is largely overlooked in the modeling process in the pursuit of key principles and concepts. However, in upper-division physics laboratory courses, there is often a non-trivial relationship between the phenomena being studied and the raw measurements, which require students to have a sophisticated understanding of the design and operation of the full experimental apparatus.
This paper presents a new framework for modeling that treats the full experimental apparatus in two parts: the measurement tools and the physical system, and both parts are subject to a modeling process as a way to understand the design and operation of the experiment. The framework serves as both a descriptive tool for characterizing students' model-based reasoning and has applications as a curriculum design tool. Analysis of multiple think-aloud experimental activities showed that the framework does help interpret complex modeling tasks in the laboratory environment. The framework identified that assumptions were often difficult for students to make explicit, especially when a pre-constructed mathematical model was available. Further, the interviews provided a striking example of the link between a lack of prior conceptual knowledge and an inability to construct models.
Because meaningful modeling and experimental design depends on sufficient prior conceptual knowledge, it may be worth revisiting the connection between lecture and lab in the upper-division curriculum. The laboratory experience is commonly viewed as a supplementary experience that aids students' conceptual development, but we are arguing for the community to consider a more complex relationship between conceptual understanding and the experimental process. There are indications in our data that students' prior conceptual understanding places constraints on the kinds of models they make use of and how they design their experiment. If scientific practices are to be integrated into science classes at the K-12 and college levels, then we need a clearer understanding of the relationship between conceptual understanding and the learning of scientific practices.
Future studies will also look at the model construction process, in particular the links between assumptions, limitations, and model revision. Also, we are looking at the relationship between the accuracy and sophistication of students' models of measurement tools and how they connect their own measurements to the key concepts in the lab activity. We hope the framework provides useful insights for those physics education researchers and instructors who are looking for ways to describe laboratory sense-making and for faculty who want to integrate more conceptual and mathematical understanding into experimental activities.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank the CU Physics Department for input on learning goals and pointing out the importance of modeling measurement tools. The research study was approved by the CU-Boulder Institutional Review Board and informed consent was obtained from all participants. This work is supported by NSF TUES DUE-1043028 and NSF TUES DUE-1323101. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.
|
\section{Introduction}
In order to attain high-performance on a variety of architectures and
programming paradigms, for a target operation not one but multiple
algorithms are needed. We focus our attention on the domain of matrix
equations and aim for a symbolic system, fully automated, that takes
as input the description of an equation $Eq$ and returns algorithms and
routines to solve $Eq$.
\begin{mybox}
\scriptsize
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{X_{T}, Y_{T} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B, C_{T}, D_{TL}, E, F_{T}) \\\hline
\{X_{B}, Y_{B} \} = \Psi(A_{BR}, B, C_{B} - A_{BL} X_{T}, D_{BR}, E, F_{B} - D_{BL} X_{T})
\end{array}
\right)
$$ \\
\caption{Partitioned Matrix Expression for the coupled Sylvester equation{}.} \label{box:PMEEx}
\end{mybox}
This research is inspired by an existing methodology for the
derivation of families of algorithms, which is based on formal methods
and program correctness ~\cite{Bientinesi:2005:SDD,PaulDj:PhD-TR}. As
depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:steps}, in the process of algorithm
generation we identify three successive stages: ``PME Generation'',
``Loop-Invariant Identification'', and ``Algorithm Derivation''. The
input to the process is the description of a target operation. In the
first stage, the {\em Partitioned Matrix Expression} (PME) for the
operation is obtained.
A PME is a decomposition of the original problem into simpler sub-problems
in a ``divide and conquer'' fashion, exposing the computation
to be performed in each part of the output matrices.
As an example, in Box~\ref{box:PMEEx}
we show the PME for the coupled Sylvester equation:
{
\footnotesize
$$
\begin{array}{c@{\quad\!}c@{\quad\!}c}
\begin{aligned}
\{X, Y\} = \Psi(&A,B,C,\\&D,E,F)
\end{aligned} &
\equiv &
\left\{
\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}
A X + Y B = C \\
D X + Y E = F
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
$$
}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/diagram.pdf}
\caption{The process of algorithm generation can be broken down
into three main stages.} \label{fig:steps}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The second stage of the process deals with the identification of
boolean predicates, the {\em Loop-Invariants}~\cite{GrSc:92}, that
describe the intermediate state of computation for the sought-after
algorithms.
Loop-invariants can be extracted from the PME, and are at
the heart of the automation of the third stage.
Box~\ref{box:LoopInvEx} contains an example of
loop-invariant.
\begin{mybox}
\centering
\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{X_{T}, Y_{T} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B, C_{T}, D_{TL}, E, F_{T}) \\\hline
\neq
\end{array}
\right)
$$ \\
\caption{One of the loop-invariants for the coupled Sylvester equation{}.
The symbol $\neq$
indicates that no constraints on the contents of the
variables are imposed.
} \label{box:LoopInvEx}
\end{mybox}
In the third and last stage of the methodology, each loop-invariant is
transformed into its corresponding loop-based algorithm. This stage
makes use of classical concepts in computer science such as formal
program correctness, Hoare's triples, and the invariance theorem.
We consider this paper as the second in a series. In the first
one~\cite{CASC-2011-PME} we introduced {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}, a symbolic system written in
Mathematica~\cite{MathematicaOnline}, for the automatic generation of algorithms. There we
detailed how {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} makes use of rewrite rules and pattern matching
to automatically generate PMEs from the description of target operations.
This paper centers around the second stage of the derivation process, the
Loop-Invariant Identification.
We describe the necessary steps to obtain a family of loop-invariants
from a given PME, Fig.~\ref{fig:stepsLInv}, and expose how {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}
automates them through an extensive usage of pattern matching and
rewrite rules.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/diagramLInv.pdf}
\caption{Steps for the identification of loop-invariants from a PME.} \label{fig:stepsLInv}
\end{figure}
As in the example in Box~\ref{box:PMEEx}, a PME decomposes the target
operation into a set of equalities. Each of the equalities expresses
the computation to be carried out in the different parts of the matrix
to compute the overall equation.
Since an equality may represent a complex operation, we first
decompose it into a sequence of tasks.
We define tasks as basic units of computation matched by simple
patterns such as $C = A + B$, $C = A B$, $B = A^{-1}$ or $X = A^{-1} B$.
Next, we inspect the tasks for dependencies among them, and
build the corresponding dependency graph. Then,
predicates that are candidates to becoming loop-invariants are identified
as subsets of the graph satisfying the dependencies. Such subgraphs
represent tasks included in the equalities and, therefore, are
equivalent to choosing subsets of the computation included in the PME.
In the final step, the candidate predicates are checked for
feasibility and the resulting ones are labelled as viable loop-invariants.
The methodology described in~\cite{PaulDj:PhD-TR} generates loop-based algorithms
that all share a fixed structure:
a basic initialization followed by a loop in which the actual computation
is carried out (Box~\ref{box:skeleton}). The main idea of the
methodology is to identify a loop-invariant on top of which a proof
of correctness is built. Quoting Gries and Schneider from their
book {\em A Logical Approach to Discrete Math}~\cite{GrSc:92}
\vspace{2mm}
{\em ``Loop-invariants are crucial to understanding loops---so crucial that all
but the most trivial loops should be documented with the invariants used
to prove their annotations correct. In fact, (a first approximation to) the
invariant should be developed \textbf{before} the loop is written and should act as
a guide to the development of the loop.''}
\vspace{2mm}
A loop-invariant has to be satisfied
before the loop is entered and at the top and the bottom of each
iteration. Upon completion of the loop, the loop-invariant as
well as the negation of the loop-guard are satisfied.
Given these known facts, the statements of the algorithms are
chosen to satisfy them. In particular, the loop-invariant, $LI$,
and the loop-guard, $G$, must be chosen so that $LI \wedge \neg G$
implies that the target equation has been solved.
\input{inputs/skeleton}
As the complexity of the target equation increases,
the methodology requires longer and more involved
algebraic manipulation and pattern matching,
making the manual generation of algorithms a tedious and
error-prone process. The situation is aggravated by
the fact that not one but multiple algorithms
are desired for one same target equation. For this
reason we advocate an automated symbolic system
which exploits the capabilities of modern computer
algebra tools to carry out the entire derivation
process.
In this paper, we make progress towards such a vision
detailing how {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} performs all the steps involved in the
Loop-Invariant Identification. The paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:input} we illustrate the formalism used to
describe the target operations. The automatic generation
of PMEs is reviewed in Section~\ref{sec:PME}.
In Section~\ref{sec:linv} we detail how loop-invariants are
identified and how the process is automated, while
in section~\ref{sec:coupsylv} a more challenging example
is treated. We draw conclusions in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Input to Cl1ck} \label{sec:input}
In line with the methodology we follow for the derivation
of algorithms, we choose the formalism
traditionally used to reason about program correctness:
operations shall be specified by means of the predicates Precondition ($P_{\rm pre}$) and
Postcondition ($P_{\rm post}$)~\cite{GrSc:92}. The precondition enumerates
the operands that appear in the equation and describes their properties, while
the postcondition specifies the equation that combines the operands.
As an example, Box~\ref{box:LUOpDesc} contains the description of the $LU$ factorization{}.
The precondition states that the unit-diagonal, lower triangular matrix $L$
and the upper triangular matrix $U$ are unknown, and $A$ is an input matrix
for which the $LU$ factorization{} exists. The postcondition indicates that, when the computation
completes, the product $L U$ equals $A$; while
the notation $\{L, U\} = LU(A)$ denotes that $L$ and $U$ are the $LU$ factors of $A$.
\begin{mybox}
\footnotesize
$$
\{L, U\} = LU(A) \equiv
\left\{
\begin{split}
P_{\rm pre}: \{ & \prop{Unknown}{L} \, \wedge \, \prop{LowTri}{L} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{UnitDiag}{L} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Unknown}{U} \, \wedge \, \prop{UppTri}{U} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{A} \, \wedge \, \prop{\exists \; LU}{A} \} \\
\\
P_{\rm post}: \{ & L U = A \}
\end{split}
\right.
$$
\caption{Formal description for the $LU$ factorization{}.}
\label{box:LUOpDesc}
\end{mybox}
The two predicates in Box~\ref{box:LUOpDesc} describe unambiguously
the $LU$ factorization{} and characterize the only knowledge about the operation
needed by {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} to automate the generation of algorithms.
Box~\ref{box:MathDesc} illustrates the corresponding Mathematica
statements required from the user.
\begin{mybox}
\footnotesize
\begin{Verbatim}[commandchars=+\$\%]
+textbf$preconditio
{ L, {"Output", "Matrix", "LowerTriangular",
"UnitDiagonal"} },
{ U, {"Output", "Matrix", "UpperTriangular"} },
{ A, {"Input", "Matrix", "ExistsLU"} }
};
+textbf$postconditio
{ equal[times[L , U], A] } (* L U = A *)
};
\end{Verbatim}
\caption{Mathematica representation of the precondition and postcondition predicates for the $LU$ factorization{}.}
\label{box:MathDesc}
\end{mybox}
We use the pair of predicates, $P_{\rm pre}$ and $P_{\rm post}$, to describe
every target operation. Such a description is the input to the generation of PMEs
and, therefore, to the whole process of algorithms derivation.
\section{Generation of PMEs} \label{sec:PME}
Having established a formalism to input a target operation, here we
summarize the process of PME generation. Since the objective is a
{\em Partitioned} Matrix Expression, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} starts off by rewriting
the equation in the postcondition in terms of partitioned matrices. To
this end, we introduce a set of rules to partition operands. As shown
in Box~\ref{box:part}, a generic matrix $A$ can be partitioned in four
different ways.
For a vector, only the $2 \times 1$ and $1 \times 1$ rules apply,
while for scalars only the $1 \times 1$ rule is admissible.
\begin{mybox}
\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\subfloat[$2 \times 2$ rule]{
\label{sbox:part2x2}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
$\ruleTwoByTwo{A}{m}{n}{TL}{k_1}{k_2}$
\end{minipage}
}
\qquad
\subfloat[$2 \times 1$ rule]
{\label{sbox:part2x1}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
$\ruleTwoByOne{A}{m}{n}{T}{k_1}{n}$
\end{minipage}
}
\\
\subfloat[$1 \times 2$ rule]
{\label{sbox:part1x2}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
$\ruleOneByTwo{A}{m}{n}{L}{m}{k_2}$
\end{minipage}
}
\qquad
\subfloat[$1 \times 1$ rule]
{\label{sbox:part1x1}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
$\ruleOneByOne{A}{m}{n}$
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\caption{
Rules for partitioning a generic matrix operand A.
We use the subscript letters $T$, $B$, $L$, and $R$ for $T$op, $B$ottom,
$L$eft, and $R$ight, respectively.
}\label{box:part}
\end{mybox}
The partitionings for an operand are constrained not only by its type
(matrix, vector or scalar) but also by its structure: if the operand presents a known structure,
such as triangularity or symmetry, we restrict the viable
partitionings to those that allow the inheritance of properties. For
instance, Box~\ref{box:partL} illustrates the admissible partitionings
for a lower triangular matrix $L$. Only two rules allow the
inheritance: when the $1 \times 1$ rule is applied, $L$ remains unchanged, and
therefore triangular; a constrained $2 \times 2$ rule in which the
$TL$ quadrant is square leads a partitioning where both $L_{TL}$ and
$L_{BR}$ are square and lower triangular, $L_{TR}$ is zero, and
$L_{BL}$ is a generic matrix.
\begin{mybox}
\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lcl}
\begin{minipage}{3.6cm}
\centering
$\lowtriRuleTwoByTwo{L}{m}{m}{TL}{k}{k}$
\end{minipage}
\quad or \qquad &
\begin{minipage}{3.3cm}
\centering
$\ruleOneByOne{L}{m}{m}$
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Partitioning rules for a lower triangular matrix $L$.}\label{box:partL}
\end{center}
\end{mybox}
Finally, the viable partitionings are also constrained by the
operators that appear in the postcondition. For instance, in the
$LU$ factorization{}, the operator {\em times} in $L U$ imposes that if $L$ is
partitioned along the columns, then $U$ has to be partitioned along
the rows and vice versa, so that the product is well defined. Since
the set of rules where all the operands are partitioned $1 \times 1$
does not lead to a {\em Partitioned} Matrix Expression, the only
admissible set of partitioning rules for the $LU$ factorization{} is shown in Box~\ref{box:LUPart}.
An efficient algorithm that identifies all the admissible partitioning rules
for a given equation was introduced in~\cite{CASC-2011-PME}.
\begin{mybox}
\small
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$$
\begin{array}{c}
\lowtriRuleTwoByTwo{L}{m}{m}{TL}{k}{k} \raisebox{2.8mm}{\textnormal{, }} \hspace{5mm}
\upptriRuleTwoByTwo{U}{m}{m}{TL}{k}{k} \raisebox{2.4mm}{\textnormal{ and }} \\[10mm]
\ruleTwoByTwo{A}{m}{m}{TL}{k}{k}
\end{array}
$$
\caption{Set of partitioning rules for the $LU$ factorization{}.} \label{box:LUPart}
\end{mybox}
Once the valid partitioning rules are found, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} applies them to
the postcondition to obtain a predicate called {\em
partitioned postcondition}. In the case of the
$LU$ factorization{},
the corresponding partitioned postcondition is
{\small
\vspace{-2mm}
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\label{eqn:matArit1}
L U = A
\; \Rightarrow
\;\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} U_{TL} & U_{TR} \\\hline 0 & U_{BR} \end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} A_{TL} & A_{TR} \\\hline A_{BL} & A_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\end{array}.
$$
}
\noindent
From here, matrix arithmetic is carried out until
the equality operator is distributed over the partitions
yielding a set of equalities, one per quadrant:
{\footnotesize
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:matArit1}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} L_{TL} & 0 \\\hline L_{BL} & L_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} U_{TL} & U_{TR} \\\hline 0 & U_{BR} \end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} A_{TL} & A_{TR} \\\hline A_{BL} & A_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\quad \Rightarrow
\notag \\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}}
L_{TL} U_{TL} &
L_{TL} U_{TR} \\\hline
L_{BL} U_{TL} &
L_{BL} U_{TR} + L_{BR} U_{BR}
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}} A_{TL} & A_{TR} \\\hline A_{BL} & A_{BR} \end{array} \right)
\quad \Rightarrow
\notag \\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\left( \begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{}}
L_{TL} U_{TL} = A_{TL} &
L_{TL} U_{TR} = A_{TR} \\\hline
L_{BL} U_{TL} = A_{BL} &
L_{BL} U_{TR} + L_{BR} U_{BR} = A_{BR}
\end{array} \right) .
\end{eqnarray}
}
At this point, an iterative process involving algebraic manipulation
and pattern matching transforms Eq.~\ref{eqn:matArit1} into the
sought-after PME. Central to this step is the capability of {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} to
learn the pattern that defines the target operation. Initially
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} only knows the pattern for a set of basic operations:
addition, multiplication, inversion and transposition. This
information is hard-coded. More patterns are discovered while tackling
new operations. For instance, the definition of the $LU$ factorization{} in
Box~\ref{box:LUOpDesc} defines a pattern. The pattern establishes
that two matrices $X$ and $Y$ are the $LU$ factors of a matrix $Z$ if
the constraints in the precondition are satisfied, and $X$, $Y$ and
$Z$ are related as dictated by the postcondition ($X Y = Z$). Such
patterns provide {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} with the necessary knowledge to identify
known operations within each of the equalities in
Eq.~\ref{eqn:matArit1}.
Thanks to the inheritance of properties, the system recognizes that
the matrices $L_{TL}$, $U_{TL}$ and $A_{TL}$ match the pattern in
Box~\ref{box:LUOpDesc}, and therefore asserts that $ \{ L_{TL}, U_{TL}
\} = LU(A_{TL}) $. Similarly, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} identifies that $U_{TR}$ and
$L_{BL}$ result from two triangular systems, and that $L_{BR}$ and
$U_{BR}$ are the $LU$ factors of an updated matrix $A_{BR}$.
Box~\ref{box:PMELU} contains the outcome of this process, the PME for the $LU$ factorization{}.
Notice that no restrictions on the size of the sub-operands was imposed;
the decomposition expressed by the PME is valid independently of the size of
the sub-operands, provided that $L_{TL}$, $U_{TL}$ and $A_{TL}$ are square.
\begin{mybox}
\scriptsize
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
$$
\left( {\begin{array}{@{\;}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\;}}
\{ L_{TL}, U_{TL} \} = LU(A_{TL}) & U_{TR} = L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR} \\\hline
L_{BL} = A_{BL} U_{TL}^{-1} & \{ L_{BR}, U_{BR} \} = LU(A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR})
\end{array}} \right)
$$ \\
\caption{Partitioned Matrix Expression for the $LU$ factorization{}.} \label{box:PMELU}
\end{mybox}
\section{Identification of Loop-Invariants} \label{sec:linv}
Loop-invariants are the key predicates to prove the correctness of
loop-based algorithms. A loop-invariant expresses the state of the
variables as the computation unfolds. Since a PME encapsulates the
computation to be performed to solve a target equation, our approach
identifies loop-invariants as subsets of the operations included in
the PME.
The Loop-Invariant Identification process consists
on three steps:
1) {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} inspects each of the equalities
included in the PME and decomposes them into a sequence of tasks,
i.e., basic units of computation;
2) an analysis of the tasks yields the
dependencies among them, leading to a graph of dependencies where the
nodes are the tasks and the edges are the dependencies;
3) {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} traverses the graph selecting all possible subgraphs satisfying the
dependencies. The subgraphs correspond to predicates that are candidates to
becoming loop-invariants. {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} checks the feasibility of such predicates,
discarding the non-feasible ones and promoting the remaining ones to loop-invariants.
\subsection{Decomposition of the PME}
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} commences by analyzing the equalities in the PME.
Each equality satisfies a canonical form where the left-hand
side contains the output sub-operand(s) and the right-hand side
the explicit computation to obtain the output quantity(ies).
The right-hand side may be expressed either as a combination
of sub-operands and the basic operators (plus, times, transpose,
inverse) or as an explicit function with one
or more input arguments. In this first step {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}
decomposes the right-hand side of each equality into a
sequence of one or more tasks.
The decomposition is led by a set of rules based on
pattern matching to identify whether an expression
is a basic task or a complex computation. In the case
of a complex computation, such rules also express how
to decompose it into simpler expressions. In this and
following sections we use the examples to illustrate the
decomposition rules.
We start the discussion with the $LU$ factorization{} example.
As Box~\ref{box:PMELU} shows, its PME comprises
four equalities.
The decomposition of equalities can be performed
independently from one another; {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} arbitrarily
traverses the equalities by rows.
The analysis commences from the top-left quadrant:
{\small $\{L_{TL}, U_{TL}\} = LU(A_{TL}).$}
Since the right-hand side matches a pattern
associated to a basic task
{\small $\tt{f(x_0, x_1, \ldots, x_n)} \wedge
\forall{x_i}\, | \tt{isSuboperandQ}(x_i)$},
a function where all
the input arguments are (sub-)operands,
no decomposition
is necessary and the system only returns one task:
{\small $\{L_{TL}, U_{TL}\} := LU(A_{TL}).$}
The analysis procedes with the top-right quadrant:
{\small $U_{TR} = L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR}.$}
The expression is matched by
the pattern {\small $\tt{X = A^{-1} B} \wedge
\tt{isLowTriQ}(A) \wedge \tt{NonSingularQ}(A)$}
and corresponds to the solution of a triangular system of equations.
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} recognizes it as a basic task and returns it.
Similarly for the bottom-left quadrant in which a third task
is identified.
Only one equality remains to be studied:
{\small $\{L_{BR}, U_{BR}\} = LU(A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR})$}. The
expression matches the pattern
{\small $\tt{f(x_0, x_1, \ldots, x_n) \wedge
\exists{x_i} | \neg{\tt{isSuboperandQ}}(x_i)}$},
meaning that at least one of the input arguments is not
a (sub-)operand. Each complex argument is, therefore,
recursively analyzed to identify a sequence of basic tasks.
In the example,
{\small $A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR}$} is the only complex argument;
it is matched by the pattern {\small $\tt{A - BC}$}, corresponding
to a basic task. As a result, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} yields the list
\{{\small $A_{BR} := A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR}$,
$\{L_{BR}, U_{BR}\} := LU(A_{BR})$}\}.
In total, the algorithm produces the following five tasks:
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\item $\{L_{TL}, U_{TL}\} := LU(A_{TL});$ \\[-2mm]
\item $U_{TR} := L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR};$ \\[-2mm]
\item $L_{BL} := A_{BL} U_{TL}^{-1};$ \\[-2mm]
\item $A_{BR} := A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR};$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{L_{BR}, U_{BR}\} := LU(A_{BR}).$ \\[-2mm]
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Graph of dependencies}
Once the decomposition into tasks is available, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} proceeds with the study of
the dependencies among them. Three different kinds of dependencies may occur.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf True dependency.} One of the input arguments of a task is
also the result of a previous task:
$$
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\;}c@{\;}c@{}}
A & := & B + C \\
X & := & A + D
\end{array}
$$
The order of the updates cannot be reversed because the second
one requires the value of $A$ computed in the first one.
\item {\bf Anti dependency.} One of the input arguments of a task is
also the result of a subsequent task:
$$
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\;}c@{\;}c@{}}
X := A + D \\
A := B + C
\end{array}
$$
The order of the updates cannot be reversed because the
first update needs the value of $A$ before the second one overwrites it.
\item {\bf Output dependency.} The result of a task is
also the result of a different task:
$$
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\;}c@{\;}c@{}}
A := B + C \\
A := D + E
\end{array}
$$
The second update cannot be performed until the first is computed to
ensure the correct final value of $A$.
\end{itemize}
At a first sight, in the context of PMEs,
it is difficult to distinguish between true and
anti dependencies since there is no clear order
in the execution. However, since each equality refers to
the computation of a different part of the output
matrices, any time the output of an equality is
found as an input argument of another one, it
implies a true dependency: first the quantity is computed,
then it is used in a different equality.
Also, for the same reason, it is not easy to
distinguish the direction of an output dependency.
Since output dependencies only occur among
tasks belonging to the same equality (each
equality writes to a different part of the output
matrices), the order is determined because one of
the involved tasks comes from the decomposition of the other
one, imposing an order in their execution.
While in general all three types of dependencies may appear,
in the examples we provide only true dependencies arise.
We detail the analysis of the dependencies following the
example of the $LU$ factorization{}.
During the analysis we use {\bf boldface} to highlight
the dependencies.
The study commences with Task 1,
whose output is {\small $\{L_{TL}, U_{TL}\}$}. {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}
finds that the sub-operands $L_{TL}$ and $U_{TL}$
are input arguments for
Tasks 2 and 3, respectively.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathbf{\{L_{TL}, U_{TL}\}} := LU(A_{TL})$ \\[-3mm]
\item $U_{TR} := \mathbf{L_{TL}}^{-1} A_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $L_{BL} := A_{BL} \mathbf{U_{TL}}^{-1}$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
This means that two true dependencies exist: one from
Task 1 to Task 2 and another from Task 1 to Task 3.
Next, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} inspects Task 2, whose output is
$U_{TR}$. $U_{TR}$ is also identified as input
for Task 4.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{1}
\item $\mathbf{U_{TR}} := L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item $A_{BR} := A_{BR} - L_{BL} \mathbf{U_{TR}} $ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
Hence, a true dependency from Tasks 2 to 4 is
imposed.
A similar situation arises when inspecting
Task 3, originating a true dependency from Task 3 to Task 4.
The analysis continues with Task 4; this computes an update
of $A_{BR}$, which is then used as input by Task 5,
thus, creating one more true dependency.
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item $\mathbf{A_{BR}} := A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR} $ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{L_{BR}, U_{BR}\} := LU(\mathbf{A_{BR}}) $ \\[-2mm]
\end{enumerate}
Task 5 remains to be analyzed. Since its output, $\{L_{BR}, U_{BR}\}$,
does not appear in any of the other tasks, no new dependencies are
found.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:luGraph}, the list of the dependencies for the $LU$ factorization{}
are mapped onto the graph in which
node $i$ represents Task $i$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\depGraphLU{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}
\caption{Final graph of dependencies for the $LU$ factorization{}.} \label{fig:luGraph}
\end{figure}
\subsection{DAG subsets selection} \label{sec:depGraph}
Once {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} has generated the dependency graph it
selects all the possible subgraphs that satisfy the dependencies.
Each of the subgraphs corresponds to a different loop-invariant,
provided that it is feasible.
The algorithm starts by sorting the nodes in the dependency
graph; as such a graph is a DAG (direct acyclic graph),
the nodes may be sorted by levels according to the longest path
from the root. For the $LU$ factorization{} the sorted DAG is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:luGraphLevels}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\LUGraphLevels{rwthblue}
\caption{Result of sorting by levels the graph of dependencies for the $LU$ factorization{}.} \label{fig:luGraphLevels}
\end{figure}
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} creates the list of subgraphs of the DAG incrementally,
by levels. At first it initializes the
list of subgraphs with the empty subset,
$l = [\{\}]$, which is equivalent to selecting none of
the PME tasks. Then, at each level it extends the set
of subgraphs by adding all those resulting from appending the accesible nodes
to the existing ones. A node at a given level is accesible from a
subgraph $g$ if all the dependencies of the node are satisfied by $g$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:subDAG} includes a sketch of the algorithm.
In the first iteration of the $LU$ example,
the only accesible node from $\{\}$ at level 1 is node 1,
hence, union($\{\}$, $\{1\}$) is added to
$l$ which becomes $[\{\}, \{1\}]$. Now, the
level is increased to 2; no node in level 2 is
accesible from $\{\}$, while both nodes 2 and 3
are accesible from $\{1\}$.
The union of $\{1\}$ with the non-empty subsets of $\{2, 3\}$---$\{2\}$,
$\{3\}$ and $\{2, 3\}$---are added to $l$, resulting in
$l = [\{\}, \{1\}, \{1, 2\}, \{1, 3\}, \{1, 2, 3\}]$.
At level 3, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} discovers that node 4 is accesible from
subgraph $\{1, 2, 3\}$, thus $\{1, 2, 3, 4\}$ is added
to $l$. Finally, node 5 is accesible from $\{1, 2, 3, 4\}$.
The final list of subgraphs is:
$$[\{\}, \{1\}, \{1, 2\}, \{1, 3\}, \{1, 2, 3\}, \{1, 2, 3, 4\}, \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}].$$
The seven subgraphs included in the final list correspond to
predicates that are candidates
to becoming loop-invariants. To this end, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} checks each
predicate to establish its feasibility.
The methodology we follow imposes two
constraints for such a predicate $P$ to be a feasible loop-invariant:
1) there must exist a basic initialization of the operands,
i.e., an initial partitioning, that renders the predicate $P$ true;
2) $P$ and the negation of the loop-guard, $G$, must imply the
postcondition, $P_{\rm post}$, of the target operation:
$P \wedge \neg G \implies P_{\rm post}$.
Following these rules the predicates corresponding to the
empty and the full subgraphs of the DAG are always discarded.
The former because it is analogous to an empty predicate
and no matter what $G$ is, the implication $P \wedge \neg G
\implies P_{\rm post}$ is not satisfied; the latter
because it corresponds to the complete computation of the
operation and, therefore, no basic initialization
can be found to render the predicate $P$ true.
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} reaches to the same conclusion by identifying
the initial and final state of the partitionings
of the operands and rewriting the predicates in terms of such partitionings.
A detailed discussion through the $LU$ example follows.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{lstlisting}
l = [{}]
for each level i:
for each subgraph g in l:
acc = accesiblesNodesFrom(g, i)
sub = nonEmptySubsets(acc)
for each s in sub:
append(l, union(g, s))
end
end
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Algorithm to obtain all the possible subgraphs of a DAG.}
\label{fig:subDAG}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Initially {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} determines the direction in which
the operands are traversed. In the example,
all the operands are visited from the top-left
to the bottom-right corner.
The resulting initial partitionings are shown in
Box~\ref{box:initPart}.
\begin{mybox}
{\small
$$
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{array}{c}
\lowtriRuleTwoByTwo{L}{m}{m}{TL}{0}{0} \raisebox{2.8mm}{\textnormal{, }} \hspace{5mm}
\upptriRuleTwoByTwo{U}{m}{m}{TL}{0}{0} \raisebox{2.4mm}{\textnormal{ and }} \\[10mm]
\ruleTwoByTwo{A}{m}{m}{TL}{0}{0}
\end{array}
$$
}
\caption{Initial partitioning of the operands for the $LU$ factorization{}.} \label{box:initPart}
\end{mybox}
\noindent
This knowledge is enough to rule the subgraph $\{1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$ out;
the application of the rules in Box~\ref{box:initPart} to
the associated predicate $P$
\begin{mybox}
{\small
$$
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{array}{c}
\lowtriRuleTwoByTwo{L}{m}{m}{TL}{m}{m} \raisebox{2.8mm}{\textnormal{, }} \hspace{5mm}
\upptriRuleTwoByTwo{U}{m}{m}{TL}{m}{m} \raisebox{2.4mm}{\textnormal{ and }} \\[10mm]
\ruleTwoByTwo{A}{m}{m}{TL}{m}{m}
\end{array}
$$
}
\caption{State of the partitioning of the operands for the $LU$ factorization{}
upon completion of the loop.} \label{box:finalPart}
\end{mybox}
\begin{table*}[!htb] \centering
\begin{tabular}{ccl} \toprule
\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \#} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \footnotesize Subgraph}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \footnotesize Loop-invariant}} \\[-2.5mm]\midrule
1 &
\raisebox{-3.2em}{\smallDepGraphLU{aicesred}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{ L_{TL}, U_{TL} \} = LU(A_{TL}) & \qquad \, \neq \qquad \phantom{} \\\hline
\neq & \neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\
2 &
\raisebox{-3.2em}{\smallDepGraphLU{aicesred}{aicesred}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{ L_{TL}, U_{TL} \} = LU(A_{TL}) & U_{TR} = L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR} \\\hline
\neq & \neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\
3 &
\raisebox{-3.2em}{\smallDepGraphLU{aicesred}{rwthblue}{aicesred}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{ L_{TL}, U_{TL} \} = LU(A_{TL}) & \qquad \, \neq \qquad \phantom{} \\\hline
L_{BL} = A_{BL} U_{TL}^{-1} & \neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\
4 &
\raisebox{-3.2em}{\smallDepGraphLU{aicesred}{aicesred}{aicesred}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{ L_{TL}, U_{TL} \} = LU(A_{TL}) & U_{TR} = L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR} \\\hline
L_{BL} = A_{BL} U_{TL}^{-1} & \neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\
5 &
\raisebox{-3.2em}{\smallDepGraphLU{aicesred}{aicesred}{aicesred}{aicesred}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{ L_{TL}, U_{TL} \} = LU(A_{TL}) & U_{TR} = L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR} \\\hline
L_{BL} = A_{BL} U_{TL}^{-1} & A_{BR} = A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR}
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The five loop-invariants for the $LU$ factorization{}.} \label{tab:LULoopInvs}
\end{table*}
{\scriptsize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{ L_{TL}, U_{TL} \} = LU(A_{TL}) & U_{TR} = L_{TL}^{-1} A_{TR} \\\hline
L_{BL} = A_{BL} U_{TL}^{-1} & \{ L_{BR}, U_{BR} \} = LU(A_{BR} - L_{BL} U_{TR})
\end{array}
\right)
$$
}
\noindent
lead to a situation in which all quadrants are empty except for the bottom-right,
where the computation of the $LU$ factorization{} of $A_{BR}$ is needed to satisfy $P$.
The initial partitionings determine that the valid loop-guard for the algorithm
is $G = size(A_{TL}) < size(A)$: initially the quadrant $A_{TL}$ is of size
$0 \times 0$; and at each iteration its size grows until it reaches the same size of $A$.
The loop-guard $G$ implies that when the loop completes
$A_{TL}$, $L_{TL}$ and $U_{TL}$ are of the same size of $A$, $L$ and $U$.
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} exploits this fact to determine the feasibility of a predicate $P$.
It applies the rewrite rules in Box~\ref{box:finalPart}
to $P$ and compares the result to the equation in the postcondition.
Since the result of applying such rules to the empty predicate
{\scriptsize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}}
\qquad \, \neq \qquad \phantom{} & \qquad \, \neq \qquad \phantom{} \\\hline
\neq & \neq
\end{array}
\right),
$$
}
\vspace{-3mm}
\noindent
where $\neq$ states that no constraints have to be satisfied,
does not equal the postcondition it is discarded.
The other five predicates satisfy both feasibility constraints and are promoted
to valid loop-invariants for the $LU$ factorization{}
(Tab.~\ref{tab:LULoopInvs}).
It is important to point out that the five
loop-invariants that {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} identifies have been well known
for a long time and are commonly presented in linear algebra
textbooks\cite{stew:98a}. At the same time, no explanation relative to
their cardinality is ever provided and, most importantly,
they are presented as distinct entities without a common root.
It is only our systematic methodology that unifies
these five algorithms for the $LU$ factorization{}.
\section{A more complex example: the coupled Sylvester equation}
\label{sec:coupsylv}
As a last study case, we show an example where the complexity
of the graph of dependencies and the number of loop-invariants
are such that the automation becomes an indispensable tool.
This is by no means the most complex example {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} may handle,
but a compromise between a relatively complex example and
the space needed to demonstrate it.
In Box~\ref{box:coupOpDesc}, the coupled Sylvester equation{} is defined.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\scriptsize
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.6}
\begin{tabular}{cl} \toprule
\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \#} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \footnotesize Partitioned Matrix Expression}} \\[-2.5mm]\midrule
1 &
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\,}}
\{X_{L}, Y_{L} \} = \Psi(A, B_{TL}, C_{L}, D, E_{TL}, F_{L}) &
\{X_{R}, Y_{R} \} = \Psi(A, B_{BR}, C_{R} - Y_{L} B_{TR}, D, E_{BR}, F_{R} - Y_{L} E_{TR})
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\[5mm]
2 &
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\,}}
\{X_{T}, Y_{T} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B, C_{T}, D_{TL}, E, F_{T}) \\\hline
\{X_{B}, Y_{B} \} = \Psi(A_{BR}, B, C_{B} - A_{BL} X_{T}, D_{BR}, E, F_{B} - D_{BL} X_{T})
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\[9mm]
3 &
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\,}}
\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL}) &
\begin{aligned}
\{X_{TR}, Y_{TR} \} = \Psi(& A_{TL}, B_{BR}, C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR}, \\& D_{TL}, E_{BR}, F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR})
\end{aligned} \\\hline
\begin{aligned}
\{X_{BL}, Y_{BL} \} = \Psi(& A_{BR}, B_{TL}, C_{BL} - A_{BL} X_{TL}, \\& D_{BR}, E_{TL}, F_{BL} - D_{BL} X_{TL})
\end{aligned} &
\begin{aligned}
\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \} = \Psi(& A_{BR}, B_{BR}, C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}, \\& D_{BR}, E_{BR}, F_{BR} - D_{BL} X_{TR} - Y_{BL} E_{TR})
\end{aligned}
\end{array}
\right)
$ \vspace{1mm} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The three Partitioned Matrix Expressions for the coupled Sylvester equation{}.} \label{tab:coupsylvPMEs}
\end{table*}
The description in Box~\ref{box:coupOpDesc} is the input
for {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}. The system finds three
feasible sets of partitioning rules for the operation. For each of the
sets, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} applies the rules to the equation in the postcondition
obtaining a partitioned postcondition. Then,
the partitioned operands are combined and the equality operator
is distributed obtaining an expression with multiple equalities.
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} takes such expressions and, through a process based on pattern matching
and algebraic manipulation, obtains the corresponding PMEs.
The three resulting PMEs are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:coupsylvPMEs}
\begin{mybox}
\footnotesize
$$
\begin{aligned}
\{X, Y\} = \Psi(&A, B, C,\\ &D, E, F)
\end{aligned} \equiv
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
P_{\rm pre}: \{ & \prop{Known}{A} \,\! \wedge \,\! \prop{LowTri}{A} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{B} \,\! \wedge \,\! \prop{UppTri}{B} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{D} \,\! \wedge \,\! \prop{LowTri}{D} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{E} \,\! \wedge \,\! \prop{UppTri}{E} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Known}{C} \,\! \wedge
\prop{Known}{F} \, \wedge \\
& \prop{Unknown}{X} \,\! \wedge
\prop{Unknown}{Y} \\
\\
P_{\rm post}: & \left\{ \begin{array}{@{}l@{}}
A X + Y B = C \\
D X + Y E = F
\end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}
\right.
$$
\caption{Formal description of the coupled Sylvester equation{}.}
\label{box:coupOpDesc}
\end{mybox}
We continue the example by selecting the
PME in the third row of Tab.~\ref{tab:coupsylvPMEs} and describing the steps performed by {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}
to obtain loop-invariants. First, the system traverses the PME, one quadrant at a time, to decompose
the equalities into basic tasks. The analysis starts from the top-left equality; since the
right-hand side consists of a function where all the input arguments are sub-operands,
the system yields the entire expression as a basic task.
\begin{itemize}
\small
\item $\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL})$.
\end{itemize}
Next, the top-right equality is inspected. In this case, two of the input arguments
are not sub-operands. Thus, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} analyzes recursively both arguments,
{\small $C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR}$} and {\small $F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR}$},
to identify a sequence of basic tasks.
The pattern {\small $\tt{A - BC}$}, corresponding
to a basic task, matches both expressions. As a result, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} returns
three tasks.
\begin{itemize}
\small
\item $C_{TR} := C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{TR} := F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $\{X_{TR}, Y_{TR} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{BR}, C_{TR}, D_{TL}, E_{BR}, F_{TR})$ \\[-3mm]
\end{itemize}
A similar situation occurs when studying the bottom-left equality,
in which {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} yields three more basic tasks.
\begin{itemize}
\small
\item $C_{BL} := C_{BL} - A_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $F_{BL} := F_{BL} - D_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{X_{BL}, Y_{BL} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{TL}, C_{BL}, D_{BR}, E_{TL}, F_{BL})$ \\[-2mm]
\end{itemize}
Only the equality in the bottom-right quadrant
remains to be analyzed. {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} recognizes
that two of the input arguments to the function are not sub-operands.
The difference with the previous two cases is that these two arguments consist
on more than one basic task. For instance, in the expression: {\small
$C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}$} the pattern {\small $\tt{A - BC}$} matches
{\small $C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR}$} and {\small $C_{BR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}$}.
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} also keeps track of the fact that both tasks are independent from
one another, since they may be computed in any order.
After studying the bottom-right equality, the system yields the following five
tasks, two per non-basic input argument and the top-level function.
\begin{itemize}
\small
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - D_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - Y_{BL} E_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{BR}, C_{BR}, D_{BR}, E_{BR}, F_{BR})$, \\[-3mm]
\end{itemize}
In this last set of returned tasks,
the first and the second are independent to one another, and
so are the third and the fourth. To summarize, we list the
twelve basic tasks into which the PME has been decomposed:
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\item $\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL})$ \\[-3mm]
\item $C_{TR} := C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{TR} := F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $\{X_{TR}, Y_{TR} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{BR}, C_{TR}, D_{TL}, E_{BR}, F_{TR})$ \\[-3mm]
\item $C_{BL} := C_{BL} - A_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{BL} := F_{BL} - D_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $\{X_{BL}, Y_{BL} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{TL}, C_{BL}, D_{BR}, E_{TL}, F_{BL})$ \\[-3mm]
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - D_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - Y_{BL} E_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{BR}, C_{BR}, D_{BR}, E_{BR}, F_{BR})$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
\begin{mybox*}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\item $\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL})$ \\[-2mm]
\item $C_{TR} := C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $F_{TR} := F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{X_{TR}, Y_{TR} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{BR}, C_{TR}, D_{TL}, E_{BR}, F_{TR})$ \\[-2mm]
\item $C_{BL} := C_{BL} - A_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $F_{BL} := F_{BL} - D_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{X_{BL}, Y_{BL} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{TL}, C_{BL}, D_{BR}, E_{TL}, F_{BL})$ \\[-2mm]
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - D_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - Y_{BL} E_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{BR}, C_{BR}, D_{BR}, E_{BR}, F_{BR})$ \\[-2mm]
\end{enumerate}
\end{minipage}
\hspace{5mm}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\textwidth}
\coupsylvDepGraph{rwthblue}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Graph of dependencies for the coupled Sylvester equation{}.} \label{box:coupsylvDepGraph}
\end{mybox*}
Once the equalities are decomposed, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} inspects the tasks for dependencies.
Once more, we highlight the dependencies using {\bf boldface}.
The analysis commences from Task 1, whose output sub-operands are $X_{TL}$ and $Y_{TL}$.
$X_{TL}$ is an input for Tasks 5 and 6, while $Y_{TL}$ is an input for Tasks
2 and 3.
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\item $\{\mathbf{X_{TL}}, \mathbf{Y_{TL}} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL})$ \\[-3mm]
\item $C_{TR} := C_{TR} - \mathbf{Y_{TL}} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{TR} := F_{TR} - \mathbf{Y_{TL}} E_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{4}
\item $C_{BL} := C_{BL} - A_{BL} \mathbf{X_{TL}}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $F_{BL} := F_{BL} - D_{BL} \mathbf{X_{TL}}$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
Therefore, the system identifies a true dependency from Task 1 to each of
Tasks 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Next, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} analyzes Task 2, whose output, $C_{TR}$, is an input argument for
Task 4.
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\setcounter{enumi}{1}
\item $\mathbf{C_{TR}} := C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item $\{X_{TR}, Y_{TR} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{BR}, \mathbf{C_{TR}}, D_{TL}, E_{BR}, F_{TR})$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
Hence, the corresponding true dependency is imposed.
The analysis continues with Task 3, whose output, $F_{TR}$,
is an input argument of Task 4.
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item $\mathbf{F_{TR}} := F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{X_{TR}, Y_{TR} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{BR}, C_{TR}, D_{TL}, E_{BR}, \mathbf{F_{TR}})$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
As a result, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} enforces a true dependency from Task 3 to Task 4.
The algorithm procedes by analyzing Task 4. One of its output sub-operands, $X_{TR}$,
appears as an input argument of Tasks 8 and 10.
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item $\{\mathbf{X_{TR}}, Y_{TR} \} := \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{BR}, C_{TR}, D_{TL}, E_{BR}, F_{TR})$ \\[-2mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{7}
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - A_{BL} \mathbf{X_{TR}}$ \\[-2mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{9}
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - D_{BL} \mathbf{X_{TR}}$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
Two new true dependencies arise: one from Task 4 to Task 8
and another one from Task 4 to Task 10.
The study of Tasks 5, 6 and 7 is analogous to that of Tasks 2, 3, and 4.
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} finds true dependencies from Tasks 5 and 6 to Task 7
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\setcounter{enumi}{4}
\item $\mathbf{C_{BL}} := C_{BL} - A_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\mathbf{F_{BL}} := F_{BL} - D_{BL} X_{TL}$ \\[-2mm]
\item $\{X_{BL}, Y_{BL} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{TL}, \mathbf{C_{BL}}, D_{BR}, E_{TL}, \mathbf{F_{BL}}),$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
and from Task 7 to Tasks 9 and 11
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\setcounter{enumi}{6}
\item $\{X_{BL}, \mathbf{Y_{BL}} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{TL}, C_{BL}, D_{BR}, E_{TL}, F_{BL})$ \\[-2mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{8}
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - \mathbf{Y_{BL}} B_{TR}$ \\[-2mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{10}
\item $F_{BR} := F_{BR} - \mathbf{Y_{BL}} E_{TR}.$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
{\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} continues the analysis of dependencies with the study of Task
8. Despite that its output, $C_{BR}$, is an input and also the output of
Task 9, there is no dependency between them; during
the decomposition of the corresponding equality, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} learned
that they are independent to one another.
Additionally, $C_{BR}$ is also an
input argument for operation 12.
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\setcounter{enumi}{7}
\item $\mathbf{C_{BR}} := C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{11}
\item $\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{BR}, \mathbf{C_{BR}}, D_{BR}, E_{BR}, F_{BR})$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
Consequently, a true dependency is imposed from Task 8 to Task 12.
The very exact same situation is found in the analysis of Task 9.
\begin{enumerate}
\small
\setcounter{enumi}{7}
\item $C_{BR} := C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\item $\mathbf{C_{BR}} := C_{BR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR}$ \\[-3mm]
\setcounter{enumi}{11}
\item $\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \} := \Psi(A_{BR}, B_{BR}, \mathbf{C_{BR}}, D_{BR}, E_{BR}, F_{BR})$ \\[-3mm]
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
A new dependency from Task 9 to Task 12 is established.
The study of the dependencies for Tasks 10 and 11 is led by the same
principle as for Tasks 8 and 9, originating the corresponding dependencies.
Finally, Task 12 is analyzed. Its output, $\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \}$,
does not appear in any of the other tasks, thus no new dependencies
are imposed. The final graph of dependencies
is shown in Box~\ref{box:coupsylvDepGraph}.
Once the graph is built, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} executes the algorithm exposed
in Sec.~\ref{sec:depGraph} returning a list with the predicates
that are canditates to becoming loop-invariants. Then, the predicates are
checked to establish their feasibility; the non-feasible ones
are discarded. In the coupled Sylvester equation{} example, the system identifies
64 different loop-invariants, which accordingly will lead to
64 different algorithms to solve the equation. In Tab.~\ref{tab:coupSylvLinvs}
we list a subset of the returned loop-invariants.
\begin{table*}[h] \centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ccl} \toprule
\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \#} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \footnotesize Subgraph}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\raisebox{2mm}{\bf \footnotesize Loop-invariant}} \\[-2.5mm]\midrule
1 &
\raisebox{-8.0em}{\smallDepGraphCoupSylv{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.8}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\,}}
\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL}) &
\phantom{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} } \neq \phantom{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} } \\\hline
\neq &
\neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\[23mm]
2 &
\raisebox{-8.0em}{\smallDepGraphCoupSylv{aicesred}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.8}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\,}}
\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL}) &
X_{TR} = C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR} \\\hline
\neq &
\neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\[23mm]
3 &
\raisebox{-8.0em}{\smallDepGraphCoupSylv{rwthblue}{aicesred}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.8}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\,}}
\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL}) &
Y_{TR} = F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR} \\\hline
\neq &
\neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\[23mm]
4 &
\raisebox{-8.0em}{\smallDepGraphCoupSylv{rwthblue}{rwthblue}{aicesred}{rwthblue}{rwthblue}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.8}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\,}}
\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL}) &
\phantom{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} } \neq \phantom{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} } \\\hline
X_{BL} = C_{BL} - A_{BL} X_{TL} &
\neq
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\[23mm]
& \LARGE \hspace{-7.7mm} $\vdots$ & \LARGE \hspace{4cm} $\vdots$ \\[4mm]
64 &
\raisebox{-8.0em}{\smallDepGraphCoupSylv{aicesred}{aicesred}{aicesred}{aicesred}{aicesred}} &
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.8}
$
\left(
\begin{array}{@{\,}c@{\;}|@{\;}c@{\,}}
\{X_{TL}, Y_{TL} \} = \Psi(A_{TL}, B_{TL}, C_{TL}, D_{TL}, E_{TL}, F_{TL}) &
\begin{aligned}
\{X_{TR}, Y_{TR} \} = \Psi(& A_{TL}, B_{BR}, C_{TR} - Y_{TL} B_{TR}, \\& D_{TL}, E_{BR}, F_{TR} - Y_{TL} E_{TR})
\end{aligned} \\\hline
\begin{aligned}
\{X_{BL}, Y_{BL} \} = \Psi(& A_{BR}, B_{TL}, C_{BL} - A_{BL} X_{TL}, \\& D_{BR}, E_{TL}, F_{BL} - D_{BL} X_{TL})
\end{aligned} &
\begin{aligned}
\{X_{BR}, Y_{BR} \} = \{&C_{BR} - A_{BL} X_{TR} - Y_{BL} B_{TR},\\ &F_{BR} - D_{BL} X_{TR} - Y_{BL} E_{TR}\}
\end{aligned}
\end{array}
\right)
$ \\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{A subset of the 64 loop-invariants for the coupled Sylvester equation{}.} \label{tab:coupSylvLinvs}
\end{table*}
The large number of identified loop-invariants and
the corresponding algorithms, demonstrates the necessity
for having a system that
automates the
process. As Gries and Schneider point out in his book
{\em A Logical Approach to Discrete Math}~\cite{GrSc:92}
\vspace{2mm}
{\em ``Finding a suitable loop-invariant is the most difficult part of writing
most loops.''}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
The results we presented in this paper, in conjunction
with our previous work on PME generation~\cite{CASC-2011-PME},
constitute a tangible
step forward towards the automatic generation of
algorithms and code for matrix equations.
We have shown how {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}, the symbolic system
we developed, identifies loop-invariants for
a target equation from its PMEs
through a sequence of steps involving pattern
matching and rewrite rules. It is thanks
to a computer algebra system like Mathematica that
such steps are performed automatically.
In order to obtain loop-invariants, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{}
first breaks down the operations specified in the PME into
a list of basic computational tasks.
To this end, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} analyzes the structure of the
expressions that appear in the PMEs;
this step involves an extensive usage of pattern matching.
In a second step, the resulting tasks are then inspected and a
graph of dependencies is built. Both these
steps heavily rely on the
pattern matching capabilities of Mathematica.
Finally, the system traverses the dependency graph,
selecting the feasible loop-invariants.
We believe the approach to be fairly general, as the
examples provided suggest: even though the $LU$ factorization{} and the coupled Sylvester equation{}
differ in number of operands, complexity and computation;
the steps towards the loop-invariants are exactly the same.
When applied to the $LU$ factorization{}, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} discovers all the known
algorithms and unifies them under a common root. For the coupled Sylvester equation{}
instead, {\sc{Cl\makebox[.58\width][c]{1}ck}}{} goes well beyond the known algorithms discovering
dozens of new ones.
\section{Acknowledgements}
\sloppypar
The authors wish to thank Matthias Petschow and Roman Iakymchuk
for discussions. Financial support from the
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Association) through
grant GSC 111 is gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section*{References}
\hyphenation{
diffeo-mor-phism
Eliash-berg
homo-topy homo-topies
iso-mor-phism
homeo-mor-phism
Lip-schitz
para-bolische
quasi-klassi-scher
}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
We introduce two tools, dynamical thickening and flow selectors,
to overcome the infamous discontinuity of the
gradient flow endpoint map near non-degenerate
critical points.
More precisely, we interpret the stable fibrations
of certain Conley pairs $(N,L)$, established
in~\cite{weber:2014c}, as a
\emph{dynamical thickening of the stable manifold}.
As a first application and to illustrate efficiency
of the concept we reprove a
fundamental theorem of classical Morse theory,
Milnor's homotopical cell attachment
theorem~\cite{milnor:1963a}.
Dynamical thickening leads to a
conceptually simple and short proof.
\end{abstract}%
Consider a connected smooth manifold
$M$ of finite dimension $n$. Suppose $f:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$
is a smooth function and $x$ is a non-degenerate
critical point of $f$ of Morse index $k$,
that is $df_x=0$ and
in local coordinates the Hessian matrix
$({\partial}^2 f/{\partial} x^i{\partial} x^j)_{i,j}$ at $x$ has precisely
$k$ negative eigenvalues, counting
multiplicities, and zero is not an eigenvalue.
Set $c:=f(x)$ and assume for simplicity
that the level set $\{f=c\}$ carries no
critical point other than $x$.
Morse theory studies how the topology
of sublevel sets $M^a=\{f\le a\}$ changes when
$a$ runs through a critical value $c$.
A fundamental tool is the concept of a flow,
also called a $1$-parameter group of
diffeomorphisms of $M$.
A common choice is the downward gradient
flow $\{\varphi_s\}_{s\in{\mathbb{R}}}$, namely the one
generated by the initial value problems
$\frac{d}{ds}\varphi_s=-(\nabla f)\circ\varphi_s$
with $\varphi_0=\id_M$. Existence is guaranteed,
for instance, if the vector field is of compact support.
Here $\nabla f$ denotes the gradient vector field
of $f$ on $M$. It is uniquely determined by
the identity $df(\cdot)=g(\nabla f,\cdot)$ after
fixing an auxiliary Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$.
Key properties of the downward gradient flow
are that $f$ decays along flow
lines $s\mapsto \varphi_s p$, for $p\in M$, and that
$\nabla f$ is orthogonal to level sets.
Consequently sublevel sets are forward
flow invariant. As $df_x=0$ $\Leftrightarrow$
$(\nabla f)_x=0$, any critical point $x$ is a
fixed point of the flow and non-degeneracy
translates into hyperbolicity.
By non-degeneracy of $x$ its unstable manifold
$W^u$ and descending disk $W^u_{\varepsilon}$,
$$
W^u=\{p\in M\mid\lim_{s\to-\infty}
\varphi_sp=x\},\quad
W^u_{\varepsilon}=W^u\cap\{f\ge c-{\varepsilon}\},
$$
are embedded open, respectively closed, disks in $M$ of
dimension $k=\IND(x)$; an embedding
$W^u_{\varepsilon}\hookrightarrow M$ as a closed $k$-disk
exists only for every \emph{sufficiently small} ${\varepsilon}>0$
(use the Morse-Lemma).
The boundary $S^u_{\varepsilon}:={\partial} W^u_{\varepsilon}$ is
called a descending sphere.
Consider instead the limit $s\to+\infty$
to get the stable manifold $W^s$
and ascending disk $W^s_{\varepsilon}=W^s\cap\{f\le c+{\varepsilon}\}$.
They have analogous properties
except that they are of codimension $k$.
In~\cite{weber:2014c}, see~\cite[Thm.~5.1]{Weber:2015c}
for details in the present finite dimensional case,
we implemented the structure of a disk bundle
on the compact neighborhood
$$
N=N_x^{{\varepsilon},\tau}
:=\left\{p\in M\mid\text{$f(p)\le c+{\varepsilon}$,
$f(\varphi_\tau p)\ge c-{\varepsilon}$}\right\}
_{\text{connected component of $x$}}
$$
of $x$ whenever ${\varepsilon}>0$ is small and
$\tau>0$ is large.
The fibers are codimension-$k$ disks
with boundaries in the upper level set $\{f=c+{\varepsilon}\}$
and parametrized by their unique point of
intersection, say $q^T$, with the unstable manifold.
The fiber over $x$ is $W^s_{\varepsilon}$.
Each point of a fiber $N(q^T)$
reaches the lower level set
$\{f=c-{\varepsilon}\}$ in time $T$ under the
downward gradient flow. Note that
$\{f=c-{\varepsilon}\}$ intersects $W^u$
in the descending $(k-1)$-sphere
$S^u_{\varepsilon}={\partial} W^u_{\varepsilon}$.
Choose a tubular neighborhood ${\mathcal{D}}$ of
$S^u_{\varepsilon}$ in $\{f=c-{\varepsilon}\}$ to get a family
of codimension-$k$ disks ${\mathcal{D}}_q$, one for
each $q\in S^u_{\varepsilon}$.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics{fig-N}
\caption{Dynamical thickening $(N,\theta)$
of the local stable manifold $(W^s_{\varepsilon},\varphi|)$
}
\label{fig:fig-N}
\end{figure}
By~\cite{weber:2014c,Weber:2015c}
we get a Lipschitz continuous ($C^{0,1}$) disk bundle
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:N_a-foliated}
N
=W^s_{\varepsilon}
\mathop{\dot{\cup}}_{T\ge\tau,q\in S^u_{\varepsilon}}
N(q^{T}),
\quad
N(q^{T})={\varphi_{T}}^{-1}({\mathcal{D}}_q)
\cap\{f\le c+{\varepsilon}\},
\end{equation*}
over $\varphi_{-\tau} W^u_{\varepsilon}$
which is $C^{1,1}$ away from the ascending disk
$W^s_{\varepsilon}$. It is a key fact that the fibers
are diffeomorphic to $W^s_{\varepsilon}$ via $C^1$
maps $\Gg^T_q:W^s_{\varepsilon}\to N(q^T)$
which converge in $C^1$ to the identity on
$W^s_{\varepsilon}$, as $T\to\infty$.
Furthermore, the fibration is forward flow invariant in the
sense that $\varphi_s$ maps a fiber $ N(q^T)$
into $ N(\varphi_sq^T)$.
Figure~\ref{fig:fig-N} illustrates the fibration and
the qualitative behavior of the forward
flow which is transverse to all fibers except the one
over $x$ which is invariant.
Conjugation by the diffeomorphism $\Gg^T_q$
provides on each fiber $N(q^T)$
a copy $\theta_s$ of the forward flow
$\varphi_s$ on $W^s_{\varepsilon}$.
Now we reprove the cell attachment theorem.
\begin{theoremA}
[Milnor {\cite[I Thm.~3.2]{milnor:1963a}}]
Let $f:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function, and let $x$
be a non-degenerate critical point with Morse
index $k$. Setting $f(x)=c$, suppose that
$f^{-1}[c-{\varepsilon},c+{\varepsilon}]$ is compact and
contains no critical point of $f$ other than~$x$,
for some ${\varepsilon}>0$. Then, for all sufficiently
small ${\varepsilon}$, the set $M^{c+{\varepsilon}}$ has the
homotopy type of $M^{c-{\varepsilon}}$ with a
$k$-cell attached.
\end{theoremA}
\begin{proof}
Fix a Riemannian metric on $M$.
Without loss of generality assume that $-\nabla f$
is of compact support,\footnote{
Otherwise, substitute for $-\rho\nabla f$
where $\rho:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a smooth compactly
supported cut-off function with $\rho\equiv 1$
on the compact set $K:=f^{-1}[c-{\varepsilon},c+{\varepsilon}]$.
}
so it generates a flow
$\{\varphi_s\}_{s\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ on $M$.
Pick constants ${\varepsilon}>0$ small and $\tau>0$ large
in order to meet the assumptions in~\cite{Weber:2015c} of
Theorem~5.4 (existence of the invariant fibration $N=N_x^{{\varepsilon},\tau}$)
and Definition~5.6 (induced fiberwise semi-flow $\theta$).
Figure~\ref{fig:fig-selector} illustrates the proof: First deform
$N\subset M^{c+{\varepsilon}}$ along
$\theta$ towards the flow selector ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ and $W^u_{\varepsilon}$,
then deform along $\varphi$.
\vspace{.1cm}
\textbf{0.~Definition of flow selector} (hypersurface
transverse to two flows): View
$$
{\mathcal{S}}^+:=\{\varphi_{-\mathfrak{s}\circ\mathfrak{t}^-(p)}p\mid
p\in{\mathcal{S}}^-\}\subset N
$$
as graph of a function $\mathfrak{s}\circ\mathfrak{t}^-$
over an open subset ${\mathcal{S}}^-\subset f^{-1}(c-{\varepsilon})$
where the coordinate lines are backward flow lines of $\varphi$
starting at ${\mathcal{S}}^-$ with coordinate the backward time.
By the flow box theorem this makes sense, as there
is no singularity of $\nabla f$ on ${\mathcal{S}}^-$. By the graph property
\emph{$\varphi$ will be transverse to ${\mathcal{S}}^+$}.
By~\cite[Thm.~1.2]{Weber:2015c} there is a $C^0$ time label function
$\mathfrak{t}:N\to[\tau,\infty]$, of class $C^1$ as a function
$N_\times:=N\setminus W^s\to[\tau,\infty)$, which assigns to
each point $p$ the time it takes to reach the lower level set
$f^{-1}(c-{\varepsilon})$ under the gradient flow $\varphi$. The hypersurface
$N^+:=\{p\in N\cap f^{-1}(c+{\varepsilon})\mid\mathfrak{t}(p)<\tau\}$
is called the \textbf{entrance set} of $N$ and
$N^+_\times:=N^+\setminus W^s$ its \textbf{regularization};
see Figure~\ref{fig:fig-N}. As each point of $N^+_\times$ hits
$f^{-1}(c-{\varepsilon})$ under $\varphi$ precisely once and transversely, the
corresponding subset ${\mathcal{S}}^-_\times\subset f^{-1}(c-{\varepsilon})$ is
diffeomorphic to $N^+_\times$. The \textbf{time label function}
$\mathfrak{t}^-:{\mathcal{S}}^-_\times\to(\tau,\infty)$ is defined by transfering
the time labels of $N^+_\times$. It is of class $C^1$.
Add the descending disk $S^u_{\varepsilon}$ to define
$$
{\mathcal{S}}^-:={\mathcal{S}}^-_\times\mathop{\dot{\cup}} S^u_{\varepsilon}
=\{p\in f^{-1}(c-{\varepsilon})\mid N^+\cap\varphi_{\mathbb{R}} p\not=\emptyset\}
\mathop{\dot{\cup}} S^u_{\varepsilon},\qquad
{\mathcal{S}}^-_\times\stackrel{\varphi}{\cong} N^+_\times,
$$
as an open subset of $f^{-1}(c-{\varepsilon})$; see Figure~\ref{fig:fig-selector}.
Set $\mathfrak{t}^-=\infty$ on $S^u_{\varepsilon}$.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics{fig-selector}
\caption{Flow selector ${\mathcal{S}}^+_\times={\mathcal{S}}^+\setminus W^u$
with transverse flows $\theta$ and $\varphi$
}
\label{fig:fig-selector}
\end{figure}
The function
$$
\mathfrak{s}:(\tau,\infty)\to(\tau,2\tau),\quad
\mathfrak{t}\mapsto 2\tau-\tau^2/\mathfrak{t},
$$
is smooth and extends continuously to $[\tau,\infty]$ such that
$\mathfrak{s}(\tau)=\tau$ with $\mathfrak{s}^\prime(\tau)=1$
and $\mathfrak{s}(\infty)=2\tau$ with $\mathfrak{s}^\prime(\infty)=0$;
see Figure~\ref{fig:fig-selector} for the corresponding graph ${\mathcal{S}}^+$.
Observe that critical points of $\mathfrak{s}$
correspond precisely to tangencies of $\theta$ to the hypersurface
${\mathcal{S}}^+_\times:={\mathcal{S}}^+\setminus W^u$. But $\mathfrak{s}$ admits
no critical points on $(\tau,\infty)$, so \emph{$\theta$ is transverse to
${\mathcal{S}}^+_\times$}. This proves that ${\mathcal{S}}^+_\times$ is a flow selector
with respect to $\varphi$~and~$\theta$.
\vspace{.1cm}
\textbf{I.~Strong deformation retraction} $r:M^{c+{\varepsilon}}\to
M^{c-{\varepsilon}}\cup W^u_{\varepsilon}\cup X$ via $\theta$:
Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be the region under the graph of ${\mathcal{S}}^+$,
that is the region bounded by ${\mathcal{S}}^-$ and ${\mathcal{S}}^+$
and the hypersurfaces indicated by dashed arrows
in Figure~\ref{fig:fig-selector}. The arrows are dashed to
indicate that they do not belong to ${\mathcal{S}}$, but to the closure $\bar{\mathcal{S}}$.
Consider the compact set
$X:=\left(f^{-1}[c-{\varepsilon},c+{\varepsilon}]\setminus N\right)\cup\bar{\mathcal{S}}$ whose
boundary is given by $f^{-1}(c-{\varepsilon})$ and
$\left(f^{-1}(c+{\varepsilon})\setminus N^+\right)\cup{\mathcal{S}}^+$.
Deforming $N\setminus\bar{\mathcal{S}}$ along the flow lines of $\theta$
until the flow line hits either the flow selector ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ or the
descending disk $W^u_{\varepsilon}$, while not moving the other points
of $M^{c+{\varepsilon}}$ at all, defines the required strong deformation
retraction $r$. Continuity of $r$ holds since $\theta$ is transverse to
${\mathcal{S}}^+_\times$ and ${\mathcal{S}}^+\setminus{\mathcal{S}}^+_\times={\mathcal{S}}^+\cap W^u_{\varepsilon}$
is reached under $\theta$ in infinite time just as is
$W^u_{\varepsilon}\setminus {\mathcal{S}}$.
\vspace{.1cm}
\textbf{II.~Homotopy equivalence} $M^{c-{\varepsilon}}\cup W^u_{\varepsilon}\cup X
\sim M^{c-{\varepsilon}}\cup W^u_{\varepsilon}$ via $\varphi$:
Given the pair of closed sets $A:=M^{c-{\varepsilon}}\subset \left(X\cup A\right)$,
consider the entrance time function ${\mathcal{T}}_A:X\cup A\to [0,\infty)$
which assigns to each point $p\in X\cup A$ the time it takes to reach
$A$ under $\varphi$. To see that ${\mathcal{T}}_A$ is well defined note that
$A$ and $X\cup A$ are both forward flow invariant under $\varphi$.
Indeed ${\partial} A$ is a level set along which $-\nabla f$ is downward,
hence inward, pointing. The (topological) boundary of $X\cup A$ is
$\left(f^{-1}(c+{\varepsilon})\setminus N^+\right)\cup{\mathcal{S}}^+$
and $-\nabla f$ points inward along both pieces.
Given that $\varphi$ is transverse to ${\partial} X$,
the function ${\mathcal{T}}_A$ is lower and upper
semi-continuous, hence continuous, because the
subset $A$ of $X\cup A$ is closed and
forward flow invariant, respectively;
cf.~\cite[Pf. of Thm.~B]{weber:2014c}.
Since $X$ is compact without critical points
${\mathcal{T}}_A$ is bounded. The map
$h:[0,1]\times Z\to Z$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
h(\lambda,p)=
\begin{cases}
p&
\text{, $p\in A=M^{c-{\varepsilon}}$,}
\\
\varphi_{\lambda{\mathcal{T}}_A(p)}p&
\text{, $p\in X$,}
\\
\varphi_{\lambda4\tau^2/\mathfrak{t}(p)}p&
\text{, $p\in\overline{W^u_{\varepsilon}\setminus{\mathcal{S}}}=\varphi_{-2\tau} W^u_{\varepsilon}$.}
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
is continuous as it is defined by three continuous parts which agree on overlaps:
${\mathcal{T}}_A=0$ on $A\cap X$ and ${\mathcal{T}}_A=4\tau^2/\mathfrak{t}=2\tau$
on $\varphi_{-2\tau} S^u_{\varepsilon}$.
The inclusion $\iota:A\cup W^u_{\varepsilon}=:B\hookrightarrow Z:=X\cup A\cup
W^u_{\varepsilon}$ and $h_1:=h(1,\cdot):Z\to B$ are reciprocal homotopy
inverses. Indeed $\iota\circ h_1=h_1\sim h_0=\id_Z$
and $h_1\circ\iota=h_1|_B\sim h_0|_B=\id_{B}$.
\end{proof}
Part two of $h_1$ unfortunately
eliminates an outer piece of $W^u_{\varepsilon}$ which we recover by
$\varphi_{4\tau^2/\mathfrak{t}(\cdot)}(\cdot):\varphi_{-2\tau} W^u_{\varepsilon}\to W^u_{\varepsilon}$.
So $h_1$ does not restrict to the identity on $W^u_{\varepsilon}$,
hence $h$ is not a deformation retraction
of $X\cup A\cup W^u_{\varepsilon}$ onto $A\cup W^u_{\varepsilon}$.
\subsubsection*{Perspectives}
In the history of Morse theory
discontinuity of the flow trajectory end point
map $\varphi_\infty$ obstructed to carry out,
in a simple fashion, various constructions suggested
by geometry, for instance, to extend continuously
the inclusion map of an unstable manifold towards the closure.
It will be a future research project
to investigate the role of dynamical thickening
and flow selectors in such cases.
By~\cite{weber:2014c} dynamical thickening
can be defined in infinite dimensional contexts.
\subsubsection*{Added in proof}
Flow selector added
to correct the discontinuity in previous version.
Flow selectors arose in cooperation with
Pietro Majer (2015) in two flavors - via Conley blocks
and via carving. Here we use a version of the
Conley block technique.
\vspace{.1cm}
\noindent
{\small\bf Acknowledgements.} {\small
The author is grateful to
Stephan Weis for asking the right question just in time
and Kai Cieliebak for useful remarks concerning the flow selector.
}
|
\section*{Introduction}
The notion of entropy of a countable probability space was introduced by Shannon in 1948.
He used it to define the asymptotic entropy (entropy rate) in order to quantify the amount of information for a stationary stochastic process \cite{Sh48}.
Later in the mid 1950's Kolomogorov developed the notion of entropy of a measure preserving dynamical system \cite{Kol58}, and his work was completed by Sinai \cite{Sin59}.
But, it was only in 1972, that Avez defined the asymptotic entropy of a random walk on a group \cite{A72}.
Despite a formal similarity, the contexts of these definitions are different, and so far
there is no common approach which would unify them.
\medskip
The asymptotic entropy is an important quantity which describes the behavior of a random walk at infinity.
For instance, the triviality of the Poisson boundary of a random walk is equivalent to vanishing of the asymptotic entropy \cite{ A74,De80,KV83}.
\medskip
There are various formulas for the asymptotic entropy of a random walk on a group:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [\upshape(i)] In terms of the entropy of convolution powers \cite{KV83}, see equality (\ref{def asy}) below,
\item [\upshape(ii)] Shannon's formula \cite{De80,KV83}, see Theorem~\ref{shannon} below,
\item [\upshape(iii)]\label{iii} As the average of {\it Kullback--Liebler deviations} between the harmonic measure and its translates \cite{K83,KV83}, see equality (\ref{mubnd}) below,
\item [\upshape(iv)] As the exponential growth rate of the Radon--Nikodym derivatives of the translates of the harmonic measure along sample paths of the random walk \cite{KV83}, see equality (\ref{harmonic}) below.
\end{enumerate}
In the last two formulas, the asymptotic entropy is expressed in terms of the Poisson boundary of the random walk,
which suggests considering a possible relationship between asymptotic entropies for random walks on the same group which share
a common Poisson boundary.
Earlier this relationship was studied in two particular situations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(j)] convex combinations of convolutions of a given probability measure \cite{K83},
\item [(jj)] the induced random walk on a recurrent subgroup \cite{Fu70, K91, K90, Y13}.
\end{enumerate}
In case (j), the asymptotic entropy can be obtained by a direct calculation based on formula \upshape(iii) \cite{K83}.
In case (jj), Furstenberg \cite{Fu70} introduced induced random walk on a recurrent subgroup and proved that its Poisson boundary is the same as the original Poisson boundary.
Kaimanovich \cite{K90} used a similar model to study harmonic functions on a Riemannian manifold and to compare the asymptotic entropies in this context. Although his setup was somewhat different, by the same approach one can also find the asymptotic entropy of the induced random walk on a recurrent subgroup
\cite{K91}. Recently, Hartman, Lima and Tamuz \cite{Y13} calculated the asymptotic entropy of the random walk induced on a finite index subgroup in an alternative way by using formula \upshape(iii) (although, apparently, they were not aware of \cite{K90} and \cite{K91}).
\medskip
The probability measures arising in the above situations are examples of transformations of probability measures which do not change the Poisson boundary. Finding all probability measures with the same Poisson boundary is important for understanding the structure of a group $G$. For instance, Furstenberg \cite{Fu70} proved that the Poisson boundary of $SL(n,\Bbb R)$ is the same as the Poisson boundary of a lattice of $SL(n,\Bbb R)$ endowed with an appropriate measure. By using this fact, he concluded that the lattices of $SL(n,\Bbb R)$ for $n\geq3$ are different from discrete subgroups of $SL(2,\Bbb R)$.
\medskip
Despite the existence of several examples, currently there is no general way to find all probability measures
on a group $G$ which have the same Poisson
boundary as a given probability measure $\mu$. However,
Kaimanovich and the author \cite{BK2013} proposed a method to construct many probability measures whose Poisson boundary coincides with that of $\mu$.
This method consists in applying a Markov stopping time to the original random walk (or, to its randomization) and all currently known examples can be obtained by this method.
\medskip
The purpose of this article is to show how these transformations affect the asymptotic entropy.
We will show that the asymptotic entropy $h'$ of the transformed random walk is the result of rescaling the asymptotic entropy $h$ of the original random walk by the expectation $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ of the stopping time (Theorem~\ref{markov extension}):
\begin{equation}\label{abra}
h'=\boldsymbol{\tau} h.
\end{equation}
The aforementioned examples (j) and (jj) are contained in this result as particular cases.
\medskip
Equation~(\ref{abra}), the rescaling of the asymptotic entropy under a ``time change'', is analogous to Abramov's formula
\cite{Ab59} for the entropy of induced dynamical systems (Theorem~\ref{abramov}). However, as we have already pointed out,
we are not aware of any common context which would unify these two formulas.
Our proof consists of three steps. Firstly, by using the martingale theory, we prove that finiteness of the entropy of a probability measure is preserved after applying a Markov stopping time with a finite expectation (Lemma~\ref{finite}). Secondly, by taking into account
formula \upshape(iv) for the asymptotic entropy, we will establish the main result. And finally, applying the same method, we will prove that this result holds for randomized Markov stopping times as well (Theorem~\ref{markov extension}).
We would like to emphasize that in our general setup finiteness of the expectation $\boldsymbol\tau$ is not related to finiteness of any associated space (which can already be observed in the case of convolution powers, see above (j) ). On the other hand, the technique used by Hartman, Lima and Tamuz \cite{Y13} crucially depends
on the fact that for the induced random walks on recurrent subgroups $\boldsymbol\tau<\infty$ if and only if the subgroup has finite index, in combination
with a number of properties of finite state Markov chains (formulated in the Appendix to \cite{Y13}).
\medskip
The rate of escape is another quantity which describes behavior of a random walk at infinity.
There are some interrelations between the rate of escape and asymptotic entropy \cite{V85, KL07}.
We will show that the rate of escape of a transformed random walk under a randomized Markov stopping time is also transformed according to formula (\ref{abra}).
\medskip
\subsection*{Acknowledgment}
I am very grateful to my supervisor, Vadim Kaimanovich,
whose support and patience have enabled me
to develop an understanding of the subject.
\section{Preliminaries
In this section, we will recall the basic definitions related to random walks on a group, the associated Poisson boundary and transformations of a random walk via a Markov stopping time.
\subsection{Random walks on groups}
Throughout this paper, we assume that $G$ is a countable group with the identity element $e$
endowed with a probability measure $\mu$. The random walk $(G,\mu)$ is the Markov chain on $G$ with the
transition probabilities
$$
p(g_1,g_2)=\mu(g^{-1}_1g_2).
$$
The {\it space of increments} of the random walk $(G,\mu)$ is denoted by $(G^{\mathbb N},\bigotimes\limits_{1}^{\infty}\mu)$ ($\bigotimes$ denotes the product measure), equivalenty,
it is the set of sequences $(h_n)_{n\geq 1}$ such that $h_n$'s are independent and identically $\mu$-distributed.
The space of sample paths of the random walk $(G,\mu)$ is the probability
space $(G^{\Bbb Z+},\mathbf{P})$, where $G^{\Bbb Z+}=\{e\}\times G^{\Bbb N}$ (we only consider random walks issued from the identity),
and the probability measure $\mathbf{P}$ is the image of the measure
$\bigotimes_{1}^{\infty}\mu$ under the map
$$
(h_1,h_2,\cdots)\mapsto \boldsymbol{x}=(e,x_1,x_2,\cdots),
$$
where $x_n=h_1\cdots h_n$ is the position of the random walk $(G,\mu)$ at time $n$.
\subsection{Poisson boundary}
Let $T$ be the time shift on the space of sample paths, i.e., $T(x_n)=(x_{n+1})$. Let
$\mathcal{A}_T$ be the invariant $\sigma$-algebra of the time shift $T$.
In other words,
$$
\mathcal{A}_T=\{A\ \mbox{measurable } :\ A=T^{-1}A \}.
$$
Rokhlin's correspondence theorem \cite{Ro52} implies that there exists
a quotient map $\mathbf{bnd}$ from $(G^{\Bbb Z+},\mathbf{P})$ onto a Lebesgue space $(\Gamma,\nu)$
such that the pre-image of the $\sigma$-algebra of $(\Gamma,\nu)$ under the map $\mathbf{bnd}$ coincides (mod~0) with $\mathcal{A}_T$. The image of the measure $\mathbf{P}$ under the map $\mathbf{bnd}$ is called {\it harmonic measure}.
The Lebesgue space $(\Gamma,\nu)$ is called the {\it Poisson boundary} of the random walk $(G,\mu)$.
\medskip
The group $G$ acts naturally on the Poisson boundary, and $\nu$ is a $\mu$-stationary measure, that is,
$$
\mu*\nu=\sum_g\mu(g)g\nu=\nu.
$$
Let $\mu'$ be another probability measure on group $G$ whose Poisson boundary is $(\Gamma',\nu')$.
We say Poisson boundaries $(\Gamma,\nu)$ and $(\Gamma',\nu')$ are the same, whenever these boundaries are isomorphic as two
measure $G$-spaces. More precisely,
there exists a bijective measurable map $\phi:(\Gamma,\nu)\to (\Gamma',\nu')$ such that
$\nu'$ is the image of the probability measure $\nu$ and $g\phi(\gamma)=\phi(g\gamma)$
for every $g\in G$, and almost every $\gamma\in\Gamma$.
\subsection{Transformed random walks}
Let $\tau:(G^{\Bbb Z+},\mathbf{P})\mapsto \Bbb N$ be a Markov stopping time on the space of sample paths, i.e., $\tau$
is a measurable map such that for every natural number $s$ the set $\tau^{-1}\{s\}$
belongs to $\mathcal{A}_0^s$, the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the position of the random walk between time 0 and $s$ of the random walk $(G,\mu)$.
[We only consider Markov stopping times which are finite almost everywhere!].
\medskip
Random walks on groups are time and space homogenous, which allows us to iterate the Markov stopping time $\tau$ and produce a new random walk \cite{BK2013}. More precisely, let $\tau_1=\tau$, and define by induction
\begin{equation}\label{iteration}
\tau_{n+1}=\tau_n+\tau(U^{\tau}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{induced}
U(\boldsymbol{x})=(x_1^{-1}x_{n+1})_{n\geq0}
\end{equation}
is the transformation of the path space induced by the time shift in the space of increments.
\medskip
Then, $(x_{\tau_n})$ is a sample path of the random walk $(G,\mu_{\tau})$, where
$\mu_{\tau}$ is the distribution of $x_{\tau}$, i.e.,
$$
\mu_{\tau}(g)=\mathbf{P}\{\boldsymbol{x}\ :\ x_{\tau}=g\}.
$$
Obviously, each $\tau_n$ is also a Markov stopping time, and, moreover,
the distribution of $x_{\tau_n}$ is the $n$-fold convolution of $\mu_{\tau}$, i.e, $\mu_{\tau_{n}}=(\mu_{\tau})^{*n}$.
\medskip
Straightforward examples of this construction are
\begin{ex}\label{convolution}
Let $k$ be a positive integer, and let $\tau$ be the constant function $k$. Then $\mu_{\tau}$ is the $k$-fold convolution of measure $\mu$,
i.e., $\mu^{*k}$.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}
Let $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ be two Markov stopping times for the random walk $(G,\mu)$. Then,
$\tau=\tau_1+\tau_2(U^{\tau_1})$ is a Markov stopping time,
and $\mu_{\tau}=\mu_{\tau_1}*\mu_{\tau_2}$.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}\label{wil}
Let $B$ be a subset of $G$ with $\mu(B)>0$. For a sample path $\boldsymbol{x}=(x_n)$, define
$$
\tau(\boldsymbol{x})=\min\{i\geq1\ :\ h_i\in B\},
$$
be the minimal time $i$ such that the increment $h_i$ belongs to $B$.
Then $\tau$ is a Markov stopping time. If $\mu(B)=1$, then trivially $\mu_{\tau}=\mu$, otherwise
$$
\mu_{\tau}=\beta+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\alpha^{*i}*\beta,
$$
where $\beta$ is the restriction of $\mu$ into $B$, i.e., $\beta(A)=\mu(A\cap B)$ for a subset $A$ of $G$, and $\alpha=\mu-\beta$.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}\label{recurrent}
Let $H$ be a recurrent subset of $G$, i.e., $\mathbf{P}\{\boldsymbol{x}:\ x_n\in H \mbox{\ for\ some } n\}=1$.
Define $$\tau(\boldsymbol{x})=\min\{i\geq1\ x_i\in H\}.$$
Then, $\tau$ is a Markov stopping time called first {\it hitting time} of $H$.
Note that $\tau_2$ is not generally a hitting time of $H$, that is, $x_{\tau_2}$ does not necessarily belong to
the subset $H$. Although, if, in addition, $H$ is a subgroup of $G$, then $\tau_n$ is precisely the moment when
the random walk returns to $H$ for the $n$-th time. Hence, in this case, $\mu_{\tau}$ is the probability measure induced on the recurrent subgroup $H$.
Consequently, $(G,\mu_{\tau})$ is the induced random walk on the recurrent subgroup $H$.
\end{ex}
\medskip
By \cite{BK2013}, the Poisson boundary of $(G,\mu_{\tau})$ is the same as the Poisson boundary of $(G,\mu)$.
However, Markov stopping times cannot produce all random walks with the same Poisson boundary as the following trivial
example shows:
\begin{ex}\label{trivial}
Let $G=\Bbb Z_2=\{0,1\}$, then the Poisson boundary of $(\Bbb Z_2,\mu)$ is trivial for any probability measure $\mu$.
Consider $\mu=\delta_1$, then $(0,1,0,1,0,\cdots)$ is the only sample path. Hence, in this situation, any Markov stopping time must be
a constant function. Consequently, the only probability measures that can be obtained by the above procedure for the random walk $(\Bbb Z_2,\delta_1)$ are convolution powers of $\delta_1$, which are $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$.
Therefore, the above procedure cannot produce the probability measure $\dfrac{1}{2}(\delta_0+\delta_1)$.
\end{ex}
In the next section, we will extend our random walk to a larger space and apply Markov stopping times to the new space to obtain
even more random walks with the same Poisson boundary.
\subsection{Randomized Markov stopping times}
Let $(\Omega,\theta)$ be a Lebesgue space. Define transition probabilities
$\pi=\{\pi_{(g,\omega)}\}$ on the probability space $(G\times \Omega,\mu\otimes\theta)$ as follows
$$
\pi_{(g,\omega)}=\sum_h\mu(h)\delta_{gh}\otimes\theta.
$$
Denote by $\mathbf{P}_{\delta_e\otimes m}$ the probability measure on the product space of the extended chain with
the initial distribution $\delta_e\otimes m$.
In this construction, we replace a sample path $\boldsymbol{x}=(x_n)$ with its ``randomization''
$$(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol\omega)=((e,\omega_0),(x_1,\omega_1),\cdots),$$
where $\omega_i$'s are independent and identically $\theta$-distributed random variables.
In particular, the distribution of this Markov chain at time $n$ is $\pi^n_{(g,\omega)}=\sum\limits_h\mu^{*n}(h)\delta_{gh}\otimes\theta.$
\medskip
Now, let $\tau:G^{\Bbb N}\times \Omega^{\Bbb N}\to \Bbb N$ be a Markov stopping time for the extended Markov chain.
Then, we shall call $\tau$ a {\it randomized Markov stopping time} of the random walk $(G,\mu)$.
Note that, if $m$ is concentrated on one point, then any randomized Markov stopping time is just a usual Markov stopping time.
The transformation $U$ (see equation \ref{induced}) in the path space of the original random walk naturally extends to the following transformation of
the path space of the randomized random walk:
$$
\mathcal{U}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\omega})=(x_1^{-1}x_{n+1},\omega_{n+1})_{n\geq0},
$$
and then construct $\tau_n$ on the extended Markov chain as in the previous section.
By using $\mathcal{U}$ one can define the iterated stopping times $\tau_n$ for the randomized random walk in the same way as in formula (\ref{iteration}) above.
By projecting $(x_{\tau_n},\omega_{\tau_n})_{n\geq0}$ onto the first component, $(x_{\tau_n})_{n\geq0}$,
we obtain a new random walk $(G,\mu_{\tau})$ with
$$
\mu_{\tau}(g)=\mathbf{P}_{\delta_e\otimes m}\{(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\omega})\ :\ \boldsymbol{x}_{\tau}=g\}.
$$
\begin{thm}\cite{BK2013}\label{BK}
Let $\tau$ be a randomized Markov stopping time on the random walk $(G,\mu)$, then $\Gamma(G,\mu)=\Gamma(G,\mu_{\tau})$.
\end{thm}
This randomization allows one to construct even more random walks such that their Poisson boundaries are the same
as for the original random walk. For example, now we can obtain convex combinations of convolution powers (cf. Example~\ref{trivial}).
\begin{ex}\label{convex}\cite{BK2013}
Let $\Omega=\Bbb N$ with probability measure $\theta$.
Define a Markov stopping time $\tau$ as
$$
\tau((h_1,\omega_1),(h_2,\omega_2),\cdots)=\omega_1.
$$
Then
$
\mu_{\tau}=\sum\limits_{n\geq0}\theta(n)\mu^{*n}.
$
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}\label{wil2}\cite{BK2013}
Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be two sub-probability measures with $\mu=\alpha+\beta$. Then there is a
randomized Markov stopping time $\tau$ such that
$$
\mu_{\tau}=\beta+\sum_{i\geq1}\alpha^{*i}*\beta.
$$
\end{ex}
This transformation, $\mu=\alpha+\beta\mapsto\mu'=\beta+\sum\limits_{i\geq1}\alpha^{*i}*\beta$, was introduced by Willis \cite{W90}. He also proved that $\Gamma(G,\mu)=\Gamma(G,\mu')$ .
If, in addition, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are mutually singular, then this example reduces to Example~\ref{wil}.
\section{Entropy of transformed measures} The aim of this section is to study the relation between the asymptotic entropies of
the transformed random walks defined as above and of the original random walk .
\subsection{Asymptotic entropy of a random walk}
The quantity
$$
H(\mu)=-\sum_g\mu(g)\log{\mu(g)}
$$
is called the {\it entropy} of $\mu$.
The sequence $\{H_n\}$ is sub-additive, i.e., $H_{n+m}\leq H_n+H_m,$
where $H_n=H(\mu^{*n})$.
Therefore the limit of $H_n/n$ exists. The {\it asymptotic entropy} of $(G,\mu)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{def asy}
h(\mu)=\lim\limits_n\dfrac{H_n}{n}.
\end{equation}
{\bf Throughout the rest of the paper, we always assume that $H(\mu)=H_1$ is finite},
in which case $h({\mu})\leq H_1<\infty$.
\medskip
The asymptotic entropy can also be obtained by Shannon's formula:
\begin{thm}\cite{KV83, De80}\label{shannon}
For $\mathbf{P}$-almost every sample path $(x_n)$,
$$
-h({\mu})=\lim\dfrac{1}{n}\log{\mu^{*n}(x_n)}.
$$
Moreover, the convergence holds in $L^1(\mathbf{P})$.
\end{thm}
Shannon's formula leads to the following description of the asymptotic entropy of $(G,\mu)$ as well:
\begin{thm}\cite{KV83}\label{harmonic}
For $\mathbf{P}$-almost every sample path $\boldsymbol{x}=(x_n)$,
$$
h({\mu})=\lim_n\dfrac{1}{n}\log \dfrac{dx_n\nu}{d\nu}\mathbf{bnd}(\boldsymbol{x}).
$$
\end{thm}
\subsection{Main results}
As a motivation, let us consider the asymptotic entropy of
the random walk determined by the $k$-fold convolution of $\mu$, i.e., $(G,\mu^{*k})$. By definition of the asymptotic entropy
\begin{equation}\label{motivation}
h(\mu^{*k})=\lim_n\dfrac{1}{n}H_{kn}=\lim_nk\dfrac{H_{kn}}{kn}=kh({\mu}),
\end{equation}
which can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{expectation}
h(\mu_{\tau})=\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)h({\mu}),
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the constant Markov stopping time $k$ (see Example~\ref{convolution}).
\medskip
The aim of the next theorem is to show that equality (\ref{expectation}) can be generalized to all Markov stopping times (and to all randomized Markov stopping times as we shall do later, see Theorem~\ref{markov extension}) with finite expectation. This is analogous to Abramov's theorem for the entropy of induced dynamical systems:
\begin{thm}\label{abramov}\cite{Ab59}
Let $(X,\phi,\mu)$ be an ergodic measure preserving dynamical system. If $A$ is a measurable subset of $X$ with $\mu(A)>0$, then
$$
h({\mu_A},\phi_A)=\dfrac{1}{\mu(A)}h({\mu},\phi).
$$
\end{thm}
In order to complete the analogy, note that the constant $\dfrac{1}{\mu(A)}$ is equal to the expectation
of the return time to the set $A$ (Kac formula) \cite{Kac47}.
\medskip
Since the sequence $\{\mu_{\tau_n}\}$ is not, generally speaking, a subsequence of the sequence of convolution powers of $\mu$, the generalization of the equality (\ref{expectation}) cannot be done by the same trick as in (\ref{motivation}).
\begin{thm}\label{main}
Let $\tau$ be a Markov stopping time with a finite expectation $\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)$. Then
$H(\mu_{\tau})$ is also finite, and
$$
h({\mu_{\tau}})=\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)h({\mu}).
$$
\end{thm}
The proof is based on the fact that each sample path of the random walk transformed by a Markov stopping time is a subsequence of
the corresponding sample path of the original random walk, and the description of the asymptotic entropy as the exponential
growth rate of the Radon--Nikodym derivatives of the translates of the harmonic measure
along the sample path (Theorem~\ref{harmonic}). In order to apply Theorem~\ref{harmonic}, we need the Poisson boundaries of the random walks $(G,\mu)$ and $(G,\mu_{\tau})$ to be the same
(which follows from Theorem~\ref{BK}), and the entropy of the random walk $(G,\mu_{\tau})$ to be finite.
\medskip
First, we show that the entropy of $\mu_{\tau}$ is finite.
\medskip
\begin{lem}\label{finite}
If $\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)<\infty$, then the entropy of $\mu_{\tau}$ is also finite, and
$$
H(\mu_{\tau})\leq\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)H_1.
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let
$$
M_n(\boldsymbol{x})=nH_1+\log{\mu^{*n}(x_n)}.
$$
Since $H_1$ is finite, $M_n$'s are integrable.
If $\mathcal{A}_0^n$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the position of the random walk $(G,\mu)$ between time $0$ and $n$, then
$$
\boldsymbol{E}(M_{n+1}|\mathcal{A}_0^n)(\boldsymbol{x})=(n+1)H_1+\sum_h\mu(h)\log{\mu^{*(n+1)}(x_nh)}.
$$
The sequence $\{M_n,\mathcal{A}_0^n\}$ is a sub-martingale, i.e.,
$$
\boldsymbol{E}(M_{n+1}|\mathcal{A}_0^n)(\boldsymbol{x})\geq(n+1)H_1+\sum_h\mu(h)(\log\mu^{*n}(x_n)+\log{\mu(h))}= M_n(\boldsymbol{x}),
$$
because
\begin{equation}\label{equality}
\mu^{*(n+1)}(x_nh)\geq\mu^{*n}(x_n)\mu(h).
\end{equation}
Let $\tau\wedge n=\min\{\tau,n\}$. Then, Doob's optional theorem (see \cite[p.~300]{Doob53}) implies that
$$
\boldsymbol{E}(M_{\tau\wedge n})~\geq\boldsymbol{E}(M_0)=0,
$$
and consequently,
$$
\boldsymbol{E}(\tau\wedge n)H_1+\sum_g\mathbf{P}(x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)\log{\mathbf{P} (x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)}\geq0.
$$
Since $\boldsymbol{E}(\tau\wedge n)\leq \boldsymbol{E}(\tau)$, we can write
\begin{equation}\label{fatu}
-\sum_g\mathbf{P}(x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)\log{\mathbf{P} (x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)}\leq \boldsymbol{E}(\tau)H_1.
\end{equation}
Applying Fatou's lemma to inequality (\ref{fatu}) gives
\begin{equation}\label{fatu2}
-\sum_g\liminf_n\mathbf{P}(x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)\log{\mathbf{P} (x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)}\leq \boldsymbol{E}(\tau)H_1.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the fact that $\lim\limits_n\mathbf{P} (x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)=\mu_{\tau}(g)$ in combination with the continuity of the function $x\log{x}$ implies that
\begin{equation}\label{fatu3}
\lim_n\mathbf{P}(x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)
\log{\mathbf{P}(x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)}=\mu_{\tau}(g)\log{\mu_{\tau}(g)}.
\end{equation}
Now, by (\ref{fatu2}) and (\ref{fatu3}) we obtain
$$
H(\mu_{\tau})=-\sum_g\lim_n\mathbf{P}(x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)\log{\mathbf{P} (x_{\tau\wedge n}=g)}\leq \boldsymbol{E}(\tau)H_1.
$$
Therefore, we have proved that
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty}H(\mu_{\tau\wedge n})=H(\mu_{\tau}).
$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{main}}
Now, we can find the asymptotic entropy of the random walk $(G,\mu_{\tau})$. Since the expectation
of the Markov stopping time $\tau$ is finite, Lemma~\ref{finite} implies that $H(\mu_{\tau})$ is also finite. Therefore, Theorem~\ref{harmonic} implies that
$$
h({\mu_{\tau}})=\lim_n\dfrac{1}{n}\log \dfrac{dx_{\tau_n}\nu}{d\nu}\mathbf{bnd}(\boldsymbol{x})
$$
for almost every sample path $\boldsymbol{x}=(x_n)$.
Since $U$ is a measure preserving transformation,
$\boldsymbol{E}(\tau_n)=n\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)$, and, moreover,
$\lim\limits_n\dfrac{\tau_{n}(\boldsymbol{x})}{n}=\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)$ for almost every sample path $\boldsymbol{x}$. Therefore, it is obvious that
$$
h(\mu_{\tau})=\lim_n\dfrac{\tau_{n}(\boldsymbol{x})}{n}\dfrac{1}{\tau_{n}(\boldsymbol{x})}\log \dfrac{dx_{\tau_{n}}\nu}{d\nu}\mathbf{bnd}(\boldsymbol{x}).
$$
By applying Theorem~\ref{harmonic} to the random walk $(G,\mu)$, we will have
$$
h(\mu_{\tau})=\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)h(\mu).
$$
\subsection{Entropy of random walks transformed via a randomized Markov stopping time}
Let $\tau$ be a randomized Markov stopping time with finite expectation.
If we replace the sub-martingale in Lemma~\ref{finite} with
$$
M_n(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{\omega})=nH_1+\log\mu^{*n}(x_n),
$$
then finiteness of the entropy of $\mu_{\tau}$ can be obtained by reproducing the proof of Lemma~\ref{finite}.
Since the Poisson boundary of $(G,\mu_{\tau})$ is the same as the Poisson boundary $(G,\mu)$, the proof of Theorem~\ref{expectation} applies. Hence, we have
\begin{thm}\label{markov extension}
Let $\tau$ be a randomized Markov stopping time for the random walk $(G,\mu)$. If $\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)$ is finite, then
$$
h(\mu_{\tau})=\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)h({\mu}).
$$
\end{thm}
The combination of Example~\ref{convex} and the preceding theorem implies the following result of Kaimanovich \cite{K83}.
\begin{ex}\label{kaiver}
Let $\mu'=\sum\limits_{k\geq0}a_k\mu_k$, where $\sum\limits_{k\geq0}a_k=1$ and $a_k\geq0$. Then
$$
h({\mu'})=(\sum_{k\geq0}ka_k)h({\mu}).
$$
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}
Let $\mu=\alpha+\beta$ be as in Example~\ref{wil2}.
Let $\mu'=\beta+\sum\limits_{i\geq1}\alpha^{*i}*\beta$, then
$$
h({\mu'})=\dfrac{1}{\|\beta\|}h(\mu),
$$
where $\|\beta\|$ is the total mass of $\beta$.
\end{ex}
\subsection{$\mu$-boundary}
A {\it $\mu$-boundary} $(\Gamma_{\xi},\nu_{\xi})$ is the quotient of the Poisson boundary with respect to a $G$-invariant measurable partition $\xi$ (see, \cite{Fu70, K00}). The {\it differential entropy} of a $\mu$-boundary is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{mubnd}
E_{\mu}(\Gamma_{\xi},\nu_{\xi})=\sum_g\mu(g)\int\log{\dfrac{dg\nu_{\xi}}{d\nu_{\xi}}(g\gamma_{\xi})}d\nu_{\xi}(\gamma_{\xi}).
\end{equation}
Kaimanovich \cite{K83} showed that the asymptotic entropy $h({\mu})$ is the upper bound for
the asymptotic entropies of $\mu$-boundaries, i.e.,
$$
E_{\mu}(\Gamma_{\xi},\nu_{\xi})\leq h({\mu}).
$$
Moreover, he \cite{K00} proved an analogue of Theorem~\ref{harmonic} for $\mu$-boundaries.
Therefore the claim of Theorem~\ref{markov extension} is also valid the differential entropy of $\mu$-boundaries:
\begin{thm}
Let $\xi$ be a measurable $G$-invariant partition of the Poisson boundary $(G,\mu)$.
If $\tau$ is a randomized Markov stopping time with finite expectation, then
$$
E_{\mu_{\tau}}(\Gamma_{\xi},\nu_{\xi})=\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)E_{\mu}(\Gamma_{\xi},\nu_{\xi}).
$$
\end{thm}
\section{Rate of escape}
In this section, we establish a relationship between the escape rates of the random walk transformed via a randomized Markov stopping time and of the original one.
\medskip
\begin{df}
A gauge $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{G}_n)$ on a group $G$ is an increasing sequence of subsets of $G$ such that $G=\bigcup\limits_n\mathcal{G}_n$. A gauge function $|.|_{\mathcal{G}}$ on $G$ defined as
$$
|g|=|g|_{\mathcal{G}}=\min\{n\ : \ g\in\mathcal{G}_n\}.
$$
A gauge $\mathcal{G}$ is called {\it sub-additive}, whenever its gauge function is sub-additive.
\end{df}
A measure $\mu$ has a finite {\it first moment} with respect to a gauge $\mathcal{G}$, if
$$
|\mu|=\sum_g|g|\mu(g)
$$
is finite.
If $\mathcal{G}$ is a sub-additive gauge, then obviously
$$
|x_{n+m}|\leq|x_n|+|(U^n\boldsymbol{x})_m|,
$$
so that
Kingman's sub-additive theorem implies
\begin{thm}\cite{De80, G79}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a sub-additive gauge and $\mu$ have a finite first moment with respect to $\mathcal{G}$. Then
\begin{equation}
\ell(G,\mu,\mathcal{G})=\ell(\mu)=\lim_n\dfrac{|x_n|}{n}
\end{equation}
exists for $\mathbf{P}$-almost every sample path $\boldsymbol{x}=(x_n)$, and also in $L^1(\mathbf{P})$.
\end{thm}
The quantity $\ell(\mu)$ is called the rate of escape (drift) of the random walk $(G,\mu)$ with respect to the gauge $\mathcal{G}$.
\medskip
\begin{ex}
Let $G$ be a group generated by a finite set $S=S^{-1}$. Then, $(S^n)_n\geq1$ is a sub-additive gauge.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}
Let $(G,\mu)$ be a {\it transient} random walk. Denote by $F(g)<1$ the probability that
the random walk $(G,\mu)$ ever visits a point $g\in G$.
Let $\mathcal{G}_n=\{g\in G : -\ln{F(g)}\leq n\}$, then $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{G}_n)_{n\geq0}$ is a sub-additive gauge.
Actually, $-\ln{F(g)}$ is the ``distance'' of $g$ from the identity element in the so-called {\it Green metric}
\cite{BS07}.
The rate of escape with respect to the Green metric is equal to the asymptotic entropy \cite{BHM08}.
\end{ex}
\begin{thm}
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a sub-additive gauge for group $G$ and $\mu$ have a finite first moment.
Let $\tau$ be a randomized Markov stopping time with finite expectation $\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)$.
Then, the probability measure $\mu_{\tau}$ has a finite first moment with respect to the gauge $\mathcal{G}$,
and
\begin{equation}\label{rate}
\ell(\mu_{\tau})=\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)\ell(\mu).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $L_n(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y})=n\boldsymbol{E}(|x_1|)-|x_n|$. Then
$$
\boldsymbol{E}(L_{n+1}(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{y})|\mathcal{A}_0^n)=(n+1)\boldsymbol{E}(\tau)-\sum_h|x_nh|\mu(h).
$$
The sub-additivity of the gauge $\mathcal{G}$ implies that $\{L_n,\mathcal{A}_0^n\}$ is a sub-martingale.
Now applying the same argument as in Lemma~\ref{finite} and Theorem~\ref{main}, we get the equality (\ref{rate}).
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{Ab59}{article}{
author={Abramov, L. M.},
title={The entropy of a derived automorphism},
language={Russian},
journal={Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR},
volume={128},
date={1959},
pages={647--650},
issn={0002-3264},
}
\bib{A72}{article}{
author={Avez, Andr{\'e}},
title={Entropie des groupes de type fini},
language={French},
journal={C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S\'er. A-B},
volume={275},
date={1972},
pages={A1363--A1366},
}
\bib{A74}{article}{
author={Avez, Andr{\'e}},
title={Th\'eor\`eme de Choquet-Deny pour les groupes \`a croissance non
exponentielle},
language={French},
journal={C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S\'er. A},
volume={279},
date={1974},
pages={25--28},
}
\bib{BS07}{article}{
author={Blach{\`e}re, S{\'e}bastien},
author={Brofferio, Sara},
title={Internal diffusion limited aggregation on discrete groups having
exponential growth},
journal={Probab. Theory Related Fields},
volume={137},
date={2007},
number={3-4},
pages={323--343},
issn={0178-8051},
}
\bib{BHM08}{article}{
author={Blach{\`e}re, S{\'e}bastien},
author={Ha{\"{\i}}ssinsky, Peter},
author={Mathieu, Pierre},
title={Asymptotic entropy and Green speed for random walks on countable
groups},
journal={Ann. Probab.},
volume={36},
date={2008},
number={3},
pages={1134--1152},
issn={0091-1798},
}
\bib{De80}{article}{
author={Derriennic, Yves},
title={Quelques applications du th\'eor\`eme ergodique sous-additif},
language={French, with English summary},
conference={
title={Conference on Random Walks},
address={Kleebach},
date={1979},
},
book={
series={Ast\'erisque},
volume={74},
publisher={Soc. Math. France, Paris},
},
date={1980},
pages={183--201, 4},
}
\bib{Doob53}{book}{
author={Doob, J. L.},
title={Stochastic processes},
publisher={John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York; Chapman \& Hall, Limited,
London},
date={1953},
pages={viii+654},
}
\bib{BK2013}{article}{
author = {Forghani, B.}
author={Kaimanovich, V. A.},
title = {Boundary preserving transformations of random walks},
date={2014},
journal = {In preparation},
}
\bib{Fu70}{article}{
author={Furstenberg, Harry},
title={Random walks and discrete subgroups of Lie groups},
conference={
title={Advances in Probability and Related Topics, Vol. 1},
},
book={
publisher={Dekker, New York},
},
date={1971},
pages={1--63},
}
\bib{G79}{article}{
author={Guivarc'h, Y.},
title={Sur la loi des grands nombres et le rayon spectral d'une marche
al\'eatoire},
language={French, with English summary},
conference={
title={Conference on Random Walks},
address={Kleebach},
date={1979},
},
book={
series={Ast\'erisque},
volume={74},
publisher={Soc. Math. France, Paris},
},
date={1980},
pages={47--98, 3},
}
\bib{Y13}{article}{
author={Hartman, Yair},
author={Lima, Yuri},
author={Tamuz, Omer},
title={An Abramov formula for stationary spaces of discrete groups},
journal={Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems},
volume={34},
date={2014},
number={3},
pages={837--853},
issn={0143-3857},
}
\bib{Kac47}{article}{
author={Kac, M.},
title={On the notion of recurrence in discrete stochastic processes},
journal={Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.},
volume={53},
date={1947},
pages={1002--1010},
issn={0002-9904},
}
\bib{K83}{article}{
author={Kaimanovich, V. A.},
title={Differential entropy of the boundary of a random walk on a group},
language={Russian},
journal={Uspekhi Mat. Nauk},
volume={38},
date={1983},
number={5(233)},
pages={187--188},
issn={0042-1316},
}
\bib{KV83}{article}{
author={Kaimanovich, V. A.},
author={Vershik, A. M.},
title={Random walks on discrete groups: boundary and entropy},
journal={Ann. Probab.},
volume={11},
date={1983},
number={3},
pages={457--490},
issn={0091-1798},
}
\bib {K91}{article}{
author={Kaimanovich, Vadim A.},
title={Poisson boundaries of random walks on discrete solvable groups},
conference={
title={Probability measures on groups, X},
address={Oberwolfach},
date={1990},
},
book={
publisher={Plenum, New York},
},
date={1991},
pages={205--238},
}
\bib{K90}{article}{
author={Kaimanovich, Vadim A.},
title={Discretization of bounded harmonic functions on Riemannian
manifolds and entropy},
conference={
title={Potential theory},
address={Nagoya},
date={1990},
},
book={
publisher={de Gruyter, Berlin},
},
date={1992},
pages={213--223},
}
\bib{K00}{article}{
author={Kaimanovich, Vadim A.},
title={The Poisson formula for groups with hyperbolic properties},
journal={Ann. of Math. (2)},
volume={152},
date={2000},
number={3},
pages={659--692},
issn={0003-486X},
}
\bib{KL07}{article}{
author={Karlsson, Anders},
author={Ledrappier, Fran{\c{c}}ois},
title={Linear drift and Poisson boundary for random walks},
journal={Pure Appl. Math. Q.},
volume={3},
date={2007},
number={4, Special Issue: In honor of Grigory Margulis.},
pages={1027--1036},
issn={1558-8599},
}
\bib {Kol58}{article}{
author={Kolmogorov, A. N.},
title={A new metric invariant of transient dynamical systems and
automorphisms in Lebesgue spaces},
language={Russian},
journal={Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.)},
volume={119},
date={1958},
pages={861--864},
issn={0002-3264},
}
\bib{Ro52}{article}{
author={Rohlin, V. A.},
title={On the fundamental ideas of measure theory},
journal={Amer. Math. Soc. Translation},
volume={1952},
date={1952},
number={71},
pages={55},
issn={0065-9290},
}
\bib {Sh48}{article}{
author={Shannon, C. E.},
title={A mathematical theory of communication},
journal={Bell System Tech. J.},
volume={27},
date={1948},
pages={379--423, 623--656},
issn={0005-8580},
}
\bib {Sin59}{article}{
author={Sinai, Ja.},
title={On the concept of entropy for a dynamic system},
language={Russian},
journal={Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR},
volume={124},
date={1959},
pages={768--771},
issn={0002-3264},
}
\bib {V85}{article}{
author={Varopoulos, Nicholas Th.},
title={Long range estimates for Markov chains},
language={English, with French summary},
journal={Bull. Sci. Math. (2)},
volume={109},
date={1985},
number={3},
pages={225--252},
issn={0007-4497},
}
\bib{W90}{article}{
author={Willis, G. A.},
title={Probability measures on groups and some related ideals in group
algebras},
journal={J. Funct. Anal.},
volume={92},
date={1990},
number={1},
pages={202--263},
issn={0022-1236},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{S:intro}
The consideration of unicity properties is motivated by two perceptions. Usually, in a well-posed Sudoku
it is required that there exists exactly one solution, i.e., there exists a solution and the solution is unique.
This assumption makes it reasonable to investigate this property in order to gain additional insight, which
can be used in the development of algorithms. On the other side in optimization and approximation theory
it is a common approach to impose a unicity condition in order to obtain stronger results. A classical
example is the alternation theorem for Haar subspaces in Chebyshev approximation. Haar subspaces
are a global unicity assumption and the corresponding theory can be found, e.g., in the monograph of
Cheney \cite{Che}.
This paper introduces three different types of unicity properties. In Section \ref{S:constraint_sets}
constraint sets are defined. These sets generalize the terms row, column and block of a classical
Sudoku puzzle and prepare the unicity statements. In Section \ref{S:unicity_perm} we describe the
solution set of the generalized Sudoku problem in terms of permutations. These permutations
have specific properties on the constraint sets. The unique solvability depends on the nonexistence
of such a permutation.
In Section \ref{S:unicity_cells} we introduce unicity cells, which is a local unicity condition. As a result
we prove that the generalized Sudoku problem is uniquely solvable if and only if each cell is a unicity
cell. In Section \ref{S:unicity_rectangles} we consider a generalized type of rectangles as a set of
cells. If the generalized Sudoku problem admits a unique solution with a minimality condition on a
rectangle, then this rectangle contains a given, i.e., a populated cell.
Unicity properties for the Sudoku puzzle had been considered by Provan \cite{Pro} and Herzberg and
Murty \cite{HM}. Provan showed that the complete solvability of a Sudoku puzzle using the pigeon-hole
rule implies the unique solvability of the Sudoku puzzle. Herzberg and Murty presented a necessary
condition for the unique solvability.
Finally, we collect some basic terms and notations. Let $\mathds{Z}$ denote the set of integers.
The $s$-times cartesian product of $\mathds{Z}$ is indicated by a superscript $s$, i.e.,
$\mathds{Z}^s$. The transpose of a vector or a matrix is indicated by a superscript $”T”$.
The vectors $\mathbf{0}$ respectively $\mathbf{1}$ denote the zero respectively one vector,
consisting of zeros respectively ones in each component. The number of components is indicated
by an index. Each vector is considered to be a column vector. $U$ denotes the identity matrix.
The elements of a set are called distinct if each two elements of the set are distinct, i.e.,
if and only if the elements are pairwise distinct. The sum over an empty index set is considered
to be zero. The symbol $\sharp$ denotes the number of elements (cardinality) of a finite set.
\section{The Mathematical Model} \label{S:model}
We treat Sudoku problems on the basis of a general model introduced in \cite{Fis1} and replicate the
model in this section. We restrict ourselves to the primal problem and do not consider the dual problem
introduced in \cite{Fis2}. Let $n$ be an integer with $n \ge 1$. We define the sum
\[
s(n) = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}i
\]
and define a matrix $A(n)$ with $s(n)$ rows and $n$ columns inductively. For $n=1$, let $A(1)$
denote the empty matrix, i.e., a matrix without entries. Assume the matrix $A(n-1)$ had been
defined with $s(n-1)$ rows and $n-1$ columns. We set
{
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.0}
\[
A(n) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{array}{c|c}
\mathbf{1}_{n-1} & - U_{n-1} \\
\hline
\mathbf{0}_{s(n-1)} & A(n-1)
\end{array}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
}
We extend the matrix $A(n)$ to a matrix $A$ with $n \cdot s(n)$ rows and $n^2$ columns.
The matrix $A$ consists in the ``main diagonal" of $n$ matrices $A(n)$ and the remaining values
are set to zero. The matrix $A$ depends on the value $n$, but we do not state this
dependence explicitly.
Given the set $\{1, \ldots, n^2\} \subset \mathds{Z}$, let $\pi$ be any permutation on this set,
i.e.,
\[
\pi: \{1, \ldots, n^2\} \longrightarrow \{1, \ldots, n^2\}
\]
be a permutation. We extend the notion of permutation to the matrix $A$,
i.e., we define $\pi (A) = (a^{\pi^{-1}(1)}, \ldots, a^{\pi^{-1}(n^2)})$,
where $a^j$ denotes the $j^{th}$ column of $A$ for $j = 1, \ldots , n^2$.
Given a permutation $\pi$ on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, we define the matrix
$A_\pi = \pi (A)$, i.e., we interchange the columns of $A$ according to
the permutation $\pi$.
\begin{definition} \label{D:nonzero}
Let $s \ge 1$. For any point $y = (y_1, \ldots, y_s)^T \in \mathds{Z}^s$,
we write $y < > \mathbf{0}$ if each component of $y$ is nonzero,
i.e., if $y_i \ne 0$ for $i=1, \ldots, s$.
\end{definition}
This definition should not be confused with the expression $y \ne \mathbf{0}$,
where only one component of $y$ has to be nonzero.
Given is $n \ge 2$, some permutations $\pi_1$, $\pi_2$, $\pi_3$ on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$,
some $0 \le k \le n^2$, an index set $\{i_1, \ldots, i_k \} \subset \{ 1, \ldots, n^2\}$,
and givens $g_{i_1}, \ldots , g_{i_k} \in \mathds{Z}$ with $1 \le g_{i_l} \le n$ for
$l = 1, \ldots, k$.
The generalized Sudoku problem is defined in the following way:
\begin{align*}
& \mbox{Find }x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}, \mbox{ such that }\\
& 1 \le x_i \le n \mbox{ for } i = 1, \ldots, n^2, \\
& A_{\pi_r} x <> \mathbf{0} \mbox{ for }r=1, 2, 3 \mbox{ and } \\
& x_{i_l} = g_{i_l} \mbox{ for }l = 1, \ldots, k.
\end{align*}
We restrict ourselves to this mathematical model and do not refer directly to the classical Sudoku
puzzle. In particular, we will not investigate the relation of this model to the Sudoku puzzle
in detail. This had been described in \cite{Fis1} already.
\section{Constraint Sets} \label{S:constraint_sets}
From now on we denote the elements of $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ in the definition of the generalized
Sudoku problem as cells. We divide the set of all cells into $n$ subsets of $n$ cells.
\begin{definition} \label{D:constraintsets}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$. The $n$ sets
$\{\pi((j-1)\cdot n + 1), \ldots, \pi(j \cdot n)\} = \{\pi(i) \mid (j-1)\cdot n + 1 \le i \le j \cdot n\}$
for $j = 1, \ldots, n$ are called the constraint sets of $\pi$ and are denoted by
$cs_\pi(1), \ldots, cs_\pi(n)$.
\end{definition}
Each of the sets $cs_\pi(j)$ contains exactly $n$ elements. If the generalized Sudoku problem
describes a classical Sudoku puzzle (as defined in \cite[Section 3]{Fis1}), then the constraint
sets of $\pi_1$, $\pi_2$ respectively $\pi_3$ describe the indices of the rows, columns
respectively blocks of the Sudoku square.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:31}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$. The constraint sets of $\pi$ form
a partition of the cells $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, i.e.,
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $cs_\pi(i) \cap cs_\pi(j) = \emptyset$ for $i, j = 1, \ldots, n, i \ne j$, and
\item $\bigcup^n_{j=1} cs_\pi(j) = \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) This is clear, because $\pi$ is a one-to-one mapping. \\
(ii) Obviously, $cs_\pi(j) \subset \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ for $j=1, \ldots, n$. The inclusion
$\{1, \ldots, n^2\} \subset \bigcup^n_{j=1} cs_\pi(j)$ follows, because $\pi$ is onto.
\end{proof}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and let $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T
\in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$.
We adopt a notation of \cite[Section 2]{Fis1} and define
\[
\pi(x) = (x_{\pi^{-1}(1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi^{-1}(n^2)})^T.
\]
The proof of the next lemma follows immediately from \cite[Lemma 3.2]{Fis1}.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:32}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, let $j \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$ and let
$x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$.
The following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $A(n) (x_{\pi((j-1)n+1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(j \cdot n)}) < > \mathbf{0}$.
\item $x_{\pi((j-1)n+1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(j \cdot n)}$ are distinct.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
From \cite[Lemma 3.3]{Fis1}, we derive this lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:33}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, let $j \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$ and let
$x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$.
The following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $A(n) (x_{\pi((j-1)n+1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(j \cdot n)}) < > \mathbf{0}$ \\
and $1 \le x_{\pi((j-1)n+i)} \le n$ for $i=1, \ldots, n$.
\item $\{x_i \mid i \in cs_\pi(j) \} = \{ 1, \ldots, n \}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
The results on the subvectors of $x$ can be extended to the full length.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:34}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and let
$x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$.
The following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $A_\pi x < > \mathbf{0}$.
\item $x_{\pi((j-1)n+1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(j \cdot n)}$ are distinct for $j = 1, \ldots, n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using \cite[Lemma 3.4 (i)]{Fis1},
\[
A_\pi x = A \pi^{-1}(x) = A (x_{\pi(1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(n^2)})^T.
\]
The claim follows from the diagonal structure of $A$ and Lemma \ref{L:32}.
\end{proof}
From Lemma \ref{L:34} and \cite[Lemma 3.1]{Fis1}, we derive immediately the next lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:35}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and let
$x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$.
The following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $A_\pi x < > \mathbf{0}$ and $1 \le x_i \le n$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n^2$.
\item $\{ x_i \mid i \in cs_\pi(j) \} = \{1, \ldots, n \}$ for $j = 1, \ldots, n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
In the sequel we use from time to time the notation $cs_\pi$ respectively $cs$ for constraint sets,
i.e., we do not number them, but use an abbreviated version.
\section{Unicity by Permutations} \label{S:unicity_perm}
In this section, we consider the unique solvability of the generalized Sudoku problem
introduced in Section \ref{S:model} and we focus on a description of unicity using the
dependance on permutations of $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$.
\begin{definition} \label{D:pi-consistent}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$. A permutation $\tau$ on
$\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ is called $\pi$-consistent if $\tau(cs_\pi(j)) = cs_\pi(j)$ for
$j = 1, \ldots, n$.
\end{definition}
A permutation is called $\pi$-consistent if it preserves the constraint sets of $\pi$.
In a classical Sudoku puzzle this definition states that $\tau$ permutes only values within
a row, a column or a block (depending on $\pi$).
Please note, $\tau$ is $\pi$-consistent if and only if $\tau^{-1}$ is $\pi$-consistent.
The concatenation $\pi \circ \tau^{-1}$ of two permutations $\pi$ and $\tau^{-1}$
is a permutation again.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:41}
Let $\pi$ and $\tau$ be permutations on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and let
$x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$. The following
statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $A_\pi \tau(x) <> \mathbf{0}$.
\item $x_{(\pi\circ\tau^{-1})((j-1) n+1)}, \ldots, x_{(\pi\circ\tau^{-1})(j \cdot n)}$
are distinct for $j = 1, \ldots, n.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We apply \cite[Lemma 3.4 (i)]{Fis1} and obtain
\[
A_\pi \tau(x) = A\pi^{-1}(\tau(x)) = A(\tau \circ \pi^{-1})(x) = A_{\pi\circ\tau^{-1}}x.
\]
Using Lemma \ref{L:34} with $\pi \circ \tau^{-1}$ (in the role of $\pi$) gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{L:42}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, let $\tau$ be a $\pi$-consistent
permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and let $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T
\in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$. The following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $1 \le x_i \le n$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n^2$ if and only if $1 \le x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} \le n$ \\
for $i = 1, \ldots, n^2$.
\item $A_\pi x <> \mathbf{0}$ if and only if $A_\pi \tau(x) <> \mathbf{0}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
``(i)" This is clear, because $\tau$ is a permutation and does not modify the values of the
components of $x$. \\
``(ii)" Using Lemma \ref{L:34}, $A_\pi x < > \mathbf{0}$ if and only if
\[
x_{\pi((j-1) n+1)}, \ldots, x_{\pi(j \cdot n)} \mbox{ are distinct for }j = 1, \ldots, n.
\]
By assumption, $\tau$ respectively $\tau^{-1}$ are $\pi$-consistent, i.e., $A_\pi x <> \mathbf{0}$
if and only if
\[
x_{\tau^{-1}(\pi((j-1) n+1))}, \ldots, x_{\tau^{-1}(\pi(j \cdot n))}
\mbox{ are distinct for }j = 1, \ldots, n.
\]
The claim follows from Lemma \ref{L:41}.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition} \label{D:pi-x-consistent}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and let
$x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$. A permutation
$\tau$ on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ is called $\pi$-$x$-consistent if
\[
\{ x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} \mid i \in cs_\pi(j) \} = \{ x_i \mid i \in cs_\pi(j) \}
\]
for $j = 1, \ldots, n$.
\end{definition}
In a classical Sudoku puzzle this definition states, that $\tau$ may permute not only values
within a row, a column or a block, but more changes are allowed. It is required, that after
the permutation each row, column and block contains the same values as before. Each
$\pi$-consistent permutation is $\pi$-$x$-consistent for each
$x \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$ and each permutation $\pi$ on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:43}
Let $\pi$ and $\tau$ be permutations on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and let
$x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$, such that $1 \le x_i \le n$
for $i = 1, \ldots, n^2$. Consider the statements:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $A_\pi x <> \mathbf{0}$.
\item $A_\pi \tau(x) <> \mathbf{0}$.
\item $\tau$ is $\pi$-$x$-consistent.
\end{enumerate}
Each two of the statements imply the third.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{L:35}, (i) holds if and only if
\[
\{ x_i \mid i \in cs_\pi(j) \} = \{1, \ldots, n \} \mbox{ for }j = 1, \ldots, n.
\]
Using Lemma \ref{L:41} and \cite[Lemma 3.1]{Fis1}, (ii) holds if and only if
\[
\{ x_i \mid i \in cs_{\pi\circ\tau^{-1}}(j) \} = \{1, \ldots, n \} \mbox{ for }j = 1, \ldots, n.
\]
Substituting $i$ with $\tau^{-1}(i)$,
\begin{align*}
\{ x_i \mid i \in cs_{\pi\circ\tau^{-1}}(j) \}
& = \{ x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} \mid i \in \tau(cs_{\pi \circ \tau^{-1}}(j)) \} \\
& = \{ x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} \mid i \in cs_\pi(j) \}
\end{align*}
for $j = 1, \ldots, n$, i.e., (ii) holds if and only if
\[
\{ x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} \mid i \in cs_\pi(j) \} = \{1, \ldots, n \} \mbox{ for }j = 1, \ldots, n.
\]
The claim follows from the definition of $\pi$-$x$-consistent.
\end{proof}
We define the solution set of the generalized Sudoku problem by
\begin{align*}
S(n, g)
= \{x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2} \mid
& \: 1 \le x_i \le n \mbox{ for } i = 1, \ldots, n^2, \\
& \: A_{\pi_r} x <> \mathbf{0} \mbox{ for } r = 1, 2, 3 \mbox{ and } \\
& \: x_{i_l} = g_{i_l} \mbox{ for }l = 1, \ldots, k \: \}.
\end{align*}
\begin{lemma} \label{L:44}
Let $x, y \in S(n, g)$ and let $r \in \{1, 2, 3\}$. There exists a permutation $\tau$
on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $y = \tau(x)$,
\item $\tau$ is $\pi_r$-consistent,
\item $\tau$ is $\pi_s$-$x$-consistent for $s = 1, 2, 3$ and
\item $\tau(i_l) = i_l$ for $l=1, \ldots, k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T$ and $y = (y_1, \ldots, y_{n^2})^T$.
We apply Lemma \ref{L:35} to $\pi_r$, $x$ and $y$, which implies
\[
\{ x_i \mid i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j) \} = \{ y_i \mid i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j) \} = \{1, \ldots, n\}
\]
for $j = 1, \ldots, n$. There exist permutations $\tau_j$ on $cs_{\pi_r}(j)$,
such that $x_i = y_{\tau_j(i)}$ for each $i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j)$ and $j=1, \ldots, n$.
By Lemma \ref{L:31}, the constraint sets form a partition of $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$
and we can combine the $\tau_j$ to a permutation $\tau$ on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ with
\[
\tau_{\mid cs_{\pi_r}(j)} = \tau_j \mbox{ for }j=1, \ldots, n.
\]
Here $\mid$ denotes the restriction of a mapping to a set.
This $\tau$ is also a permutation, since all $\tau_j's$ are permutations and the
constraint sets form a partition of $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$.
``(i)" Let $i \in \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ be any cell. There exists a (uniquely determined)
index $1 \le j \le n$, such that $i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j)$, i.e., $i$ is contained in the $j^{th}$
constraint set. This implies $y_{\tau(i)} = y_{\tau_j(i)} = x_i$. Since $i$ had been chosen
arbitrarily, we obtain $x_{\tau^{-1}(i)} = y_i$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ and
\[
\tau(x) = (x_{\tau^{-1}(1)}, \ldots, x_{\tau^{-1}(n^2)})
= (y_1, \ldots, y_{n^2}) = y, \mbox{ i.e., (i)}.
\]
``(ii)" Obviously, $\tau$ is $\pi_r$-consistent, since each $\tau_j$ is a permutation on
$cs_{\pi_r}(j)$ for $j=1, \ldots, n$.
``(iii)" Let $s \in \{1, 2, 3\}$. Since $y \in S(n, g)$,
\[
A_{\pi_s}\tau(x) = A_{\pi_s} y <> \mathbf{0}
\]
and, by Lemma \ref{L:43}, $\tau$ is $\pi_s$-$x$-consistent.
``(iv)" Let $l \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. There exists an index $1 \le j \le n$, such that
$i_l \in cs_{\pi_r}(j)$. Then $\tau_j(i_l) \in cs_{\pi_r}(j)$ and
\[
y_{i_l} = g_{i_l} = x_{i_l} = y_{\tau_j(i_l)} = y_{\tau(i_l)}.
\]
By Lemma \ref{L:34}, $y_s \ne y_t$ for each $s, t \in cs_{\pi_r}(j)$ if $s \ne t$.
This implies $i_l = \tau_j(i_l) = \tau(i_l)$ and proves the claim.
\end{proof}
Applied to a classical Sudoku puzzle with $r=1$ the permutation $\tau$ describes a
mapping, which changes cells within a row. This permutation does not preserve
the columns, but after the permutation we have distinct values in each column.
The cells with a given are not touched by the permutation $\tau$.
Now we prove two descriptions of the solution set of the generalized Sudoku
problem. These descriptions are based on permutations.
\begin{theorem} \label{T:41}
Let $x$ be a solution of the generalized Sudoku problem, i.e., $x \in S(n, g)$. Then
\begin{align*}
S(n, g) = \{y \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2} \mid
& \: \mbox{there exist permutations } \tau_1, \tau_2 \mbox{ and } \tau_3 \\
& \: \mbox{on } \{1, \ldots, n^2\}, \mbox{such that} \\
& \: y = \tau_r(x) \mbox{ for }r = 1, 2, 3, \\
& \: \tau_r \mbox{ is }\pi_r\mbox{-consistent for } r = 1, 2, 3, \mbox{and} \\
& \: \tau_r(i_l) = i_l \mbox{ for }l=1, \ldots, k \mbox{ and } r = 1, 2, 3 \: \}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
``$\subset$" Let $y \in S(n, g)$. By Lemma \ref{L:44}, there exist permutations
$\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$ on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, such that $y = \tau_r(x)$ for
$r = 1, 2, 3$, $\tau_r$ is $\pi_r$-consistent for $r = 1, 2, 3$ and
$\tau_r(i_l) = i_l$ for $l=1, \ldots, k$ and $r=1, 2, 3$. \\
``$\supset$" Let $y \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$, let $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$
be permutations on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, such that $y = \tau_r(x)$ for $r = 1, 2, 3$,
$\tau_r$ is $\pi_r$-consistent for $r = 1, 2, 3$ and $\tau_r(i_l) = i_l$ for $l=1, \ldots, k$
and $r=1, 2, 3$. Let $r \in \{1, 2, 3\}$ and $j \in \{1,\ldots, n\}$, then
\begin{align*}
\{ y_i \mid i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j) \}
& = \{ x_{\tau^{-1}_r(i)} \mid i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j) \} \\
& = \{ x_i \mid i \in cs_ {\pi_r}(j) \} \\
& = \{1, \ldots, n\},
\end{align*}
since $\tau_r$ is $\pi_r$-consistent and using Lemma \ref{L:35}. By Lemma \ref{L:35} applied
to $y$, $A_{\pi_r}y <> \mathbf{0}$ and $1 \le y_i \le n$ for $i=1, \ldots, n^2$. Moreover
$y_{i_l} = x_{\tau^{-1}_1(i_l)} = x_{i_l} = g_{i_l}$ for $l=1, \ldots, k$, i.e., $y \in S(n, g)$.
\end{proof}
For each solution $y \in S(n, g)$ the permutations in Theorem \ref{T:41} are uniquely determined
as we see from the next lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:45}
Let $\pi$ be a permutation on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, let $x \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$
such that $A_\pi x <> \mathbf{0}$ and let $y \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$. Let $\tau_1$ and
$\tau_2$ be $\pi$-consistent permutations on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, such that $y=\tau_1(x)$
and $y=\tau_2(x)$. Then $\tau_1 = \tau_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $i \in \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$. By Lemma \ref{L:31}, there exists $j \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$ and a
constraint set $cs_\pi(j)$, such that $i \in cs_\pi(j)$. By assumption, $\tau_1(x) = \tau_2(x)$, hence
$x_{\tau_1^{-1}(i)} = x_{\tau_2^{-1}(i)}$. Since $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are $\pi$-consistent,
$\tau_1^{-1}(i) \in cs_\pi(j)$ and $\tau_2^{-1}(i) \in cs_\pi(j)$. By Lemma \ref{L:34},
$\tau_1^{-1}(i) = \tau_2^{-1}(i)$. Since $i$ had been chosen arbitrarily, $\tau_1^{-1} = \tau_2^{-1}$
and we obtain
$\tau_1 = (\tau_2 \circ \tau_2^{-1}) \circ \tau_1 = \tau_2 \circ (\tau_1^{-1} \circ \tau_1) = \tau_2$.
\end{proof}
The description in Theorem \ref{T:41} uses the condition $\pi$-consistent for three permutations.
The next theorem describes the solution set by one permutation with the weaker condition
$\pi$-$x$-consistent. Again by Lemma \ref{L:45}, the permutation $\tau$ in Theorem \ref{T:42}
is also uniquely determined for each solution $y$.
\begin{theorem} \label{T:42}
Let $x$ be a solution of the generalized Sudoku problem, i.e., $x \in S(n, g)$. Then
\begin{align*}
S(n, g)
= \{y \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2} \mid
& \: \mbox{there exists a permutation }\tau \mbox{ on } \{1, \ldots, n^2\}, \\
& \: \mbox{such that } y = \tau(x), \tau \mbox{ is } \pi_1\mbox{-consistent }, \\
& \: \pi_2\mbox{-}x\mbox{-consistent}, \pi_3\mbox{-}x\mbox{-consistent} \mbox{ and} \\
& \: \tau(i_l) = i_l \mbox{ for }l=1, \ldots, k \: \}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
``$\subset$" Let $y \in S(n, g)$. Using Lemma \ref{L:44}, there exists a permutation $\tau$
with the desired properties. \\
``$\supset$" Let $y \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$, $\tau$ be a permutation, such that $y=\tau(x)$,
$\tau$ is $\pi_1$-consistent, $\pi_2$-$x$-consistent, $\pi_3$-$x$-consistent and $\tau(i_l) = i_l$
for $l=1, \ldots, k$. The components of $y$ are permutations of the components of $x$, i.e.,
$1 \le y_i \le n$ for $i=1, \ldots, n^2$. By Lemma \ref{L:43},
\[
A_{\pi_r} y = A_{\pi_r}\tau(x) <> \mathbf{0} \mbox{ for }r=1, 2, 3.
\]
Moreover $y_{i_l} = x_{\tau^{-1}(i_l)} = x_{i_l} = g_ {i_l}$ for $l=1, \ldots, k$
and this shows $y \in S(n, g)$.
\end{proof}
From this theorem we can derive a characterization of uniquely solvable generalized
Sudoku problems.
\begin{theorem} \label{T:43}
Let $x$ be a solution of the generalized Sudoku problem, i.e., $x \in S(n, g)$. Then $x$ is the
unique solution of the generalized Sudoku problem if and only if there does not exist a
permutation $\tau$ on $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, such that $\tau(x) \ne x$, $\tau$ is
$\pi_1$-consistent, $\pi_2$-$x$-consistent, $\pi_3$-$x$-consistent and $\tau(i_l) = i_l$ for
$l=1, \ldots, k$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Unicity by Unicity Cells} \label{S:unicity_cells}
In this section, we consider a unicity concept, which we call unicity cell. This definition allows ``local"
considerations of unicity, i.e., we characterize, when a single cell contains a unique value.
\begin{definition} \label{D:unicity_cell}
A cell $i \in \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ is called a unicity cell with unique value $v \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$
if all solutions $x=(x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T$ of the generalized Sudoku problem satisfy
$x_i = v$.
\end{definition}
Please note, this definition does not say anything on the solvability of the generalized Sudoku
problem. In an unsolvable generalized Sudoku problem each cell is a unicity cell for trivial reasons.
It is immediately clear from the definition, that a solvable generalized Sudoku problem admits a
unique solution if and only if each cell $i \in \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ is a unicity cell.
We continue with the definition of a Sudoku subproblem, which we call the reduced problem.
The condition $x_{i_l} = g_{i_l}$ for $l = 1, \ldots, k$ in the definition of the generalized Sudoku
problem can be written as $A_{eq} x = g$ with a suitable $k \times n^2$ matrix $A_{eq}$
(describing the equality conditions) and a right side
$g = (g_{i_1}, \ldots, g_{i_k})^T \in \mathds{Z}^k$. Roughly spoken, the matrix $A_{eq}$ is a
unit matrix, where some of the rows had been left.
We divide the set of all cells $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ into the set of known cells
$\{i_1, \ldots, i_k\}$ (determining $A_{eq}$ and $g$) and the set of unknown cells
$\{1, \ldots, n^2\} \backslash \{i_1, \ldots, i_k\}$ (see Section \ref{S:model}). Each known cell $i_l$ is a
unicity cell with unique value $g_{i_l}$ for $l=1, \ldots, k$.
Let $1 \le p \le n^2$ be an integer and let $J=\{j_1, \ldots, j_p\} \subset
\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ be a set of cells with $j_1 < \ldots < j_p$ (and possibly containing known
and unknown cells). We consider the projection
$P_J: \mathds{Z}^{n^2} \longrightarrow \mathds{Z}^p$
defined by
$P_J(x) = (x_{j_1}, \ldots, x_{j_p})^T \mbox{ for each }
x=(x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}.$
This projection induces a transformation $t_J: J \longrightarrow \{1, \ldots, p\}$ defined by
$t_J(j_l) = l$ for $l=1, \ldots, p$. The $t_J(j)^{th}$-component of $P_J(x)$, $P_J(x)_{t_J(j)}=x_j$
for each $x=(x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$ and $j \in J$.
For any $q \times n^2$-matrix
\[
M=
\begin{pmatrix}
m_1^T \\
\vdots \\
m_q^T
\end{pmatrix}
\]
with $q\in\mathds{Z}$ rows, $q \ge 1$, and vectors $m_l \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$ for $l=1, \ldots, q$,
we define
\[
P_J(M)=
\begin{pmatrix}
P_J(m_1)^T \\
\vdots \\
P_J(m_q)^T
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
We consider the projected matrices $P_J(A_{\pi_1})$, $P_J(A_{\pi_2})$, $P_J(A_{\pi_3})$ and
$P_J(A_{eq})$ and delete all zero rows. Additionally, we delete all rows from $P_J(A_{\pi_r})$
for $r=1, 2, 3$ with at most one nonzero component. The resulting matrices are denoted by $B_1$, $B_2$,
$B_3$ and $B_{eq}$. We also delete the components of the point $g=(g_{i_1}, \ldots, g_{i_k})^T \in
\mathds{Z}^k$, which belong to deleted rows of $P_J(A_{eq})$ and denote the new point by $g^\prime$.
We define the reduced problem induced by $J$ in the following way:
\begin{align*}
& \mbox{Find }z = (z_1, \ldots, z_p)^T \in \mathds{Z}^p, \\
& \mbox{such that }1 \le z_i \le n \mbox{ for } i = 1, \ldots, p, \\
& B_r z <> \mathbf{0} \mbox{ for }r=1, 2, 3 \mbox{ and } B_{eq} z = g^\prime.
\end{align*}
The reduced problem is built from the generalized Sudoku problem by dropping cells. Simultaneously,
all comparisons between dropped cells and between remaining cells and dropped cells are also dropped.
All givens in the dropped cells do not appear in the reduced problem. The generalized Sudoku
problem and the reduced problem induced by $J$ are related.
\begin{lemma} \label{L:51}
(i) Let $x$ be a solution of the generalized Sudoku problem and let $J \subset \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$
be a set of cells. Then $P_J(x)$ is a solution of the reduced problem induced by $J$. \\
(ii) If $J=\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, then the reduced problem induced by $J$ equals the
generalized Sudoku problem.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
``(i)" This is clear, since all constraints of the reduced problem induced by $J$ are also constraints
of the generalized Sudoku problem. \\
``(ii)" If $J=\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, then $p=n^2$ and $P_J$ is the identical mapping.
Both problems are identical.
\end{proof}
Obviously, the converse of Lemma \ref{L:51} (i) is not true. If $P_J(x)$ is a solution of the
reduced problem, there is no guarantee, that $x$ satisfies all constraints of the generalized
Sudoku problem.
There is an immediate consequence of Lemma \ref{L:51}. If the generalized Sudoku problem
is solvable, then the reduced problem is also solvable.
\begin{definition} \label{D:unicity_cell_wrt}
Let $1 \le p \le n^2$ be an integer, let $J \subset \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ be a set of $p$ cells, let $i \in J$
and let $v \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. The cell $i$ is called a unicity cell w.r.t. the base set $J$ with unique
value $v$ if all solutions $x=(x_1, \ldots, x_p)^T$ of the reduced problem induced by $J$ satisfy
$x_{t_J(i)} = v$.
\end{definition}
Note, the conditions in Definition \ref{D:unicity_cell_wrt} do not require the solvability of the reduced
problem. We also do not impose any minimality condition on the base set.
Using Lemma \ref{L:51} (ii), a cell $i$ is a unicity cell with unique value $v$ (see Definition
\ref{D:unicity_cell}) if and only if $i$ is a unicity cell w.r.t. the base set $\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ with unique
value $v$.
Mainly, we are interested in ``small" base sets $J$, i.e., with a small number of elements. A possible
solution method could try to determine a base set in each step and to solve the reduced problem
induced by it.
\begin{example} \label{E:51}
We consider the example depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig1} and the union $J$ of the sets
$\{1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21 \}$ (the first block) and $\{4, 16, 28, 56\}$
(the cells populated with $4$'s). The cell $21$ (row 3, column 3) is a unicity cell w.r.t. $J$
with unique value $4$. All solutions of the reduced problem induced by $J$
contain a $4$ in the $11^{th}$ component (which corresponds to cell $21$).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fischer_Fig1.eps}
\caption{Sudoku with a unicity cell}
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
The relation between unicity cell and unicity cell w.r.t. a base set will be examined in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{T:51}
Let $i \in \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ be a cell and let $v \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. The following
statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item The cell $i$ is a unicity cell with unique value $v$.
\item There exists a base set $J\subset\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, such that $i\in J$ \\
and $i$ is a unicity cell w.r.t. $J$ with unique value $v$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
``(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii)" Define $J=\{1, \ldots, n^2\}$. The claim follows from Lemma
\ref{L:51} (ii). \\
``(ii)$\Rightarrow$(i)" Let $x=(x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T$ and $y=(y_1, \ldots, y_{n^2})^T$
be solutions of the generalized Sudoku problem. By assumption (ii), there exists a base set
$J\subset \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$, such that $i \in J$ and $i$ is a unicity cell w.r.t. $J$ with unique
value $v$. We consider the reduced problem induced by $J$ and by Lemma \ref{L:51} (i),
$P_J(x)$ and $P_J(y)$ are solutions of the reduced problem. Consequently,
$x_i = P_J(x)_{t_J(i)} = v = P_J(y)_{t_J(i)}=y_i$.
\end{proof}
The strategy of humans to solve a uniquely solvable Sudoku is to find a cell $i$ and a ``pretty small"
base set $J$. The preceeding theorem suggests, it is not necessary to find some cell $i$, but we can
choose any cell $i$ and we still are able to find a base set $J$. But the price for selecting an arbitrary
cell $i$ may be a large base set $J$, which results in a difficult to solve reduced problem. We illustrate
this with the next example. In the next two examples we change the indexation to a more readable
form $x_{row, column}$.
\begin{example} \label{E:52}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fischer_Fig2.eps}
\caption{The example of Mepham}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
We consider a continuation of the ``diabolical" example of Mepham \cite{Mep} depicted in Fig.
\ref{Fig2}. The term continuation means, we added some values to the puzzle, which were easy
to find. The cell $10$ (row 2, column 1) is a unicity cell w.r.t. the base set $J$ consisting of the circled
cells with unique value $4$. This can be seen by the following argumentation. Let $x$ be a solution
of the reduced problem induced by $J$. In cell $10$ there can be only a $4$ or a $7$. Suppose there
is a $7$, then $ x_{3,2}=4$, $x_{2,9}=4$ and $x_{7,2}=7$ $\Rightarrow x_{3,9}=7 \Rightarrow
x_{5,9}=5$ and $x_{8,9}=8 \Rightarrow x_{7,3}=8 \Rightarrow x_{6,3}=3 \Rightarrow
x_{6,9}\ne 1$ and $x_{6,9} \ne 3$ and this is a contradiction.
\end{example}
This example of Mepham had been analyzed by Crook \cite{Cro}, too. Crook described an algorithm,
which combined the deduction of values with a trial-and-error-method.
Provan \cite{Pro} defined a ``pigeon-hole rule", which is equivalent to the preemptive sets of Crook.
The algorithm of Provan consists of the consecutive application of this rule to a solvable Sudoku puzzle.
If it is possible to apply this rule in each step, then the algorithm leads to a solution and the solution is
unique \cite[Theorem 2]{Pro}.
\begin{example} \label{E:53}
We consider an example of Provan \cite[Table 2]{Pro} depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig3}. The cell $1$
(row 1, column 1) is a unicity cell w.r.t. the base set $J$ consisting of the circled cells with unique
value $5$. This can be seen by the following argumentation. Let $x$ be a solution of the reduced
problem induced by $J$. In cell $1$ there can be only a $1$ or $5$. Suppose there is a $1$, then
$x_{2,2}=2$ and $x_{3,2}=5$ $\Rightarrow x_{8,8}\ne 2 \mbox{ and }\ne 5$. But this is a
contradiction to the circled values in column 2 and row 8.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fischer_Fig3.eps}
\caption{The example of Provan}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\section{Unicity by Rectangles} \label{S:unicity_rectangles}
In this section we introduce generalized rectangles, which are sets of cells with a rectangle-type shape
and show the relation to unicity.
\begin{definition} \label{D:rectangle}
Let $1 \le p \le n$ and $1 \le q \le n$. A set $J \subset \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ consisting of $p \cdot q$
cells is called a $p$-$q$-rectangle if there exist distinct indices $j_{r,1}, \ldots, j_{r,q}$, $1 \le j_{r,s} \le n$
for $s=1, \ldots, q$ and $r=1, 2, 3$, such that
$\sharp (J \cap cs_{\pi_r}(j_{r,s})) = p$ for $s=1, \ldots, q$ and $r=1, 2, 3$.
\end{definition}
Each single cell is a $1$-$1$-rectangle. The set of all cells $J = \{1, \ldots, n^2\}$ is an $n$-$n$-rectangle.
In a classical Sudoku puzzle a set $J$ is a $p$-$q$-rectangle if and only if there exist $q$ rows,
$q$ columns and $q$ blocks and each of them contains $p$ elements of $J$.
\begin{example} \label{E:61}
In Fig. \ref{Fig4} the unpopulated cells form a $2$-$3$-rectangle. The constraint sets are rows 2, 4, 5,
columns 4, 5, 8 and blocks 2, 5, 6. The possible values in this rectangle are $6$ and $7$. We can
allocate these values in row 2 in two different ways and the values of the remaining
cells are uniquely determined. In particular this Sudoku puzzle admits two solutions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fischer_Fig4.eps}
\caption{A $2$-$3$-rectangle}
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
If $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in S(n, g)$ and $J$ is a $p$-$q$-rectangle, then the $p$ values $x_i$,
where $i \in J \cap cs_{\pi_1}(j_{1,1})$ are distinct. Consequently, the whole set $\{x_i \mid i \in J\}$
contains at least $p$ values.
\begin{definition}
Let $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T \in S(n, g)$ and let $J$ be a $p$-$q$-rectangle for some $1 \le p \le n$
and $1 \le q \le n$. The point $x$ is called minimal on $J$ if $\sharp \{x_i \mid i \in J\} = p$.
\end{definition}
Assume there exists a solution of the generalized Sudoku problem which is minimal on a $p$-$q$-rectangle
with $p \ge 2$. Then it is possible to interchange two values in $cs_{\pi_1}(j_{1,s})$ for each $s$ and we
obtain a new solution, i.e., the generalized Sudoku problem is not uniquely solvable.
\begin{theorem} \label{T:61}
Let $x \in S(n, g)$ and let $J$ be a $p$-$q$-rectangle for some $2 \le p \le n$ and $1 \le q \le n$.
Assume $J \cap \{i_1, \ldots, i_k\} = \emptyset$, i.e., $J$ does not contain any given. If $x$ is
minimal on $J$, the generalized Sudoku problem admits more than one solution.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_{n^2})^T$ be a solution of the generalized Sudoku problem, which is minimal
on the $p$-$q$-rectangle $J$. There exist distinct points $z_1, \ldots, z_p \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$, such that
\[
\{z_1, \ldots, z_p\} = \{x_i \mid i \in J\}= \{x_i \mid i \in J \cap cs_{\pi_r}(j_{r,s})\}
\]
for $s=1, \ldots, q$ and $r=1, 2, 3$. Since $p \ge 2$, there exist two
distinct points $p_1, p_2 \in \{1, \ldots, p\}$. We define
\[
x^\prime_i =
\begin{cases}
z_{p_2}, & \mbox{ if }i \in J \mbox{ and }x_i = z_{p_1}, \\
z_{p_1}, & \mbox{ if }i \in J \mbox{ and }x_i = z_{p_2}, \\
x_i, & \mbox{ if }i \in J, x_i \ne z_{p_1} \mbox{ and }x_i \ne z_{p_2}, \\
x_i, & \mbox{ if }i \in \{1, \ldots, n^2\} \backslash J
\end{cases}
\]
and a new point $x^\prime = (x^\prime_1, \ldots, x^\prime_{n^2})^T \in \mathds{Z}^{n^2}$
with $x^\prime \ne x$. By definition of $x^\prime$
\[
\{x_i^\prime \mid i \in J \cap cs_{\pi_r}(j_{r,s}) \} = \{ x_i \mid i \in J \cap cs_{\pi_r}(j_{r,s}) \}
\]
for $s=1, \ldots, q$ and $r=1, 2, 3$. Since $x^\prime_i = x_i$ for $i \notin J$,
\[
\{x_i^\prime \mid i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j) \} = \{x_i \mid i \in cs_{\pi_r}(j) \}
\]
for $j=1, \ldots, n$ and $r=1, 2, 3$ and $x_{i_l}^\prime = g_{i_l}$ for $l=1, \ldots, k$. Using Lemma
\ref{L:35}, $x^\prime$ solves the generalized Sudoku problem, i.e., we have more than one solution.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fischer_Fig5.eps}
\caption{The example of Herzberg and Murty}
\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
\begin{example} \label{E:62}
We consider an example of Herzberg and Murty \cite[Fig. 4]{HM} depicted in Fig. \ref{Fig5}. The point
$x$ with $(x_{50}, x_{51}, x_{59}, x_{60}) = (9, 4, 4, 9)$ is a solution. The set
$J = \{50, 51, 59, 60\}$ is a $2$-$2$-rectangle, which does not contain a given and $x$ is minimal on $J$.
By Theorem \ref{T:61}, $x$ is not the only solution. Another solution is $y$ with
$(y_{50}, y_{51}, y_{59}, y_{60}) = (4, 9, 9, 4)$.
\end{example}
The statement in Theorem \ref{T:61} provides a sufficient condition for multiple solutions. This can be
reformulated as a necessary condition for unicity.
\begin{theorem} \label{T:62}
Let $J$ be a $p$-$q$-rectangle for some $2 \le p \le n$ and $1 \le q \le n$.
Let $x$ be the unique solution of the generalized Sudoku problem, such that $x$ is minimal on $J$.
Then $J$ contains a given, i.e., $J \cap \{i_1, \ldots, i_k\} \ne \emptyset$.
\end{theorem}
The preceding theorem formalizes and generalizes an observation of Herzberg and Murty \cite[p. 712]{HM},
who stated ``If in the solution to a Sudoku puzzle, we have a configuration of a type indicated in
Figure 6 in the same vertical stack, then at least one of these entries must be included as a 'given'
in the initial puzzle, for otherwise, we would have two possible solutions to the initial puzzle simply
by interchanging $a$ and $b$ in the configuration.". The term ``Figure 6" refers to a figure in their
paper, which is recovered in Fig. \ref{Fig5}, where the cells $50$, $51$, $59$ and $60$ contain the
values $a$ respectively $b$.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Blazars are a class of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) characterised by
distinctive and extreme observational properties, such as large amplitude and
rapid variability, superluminal motion, and strong emission over the entire
electromagnetic spectrum. Blazars also host a jet, pointing almost directly
to the observer, within which relativistic particles moving in a magnetic
field radiate by losing their energy \citep{bla78,UP95}, at variance with
most AGN whose energy production is mostly through accretion of matter onto a
supermassive black hole.
The two main blazar sub-classes, namely BL Lacertae
objects (BL Lacs) and flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs), differ mostly in
their optical spectra, with the latter displaying strong, broad emission lines
and the former instead being characterised by optical spectra showing at most weak
emission lines, sometimes exhibiting absorption features, and in many cases
being completely featureless.
Although blazars represent a small fraction of AGN, the interest in this type
of peculiar and rare sources is growing as they are being found in increasing
large numbers in high Galactic latitude surveys performed at microwave and
{$\gamma$-ray}\ energies \citep{GiommiWMAP09,fermi2lac, PlanckERCSC}. Blazars represent
also the most abundant extragalactic population at TeV
energies\footnote{http://tevcat.uchicago.edu/}. Very recently
\cite{Pad_2014}, on the basis of a joint positional and energetic diagnostic,
have even suggested a possible association between BL Lacs and
seven neutrino events reported by the IceCube collaboration
\citep{ICECube14}.
In a recent paper \citep[][hereafter Paper I]{paper1} we proposed a new
paradigm, which is based on light dilution, minimal assumptions on the
physical properties of the non-thermal jet emission, and unified
schemes. These posit that BL Lacs and FSRQs are
simply low-excitation (LERGs)/Fanaroff-Riley (FR) I and high-excitation
(HERGs)/FR II radio galaxies with their jets forming a small angle with
respect to the line of sight. We called this new approach the {\it blazar
simplified view} (BSV). By means of detailed Monte Carlo simulations, Paper
I showed that the BSV scenario is consistent with the complex observational
properties of blazars as we know them from all the surveys carried out so far
in the radio and X-ray bands, solving at the same time a number of
long-standing issues.
In a subsequent paper \citep[][hereafter Paper II]{paper2} we extended the
Monte Carlo simulations to the {$\gamma$-ray}\ band (100 MeV -- 100 GeV) and found that
our results matched very well the observational properties of blazars in the
{\it Fermi}-LAT 2-yr source catalogue \citep[][hereafter
2LAC]{fermi2fgl,fermi2lac} and the {\it Fermi}-LAT data of a sample of radio
selected blazars \citep{GiommiPlanck,RadioPlanck}.
\cite{Arsioli2014} have recently put together a sample of $\sim 1,000$ high
synchrotron peaked (HSP) blazars, that is objects with the frequency of the
synchrotron peak $\nu_{\rm peak}^S$\ $> 10^{15}$ Hz. This was defined starting from a
primary list of infrared (IR) colour-colour selected sources from the
ALLWISE\footnote{http://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allwise/} survey,
based on data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer
\citep[WISE;][]{WISE}, and applying further restrictions on IR-radio and
IR-X-ray flux ratios. This so-called WISE HSP (1WHSP) sample is currently the
largest sample of confirmed and candidate HSP blazars. All these objects are
expected to accelerate particles to the highest observed energies and
radiate up to the very high energy $\gamma$-ray band.
The purpose of this paper is to push into the very high energy (VHE; $E >
100$ GeV) band of the electromagnetic spectrum by extrapolating our
simulations from the lower energy ({\it Fermi}) {$\gamma$-ray}\ band and: a) make detailed
predictions for current and future Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes
(IACTs), including the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA); b) compare our
predictions with the number of observed bright 1WHSP sources.
As in {Paper I}\ and II we use a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $H_0 = 70$ km
s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m = 0.27$ and $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.73$
\citep{kom11}.
\section{Simulations}\label{ingredients}
Our goal is to estimate the properties of a VHE flux-limited blazar sample,
building upon the simulations presented in {Paper I}\ and {Paper II}, applying
the same prescriptions. In {Paper II}\ we were mainly interested in
distributions, trends, and average values. To make our predictions as robust
as possible, in view of the required extrapolations, in this paper we
reproduced the absolute numbers in the {\it Fermi}\ 2LAC catalogue as well. This
required some minimal fine tuning and a very small number of changes to our
input parameters, which do not have any impact on our previous results.
Our Monte Carlo simulations construct the radio through $\gamma$-ray spectral
energy distributions (SEDs) of blazars at different redshifts and are based
on various ingredients, which include: the blazar luminosity function and
evolution, a distribution of the Lorentz factor of the electrons and of the
Doppler factor, a synchrotron inverse Compton model, an accretion disk
component, the host galaxy. A series of $\gamma$-ray constraints based
on observed distributions estimated using {\it simultaneous} multi-frequency
data are also included: namely, the distribution of Compton dominance, the dependence of the
$\gamma$-ray spectral index on $\nu_{\rm peak}^S$, and that of the $\gamma$-ray flux on
radio flux density. Sources are classified as BL Lacs, FSRQs, or radio
galaxies based on the optical spectrum, as normally done with real
surveys. Readers are referred to {Paper I}\ and II for full details.
The SEDs were extrapolated to the VHE band by using our simulated {\it Fermi}\
fluxes and spectral indices and assuming a break at $E = E_{\rm break}$ and a
steepening of the photon spectrum by $\Delta \Gamma$. Our default values are
$E_{\rm break} = 100$ GeV and $\Delta \Gamma = 1$. The former is consistent
with the SEDs shown in Fig. 8 in \cite{Sent_2013}, while the latter has been
derived as follows: we calculated $\Gamma_{\rm TeV} - \Gamma_{\rm GeV}$ for
the sources in Tab. 1 and 2 of \cite{Sent_2013} with $z \le 0.1$ to minimise
the effect of the extragalactic background light (EBL) absorption. The
resulting value is $\langle \Delta \Gamma \rangle = 1.1$ which, since EBL
absorption is important at higher energies even at low redshifts, should be
taken as a conservative value. To see how strongly our results depend on this
choice we employed also a harder spectrum, that is one with $E_{\rm break} =
200$ GeV and $\Delta \Gamma = 0.5$. VHE spectra were attenuated using recent
estimates of the EBL absorption as a function of redshift \citep{Dom_2011}.
In the rest of the paper we refer to the two different extrapolations as ``soft'' and ``hard''
respectively.
\section{Predictions for the VHE band}\label{results}
We present the integral number counts as a function of photon flux ($E \ge
100$ GeV) for our default VHE extrapolation ($E_{\rm break} = 100$ GeV and
$\Delta \Gamma = 1$) in Fig. \ref{fig:class_abs_unabs}.
The number counts for the whole blazar sample with and without EBL absorption
are shown as black solid and dotted curves respectively.
We note that the ratio between the two curves is approximately constant and
$\approx 2$, which ultimately stems from our intrinsic spectral slopes and
redshift distributions.
Fig. \ref{fig:class_abs_unabs} also displays the number counts with and without EBL absorption
for
BL Lacs (red lines), and FSRQs (blue lines). For the case of no absorption
(i.e. assuming a fully transparent Universe) BL Lacs are
$\approx 5$ times more abundant than FSRQs, which is a strong selection
effect to their very different VHE SEDs.
Since EBL absorption affects FSRQs much more than BL Lacs, due to the larger redshifts of the
former, an even higher ratio ($\approx 15$) between the two classes is expected when absorption is taken into consideration.
Fig. \ref{fig:Nz} gives a vivid impression of this effect by
showing the redshift distribution of BL Lacs and FSRQs before and after
taking into account EBL absorption (for the case $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 2.5
\times 10^{-12}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$). We note that even after the EBL
correction some FSRQs are still detectable up to $z \ga 1.5$ (see below).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=6.1cm]{fig1.eps}
\caption{The predicted integral number counts at $E \ge 100$ GeV as a
function of photon flux with and without EBL absorption (dashed and solid lines respectively) for all blazars
(black lines), BL Lacs (red lines), and FSRQs
(blue lines) ($E_{\rm break} = 100$ GeV and $\Delta \Gamma = 1$).}
\label{fig:class_abs_unabs}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=8.2cm]{fig2.eps}
\caption{The predicted normalised redshift distributions for FSRQs
(top panel) and BL Lacs (lower panel) before (dashed lines) and
after (solid lines) applying the EBL absorption correction ($F (>
100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 2.5 \times 10^{-12}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,
$E_{\rm break} = 100$ GeV and $\Delta \Gamma = 1$).}
\label{fig:Nz}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Current IACTs}
We start by estimating the number of blazars, which are within reach of
present IACTs. This depends on the current typical sensitivity, which is $F
(> 100~{\rm GeV})$\footnote{This value is based on two arguments: 1. the VHE
detection of 1ES 1312$-$423, which according to \cite{HESS_2013} is ``one
of the faintest sources ever detected in the very high energy ($E > 100$
GeV) extragalactic sky'' and, given the fit in the paper, has $F (>
100~{\rm GeV}) \sim 7 \times 10^{-12}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$; 2. Tab. 1
of \cite{Sent_2013}, where a single source has an integral flux $\sim 1\%$
of the Crab ($F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \sim 5 \times 10^{-12}$ photon cm$^{-2}$
s$^{-1}$), while five others are at a level $\sim 2\%$ of the Crab ($F (>
100~{\rm GeV}) \sim 10^{-11}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$).}$\approx 7 \times
10^{-12}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ ($\sim$ 14 mC.U.)\footnote{1 Crab Unit
($E > 100$ GeV) = $5 \times 10^{-10}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ assuming a
spectrum $\propto E^{-2.6}$.}. We find
$\sim 330$ blazars all-sky without any EBL absorption, which reduce to $\sim
140$ ($\sim 230$ in the case of the harder VHE spectrum) once EBL absorption is
taken into account.
Of these, $\sim 91\%$ are BL Lacs
(7\% FSRQs and 2\% radio galaxies: see below),
a fraction, which is
similar to the observed one in TeVCat ($94\%$), the
online catalogue for VHE astronomy. Even our predicted fraction of HSP BL
Lacs, $\sim 80\%$, is close to the observed one (86\%). Very recently MAGIC
has detected VHE photons from S4 0218+35, an FSRQ at $z=0.944$,
during a flaring event \citep{Mirz_2014}. This implies a fraction of FSRQs at $z \ge 0.944$
$=25^{+37}_{-21}\%$, which is also not too far from our prediction of $\sim
10\%$. The total
number, however, is quite different, with only 54 blazars detected so
far. This is easily explained by the fact that TeVCat, although extremely
useful, is only a list of TeV sources that is subject to large biases, as
there are no all-sky flux-limited TeV catalogues at the moment
\citep[with the
exception of the Galactic plane:][]{2013arXiv1307.4868C}.
Sources in fact are often pointed by IACTs
when found in a high state in other bands.
We then predict that $\ga 100$ blazars are waiting to be detected at E~$>$~100 GeV by current IACTs.
For many of these discovery should be relatively easy, as detailed in the next section.
To take into account the fact that the energy threshold of IACTs depends on zenith angle
we have estimated the fraction of the sky covered by HESS and Veritas/MAGIC
\cite[Fig. 1 of][where the blind spots corresponds to zenith angles $> 50^{\circ}$]{Dubus_2013},
which turned out to be $\sim 90\%$. Our values are therefore overestimated by $\sim 10\%$,
which is well within the range bracketed by our soft and hard extrapolations.
The latest generation of IACTs, (i.e. MAGIC-II and HESS-II) has a lowered energy threshold
reaching a few tens of GeV,
with limiting integrated sensitivity of $\sim 2\times10^{-11} $ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
at E $\ga 50$ GeV \citep{MAGIC-II}. Maximum sensitivity, in terms of
C.U., is however reached at higher energies: at E~$\ga 300$ GeV the integrated limiting flux is
$\sim9\times10^{-13} $ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \citep{MAGIC-II}.
The number of blazar detections expected by our simulations above these limits
accounting for EBL absorption
is $\sim 180$ (87\% BL Lacs, 11\% FSRQs) assuming
E~$\ga 50$ GeV, and $\sim 80$, (96\% BL Lacs, 2\% FSRQs) for the case
E~$\ga 300$ GeV (these numbers increase by $\sim 20$ and $\sim 210\%$ respectively
in the case of the harder VHE spectrum). Note that IACTs sensitivities
are estimated for a Crab-like spectrum, which is not always representative of
blazars. This, combined with the well known large variability
of this type of AGN, especially just below 100 GeV where the
steep tail of the GeV emission from FSRQs may play a crucial role,
makes the above estimates only indicative of average values. IACTs
observations simultaneous with optical or X-ray flares may lead to a
larger number of detections.
\subsection{The 1WHSP catalogue}
\cite{Arsioli2014} have recently assembled the 1WHSP catalogue, the largest
sample of confirmed and candidate HSP blazars. Although technically not a
$\gamma$-ray catalogue, it represents at present the best way to compensate
for the lack of large ($|b_{\rm II}| > 20^{\circ}$) sky coverage in the VHE
band for blazars. 1WHSP sources have in fact been shown to be strong
$\gamma$-ray sources: $\sim 1/3$ of them are confirmed GeV emitters and 35
have already been detected in the TeV band. \cite{Arsioli2014} have defined a
``figure of merit'' (FoM) on the potential detectability of their sources in
the VHE band, defined as the ratio between the synchrotron ($\nu f_{\nu}$) peak flux of a
source and that of the faintest blazar in the 1WHSP sample already detected in
the VHE band. Most of the sources with FoM $\ga 1.0$ at low and intermediate
redshifts ($\la 0.7$) should be detectable by the current IACTs, while the majority of
the 1WHSP sample should be within reach of the upcoming CTA. Assuming that the
synchrotron peak flux scales as the VHE flux and for a typical sensitivity
reachable by current IACTs $\sim 14$ mC.U. we predict $\sim 160$ sources
above such flux and with $\nu_{\rm peak}^S$\ $> 10^{15}$ Hz in the 1WHSP catalogue, which
reduce to $\sim 70$ once the effect of the EBL is taken into account. In the
case of a harder spectrum these numbers almost double. These values need to
be compared with the number of 1WHSP sources with FoM $\ge 1.0$, which is
$\sim 100$, i.e. larger than expected by our default (soft) VHE
extrapolation. The requirements that all sources have an X-ray counterpart
and good WISE photometry in at least three bands, furthermore, imply that the
1WHSP catalogue is somewhat incomplete, which might suggest that the intrinsic
VHE spectrum of blazars is closer to our harder extrapolation than to the
softer one.
\subsection{The CTA case}
We have also made detailed predictions for two distinct hypothetical CTA
surveys: $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 2.5 \times 10^{-12}$ photon cm$^{-2}$
s$^{-1}$ (5 mCrab Units [mC.U.]) and a coverage of 10,000 square degrees
(Survey 1: larger area, shallower limit) and $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 1.25
\times 10^{-12}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (2.5 mC.U.) and a coverage of
2,500 square degrees (Survey 2: smaller area, deeper limit). Our results are
presented in Tab. \ref{tab:CTA1_1} -- \ref{tab:CTA2_2} for the unabsorbed and
absorbed cases and for the two different VHE extrapolations. Based on our
simulations we can draw the following conclusions:
\begin{itemize}
\item the total number of blazars expected in Survey 1 is $\sim 250$ but can
be even higher ($> 400$) in the case of a harder spectrum. However, the EBL
reduces the sample to $\sim 110$ objects ($\sim 50\%$ more for the harder
VHE extrapolation), with $\sim 91\%$ of them being BL Lacs. In Survey 2
(the deeper but smaller one) we expect slightly less than half the number
of sources;
\item the mean redshift of the sources gets smaller when EBL absorption is
applied, which is an obvious consequence of the fact that higher redshifts
are more affected. What is less obvious is that the mean redshift of FSRQs
is still $\sim 0.6 - 0.7$, which means that some of these targets can be detected
up to $z \sim 1.5$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Nz} for the Survey 1
case. The very recent VHE detection of S4 0218+35 at $z=0.944$ by MAGIC is
in full agreement with this prediction;
\item the fraction of BL Lacs with redshift increases when the effect of the
EBL is taken into account from $\sim 70 - 80\%$ to $\ga 90\%$. This is due
to the fact that the sources with no measurable redshift are those with the
optical spectra swamped by non-thermal emission, which tend to have a more
powerful jet and therefore are on average at higher intrinsic
redshift. Therefore, these are more absorbed than the other BL Lacs;
\item as was the case in {Paper I}\ and {Paper II}\ a small fraction ($\sim 2
- 5 \%$) of the simulated blazars are classified as radio galaxies. These
are bona-fide blazars misclassified by current classification schemes
because their non-thermal radiation is not strong enough to dilute the host
galaxy component even in the Ca H\&K break region of the optical spectrum
(see {Paper I}\ and II for more details). Being typically at low
redshifts, these sources are not very much affected by the EBL.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}
\caption{Simulation of a CTA survey: $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 2.5 \times
10^{-12}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, 10,000 sq. deg., $E_{\rm break} = 100$ GeV and
$\Delta \Gamma = 1$. Mean values correspond to the average of 10 runs.}
\begin{tabular}{llclc}
Source type & Number & $\langle z \rangle$ & Number & $\langle z \rangle$\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Unabsorbed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Absorbed}\\
\hline
BL Lacs & 203.3 (146.8)$^{a}$ & 0.39 & 103.7 (91.2)$^{a}$ & 0.18\\
FSRQs & #40.6 & 1.45 & ##7.1 & 0.62\\
Radio galaxies & ##3.6 & 0.05 & ##3.2 & 0.04\\
\hline
Total & 247.5 & 0.61 & 114.0 & 0.21\\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize $^{a}$BL Lacs with measurable redshift}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:CTA1_1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Simulation of a CTA survey: $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 2.5 \times
10^{-12}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, 10,000 sq. deg., $E_{\rm break} = 200$ GeV and
$\Delta \Gamma = 0.5$. Mean values correspond to the average of 10 runs.}
\begin{tabular}{llclc}
Source type & Number & $\langle z \rangle$ & Number & $\langle z \rangle$\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Unabsorbed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Absorbed}\\
\hline
BL Lacs & 356.7 (277.9)$^{a}$ & 0.41 & 163.5 (147.5)$^{a}$ & 0.19 \\
FSRQs & #67.6 & 1.56 & ##8.8 & 0.63\\
Radio galaxies & ##8.0 & 0.07 & ##6.2 & 0.06\\
\hline
Total & 432.3 & 0.62 & 178.5 & 0.21\\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize $^{a}$BL Lacs with measurable redshift}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:CTA1_2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Simulation of a CTA survey: $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 1.25 \times
10^{-12}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, 2,500 sq. deg., $E_{\rm break} = 100$ GeV and
$\Delta \Gamma = 1$. Mean values correspond to the average of 10 runs.}
\begin{tabular}{llclc}
Source type & Number & $\langle z \rangle$ & Number & $\langle z \rangle$\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Unabsorbed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Absorbed}\\
\hline
BL Lacs & 98.4 (77.6)$^{a}$ & 0.40 & 54.9 (49.6)$^{a}$ & 0.21\\
FSRQs & 20.1 & 1.52 & #3.4 & 0.71 \\
Radio galaxies & #2.6 & 0.07 & #2.3 & 0.06 \\
\hline
Total & 121.1 & 0.61 & 66.7 & 0.24\\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize $^{a}$BL Lacs with measurable redshift}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:CTA2_1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Simulation of a CTA survey: $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \ge 1.25 \times
10^{-12}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, 2,500 sq. deg., $E_{\rm break} = 200$ GeV and
$\Delta \Gamma = 0.5$. Mean values correspond to the average of 10 runs.}
\begin{tabular}{llclc}
Source type & Number & $\langle z \rangle$ & Number & $\langle z \rangle$\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Unabsorbed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Absorbed}\\
\hline
BL Lacs & 162.7 (135.5)$^{a}$ & 0.40 & 82.5 (76.1)$^{a}$ & 0.23\\
FSRQs & #31.4 & 1.61 & #4.4 & 0.69\\
Radio galaxies & ##6.0 & 0.10 & #4.4 & 0.08 \\
\hline
Total & 200.1 & 0.60 & 91.3 & 0.24\\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\footnotesize $^{a}$BL Lacs with measurable redshift}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:CTA2_2}
\end{table}
The situation at $E > 1$ TeV is clearly very different. For example, a survey
with $F (> 1~{\rm TeV})$\footnote{This is the approximate unabsorbed limit for Survey 1.}
$\ge 10^{-14}$ photon cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and a coverage of 10,000 square
degrees should detect only $\sim 70$ sources taking into account EBL
absorption, $\sim 95\%$ of them being BL Lacs at $z \la 0.3$ and $\sim 1$ source
being an FSRQ at $z \sim 0.1$. For the harder VHE extrapolation the
total number increases by $\sim 50\%$.
We note that \cite{Dubus_2013} have also predicted the number of blazars CTA
will detect. Comparing our numbers with those in their Fig. 6 we find that,
for example,
down to $E\times F(> 100~{\rm GeV}) \sim 3 \times 10^{-13} $ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$,
that is, $F (> 100~{\rm GeV}) \sim 1.9 \times 10^{-12}$ photon
cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, we get $\sim 2 - 3$ (unabsorbed) and $\sim 3 - 4$
(absorbed) times more blazars, depending on the VHE extrapolation.
This discrepancy is due to the fact that the Dubus et al.'s model is based on
EGRET data and it is now known to underpredict the faint Fermi source counts
by a factor of two (Y. Inoue, private communication).
Finally, we stress that our simulated blazar sample does not violate the
$\gamma$-ray background constraint, as measured by {\it Fermi}\
\citep{Abdo_2010}. We will address this point in detail in a future paper.
\section{Conclusions}
We have extended our Monte Carlo simulations of the radio through {$\gamma$-ray}\
emission of blazars within the framework of our proposed blazar simplified
view scenario to the VHE band. The blazar SEDs have been extrapolated under
some simple assumptions and taking into account EBL absorption. Our
predictions are consistent with the number of 1WHSP sources within reach of
current IACTs. We have also made detailed predictions for two distinct CTA
surveys.
Our main results can be summarised as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\theenumi}{(\arabic{enumi})}
\item current IACTs should be able to detect $\ga 100$ more blazars than
those already listed in TeVCat. Many of these should be in the 1WHSP
catalogue;
\item the total number of blazars expected in a CTA survey reaching 5 mC.U.
at photon fluxes $\ge 100$ GeV, covering 10,000 square degrees, and taking
into account EBL absorption, is $\sim 110 - 180$, depending on the VHE
extrapolation. For a survey a factor of two deeper and a factor of four
smaller we expect about half the number of sources;
\item FSRQs are predicted to make up only a small fraction ($\sim 5\%$) of
the sources in the CTA surveys we have simulated. However, since their mean
redshift is $\approx 0.7$, some of them should be detectable up to $z \sim
1.5$, in agreement with the very recent MAGIC detection of S4 0218+35 at
$z=0.944$;
\item the redshift of BL Lacs selected at VHE is expected to be easier to
determine than for BL Lacs in other bands.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Luigi Costamante, Antonio Stamerra, and an anonymous referee for
useful input and comments
and Bruno Arsioli for his help in the early phases of this work and for
useful discussions. PP thanks the ASI Science Data Center (ASDC) for the
hospitality and partial financial support for his visits.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
With the advance in noninvasive imaging modalities such as fMRI, EEG, and MEG, it is important to develop computational methods capable of giving a succinct description of the functional brain networks \cite{he2013grand}. Functional connectivity describes the coordinated activation of segregated groups of neurons. Traditionally, functional connectivity has been quantified through linear \,\cite{rubinov2010complex} and nonlinear measures \,\cite{pereda2005nonlinear}. Synchronization of neuronal oscillations has been suggested as one plausible mechanism in the interaction of spatially distributed neural populations and has been quantified using phase synchrony \cite{varela2001brainweb}. Although phase synchrony is successful at quantifying pairwise interactions \cite{bullmore2009complex}, it cannot completely describe the complex relationship between function and organization of the brain. Recently, research in the area of complex networks has led to fundamental insights into the organization of the healthy and diseased brain \cite{bullmore2009complex,stam2007graph}. However, the current studies are limited to the analysis of static brain networks obtained through averaging long-term functional connectivity and thus, neglect possible time-varying properties of the topologies.
\vspace{-1mm}
There is growing evidence that functional networks dynamically reorganize and coordinate on millisecond scale for the execution of mental processes \cite{dimitriadis2013quantization}. For this reason, there has been an interest in characterizing the dynamics of functional networks using high temporal resolution EEG recordings. The early work in this area was an extension of static network analysis to the dynamic case by extracting graph theoretic features from graphs across time and tracking the evolution of these parameters \cite{dimitriadis2010tracking}. However, these approaches lose the spatial information provided by the graphs and cannot identify which parts of the brain contributed to the observed changes in the network. More recently, a "network state" framework has been proposed \cite{betzel2012synchronization,dimitriadis2013quantization}, where each state is defined as periods of time during which the network topology is quasi-stationary. In this paper, we adopt this framework for tracking the topology of brain networks across time and representing each state with a common topographic map. The current work differs from the existing approaches in a couple of ways. First, we take into account the full structure of the network at each time point. Second, we consider extracting network states common across time and subjects unlike current work which considers individual subjects. Finally, the current work offers a compressed spatial representation of each network state through tensor-tensor projection unlike current approaches which use averaging. Tensor-to-tensor projection proposed in this paper projects the information across subjects and time into a lower dimensional 'signal' subspace whereas averaging assigns equal weights to all subjects.
It is also important to note that the proposed framework is closely tied to dynamic network tracking. The most common approaches to network tracking have been to identify anomalies using subspace projection methods such as in \cite{lakhina2004diagnosing,miller2011eigen} or through sliding window estimates with time independent or dependent weighting factors \cite{tong2008,hero2011shrinkage}. More recently, adaptive evolutionary clustering \cite{xu2011adaptive} was proposed to track the cluster changes over time. However, all of these methods either detect time points where events of interest happen, or find different clustering structures at each time point. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive framework that first identifies time intervals during which the network topology is stationary and then summarizes each interval by a single lower dimensional network through tensor-tensor projection.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:format}
\subsection{Time-Varying Network Construction}
\label{ssec:subhead}
The time-varying functional brain networks are constructed from multichannel EEG data with the nodes corresponding to the different brain regions and the edges to the connectivity between these regions. In this paper, we quantify the connectivity using a recently introduced phase synchrony measure based on RID-Rihaczek distribution \cite{aviyente2011time}. The first step in quantifying phase synchrony is to estimate the time and frequency dependent phase, $\Phi_i(t,\omega)$, of a signal, $\mathrm{s_i}$, $\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{C_i(t,\omega)}{|C_i(t,\omega)|}\right]$,
where $C_i(t,\omega)$ is the complex RID-Rihaczek distribution \footnote{The details of the RID-Rihaczek distribution and the corresponding synchrony measure are given in \cite{aviyente2011time}.}:
\begin{equation}
\footnotesize
C_i(t,\omega)=\int \! \int \! \!\underbrace{\exp\left(-\frac{(\theta
\tau)^{2}}{\sigma}\right)}_{\text{\tiny{Choi-Williams} \hspace{0.5mm}kernel}}
\underbrace{\exp(j\frac{\theta \tau}{2})}_{\text{\tiny{Rihaczek}
\hspace{0.5mm}kernel}}\!A_i(\theta,\tau) e^{-j(\theta t+\tau
\omega)} d\tau d\theta
\end{equation}\newline
and $A_i(\theta,\tau)=\int s_i(u+\frac{\tau}{2})s_i^{*}(u-\frac{\tau}{2})e^{j\theta u} du$ is the ambiguity function of the signal ${\it{s}}_i$. The phase synchrony between nodes $i$ and $j$ at time $t$ and frequency $\omega$ is computed using Phase Locking Value (PLV):
\begin{equation}
PLV_{ij}(t,\omega) = \frac{1}{L}\left|\sum_{k=1}^L \exp{\left(j\Phi_{ij}^k(t,\omega)\right)}\right|
\label{eq:plv}
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the number of trials and $\Phi_{ij}^{k}(t,\omega)=|\Phi^{k}_i(t,\omega)-\Phi^{k}_j(t,\omega)|$ is the phase difference between the two channels for the $k^{th}$ trial.
Once the pairwise synchrony values are computed at each time and frequency point, we can construct a time-varying graph $\{{\bf{G}}(t)\}_{t=1,2,\dots,T}$ with
\begin{equation}
G_{ij}(t) = \frac{1}{\Omega}\sum_{\omega=\omega_a}^{\omega_b}PLV_{ij}(t,\omega)
\label{eq:Graph}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $G_{ij}(t)\in [0,1]$ represents the connectivity strength between the nodes $i$ and $j$ within the frequency band of interest, $[\omega_a,\omega_b]$, and $\Omega$ is the number of frequency bins in that band.
Therefore, $\{{\bf{G}}(t)\}_{t=1,2,\dots,T}$ is a time series of $N\times N$ weighted and undirected graphs corresponding to the functional connectivity network at time $t$ for a fixed frequency band, where $T$ is the total number of time points and $N$ is the number of nodes within the network.
\subsection{Tensor Subspace Analysis}
\label{ssec:subhead}
Linear data models such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Independent Component Analysis (ICA) are widely used for the decomposition of matrices. Depending on the criteria, different types of basis vectors are extracted and appropriate lower dimensional features are determined through projection. Multiway data analysis extends these linear methods to capture multilinear structures and underlying correlations in higher-order datasets, also known as tensors. Some exemplary methods include PARAFAC, Tucker decomposition, and Higher-Order Singular Value Decomposition (HOSVD) \cite{acar2009unsupervised,de2000multilinear}.
The Tucker decomposition is a higher order generalization of Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) \cite{acar2009unsupervised}. Let ${\mathcal{X}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m_1 \times m_2 ... \times m_d}$ be a ${\it{d}}$-mode array, then its Tucker decomposition can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
{\mathcal{X}} = {\mathcal{C}} \times_1 {\bf{U}}^{(1)} \times_2 {\bf{U}}^{(2)} ... \times_d {\bf{U}}^{(d)} + {\mathcal{E}} \\
=\sum_{i_1,i_2,...,i_d}{{\mathcal{C}}_{i_1,i_2,...,i_d} \left ({\bf u}^{(1)}_{i_1} \circ {\bf u}^{(2)}_{i_2} ... \circ {\bf u}^{(d)}_{i_d} \right ) + {\mathcal{E}}_{i_1,i_2,...,i_d}}
\end{array}
\label{eq:parafac}
\end{equation}
\noindent where ${\mathcal{C}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{r_1 \times r_2 ... \times r_d}$ is the core tensor, and ${\bf{U}}^{(1)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m_1 \times r_1}$, ${\bf{U}}^{(2)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m_2 \times r_2}$, ..., ${\bf{U}}^{(d)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m_d \times r_d}$, where $r_1 \leq m_1, r_2 \leq m_2, ...,r_d \leq m_d$, are the projection matrices whose columns are orthogonal. ${\mathcal{E}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m_1 \times m_2 ... \times m_d}$ is the residual error, and $\times_k$ is the product of a tensor and a matrix along mode-{\it{k}}. Reconstruction of the original tensor, $\tilde {\mathcal{X}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m_1 \times m_2 ... \times m_d}$, from a lower dimensional representation is obtained as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde {\mathcal{X}} = {\mathcal{X}} \times_1 {\left ( {\bf{U}}^{(1)}{\bf{U}}^{(1)^{\dag}} \right )} \times_2 {\left ( {\bf{U}}^{(2)}{\bf{U}}^{(2)^{\dag}} \right )} ... \times_d {\left ( {\bf{U}}^{(d)}{\bf{U}}^{(d)^{\dag}} \right )}
\end{array}
\label{eq:ten_app}
\end{equation}
\noindent where ${\dag}$ is the transpose of the matrix.
\section{The Proposed Method}
\label{sec:pagestyle}
\subsection{Temporal Tracking for Network State Identification}
In the proposed work, the time-varying functional connectivity graphs across subjects are considered as a 4-mode tensor ${\mathcal{G}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N \times N \times T \times S}$ constructed as channel $\times$ channel $\times$ time $\times$ subject, with $N$ being the number of channels, $T$ the total number of time points and $S$ the number of subjects. The Tucker decomposition of this connectivity tensor yields:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
{\mathcal{G}} = {\mathcal{C}} \times_1 {\bf{U}}^{(1)} \times_2 {\bf{U}}^{(2)} \times_3 {\bf{U}}^{(3)} \times_4 {\bf{U}}^{(4)} + {\mathcal{E}}
\label{eq:graph_tensor}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\noindent where ${\mathcal{C}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{ N} \times { N} \times T \times { S}}$ is the core tensor, and ${\mathcal{E}}^{N \times N \times T \times S}$ is the residual error.
To obtain an approximation of ${\mathcal{G}}$, $\tilde{{\mathcal{G}}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{{N} \times {N} \times T \times {S}}$, we first consider the full Tucker decomposition with ${\bf{U}}^{(1)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N \times N}$, ${\bf{U}}^{(2)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N \times N}$, ${\bf{U}}^{(3)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{T \times T}$, and ${\bf{U}}^{(4)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{S \times S}$.
The singular values along each mode are ordered by fixing the index of all of the other modes to $1$. Since first singular values along each mode represent the largest variance of the data along that mode, we choose that to order the remaining mode. To get the approximation tensor, the appropriate number of singular vectors along first and second modes ${\bar N}$ is defined as ${\bar N}=j_k$, where $j_k$ is the highest index for which $\left | {\mathcal{C}}_{j_k,1,1,1} \right | \geq 0$. Similarly, the number of singular vectors along the fourth mode is ${\bar S}=s_k$, where $s_k$ is the highest index for which $\left | {\mathcal{C}}_{1,1,1,s_k} \right | \geq 0$. The time mode is not projected to a lower dimensional space since all time points are necessary to identify the exact boundaries of the network states. The lower dimensional projection matrices are defined as: ${\tilde{\bf{U}}^{(1)}} = [{\bf{u}}_1^{(1)} {\bf{u}}_2^{(1)} ... {\bf{u}}_{\tilde{N}}^{(1)}]$, ${\tilde{\bf{U}}^{(2)}} = [{\bf{u}}_1^{(2)} {\bf{u}}_2^{(2)} ... {\bf{u}}_{\tilde{N}}^{(2)}]$, ${\tilde{\bf{U}}^{(4)}} = [{\bf{u}}_1^{(4)} {\bf{u}}_2^{(4)} ... {\bf{u}}_{\tilde{S}}^{(4)}]$.
The reconstructed tensor $\tilde{{\mathcal{G}}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N \times N \times T \times S}$ is obtained as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde {\mathcal{G}} = {\mathcal{G}} \times_1 {\left ( \tilde{\bf{U}}^{(1)}\tilde{\bf{U}}^{(1)^{\dag}} \right )} \times_2 {\left ( \tilde{\bf{U}}^{(2)}\tilde{\bf{U}}^{(2)^{\dag}} \right )} \\
\hspace{15mm} \times_3 {\left ( \tilde{\bf{U}}^{(3)}\tilde{\bf{U}}^{(3)^{\dag}} \right )} \times_4 {\left ( \tilde{\bf{U}}^{(4)}\tilde{\bf{U}}^{(4)^{\dag}} \right )}.
\label{eq:approximation_graph}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The 4-mode approximation tensor $\tilde {\mathcal{G}}$ can be written as a sequence of 3-mode tensors $\tilde {\mathcal{G}}_t ; t=1,2,...,T$. To detect the boundaries of network states, we propose a new temporal clustering algorithm. Unlike regular data clustering, the proposed method considers both the similarity of the lower dimensional representation of the networks as well as their closeness in time. The similarity of two networks at time $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ is quantified through a cosine similarity metric between $\tilde {\mathcal{G}}_{t_1}$ and $\tilde {\mathcal{G}}_{t_2}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
\Delta (t_1,t_2)= {{\left < \tilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{t_1} , \tilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{t_2} \right > } \over {{ \parallel \tilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{t_1} \parallel}{ \parallel \tilde{{\mathcal{G}}}_{t_2} \parallel}}} ; t_1,t_2=1,2,...,T
\label{eq:similarity_eq}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\noindent where ${\left < a , b \right > }$ is the inner product of $a$ and $b$, and ${ \parallel a \parallel}$ is the Frobenius Norm.
Similarly, the temporal closeness between two graphs is quantified as $\Theta(t_1,t_2) = e^{-{( t_1-t_2 )^2} \over { 2\sigma^2}}; t_1,t_2=1,2,...,T$, where $\sigma$ is a parameter which determines the weighting for different time separations, and depends on the sampling frequency.
The combined similarity matrix is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\Psi(t_1,t_2) = \lambda \Theta(t_1,t_2)+(1-\lambda)\Delta(t_1,t_2) ; t_1,t_2=1,2,...,T
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\lambda \in (0,1)$ determines the trade-off between tensor similarity and time proximity. This similarity matrix is input to a standard spectral clustering algorithm combined with {\it{k}}-means to identify the boundaries of the network states \cite{von2007tutorial}.
\subsection{Topographic Compression for Network State Representation}
Once the time boundaries of the different network states are identified, each state has to be summarized with a single topographic map. Previously, this was commonly addressed by averaging the edges over the time interval \cite{mahyari2013GSIP}. This method has the drawback of emphasizing all of the edges equally and resulting in very dense network representations.
For a given time interval $(T_1,T_2)$ and the 3-mode tensor sequence corresponding to this interval ${\mathcal{G}}_{T_1},{\mathcal{G}}_{T_{1}+1}, {\mathcal{G}}_{T_{1}+2},...,{\mathcal{G}}_{T_{2}}$, the goal is to extract the topographic map $\hat{\mathcal{G}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N \times N}$ which best represents that network state. The 3-mode tensors corresponding to the time interval $(T_1,T_2)$ can be rewritten as a 4-mode tensor by taking the time modality into account ${\mathcal{G^\prime}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times (T_2-T_1+1) \times S}$, and decomposed using the full Tucker decomposition, ${\bf{U}}^{{\prime}^{(1)}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}, {\bf{U}}^{{\prime}^{(2)}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}, {\bf{U}}^{{\prime}^{(3)}} \in \mathbb{R}^{(T_2-T_1+1) \times (T_2-T_1+1)}, {\bf{U}}^{{\prime}^{(4)}} \in \mathbb{R}^{S \times S} $, similar to Equation~\ref{eq:graph_tensor}.
In order to summarize the subject information to find a general unique model which fits all subjects, the 4-mode tensor ${\mathcal{G^\prime}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N \times (T_2-T_1+1) \times S}$ is projected by the singular vector ${\bf{u}}^{{\prime}^{(4)}}_l$ corresponding to the $l^{th}$ largest singular value in this mode. Likewise, to summarize the time information of the resulting 3-mode tensor, it is projected to the singular vector ${\bf{u}}^{{\prime}^{(3)}}_k$ corresponding to the $k^{th}$ largest singular value of the time mode, $\hat{\mathcal{G}}= {{\mathcal{G^\prime}}} \times_3 {\bf{u}}^{{\prime}^{(3)}}_k \times_4 {\bf{u}}^{{\prime}^{(4)}}_l$. The values of k and l are usually equal to 1 but may change depending on the data.
\section{Experimental Results}
\label{sec:typestyle}
\subsection{EEG Data}
The proposed framework is applied to a set of EEG data containing the error-related negativity (ERN) \footnote{We thank Dr. Edward Bernat from the University of Maryland for sharing his EEG dataset with us.}. The ERN is a brain potential response that occurs following performance errors in a speeded reaction time task usually 25-75 ms after the response \cite{Hall}. Previous work \cite{cavanagh2009prelude} indicates that there is increased coordination between the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) within the theta frequency band (4-8 Hz) and ERN time window (25-75 ms), supporting the idea that frontal and central electrodes are functionally integrated during error processing. EEG data from $62$-channels was collected in accordance with the $10$/$20$ system on a Neuroscan Synamps2 system (Neuroscan, Inc.). A speeded-response flanker task was employed, and response-locked averages were computed for each subject. All EEG epochs were converted to current source density (CSD) using published methods \cite{kayser2006principal}. Data were averaged across trials ($\sim 200$ trials) for the purpose of ERN and time-frequency analysis.In this paper, we analyzed data from 91 subjects corresponding to the error responses.
\subsection{Network State Identification and Summarization}
The connectivity matrices are constructed by computing the pairwise average PLV between 62 channels in the theta frequency band for all time (2 seconds) and all subjects using Eq.~\ref{eq:plv}. The time-varying graphs $\{{\bf{G}}(t)\}_{t=1,2,\dots,T}$ for all subjects and all time will be treated as a 4-mode tensor, which is decomposed using Tucker decompostion. The approximation tensors $\tilde {\mathcal{G}}_t ; t=1,2,...,T$ with ${\bar N}=2, {\bar S}=3$ are used to obtain the $256 \times 256$ similarity matrix $\Psi$. The matrix $\Psi$ is computed with $\lambda=0.4$ and $\sigma=2500$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:psi_matrix}. The values of $\lambda$ and $\sigma$ are empirically chosen to obtain the best separation between clusters.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.44]{psi_matrix_tucker2}}
\caption{Similarity matrix, $\Psi$, computed for 2 seconds of EEG data across 91 subjects in the theta frequency band.}
\label{fig:psi_matrix}
\end{figure}
Once the matrix $\bf{\Psi}$ is obtained, the critical time points are detected using the spectral clustering with $K=5$. The number of clusters $K$ is selected based on the eigenspectrum of the similarity matrix \cite{ng2002spectral}. The detected time intervals are $ (-1000,-703)$ {\it{ms}}, $(-703,-132)$ {\it{ms}}, $(-132,188)$ {\it{ms}},$(188,736)$ {\it{ms}},$(736,1000)$ {\it{ms}}.
As expected, the first two time intervals correspond to the prestimulus part where there is less change in the network configuration. The third time interval $(-132ms, 188ms)$ is of particular interest since it includes the time interval right before a response is made as well as the ERN interval $(0-150ms)$. This is extracted as a separate network state indicating a reorganization of the functional network configuration. Similarly, the time interval $(188,736)ms$ contains the P300 event which is expected to result in a distinct topographic map. In this paper, we will focus on extracting the common topographic map for the time interval $(-132,188)$ $ms$ since it coincides with the ERN \cite{cavanagh2009prelude}. To obtain a single network representation for this time interval, we selected $k=l=2$ instead of the singular vectors corresponding to the highest singular values since the projection to the subspace spanned by the largest singular value mostly contains edges between physically adjacent nodes. This is a side effect of volume conduction affecting PLV values and does not convey the actual long-range relationships we are interested in.
In order to show the most significant edges in the summarized graph, the edges with values in the top $1\%$ are selected and plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:significant_edges}. Most of the significant edges are in the frontal and central areas where node $AF8$ acts as a hub, with the highest degree equal to $59$. $C1$ has the second highest degree (53) followed by $FP2$ (52). These nodes correspond to the right lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in accordance with previous findings which indicate increased synchronization between these regions during ERN \cite{cavanagh2009prelude}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=7cm] {significant_edges_tucker}}
\caption{The topographic map with the most signifcant edges of the compressed connectivity matrix for the network state $(-132ms,188ms)$.}\label{fig:significant_edges}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:illust}
In this paper, we proposed a tensor-based method for monitoring dynamic functional connectivity networks to identify quasi-stationary network states and represent the common topographic distribution of each state. Network states were identified computing a similarity metric which takes both the similarity of the reconstructed tensors and their proximity in time to obtain a partitioning of the dynamic networks into contiguous time intervals. After identifying the boundaries of the network states, a topographical map for each time interval was obtained by a tensor-tensor projection. The application of the proposed algorithm to ERN data yields time intervals that closely correspond to events of interest and topographic maps that are consistent with previous hypotheses with regard to error monitoring in the brain. The proposed method is time consuming for large data sets due to the complexity of Tucker decomposition.
Future work will consider extensions of this framework to partitioning time and frequency dependent connectivity networks by considering higher order tensor representations. Moreover, the choice of optimal parameters ($\lambda$ and $\sigma$) will be considered using cost functions such as modularity for evaluating the quality of the different partitions.
\vfill\pagebreak
\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=.85\columnwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{(Color online) Sketch of the hybrid quantum system studied in this paper: a) a spin ensemble (yellow) coupled to a transmission-line resonator (gray) confining the electromagnetic field inside a small volume. b) Scheme of the spin ensemble-cavity coupled system. An incoming signal $\eta(t)$ passes through the cavity characterized by a frequency $\omega_c$ which is coupled to a spin ensemble with each individual spin of frequency $\omega_j$. The transmitted signal is proportional to the cavity amplitude, $A(t)$. $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ stands for the cavity and spin losses, respectively.}
\label{Fig1_ensemble_cavity}
\end{figure}
Over the past decade various setups in cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) have been studied in terms of their potential for future technologies involving the storage and processing of quantum information. Among different hybrid quantum systems \cite{You2005}, the ones based on spin, atomic or even molecular ensembles coupled to superconducting microwave cavities have recently attracted much attention \cite{Amsuess2011,Sandner2012,Kubo2010,Kubo2011,Kubo2012,Probst2013,Rabl2006,Verdu2009,Xiang2013}, see Fig.~\ref{Fig1_ensemble_cavity}. In such systems the spin or atomic ensemble plays the role of a quantum memory, to which the quantum information is coherently stored and retrieved from at some later time. The cavity, in turn, serves as a quantum bus for the in- and output of information as well as for the coupling between several constituents of such hybrid quantum systems (see e.g. \cite{Kubo2011}). One of the necessary conditions for the coherent transfer of quantum information between an ensemble and a cavity is the strong coupling between them. Fortunately, various spin ensembles, as for instance, negatively charged nitrogen-vacancy (NV) defects in diamond \cite{Amsuess2011,Sandner2012,Kubo2010,Kubo2011,Kubo2012}, rare-earth spin ensembles \cite{Probst2013}, clouds of ultracold atoms \cite{Atac2009,Verdu2009} or magnons in yttrium iron garnet with or without doping \cite{Huebl2013,Tabuchiarxiv}, may satisfy this requirement when being collectively coupled to \cite{Dicke54}. We also note that in recent proposals the direct coupling of a qubit to such spin-ensembles has been suggested without any cavity being involved \cite{Zhu2011,Saito2013}.
Here we study the dynamics of a superconducting cavity strongly coupled to an ensemble of negatively charged NV centers. Each individual NV center can possess a sufficiently long coherence time \cite{Bar-Gill2013} needed for the coherent transfer of quantum information. However, since the local magnetic dipole-dipole couplings of NV centers constituting the ensemble to the bath of magnetic impurities (such as nitrogen atoms not converted into NV centers) slightly differ from each other, the NV electron spin resonance line of a large ensemble is inhomogeneously broadened \cite{Stanwix2010}. This line broadening acts as the main source of decoherence, and constitutes a significant drawback of this solid-state spin ensemble leading to a drastic decrease of its coherence time. Several approaches including echo-type refocusing techniques \cite{Grezes2014,Wu2010} have meanwhile been suggested to overcome this limitation. Recent stationary transmission studies demonstrate that the decoherence can be strongly suppressed altogether \cite{Kurucz2011,Diniz2011} when the spin density has a spectral distribution with tails that decay sufficiently fast \cite{Kurucz2011,Diniz2011,Sandner2012}. In this paper we report on a detailed time-dependent study for exactly such a case and demonstrate how the corresponding dynamics can be efficiently captured using a Volterra integral equation for the cavity amplitude \cite{Nature2014}. The excellent correspondence between our theoretical model and a corresponding experiment allows us to closely look into the fascinating features following from a pulsed driving of this hybrid quantum system in the strong-coupling regime.
Our paper is organized as follows. In section II we present the theoretical framework of our problem and summarize the most important assumptions made. We sketch the general form of the equations obtained, describing the two methods for solving the Volterra equation in Appendices \ref{App_time_integr_Volt_Eq}, \ref{App_Lapl_Transf}.
Furthermore, we discuss the specific experimental realization of our theory. In section III, we consider the dynamics under the action of a long rectangular microwave pulse which allows us to obtain the precise form for the spin density and its parameters by detailed comparison with the experimental results. We also present analytical results for a Lorentzian spin density distribution and demonstrate which features are captured by this approximation and which are not. Section IV will then address the question how the decoherence in our system caused by inhomogeneous broadening changes as a function of the coupling strength. We show that a non-Lorentzian functional profile of the spin distribution leads to a strong suppression of decoherence for large values of the coupling strength -- an effect known as ``cavity protection'' \cite{Kurucz2011,Diniz2011}. Finally, in section V, we propose a scheme which allows us to induce giant coherent oscillations between the cavity and our spin ensemble as well as to transfer energy into the spin ensemble very efficiently.
\section{Theoretical model}
\label{Sec_Theory}
We study the temporal dynamics of a system consisting of a large spin ensemble coupled with a single-mode cavity via magnetic or electric dipole interaction. We assume that the distance between spins is large enough such that the dipole-dipole interactions between spins can be neglected. Our starting point is the Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian ($\hbar=1$) \cite{Tavis68}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal H}=\omega_ca^{\dagger}a+\frac{1}{2}\sum_j^N\omega_j\sigma_j^z+\text{i}\sum_j^N\left[g_j\sigma_j^-a^{\dagger}-g_j^*\sigma_j^+a\right]-
\nonumber\\
&&\text{i}\left[\eta(t) a^{\dagger}\text{e}^{-\text{i}\omega_p t}-\eta(t)^* a\text{e}^{\text{i}\omega_p t}\right]\,,
\label{Hamilt_fun}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a^{\dag}$ and $a$ are standard creation and annihilation operators of the single cavity mode with frequency $\omega_c$ and $\sigma_j^+,\,\sigma_j^-,\,\sigma_j^z$ are the Pauli operators associated with each individual spin of frequency $\omega_j$. An incoming signal is characterized by the carrier frequency $\omega_p$ and by the amplitude $\eta(t)$ whose time variation is much slower as compared to $1/\omega_p$. The interaction part of ${\cal H}$ is written in the dipole and rotating-wave approximation (terms $\propto a\sigma_j^-,\,a^\dag \sigma_j^+$ are neglected), where $g_j$ stands for the coupling strength of the $j$-th spin.
Despite the fact that each individual spin is coupled weakly to the cavity, one can nevertheless reach the strong coupling regime due to the large number of spins which are collectively coupled to the cavity mode (see e.g. \cite{Amsuess2011,Verdu2009,Kubo2011} for NV spin ensembles). The effect of collective coupling is particularly evident when reducing the interaction term to a collective term $\Omega(S^-a^{\dagger}-S^+a)$ \cite{Emary2003}, where the collective spin operators are given by $S^\pm=N^{-1/2}\cdot \sum_j^N\sigma_j^\pm$. The prefactor $\Omega^2=\sum_j^Ng_j^2$ stands for an effective coupling strength, which scales up a single coupling strength, $g_j$, by a factor of $\sqrt{N}$, so that $\Omega$ can be sufficiently enhanced for the realization of the strong coupling regime. In this formulation the effective spin-waves that are excited by the cavity mode can be identified as superradiant collective Dicke states which are effectively damped by the coupling to subradiant states in the ensemble \cite{Dicke54,Kurucz2011,Diniz2011}. Note that the rotating-wave approximation mentioned above is applicable only if
$\Omega \ll \omega_c$.
Next, we derive the Heisenberg operator equations, for the cavity and spin operators, $\dot a=i [{\cal H},a]-\kappa a$, $\dot \sigma_k^-=i [{\cal H},\sigma_k^-]-\gamma \sigma_k^-$, respectively. Here $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ stand for the total dissipative cavity and spin losses. Strictly speaking, the noise operators should also be added to the r.h.s. of these equations in order to preserve the commutation relations. However, their expectation values vanish
as was shown already in earlier works \cite{Kurucz2011,Diniz2011} on the example of an NV ensemble and therefore these terms are not included here explicitly. These Heisenberg equations describe the dynamics to a very high accuracy, provided that the energy of photons of the external bath is substantially smaller than that of cavity photons, $kT\ll\hbar \omega_c$. We then write a set of equations for the expectation values, $\langle a(t)\rangle$ and $\langle\sigma_k^-(t)\rangle$ in the frame rotating with the probe frequency $\omega_p$. In what follows the amplitude of the pumping signal $\eta(t)$ is taken to be rather small and therefore the number of the excited spins is always small compared to the ensemble size. This allows us to simplify these equations further by setting $\langle \sigma_k^z \rangle \approx -1$ (Holstein-Primakoff-approximation \cite{Primakoff1939}). With all these simplifications the equations for the cavity and spin amplitudes become
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_a_Volt}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \dot{A}(t)= -\left[\kappa+i(\omega_c-\omega_p)\right]A(t) + \sum_k
g_k B_k(t)-\eta(t), \\
\label{Eq_bk_Volt}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\dot{B}_k(t) = -\left[\gamma+i(\omega_k-\omega_p) \right]B_k(t) - g_k A(t),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $A(t)\equiv \langle a(t)\rangle$ and $B_k(t)\equiv\langle\sigma_k^-(t)\rangle$.
\subsection*{Experimental realization}
In the following, we will compare our theoretical model with one specific experimental realization, namely a $\lambda/2$ superconducting microwave coplanar waveguide resonator magnetically coupled with a spin ensemble of negatively charged NV centers in diamond. The corresponding experiment is carried out in a standard dilution refrigerator with a synthetic diamond placed on top of a resonator cooled to millikelvin temperatures ($\sim25$\,mK) (see \cite{Nature2014} for more details). The concentration of NV centers in diamond is sufficiently low and the distance between spins is still large enough, so that the dipole-dipole interactions between spins is negligibly small justifying the assumption of our model. By applying an external magnetic field, two degenerate sub-ensembles, which can effectively be considered as a single sub-ensemble, are brought into resonance with the cavity, whereas the other sub-ensembles make a slight dispersive contribution only and their influence is neglected here (see e.g. \cite{Nature2014,Amsuess2011,Sandner2012} for more details). The individual spins are distributed around the mean frequency $\omega_s=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz, with the width $\Delta \ll \omega_s$, which is of the order of $10$\,MHz. The coupling strength of each individual spin with a cavity mode is typically of the order of $g_j/2\pi\sim10$\,Hz \cite{Verdu2009}. However, the effective coupling $\Omega$ is enhanced by a factor of $\sqrt{N}$ with the ensemble size $N\sim 10^{12}$, so that $\Omega$ can reach values as large as $10$\,MHz which is sufficient to reach the strong coupling regime. Note that the energy of thermal photons is substantially smaller than that of microwave photons, $kT\ll\hbar \omega_c$, resulting in an occupation probability of the ensemble in the ground state which is larger than $0.99$. In what follows, the cavity frequency was taken to be always equal to the spin mean frequency, $\omega_c=\omega_s=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz. Therefore the inequality $\Omega \ll \omega_c$ always holds, such that the rotating-wave approximation is very well fulfilled. Note also that the spin dissipation is much smaller than the cavity dissipation, $\gamma \ll \kappa$, so that the former does not contribute to the dynamics realized in the experiment. We thus omitted $\gamma$ everywhere, except when necessary for the calculation of some integrals which would otherwise be singular.
\subsection*{Setting up the Volterra integral equation}
Owing to the large number of spins within the ensemble ($N\sim 10^{12}$), there are a lot of spins in each frequency subinterval around $\omega_s$ which make a non-negligible contribution to the dynamics. We can thus introduce a continuous spectral density as $\rho(\omega)=\sum_k g_k^2 \delta(\omega-\omega_k)/\Omega^2$, where $\Omega^2=\sum_j^Ng_j^2$ is the collective coupling strength of the spin ensemble to the cavity, satisfying the normalization condition $\int d\omega\rho(\omega)=1$. As we shall see below, one should take special care when choosing the functional profile of the spectral distribution for the spin density, $\rho(\omega)$, which describes its inhomogeneous broadening and which plays a crucial role for the dynamics.
To go to the continuous limit (in frequency) we carry out the following formal replacement from the discrete function $F(\omega_k)$ to the continuous one, $F(\omega)$: $\sum_k F(\omega_k) \rightarrow \Omega^2 \int d\omega \rho(\omega) F(\omega)$. By integrating Eq.~(\ref{Eq_bk_Volt}) in time, each individual spin amplitude, $B_k(t)$, can be expressed in terms of the cavity amplitude, $A(t)$, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_Bk}
&&B_k(t)\!=\!B_k(0)e^{-i (\omega_k-\omega_p-i\gamma)t}\!-
\\\nonumber\!
&&g_k \int\limits_{0}^t\! d\tau e^{-i (\omega_k-\omega_p-i\gamma)(t-\tau)}\!\cdot\!A(\tau),
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_k(0)$ is the initial spin amplitude. Substituting Eq.~(\ref{Eq_Bk}) into Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_Volt}) we arrive at the Volterra equation for the cavity amplitude, $A(t)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\dot A(t)\!=\!-i(\omega_c-\omega_p-i\kappa) A(t)\!+\!\sum_k g_k B_k(0) e^{-i(\omega_k-\omega_p-i\gamma)t}
\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!-\Omega^2 \int_0^{\infty} d\omega \rho(\omega) \int\limits_{0}^t d\tau
e^{-i(\omega-\omega_p-i\gamma)(t-\tau)}A(\tau)-\eta(t).
\label{Eq_a_with_Bk0}
\end{eqnarray}
After integrating Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) in time, performing lengthy but straightforward algebraic calculations and assuming that the cavity is initially empty, $A(0)=0$, and all spins are initially in the ground state, $B_k(0)=0$, we end up with the following Volterra equation for the cavity amplitude
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Volt_eq}
A(t)=\int\limits_0^t d\tau {\cal K}(t-\tau) A(\tau)+{\cal F}(t),
\end{eqnarray}
which contains the kernel function ${\cal K}(t-\tau)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Volt_eq_K}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal K}(t-\tau)=\Omega^2\cdot
\\\nonumber
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \bigintsss_0^{\infty}\!\!\! d\omega\,
\dfrac{\rho(\omega) \left[e^{-i (\omega-\omega_c+i \kappa)(t-\tau)}-1\right]
}{i (\omega-\omega_c+i \kappa)}\!\cdot\! e^{-i(\omega_c-\omega_p-i\kappa)(t-\tau)},
\end{eqnarray}
and the function ${\cal F}(t)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Volt_eq_F}
{\cal F}(t)=-\int\limits_0^t d\tau\, \eta(\tau)\cdot e^{-i(\omega_c-\omega_p-i\kappa)(t-\tau)},
\end{eqnarray}
where the amplitude, $\eta(t)$, represents an arbitrarily shaped incoming pulse or a sequence of pulses. Note, that the kernel function ${\cal K}(t-\tau)$ accounts for memory effects and leads in general to a non-Markovian feedback of the NV ensemble on the cavity. In Appendices \ref{App_time_integr_Volt_Eq}, \ref{App_Lapl_Transf} we give a detailed description of the two methods which allow us to solve the Volterra equation in a very efficient way.
Having calculated the cavity amplitude, $A(t)$, we can find the expectation values of the collective spin operator, $J_x+i J_y=\sum_k g_k B_k(t)/[2(\sum_i g_i^2)^{1/2}]$, which in the continuous limit and for the initial conditions $A(0)=0$ and $B_k(0)=0$ introduced above read as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_a_with_A0}
J_x+i J_y=-\dfrac{\Omega}{2} \int_0^{\infty} \! d\omega \rho(\omega) \int\limits_{0}^t \! d\tau
e^{-i(\omega-\omega_c)(t-\tau)}A(\tau).
\end{eqnarray}
The $z$-component of the expectation value of the collective spin operator, $J_z=\sum_k \langle \sigma_k^z \rangle/(2\sqrt{N})$, remains $J_z \approx -\sqrt{N}$, in accordance with the approximations discussed above.
Note that Eqs.~(\ref{Eq_a_Volt},\ref{Eq_bk_Volt}), as well as the resulting Volterra equation (\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) are linear equations with respect to the cavity and spin amplitudes, $A(t)$ and $B_k(t)$, respectively. We can thus always rescale our solution by multiplying the amplitude of the driving signal, $\eta(t)$, by an arbitrary scaling factor. In the following we take the amplitude of the incoming signal equal to the cavity decay rate, $\eta=\kappa$. Note that such a choice corresponds to the situation when the incoming signal, being in a coherent state, gives rise to a single photon in the empty cavity on average. The experimental curves will be appropriately rescaled with a constant prefactor such as to match the corresponding theoretical curves.
\section{Dynamics under the action of a long pulse}
\label{Sec_dyn_long_pulse}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig2.eps}
\caption{(color online). Cavity probability amplitude $|A(t)|^2$ versus time $t$ under the action of an incident long rectangular pulse of duration $800$\,ns with the carrier frequency matching the resonance condition, $\omega_p=\omega_c=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz, where $\omega_c$ stands for the cavity resonance frequency. Gray (white) area indicates a time interval during which the pumping signal is on (off). a) (taken from \cite{Nature2014}) Red (gray) curve: Numerical results for the cavity transmission at a coupling strength $\Omega/2\pi=8.56$~MHz. In the calculations the spectral density is modelled by a $q$-Gaussian distribution. The frequency of Rabi oscillations, $\Omega_R=2\pi\cdot 19.2$\,MHz. Black curve: experimental results for the cavity transmission. b) Red (gray) curve the same as in a). Orange (light gray) curve: results of numerical calculations assuming a Lorentzian distribution of the spin density.}
\label{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}
\end{figure}
In order to choose an appropriate form for the spectral density, $\rho(\omega)$, we compare our numerical results with the experiment performed within the strong-coupling regime. Specifically, we apply a rectangular microwave pulse [$\eta(t)=\eta$ for $0\le t \le \tau_d$ and $\eta(t)=0$ otherwise, see Eq.~(\ref{Volt_eq_F})], with the resonance carrier frequency ($\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$). This pulse has a duration $\tau_d$ substantially longer than the resulting period of damped Rabi oscillations and the inverse of the total decay rate, so that the system sets into a steady state before the signal is turned off [see Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}a)]. Note that the total decay rate describes the overall decoherence in our system which consists of two contributions: The first one is due to dissipative cavity losses $\kappa$, while the second one originates from the inhomogeneous broadening of the spin ensemble which leads to the dephasing of spins during the time evolution. As we shall see below, this dephasing mechanism gives the dominant contribution to the decoherence (the spin dissipation $\gamma$ is negligible in our case).
In accordance with our previous study \cite{Sandner2012,Nature2014}, we obtain a very good agreement between theory and experiment, when taking a $q$-Gaussian \cite{Tsallis09} as the distribution function for the spectral density defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rho_w_Eq}
\rho(\omega)=C\cdot\left[1-(1-q)\dfrac{(\omega-\omega_s)^2}{\Delta^2}\right]^{
\dfrac{1}{1-q}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $q$ is the dimensionless shape parameter, $1<q<3$, $\gamma_q=2\Delta\sqrt{\dfrac{2^q-2}{2q-2}}$ is the full-width at half maximum (FWHM) and $C$ is the normalization constant. Note, that for $q\rightarrow 1$ and $q=2$ we recover a Gaussian and Lorentzian distribution, respectively. From the comparison with the experiment, we extracted the following parameters used in our calculations: $q=1.39$, $\gamma_q/2\pi=9.4$\,MHz, and $\kappa/2\pi=0.8$\,MHz (FWHM of the cavity decay). We have also tested other lineshapes for describing the spectral spin density such as the stable alpha-distribution, but found them to be less suitable for describing the experimentally observed data.
An interesting and, at first sight, surprising fact is that the first Rabi peak of the cavity amplitude after switching off the microwave signal is approximately twice as large as the steady state amplitude, as seen in Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}a). This overshoot effect takes place after the incoming signal is turned off, because the energy stored in the spin ensemble is released back to the cavity and interferes constructively with the energy stored there (see Appendix \ref{App_Decay} for more details). It will be shown in the next section that this overshoot appears only if the coupling strength is larger than a certain critical value. In addition to this condition, the overshoot effect also requires a finite amount of energy being stored in the spin ensemble, but does not show up if it is in the ground state and the field inside the cavity is described by a Fock state, as for instance when it is fed with a single photon, see Appendix \ref{App_Lapl_Transf}.
\subsection{Dynamics for a Lorentzian spin density distribution}
\label{Subsec_Dyn_Lorentz_distr}
To illustrate the importance of the spectral spin distribution, we have also tried to achieve an agreement with the experiment when assuming a Lorentzian instead of a $q$-Gaussian distribution for the spectral density,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rho_Lorentz}
\rho(\omega)=\dfrac{\Delta}{\pi[(\omega-\omega_s)^2+\Delta^2]}.
\end{eqnarray}
For this purpose, we adapt the parameters such that the period of the resulting Rabi oscillations and the cavity amplitude at the steady-state agree with the measurements, see Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}b). As seen there, the Lorentzian predicts a sufficiently larger decay rate as compared to that observed in the experiment [compare the values of the Rabi peaks during damped Rabi oscillations for the $q$-Gaussian and for the Lorentzian distributions shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}b)]. Such an inadequate overestimation of the total decay rate becomes particularly pronounced in the case of even higher values of the coupling strength as those used in Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz} (see Sec.~\ref{Sec_Class_dyn} for more details). Nevertheless, it is very instructive to consider at first the simple picture associated with a Lorentzian distribution, because in this case the problem can be solved analytically giving intuitive insights into the dynamical properties of our system. By plugging the Lorentzian distribution (\ref{rho_Lorentz}) into Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) and assuming that the cavity is initially empty, $A(0)=0$, and spins are unexcited, $B_k(0)=0$, we obtain the following Volterra equation (in the frame rotating with $\omega_p$) under the action of a rectangular microwave pulse introduced above for $t \le \tau_d$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay}
\dot A(t)=-\kappa A(t)-\Omega^2 \int\limits_{0}^t \! d\tau e^{-\Delta (t-\tau)}A(\tau)-\eta.
\end{eqnarray}
By differentiating Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay}) with respect to time, and after doing some algebra, the above equation reduces to the one for a damped harmonic oscillator driven by a time-independent external force
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay_diff}
\ddot A(t)+[\Delta+\kappa] \dot A(t)+[\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa] A(t)+\eta \Delta=0.
\end{eqnarray}
The solution of Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay}), which is also the one of Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay_diff}), can be represented as $A(t)=\alpha e^{\lambda_1 t}+\beta e^{\lambda_2 t}$, so that the dynamics is characterised by two exponents, namely
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Gam_Lorentz_charact_exponent}
\lambda_{1,2}=\left[-(\Delta+\kappa)\pm\sqrt{(\Delta-\kappa)^2-4 \Omega^2}\right]/2.
\end{eqnarray}
In the strong-coupling regime the dynamics is underdamped, the expression under the square root is negative and the system exhibits damped oscillations with the Rabi frequency
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_Rabi_Om}
\Omega_{R}=\sqrt{4 \Omega^2-(\Delta-\kappa)^2},
\end{eqnarray}
and the decay rate of $|A(t)|^2$ is $\Gamma=\Delta+\kappa$. It is worth noting that for the case shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}b), the expression (\ref{Eq_Rabi_Om}) for the Rabi frequency can be approximated as $\Omega_R \approx 2\Omega$. Finally, we obtain the following expression for the cavity amplitude for $t\le \tau_d$
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Afunsolon}
\nonumber
&&A(t)\!=\!-\dfrac{\Delta \eta}{\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa}+\dfrac{\eta\cdot e^{-(\Delta+\kappa)t/2}}{2\Omega_{R}(\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa)}\times
\\
\\\nonumber
&&\left[2 \Omega_R \Delta \cos(\Omega_R t/2) -[\Omega_R^2-\Delta^2+\kappa^2)] \sin(\Omega_R t/2)\right].\,\,\,\,\,\,
\end{eqnarray}
The reason why $A(t)\in {\mathbb R}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Afunsolon}) is due to the fact that the Lorentzian distribution (\ref{rho_Lorentz}) is symmetric with respect to $\omega_s$, and $\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$. For the same reason the $y$-component of the collective spin $J_y=0$, whereas $J_x(t)$ can easily be determined from Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_Volt})
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Jx_evol_on}
J_x(t)\!=\!\dfrac{\sum_k g_k B_k(t)}{2\Omega}\!=\!\dfrac{\dot A(t)+\kappa A(t)+\eta}{2\Omega}.
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed, by inserting the solution (\ref{Afunsolon}) into this equation we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&J_x(t)\!=\!\dfrac{\eta\Omega}{2(\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa)}-\dfrac{\eta\Omega\cdot e^{-(\Delta+\kappa)t/2}}{2\Omega_{R}(\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa)}\times
\\\nonumber
\\
&&\left[(\Delta+\kappa) \sin(\Omega_R t/2) +\Omega_R\cos(\Omega_R t/2)\right].\,\,\,\,\,\,
\label{J_xon}
\end{eqnarray}
By differentiating Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_Volt}) with respect to time twice, making use of Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay_diff}), and performing straightforward algebraic calculations, we find that $J_x(t)$ obeys also the following equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_a_with_Jx_Lorentz_decay_diff}
\ddot J_x(t)+\Delta \dot J_x(t)+\Omega^2 J_x(t) -\dfrac{\kappa\Omega}{2}A(t)-\dfrac{\eta\Omega}{2}=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore in the case of a Lorentzian distribution the dynamics can be modelled by two coupled damped harmonic oscillators governed by Eqs.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay_diff}, \ref{Eq_a_with_Jx_Lorentz_decay_diff}).
Thus, after switching on a rectangular microwave signal our system exhibits damped Rabi oscillations and it tends finally to a steady-state
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Amp_st_Lor}
A_{st}\!=\!-\dfrac{\Delta \eta}{\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa},\,\,\,\,J_x^{st}=\dfrac{\eta\Omega}{2(\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa)},\,\,\,\,J_y^{st}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
provided that the pulse duration is long enough, i.e. $\tau_d \gg 1/(\Delta+\kappa)$. (Note that this condition is very well fulfilled in Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}.) Inserting the Lorentzian profile (\ref{rho_Lorentz}) into Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0_cont_2}) from Appendix \ref{App_Decay} yields the equation for the cavity amplitude $A(t)$, which governs the decay process from the steady-state given by Eq.~(\ref{Amp_st_Lor}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay_from_st_state}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\dot A(t)\!=\!-\kappa A(t)\!+\!\dfrac{\eta \Omega^2 \cdot e^{-\Delta t}}{\Omega^2+\kappa \Delta}
\!-\!\Omega^2 \int\limits_{0}^t \! d\tau e^{-\Delta (t-\tau)}A(\tau),
\end{eqnarray}
where, for the sake of simplicity, the time is counted from zero as the pulse is turned off. As discussed in detail before and also in Appendix \ref{App_Decay}, the second term in Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay_from_st_state}) stands for the excitation stored in the spin ensemble, which is coherently released back into the cavity, after switching off the microwave pulse. Similarly as done above, we can derive from Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_A0_Lorentz_decay_from_st_state}) a damped harmonic oscillator equation, $\ddot A(t)+[\Delta+\kappa] \dot A(t)+[\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa] A(t)=0$, so that finally the damped Rabi oscillations of the cavity amplitude and the $x$-component of the collective spin to the ground state for $t\ge \tau_d$ are solved by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Afunsoloff}
\nonumber
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&A(t)\!=\!\dfrac{\eta\cdot e^{-(\Delta+\kappa)(t-\tau_d)/2}}{2\Omega_{R}(\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa)}\cdot\left[-2 \Omega_R \Delta \cos(\Omega_R (t-\tau_d)/2) +\right.
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\nonumber
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left. (\Omega_R^2-\Delta^2+\kappa^2) \sin(\Omega_R (t-\tau_d)/2)\right]\!,
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\nonumber
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\nonumber
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&J_x(t)\!=\!\dfrac{\eta\Omega\cdot e^{-(\Delta+\kappa)(t-\tau_d)/2}}{2\Omega_{R}(\Omega^2+\Delta\kappa)}\cdot\left[(\Delta+\kappa)\sin(\Omega_R (t-\tau_d)) +\right.
\label{J_xoff}
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\\
\nonumber
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left. \Omega_R\cos(\Omega_R (t-\tau_d)/2)\right]\!.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig3.eps}
\caption{(color online). Cavity probability amplitude $|A(t)|^2$ and the corresponding $x$-component of the collective spin $J_x^2(t)$ versus time $t$ under the action of an incident long pulse assuming a Lorentzian spin distribution, given by Eqs.~(\ref{Afunsolon},\ref{Afunsoloff}) and (\ref{J_xon},\ref{J_xoff}), respectively. $|A(t)|^2$ coincides with the orange (light gray) curve from Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}b). Symbols designate the maxima and minima of $|A(t)|^2$ and $J_x^2(t)$ during the damped Rabi oscillations. The carrier frequency matches the resonance condition, $\omega_p=\omega_c=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz, and the frequency of Rabi oscillations, $\Omega_R=2\pi\cdot 19.2$\,MHz. Gray (white) area indicates the time interval during which the pumping signal is on (off).}
\label{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_Lor}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig4.eps}
\caption{(color online). Damped Rabi oscillations from the stationary state which the system exhibits after the action of an incident long pulse assuming a Lorentzian spin distribution. a) Cavity probability amplitude given by Eq.~(\ref{Afunsoloff}), versus time for three different values of the coupling strengths, $\Omega/2\pi=6,7.15$ and $12$~MHz [black, red (gray), orange (light gray)]. The carrier frequency matches the resonance condition, $\omega_p=\omega_c=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz. The lowest value for the stationary state corresponds to the highest value of $\Omega$ in accordance with Eq.~(\ref{Amp_st_Lor}). b) The amplitude of the stationary state $|A_{st}|^2$ and the amplitude of the first maximum $|A_1|^2$, versus coupling strength $\Omega$ during the damped Rabi oscillations [see Eqs.~(\ref{Amp_st_Lor}, \ref{A1})]. Black symbol designates the intersection between these two curves at the value of coupling strength $\Omega/2\pi=7.15$~MHz, below which the overshoot effect is absent.}
\label{Figure_A0_A1_2_Lorentz}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig5.eps}
\caption{(color online). Cavity probability amplitude, $|A(t)|^2$, and the corresponding $x$-component of the collective spin, $J_x^2(t)$, versus time $t$ under the action of an incident long pulse for the $q$-Gaussian spin distribution. $|A(t)|^2$ coincides with the red (gray) curve from Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}b). Symbols designate the maxima and minima of, respectively, $|A(t)|^2$ and $J_x^2(t)$ during the damped Rabi oscillations. The carrier frequency matches the resonance condition, $\omega_p=\omega_c=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz, and the coupling strength $2\Omega=17.12$~MHz. The frequency of the resulting Rabi oscillations, $\Omega_R=2\pi\cdot 19.2$\,MHz. Gray (white) area indicates the time interval during which the pumping signal is on (off).}
\label{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_q_Gauss}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig6.eps}
\caption{(color online). Cavity probability amplitude, $|A(t)|^2$, versus time $t$ under the action of an incident long pulse with the carrier frequency matching the resonance condition, $\omega_p=\omega_c=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$ GHz. The coupling strength $2\Omega$ is: a) $2\pi\cdot 15.8$\,MHz; b) $2\pi\cdot 12.0$\,MHz; c) $2\pi\cdot 10.2$\,MHz; d) $2\pi\cdot 2.12$\,MHz. Gray (white) area indicates the time interval during which a pumping signal is on (off). Red (gray) curves: results of numerical calculations. Black curves: experimental results for the cavity transmission.}
\vspace*{.3cm}
\label{fig_A_2_diff_Omega_wp_eq_wc}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_Lor}, $|A(t)|^2$ and $J_x^2(t)$, defined by Eqs.~(\ref{Afunsolon},\ref{Afunsoloff}) and by Eqs.~(\ref{J_xon},\ref{J_xoff}), respectively, are plotted versus time $t$. Note that this analytical solution for the cavity probability, $|A(t)|^2$, perfectly coincides with the one found numerically which is depicted in Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}b) (For that reason the analytical solution is not shown in this figure.) One sees, that the cavity and spin ensemble exchange their energies during the time evolution, so that maxima of $A^2(t)$ correspond to minima of $J_x^2(t)$ or, in other words, the energy inside the cavity is maximal at those moments of time, when the energy stored in the ensemble is entirely emitted back into the cavity.
Let us summarize the collective spin dynamics under the action of a long pulse governed by Eqs.~(\ref{J_xon},\ref{J_xoff}) in the $\omega_p$-rotating frame. Since $J_z \approx -\sqrt{N}$ is always valid, our dynamics is restricted to the vicinity of the pole of the Bloch sphere. Additionally, $J_y=0$ owing to symmetry arguments. As a rectangular microwave signal is turned on, the $x$-component, $J_x(t)$, exhibits damped Rabi oscillations starting from the ground state and tends towards a steady state, $J_x^{st}$. After the signal is switched off, $J_x(t)$, again undergoes damped Rabi oscillations and returns to its initial state on the pole of the Bloch sphere. These spin components in the $\omega_p$-rotating frame are connected with those in the laboratory frame as follows, $J_x^{lab}(t)=J_x(t) \cos(\omega_p t)$, $J_y^{lab}(t)=J_x(t) \sin(\omega_p t)$, and $J_z^{lab}(t)=J_z(t)\approx -\sqrt{N}$. From these expressions follows that in the laboratory frame high frequency oscillations are superimposed on the damped Rabi oscillations found in the $\omega_p$-frame. Moreover the steady state in the $\omega_p$-frame is represented by a simple precession around the $z$-axis in the laboratory- frame.
We show in Fig.~\ref{Figure_A0_A1_2_Lorentz} that the first Rabi peak of the cavity amplitude after switching off the driving pulse may exceed the corresponding steady state value (overshoot effect), if the value of the coupling strength is above a certain threshold. As discussed earlier in this Section, this effect is in principle possible due to the fact that in the steady-state at constant driving nonzero energy is preliminarily stored in the spin ensemble. However, the smaller the coupling strength $\Omega$ is, the larger the value of the cavity amplitude, $|A_{st}|$, and the weaker the excitation of the spin ensemble, $|J_x^{st}|$, see Eq.~(\ref{Amp_st_Lor}). In the limiting case of $\Omega \rightarrow 0$, there is no coupling to the spin ensemble, and it remains unexcited, $J_x^{st}=0$, whereas $|A_{st}|$ acquires its maximal value, $|A_{st}|=\eta/\kappa$. The overshoot effect can be easily quantified analytically by searching for the first maximum of the decaying cavity amplitude (\ref{Afunsoloff}), which is found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{A1}
A_1^2\!=\!A_{st}^2\cdot e^{-\dfrac{2(\Delta+\kappa)}{\Omega_R}\cdot \text{\normalsize{arccos}}\left[-(\Delta-\kappa)/(2\Omega)\right]}.
\end{eqnarray}
We present $A_1^2$ and $A_{st}^2$ versus coupling strength $\Omega$ in Fig.~\ref{Figure_A0_A1_2_Lorentz}b), where one can see that the overshoot effect is realized for $\Omega/2\pi>7.15$\,MHz (for the Lorentzian distribution). Note that the strong coupling regime, the hallmark of which are Rabi oscillations, terminates at $\Omega/2\pi=2$\,MHz, where $A_1=0$. At lower values of the coupling strength the oscillations do not occur and the dynamics becomes Markovian, see Sec.~\ref{Sec_Class_dyn} for more details.
\subsection{Dynamics for the $q$-Gaussian spin density distribution}
\label{Subsec_Dyn_Q_Gauss_distr}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig7.eps}
\caption{(color online). Cavity probability amplitude, $|A(t)|^2$, versus time $t$ under the action of an incident long pulse for different values of the carrier frequency: a) $\omega_p=\omega_c$; b) $\omega_p=\omega_c\pm \Omega_R/8$; c) $\omega_p=\omega_c\pm \Omega_R/4$; d) $\omega_p=\omega_c\pm \Omega_R/2$, where $\omega_c=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz and $\Omega_R=2\pi\cdot 19.2$\,MHz are, respectively, the cavity and Rabi frequencies. Gray (white) area indicates the time interval during which the driving signal is on (off). Red (gray) curves: results of numerical calculations for the coupling strength $2\Omega=17.12$~MHz. Black curves: experimental results for the cavity transmission.}
\label{fig_A_2_vs_t_diff_wp}
\end{figure}
After considering the case of a Lorentzian distribution for the spin density, which allows us to capture some of the important features of the dynamics, we return to the case of the $q$-Gaussian density profile to describe the dynamics accurately and to demonstrate a qualitatively new effect not existing in the framework of the Lorentzian distribution, i.e., the so-called cavity protection effect, see Sec.~\ref{Sec_cavit_prot}.
In Fig.~\ref{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_q_Gauss} we present the coherent energy exchange between cavity and spin ensemble under the action of the long pulse, which looks rather similar to the one shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_Lor} for the Lorentzian distribution. For the latter, however, our analysis predicts an overestimated decay rate with deviations that grow to an unacceptable degree for higher values of the coupling strengths as will be demonstrated in Sec.~\ref{Sec_Class_dyn}. Another signature of the non-Lorentzian line shape of our spectral spin distribution $\rho(\omega)$ is that the Rabi frequency $\Omega_R$ deviates significantly from twice the value of the coupling strength $2\Omega$. In other words, our hybrid cavity-spin system cannot be modeled as two coupled damped harmonic oscillators as in the case of a purely Lorentzian spin distribution.
In Fig.~\ref{fig_A_2_diff_Omega_wp_eq_wc} we show the dynamics under the action of a long pulse for the resonant case, $\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$, but for different values of the coupling strength $\Omega$ \cite{Omega_exp}.
One can see in Figs.~\ref{fig_A_2_diff_Omega_wp_eq_wc}a)-d) that the steady-state value, $|A_{st}|$, increases as $\Omega$ decreases, which is in line with Eq.~(\ref{Ast_gen}). One can also see that the value of the first Rabi peak decreases with a decrease of the coupling strength. As a result, the overshoot effect fades away gradually; finally the Rabi oscillations disappear, implying that we enter the regime of Markovian dynamics. As discussed in Sec. IIIA these features are also qualitatively captured when approximating the spin density by the Lorentzian distribution.
Next, we keep the value for the coupling strength constant (staying in the strong-coupling regime) and vary the probe frequency, see Fig.~\ref{fig_A_2_vs_t_diff_wp}. The larger the mismatch from the resonance condition, $\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$, the less visible the Rabi oscillations, so that finally they become completely blurred. The reason for this behavior is the following: as the probe frequency, $\omega_p$, gets increasingly detuned from the central spin frequency, $\omega_s$, the phase in the exponential function of Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) increases at those frequencies where the contribution of $\rho(\omega)$ is non-negligible. As a consequence, during subsequent time integration the resulting integral becomes small due to the fast oscillations of the exponential function, so that the effect of strong coupling smears out. In this case the dynamics is reminiscent of the Markovian regime which occurs right at the resonance condition but for small values for $\Omega$, see Fig.~\ref{fig_A_2_diff_Omega_wp_eq_wc}d).
We would like to emphasize, that in our numerical calculations shown in Figs.~\ref{fig_A_2_diff_Omega_wp_eq_wc}-\ref{fig_A_2_vs_t_diff_wp}, we vary only the values for the coupling strength and probe frequency, whereas all other parameters are kept the same as those in Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}a). Still, the agreement between our theoretical model and the experiment is found to be excellent.
\section{Classification of the dynamics}
\label{Sec_Class_dyn}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig8.eps}
\caption{(color online). Decay rate $\Gamma$ of the the cavity mode $|A(t)|^2$ versus coupling strength $\Omega$.
{\it Red curve}: decay rates extracted from the full numerical calculations with the $q$-Gaussian spin distribution. {\it Black symbols}: experimentally observed decay rates. {\it Green curve (1)}: Decay rate
under the assumption of a Lorentzian distribution of the spin density. The overdamped regime ($\Omega/2\pi<1.8$~MHz) is characterised by two exponents given by $\Gamma=\Delta+\kappa\pm\sqrt{(\Delta-\kappa)^2-4 \Omega^2}$. The regime of underdamped oscillations ($\Omega/2\pi>1.8$~MHz) with the Rabi frequency (\ref{Eq_Rabi_Om}) has the constant decay rate, $\Gamma=\Delta+\kappa$. {\it Orange curve (2)}: $\Gamma$ derived under Markovian approximation, $\Gamma=2[\kappa+\pi\Omega^2\rho(\omega_s)]$. {\it Magenta curve (3)}: an estimate for $\Gamma$ within the strong coupling regime with a well-resolved Rabi splitting in the limit of $\Omega\rightarrow\infty$, $\Gamma=\kappa+\pi\Omega^2\rho(\omega_c\pm\Omega)$. {\it Blue curve (4)}: the decay rate in the absence of dephasing. For $\Omega/2\pi<0.2$~MHz the overdamped regime is characterised by two exponents $\Gamma=\kappa\pm\sqrt{\kappa^2-4 \Omega^2}$. In the opposite case, $\Omega/2\pi>0.2$~MHz, the regime of underdamped Rabi oscillations takes place with the Rabi frequency $\sqrt{4 \Omega^2-\kappa^2}$ and the constant decay rate $\Gamma=\kappa$. {\it White region}: Markovian dynamics. {\it Gray region}: non-Markovian dynamics.}
\label{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega}
\end{figure}
To clarify the role played by the non-Lorentzian inhomogeneous broadening, we classify the dynamics by calculating and measuring the total decay rate $\Gamma$ of the cavity amplitude squared, $|A(t)|^2$, from its steady state value for different coupling strengths $\Omega$. For the sake of simplicity, we focus on the resonant case, $\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$, only. It should be stressed that the total decay rate $\Gamma$ is independent of the initial conditions (see also \cite{Nature2014}), so that we can start from simpler initial conditions corresponding to the case when only a single photon is populating the cavity and the spin ensemble is in the ground state, $|1,G \rangle=a^{\dagger}(t=0)|0 \rangle$ ($|0 \rangle$ corresponds to the vacuum state). In this case it is possible to get a relatively simple form for the Laplace transform of the Volterra equation and to considerably speed up the calculations, see Appendix~\ref{App_Lapl_Transf}. One can prove that the Volterra equation (\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) is indeed the governing equation for $A(t)$ also in this case with the initial condition, $A(t=0)=1$ and $B_k(t=0)=0$, by virtue of the following arguments. Acting with the Heisenberg operator equations on the bra- and ket-vectors $\langle 0|$ and $a^{\dagger}(t=0)|0 \rangle$, respectively, it can be shown that the corresponding equations for the expectation values coincide with Eqs.~(\ref{Eq_a_Volt},\ref{Eq_bk_Volt}) from Sec.~\ref{Sec_Theory}. The only formal difference now is that the amplitudes $A(t)$ and $B_k(t)$ are given as $A(t)\equiv \langle 0| a(t)a^{\dagger}(t=0)|0 \rangle$ and $B_k(t)\equiv \langle 0|\sigma_k^-(t) a^{\dagger}(t=0)|0 \rangle$, respectively. Thus the variable $A(t)$ describes the probability amplitude for a photon to be in the cavity at time $t$, if it was there initially, $A(t=0)\equiv \langle 0| a(t=0)a^{\dagger}(t=0)|0 \rangle=\langle 1,G |1,G \rangle=1$.
The results are presented in Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega}, where we show that the decay rate varies surprisingly strongly and in a non-monotonous fashion with $\Omega$ covering a range of almost one order of magnitude (see the red curve on this figure). Before going to further details, let us analyze at first how the decay rate $\Gamma$ behaves as a function of the coupling strength under different simplifying assumptions.
For the case of a Lorentzian distribution for the spin density, the decay process is characterized by two exponents given by Eq.~(\ref{Gam_Lorentz_charact_exponent}). If $4 \Omega^2>(\Delta-\kappa)^2$, then the Rabi oscillations are underdamped and the total decay rate reduces to $\Gamma=\Delta+\kappa$. In the opposite case, we are dealing with a pure exponential decay without oscillations (overdamped regime) with $\Gamma=\Delta+\kappa\pm\sqrt{(\Delta-\kappa)^2-4 \Omega^2}$. Thus, the Lorentzian distribution gives rise to qualitatively different behaviour for the decay process as compared to the $q$-Gaussian one, since $\Gamma$ remains constant in the whole range of $\Omega$ within the strong-coupling regime. However, as is unambiguously seen in Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega}, the non-monotonic behavior obtained in the framework of the $q$-Gaussian spin density distribution is supported by our experimental data thereby confirming our initial assumption for the shape of this distribution.
In the absence of inhomogeneous broadening, when the spin density function is written as $\rho(\omega)=\delta(\omega-\omega_s)$, the expressions for the decay rate are obtained from those for a Lorentzian distribution by setting its width to zero, $\Delta=0$. Thus, in the regime of underdamped oscillations we get, $\Gamma=\kappa$, whereas in the overdamped regime, $\Gamma=\kappa\pm\sqrt{\kappa^2-4 \Omega^2}$. Correspondingly, the blue lines in Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega} determine the lowest border for possible decay rates reached in our system, because the values for $\Gamma$ in the presence of inhomogeneous broadening should always be larger than the corresponding ones in the case when it is absent. It is seen from Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega} that this condition is indeed always fulfilled.
Next, we apply the so-called Markov approximation in Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) with respect to the cavity amplitude $A(t)$ which implies that the memory effects caused by a feedback from the NV ensemble onto the cavity are disregarded. Specifically, we shift the initial time of integration on the r.h.s.\,of Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) to $-\infty$, put $A(\tau) \approx A(t)$, and make use of the Sokhotski-Plemelj theorem (\ref{Sokhotski_theorem}) in the limit of $\gamma\rightarrow 0$, when performing the integration with respect to $\omega$. Under all these assumptions the third term on the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) reduces to ($\omega_p=\omega_s$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&&-\Omega^2 \int_0^{\infty} d\omega \rho(\omega) \int_{0}^t d\tau
e^{-i(\omega-\omega_s-i\gamma)(t-\tau)}A(\tau) \approx
\\
&&i \Omega^2 A(t) \int_0^{\infty}\dfrac{d\omega \rho(\omega)}{\omega-\omega_s-i \gamma}=-\pi\Omega^2\rho(\omega_s)\cdot A(t).
\label{Eq_Mark_Volt}
\end{eqnarray}
Note, that the principal value does not appear in the above equation because $\rho(\omega)/(\omega-\omega_s)$, is an antisymmetric function with respect to the singular point, $\omega=\omega_s$. In the simplest case when there is no driving and all spins are initially in the ground state, the Volterra equation (\ref{Eq_a_with_Bk0}) reduces to $\dot A(t)\!=-[\kappa+\pi\Omega^2\rho(\omega_s)]\cdot A(t)$. Therefore, the Markov approximation leads to a pure exponential decay with the decay rate, $\Gamma=2[\kappa+\pi\Omega^2\rho(\omega_s)]$. The spin ensemble density thus gives rise to a significant enhancement of the cavity decay rate as compared to the one for a bare cavity, $\Gamma=2\kappa$. Remarkably, this effect has a direct analogy to the Purcell enhancement of the spontaneous emission rate of a single emitter inside a cavity \cite{Purcell1946} which appears due to the increase of the local density of photonic states at the emitter position as compared to the vacuum case. The Markov approximation, however, loses its validity at fairly low coupling strengths, starting to deviate from the real values of $\Gamma$ already at $\Omega/2\pi \approx 1.5$\,MHz (see Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega}). The hallmark of non-Markovianity of the resulting dynamics are Rabi oscillations setting in at higher values of $\Omega$.
In a next step we put forward an analytical estimate for the decay rate in the limit of very strong coupling ($\Omega \rightarrow \infty$) employing the Laplace transform of our Volterra equation summarized in Appendix \ref{App_Lapl_Transf}. For that purpose we use recently developed concepts for another cavity QED problem dealing with non-Markovian quantum dynamics of a single emitter inside an open multimode cavity \cite{KLRT14}. The key insight from that study is that the dominant frequency components contributing to the dynamics of $A(t)$ are those which are resonant in its Laplace transform, $U(\omega)$, given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq_Phis_34}). For such resonances to occur we find the following requirement on the nonlinear Lamb shift (\ref{Eq_Lamb_shift}), $\omega_r-\omega_c= \Omega^2\delta( \omega_r)$. In the limit of sufficiently large values of the coupling strength the Laplace transform, $U(\omega)$, has a well-resolved double-peak structure with two resonance frequencies given approximately by, $\omega_r \approx\omega_c\pm\Omega$. Furthermore, $A(t)$ essentially displays damped Rabi oscillations of the form, $A(t)\sim \cos(\Omega t)\cdot e^{-[\kappa+\pi\Omega^2\rho(\omega_c\pm\Omega)]t/2}$, due to the Fourier transforms of the two curves in $U(\omega)$ centered at these two resonance frequencies. One can see in Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega} that such an estimate for the decay rate, $\Gamma=\kappa+\pi\Omega^2\rho(\omega_c\pm\Omega)$, works rather well if $\Omega/2\pi \ge 25$\,MHz. Thus, in contrast to the Markovian dynamics, the relevant frequencies which contribute to the value of the decay rate are those associated with two resonant peaks in $U(\omega)$. Remarkably, a pair of poles in the complex plane occurring for $\Omega/2\pi \ge 25$\,MHz do not spoil this asymptotic behavior, see Appendix \ref{App_Lapl_Transf}. Note that our expression for the decay rate in the limit of $\Omega \rightarrow \infty$ coincides with the one obtained in \cite{Diniz2011}, where the behavior of poles of the stationary transmission has been analyzed.
\subsection*{Cavity protection effect}
\label{Sec_cavit_prot}
It follows from the above analysis that for spectral distributions $\rho(\omega)$ whose tails fall off faster than
$1/\omega^2$, an increasing coupling strength inevitably leads to a reduction of the decay rate $\Gamma$, so that the system will finally be protected against decoherence, a phenomenon referred to as ``cavity protection effect'' \cite{Kurucz2011,Diniz2011}. It is not hard to see that our $q$-Gaussian satisfies such a requirement, whereas a Lorentzian spin distribution does not. As a consequence, the latter does not protect the cavity against decoherence, featuring a constant decay rate in the strong coupling regime (see green line in Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega}). In contrast, our numerical analysis for the $q$-Gaussian shows that for a collective coupling strength of $\Omega/2\pi \sim 25$\,MHz, the decay rate induced is already suppressed below $8\%$ of its maximal value at $\Omega/2\pi \sim 2.25$\,MHz. It is interesting to note, that the minimal possible value for the decay rate reached in the limit of large $\Omega$ is $\kappa$ as the decay rate for a bare cavity without diamond is $2\kappa$. This can be explained by the fact that due to the strong coupling between the spin ensemble and the cavity, the excitation is trapped by $50\%$ within the spin ensemble which has a negligible direct decay rate during the course of our experiment.
Physically, the ``cavity protection effect" can be understood as follows: In the presence of inhomogeneous spin broadening, the polariton states, defined as superpositions of the cavity mode with the superradiant (bright) spin-wave modes, become coupled to the sub-radiant (dark) spin-wave modes \cite{Kurucz2011}. This coupling acts as the main source of decoherence, leading to a strong damping of the polariton modes. However, for strong enough coupling strength, the Rabi-splitting of the polariton peaks opens up a gap for the super-radiant polaritons. If the spectral profile of the inhomogeneous spin distribution decays sufficiently fast for increasing gap size, an energetic decoupling of the super-radiant polaritons from the sub-radiant spin-wave modes occurs, leading to a suppressed damping of the polaritons and to a corresponding decrease of their peak linewidth.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig9.eps}
\caption{(color online). Cavity probability amplitude $|A(t)|^2$ under the action of eleven successive rectangular microwave pulses with carrier frequency $\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz, phase-switched by $\pi$, as a function of time and pulse duration $\tau$. The white line indicates the corresponding moment of times, $11 \tau$, at which the driving signal is switched off. The coupling strength $2\Omega/2\pi=17.12$\,MHz.}
\label{fig_6_pulses_2D}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{0.84cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig10.eps}
\caption{(color online). Resonant dynamics under the action of eleven successive rectangular microwave pulses (horizontal cut of Fig.~\ref{fig_6_pulses_2D} at $\tau=2\pi/\Omega_R=52$\,ns). This specific driving corresponds to the largest enhancement of both the cavity amplitude $|A(t)|^2$ and the $x$-component of the collective spin $J_x^2(t)$ which coherently exchange the energy during course of time. Red (gray) curve: results of numerical calculations for $|A(t)|^2$. Black curve: $|A(t)|^2$ measured in the experiment. Orange (light gray) curve: results of numerical calculations for $J_x^2(t)$. The alternating gray and white vertical bars designate the pulses sketched at the top of Fig.~\ref{fig_6_pulses_2D}. The last white area corresponds to the damped dynamics when the driving signal is switched off.}
\label{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_q_Gauss_6_pulses}
\end{figure}
\section{Coherently driven spin ensembles}
\label{Sec_period_drive}
In a next step we address an important question arising in the context of possible realizations of coherent-control schemes, which is how to reach high excitation levels in the spin ensemble with a driving signal that has only limited power to avoid heating up the hybrid quantum device. We have seen in Sec.~\ref{Subsec_Dyn_Lorentz_distr} that the assumption of a Lorentzian distribution for the spin density leads to a simplified picture reducing the dynamics to the one of two coupled damped harmonic oscillators, where one of them stands for the cavity and the other for the spin ensemble. Furthermore, the expectation value of the collective spin operator can formally be excluded, so that we end up with a single equation for the cavity amplitude which has the same form as the equation for a damped and driven harmonic oscillator. Therefore, if our system is subjected to a periodic driving force, a resonance is expected to occur when the driving frequency is equal to the characteristic frequency of the system. Based on this reduced model, we conjecture that coherent cavity oscillations, and as a consequence, spin ensemble oscillations with a large amplitude can also be achieved for the $q$-Gaussian spin distribution. Also in this case the system needs to be driven periodically, so that the period of $\eta(t)$ matches the resonance condition given by the Rabi period, $T_R=2\pi/\Omega_R$.
By pumping the cavity by a sequence of rectangular pulses with a carrier frequency $\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$, phase-switched by $\pi$, we indeed reveal a strongly resonant structure of $|A(t)|^2$ as a function of pulse duration $\tau$ and time $t$, see Fig.~\ref{fig_6_pulses_2D}. The corresponding increase of $|A(t)|^2$ can reach two orders of magnitude as compared to the case when the system is driven by a long rectangular pulse [see Fig.~\ref{Figure_long_pulse_with_Lorentz}a)], provided that the resonance condition is met, $\tau=2\pi/\Omega_R$ (see Fig.~\ref{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_q_Gauss_6_pulses}). Note that the net power injected into the cavity, when applying a long rectangular pulse or a sequence of rectangular pulses phase-switched by $\pi$, is exactly the same as we are just periodically changing the sign of the amplitude. Also in both cases the cavity and spin ensemble coherently exchange their energy, so that the cavity amplitude $|A(t)|^2$ oscillates in antiphase with respect to the spin ensemble component $J_x^2(t)$.
In Fig.~\ref{Fig_A_2_q_Gauss_vs_Lorentz_6_pulses} we present results for such a resonant driving both for a $q$-Gaussian and for a Lorentzian profile of the spectral distribution for the spin density. We take the value of the coupling strength, $\Omega/2\pi=25$\,MHz, for which the decoherence effect caused by the $q$-Gaussian form of the inhomogeneous broadening is strongly suppressed. Indeed, the resulting total decay rate shown in Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega} for this value of $\Omega$ is $3.7$ times smaller than that for $\Omega/2\pi=8.56$\,MHz used so far in Figs.~\ref{fig_6_pulses_2D}, \ref{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_q_Gauss_6_pulses} and 5.4 times smaller than the total decay rate predicted in the framework of the Lorentzian distribution. For this situation we see that the giant oscillations of the cavity probability amplitude, $|A(t)|^2$, induced by the resonant driving is a factor of 20 larger than what would be predicted for by a Lorentzian functional profile. This clear signature of the ``cavity-protection effect'' paves the way for the realization of sophisticated coherent-control schemes in the strong-coupling regime of QED.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig11.eps}
\caption{(color online). Resonant dynamics under the action of seventy successive rectangular microwave pulses ($\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$) for a pulse duration $\tau=2 \pi/\Omega_R=19.5$\,ns. Red (gray) curve: numerical results for the $q$-Gaussian spin distribution. The coupling strength is chosen to be $\Omega/2\pi=25$\,MHz. In this case the value for the total decay rate $\Gamma$ (see Fig.~\ref{Figure_Gamma_vs_Omega}) is $3.7$ times smaller than that for $\Omega/2\pi=8.56$\,MHz used so far in Figs.~\ref{fig_6_pulses_2D}, \ref{Fig_A_2_Jx_2_q_Gauss_6_pulses}. Orange (light gray) curve: corresponding numerical results for the Lorentzian spin distribution. }
\label{Fig_A_2_q_Gauss_vs_Lorentz_6_pulses}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.\columnwidth]{fig12.eps}
\caption{(color online). The maximal value of the cavity probability amplitude $|A(t)|^2$, $\max[|A(t)|^2]$, reached during coherent oscillations to which the system sets in under the action of incident rectangular pulses of duration $\tau$ that are phase-switched by $\pi$. We consider four different values for the carrier frequency of our periodic driving signal: $\omega_p=\omega_c$; $\omega_p=\omega_c\pm \Omega_R/8$; $\omega_p=\omega_c\pm \Omega_R/4$; $\omega_p=\omega_c\pm \Omega_R/2$, where $\omega_c=2\pi\cdot 2.6915$\,GHz and $\Omega_R=2\pi\cdot 19.2$\,MHz are, respectively, the cavity and Rabi frequencies.}
\label{fig_A2_max_in_units_Omega_fin}
\end{figure}
In a further study we take the probe frequency out of resonance with the cavity $\omega_p \ne \omega_c$. (The condition $\omega_c=\omega_s$, however, always holds.) In Fig.~\ref{fig_A2_max_in_units_Omega_fin} we present the maximal value of the cavity amplitude, $\max[|A(t)|^2]$, reached during coherent oscillations to which the system sets in under the action of incident rectangular pulses of duration $\tau$ that are phase-switched by $\pi$. We deduce from this figure that the cavity amplitude experiences maximal growth at the resonance condition, $\omega_p=\omega_c=\omega_s$. It is worth noting that for the off-resonant cases ($\omega_p \ne \omega_c$) the right peak of $\max[|A(t)|^2]$ appears exactly at such values of $\pi/\tau$ which correspond to the mismatching value of the probe frequency from the resonant case ($\omega_p=\omega_c$). A similar tendency is also seen for the left peak for not too high values of the mismatch from the resonance condition.
\section{Conclusions}
We have studied in detail the dynamics of an inhomogeneously broadened spin ensemble interacting with a single cavity mode. For that purpose we numerically solved the Volterra integral equation for the cavity amplitude which explicitly contains the spin distribution function describing the inhomogeneous broadening of the spin ensemble. By assuming a Lorentzian functional profile for the spin density, we solved the problem analytically. This analytical solution provides an intuitive understanding of some important features of the resulting spin-cavity dynamics, such as an overshoot effect resulting from the constructive interference between the energy stored in the spin ensemble and in the cavity. Several features of the temporal dynamics in the strong coupling regime are, however, specifically due to the $q$-Gaussian spectral spin density which we find to be realized in our experiment. In particular, the non-Lorentzian functional profile of the spin distribution allows us to observe as well as to accurately describe a phenomenon known as ``cavity protection effect" \cite{Kurucz2011,Diniz2011} for large values of the coupling strength. This effect results in a complete suppression of the decoherence induced by inhomogeneous broadening in the strong-coupling regime. To highlight the potential of this effect for the implementation of coherent-control schemes, we reveal how an appropriately chosen pulse sequence can excite giant coherent oscillations between the cavity and the spin ensemble. We classify the dynamics as a function of the coupling strength and the probe frequency covering both Markovian and non-Markovian regimes.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank R. Ams\"uss, B. Hartl, F. Mintert, T. N\"obauer, P. Rabl, J. Schmiedmayer and A. Valookaran for helpful discussions. D.O.K. and S.R acknowledge funding by the FWF through Project No. F49-P10 (SFB NextLite). The experimental effort has been supported by the TOP grant of TU Vienna. S.P. acknowledges support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) in the framework of the Doctoral School ``Building Solids for Function" (Project W1243).
|
\section{Supplementary Material}
\subsection{Numerical test of the order parameter curves for respective regions}
Figure S1 shows the order parameters $m$ and $M$ obtained numerically from the mean-field free energy (see Eq.(2) in the main text). They show the curves for the first, second, TP, I, II, and III regions.
\begin{figure}[b]
\resizebox{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{PhaseDiagram_numerics.pdf}}
\caption{[color online] Plots of the order parameters $m$ and $M$ as a function of temperature in each regime of phase transitions, which are obtained from different values of $x=K_4/K_2$ and the degree exponent $\lambda$.}
\label{fig:variousPT}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Definitions for coefficients used in the main text}
\begin{align}
&C_1 (\lambda)= N_\lambda \int_0^\infty \left(-\ln [\cosh y] +\frac{1}{2} y^2 \right) y^{-\lambda},\cr
&C_2 (\lambda) = N_\lambda \int_0^\infty \ln \left[ 1+\tanh^3 y \right]y^{-\lambda} dy,\cr
&C_3 (\lambda,r_0)=N_\lambda \int_0^\infty \left[\frac{\tanh y}{1+\tanh^2 y \tanh(r_0 y)}-y \right] y^{1-\lambda} dy,\cr
&C_4 (\lambda,r_0)=N_\lambda \int_0^\infty \left[\frac{\tanh y}{1+\tanh y \tanh^2(y/r_0)}-y \right] y^{1-\lambda} dy,\cr
&C_5 (\lambda,r_0)=N_\lambda \int_0^\infty \frac{\tanh^2 y }{1+\tanh^2 y \tanh(r_0 y)}y^{1-\lambda} dy,\cr
&C_5^\prime (\lambda) =C_5(\lambda,0)=N_\lambda \int_0^\infty \tanh^2 y ~ y^{1-\lambda} dy,\cr
&C_6 = \frac{N_\lambda K_2}{\langle k\rangle} \int_{k_\textrm{min}}^\infty \tanh (K_4 M k) k^{2-\lambda} dk,\cr
&\mathcal{B}_2=N_\lambda \int_{k_\textrm{min}}^\infty \frac{\tanh (K_2 m k) \tanh (K_4 M k)}{1+\tanh^2 (K_2 m k) \tanh(K_4 M k)} k^{1-\lambda} dk.
\end{align}
\subsection{Susceptibility near a continuous transition point}
Consider a AT model Hamiltonian including terms with external field which is a function of degree of a node as
\begin{equation}
-\beta\mathcal{H}=K_2\sum_{\langle i,j \rangle}s_is_j
+K_{2}\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}\sigma_i\sigma_j
+K_4\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}s_i\sigma_is_j\sigma_j
+\sum_{i} h_2(k_i) s_i+ \sum_{i} h_2(k_i) \sigma_i+ \sum_{i} h_4(k_i) s_i\sigma_i.
\label{eq:AT_hamiltonian_ext_field}
\end{equation}
Here, we set $h_2(k_i)$ and $h_4(k_i)$ as the external field weighted by degree of a node as $h_2(k_i) = H_2 k_i$ and $h_4(k_i) = H_4 k_i$, respectively. Then, we have usual free energy and magnetization relation as $- \partial f /\partial H_2 = m \langle k \rangle$ and $- \partial f /\partial H_4 = M \langle k \rangle$. Physically, such weighted external field can be interpreted as follows; one node is driven by same amount of influence through each link, thus, total driving force is proportional to the degree of the node. Following the same derivation in the main text, the free energy for the above Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{align}
f&\simeq -2\int_{k_{\rm min}}^{\infty}\ln\left[
\cosh\left(K_2 m k +H_2 k\right) \right] P_d(k) dk -\int_{k_{\rm min}}^{\infty}\ln\left[
\cosh\left(K_4 M k +H_4 k\right) \right] P_d(k) dk \cr
&~~~ -\mathcal{B}_1(K_2 m+H_2 k,K_4 M +H_4 k,\lambda)+K_2 m^2 \langle k\rangle + \dfrac{1}{2}K_4 M^2 \langle k\rangle .
\end{align}
The self-consistent relations for $m$ and $M$ are given as follows:
\begin{equation}
m\langle k \rangle =
\int_{k_{\rm min}}^{\infty}
\dfrac{\tanh\left(K_2 m k +H_2 k\right)\left[1+\tanh\left(K_4 M k +H_4 k\right)\right]}
{1+\tanh^2\left(K_2 m k+H_2 k\right)\tanh\left(K_4 M k+H_4 k\right)}
k P_d (k) dk
\label{eq:eqnOfState_m}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M\langle k \rangle =
\int_{k_{\rm \rm min}}^{\infty}
\dfrac{\tanh\left(K_4 M k +H_4 k\right)+\tanh^2\left(K_2 m k+H_2 k\right)}
{1+\tanh^2\left(K_2 m k+H_2 k\right)\tanh\left(K_4 M k+H_4 k\right)}
k P_d(k) dk.
\label{eq:eqnOfState_M}
\end{equation}
First, consider the case $x<1$. Equation~(\ref{eq:eqnOfState_m}) can be expanded as
\begin{eqnarray}
m \langle k\rangle \simeq (K_2 m+H_2) \langle k^2 \rangle +C_3\left(\lambda,\frac{K_4 M +H_4}{K_2 m +H_2}\right) (K_2 m+H_2)^{\lambda-2} .
\end{eqnarray}
By taking partial derivative of the above equation in terms of $H_2$ and then taking $H_2, H_4 \rightarrow 0$ limit, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_m \langle k\rangle \simeq (K_2 \chi_m+1) \langle k^2 \rangle +C_3\left(\lambda,\frac{K_4 M}{K_2 m}\right)(\lambda-2)K_2\chi_m(K_2 m)^{\lambda-3},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi_m$ is a susceptibility of $m$ and defined as $\left. \frac{\partial m}{\partial H_2} \right|_{H_2, H_4\rightarrow 0}$.
When the second order phase transition occurs at $T_s$, $m=0$ for $T>T_s$ and $C_3\left(\lambda,\frac{K_4 M}{K_2 m}\right) (K_2m)^{\lambda-3} \approx \frac{\langle k\rangle}{K_2} (1-T_s/T)$ for $T<T_s$ near $T_s$. Then $\chi_m$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\chi_m = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\frac{T\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle} (T-T_s)^{-1} &~~\textrm{for}~ T>T_s \\
\frac{T\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle(\lambda-3)} (T_s-T)^{-1} &~~\textrm{for}~ T<T_s
\end{array} \right. ~~~\textrm{when }x<1.
\label{eq:susceptibility_m_x<1}
\end{equation}
Similarly, Eq.~(\ref{eq:eqnOfState_M}) can be expanded as
\begin{eqnarray}
&M \langle k\rangle \simeq (K_4 M+H_4) \langle k^2\rangle + C_4\left(\lambda,\frac{K_2 m +H_2}{K_4 M +H_4}\right) (K_4 M+H_4)^{\lambda-2}
+ C_5\left(\lambda,\frac{K_4 M +H_4}{K_2 m +H_2}\right) (K_2 m +H_2)^{\lambda-2}.~~~~~~~~~
\label{eq:small_M}
\end{eqnarray}
Taking partial derivative of the above equation by $H_4$ and then taking $H_2, H_4 \rightarrow 0$ limit give
\begin{equation}
\chi_M \langle k\rangle \simeq (K_4 \chi_M+1) \langle k^2\rangle + C_4\left(\lambda,\frac{K_2 m}{K_4 M}\right)(\lambda-2)K_4 \chi_M (K_4 M)^{\lambda-3}
+ C_5\left(\lambda,\frac{K_4 M}{K_2 m}\right)K_2 \left. \frac{\partial m}{\partial H_4} \right|_{H_2, H_4\rightarrow 0} (K_2 m )^{\lambda-3},~~~~~~~~~
\end{equation}
where $\chi_M$ is a susceptibility of $M$ and defined as $\left. \frac{\partial M}{\partial H_4} \right|_{H_2, H_4\rightarrow 0}$.
When the second order phase transition occurs at $T_s$, $m=M=0$ for $T>T_s$ and $(K_2m)^{\lambda-3}\sim (1-T_s/T)$ and $M\sim m^{\lambda-2}$ for $T<T_s$ near $T_s$. Then $\chi_M$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\chi_M = \frac{T \langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle (T-xT_s)}~~~\textrm{near }T_s.
\label{eq:susceptibility_M_x<1}
\end{equation}
Note that at the critical end point, where transition is discontinuous, the susceptibility diverges for $T_s^+$, whereas it is finite for $T_s^-$. For more information, see the next section.
Now, consider the case $x>1$. When the second order phase transition from para to $\langle \sigma s\rangle$ phase occurs at $T=xT_s$, $m$ is equal to $0$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:eqnOfState_M}) is expanded as
\begin{eqnarray}
M \langle k\rangle \simeq (K_4 M+H_4) \langle k^2\rangle + C_4\left(\lambda,\frac{H_2}{K_4 M +H_4}\right) (K_4 M+H_4)^{\lambda-2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Taking partial derivative of the above equation by $H_4$ and then taking $H_2, H_4 \rightarrow 0$ limit give
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_M \langle k\rangle \simeq (K_4 \chi_M+1) \langle k^2\rangle + C_4\left(\lambda,0\right) K_4 \chi_M (\lambda-2)(K_4 M)^{\lambda-3}.
\end{eqnarray}
Using $M=0$ for $T>xT_s$ and $C_4(\lambda,0) (K_4 M)^{\lambda-3}=\frac{\langle k \rangle}{K_4}(1-xT_s/T)$ for $T<xT_s$, $\chi_M$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\chi_M = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\frac{T\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle} (T-xT_s)^{-1} &~~\textrm{for}~ T>xT_s \\
\frac{T\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle(\lambda-3)} (xT_s-T)^{-1} &~~\textrm{for}~ T<xT_s
\end{array} \right. ~~~\textrm{when }x>1.
\label{eq:susceptibility_M_x>1}
\end{equation}
Therefore, at the critical end point existing at the boundary between `first' and `II' regions, where $xT_s=T_f$, the susceptibility $\chi_M$ diverges for $T-T_s \rightarrow 0^+$ case, though the transition is discontinuous.
When the second order phase transition from $\langle \sigma s\rangle$ to Baxter phase occurs at $T=T_s/(1-C_6)$, following the same derivation, $\chi_m$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\chi_m = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\frac{T\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle} \left(T-\frac{T_s}{1-C_6} \right)^{-1} &~~\textrm{for}~ T>T_s/(1-C_6) \\
\frac{T\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle(\lambda-3)} \left(\frac{T_s}{1-C_6} -T \right)^{-1} &~~\textrm{for}~ T<T_s/(1-C_6)
\end{array} \right. ~~~\textrm{when }x>1.
\label{eq:susceptibility_M_x>1}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Susceptibility at the critical end point}
Since the transition is discontinuous at the critical end point, the expansions with the assumption $m,M \ll 1$ used in the previous section cannot be performed to calculate the susceptibility. Instead, we should keep the explicit integral forms as follows. If we take a derivative of Eq.(\ref{eq:eqnOfState_m}) with respect ot $H_2$ and take $H_2,H_4 \rightarrow 0$ limit, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\chi_m = \frac{\mathcal{A}_1 +\mathcal{A}_2 K_4 \left. \frac{\partial M}{\partial H_2} \right|_{H_2,H_4\rightarrow 0}}{\langle k \rangle \left( 1 - \frac{K_2}{\langle k\rangle} \mathcal{A}_1 \right)}
\label{chi_m_explicit}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_1 = N_\lambda \int_{k_\textrm{min}}^\infty \frac{[1-\tanh^2 (K_2 m k) \tanh (K_4 M k)][1+\tanh (K_4 M k)]}{[1+\tanh^2 (K_2 m k) \tanh (K_4 M k)]^2 \cosh^2 (K_2 m k)} k^{2-\lambda}dk ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_2 = N_\lambda \int_{k_\textrm{min}}^\infty \frac{[1-\tanh^2 (K_2 m k)]\tanh (K_2 m k)}{[1+\tanh^2 (K_2 m k) \tanh (K_4 M k)]^2 \cosh^2 (K_4 M k)} k^{2-\lambda}dk .
\end{equation}
To evaluate Eq.~(\ref{chi_m_explicit}), we also should calculate $\left. \frac{\partial M}{\partial H_2} \right|_{H_2,H_4\rightarrow 0}$. If we take a derivative of Eq.~(\ref{eq:eqnOfState_M}) with respect to $H_2$ and take $H_2,H_4 \rightarrow 0$ limit, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left. \frac{\partial M}{\partial H_2} \right|_{H_2,H_4\rightarrow 0} = \frac{\mathcal{A}_4 \left( \chi_m K_2 +1 \right)}{\langle k \rangle \left( 1 - \frac{ K_4}{\langle k\rangle} \mathcal{A}_3 \right)}
\label{chi_mm_explicit}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_3 = N_\lambda \int_{k_\textrm{min}}^\infty \frac{1-\tanh^4 (K_2 m k) }{[1+\tanh^2 (K_2 m k) \tanh (K_4 M k)]^2 \cosh^2 (K_4 M k)} k^{2-\lambda}dk ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_4 = N_\lambda \int_{k_\textrm{min}}^\infty \frac{2\tanh(K_2 m k)[1-\tanh^2 (K_4 M k)] }{[1+\tanh^2 (K_2 m k) \tanh (K_4 M k)]^2 \cosh^2 (K_2 m k)} k^{2-\lambda}dk .
\end{equation}
At the critical end point, $m=M=0$ for $T>T_s$, so $\mathcal{A}_1 =\langle k^2\rangle$ and $\mathcal{A}_2=0$. Then, $\chi_m$ becomes the same as the result in Eq.~(\ref{eq:susceptibility_m_x<1}) for $T>T_s$ case. For $T<T_s$, $\chi_m$ can be numerically evaluated by solving Eqs.~(\ref{chi_m_explicit}) and (\ref{chi_mm_explicit}) together. Figure S2 shows the numerically calculated $\chi_m$ near $T_s$ at the critical end point with $\lambda=3.99$ and $x=0.7$, which is the case of CE in Fig. S1. It clearly shows that the susceptibility diverges for $T>T_s$, whereas it becomes finite for $T<T_s$.
\begin{figure}[]
\resizebox{0.5\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{susceptibility.pdf}}
\caption{[color online] Susceptibility $\chi_m$ as a function of $T$. It diverges for $T>T_s$, whereas it becomes finite for $T<T_s$.}
\label{fig:double_layer_network}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Single Oscillator Phase Statistics}
\subsection{Introduction}
Dirac [1], in 1927, postulated the existence of an Hermitian phase operator, $\hat{\phi}$, as part of a polar decomposition of the annihilation operator, $\hat{a}=e^{i\hat{\phi}}(\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a})^{1/2}$, for a single quantum harmonic oscillator, where $\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a} = \hat{n}$ is the photon number operator, the eigenvalues of which correspond to the energy levels of the oscillator. In this ordering the operator $e^{i\hat{\phi}}=\hat{a}(\hat{n})^{-1/2}$ lowers the photon number (like $\hat{a}$ but without any $\sqrt{n}$ factor)
\begin{equation}
{e^{i\hat{\phi}}}|n\rangle = |n-1\rangle \ (\forall n \ge1)
\end{equation}
however, the action on the vacuum state is undefined. In 1964, Susskind and Glogower [2] demonstrated that no such Hermitian operator exists on the denumerably infinite dimensional space [3] spanned by the number-kets $\{|n\rangle:n=0,1,2, . . . \ \infty \}$. They proposed, instead, the use of a polar decomposition of $\hat{a}$ with the opposite ordering; the Susskind-Glogower (SG) phase operator, $\widehat{e^{i\phi}}\equiv(\hat{a}\hat{a}^\dagger)^{-1/2}\hat{a}$, so that the SG operator is a pure lowering operator which stops (i.e., yields the null ket) at the vacuum:
\begin{equation}
\hat{A}|n\rangle = |n-1\rangle \ (\forall n\ge1)\ \ \text{and} \ \ \hat{A}|0\rangle = 0,
\end{equation}
where to simplify the notation we let $ \hat{A} \equiv \widehat{e^{i \phi}}$. Thus the SG operator has a number representation given by: $\hat{A} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} | n \rangle \langle n +1 |$. Due to the bound on photon number eigenspectra (i.e., the absence of negative energy eigenstates) this translation however cannot be unitary. It can only be one-sided unitary, i.e., $\hat{A} {\hat{A}}^{\dagger} = \hat{I}$ but ${\hat{A}}^{\dagger}\hat{A} = \hat{I} - \hat{V}$ where $\hat{I}$ is the identity operator on the state space of a single harmonic oscillator and $\hat{V} \equiv |0\rangle \langle 0 |$ is the vacuum projector. Thus, pure translation on a bounded state space cannot be unitary; therefore it cannot be expressed as the power series of an Hermitian (i.e., self-adjoint) operator.
In light of an ever improving understanding of what it means to associate a measurement with an operator which doesn't commute with its adjoint, we [4], [5] demonstrated a connection between the SG operator and Helstrom's maximum likelihood (ML) quantum phase estimator [6]. Helstrom was not concerned with polar decompositions of the annihilation operator, nor with obtaining a description of a phase measurement that is complementary to that of photon counting.
The ML measurement is based on the state-dependent kets:
\begin{equation}
|\phi,\psi \rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} e^{i (n \phi + \chi_{n})} |n \rangle
\end{equation}
where the $ \chi_{n}$ are the phases of the number-ket expansion coefficients, $\psi_n \equiv \langle n | \psi \rangle$.
Thus, the ML phase estimation procedure can be decomposed into two steps: the first being to effectively remove the phases of the input quantum state's number-ket expansion coefficients, $\psi_n$, i.e., these phases are all effectively set to be equal to zero. This first step can only be omitted if the $\psi_n$ are already real. The second step turns out to be equivalent to performing a relative phase measurement between two oscillators (complementary to the measurement of the difference in their photon numbers) when one of those oscillators is in the vacuum state [7], [8] --- resulting in the single oscillator (or single-mode) phase statistics, which are $\it{fuzzy}$ in a sense that we will elucidate herein. Thus the ML statistics correspond to the single-mode statistics for the case of states with real $\psi_n$, as depicted in the Venn diagram of Fig.\ 1.
Concurrently (with respect to [4], [5]) and independently, an alternate method for obtaining the single oscillator statistics was derived by Pegg and Barnett [9], [10]. Their approach requires the truncation of the infinite-dimensional state space of a harmonic oscillator to one of finite but arbitrarily large dimension. This subspace, denoted ${\mathcal{H}^T}(s)$, is spanned by the number-kets $\{ | n \rangle : 0 \le n \le s \}$. When $s$ is finite the resulting Pegg-Barnett (PB) discrete-phase kets are an orthogonal subset of the single-mode continuous phase-kets, as depicted in Fig.\ 1. This approach is described in Appendix 1 but it is important to note in passing that: {\it when s is finite} the discrete-phase measurement is ``sharp'' (i.e., it permits wavefunction collapse via projections onto the eigenkets of an Hermitian operator). Yet we also have that: {\it when instead} the limit $s \rightarrow \infty$ is taken,
these discrete-phase statistics converge (in distribution, i.e., in as much as rational numbers can converge to real numbers) to those of a fundamentally ``fuzzy'' measurement --- the single-mode continuous phase statistics (i.e., the continuous envelope to which they converge cannot collapse to a delta-function). Thus, unless $s$ is left to be finite, this is an alternate means of calculating the same statistics via a limiting procedure.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{fig9R2-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Hierarchy of Some Quantum Phase Measurements}
\end{figure}
The connection to the SG operator is as follows. Although the SG operator has other eigenkets (the coherent phase states [11]) we restrict our attention to the infinite energy subset of these --- the continuous phase-kets, of number representation:
\begin{equation}
|\phi \rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} e^{in\phi} | n \rangle
\end{equation}
which are normailzable in the continuous $\phi$ domain [12]. The restriction to these was made not only to connect with the essence of ML phase estimation; but (more significantly) to obtain complementarity to the measurement of photon number. These kets have been said [13] to be of fundamental importance because they underlie ML phase estimation. It was also noted [7], [8] however that these phase-kets are of even greater significance because they provide the first of three layers of understanding complementarity in a more general context. Complementarity at the first layer corresponds to the fuzzy single-mode case (depicted in Fig. 1, which generalizes the ML measurement and to which the PB measurement can converge).
The second and third layers of understanding can only be achieved when we extend beyond the fuzzy measurement by working in a state space larger than that of a single oscillator --- as we will in the next section.
The SG operator does not commute with its adjoint, hence it is not comprised of a set of commuting Hermitian operators. Therefore the measurement statistics we associate with it cannot be calculated via the familiar Hermitian operator rules (e.g., moments calculated via $\langle\psi|\hat{A}^{k}|\psi\rangle$ for $k=1, 2,...$ do \textit{not} correspond to the single-mode statistics).
Quantum measurements can be described in terms of wavefunctions (as well as operators) and perhaps the simplest path to the single-mode statistics is to form the phase wavefunction
\begin{equation}
\psi(\phi) \equiv \langle\phi|\psi\rangle,
\end{equation}
from which the phase probability distribution $P(\phi)=|\psi(\phi)|^{2}/(2 \pi)$, and its associated moments follow directly. This will be formally justified below but it stems from the fact that the (non-orthogonal) phase-kets are complete:
\begin{equation}
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{d\phi}{2\pi} |\phi \rangle \langle \phi | = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} |n \rangle \langle n | = \hat{I}.
\end{equation}
The resolution of the identity by the phase-kets in (6) permits the extremely useful phase representation of an arbitrary quantum state:
\begin{equation}
| \psi \rangle = \hat{I} | \psi \rangle = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{d\phi}{2\pi} \langle \phi | \psi \rangle \ | \phi \rangle,
\end{equation}
analogous to the familiar number-ket expansion of a state:
\begin{equation}
| \psi \rangle = \hat{I} | \psi \rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \langle n | \psi \rangle \ | n \rangle.
\end{equation}
Just as the number-ket expansion coefficients, $\psi_n \equiv \langle n | \psi \rangle$, may be viewed as a wavefunction in discrete n-space, the inner product $\psi(\phi) \equiv \langle \phi | \psi \rangle$ is a wavefunction in continuous $\phi$--space.
The Fourier transform between the number and phase wavefunctions:
\begin{equation}
\psi(\phi) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \psi_n e^{-in\phi} \ \longleftrightarrow \ \psi_n = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{d\phi}{2\pi} \psi(\phi) e^{in\phi},
\end{equation}
demonstrates the complementarity of photon number and quantum phase.
Thus, to reveal the phase properties of an arbitrary state, we can simply take the familiar number-ket expansion coefficients, $\psi_n$, to be the Fourier series coefficients for $\psi(\phi)$ --- which underlies the harmonic oscillator's continuous and periodic phase distribution. Several relations among $\psi_n$ and $\psi(\phi)$ are reminiscent of those encountered in Schrodinger's wave mechanics. Analogous to the position representation of the momentum operator $\hat{p} \rightarrow -i\hbar \frac{d}{dx}$, for example, we have a phase representation of the number operator, $\hat{n} \rightarrow - i\frac{d}{dx}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (\hat{n})^k \rangle = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{d\phi}{2\pi} \psi^* (\phi) (-i \frac{d}{d\phi})^k \psi(\phi) \nonumber \\ ( \forall \ \rm{integer} \ \it{ k}).
\end{eqnarray}
We note in passing, however, that differentiation with respect to a discrete variable is an undefined operation.
Alternatively we might have arrived at this, (4) -- (10), without any reference to the SG operator, via a general theory of complementarity (as is done in Appendix 2, and as is $\it{required}$ for the fuzzy description of the angle of a particle of finite angular momentum, since then there is also an upper bound on the complementary eigenspectra and that prohibits a lowering operator from having any eigenkets at all). Historically such an obvious approach (resulting in a Fourier transform between complementary wavefunctions) has been slow to gain acceptance --- leading to a lack of time and angle operators in quantum theory --- due to the mathematical subtleties which arise from our perfectly valid predelection for Hermitian operators (and/or equivalently for wavefunctions that can collapse). One might argue that these can now be accepted as ``fuzzy'' measurements, i.e., non-projection valued POMs (probability operator measures) [14] so that, at layer 1, this $\it{is}$ a solution since these measurements do exist. The author however views fuzzy measurements as ``incomplete descriptions'' [7], [8] of a realizable measurement; and would argue that one still needs to achieve a (sharp) ``complete description'' of such measurements in terms of sets of commuting Hermitian operators and their associated collapsible wavefunctions to fully understand the complementarity alluded to at this first layer.
A non-projection valued POM is simply a resolution of the identity operator by non-orthogonal eigenkets [14]. The bound in
their complementary eigenspectra
prevents orthogonality for the single-mode phase-kets of (4). Equivalently, (9) describes a one-sided Fourier series, but it would take a two-sided Fourier series to represent a delta-function. The limited dimensionality of the space in one domain cannot support such sharp behavior in the complementary wavefunction.
This limitation does more than prohibit delta-functions, it restricts the class of single-mode phase statistics to those which must satisfy a Paley-Weiner theorem [15] which can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{d\phi}{2\pi} | log | \psi(\phi)|| < \infty .
\end{equation}
This theorem demonstrates, for example, that $|\psi (\phi)|$ cannot vanish over an interval of non-zero width. The limited dimensionality of the underlying wavefunctions simply cannot support such sharp behavior. Thus the single-mode phase distribution, $P(\phi)$, can vanish (equal zero) only at isolated points in $\phi$.
\subsection{Examples of Naimark's Extension Theorem}
The fact that non-projection valued POMs do correspond to realizable quantum measurements can be made more palatable via Naimark's Extension Theorem [14] which (to paraphrase) states that these correspond to the measurement of sets of commuting Hermitian operators defined on a larger state space when subsets of that larger space are not entangled with the state of the original space prior to the measurement. In this section we describe two examples from quantum optics in which the original space $\mathcal{H}_{s}$ is that of a single-mode (i.e., a single harmonic oscillator --- the original system of interest); the larger space is the product space $\mathcal{H}_{s} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{a}$ of the original mode with some additional (a.k.a.\ auxiliary) mode on $\mathcal{H}_{a}$ which fundamentally $\it{must}$ be a part of the physical apparatus which realizes the quantum measurement; and the additional mode is ``off'' (\hspace{-1mm} i.e., placed in the vacuum state) prior to the measurement. It is important to note from the onset however that Naimark's extension theorem provides a means of describing a measurement which is $\it{still}$ fuzzy in the aforementioned senses. It does not provide a general means of extending to a sharp measurement (as we will in the next section) although it can sometimes give clues as to how that might proceed.
Clearly the operator $\hat{o} = \hat{x} + i \hat{y}$, where $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ are the commuting (hence simultaneously measureable) $x$ and $y$ position operators, is measureable in the sharp sense (since it commutes with its adjoint [16]).
For an operator such as $\hat{a} = \hat{x} + i \hat{p}$ however, where $\hat{p}$ is the x-component of the momentum operator, we certainly cannot directly associate a sharp measurement since a perfectly precise simultaneous measurement of its real and imaginary components would constitute a violation of the uncertainty principle (i.e., $\hat{a}$ does not commute with its adjoint). We can however associate a quantum measurement with such an operator in a fuzzy sense: a simultaneous measurement of its real and imaginary components which is not perfectly precise in either. That such a measurement exists stems from the fact that the eigenkets of this annihilation operator (the coherent states $| \alpha \rangle $ [17]) are complete, i.e., they resolve the identity operator; and completeness alone is sufficient to guarantee that $|\langle \alpha | \psi \rangle | ^{2}$ is a perfectly valid PDF (probability distribution function) which must therefore, in some sense, describe a realizable quantum measurement. The fact that the coherent states are not orthogonal is a reflection of the fact that this is a fuzzy measurement.
\newline
\indent
Fundamental to the realizable measurement of any operator which does not commute with its adjoint is the existence of an auxiliary noise source. Zero-point fluctuations [18] from this auxiliary mode prevent a perfectly precise simultaneous measurement of the non-commuting real and imaginary parts of the original operator (so that the uncertainty principle is not violated). We can see this more clearly by extending the operator of interest to a larger space.
Any quantum measurement described by a non-projection valued POM on $\mathcal{H}_s$
can be represented by a collection of commuting observables on a larger Hilbert space. The utility of this representation lies in the identification of the aforementioned noise source. This auxiliary system is an integral part of the physical apparatus which realizes the quantum measurement.
\newline
\indent
Formally, the procedure is to find the Naimark extension, on $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_s \otimes \mathcal{H}_a$, of the desired POM on $\mathcal{H}_s$. For our purpose, this amounts to finding an operator on $\mathcal{H}$, say ${\widehat{E}}_{s\otimes a}$, which commutes with its adjoint such that its real and imaginary parts form a pair of commuting observables (a.k.a.\ Hermitian operators). Furthermore, we require that the measurement statistics of ${\widehat{E}}_{s\otimes a}$ reproduce those of the original operator on $\mathcal{H}_s$ (associated with the desired POM) when the auxiliary system is in some appropriate quantum state.
\newline
\indent
We consider now a product space description of the measurement associated with the annihilation operator $\hat{a}_s$, for a single quantum harmonic oscillator, defined on the space $\mathcal{H}_s$. When this oscillator is used to model a single mode of the electromagnetic field, this measurement can be realized by the heterodyne detection process and the non-commuting real and imaginary parts of $\hat{a}_s$, denoted $\hat{\chi}_s$ and $\hat{\rho}_s$ respectively, represent the in-phase and quadrature field components. It has been shown [19] that one extension of $\hat{a}_s$ onto $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_s \otimes \mathcal{H}_a$ is
\begin{equation}
\hat{y} \equiv \hat{a}_s \otimes \hat{I}_a + \hat{I}_s \otimes \hat{a}_a^\dagger,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{a}_a = \hat{\chi}_a + i\hat{\rho}_a$ is the annihilation operator for the auxiliary mode. Since operators on different spaces commute, we have $[\hat{y},\hat{y}^\dagger] = 0$ so that the real and imaginary parts of $\hat{y}$, denoted as $\widehat{X}$ and $\widehat{P}$, comprise a pair of commuting observables.
Notice that when the auxiliary mode is in the vacuum state the expected values of $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{P}$, in this realizable measurement of $\hat{a}_s$, are the same as those of two $distinct$ measurements of the non-commuting operators, $\hat{\chi}_s$ and $\hat{\rho}_s$ on two identically prepared systems :
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{X}\rangle_{s\otimes a}
= \ _{s}\langle \psi | \hat{\chi}_s | \psi \rangle_s + \ _{a}\langle 0 | \hat{\chi}_a | 0 \rangle_a = \ _{s}\langle \psi | \hat{\chi}_s | \psi \rangle_s
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{P} \rangle_{s\otimes a}
= \ _{s}\langle \psi | \hat{\rho}_s | \psi \rangle_s - \ _{a}\langle 0 | \hat{\rho}_a | 0 \rangle_a = \ _{s}\langle \psi | \hat{\rho}_s | \psi \rangle_s
\end{equation}
where we used $\widehat{X} \equiv (\hat{y} + \hat{y}^{\dagger})/2 = \hat{\chi}_s \otimes \hat{I}_a + \hat{I}_s \otimes \hat{\chi}_a$ and $\widehat{P} \equiv (\hat{y} - \hat{y}^{\dagger})/2i = \hat{\rho}_s \otimes \hat{I}_a - \hat{I}_s \otimes \hat{\rho}_a$.
For the second moments however, we find
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{X}^2 \rangle_{s\otimes a}= \ _{s}\langle \psi | {\hat{\chi}_s}^2 | \psi \rangle_s + \ _{a}\langle 0 | {\hat{\chi}_a}^2 | 0 \rangle_a = \\
\ _{s}\langle \psi | {\hat{\chi}_s}^2 | \psi \rangle_s + 1/4
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{P}^2 \rangle_{s\otimes a} = \ _{s}\langle \psi | {\hat{\rho}_s}^2 | \psi \rangle_s + \ _{a}\langle 0 | {\hat{\rho}_a}^2 | 0 \rangle_a = \ _{s}\langle \psi | {\hat{\rho}_s}^2 | \psi \rangle_s + 1/4.
\end{equation}
The variance of a measurement of $\hat{\chi}_s$ on the original system (of state space $\mathcal{H}_s$) is $\langle\Delta {\hat{\chi}_s}^2\rangle \equiv \ _s\langle\psi|{\hat{\chi}_s}^2|\psi\rangle_s - ( _s\langle\psi|\hat{\chi}_s|\psi\rangle_s )^2$. The variance of a $separate$ or independent measurement of $\widehat{\rho}_s$, on an identically prepared system, is $\langle\Delta {\hat{\rho}_s}^2\rangle \equiv \ _s\langle\psi|{\hat{\rho}_s}^2|\psi\rangle_s - ( _s\langle\psi|\hat{\rho}_s|\psi\rangle_s )^2$. Therefore the variances of the outcomes $X$ and/or $P$, for the simultaneous measurement of $\widehat{X}$ and $\widehat{P}$ on $\mathcal{H}$, are larger than $\langle\Delta{\hat{\chi}_s}^2\rangle$ and/or $\langle\Delta{\hat{\rho}_s}^2\rangle$ by 1/4. The additive terms of 1/4 arise from the zero-point fluctuations of the auxiliary system. Similar terms appeared in the Arthurs and Kelly derivation of an uncertainty principle for the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum [20].
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.05]{fig2_update-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Heterodyne Detection }
\end{figure}
In the measurement apparatus of heterodyne detection, the auxiliary noise source is the ``image'' electromagnetic mode (characterized by annihilation operator $\hat{a}_a$) which resides at the same frequency displacement from the classical local oscillator (LO) frequency as does the original mode of interest (characterized by annihilation operator $\hat{a}_s$) as in Fig.\ 2. Even a classical treatment of heterodyning reveals that the beat of the image band with the local oscillator is mapped onto the same detector frequency as the beat of the local oscillator with the original signal. Quantum mechanically, however, we note that we cannot turn the image mode off in the sense that when it is in the vacuum state we have zero-point fluctuations which contribute noise to the detected signal. This noise (essential for preventing the unrealizable perfectly precise measurement of $\hat{\chi}_s$ and $\hat{\rho}_s$) is seen to be irrevocably imbedded in the measurement apparatus of the heterodyne detection process.
Extensions of this type are not unique and Naimark's theorem is only meant to recover the fuzzy statistics (not go beyond them).
Algebraically, we see that for any operator $\widehat{O}_s$ whose commutator with it's adjoint is $\widehat{C}_s \equiv [\widehat{O}_s,{\widehat{O}_s}^\dagger]$ one such extension is $\widehat{E} = \widehat{O}_s \otimes \widehat{C}_a + {\widehat{C}_s}^\dagger \otimes {\widehat{O}_a}^\dagger$; provided that ${\widehat{C}}^2 = \widehat{C}$ (as it does for $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{A}$).
Let $\widehat{A}_s$ be the SG operator for the original system of interest; an extension of this form onto $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_s \otimes \mathcal{H}_a$ is
\begin{equation}
\widehat{Y} \equiv \widehat{A}_s \otimes \widehat{V}_a + \widehat{V}_s \otimes {\widehat{A}_a}^\dagger.
\end{equation}
We can also see explicitly, from the number representations of $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{A}^\dagger$, and recalling the definition of the vacuum projector, $\widehat{V}=|0\rangle\langle0|$, we have
\begin{equation}
\widehat{A} \ \widehat{V} = 0 = \widehat{V} \hspace{.5mm} \widehat{A}^\dagger
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
[\widehat{Y}, {\widehat{Y}^\dagger}] = [\widehat{A}_s , {{\widehat{A}_s}^\dagger}] \otimes \widehat{V}_a + \widehat{V}_s \otimes [{\widehat{A}_a^\dagger}, \widehat{A}_a] = 0.
\end{equation}
Next, by solving for the eigenkets of $\widehat{Y}$, we obtain the $\widehat{Y}$ measurement statistics for an arbitrary state, $|\psi \rangle_{s\otimes a} \equiv \Sigma_{n_{s}, n_{a}} \psi_{n_{s}, n_{a}} | n_{s}, n_{a} \rangle$, on $\mathcal{H}$. Setting $\widehat{Y}|Y\rangle=Y|Y\rangle$ yeilds
\begin{equation}
|Y\rangle = \sum_{n_{s} = 0}^{\infty} e^{in_{s} \phi} | n_{s}, 0\rangle + \sum_{n_{a} = 1}^{\infty} e^{-in_{a} \phi} | 0, n_{a}\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $Y=e^{i\phi}$. The eigenvalue, $Y$, could also be zero, in which case the corresponding eigenket can be any superposition of ``off-axis'' number states, i.e., those which do not involve $|n_s, 0\rangle$ or $|0, n_a \rangle$. When the auxiliary mode is in the vacuum state, $|\psi_a\rangle_a=|0\rangle_a$, the general result reduces to the following: the outcome of the $\widehat{Y}$ measurement is a complex number of unit magnitude, $Y=e^{i\phi}$, and the probability distribution for its phase is
\begin{equation}
p(\phi) = \frac{1}{2\pi} | _s\langle \phi | \psi \rangle_s |^2
\end{equation}
--- identical to that from the POM description of the measurement associated with $\widehat{A}$.
The single complex-valued outcome, $Y=e^{i\phi}$, of the $\widehat{Y}$ measurement may also be viewed as a pair of real-valued results, $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$, where $Y=Y_1 + iY_2$. The fact that $\widehat{Y}$ commutes with its adjoint implies that its real and imaginary parts, $\widehat{Y}_1\equiv(\widehat{Y}+\widehat{Y}^\dagger )/2$ and $\widehat{Y}_2 \equiv (\widehat{Y} - \widehat{Y}^\dagger)/2i$, are commuting observables. These can also be written in the form $\widehat{Y}_1 = \widehat{C}_s \otimes \widehat{V}_a + \widehat{V}_s \otimes \widehat{C}_a$ and $\widehat{Y}_2 = \widehat{S}_s \otimes \widehat{V}_a - \widehat{V}_s \otimes \widehat{S}_a$ (where $\widehat{C}$ and $\widehat{S}$ are the real and imaginary parts of $\widehat{A}$). The expected values of these, from a single $\widehat{Y}$ measurement with the auxiliary mode in the vacuum state, are identical to those of the two distinct measurements of $\widehat{C}$ and $\widehat{S}$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \widehat{Y}_1 \rangle_{s\otimes a} & = &
\ _{s}\langle \psi | \widehat{C}_s | \psi \rangle_s \ _{a}\langle 0 | \widehat{V}_a | 0 \rangle_a \ +\ |\psi_0|^2 \ _{a} \langle 0 | \widehat{C}_a | 0 \rangle_a \nonumber \\
& = & \ _{s}\langle \psi | \widehat{C}_s | \psi \rangle_s
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{Y}_2 \rangle_{s\otimes a}
= \ _{s}\langle \psi | \widehat{S}_s | \psi \rangle_s .
\end{equation}
For the second moments, first note that
\begin{equation}
{\widehat{Y}_1}^2 = {\widehat{C}_s}^2 \otimes \widehat{V}_a + \widehat{V}_s \otimes {\widehat{C}_a}^2 + \frac{{{\widehat{A}_s}^\dagger}\widehat{V}_s}{2} \otimes \frac{\widehat{V}_a \widehat{A}_a}{2} + \frac{\widehat{V}_s \widehat{A}_s}{2} \otimes \frac{{{\widehat{A}_a}^\dagger}\widehat{V}_a}{2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{\widehat{Y}_2}^2 = {\widehat{S}_s}^2 \otimes \widehat{V}_a + \widehat{V}_s \otimes {\widehat{S}_a}^2 - \frac{{{\widehat{A}_s}^\dagger}\widehat{V}_s}{2} \otimes \frac{\widehat{V}_a \widehat{A}_a}{2} - \frac{\widehat{V}_s \widehat{A}_s}{2} \otimes \frac{{{\widehat{A}_a}^\dagger}\widehat{V}_a}{2}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, since $\widehat{V}\widehat{A}=|0\rangle\langle1|$ and ${\widehat{A}}^{\dagger}\widehat{V}=|1\rangle\langle0|$, the second moments of $\widehat{Y}_1$ and $\widehat{Y}_2$ in a $\widehat{Y}$ measurement with the auxiliary mode in the vacuum state are
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \widehat{Y}_1 ^2 \rangle_{s\otimes a} & = &
\ _s\langle \psi | {\widehat{C}_s}^2|\psi \rangle_s+ |\psi_{0}|^{2} \ _a\langle 0|{\widehat{C}_a}^{2}|0\rangle_a \nonumber \\
& = & \ _s\langle \psi |{\widehat{C}_s}^{2}|\psi\rangle_s + \frac{|\psi_{0}|^2}{4}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle \widehat{Y}_2 ^2 \rangle_{s\otimes a} = \ _s\langle\psi|{\widehat{S}_s}^2|\psi\rangle_s + \frac{|\psi_{0}|^2}{4}
\end{equation}
To interpret the real and imaginary components let us return momentarily to the original notation of the SG operator $\widehat{A} \rightarrow \widehat{e^{i\phi}}$.
The fact that the SG operator does not commute with its adjoint implies that its Hermitian real and imaginary parts, $\widehat{C} \equiv (\widehat{e^{i\phi}} + \widehat{e^{-i\phi}})/2$ and $\widehat{S} \equiv (\widehat{e^{i\phi}} - \widehat{e^{-i\phi}})/2i$ , do not commute: $[\widehat{C}, \widehat{S}] = i\widehat{V}/2$.
Classically we have the trigonometric identity:
\begin{eqnarray}
& 1 = (e^{i\phi}) (e^{-i\phi}) & = (cos \ \phi + i \ sin \ \phi)(cos \ \phi - i \ sin \ \phi) \nonumber \\
& & = cos^2 \phi + sin^2 \phi.
\end{eqnarray}
Quantum mechanically, we have $\hat{I} = (\widehat{e^{i\phi}})(\widehat{e^{-i\phi}})$, so
\begin{eqnarray}
&1 & = \langle (\widehat{C} + i \widehat{S}) (\widehat{C} - i\widehat{S}) \rangle
= \langle \widehat{C}^2 \rangle + \langle \widehat{S}^2 \rangle - i \langle[\widehat{C}, \widehat{S}]\rangle \nonumber \\
& &= \langle \widehat{C}^2 \rangle + \langle \widehat{S}^2 \rangle + \frac{|\psi_o|^2}{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The moments of $\widehat{A}$, or equivalently those of $\widehat{C}$ and $\widehat{S}$ do not correspond to a realizable quantum measurement; but the moments of $\widehat{Y}_{1}$ and $\widehat{Y}_{2}$ do and from (25), (26) and (29) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\langle{\widehat{Y}_1}^{2}\rangle_{s\otimes a} + \langle{\widehat{Y}_2}^{2} \rangle_{s\otimes a} = 1
\end{equation}
--- in accordance with the assertion that the outcome of the $\widehat{Y}$ measurement is a complex number of unity magnitude: $Y=e^{i\phi}$.
The physical apparatus which realizes the $\widehat{Y}$ measurement has not yet been identified. The presence of the auxiliary mode, however, $must$ (on physical grounds) be an inextricable part of this apparatus --- as it is in heterodyne detection.
\section{Beyond Naimark --- Complementary Phase at the second layer of understanding}
In this section we provide an example of how one can extend the SG operator onto a subset of the two-mode space in order to
describe a sharp
quantum phase measurement which yields the next layer of understanding complementarity (be it for phase, time or an angle). There are an infinite number of such subsets that can be defined on a two-mode space, but a general theory (and final layer of understanding) on an unrestricted two-mode space will be discussed in section IV.
Historically, $\widehat{Y}$ was derived on physical (rather than algebraic) grounds to achieve a sharp measurement, rather than just recover the fuzzy statistics [7], [8] as follows.
Clearly the problems in formulating a time or angle operator stem from the bounded eigenspectra of the complementary quantity (energy or angular momentum). E.g., for a phase operator it's the absence of negative energy states for the quantum harmonic oscillator which leads to the SG operator not commuting with its adjoint.
The SG operator cannot lower below the vacuum (2) since there are no ``negative-number'' (negative energy) states for the oscillator. The extension, $\widehat{Y}$, however: lowers the original system mode photon number
\begin{equation}
\widehat{Y}|n_{s}\rangle_{s}|0\rangle_{a} = |n_{s} - 1\rangle_{s}|0\rangle_{a} \ \ (n_{s} \ge 1);
\end{equation}
then {\em{continues}} through the vacuum
\begin{equation}
\widehat{Y}|0\rangle_{s}|0\rangle_{a} = |0\rangle_{s}|1\rangle_{a}
\end{equation}
and raises the auxiliary mode photon number
\begin{equation}
\widehat{Y}|0\rangle_{s}|n_{a}\rangle_{a} = |0\rangle_{s}|n_{a}+1\rangle_{a}.
\end{equation}
Topologically, it is as if $\widehat{Y}$ continues to lower below the vacuum into the auxiliary (negative-number) mode. The visualization of this behavioral aspect can be facilitated by simply relabeling the number states according to the value of $m=n_{s} - n_{a}$.
One might anticipate that these translations in energy difference will lead to complementarity between $m$ and the ``relative phase'' between the two oscillators.
Indeed, let us relabel the $\widehat{Y}$ eigenkets as
\begin{equation}
|\phi \rangle ' = \sum_{n_{s}=0}^{\infty} e^{in_{s}\phi} \ |n_{s}\rangle_{s}|0\rangle_{a} +\sum_{n_{a}=1}^{\infty} e^{-in_{a}\phi}| \ 0\rangle_{s}|n_{a}\rangle_{a}.
\end{equation}
These reside on a subset, $\mathcal{H}'$, of $\mathcal{H}_{s} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{a}$ which is spanned by ${|n_{s}\rangle_{s}|n_{a}\rangle_{a} : n_{s}n_{a} = 0}$.
When the auxiliary mode is in the vacuum state ($n_a = 0$), the $\widehat{Y}$ measurement yields the single-mode statistics and their attendant Paley-Wiener restriction.
We can go {\it{beyond}} these fuzzy statistics by exciting the auxiliary mode to create an arbitrary state on $\mathcal{H}'$:
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle = \sum_{n_{s}=0}^{\infty}\psi_{n_{s},0} \ |n_{s}\rangle_{s}|0\rangle_{a} +\sum_{n_{a}=1}^{\infty} \psi_{0,n_{a}} \ |0\rangle_{s}|n_{a}\rangle_{a}.
\end{equation}
Let $\psi_m \equiv \psi_{m,0} \ (\forall m \ge 0)$ and $\psi_m \equiv \psi_{0,-m} \ (\forall m < 0)$. The generalized phase wavefunction,
\begin{equation}
\psi' (\phi) \equiv \ '\langle\phi|\psi\rangle = \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} \psi_{m}e^{-im\phi}
\end{equation}
is a two-sided Fourier series. The Paley-Wiener restriction is removed and the $\psi^\prime(\phi)$ can now ``collapse'' to a delta-function.
Commensurate with its negative-number behavioral aspect, the auxiliary mode can be interpreted as a phase-reversed mode in the following sense. Consider the case of when the auxiliary mode is in the vacuum state $(n_a = 0)$ and denote an initial state by $|\psi \rangle_{0}$. The state (in the Schrodinger picture) after time evolution of an amount $\tau$ is
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{\tau}\rangle = e^{-i(\hat{n}_{s}+\hat{n}_{a})\omega\tau}|\psi_{0}\rangle \big{|}_{n_{a} = 0} = e^{-i\hat{n}_{s} \omega\tau}|\psi_{0}\rangle
\end{equation}
so that the relation between the generalized phase representations of the initial and delayed states is
simply
\begin{equation}
\psi'_{\tau}(\phi) = \psi'_{0}(\phi + \omega \tau) \ \ (n_{a} =0).
\end{equation}
Now consider the case of the original system being in the vacuum state $(n_s = 0)$. The Schrodinger picture of the delayed version of an initial state $|\psi \rangle_{0}$ is
\begin{equation}
|\psi_{\tau}\rangle = e^{-i(\hat{n}_{s}+\hat{n}_{a})\omega\tau}|\psi_{0}\rangle \big{|}_{n_{s} = 0} = e^{-i\hat{n}_{a} \omega\tau}|\psi_{0}\rangle.
\end{equation}
The initial and delayed generalized phase representations for this case are related by
\begin{equation}
\psi'_{\tau}(\phi) = \psi'_{0}(\phi - \omega \tau) \ \ (n_{s} =0).
\end{equation}
Thus the two modes are phase-reversed in that, under time evolution, the $n_{a}\ge1$ portion of the generalized phase wavefunction moves backwards with respect to the $n_{s}\ge1$ portion.
Of course there is nothing mysterious about the fact that the energy difference, $m$, can be negative. Nor does the phase reversed aspect of the auxiliary mode imply a violation of temporal causality since $\phi$ (which is complementary to $m$) turns out to be the relative phase between the two modes, as we now demonstrate; which will also start to define what we mean by ``relative phase'' which of course implies a quantum measurement. In so doing we shall also set the stage for the general two-mode relative phase representation (which does not require restriction of the state to $\mathcal{H}'$).
Generalizing complementarity to be viewed as Fourier relations among wavefunctions, we anticipate that what might be of use here is to start with the two dimensional Fourier transform of the $\{\psi_{n_{s},n_{a}}\}$. Indeed, $\Psi(\phi_{s},\phi_{a}) \equiv \ _{s}\langle\phi_{s}| \ _{a}\langle\phi_{a}|\psi\rangle$ provides this:
\begin{equation}
\Psi(\phi_{s},\phi_{a}) = \sum_{n_{s}=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n_{a}=0}^{\infty} \psi_{n_{s},n_{a}} e^{-in_{s}\phi_{s}} e^{-in_{a}\phi_{a}},
\end{equation}
where $| \psi \rangle$ is now an arbitrary state on $\mathcal{H}_{s} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{a}$ with number-ket expansion coefficients $\psi_{n_{s},n_{a}} \hspace{-.5mm} \equiv \hspace{-.5mm} \ _{s}\langle n_{s}| \ _{a}\langle n_{a}|\psi\rangle$ and $|\Psi (\phi_{s},\phi_{a})|^{2}/(2\pi)^2$ is the probability density function for the simultaneous measurement of $\phi_s$ and $\phi_a$.
Under the change of variables
\begin{equation}
{\Phi_{\Sigma}} \equiv (\phi_{s} + \phi_{a})/2, \ \ {\Phi_{\Delta}} \equiv (\phi_{s} - \phi_{a})/2,
\end{equation}
we map to a different wavefunction
\begin{equation}
\psi (\Phi_{\Sigma},\Phi_{\Delta}) = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=-j}^{j} \psi_{n_{s},n_{a}} e^{-i(j\Phi_{\Sigma})}e^{-i(m\Phi_{\Delta})}
\end{equation}
where $j \equiv n_{s} + n_{a}$; so that $n_{s} \rightarrow (j+m)/2$ and $n_{a} \rightarrow (j-m)/2$ in the above. Notice that by making the change of variables in the wavefunction (rather than in the PDF) we have also changed the quantum measurement. If instead we made a similar change of variables in the PDF it would correspond to measuring both $\phi_s$ and $\phi_a$ first and then adding and/or subtracting the results; but that is not what $\Phi_\Sigma$ and $\Phi_\Delta$ represent in (43).
Since $j$ is bounded from below, the sum phase, $\Phi_{\Sigma}$, is not measureable in the sharp sense.
In section IV two
reasonable ways of dealing with $\Phi_{\Sigma}$ and hence defining a direct measurement of the relative phase $\phi_{\Delta}$ on $\mathcal{H}_s \otimes \mathcal{H}_a$ are presented.
For states restricted to $\mathcal{H}'$, one of these ways can be obtained from (43) and we find
\begin{equation}
\psi(\Phi_{\Sigma} =0, \Phi_{\Delta}=\phi)|_{on\mathcal{H}'} = \psi'(\phi)
\end{equation}
which demonstrates that the argument in $\psi^\prime(\phi)$ is a relative phase as asserted.
We can define a relative phase measurement between any two modes we wish. If however we choose two modes which are already time or phase reversed in some physical sense
(e.g., an electromagnetic mode of wavevector $\bar{k}$ and another of wavevector $- \bar{k}$)
then the formalism can lead to more physical insight. For example, if the two modes are the right and left circular polarizations of an electromagnetic plane wave then the relative phase measurement is equal to (not just isomorphic to) the quantum angle measurement.
As clarified in the next section, for such photons our definitions of $j$ and $m$ and the change of variables in (42) are appropriate. If instead of such photons our harmonic oscillators (modeling angular momenta) are Schwinger's [21] fermionic primitives then the factors of one-half should go elsewhere (we would divide $j$ and $m$ by two in the above definitions and multiply by two in (42) for the appropriate change of variables).
\section{Harmonic Oscillator Models of Angular Momenta}
In 1952 Schwinger [21] demonstrated a connection between the algebra of two uncoupled harmonic oscillators and the algebra of angular momenta. In quantum optics this connection has proved useful in the analysis of optical beam splitters [22] although a beam splitter does not actually perform a rotation in physical space and the connection is merely within the mathematics. This connection has also proved useful in calculating the effects of actual rotations on systems but the oscillators (which behave like spin-1/2 bosons) are deemed unphysical [23]. We put more physics into this connection by considering rotations of the electromagnetic field. This leads to a subtle but surprisingly significant modification of Schwinger's model. Also, by describing the oscillator states in the phase representation we will be led to insights on the angles themselves (rather than their conjugate momenta). We begin with a brief summary of the key points of Schwinger's model. Let $\hat{a}_{u}$ and $\hat{a}_{d}$ denote the annihilation operators for two harmonic oscillators which are uncoupled (i.e., independent) so that
\begin{equation}
[\hat{a}_{u}, {\hat{a}_{d}}^{\dagger}] = 0= [\hat{a}_{u}, \hat{a}_{d}].
\end{equation}
Defining
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}_{+} \equiv {\hbar} {\hat{a}_{u}}^{\dagger}{\hat{a}_{d}}, \hspace{2mm} \hat{J}_{-} \equiv {\hbar} {\hat{a}_{d}}^{\dagger}{\hat{a}_{u}} \ \ \text{and} \ \ \hat{J}_{z} \equiv \frac{\hbar}{2}(\hat{\eta}_{u}-\hat{\eta}_{d}),
\end{equation}
it is easy to show that
\begin{equation}
[\hat{J}_{+}, \hat{J}_{-}] = 2{\hbar} \hat{J}_{z} \ \ \text{and} \ \ [\hat{J}_{+}, \hat{J}_{-}] = \pm \hbar \hat{J}_{\pm},
\end{equation}
which are the fundamental communication relations of angular momentum. The raising and lowering operators, $\hat{J}_{\pm}$, can of course be alternatively expressed in terms of the x and y component angular momentum operators as
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}_{\pm}=\hat{J}_{x} \pm i \hat{J}_{y}.
\end{equation}
Since, from (43), $\hat{J}_{\pm}$ raise and lower the eigenvalue of $\hat{J}_{z}/\hbar$ (i.e., $m$) by one, it is as though we have one spin-1/2 particle, with spin up (or down) associated with each quanta of the u (or d) oscillators. The z component of angular momentum is then simply $\hbar/2$ times the difference in the number of up and down quanta, commensurate with (43). Therefore, in terms of eigenvalues we have
\begin{equation}
m=(n_{u}-n_{d})/2 ,
\end{equation}
from which we anticipate $j = (n_{u}+n_{d})/2$, where $\hbar^{2} j (j+1)$ is the eigenvalue of $\hat{J}^{2} \equiv {\hat{J}_{x}}^{2} +{\hat{J}_{y}}^{2}+{\hat{J}_{z}}^{2}$. Indeed,
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}^{2} = \frac{1}{2}(\hat{J}_{+}\hat{J}_{-} +\hat{J}_{-}\hat{J}_{+}) +{\hat{J}_{z}}^{2} = {\hbar}^{2} (\frac{\hat{n}_{u}+\hat{n}_{d}}{2})(\frac{\hat{n}_{u}+\hat{n}_{d}}{2} +1)
\end{equation}
so that
$
j = (n_{u}+n_{d})/2
$
as expected.
In Schwinger's scheme however, a total of two up and down quanta will always yield $ j = 1$, i.e., the anti-symmetric singlet state (of $j=0$) would never occur. As Sakurai
[23]
puts it: ``only totally symmetrical states are constructed by this method. The primitive spin 1/2 particles appearing here are actually {\it{bosons}}! This method is quite adequate if our purpose is to examine the properties under rotations of states characterized by $j$ and $m$ without asking how such states are built up initially.''
Since spin-1/2 particles must obey Fermi statistics we shall not attempt to make physical sense of these {\it{spin-1/2 primitives which act like bosons}} and shall instead simply refer to them as fermionic primitives (mathematical entities which need not be represented in the physical world).
The photon is a boson which nonetheless resembles a fermion in the sense that its spin space is two dimensional, i.e., it is ``spin-1 with m = 0 missing'' [24]. Indeed, two harmonic oscillator modes are sufficient to describe the polarization state of a single k-vector component of an electromagnetic wave since we need only consider the transverse components of its vector potential. Therefore, It seems reasonable to attempt to reconstruct the algebra of angular momenta from these physically significant photonic primitives. We pursue this by considering rotations of the electromagnetic field.
Let $\hat{\bar{A}}$ be the vector potential operator for an electromagnetic wave comprised of the two circularly polarized, $\bar{z}$ propagating, same frequency modes.
By requiring that the expected value of this vector operator transform like a classical vector under rotations, we obtain the
well-known [24] results:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{R}_{z}(\phi) \hspace{.5mm} {\hat{a}_{r}}^{\dagger} \hspace{.5mm} {\widehat{R}_{z}}^{\dagger}(\phi) = {\hat{a}_{r}}^{\dagger}e^{-i\phi}
\hspace{1mm}
\text{and}
\hspace{1mm}
\widehat{R}_{z}(\phi) \hspace{.5mm} {\hat{a}_{l}}^{\dagger} \hspace{.5mm} {\widehat{R}_{z}}^{\dagger}(\phi) = {\hat{a}_{l}}^{\dagger}e^{i\phi}.
\end{equation}
From this Heisenberg picture of a rotation about the z-axis by an amount $\phi$ we have, in the Schrodinger picture, that
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\hat{J}_{z}\phi/ \hbar}|1\rangle_{r} = e^{-i\phi}|1\rangle_{r},
\end{equation}
i.e., a right handed circularly polarized photon is an eigenstate of $\hat{J}_{z}/\hbar$ with eigenvalue $m= +1$, where we used the assumption that the vacuum is rotationally invariant, ${\hat{R}_{z}}^{\dagger}(\phi)|0\rangle = |0\rangle$, and $|1\rangle_{r}$ is $|1,0\rangle \equiv {\hat{a}_{r}}^{\dagger}|0,0\rangle$ in $|n_{r},n_{l}\rangle$ notation. Similarly, a left handed circularly polarized photon is associated with $m = -1$ and therefore photons are said to be particles of spin 1 with $m = 0$ missing. Furthermore, from (51) we find that the Schrodinger picture of a rotation about the z-axis for an arbitrarily polarized field (expressed in the circularly polarized basis) is
\begin{equation}
\widehat{R}_{z} (\phi)|\psi \rangle = \sum_{n_{r}, n_{l}} \psi_{n_{r}, n_{l}}e^{-i(n_{r} - n_{l})\phi}|n_{r}, n_{l}\rangle
\end{equation}
which we notice is physically indistinguishable from a differential phase shift of the two circularly polarized modes. Therefore, when we utilize this rotation to derive its complementary angle-kets, as in Appendix 2; for this choice of modes we would also obtain the relative phase-kets (similarly deriveable under differential phase shift). {\it{Thus, for this particular choice of mode set, the angle and phase measurements are exactly identical (rather than merely isomorphic).}} In any event, the connection between angular momentum and these photonic primitives is clearly
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}_{z} = \hbar (\hat{n}_{r} - \hat{n}_{l}).
\end{equation}
Note the absence of the factor of 1/2 which was present in the case of fermionic primitives. As (54) leads to $m=n_{r} - n_{l}$ we expect $j=n_{r}+ n_{l}$. However because we've scaled up $\hat{J}_{z}$ (by 2) we find that we must also scale up $\hat{J}_{x}$ and $\hat{J}_{y}$ (by 2) in order to make sense of $\hat{J}^{2}$. We can introduce the scaling either in the relation between $\hat{J}_{x,y}$ and $\hat{J}_{+,-}$; or in the definitions of $\hat{J}_{+}$ and $\hat{J}_{-}$. Choosing the latter:
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}_{+} \equiv 2\hbar \ {\hat{a}_{r}}^{\dagger} \ \hat{a}_{l} \ \ \text{and} \ \ \hat{J}_{-} \equiv 2\hbar \ {\hat{a}_{l}}^{\dagger} \ \hat{a}_{r}
\end{equation}
and (48) still holds. This leads to
\begin{equation}
\hat{J}^2 = {\hbar}^2 (\hat{n}_r + \hat{n}_l)(\hat{n}_r + \hat{n}_l + 1)
\end{equation}
so that $j = n_r + n_l$ as desired. An unavoidable consequence of this scaling is the appearance of a factor of 2 in the commutators
\begin{equation}
[\hat{J}_{i},\hat{J}_{j}]= 2i\hbar \ \epsilon_{ijk} \ \hat{J}_{k} \ \ (i,j,k \ \epsilon \ \{ x,y,z \}).
\end{equation}
This however is still the same group (although the structure constant has doubled) i.e., we {\it{have}} reproduced the algebra of angular momenta with these physically interpretable photonic primitives. What has happened is perhaps more clear when viewed in terms of the commutators involving $\hat{J}_{\pm}$.
We now have
\begin{equation}
[\hat{J}_{+},\hat{J}_{-}]= 4\hbar \hat{J}_{z},
\end{equation}
where the 4 comes from scaling up the $\hat{J}_{\pm}$, but there is no way to scale these to alter the fact that we now have
\begin{equation}
[\hat{J}_{z},\hat{J}_{\pm}]= \pm 2\hbar \hat{J}_{\pm}.
\end{equation}
The factor of two that has to appear in (59) is a solution rather than a problem however since it means that $\hat{J}_{\pm}$ will raise and lower the eigenvalue of $\hat{J}_{z}/\hbar$ by two rather than one --- which is exactly what we want! We can also see this from (55) which indicates that $\hat{J}_{-}$ (for example) will annihilate one right handed photon (with z-component angular momentum of $\hbar$) and create one left handed photon (with z-component angular momentum of $-\hbar$) thereby lowering the value of $m$ by two. Thus $\hat{J}_{-}$ lowers the $m=+1$ state immediately to the $m=-1$ state while automatically skipping over the $m=0$ case which does not exist for a photon.
In Fig.\ 3 we indicate the allowed photonic states by points (solid circles) in the $n_{r}, n_{l}$ plane; which is also labeled by $j$ and $m$. Notice that for an odd (or even) total number of photons $m$ must also be odd (or even). The so-called missing states are indicated by empty circles. For ordinary bosons we would ``fill in these holes,'' and as we can still use the angle representation to describe their polarization state we maintain the connection with harmonic oscillators, but then those would have to be the presumed unphysical fermionic primitives for which we would use the $n_{u}/2$ and $n_{d}/2$ axes.
Consider for example the quantum angle representation of the state of a single particle (labeled ``particle'' in Fig.\ 3). Formally, the angle of a particle requires a field for its measurement (else the finite dimensional state space would not permit wavefunction collapse [25]). When the field (also labeled in Fig.\ 3) is comprised of photons (rather than up/down oscillators) the state space for the complete, sharp, description of this measurement is a composite of the state space of the particle and that of the field (for which we could also include the vacuum state in order to turn the field ``off''). For this field/particle system to go beyond the fuzzy statistics the state of the field would have to be entangled with that of the particle prior to the measurement. Otherwise (e.g., if the field was ``off'' prior to the measurement) the outcomes will be Paley-Weiner limited and these ``single-particle'' fuzzy statistics can be obtained via a simple Fourier transform: $\psi(\varphi)=\sum_{m=-j}^{j} \psi_{j,m} \ e^{- i m \varphi}$, where $\varphi$ is the angle about the z-axis.
The fact that the quantum angle distribution cannot vanish over an interval of non-zero width has some interesting physical consequences
such as \textit{spin up really does point up}
in [26].
These phenomena and the necessity of a field etc., would not be revealed if we restricted our attention to a different measurement --- the discrete-angle measurement [27] which can be described by an Hermitian operator on the space of a single particle via a wrap-around term (depicted by the semi-circle in Fig. 3) akin to that of Pegg and Barnett [9], [10]. Unlike the case of discrete-phase convergence to the fuzzy single-mode phase statistics however, the discrete-angle statistics cannot converge to the fuzzy single-particle angle statistics since we can't just take the limit $j \rightarrow \infty$ and still be referring to a spin-$j$ particle. Moreover the discrete-angle statistics are complementary to a periodically replicated version of the angular momentum spectra. But real angles are continuous --- just as real angular momenta are not periodic.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{FermionWithField4-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Harmonic Oscillator Models of Angular Momentum}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-2mm}
\section{a general quantum theory of angle and relative phase measurement}
There are an infinite number of subsets such as $\mathcal{H}'$, or the field/particle space in Fig.\ 3, that can be defined on a two-mode space wherein each value of $m$ also corresponds to a single value of $j$. The general theory (and final layer of understanding) on an unrestricted two-mode space,
presented herein, can cover all of those infinite number of possible measurements and it demonstrates two reasonable ways of dealing with degeneracy in $j$.
These also correspond to
the two
reasonable ways of dealing with the uncollapsible $\Phi_{\Sigma}$ and hence defining a direct measurement of the relative phase $\phi_{\Delta}$ on $\mathcal{H}_s \otimes \mathcal{H}_a$.
\newline
\indent
In probability theory, to eliminate one variable from a two-dimensional PDF there are two reasonable choices: form a conditional PDF; or form a marginal PDF. Rather than doing this on the PDF we extrapolate and apply the concepts to a POM to form either a ``conditional measurement,'' i.e., a snapshot in absolute time of the relative phase; or a ``marginal measurement,'' i.e., a time average of the relative phase distribution.
\newline
\indent In quantum theory, there are two reasonable alternatives: if the final states of a measurement are distinguishable we add probabilities; if the final states of a measurement are indistinguishable we add probability amplitudes [28].
It is perhaps initially surprising that these two things reasonable (from two totally different perspectives) coincide. I.e., we will show that taking a snapshot corresponds to adding amplitudes and taking a time average corresponds to adding probabilities.
\newline
\indent
If states of different $j$ correspond to different (distinguishable) particles then we could impose the ``add probabilities'' constraint and equivalently argue that the snapshot measurement cannnot be realized for such a system. Otherwise we could argue that as designers of quantum measurements we are free to choose to do a measurement that yields final states which are distinguishable (in $j$) or not. Specifically, let the system be right and left circularly polarized photons so that the oscillators have physical significance and the relative phase measurement is equivalent to the quantum angle measurement. In a snapshot measurement of this angular distribution (say at $\Phi_\Sigma = 0$) how are we to tell which $j$-branch contributed a result? The snapshot measurement has a connection to (43) from which we see that information on $j$ vanishes when we take $\Phi_\Sigma = 0$. It is as if ``we don't take enough time'' to distinguish the different $j$. On the other hand, the time average measurement is a marginal POM (rather than a marginal PDF) so the connection with (43) is not as direct but one can see that when $\Phi_\Sigma$ varies the differences in $j$
can have an effect --- making them distinguishable (even if the entire system is comprised of indistinguishable photons) and so it is palatable that we end up adding probabilities. It is as if ``distinguishability is a matter of how long we look.'' Examples will clarify this after we first present the details of the formalism.
\newline
\indent
Let
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{equation}
|\Phi_{\Sigma},\Phi_{\Delta}\rangle \equiv \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=-j}^{j} |n_{s},n_{a}\rangle \ e^{i(j\Phi_{\Sigma})} e^{i(m\Phi_{\Delta})}
\end{equation}
where for photons: $n_{s} \rightarrow (j+m)/2$ and $n_{a} \rightarrow (j-m)/2$ in the above and $m$ increments by two in the sum.
We can eliminate $\Phi_\Sigma$ to obtain a {\it{marginal measurement}} of $\Phi_\Delta$ on $\mathcal{H}_{s} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{a}$ by applying an ``absolute time average'' to $|\Phi_\Delta,\Phi_\Sigma\rangle \langle\Phi_\Delta,\Phi_\Sigma|$, resulting in the marginal POM:
\begin{align}
& (2\pi) \ d\hat{\Pi}_M (\Phi_\Delta) \equiv \int_{-\pi}^{+\pi} \frac{d\Phi_\Sigma}{2\pi}\ |\Phi_\Delta,\Phi_\Sigma\rangle \langle\Phi_\Delta,\Phi_\Sigma| = \nonumber \\
& \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \left[\left(\sum_{m=-j}^{+j} |j,m\rangle \ e^{im\Phi_\Delta}\right)\left(\sum_{m'=-j}^{+j} \langle j, m'| \ e^{-im'\Phi_\Delta}\right)\right].
\end{align}
Because both of the inner sums use the same value of $j$, interference among states of different $j$ is excluded and we have (for pure states) the following probability distribution function:
\begin{equation}
P_M(\Phi_\Delta) = T_r[\hat{\rho} \ d\hat{\Pi}_M(\Phi_\Delta)] =
\left(\frac{1}{2 \pi}\right)
\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty} | \Psi^{(j)}(\Phi_\Delta)|^2
\end{equation}
where $T_r$ denotes trace; $\hat{\rho}$ is the density matrix; and
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{(j)}(\Phi_\Delta) \equiv \displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=-j}^{+j} \Psi_{j,m} \ e^{-im \Phi_\Delta}
\end{equation}
is the quantum angle representation for each $j$-branch of expansion coefficients
$\Psi_{j,m} = \langle j,m|\psi \rangle$. Thus, in this marginal or time averaged measurement of $\Phi_\Delta$, the results from
states of different $j$ are distinguishable and we are led to adding probabilities in (62).
We also might eliminate $\Phi_\Sigma$ to obtain a {\it{conditional measurement}} of $\Phi_\Delta$ on $\mathcal{H}_{s} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{a}$ by taking ``snapshot in absolute time'' via conditioning $|\Phi_\Delta,\Phi_\Sigma\rangle \langle\Phi_\Delta, \Phi_\Sigma|$ to $\Phi_{\Sigma}=0$ (for example) resulting in the conditional POM:
\begin{align}
& (2\pi C) \ d\hat{\Pi}_C(\Phi_\Delta) \equiv
\ |\Phi_\Delta,\Phi_\Sigma =0\rangle \langle\Phi_\Delta,\Phi_\Sigma = 0| = \nonumber \\
& \left(\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty}\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=-j}^{+j} |j,m\rangle \ e^{im\Phi_\Delta}\right)
\left(\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j'=0}^{\infty}\displaystyle\sum\limits_{m'=-j'}^{+j'} \langle j',m'| \ e^{-im'\Phi_\Delta}\right)
\end{align}
where the renormalization constant $C$ is:
\begin{equation}
C \equiv P (\Phi_\Sigma =0) = \displaystyle\sum\limits_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} \left\{\left|\left(\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty} \Psi_{j,m}\right)\right|^2\right\}
\end{equation}
the probability of the conditioning event.
In contrast to the case in (61) the sums over $m$ in (64) now use different values of $j$, thereby permitting interference among the states of different $j$. Therefore we have (for pure states)
the probability distribution function:
\vspace{-4mm}
\begin{equation}
P_C(\Phi_\Delta) = T_r[\hat{\rho} \ d\hat{\Pi}_C(\Phi_\Delta)] = \left(
\frac{1}{2\pi C}
\right) \left|\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j=0}^{\infty} \Psi^{(j)}(\Phi_\Delta)\right|^2
\end{equation}
so that in this {\it{conditional}} ``snapshot'' measurement of $\Phi_\Delta$
we are adding amplitudes, the $\Psi^{(j)}(\Phi_\Delta)$,
before taking the magnitude square in (66).
Note that the snapshot measurement recovers the $\widehat{Y}$ measurement on $\mathcal{H}'$, or any other of the infinite number of operators that could be defined on subsets of $\mathcal{H}_s \otimes \mathcal{H}_a$ in which each value of $m$ corresponds to a unique value of $j$ (for these non-degenerate cases $C = 1$ so that renormalization would not be required).
For the degenerate cases we could equivalently form an amplitude for being in a state of $m$, independent of $j$ via: $\Psi_{m} \equiv \sum_{j} \Psi_{j,m}$ and Fourier transform these to form the wavefunction underlying the snapshot PDF of (66).
We could similarly define a conditional measurement of $\Phi_\Delta$ by taking a snapshot at some other value of $\Phi_{\Sigma}$ but that would be equivalent to applying the above procedure to a state that has undergone time evolution of that same (conditioning) amount $\Phi_{\Sigma} /\omega = t$ --- which is computationally easier (where $\omega$ is the radian frequency of our oscillator, which we now set equal to one for simplicity and to emphasize that $\Phi_{\Sigma}$ corresponds to absolute time).
\section{quantum angle representations of optical polarization}
Applying the general formalism to a case that can naturally support a time-reversal symmetry (as in section II) should yield more physical insights.
Herein we take the original system (s) and the auxiliary mode (a) to be the right (R) and left (L) circularly polarized modes of a single k-vector
z-propagating
plane wave
so that the
relative phase measurement is the quantum angle measurement in a system comprised of physically realizable primitives.
The conditional measurement now corresponds to taking a snapshot of the angular distribution of the electric field about the z-axis
(at some angle $\phi = \Phi_{\Delta}$ with respect to the x-axis) taken at some time $t = \Phi_{\Sigma}$. The marginal measurement forms a properly weighted time average of these angular snapshots which trace out, and thereby result in, a quantum version of the polarization ellipse.
When the state of the field is comprised of a single value of total angular momentum (i.e., when the only non-zero probability amplitudes have one unique value of $j = {n_R + n_L})$ the polarization ellipse is the same distribution as a snapshot taken at any point in absolute time. Moreover, in the case of an x-polarized number state, with the y-polarized mode in the vacuum state, one would expect these identical distributions to peak at both $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pm \pi$. For example, one x-polarized photon, $\it{or}$ two x-polarized photons, should have a polarization ellipse along the x-axis with ``up along x'' and ``down along x'' being equally most likely; and the identical snapshot distribution at any time must follow suit. Indeed this physically reasonable result holds in the quantum angle representation.
However, if we have a superposition of one x-polarized photon $\it{and}$ two x-polarized photons then the value of $j$ is not unique and the snapshot distributions are not identical to the polarization ellipse. For example, the superposition
\begin{eqnarray}
&\sqrt{2} \ |\psi \rangle =| & 1\rangle_{x}|0\rangle_{y} + |2\rangle_{x}|0\rangle_{y}
= (|1\rangle_{R}|0\rangle_{L} + |0\rangle_{R}|1\rangle_{L})/\sqrt{2} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-1mm} + \ (|2\rangle_{R}|0\rangle_{L} + |0\rangle_{R}|2\rangle_{L} + \sqrt{2} |1\rangle_{R}|1\rangle_{L})/2
\end{eqnarray}
has an angle representation comprised of $j=1$ and $j=2$ components given by $\sqrt{2} \ \psi(\phi) = \Psi^{(1)}(\phi) + \Psi^{(2)}(\phi)$ where
\begin{equation}
\Psi^{(1)}(\phi) = \sqrt{2} \ \rm{Cos}(\phi) \hspace{2mm} \rm{and} \hspace{2mm}
\Psi^{(2)}(\phi) = Cos(2\phi) + 1/\sqrt{2}.
\end{equation}
If we magnitude square either of these it will have a peak at $\phi=\pi$ and the sum of those probabilities would yield the polarization ellipse. If we add amplitudes instead, then although both $j$-components have an amplitude for being ``down along x'' at this time (when $\Phi_\Sigma =0$) those amplitudes are out of phase at this time so they cancel and the snapshot distribution (when $\Phi_\Sigma =0$) is only ``up along x'' (i.e., peaks only at $\phi=0$) as shown in Fig.\ 4, where
the x-axis is absolute time ($\Phi_\Sigma$ from 0 to $\pi$); the y-axis is the angle ($\phi$ from $-\pi$ to $\pi$); and the contours indicate the $\it{angular}$ probability density (from $0.1$ to $0.8$). I.e., each ``slice in x'' is a (normalized) snapshot PDF. Later (when $\Phi_\Sigma=\pi$) the snapshot distribution must reflect an angular distribution of electric field vectors that is primarily ``down along x'' (i.e., the snapshot distribution, when $\Phi_\Sigma=\pi$, must peak at $\phi=\pm \pi$ --- as it does).
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.65]{p.pdf}
\caption{A Sequence (at times $t$) of Snapshot PDFs (along y) for a Superposition of One and Two X-Polarized Photons.}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
Consider now how ``up along x'' can evolve into ``down along x.'' Classically, the two (right and left handed) circular polarization vectors counter-rotate in time and their sum creates a linearly polarized vector that shrinks to zero half-way between the time it is ``up along x'' and the time it is ``down along x.'' Quantum mechanically, the renormalized snapshot PDFs cannot vanish (although without renormalization these can shrink towards zero, reflecting an unlikelihood of taking a snapshot at that time).
Moreover, these PDFs are Paley-Weiner restricted in shape (for finite $j$) so delta-functions are not allowed and the PDFs cannot equal zero over angular intervals of non-zero length. It is analogous to considering how one might deform a balloon from one pointing up to one pointing down without breaking the balloon, while also maintaining symmetry in $\phi$. Two possibilities are to have a peak at $\phi=0$ come down and spread out into a more uniform shape while the peak at $\phi=\pm \pi$ comes up; or the peak at $\phi=0$ can come down and spread out into two or more discernable counter-rotating peaks, which then recombine into a peak at $\phi=\pm \pi$. The superposition of one and two x-polarized photons of (67) gives an example of the former in Fig.\ 4; and an x-polarized coherent state of $N=1$ gives an example of the later in Fig.\ 5.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.65]{pfz1.pdf}
\caption{A Sequence (at times $t$) of Snapshot PDFs (along y) for a Coherent State of $N = 1$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.64]{pfz2.pdf}
\caption{A Sequence (at times $t$) of Snapshot PDFs (along y) for a Coherent State of $N = 4$.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{figure}
Figures 6 and 7 similarly depict the evolution of the snapshot PDFs for x-polarized coherent states of $N= 4$ and $N=9$, respectively. Both demonstrate again the splitting of the initial ``up along x'' peak into two discernable peaks (which would be counter-rotating in a polar plot) which then again have to recombine into a single ``down along x'' peak (at $\phi = \pm \pi$) when $\Phi_\Sigma \rightarrow \pi$. For $N=9$, Fig.\ 7 also reveals that when $\Phi_\Sigma$ is near $\pi/2$ two more peaks or side-lobes (at $\phi=0$ and at $\phi = \pm \pi$) become visible.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.64]{pfz3.pdf}
\caption{A Sequence (at times $t$) of Snapshot PDFs (along y) for a Coherent State of $N = 9$.}
\end{figure}
Before taking up the issue of the behavior at $\phi=\pi/2$ it is useful to consider the role that the probability of $\Phi_\Sigma$ plays in the relation between a sequence of snapshots and the quantum polarization ellipse.
For example, the snapshot PDF for an x-polarized coherent state of $N=9$ reveals an appreciable $P(\phi=\pi/2)$ when the sum phase is near $\pi/2$, as shown in Fig.\ 8 which presents
three snapshot PDFs in a polar plot on a linear scale.
The peak of the snapshot PDF at time $t=\pi/2$ is down from the peak of the snapshot PDF at time $t=0$ by less than a factor of four. However, the probability of taking a snapshot at time $t=\pi/2$ is over three orders of magnitude smaller than the probability of taking a snapshot at time $t=0$. Thus, when we take the time average inherent in forming the polarization ellipse the influence of the $t=\pi/2$ snapshot is greatly diminished.
The renormalization constant $C$ is the probability of the conditioning event, i.e., the constant is itself also a PDF --- the PDF for the measurement of absolute phase which (like absolute time) is measureable in the fuzzy, albeit not in the sharp, sense. In considering a sequence of snapshot PDFs for various $\Phi_\Sigma$ we should dispense with the notion of absolute time marching along uniformly (as it has historically, as a parameter in quantum theory rather than an operator). Instead when we realize that the probability of the conditioning event is telling us that taking a snapshot at one time is not as probable as at some other time --- then we see more clearly how these snapshots turn into the quantum polarization ellipse. It is as if the polarization vectors spend more time in snapshots where $P(\Phi_\Sigma)$ is large and zip past (or even skip) snapshots taken at $\Phi_\Sigma$ of small (or even zero) $P(\Phi_\Sigma)$. The time averaging inherent in the marginal POM,
naturally incorporates this weighting.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.634]{snapnew.pdf}
\caption{Three Snapshot PDFs from Figure 7 --- Presented in a Polar Plot on a Linear Scale.}
\end{figure}
The quantum polarization ellipses for an x-polarized coherent state of $N = 1, 4$ and $9$ are
presented on a dB scale in the polar plots of Figure 9.
To better reveal the side-lobe structure it is preferable to plot the log of probability (rather than the probability itself) and to avoid a negative radius in a polar plot we add a scaling constant. In the graphics we arbitrarily scale each of these so that the peak of each of the PDFs corresponds to 60 dB (setting the peaks to some fixed reference level facilitates comparison of the underlying shapes).
We see, for $N=9$, the probability of being ``up along the y-axis'' is almost 40 dB below the probability of being ``up along the x-axis.'' For $N=4$ we see this ratio is over 20 dB and for $N=1$ we are approaching the $N=0$ case of a uniform distribution (a circular polarization ellipse) since the vacuum state is rotationally invariant.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.95]{ellipse-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Quantum Polarization Ellipses on a dB Scale for X-Polarized Coherent States of $N= 1,4$ and $9$.}
\end{figure}
Of course an x-polarized coherent state is not exactly orthogonal to a y-polarized coherent state since they share the same vacuum state. But an x-polarized number state can also have an appreciable $P(\phi=\pi/2)$ although these are exactly orthogonal to any y-polarized number state (when that number is not zero).
More generally, within the phase representation one can readily see that only terms of the form \rm{Cos}\hspace{.5mm}$(m
\phi)$ will arise for states of $\psi_{j,m}$ that are symmetric under $m\rightarrow -m$ [29 -- 31].
Any state for which the y-polarization mode is in the vacuum state will have this symmetry. For photons, $m$ will be odd when $j$ is odd ($m$ increments by two for photons, see Figure 3) and in that case the probability of $\phi=\pm \pi/2$ vanishes (for all $\Phi_\Sigma$). Thus, a single x-polarized photon will never have an electric field pointing along the y-axis (i.e., $P(\phi=\pm \pi/2)=0)$ when its quantum angle is measured, but a two-photon x-polarized field can! Indeed, any x-polarized field with
non-vanishing components of even $j$ (such as a coherent state) will exhibit such behavior. In the classical limit $P(\phi=\pi/2)$ rapidly diminishes (even for $N$ only equal to $9$ its already less than $0.0002$) but for a weak coherent state of $N=1$ it is slightly over $6\%$. Since weak coherent states are sometimes used in polarization based quantum communication systems to mimic single-photon states, such an effect might merit consideration [32].
\section{concluding remarks}
The complementarity between time and energy, as well as between an angle and a component of angular momentum, was described at three layers of understanding complementarity in a more general context. The first layer, comprised of a simple Fourier transform of the complementary wavefunction, amounts to a non-projection-valued probability-operator measure and we elucidated ways in which these can be interpreted as fuzzy measurements. The phase of a single harmonic oscillator and the angle of a single particle are examples in which the limited dimensionality of the state space was shown to prevent wavefunction collapse in the phase or angle wavefunctions and further restrict the class of their realizable fuzzy measurement statistics. Such measurements can however be described via sets of commuting observables on a larger state space which includes an auxiliary system (which \textit{must} be a part of the apparatus which realizes the measurement) when the auxiliary and original systems are not entangled prior to the measurement.
Therein the auxiliary system is shown to function as a noise source and the fuzzy statistics manifest. Such extensions to larger state spaces are not unique and are only intended to recover the fuzzy statistics. To go beyond these we must also extend the \textit{meaning} of what it is that we wish to measure. Clearly no general way of doing that can exist but using complementarity as a guide we were led to the conclusion that formally: only relative phase can be measured and the angle of a particle will require a field for its measurement. The meaning of relative phase gleaned at the second layer of understanding was achieved on an important subspace of the more general two-mode (two oscillator) state space. This subspace has some interesting physical properties (automatically entangling the two modes) which are also useful for quantum noise reduction and it is the space in which the celebrated N00N states reside. The phenomena of super-resolution is readily apparent in the quantum phase representation which also reveals that entanglement is not required and the N00N state performance can be identically reproduced on the single-mode space: simply notice that the periodicity of the magnitude square of a Fourier series is set by the minimal distance in $m$ between
non-vanishing Fourier coefficients.
In preparation for the final layer of understanding complementarity, Schwinger's harmonic oscillator model of angular momentum was modified to include the case of photons (instead of only the unrealizable fermionic primitives). Therein the quantum angle measurement (complementary to the measurement of a component of angular momentum) was shown to be equivalent to the relative phase measurement between those two oscillators.
The meaning of relative phase was finalized at the third layer. At the second layer there are an infinite number of subspaces that could be defined on a two-mode space wherein each value of photon number difference also corresponds to a unique value of number sum. The general theory (and final layer of understanding) on an unrestricted two-mode space can cover all of those infinite number of possible measurements and it demonstrates two reasonable ways of dealing with the degeneracy in number sum. These also correspond to two reasonable ways of eliminating absolute time (which is measureable in a fuzzy albeit not in a sharp sense) in order to define a direct measurement of the relative phase: a conditional measurement which takes a snapshot in absolute time (corresponding to adding probability amplitudes); and a marginal measurement which takes an average in absolute time (corresponding to adding probabilities). The sense in which distinguishability is a ``matter of how long we look'' was discussed and the meaning of the general theory was illustrated by taking the two oscillators to model the right and left circularly polarized modes of an electromagnetic plane wave so that the conditional measurement reveals a snapshot of the angular distribution of the electric field vector and the marginal measurement corresponds to a quantum version of the polarization ellipse.
The quantum angle representation demonstrated that any excitation of an odd number of x-polarized photons will \textit{never} have an angle in correspondence with the y-axis; but that of an even number of x-polarized photons \textit{always} can! The behavior of an x-polarized coherent state was examined and the snapshot angular distributions were seen to evolve into two counter-rotating peaks resulting in considerable correspondence with the y-axis (particularly for weaker coherent states) at the time for which a classical linear polarization vector would shrink to zero length.
Such an effect could be of significance for polarization based quantum communication systems
since weak coherent states are sometimes used to mimic single-photon states.
We also demonstrated how the probability distribution of absolute time (now treated as a measurable quantity, rather than just a parameter) has an influence on how these snapshot angular distributions trace out and evolve into the quantum polarization ellipse.
\vspace{.15in}
\hspace{-0.13in}{\textbf{Appendix 1: Alternate Path to the Single-Mode Statistics}}
\vspace{.15in}
Concurrent to (and independent of) the development of the continuous single-mode phase representation, an alternate method for obtaining the single oscillator statistics was derived by Pegg and Barnett [9], [10]. Their approach requires the truncation of the infinite dimensional state space of a harmonic oscillator to one of finite but arbitrarily large dimension. This subspace, denoted ${\mathcal{H}^T}(s)$, is spanned by the number-kets $\{ | n \rangle : 0 \le n \le s \}$. Furthermore, their formalism relies on an ordering of terms, in a polar decomposition of the annihilation operator, which is akin to Dirac's ordering [1] rather than Susskind and Glogower's [2].
This ordering permits them to impose an ``additional condition,'' which specifies the action on the vacuum state --- whereas the action of the SG operator
on the vacuum state is uniquely determined by that of $\hat{a}$, as mentioned.
For any number state $|n\rangle$, with $n \in \{1,2, . . . \ s \}$ but $n \ \not= \ 0$, the unitary power series of Pegg and Barnett's operator, exp$(i \hat{\phi}_{PB})$ defined on ${\mathcal{H}^T}(s)$, is a lowering operator. The action of this operator on the vacuum state is then defined to be a ``wrap-around'' term:
\begin{equation}
{e^{i\hat{\phi}}}_{PB} | 0 \rangle \equiv e^{i(s+1)\theta_0} | s \rangle
\end{equation}
where $\theta_0$ is the location of the branch cut for phase (which is $-\pi$ in our formalism). This cyclic behavior, possible only in a truncated space such as ${\mathcal{H}}^T (s)$, is essential for their definition of an Hermitian phase operator on ${\mathcal{H}^T}(s)$. Unitarity is accomplished by not having to ``stop'' at the vacuum state, but the ``wrap-around to the top of the stack'' term causes the discrete-phase wavefunctions to be
complementary to a periodically replicated (and hence truncated) version of the $\{ \psi_n \}$.
This operator can be expressed in terms of an orthogonal subset, $\{ | \theta_m \rangle \}$, of truncated phase-kets as
\begin{equation}
\hat{\phi}_{PB} = \sum_{m=0}^{s} \theta_m | \theta_m \rangle \langle \theta_m |,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
|\theta_m \rangle \equiv (s+1)^{-1/2} \sum_{n=0}^{s} e^{in\theta_m} | n \rangle \ \ \text{and} \ \ \theta_m \equiv \theta_0 + 2\pi (\frac{m}{s+1}).
\end{equation}
A measurement of $\hat{\phi}_{PB}$ on ${{\mathcal{H}}^T}(s)$ will yield one of its discrete eigenvalues, $\theta_m$, which are rational multiples of $2\pi$ plus $\theta_0$, with probability:
\begin{equation}
P_r (\theta_m) = {\mid}\langle \theta_m | \psi \rangle^T {\mid}^2 ,
\end{equation}
where $|\psi {\rangle}^T$ is a truncated state, $\sum_{n=0}^{s} \psi_n | n \rangle$, on ${\mathcal{H}^T}(s)$.
As the truncation point, $s$, goes to infinity, Pegg and Barnett's discrete phase eigenspectra converge to our phase continuum (in as much as rational numbers can converge to real numbers) i.e., their probability mass function (72) converges in distribution to our probability density. It is this $s \ \rightarrow \ \infty$ limit in which they argue that the discrete phase statistics make physical sense. It should be emphasized that although Pegg and Barnett indeed have an Hermitian phase operator on ${\mathcal{H}^T}(s)$ --- with $s$ finite; when $s \ \rightarrow \ \infty$ this is an alternative means of calculating the fuzzy single-mode continuous phase measurement statistics via a limiting procedure. If $s$ is left to be finite then their discrete phase statistics correspond to a discrete Fourier transform --- complementary to a truncated (and periodically replicated) version of the $\{ \psi_n \}$. In the limit $s \ \rightarrow \ \infty$ these converge (in distribution) to the continuous phase statistics which we can obtain directly via the Fourier transform of the actual $\{ \psi_n \}$. Note that by accepting the non-Hermitian nature of phase, we were led to the necessity of a larger state space which emphasizes the existence of an auxiliary noise source.
\vspace{.15in}
\hspace{-0.13in}{\textbf{Appendix 2: General Theory of Complementarity}}
\vspace{.4mm}
Herein we analyze complementarity at the first (fuzzy) layer, which is general in the sense that it can cover an angle, phase, or time (in the case of a time independent Hamiltonian) when there is \textit{no degeneracy in the complementary eigenspectra}. To cover cases of degenerate eigenspectra one must use procedures akin to (61) and/or (64).
At layer one, the proof can be made to follow (almost verbatim) the case which stems from linear momentum being the generator of translations in space [23].
Postulate the existence of a set of eigenstates $| \chi\rangle$ which resolve the identity operator so that these correspond to a realizable measurement. Furthermore, let the eigenvalues $\chi$ be continuous, non-degenerate and real valued. Denote the operator which effects an infinitesimal translation in $\chi$ by $\hat{T}(d\chi):$
\begin{equation}
\hat{T} (d\chi) | \chi \rangle = | \chi + d\chi \rangle.
\end{equation}
The following physically reasonable properties:
\begin{equation}
\hat{T}^{\dagger}(d\chi) \ \hat{T}(d\chi)=\hat{I}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat{T} (d\chi_1) \ \hat{T} (d\chi_2) = \hat{T} (d\chi_1 + d\chi_2)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat{T} (-d\chi) = \hat{T}^{-1} (d\chi) \ \ \text{and} \ \ \lim_{d\chi\to 0} \hat{T} (d\chi) = \hat{I}
\end{equation}
are obtained (for {\it{infinitesimal}} d$\chi$) when
\begin{equation}
\hat{T} (d\chi) = \hat{I} - i \hat{G} d\chi,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{G}$ is said to be the generator of translations in $\chi$. An example of this is when $\chi$ is space and $\hat{G}$ is proportional to linear momentum
with Planck's constant incorporated into its definition so that (77) is dimensionless.
To progress from this to the Fourier transform between representations (and hence achieve complementarity) we will assume that $\hat{G}$ is Hermitian (self-adjoint) so that its eigenspectra are real.
If however, we try to take $\hat{G}$ to be an angle operator, for example, generating finite (not infinitesimal) translations in $m$ then complications arise (differentiation not being defined for a discrete parameter being the least of them)
and indeed these complications are trying to tell us something ``is wrong'' here which then forces us to a higher dimensional state space in order to achieve a complete description (i.e., a sharp measurement) in terms of sets of commuting observables. We can however remain at the first layer and obtain an incomplete description (i.e., a fuzzy measurement) if instead we take an angle to be $\chi$. Note however that in (73) there can be no ``stopping'' --- as in the sense of the SG operator stopping at the vacuum. I.e., the eigenspectra of $\chi$ must range from $-\infty$ to $\infty$
else (73) cannot hold $\forall d\chi$ and $\forall \chi$ --- which would preclude the definition of a derivative in what follows, i.e., (79).
\textit{Later}, when we find the angle distribution to be periodic mod $2\pi$ (although clearly fermions can exhibit mod $4\pi$ behavior the observation of such requires their interference with another system) \textit{then} we can restrict our attention to one of these identically distributed $2\pi$ intervals.
To be sure, avoidance of stopping is what leads us to (at the second layer) extend the SG operator to one on $\mathcal{H}'$, or to define a lowering of $m$ on a field/particle system. Rather than taking a phase operator to generate translations in photon number we can take $\hat{n}$ as the generator of translations in $\phi$ (as indeed it is already accepted that the Hermitian Hamiltonian generates translations in time, and $\hat{J_{z}}$ generates translations in the angle about the z-axis, etc.) and therein we can remain at the first layer and simply justify the Fourier transform that leads to the fuzzy complementary measurement statistics.
Let $\psi(\chi) \equiv \langle\chi|\psi\rangle$, from (73) and (77) we have
\begin{equation}
\langle \chi | \hat{T}^{\dagger}(d\chi) | \psi\rangle = \psi(\chi+d \chi) = \psi(\chi) + i \langle \chi | \hat{G}^{\dagger}
| \psi \rangle d\chi
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \psi}{d\chi}= i \langle \chi | \hat{G} | \psi \rangle \longrightarrow
\frac{d }{d\chi} \langle \chi | G \rangle = i \hspace{.5mm} G \ \langle \chi | G \rangle
\end{equation}
when we take $|\psi\rangle$ to be an eigenket of $\hat{G}$ (and we used $\hat{G}^{\dagger} = \hat{G}$.) The solution to this differential equation is $\langle \chi |G\rangle = N e^{iG\chi}$, the kernel of the Fourier transform, where N is a normalization constant. The presumed completeness of the $| \chi \rangle$ then leads to
\begin{equation}
\langle G|\psi \rangle = \int d\chi \ \langle G|\chi \rangle \langle \chi |\psi \rangle
\end{equation}
i.e., with $\psi_{G}(G) \equiv \langle G|\psi \rangle$ we have
\begin{equation}
\psi_{G}(G) = N \int d\chi \ e^{-iG\chi} \ \psi (\chi)
\end{equation}
from which the inverse Fourier transform follows.
Then Rayleigh's energy theorem (or Parseval's power theorem) [15] proves that a normalized distribution in one domain will have a complementary distribution which is also normalized (in the complementary domain). Thus, if the eigenkets of the generator, $|G\rangle$, are complete in some space then the eigenkets $|\chi\rangle$ are complete in that same space, proving the assumption, which concludes the proof (at the first layer).
If the original distribution, i.e., that of the Hermitian generator of translations, such as a Hamiltonian, is continuous and aperiodic (i.e., not periodic) then the complementary distribution is also continuous and aperiodic, and the two wavefunctions are related by the Fourier integral transform. If the original distribution is ``rationally-discrete'' (i.e., in correspondence with numbers whose ratios are rational numbers) and aperiodic, then the complementary distribution will be continuous and periodic (the Fourier series transform relationship). If the original distribution is aperiodic and in correspondence with a discrete set of numbers whose ratios are \textit{not} rational numbers, then the complementary distribution will be continuous and ``quasi-periodic.'' Lastly, if the original distribution is discrete and periodic, then the complementary distribution will be also (the discrete Fourier transform). Thus, for any system with a rationally-discrete energy spectrum the temporal distribution will be periodic. Likewise, the only system which exhibits truly discrete temporal behavior is one in which the energy distribution is truly periodic. Similarly, the quantization of angular momentum (projected onto an axis) is the simple and immediate consequence of the periodicity of the angle about that axis.
\vspace{2mm}
\hspace{-0.13in}{\textbf{Acknowledgments}}
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent The author would like to acknowledge many useful discussions with J. H. Shaprio on quantum measurements and support from NASA
EPSCoR (NNX13AB14A) and the Louisiana Board of Regents.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we justify the global risk optimality of the hedging
strategy of contingent claim, which is explicitly constructed for an
incomplete market defined on some filtered probability space
$(\Omega,{\cal F},\{{\cal F}_{t}\}_{t\geq 0},P)$. The financial
market has $d+1$ primitive assets: one bond with constant interest
rate and $d$ risky assets. The price processes of the assets are
described by a generalized Black-Scholes model with coefficients
driven by the market regime caused by leverage effect, etc. The
financial market model includes the Barndorff-Nielsen $\&$ Shephard
(BNS) volatility model proposed by Barndorff-Nielsen and
Shephard~\cite{barnie:nonorn} and further studied in Benth {\em et
al.}~\cite{benkar:merpor}, Benth and
Meyer-Brandis~\cite{benmey:denpro}, Lindberg \cite{lin:newgen}, etc.
as a particular case. Our model is closely related to the one
considered in Delong and Kl$\ddot{\mbox{u}}$ppelberg
\cite{delklu:optinv}. As pointed out in Barndorff-Nielsen and
Shephard~\cite{barnie:nonorn}, these models fit real market data
quite well. Nevertheless, such models also induce incompleteness of
the financial markets, which means that it is impossible to
replicate perfectly contingent claims based on the bond and the $d$
primitive risky assets. A rule for designing a good hedging strategy
is to minimize the mean squared hedging error over the set
$\bar{\Theta}$ of all reasonable
trading strategy processes,
\begin{eqnarray}
\inf_{u\in\bar{\Theta}}E\left[(v+(u\cdot D)(T)-H)^{2}\right],
\elabel{mvhedgep}
\end{eqnarray}
where $H$ is a random variable representing the discounted payoff of
the claim, $D$ is the discounted price process of $d$ risky assets,
$v$ is the initial endowment and $T$ is the time horizon.
Mathematically speaking, one seeks to compute the orthogonal
projection of $H-v$ on the space $\bar{\Theta}$ of stochastic
integrals.
To solve the mean-variance hedging problem \eq{mvhedgep}, we
explicitly construct a trading strategy for the financial market and
justify it to be the global risk-minimizing hedging strategy by
using the following procedure.
First, we explicitly construct the square-integrable density process
of a variance-optimal martingale measure (VOMM) $Q^{*}$. As a
result, the set of equivalent (local) martingale measures with
square-integrable densities, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal U}_{2}^{e}(D)\equiv\left\{Q\sim P:\frac{dQ}{dP}\in L^{2}(P),
D\;\mbox{is a}\;Q\mbox{-local martingale}\right\}
\elabel{equivmeasure}
\end{eqnarray}
is nonempty. Hence, our market is arbitrage-free (e.g, Delbaen and
Schachermayer~\cite{delsch:genver}). Second, we derive an BSDE with
jumps and external random factors of non-Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck
(NGOU) type for the mean value process of the option $H$ (i.e.,
$E_{Q^{*}}[H|{\cal F}_{t}]$). The unique existence of adapted
solution to the BSDE is proved under suitable terminal conditions
including both European call and put options as special cases.
Third, by combining the solution to the BSDE and the VOMM, we get
the optimal hedging strategy for our market.
The BSDE and VOMM based procedure is a mixed method of two typical
approaches in solving mean-variance hedging problem: martingale
approach stemmed from Harrison and Kreps~\cite{harkre:mararb}, and
stochastic control approach that views the problem as a
linear-quadratic control problem and employs BSDEs to describe the
solution (see, e.g., Yong and Zhou). This procedure is structured
for a general semimartingale in C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} and explicitly (or semi-explicitly)
presented for the current market in Dai~\cite{dai:opthed}. Some
related and independent study can also be found in Jeanblanc {\em et
al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar}. More precisely, we have the following
literature review and technical comparisons.
A closely related (local) risk minimizing problem was initially
introduced by F\"{o}llmer and Sondermann~\cite{folson:hednon} under
complete information, who also suggested an approach for the
computation of a minimizing strategy in an incomplete market by
extending the martingale approach of Harrison and
Kreps~\cite{harkre:mararb}. The basic idea of the approach was to
introduce a measure of riskiness in terms of a conditional mean
square error process where the discounted price process is a
square-integrable martingale. Furthermore, the answer to the hedging
problem is provided by the {\em Galtchouk-Kunita-Watanabe
decomposition} of the claim. Then, this concept of local-risk
minimization was further extended for the semimartingale case by
F\"{o}llmer and Schweizer~\cite{folsch:hedcon}, and
Schweizer~\cite{sch:opthed,sch:meavar}, where the minimal martingale
measure and F\"{o}llmer-Schweizer (F-S) decomposition play a central
role. Interested readers are referred to F\"{o}llmer and
Schweizer~\cite{folsch:minmar}, Schweizer~\cite{sch:guitou} for more
recent surveys about (local) risk minimization and mean-variance
hedging.
Owing to the fact that one cares about the total hedging error and
not the daily profit-loss ratios, the solution with respect to
global-risk minimization of the unconditional expected squared
hedging error presented in \eq{mvhedgep} was considered (e.g.,
surveys in Pham~\cite{pha:quahed} and Schweizer \cite{sch:guitou}).
Then, the study on global-risk minimization was further developed by
C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}, who showed that the
hedging model \eq{mvhedgep} admits a solution in a very general
class of arbitrage-free semimartingale markets where local-risk
minimization may fail to be well defined. The key point of their
approach is the introduction of the opportunity-neutral measure
$P^{*}$ that turns the dynamic asset allocation problem into a
myopic one. Furthermore, the minimal martingale measure relative to
$P^{*}$ coincides with the variance-optimal martingale measure
relative to the original probability measure $P$. Recently, to
overcome the difficulties appeared in C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} (i.e., a process $N$ appeared in
Definition 3.12 is very hard to find and the VOMM $Q^{*}$ in
Proposition 3.13 is notoriously difficult to determine), the authors
in Jeanblanc {\em et al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar} developed a method
via stochastic control and backward stochastic differential
equations (BSDEs) to handle the mean-variance hedging problem for
general semimartingales. Furthermore, the authors in Kallsen and
Vierthauer~\cite{kalvie:quahed} derived semi-explicit formulas for
the optimal hedging strategy and the minimal hedging error by
applying general structural results and Laplace transform
techniques. In addition to these works, some related studies in both
general theory and concrete results in specific setups for the
mean-variance hedging problem can be found in, such as,
Arai~\cite{ara:extmea}, Chan {\em et al.}~\cite{chakol:varopt},
Duffie and Richardson~\cite{dufric:meahed}, Gourieroux {\em et
al.}~\cite{goulau:meavar}, Heath {\em et al.}~\cite{heapla:comqua},
Laurent and Pham~\cite{laupha:dynpro}, and references therein.
Comparing with the above studies, our contribution of the current
research is threefold. First, we firmly prove the no-arbitrage
condition to be true for our financial market, i.e., the set defined
in \eq{equivmeasure} is nonempty. This condition is used as an
assumption for the existence of the VOMM in existing discussions
(e.g., Arai~\cite{ara:extmea}, C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}, Chan {\em et
al.}~\cite{chakol:varopt}, Jeanblanc {\em et
al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar}, Kallsen and
Vierthauer~\cite{kalvie:quahed}). In doing so, we explicitly (or
called semi-explicitly) construct a measure through identifying its
explicit density by the general structure presented in C\u{e}rn\'y
and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}. Then, we justify it to be the VOMM
for our market model by proving the equivalent conditions given in
C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:meavar}. Second, in applying
our VOMM to obtain the optimal hedging strategy, we derive an BSDE
with jumps for the mean value process of the option $H$. Here, we
lift the requirements that the contingent claims are bounded (e.g.,
Heath and Schweizer~\cite{heasch:marver}, C\u{e}rn\'{y} and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:meavar}) or satisfy Lipschitz condition (e.g.,
Roch~\cite{roc:vissol}, Chan {\em et al.}~\cite{chakol:varopt}) to
guarantee the corresponding integral-partial differential equation
(IPDE) to have a classic or viscosity solution. Furthermore, the
unique existence of an adapted solution to our derived BSDE is
firmly proved under certain conditions while in the recent study of
Jeanblanc {\em et al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar}, such existence of an
adapted solution to their constructed BSDE is only showed as an
equivalent condition to guarantee the existence of an optimal
strategy. More importantly, our BSDE can be solved by developing
related numerical algorithms through the given terminal option $H$
(see, e.g., Dai~\cite{dai:nummet}). Third, from the purpose of easy
applications, our discussion is based on a multivariate financial
market model, which is in contrast to existing studies (e.g.,
C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}, Chan {\em et
al.}~\cite{chakol:varopt}, Jeanblanc {\em et
al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar}, Kallsen and
Vierthauer~\cite{kalvie:quahed}). Therefore, unlike the studies in
Hubalek {\em et al.}~\cite{hubkal:varopt} and Kallsen and
Vierthauer~\cite{kalvie:quahed}, our option $H$ is generally related
to a multivariate terminal function and hence a BSDE involved
approach is employed. Actually, whether one can extend the Laplace
transform related method developed in Hubalek {\em et
al.}~\cite{hubkal:varopt} and Kallsen and
Vierthauer~\cite{kalvie:quahed} for single-variate terminal function
to our general multivariate case is still an open problem.
Note that our study in this paper establishes the connection between
our financial system and existing general semimartingale based study
in C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} since we can
overcome the difficulties in C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} by explicitly constructing the process
$N$ and the VOMM $Q^{*}$ as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, our
objective and discussion in this paper are different from the recent
study of Jeanblanc {\em et al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar} since the
authors in Jeanblanc {\em et al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar} did not aim
to derive any concrete expression. Nevertheless, interested readers
may make an attempt to extend the study in Jeanblanc {\em et
al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar} and apply it to our financial market model
to construct the corresponding explicit results.
Finally, when the random variable $H$ in \eq{mvhedgep} is taken to
be a constant (e.g., a prescribed daily expected return), the
associated hedging problem reduces to a mean-variance portfolio
selection problem as studied in Dai~\cite{dai:meavar} by an
alternative feedback control method. In this case, the optimal
policies can be explicitly obtained by both the feedback control
method in Dai~\cite{dai:meavar} and the martingale method presented
in the current paper. In the late method, the related BSDE is a
degenerate one. From this constant option case, we can construct two
insightful examples to provide the effective comparisons between the
two methods. More precisely, our newly constructed hedging strategy
can slightly outperform the feedback control based policy. However,
the performance between the two methods is consistent in certain
sense.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We formulate our
financial market model in Section~\ref{SRBM} and present our main
theorem Section~\ref{optimalhedging}. Analytical and numerical
examples are given in Section~\ref{necom}. Our main theorem is
proven in Section~\ref{hedgee}. Finally, in Section~\ref{concl}, we
conclude this paper with remarks.
\section{The Financial Market}\label{SRBM}
\subsection{The Model}
We use $(\Omega,{\cal F},P)$ to denote a fixed complete probability
space on which are defined a standard $d$-dimensional Brownian
motion $W\equiv\{W(t),t\in[0,T]\}$ with
$W(t)=(W_{1}(t),...,W_{d}(t))'$ and $h$-dimensional subordinator
$L\equiv\{L(t),t\in[0,T]\}$ with
$L(t)\equiv(L_{1}(t),...,L_{h}(t))'$ and c\`adl\`ag sample paths for
some fixed $T\in[0,\infty)$ (e.g., Applebaum~\cite{app:levpro},
Bertoin~\cite{ber:levpro}, and Sato~\cite{sat:levpro} for more
details about subordinators and L\'evy processes). The prime denotes
the corresponding transpose of a matrix or a vector. Furthermore,
$W$, $L$, and their components are assumed to be independent of each
other. For each given $\lambda=(\lambda_{1},...\lambda_{h})'>0$, we
let $L(\lambda s)=(L_{1}(\lambda_{1}s),...,L_{h}(\lambda_{h}s))'$.
Then, we suppose that there is a filtration $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}_{t\geq
0}$ related to the probability space, where ${\cal
F}_{t}\equiv\sigma\{W(s),L(\lambda s): 0\leq s\leq t\}$ for each
$t\in[0,T]$.
The financial market under consideration is a multivariate
L\'evy-driven OU type stochastic volatility model, which consists of
$d+1$ assets. One of the $d+1$ assets is risk-free, whose price
$S_{0}(t)$ is subject to the ordinary differential equation (ODE)
with constant interest rate $r\geq 0$,
\begin{eqnarray}
dS_{0}(t)=rS_{0}(t)dt,\;\;S_{0}(0)=s_{0}>0.
\elabel{bankaset}
\end{eqnarray}
The other $d$ assets are stocks whose vector price process
$S(t)=(S_{1}(t),...,S_{d}(t))'$ satisfies the following stochastic
differential equation (SDE) for each $t\in[0,T]$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
dS(t)=\mbox{diag}(S(t^{-}))\{b(Y(t^{-}))dt+\sigma(Y(t^{-}))dW(t)\},\\
S(0)=s>0.
\end{array}
\right. \elabel{stockassetm}
\end{eqnarray}
Here and in the sequel, the diag($v$) denotes the $d\times d$
diagonal matrix whose entries in the main diagonal are $v_{i}$ with
$i\in\{1,...,d\}$ for a $d$-dimensional vector
$v=(v_{1},...,v_{d})'$ and all the other entries are zero. $Y(t)$ is
a L\'evy-driven OU type process described by the following SDE,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
dY(t)=-\Lambda Y(t^{-})dt+dL(\lambda t),\\
Y(0)=y_{0},
\end{array}
\right. \elabel{sdeou}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda=\mbox{diag}(\lambda)$ and
$y_{0}=(y_{10},...,y_{h0})'$. Now, define
\begin{eqnarray}
b(y)&\equiv&(b_{1}(y),...,b_{d}(y))':R_{c}^{h}
\rightarrow[0,\infty)^{d},
\nonumber\\
\sigma(y)&\equiv&(\sigma_{mn}(y))_{d\times d}:\;\;\;\;\;\;
R_{c}^{h}\rightarrow(0,\infty)^{dd},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_{c}^{h}\equiv(c_{1},\infty)\times...\times(c_{h},\infty)$
with $c_{i}=y_{i0}e^{-\lambda_{i}T}$. Thus, we can impose the
following conditions related to the coefficients in
\eq{stockassetm}-\eq{sdeou}:
{\bf C1.} The functions $b(y)$ and $\sigma(y)$ are continuous in $y$
and satisfy that, for each $y\in R_{c}^{h}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\|b(y)\|&\leq&
A_{b}+B_{b}\|y\|,\elabel{linearg}\\
\|\sigma(y)\sigma(y)'\|&\leq&
A_{\sigma}+B_{\sigma}\|y\|,\elabel{lineargI}\\
\left\|\left(\sigma(y)\sigma(y)'\right)^{-1}\right\|&\leq&
\frac{1}{b_{\sigma}\|y\|}, \elabel{lineargII}
\end{eqnarray}
where the norm $\|A\|$ takes the largest absolute value of all
components of a vector $A$ or all entries of a matrix $A$, and
$A_{b}\geq 0,A_{\sigma}\geq 0,B_{b}\geq 0,B_{\sigma}\geq 0$,
$b_{\sigma}>0$ are constants.
{\bf C2.} The derivatives $\frac{\partial b(y)}{\partial y_{i}}$ and
$\frac{\partial (\sigma(y)\sigma(y)')^{-1}} {\partial y_{i}}$ for
all $i\in\{1,...,h\}$ are continuous in $y$ and satisfy that, for
each $y\in R_{c}^{h}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\|\frac{\partial b(y)}{\partial y_{i}}\right\|
&\leq&\bar{A}_{b}+\bar{B}_{b}\|y\|,\elabel{derivcon}\\
\left\|\frac{\partial (\sigma(y)\sigma(y)')^{-1}} {\partial
y_{i}}\right\|&\leq&\bar{A}_{\sigma}+\bar{B}_{\sigma}\|y\|,
\elabel{derivconI}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{A}_{b}$, $\bar{A}_{\sigma}$, $\bar{B}_{b}$ and
$\bar{B}_{\sigma}$ are some nonnegative constants.
We now introduce the conditions for each subordinator $L_{i}$ with
$i\in\{1,...,h\}$, which can be represented by (e.g., Theorem 13.4
and Corollary 13.7 in Kallenberg~\cite{kal:foumod})
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{i}(t)=\int_{(0,t]}\int_{z_{i}>0}z_{i}N_{i}(ds,dz_{i}), \;t\geq 0.
\elabel{subordrep}
\end{eqnarray}
Here and in the sequel, $N_{i}((0,t]\times A)\equiv\sum_{0<s\leq t}
I_{A}(L_{i}(s)-L_{i}(s^{-}))$ denotes a Poisson random measure with
deterministic, time-homogeneous intensity measure
$\nu_{i}(dz_{i})ds$. $I_{A}(\cdot)$ is the index function over the
set $A$. $\nu_{i}$ is the L\'{e}vy measure satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{z_{i}>0}\left(e^{Cz_{i}}-1\right)\nu_{i}(dz_{i})<\infty
\elabel{expintcon}
\end{eqnarray}
with $C$ taken to be a sufficiently large positive constant to
guarantee all of the related integrals in this paper meaningful.
Note that the condition in \eq{expintcon} is on the integrability of
the tails of the L\'evy measures (readers are referred to
Dai~(\cite{dai:meavar,dai:contru,dai:opthed,dai:heatra,dai:optrat})
for the justification of its reasonability).
\subsection{Admissible Strategies}
First, we use $D(t)=(D_{1}(t),...,D_{d}(t))'$ to denote the
associated $d$-dimensional discounted price process, i.e., for each
$m\in\{1,...,d\}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{m}(t)=\frac{S_{m}(t)}{S_{0}(t)}=e^{-rt}S_{m}(t).
\elabel{discountp}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, we define $L^{2}_{{\cal F}}\left([0,T],R^{d},P\right)$
to be the set of all $R^{d}$-valued measurable stochastic processes
$Z(t)$ adapted to $\{{\cal F}_{t},t\in[0,T]\}$ such that
$E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\|Z(t)\|^{2}dt\right]<\infty$. Thus, it follows
from Lemma~\ref{disprice} that $D(\cdot)$ is a continuous $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale. In addition, $D(\cdot)$ is locally in
$L^{2}_{{\cal F}}([0,T],$ $R^{d},P)$, i.e., there is a localizing
sequence of stopping times $\{\sigma_{n}\}$ with $n\in {\cal
N}\equiv\{0,1,2,...\}$ such that, for any $n\in{\cal N}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sup\{E\left[D^{2}(\tau)\right]:\mbox{all
stopping}\;\;\tau\;\;\mbox{time
satisfying}\;\tau\leq\sigma_{n}\}<\infty. \elabel{localmean}
\end{eqnarray}
Second, let $L(D)$ denote the set of $D$-integrable and predictable
processes in the sense of Definition 6.17 in page 207 of Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}. Furthermore, let $u_{i}(t)$ denote
the number of shares invested in stock $i\in\{1,...,d\}$ at time $t$
and define $u(t)\equiv(u_{1}(t),...,u_{d}(t))'$. Then, we have the
following definitions concerning admissible strategies.
\begin{definite}
An $R^{d}$-valued trading strategy $u$ is called simple if it is a
linear combination of strategies $ZI_{(\tau_{1},\tau_{2}]}$ where
$\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}$ are stopping times dominated by $\sigma_{n}$
for some $n\in{\cal N}$ and $Z$ is a bounded ${\cal
F}_{\tau_{1}}$-measurable random variable. Furthermore, the set of
all such simple trading strategies is denoted by ${\Theta(D)}$.
\end{definite}
\begin{definite}\label{mvset}
A trading strategy $u\in L(D)$ is called admissible if there is a
sequence $\{u^{n},n\in{\cal N}\}$ of simple strategies such that:
$\left(u^{n}\cdot D\right)(t)\rightarrow (u\cdot D)(t)$ in
probability as $n\rightarrow\infty$ for any $t\in[0,T]$ and
$\left(u^{n}\cdot D\right)(T)\rightarrow (u\cdot D)(T)$ in
$L^{2}(P)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Furthermore, the set of all such
admissible strategies is denoted by $\bar{\Theta}(D)$.
\end{definite}
\section{Main Theorem}\label{optimalhedging}
First, for each $y\in R_{c}^{h}$, define
\begin{eqnarray}
B(y)&\equiv&(b_{1}(y)-r,...,b_{d}(y)-r)',\elabel{rhobs}\\
\rho(y)&\equiv&B(y)'\left[\sigma(y)\sigma(y)'\right]^{-1}B(y),
\elabel{rhobsI}\\
P(t,y)&\equiv&E_{t,y}\left[e^{-\int_{t}^{T}\rho(Y(s))ds} \right]>0,
\elabel{pexactsolution} \\
O(t)&\equiv&P(t,Y(t)),\elabel{opyt}\\
a(t)&\equiv&(\mbox{diag}(D(t)))^{-1}
\left(\sigma(Y(t^{-}))\sigma(Y(t^{-}))'\right)^{-1}
B(t,Y(t^{-})),
\elabel{adjustmentp}\\
\hat{Z}(t)&\equiv&\frac{O(t){\cal E}(-a\cdot
D)(t)}{O_{0}},\;\;O_{0}=O(0).\elabel{densitym}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the process $a(\cdot)$ presented in \eq{adjustmentp} is
corresponding to the adjustment process defined in Lemma 3.7 of
Cerny and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}. Furthermore, the process
$\hat{Z}(\cdot)$ presented in \eq{densitym} is associated with the
density process defined in Proposition 3.13 of Cerny and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}. In addition, here and in the sequel,
${\cal E}(N)=\{{\cal E}(N)(t),t\in[0,T]\}$ denotes the stochastic
exponential for a univariant continuous semimartingale
$N=\{N(t),t\in[0,T]\}$ (e.g., pages 84-85 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}) with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal
E}(N)(t)=\exp\left\{N(t)-\frac{1}{2}[N,N](t)\right\}\elabel{exps}
\end{eqnarray}
where $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes the quadratic variation process of
$N$.
Second, let $L^{2}_{{\cal F},p}([0,T],R^{d},P)$ denote the set of
all $R^{d}$-valued predictable processes (see, e.g., Definition 5.2
in page 21 of Ikeda and Watanabe~\cite{ikewat:stodif}) and let
$L^{2}_{p}([0,T],$ $R^{h},P)$ be the set of all $R^{h}$-valued
predictable processes $\tilde{Z}(t,z)=$ $(\tilde{Z}_{1}(t,z),$
$...,$ $\tilde{Z}_{h}(t,z))'$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{0}^{T}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\left|\tilde{Z}_{i}(t,z)\right|^{2}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})dt\right]<\infty.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, let
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{Z}(t)&\equiv&\frac{\hat{Z}(t^{-})}{\hat{Z}(t)},\elabel{barbii}\\
\bar{B}_{i}(Y(t^{-}))&\equiv&\sum_{j=1}^{d}\left(\left(B(Y(t^{-}))'
\left(\sigma(Y(t^{-}))\sigma(Y(t^{-}))'\right)^{-1}\right)\right)_{j}
\sigma_{ji}(Y(t^{-})),
\elabel{barbiiI}\\
F(t,z_{i}))&\equiv&\frac{P(t,Y(t^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})
-P(t,Y(t^{-}))}{P(t,Y(t^{-}))}, \elabel{fszy}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $e_{i}$ is the $h$-dimensional unit vector with the $i$th
component one. Then, we define
\begin{eqnarray}
&&g\left(t,V(t^{-}),\bar{V}(t),\tilde{V}(t,\cdot),Y(t^{-})\right)
\elabel{mgvvv}\\
&\equiv&-\sum_{i=1}^{d}\bar{V}_{i}(t)\bar{B}_{i}(Y(t^{-}))\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}\left(\tilde{V}_{i}(t,z_{i})F(t,z_{i})
\bar{Z}(t)+V(t^{-})\left(F(t,z_{i})\bar{Z}(t)\right)^{2}\right)
\lambda_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i}).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{definite}
For a given random variable $H$, a 3-tuple $(V,\bar{V},\tilde{V})$
is called a $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-adapted strong solution of the BSDE
\begin{eqnarray}
\;\;\;\;\;V(t)
&=&H-\int_{t}^{T}g(s,V(s^{-}),\bar{V}(s),\tilde{V}(s,\cdot),Y(s^{-}))ds
\elabel{xbsde}\\
&&-\int_{t}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^{d}\bar{V}_{i}(s)dW_{i}(s)
-\int_{t}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\tilde{V}_{i}(s,z_{i})\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i})\nonumber
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
if $V\in L^{2}_{{\cal F}}([0,T],R,P)$ is a c\`adl\`ag process,
$\bar{V}=(\bar{V}_{1},...,\bar{V}_{d})\in L_{{\cal
F},p}^{2}([0,T],R^{d},P)$,
$\tilde{V}=(\tilde{V}_{1},...,\tilde{V}_{h})\in
L^{2}_{p}([0,T],R^{h},P)$, and \eq{xbsde} holds a.s., where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}dt,dz_{i})\equiv
N_{i}(\lambda_{i}dz_{i},dt)-\lambda_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})dt\;\;\;
\mbox{for each}\;\;i\in\{1,...,h\}. \elabel{nilambda}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{definite}
To impose suitable condition on the option $H$, we use
$L^{\gamma}_{{\cal F}_{T}}(\Omega,R^{d},P)$ for a positive integer
$\gamma$ to denote the set of all $R^{d}$-valued, ${\cal
F}_{T}$-measurable random variables $\xi\in R^{d}$ satisfying
$E\left[\|\xi\|^{\gamma}\right]<\infty$.
\begin{assumption}\label{hstopasump}
$H\in L^{4}_{{\cal F}_{T}}(\Omega,R,P)$ and there exists a sequence
of random variables $H_{\tau_{n}}\in L^{2}_{{\cal
F}_{T\wedge\tau_{n}}}(\Omega,R,P)$ satisfying
$H_{\tau_{n}}\rightarrow H$ in $L^{2}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and
$H_{\tau_{n}}(\omega)=H(\omega)$ for all
$\omega\in\{\omega,\tau_{n}(\omega)\geq T\}$, where $\{\tau_{n}\}$
is a sequence of nondecreasing $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-stopping times
satisfying $\tau_{n}\rightarrow\infty$ a.s. as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{assumption}
As pointed out in Dai~\cite{dai:opthed}, under conditions {\bf C1},
{\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, the discounted European call and put
options satisfy Assumption~\ref{hstopasump}. Now, we can state our
main theorem of the paper as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{opthedge}
Under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, \eq{expintcon}, and
Assumption~\ref{hstopasump}, let $(V,\bar{V},\tilde{V})$ be the
unique $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-adapted strong solution of the BSDE in
\eq{xbsde}. Then, the optimal hedging strategy
$\phi\in\bar{\Theta}(D)$ for \eq{mvhedgep} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(t)=\xi(t)-(v+\Psi(t^{-})-V(t^{-}))a(t),
\elabel{optimalh}
\end{eqnarray}
where, the pure hedge coefficient $\xi$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi(t)&=&\left(\tilde{c}^{D^{*}}(t)\right)^{-1}
\left(\tilde{c}^{DV^{*}}(t)\right),\elabel{xicb}\\
\tilde{c}^{D^{*}}(t)&=&\mbox{diag}(D(t))
\left(\sigma(Y(t^{-}))\sigma(Y(t^{-}))'\right)\mbox{diag}(D(t)),
\elabel{xicbI}\\
\tilde{c}^{DV^{*}}(t)&=&
\left(\sum_{i=1}^{d}D_{1}(t)\sigma_{1i}(Y(t^{-}))\bar{V}_{i}(t),...,
\sum_{i=1}^{d}D_{d}(t)\sigma_{di}(Y(t^{-}))\bar{V}_{i}(t)\right)'.
\elabel{xicbII}
\end{eqnarray}
In addition, $\Psi$ is the unique solution of the SDE
\begin{eqnarray}
\Psi(t)=((\xi-(v-V_{-})a)\cdot D)(t) -(\Psi_{-}\cdot(a\cdot D))(t).
\elabel{geqn}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rrkkm}
The process $V(\cdot)$ appeared in Theorem~\ref{opthedge} is
actually the conditional mean value process,
\begin{eqnarray}
V(t)=E_{Q^{*}}\left[H\left|{\cal
F}_{t}\right]\right.\;\;\mbox{with}\;\;dQ^{*}\equiv\hat{Z}(T)dP.
\elabel{defineV}
\end{eqnarray}
Since it is not easy to be computed directly as the Markovian based
conditional process $O(t,Y(t))$, we turn to use the BSDE in
\eq{xbsde} to evaluate it, which is convenient for us to design the
optimal hedging policy as explained in Introduction of the paper.
\end{remark}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{opthedge} will be provided in
Section~\ref{hedgee}.
\section{Performance Comparisons}\label{necom}
The material in this section is partially reported in the short
conference version of the current paper (see,
Dai~\cite{dai:opthed}). To be convenient and clear for readers, we
refine it here. Note that the interest rate $r$ in \eq{bankaset}
here is taken to be zero. Furthermore, the financial market is
assumed to be self-financing, which implies that $X(t)=v+(u\cdot
D)(t)$. In addition, the terminal option $H$ is taken to be a
constant $p$, i.e., $H=p$. In this case, the optimal policies can be
explicitly obtained by the feedback control method studied
in~Dai~\cite{dai:meavar} and the martingale method presented in the
current paper. In the late method, the related BSDE is a degenerate
one, which can be easily observed from \eq{defineV} in
Remark~\ref{rrkkm}. However, from this constant option $H=p$, we can
construct two insightful examples to provide the effective
comparisons between the two methods.
More precisely, by (18) in Theorem 3.1 of Dai~\cite{dai:meavar}, we
know that the terminal variance under the optimal policy stated in
(15) of Theorem 3.1 of Dai~\cite{dai:meavar} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Var(X^{*}(T))=\frac{P(0,y_{0})} {1-P(0,y_{0})}\left(p-v\right)^{2}.
\elabel{onevar}
\end{eqnarray}
In addition, by using Theorem~\ref{opthedge} in the current paper
and Theorem 4.12 in C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}, we
know that the hedging error under the optimal policy in
\eq{optimalh} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
Herr=P(0,y_{0})\left(p-v\right)^{2}. \elabel{twovar}
\end{eqnarray}
For the purpose of performance comparisons, we calculate the
differences between the optimal terminal variances in \eq{onevar}
and the optimal hedging errors in \eq{twovar}, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
Error&=&Var(X^{*}(T))-Herr\elabel{errordif}\\
&=&\frac{(P(0,y_{0}))^{2}}
{1-P(0,y_{0})}\left(p-v\right)^{2}\nonumber\\
&>&0.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The result shown in the last inequality of \eq{errordif} is
intuitively right since the optimal strategy in \eq{optimalh} is
taken over a general decision set given in Definition~\ref{mvset}
and the one in (15) of Theorem 3.1 of Dai~\cite{dai:meavar} is taken
in an {\em ad-hoc} approach. Nevertheless, the errors are very small
as displayed in the following numerical examples.
\begin{example}\label{exI}
Here, we suppose that the financial market is given by the
Black-Scholes model
\begin{eqnarray}
dD(t)=D(t)(\alpha dt+\beta dB(t)),
\elabel{blachscholes}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are given constants. Owing to Definition
2.1.4(b) in pages 273-274 of $\emptyset$ksendal \cite{oks:stodif},
the option $H=p$ (a positive constant) is not attainable and hence
the associated hedging error can not be zero if the initial
endowment $v\neq p$. However, by the simulated results displayed in
Figures~\ref{bsmodel} and~\ref{bsmodelI}, we see that the absolute
error between the optimal variance based on the policy in (15) of
Theorem 3.1 of Dai~\cite{dai:meavar} and the optimal hedging error
based on the strategy in \eq{optimalh} approaches zero as the
terminal time increases. The rate of convergence is heavily
dependent on the volatility $\beta$. If $\beta$ is relatively large,
the difference requires more time to reach zero. Nevertheless, if
the millisecond is employed to represent the time unit in a
supercomputer based trading system, the required time for the
convergence makes sense in practice.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=4.0in\epsfbox{bs100.eps}} \caption{\small
Errors using Black-Scholes model with $r=0$, $v=10000$, $p=30000$,
$T=40000$, $\alpha=2$, $\beta=100$.} \label{bsmodel}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=4.0in\epsfbox{bs10.eps}} \caption{\small
Errors using Black-Scholes model with $y_{0}=10$, $r=0$, $v=10000$,
$p=30000$, $T=400$, $\alpha=2$, $\beta=10$.} \label{bsmodelI}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Here, we assume that the financial market is presented by the BNS
model
\begin{eqnarray}
dD(t)=D(t)((\alpha+\beta Y(t^{-}))dt+\sqrt{Y(t^{-})}dB(t)),
\elabel{bnsm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are given constants. Furthermore, owing
to the remarks to the condition in \eq{expintcon} and owing to the
discussions in Dai~\cite{dai:contru}, we suppose that the driving
subordinator $L(\lambda\cdot)$ with $\lambda=1$ to the SDE in
\eq{sdeou} is a compound Poisson process. The interarrival times of
the process are exponentially distributed with mean $1/\mu$ and the
jump sizes of the process are also exponentially distributed with
mean $1/\mu_{1}$. By the simulated results displayed in
Figure~\ref{bnsmodel}, we see that the similar illustration
displayed in Example~\ref{exI} also makes sense for the current
example, where $\delta$ appeared in Figure~\ref{bnsmodel} is the
length of equally divided subintervals of $[0,T]$. In addition, by
the simulated results, we also see that, by perfect hedging is
impossible in an incomplete market, the mean-variance hedging errors
can be very small in many cases when terminal time increases.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centerline{\epsfxsize=4.0in\epsfbox{bnscom.eps}} \caption{\small
Errors using BNS model with $y_{0}=10$, $r=0$, $v=10000$, $p=30000$,
$T=200$, $\delta=0.01$, $\alpha=0.5$, $\beta=0.02$, $\mu=10$,
$\mu_{1}=8$.} \label{bnsmodel}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{opthedge}}\label{hedgee}
The proof consists of four parts presented in the subsequent four
subsections: the justification of a proposition related to the
discounted price process, the demonstration of a proposition related
to the VOMM, the illustration of unique existence of solution to a
type of BSDEs with jumps, and the remaining proof of
Theorem~\ref{opthedge}.
\subsection{The Proposition Related to the Discounted Price Process}\label{mtwolemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{disprice}
Under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, we have
that $D(\cdot)$ is a continuous $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale,
i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
D(\cdot)=D_{0}+M^{D}(\cdot)+B^{D}(\cdot), \elabel{dsde}
\end{eqnarray}
where $M^{D}(\cdot)$ and $B^{D}(\cdot)$ are an $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-martingale and a predictable process of finite variation
respectively. Furthermore, $D(\cdot)$ is locally in $L^{2}_{{\cal
F}}([0,T],$ $R^{d},P)$ in the sense as stated in \eq{localmean}.
\end{proposition}
We divide the proof of the proposition into two parts. First, we
have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{sprice}
Under \eq{expintcon}, the unique adapted solution to the SDE in
\eq{sdeou} for each $\hat{t}>t$, $i\in\{1,...,h\}$, and
$y\in(0,\infty)^{h}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Y_{i}(\hat{t})=y_{i}e^{-\lambda_{i}(\hat{t}-t)}
+\int_{t}^{\hat{t}}e^{-\lambda_{i}(s-t)} dL_{i}(\lambda_{i}s)\geq
y_{i}e^{-\lambda_{i}\hat{t}},\;\;\;\;\;Y_{i}(t)=y_{i}.
\elabel{uniqso}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and
\eq{expintcon}, there is a unique solution $(S_{0}(t),S(t)')$ for
\eq{stockassetm}-\eq{sdeou}, which is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-adapted
and continuous semimartingale with
\begin{eqnarray}
&&S(\cdot)\in L^{2}_{{\cal
F}}\left([0,T],R^{d},P\right).\elabel{sqareint}
\end{eqnarray}
In addition, for each $m\in\{1,...,d\}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{m}(t)&=&S_{m}(0)\exp\left\{\int_{0}^{t}\left[b_{m}(Y(s^{-}))-
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}^{2}(Y(s^{-}))\right]ds\right.
\elabel{exsol}\\
&&\left.+\int_{0}^{t}\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))dW_{n}(s)\right\}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The claim concerning \eq{uniqso} directly follows from pages 316-317
in Applebaum~\cite{app:levpro}. Furthermore, owing to conditions
{\bf C1} and {\bf C2}, we know that our market given by
\eq{stockassetm}-\eq{sdeou} satisfies the conditions as required by
Lemma 4.1 in Dai~\cite{dai:meavar}. Thus, our market has a unique
solution, which is $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-adapted, continuous, and
mean-square integrable as stated in Lemma~\ref{disprice}. In order
to prove \eq{exsol}, let
\begin{eqnarray}
&&X_{m}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\alpha_{m}(Y(s^{-}))ds
+\int_{0}^{t}\beta_{m}(Y(s^{-}))'dW(s), \elabel{xalpha}
\end{eqnarray}
where, for any $s\in[0,T]$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_{m}(Y(s^{-}))&=&
b_{m}(Y(s^{-}))-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}^{2}(Y(s^{-})),
\nonumber\\
\beta_{m}(Y(s^{-}))&=&(\sigma_{m1}(Y(s^{-})),...,\sigma_{md}(Y(s^{-})))'.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by condition {\bf C1}, there exists some nonnegative constant
$D_{1}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\left|\alpha_{m}(Y(s^{-}))\right|ds\right] &\leq&
D_{1}T+\left(B_{b}+\frac{1}{2}B_{\sigma}\right)T
e^{\sum_{i=1}^{h}y_{i0}}
\prod_{i=1}^{h}E\left[e^{L_{i}(\lambda_{i}T))}\right]
\elabel{rintegrable}\\
&<&\infty,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the facts that $L(\lambda t)$ is nonnegative and
nondecreasing in $t$, the independence assumption among
$L_{i}(\lambda_{i}\cdot)$ for $i\in\{1,...,h\}$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a+b\|L(\lambda t)\|\leq\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon} \vee
a\right)e^{b\epsilon\|L(\lambda t)\|}\;\;\mbox{for any}\;\;
a\geq 0,\;b\geq 0,\;\epsilon>0, \elabel{usefuline}\\
&&Y^{t,y_{i}}_{i}(\hat{t})\leq y_{i}+L_{i}(\lambda_{i}\hat{t})-
L_{i}(\lambda_{i}t)\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{for any}\;\;\hat{t}\geq t,
\elabel{yleq}\\
&&E\left[e^{CL_{i}(\lambda_{i}t)}\right]
=\exp\left(\lambda_{i}t\int_{z_{i}>0}\left(e^{Cz_{i}}-1\right)
\nu_{i}(dz_{i})\right)<\infty. \elabel{basecon}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, we can show that
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\beta^{2}_{m}(Y(s^{-}))ds\right]<\infty.
\elabel{betami}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $W(\cdot)$ and $L_{i}(\lambda_{i}\cdot)$ for
$i\in\{1,...,h\}$ are independent; $W$ is $\{{\cal
F}_{t},t\in[0,T]\}$-martingale; $\alpha_{m}(Y(t^{-}))$ and
$\beta_{m}(Y(t^{-}))$ are ${\cal F}_{t}$-adapted. Then, it follows
from Definition 4.1.1 in $\emptyset$ksendal \cite{oks:stodif} and
the associated It$\hat{o}$'s formula (e.g., Theorem 4.1.2 in
$\emptyset$ksendal \cite{oks:stodif}) that $S_{m}(t)$ given in
\eq{exsol} for each $m$ is the unique solution of \eq{stockassetm}.
Now, we show that $S_{m}(\cdot)$ for each $m\in\{1,...,d\}$ is a
square-integrable $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale.
To do so, we rewrite \eq{stockassetm} in its integral form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&S_{m}(t)=S_{m}(0)+\int_{0}^{t}S_{m}(s)b_{m}(Y(s^{-}))ds
+\int_{0}^{t}S_{m}(s)\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))dW_{n}(s).
\elabel{smint}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the third term on the right-hand side of \eq{smint} is a
square-integrable $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-martingale. In fact, it follows
from \eq{uniqso} that, for each $i\in\{1,...,h\}$ and $\hat{t}>t$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{i}\int_{t}^{\hat{t}}Y^{(t,y_{i})}_{i}(s)ds
&=&y_{i}+L_{i}(\lambda_{i}\hat{t})-L_{i}(\lambda_{i}t)
-Y^{(t,y_{i})}_{i}(\hat{t})
\elabel{disequine}\\
&\leq&y_{i}+L_{i}(\lambda_{i}\hat{t})-L_{i}(\lambda_{i}t)
\nonumber\\
&=&y_{i}+L_{i}(\lambda_{i}(\hat{t}-t)),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the last equality in \eq{disequine} holds in distribution.
Thus, it follows from Condition {\bf C1} and \eq{exsol} in
Lemma~\ref{disprice} that
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\left(S_{m}(s)
\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))\right)^{2}ds\right]
&\leq&ds_{m}^{2}CT^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(E\left[e^{C\|L(\lambda
T)\|}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\elabel{dmeight}\\
&<&\infty, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is some positive constant and we have used Theorem 39 in
page 138 of Protter~\cite{pro:stoint} and the condition
\eq{expintcon}. Therefore, by Theorem 4.40(b) in page 48 of Jacod
and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, we know that the third term in
\eq{smint} is a square-integrable $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-martingale.
Furthermore, by the same method, we can show that the second term on
the right-hand side of \eq{smint} is of finite variation a.s. and is
square-integrable over $[0,T]$. Therefore, we conclude that
$S_{m}(\cdot)$ for each $m\in\{1,...,d\}$ is a square-integrable
$\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale. Hence, we complete the proof of
Lemma~\ref{sprice}. $\Box$
\end{proof}
\vskip 0.2cm \noindent{\bf Proof of Proposition~\ref{disprice}}
\noindent It follows from Lemma~\ref{sprice} and the Ito's formula
that, for each $m\in\{1,...,d\}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&B^{D}_{m}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}D_{m}(s)(b_{m}(Y(s^{-}))-r)ds,
\elabel{dsdeb}\\
&&M^{D}_{m}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}D_{m}(s)
\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))dW_{n}(s). \elabel{mdreps}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, by the similar calculation as in \eq{dmeight}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\int_{0}^{t}\left(D_{m}(s)\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))
\right)^{2}ds\right]<\infty\elabel{mdmartingale}
\end{eqnarray}
for all $t\in[0,T]$. Thus, it follows from Theorem 4.40(b) in page
48 of Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} that $M^{D}$ is an
$\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-martingale. Furthermore, it follows from a
similar explanation with the end of the proof for Lemma~\ref{sprice}
that $B^{D}$ is a predictable process of finite variation and
square-integrable. Thus, we know that $D$ is a continuous $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale. Moreover, it is locally in $L^{2}(P)$
since we may take $\sigma_{n}\equiv\inf\{\tau:D^{2}(\tau)\geq n\}$
as the sequence of localizing times. Hence, we complete the proof of
Proposition~\ref{disprice}. $\Box$
\subsection{A Proposition Related to the VOMM}
First of all, we use ${\cal P}_{D}(\bar{\Theta})(D)$ to denote the
set of all signed $\bar{\Theta}$-martingale measures in the sense
that $Q(\Omega)=1$ and $Q\ll P$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{dQ}{dP}\in
L^{2}(P)\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;E\left[\frac{dQ}{dP}(u\cdot
D)(T)\right]=0\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for a signed measure $Q$ on $(\Omega,{\cal F})$ and all
$u\in\bar{\Theta}(D)$. Then, we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{equimar}
Under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, the
following claims are true:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\hat{Z}$ is a $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-martingale, where
$\hat{Z}(\cdot)$ is given in \eq{densitym};
\item The measure $Q^{*}$ defined in \eq{defineV}
is an equivalent martingale measure (EMM), and $Q^{*}\in {\cal
U}_{2}^{e}(D)$ that is defined in \eq{equivmeasure};
\item The measure $Q^{*}$ is the VOMM in the
sense that
\begin{eqnarray}
Var\left(\frac{dQ^{*}}{dP}\right)=\min_{Q\in {\cal
P}_{D}(\bar{\Theta})}Var\left(\frac{dQ}{dP}\right).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
We divide the proof of the proposition into demonstrating six lemmas
as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{pintdif}
Under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, $P(t,y)$
defined in \eq{pexactsolution} is a solution of the following IPDE
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}P(t,y)
=\rho(y)P(t,y) +\sum_{i=1}^{h}\lambda_{i}y_{i}
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}P(t,y)\\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; -\sum_{i=1}^{h}\lambda_{i}
\int_{z_{i}>0}(P(t,y+z_{i}e_{i})-P(t,y))\nu_{i}(dz_{i}),\\
P(T,y)=1.
\end{array}
\right. \elabel{rhointdifeq}
\end{eqnarray}
for $y\in R_{c}^{h}$. Furthermore, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P(t,y)\in C^{1,1}([0,T)\times R_{c}^{h},R^{1}),
\elabel{ppcontinuity}\\
&& E\left[\int_{0}^{T}|P(t,Y(t^{-}))|^{2}dt\right] <\infty,
\elabel{ppsisquint}\\
&&\sum_{i=1}^{h}E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\int_{z_{i}>0}
|P(t,Y(t^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})-P(t,Y(t^{-}))|^{2}
\nu(dz_{i})dt\right]<\infty. \elabel{psquarecon}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{uniqso} that,
for each $i\in\{1,...,h\}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\|\rho(Y(t))\|\leq A_{\rho}+B_{\rho}\|Y(t)\|,
\elabel{boundrho}\\
&&\left\|\frac{\partial\rho(Y(t))}{\partial y_{i}}\right\|\leq
\bar{A}_{1}+\bar{A}_{2}\|Y(t)\|+\bar{A}_{3}\|Y(t)\|^{2}
+\bar{A}_{4}\|Y(t)\|^{3}, \elabel{boundrhoI}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{A}_{i}$ for $i\in\{1,2,3,4\}$ are some nonnegative
constants, $A_{\rho}$ and $B_{\rho}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{\rho}=\frac{2(A_{b}+r)B_{b}}{b_{\sigma}}
+\frac{(A_{b}+r)^{2}}{b_{\sigma}K},\;\;\;\;\;\;
B_{\rho}=\frac{B_{\sigma}^{2}}{b_{\sigma}}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $K=\min\{y_{i0}e^{-\lambda_{i}T},i=1,...,h\}$. Then, based on
an idea as used in Benth {\em at al.}~\cite{benkar:merpor}, we can
prove Lemma~\ref{pintdif} by the following four steps.
First, by direct calculation, we know that $P(t,y)$ is finite for
any $(t,y) \in[0,T]\times R_{c}^{h}$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
P(t,y)\leq\exp\left(K_{1}(T-t)+B_{\rho}\sum_{i=1}^{h}
\frac{y_{i}}{\lambda_{i}}\right)<\infty, \elabel{expbound}
\end{eqnarray}
where the nonnegative constant $K_{1}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{1}=A_{\rho}+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\lambda_{i}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\left(e^{\frac{B_{\rho}z_{i}}{\lambda_{i}}}-1\right)\nu_{i}(dz_{i}).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Second, we prove that $P\in C^{0,1}\left([0,T]\times
R_{c}^{h},R^{1}\right)$ and the mapping
$(t,y)\rightarrow\frac{\partial P}{\partial y_{i}}(t,y)$ for each
$i\in\{1,...,h\}$ is continuous.. The continuity of $P(\cdot,y)$ for
each $y\in R_{c}^{h}$ can be shown as follows. Owing to the
condition \eq{linearg} and the fact \eq{disequine}, we know that
\begin{eqnarray}
\exp\left(\int_{t}^{T}\rho(Y^{t,y}(s))ds\right)
\leq\exp\left(A_{\rho}T+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\frac{B_{\rho}}{\lambda_{i}}
(y_{i}+L_{i}(\lambda_{i}T))\right). \elabel{gcontiny}
\end{eqnarray}
By \eq{expintcon} and \eq{basecon}, we know that the function on the
right-hand side of \eq{gcontiny} is integrable for each fixed $y\in
R_{c}^{h}$. Then, it follows from the Lebesgue's dominated
convergence theorem that $P(t,y)$ for each $y$ is continuous in
terms of $t\in[0,T]$.
Next, we show that $\frac{\partial P}{\partial y_{i}} (t,\cdot)$
with $i\in\{1,...,h\}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ exist and are continuous.
In fact, consider an arbitrary but fixed point $y$ and take a
compact set $U\subset R_{c}^{h}$ such that $y$ is in the interior of
$U$. Note that all points in $U$ can be assumed to be bounded by
some positive constant $M$. Thus, by \eq{boundrhoI}, \eq{uniqso},
\eq{yleq} and \eq{usefuline}, we have, for all $s\geq t$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial
y_{i}}\rho(Y^{t,y}(s))\right|
\leq\left(\sum_{i=1}^{4}\bar{A}_{i}\right)e^{3hM
+3\sum_{i=1}^{h}L_{i}(\lambda_{i}T)},\elabel{dryi}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Y^{t,y}(s)$ denotes the process with the initial value $y$ at
time $t$.
Owing to \eq{expintcon} and \eq{basecon}, the function on the
right-hand side of \eq{dryi} is integrable. Thus, it follows from
Theorem 2.27(b) in Folland~\cite{fol:reaana} that the partial
derivative of $\int_{t}^{T}\rho(Y^{t,y}(s))ds$ in terms of $y_{i}$
for each $i\in\{1,...,h\}$ exists. Hence, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}
\left(e^{\int_{t}^{T}\rho(Y^{t,y}(s))ds}\right)\right|
\leq T\left(\left(\sum_{i=1}^{4}\bar{A}_{i}\right)
e^{\left(A_{\rho}T+3hM+B_{\rho}\sum_{i=1}^{h}\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}}\right)
+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\left(3+\frac{B_{\rho}}{\lambda_{i}}\right)
L_{i}(\lambda_{i}T)}\right). \elabel{intmder}
\end{eqnarray}
Again, by \eq{expintcon} and \eq{basecon}, we know that the function
on the right-hand side of \eq{intmder} is integrable. Therefore, by
Theorem 2.27(b) in Folland~\cite{fol:reaana}, we can conclude that
$P(t,y)$ is differentiable with respect to $y\in R_{c}^{h}$.
Furthermore, by \eq{uniqso}, \eq{intmder} and the Lebesgue's
dominated convergence theorem, we obtain that the mapping
$(t,y)\rightarrow\frac{\partial P}{\partial y_{i}}(t,y)$ for each
$i\in\{1,...,h\}$ is continuous. Hence, $P(t,y)\in
C^{0,1}\left([0,T]\times R_{c}^{h},R^{1} \right)$.
Third, we prove the square-integrable property \eq{psquarecon} to be
true. In fact, it follows from condition \eq{expintcon} that
$\nu_{i}(\cdot)$ ($i\in\{1,...,h\}$) is a $\sigma$-finite measure
since $\nu_{i}([\epsilon,\infty)) <\infty$ for any $\epsilon>0$. In
addition, it is easy to see that the nonnegative function
$|P(t,Y(t^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})-P(t,Y(t^{-}))|^{2}$ is a measurable one
on the product space $[0,T]\times R_{c}^{h} \times\Omega$. Hence, by
the mean value theorem, \eq{dryi}, \eq{intmder}, the Jensen's
inequality, and the differentiability of $P(t,y)$ in $y$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\int_{z_{i}>0}
|P(t,Y(t^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})-P(t,Y(t^{-}))|^{2}
\nu_{i}(dz_{i})dt\right]
\elabel{provesqu}\\
&\leq&K_{3}K_{4}
\left(e^{(6+\frac{2B_{\rho}}{\lambda_{i}})}\int_{0<z_{i}<1}
z_{i}^{2}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})+\int_{z_{i}\geq
1}\left(e^{(8+\frac{2B_{\rho}}{\lambda_{i}})z_{i}}-1\right)\nu_{i}(dz_{i})
+\int_{z_{i}\geq 1}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})\right) \nonumber\\
&<&\infty, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_{3}$ and $K_{4}$ are some positive constants.
Furthermore, it follows from \eq{expbound}, \eq{yleq}, and
\eq{expintcon} that \eq{ppsisquint} is true.
Fourth, we prove that $P(t,y)$ satisfies the IPDE \eq{rhointdifeq}.
In fact, for each $t\in[0,T)$, it follows from the time-homogeneity
of $Y$ that
\begin{eqnarray}
g(T-t,y)\equiv
E_{0,y}\left[e^{-\int_{0}^{T-t}\rho\left(Y(s)\right)ds}\right]
=E_{t,y}\left[e^{-\int_{t}^{T}\rho\left(Y(s)\right)ds}\right]
=P(t,y). \elabel{gpsit}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $P(t,y)\in C^{0,1}\left([0,T]\times R_{c}^{h}\right)$, it
follows from the It$\hat{o}$'s formula (see, e.g., Theorem 1.14 and
Theorem 1.16 in pages 6-9 of $\emptyset$ksendal and
Sulem~\cite{okssul:appsto}) that, for each fixed $t$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(l))
\elabel{appitoI}\\
&=&g(T-t,y)-\sum_{i=1}^{h}\lambda_{i}
\int_{0}^{l}Y^{0,y_{i}}_{i}(s^{-})\frac{\partial g} {\partial
y_{i}}(T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-}))ds
\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{0}^{l}
\int_{z_{i}>0}(g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})
-g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-})))N_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, let $\hat{g}(t,z_{i},\omega) \equiv
g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-},\omega)+z_{i}e_{i})
-g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-}),\omega))$ for each $z_{i}\in(0,\infty)$,
$i\in\{1,...,h\}$ and $\omega\in\Omega$. Then, $\hat{g}$ is $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-predictable. Thus, owing to \eq{psquarecon} (here we need
to use an arbitrary but fixed $y$ to replace $y_{0}$), it follows
from Theorem 4.2.3 in Applebaum~\cite{app:levpro} (or the
explanation in page 61-62 of Ikeda and
Watanabe~\cite{ikewat:stodif}) that the last term in \eq{appitoI} is
a semimartingale. Thus, taking expectations on both sides of
\eq{appitoI}, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{E[g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(l))]-g(T-t,y)}{l}
\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{h}\frac{\lambda_{i}}{l}
\int_{0}^{l}E\left[Y^{0,y_{i}}_{i}(s^{-}) \frac{\partial g}{\partial
y_{i}} (T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-}))\right]ds
\nonumber\\
&&-\sum_{i=1}^{h}\frac{\lambda_{i}}{l}\int_{0}^{l}
\int_{z_{i}>0}E[g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})
-g(T-t,Y^{0,y}(s^{-}))]\nu_{i}(dz_{i})ds. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by letting $l\downarrow 0$, we know that $P(t,\cdot)$ is in
the domain of the infinitesimal generator of $Y$, which is denoted
by ${\cal A}$, that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}g(T-t,y) &=&\sum_{i=1}^{h}\lambda_{i}y_{i}
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}g(T-t,y)
\elabel{ggenerator}\\
&&-\sum_{i=1}^{h}\lambda_{i}
\int_{z_{i}>0}(g(T-t,y+z_{i}e_{i})-g(T-t,y))\nu_{i}(dz_{i}).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now, by \eq{expbound}, we see that $g(T-t,y)=P(t,Y^{0,y}(l))\in
L^{2}(\Omega,P)$ for each $t\in[0,T)$ and all $l$ in a neighborhood
of zero such that $t-l\leq T$. Thus, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{0,y}[g(T-t,Y(l))]
&=&E_{0,y}\left[E_{0,Y(l)}\left[e^{-\int_{0}^{T-t}
\rho\left(Y(s)\right)ds}\right]\right]
\elabel{hmnkcII}\\
&=&E_{0,y}\left[E_{0,y}\left[\left.e^{-\int_{0}^{T-t}
\rho\left(Y(s+l)\right)ds}\right|{\cal F}_{l}\right]\right]
\nonumber\\
&=&E_{0,y}\left[e^{-\int_{l}^{T-t+l}\rho\left(Y(s))ds\right)}\right]
\nonumber\\
&=&E_{0,y}\left[e^{-\int_{0}^{T-t+l}\rho(Y(s))ds}
e^{\int_{0}^{l}\rho\left(Y(s))ds\right)}\right], \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the second equality in \eq{hmnkcII} follows from the Markov
property of $Y$ (e.g., Proposition 7.9 in
Kallenberg~\cite{kal:foumod}). Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{E_{0,y}[g(T-t,Y(l))]-g(T-t,y)}{l}
\elabel{hmnkcIII}\\
&=&\frac{1}{l}E_{0,y}\left[e^{-\int_{0}^{T-t+l}\rho(Y(s))ds}
\left(e^{\int_{0}^{l}\rho(Y(s))ds}-1\right)\right]
+\frac{g(T-t+l,y)-g(T-t,y)}{l}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Now, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, as $l\downarrow 0$ and
a.s., we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&e^{-\int_{0}^{T-t+l}\rho(Y^{0,y}(s))ds}\left\{\frac{1}{l}
\left(e^{\int_{0}^{l}\rho(Y^{0,y}(s))ds}-1\right)\right\}
\rightarrow \rho(y)e^{-\int_{0}^{T-t}\rho(Y^{0,y}(s))ds}.
\elabel{calcuint}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, by the mean-value theorem, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{l}\left|e^{\int_{0}^{l}\rho(Y^{0,y}(s))ds}-1\right|
&\leq&\sup_{l\in[0,T]}\left|\rho(Y^{0,y}(l))
e^{\int_{0}^{l}\rho(Y^{0,y}(s))ds}\right|. \elabel{uniexpb}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the function in the left-hand side of \eq{calcuint} is
uniformly bounded by an integrable function, it follows from the
dominated convergence theorem that the right-derivative of
$g(T-\cdot,y)$ at $t$ exists and satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}g(T-t,y)=\rho(y)g(T-t)+\frac{\partial g} {\partial
t}(T-t,y). \elabel{eqngp}
\end{eqnarray}
Hence, by \eq{gpsit} and \eq{eqngp}, we know that $P(t,y)$ satisfies
\eq{rhointdifeq}. In addition, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
|P(t,y+z_{i}\delta_{ij})-P(t,y)|
&\leq&K_{5}E\left[e^{3\sum_{j=1}^{h}(2L_{j}(\lambda_{j}T)
+z_{i}\delta_{ij})}\left( e^{\sum_{j=1}^{h}\left(
\frac{B_{\rho}}{\lambda_{j}}(2L_{j}(\lambda_{j}T)+z_{i}\delta_{ij})\right)}
\right)\right]z_{i}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_{5}$ is some positive constant. Thus, by the Lebesgue's
dominated convergence theorem, we can conclude that
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{z_{i}>0}|P(t,y+z_{i}e_{i})-P(t,y)| \nu_{i}(dz_{i}) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
is continuous in $t$. Therefore, it follows from \eq{rhointdifeq}
that $\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}(t,y)$ is continuous in
$t\in[0,T)$, which implies that $P\in C^{1,1}\left([0,T)\times
R_{c}^{h},R^{1}\right)$. Hence, we complete the proof of
Lemma~\ref{pintdif}. $\Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{opadp}
Let $O(t)\equiv P(t,Y(t))$ defined in \eq{opyt}. Then, under
conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, $O$ is a
$(0,1]$-valued semimartingale with $O(T)=1$. Furthermore, define
\begin{eqnarray}
&&K\equiv{\cal L}(O)\equiv\left(\frac{1}{O_{-}}\right)\cdot
O\;\;\mbox{with}\;\;K(0)=0\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;O_{-}(t)\equiv O(t^{-}).
\elabel{kloo}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, $K$ is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale and has the
following canonical decomposition
\begin{eqnarray}
&&dK(t)\equiv d{\cal L}(O)(t)=\rho(Y(t^{-}))dt+ \sum_{i=1}^{h}
\int_{z_{i}>0}F(t,z_{i})\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}dt,dz_{i}),
\elabel{ksde}
\end{eqnarray}
where, $F(t,z_{i},\omega))$ is defined in \eq{fszy}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we show that $O$ is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale. In
fact, it follows from the Ito's formula (see, e.g., Theorem 1.14 and
Theorem 1.16 in pages 6-9 of $\emptyset$ksendal and
Sulem~\cite{okssul:appsto}) and Lemma \ref{pintdif} that
\begin{eqnarray}
O(t)&=&P(0,y_{0})+\int_{0}^{t}\rho(Y(s^{-}))P(s,Y(s^{-}))ds
\elabel{lsemin}\\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{0}^{t}
\int_{z_{i}>0}(P(s,Y(s^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})
-P(s,Y(s^{-})))\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by Lemma~\ref{pintdif} and the claim in pages 61-62 of Ikeda
and Watanable~\cite{ikewat:stodif}, we know that the third term in
the right-hand side of \eq{lsemin} is an $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-martingale. Furthermore, by \eq{boundrho} and the similar
proof as used for Lemma~\ref{sprice}, we know that the second term
on the right-hand side of \eq{lsemin} is of finite variation a.s.
Hence, we get that $O$ is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale.
Thus, it follows from \eq{lsemin} and the definition of $K(t)$ that
\eq{ksde} is true.
Second, $M^{K}$ defined as follows is an $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-martingale,
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{K}(t)&=&\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{0}^{t}
\int_{z_{i}>0}F(s,z_{i})\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i}).
\elabel{mkreps
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, by the mean-value theorem, \eq{boundrho}, \eq{uniqso}
\eq{expintcon}, and the fact that $\nu_{i}(\cdot)$
($i\in\{1,...,h\}$) is a $\sigma$-finite measure since
$\nu_{i}([\epsilon,\infty)) <\infty$ for any $\epsilon>0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\left|F(t,z_{i})\right|^{2}\nu(dz_{i})dt\right]<\infty.
\elabel{fracpp}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, it follows from \eq{fracpp} and the claims in pages 61-62 of
Ikeda and Watanable~\cite{ikewat:stodif} that $M^{K}$ is an $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-martingale. Therefore, we can conclude that $K$ is an
$\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-semimartingale. Hence, Lemma~\ref{opadp} is true.
$\Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{opadpI}
Let $b^{D}$ and $c^{D}$ be the drift and the covariance matrix
processes associated with $D$, $b^{K}$ is the drift process
associated with $K$.
Then, under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, we
have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&b^{K}=\left(b^{D}\right)'\left(c^{D}\right)^{-1}b^{D}.
\elabel{equaoa}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, the process $a$ defined in \eq{adjustmentp} satisfies
the following relationship,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&a\equiv\left(c^{D}\right)^{-1}b^{D}. \elabel{adjustp}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First of all, it follows from Lemma~\ref{disprice} and
Lemma~\ref{opadp} that
\begin{eqnarray}
b^{D}(t)&=&(D_{1}(t)(b_{1}(Y(t^{-}))-r),...,D_{d}(t)(b_{d}(Y(t^{-}))-r))',
\elabel{ddeI}\\
c^{D}(t)&=&\mbox{diag}(D(t))\left(\sigma(Y(t^{-}))\sigma(Y(t^{-}))'\right)
\mbox{diag}(D(t)),
\elabel{ddeII}\\
b^{K}(t)&=&O^{-1}(t)b^{O}(t)=\rho(Y(t^{-})).
\elabel{ddeIII}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by simple calculations, we know that \eq{equaoa} and
\eq{adjustp} are true. Hence, we complete the proof of
Lemma~\ref{opadpI}. $\Box$
\end{proof}
For convenience, we will use $C_{ij}^{D}\equiv[D_{i},D_{j}]$ to
denote the co-quadratic variation processes with $i,j\in\{1,...,d\}$
for the process $D$ and write interchangeably $c^{D_{i}D_{j}}\equiv
c_{ij}^{D}$ and $c^{D_{i}}=c_{ii}^{D}$. Furthermore, similar
notations are also used for other processes related in the following
discussions.
\begin{lemma}\label{zfpp}
Under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, $\hat{Z}$
is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-and $P$-martingale.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we show that $a\in L(D)$. In fact, it follows from the
condition {\bf C1}, \eq{uniqso}, and \eq{dsde} that
$\|Y(t^{-}))\|\geq\min\{y_{i0}e^{-\lambda_{i}T},i=1,...,h\}>0$ for
any $t\in[0,T]$. Then, for $m,n\in\{1,...,d\}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\rho}(Y(t^{-}))&\equiv&\sum_{m=1}^{d}\left(B(Y(t^{-}))'
\left(\sigma(Y(t^{-}))\sigma(Y(t^{-}))'\right)^{-1}\right)^{2}_{m}
\sum_{n=1}^{d}\sigma_{mn}^{2}(Y(t^{-})) \elabel{barrho}\\
&\leq&C_{\bar{\rho}}
+\frac{B_{b}^{2}B_{\sigma}}{b_{\sigma}^{2}}\|Y(t^{-})\|,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_{\bar{\rho}}$ is some positive constant. Thus, it follows
from the Kunita-Watanable inequality (e.g., Theorem 25 in page 69 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}) that
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[\sum_{m=1}^{d}\sum_{n=1}^{d}\left|
\int_{0}^{T}a_{m}(t)a_{n}(t)d\left[M_{m}^{D},M_{n}^{D}\right](t)
\right|\right]&\leq&
d^{2}E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\bar{\rho}(Y(t^{-}))dt\right]
\elabel{mnmmI}\\
&<&\infty,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_{m}$ and $M^{D}_{m}$ with $m\in\{1,...,d\}$ are the $m$th
components of $a$ and $M^{D}$ respectively.
Furthermore, it follows from \eq{dsde} that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\sum_{m=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{T}a_{m}(t)D_{m}(t)
B_{m}(Y(t^{-}))dt\right]=E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\rho(Y(t^{-}))dt\right]
<\infty. \elabel{mnmmII}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by \eq{mnmmI}-\eq{mnmmII}, Definition 6.17 of page 207,
Definition 4.3 of page 180, Definition 6.12 of page 206, and
Definition 2.6 of page 76 in Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, we know that $a\in L(D)$. Thus,
$(a\cdot D)(T)$ is well defined.
In addition, it follows from Theorem 4.5(a) in page 180 of Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} that, for each $u\in L(D)$, we have,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(u\cdot D)(t)=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}
\sum_{i=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}u_{i}(s)I_{\{\|u(s)\|\leq
k\}}dM^{D}_{i}(s) +\sum_{i=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}u_{i}(s)dB^{D}_{i}(s),
\elabel{stointud}
\end{eqnarray}
where the limit in the first term on the right-hand side of
\eq{stointud} corresponds to the convergence in probability
uniformly on every compact set of $[0,T]$. Therefore, by \eq{dsde},
\eq{expintcon}, \eq{dsdeb}-\eq{mdreps}, \eq{stointud}, and the
Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we know that
\begin{eqnarray}
(a\cdot D)(T)=\sum_{m=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{T}a_{m}(t)dD_{m}(t).
\elabel{explicitad}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, it follows from Lemma~\ref{opadp} that $O$ is a semimartingale.
Thus, it follows from Conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2} and
\eq{explicitad} that $(a\cdot D)$ is also a semimartingale. Then, by
Corollary 8.7(b) and equation 8.19 in pages 135-138 of Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{Z}(t)&=&{\cal E}(K-(a\cdot D)-[K,(a\cdot D)])(t)
\elabel{jhatz}\\
&=&{\cal E}\left(M^{K}-(a\cdot M^{D})+(b^{K}-a'b^{D})\cdot
A\right)(t)
\nonumber\\
&=&{\cal E}(G)(t),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the second equality follows from the facts that $A(t)=t$,
$K(0)=0$ and the independence among driving Brownian motions and
L\'evy processes. The third equality follows from
Lemma~\ref{opadpI}. Furthermore, $M^{K}$ and $M^{D}$ are given by
\eq{mkreps} and \eq{mdreps}, which are $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-martingales. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G\equiv M^{K}-\left(a\cdot M^{D}\right)\elabel{grepsn}
\end{eqnarray}
is also an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-martingale. Thus, it follows from
Theorem 4.61 in page 59 of Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}
that $\hat{Z}$ is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-local martingale.
Second, we prove that $\hat{Z}$ is of class (D), i.e., the set of
random variables
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\{\hat{Z}(\tau),\tau\;\mbox{is finite valued}\;\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}-\mbox{stopping times}\} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray} is
uniformly integrable (e.g., Definition 1.46 in page 11 of Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}).
In fact, consider an arbitrary finite-valued $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-stopping time $\tau\leq T$ and an arbitrary constant
$\gamma>0$. Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\left|\hat{Z}(\tau)\right|
I_{\{|\hat{Z}(\tau)|\geq\gamma\}}\right]
\leq\frac{1}{P(0,y_{0})}\left(E\left[\left({\cal E}(-a\cdot
D)(\tau)\right)^{2}\right]\right)^{1/2}
\left(P\{|\hat{Z}(\tau)|\geq\gamma\}\right)^{1/2},\elabel{classd}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the facts that $0<O(\cdot)\leq 1$ and $D$ is
continuous. Furthermore, let
\begin{eqnarray}
&&U_{1}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\rho(Y(s^{-}))ds, \elabel{mmi}\\
&&U_{2}(t)=\sum_{n=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}\bar{B}_{n}(Y(s^{-}))dW_{n}(s),
\elabel{mmii}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{B}(Y(s^{-}))$ is defined in \eq{barbii}. Hence,
$U_{2}(t)$ is a continuous $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-martingale. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[\left({\cal E}\left(-a\cdot D\right)(\tau)\right)^{2}\right]
&=& E\left[e^{\left(-2(U_{1}(\tau)+U_{2}(\tau))
-[U_{1}+U_{2},U_{1}+U_{2}](\tau) \right)}\right]\elabel{caletau}\\
&\leq&E\left[e^{-2U_{2}(\tau)}\right]
\nonumber\\
&\leq&\left(E\left[e^{8[U_{2},U_{2}](T)}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\nonumber\\
&<&\infty,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the third inequality follows from the optional sampling
theorem, the fact that $e^{-2U_{2}(t)}$ is a submartingale by the
Jensen's inequality, and Theorem 39 in page 138 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}. The last inequality follows from
conditions {\bf C1}-{\bf C2}. Therefore, it follows from
\eq{caletau} that
$\sup_{\tau}E\left[\left|\hat{Z}(\tau)\right|\right]\leq K_{1}$,
where $K_{1}$ is some positive constant. Thus, by the Markov's
inequality, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
P\{|\hat{Z}(\tau)|\geq\gamma\}\leq\frac{K_{1}}{\gamma}\rightarrow
0\;\;\mbox{as}\;\gamma\rightarrow\infty\elabel{mhatz}
\end{eqnarray}
for all stopping time $\tau\leq T$. Therefore, it follows from
\eq{classd}-\eq{mhatz} that $\hat{Z}$ is of class (D). Hence, it
follows from \eq{jhatz} and Proposition 1.47(c) in page 12 of Jacod
and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} that $\hat{Z}$ is a uniformly
integrable $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$- and $P$-martingale. $\Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{emmp}
Under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, $Q^{*}$ is
an equivalent martingale measure.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, we use $P_{t}$ to denote the restriction of $P$ to ${\cal
F}_{t}$ for each $t\in[0,T]$. Then, we define
$dQ^{*}_{t}\equiv\hat{Z}(t)dP_{t}$ and $dQ^{*}\equiv\hat{Z}(T)dP$.
Owing to \eq{pexactsolution}-\eq{densitym}, we know that
$\hat{Z}(t)>0$ for each $t\in[0,T]$.
Furthermore, note that $\hat{Z}$ is a $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$- and
$P$-martingale. Hence, it follows from the discussion in page 166 of
Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} that $Q^{*}$ is equivalent
to $P$ with the density process $\hat{Z}$.
Next, we show that $D$ is an $Q^{*}$-martingale. In fact, since $D$
is an $P$-semimartingale with the decomposition given in \eq{dsde},
it follows from Girsanov-Meyer Theorem (e.g., Theorem 35 in page 132
of Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}) that $D$ is also an
$Q^{*}$-semimartingale with the decomposition $D=\tilde{D}+\bar{D}$.
The process $\bar{D}$ is an $Q^{*}$-finite variation process. For
each $m\in\{1,...,d\}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{D}_{m}(t)&=&M^{D}_{m}(t)-\int_{0}^{t}\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(s)}
d\left[\hat{Z},M^{D}_{m}\right](s) \elabel{tilded}\\
&=&M^{D}_{m}(t)-\sum_{n=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}
\frac{D_{m}(s)\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))}{\hat{Z}(s)O_{0}} d\left[O{\cal
E}(-a\cdot D),W_{n}\right]^{c}(s) \nonumber\\
&=&M^{D}_{m}(t)-\sum_{n=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}
\frac{D_{m}(s)\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))}{\hat{Z}(s)O_{0}}{\cal
E}(-a\cdot D(s))\left(d\left[O,W_{n}\right]^{c}(s)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+O(s)d\left[U,W_{n}\right]^{c}(s)
+\frac{1}{2}d[[O,U]^{c},W_{n}]^{c}(s)\right)\nonumber\\
&=&M^{D}_{m}(t)-\sum_{n=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}
D_{m}(s)\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))d\left[U,W_{n}\right]^{c}(s)
\nonumber\\
&=&M^{D}_{m}(t)+\sum_{r=1}^{d}\sum_{n=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}
D_{m}(s)\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))a_{r}(s)d\left[D_{r},W_{n}\right]^{c}(s)
\nonumber\\
&=&M^{D}_{m}(t)+\int_{0}^{t}\sum_{n=1}^{d}
D_{m}(s)\sigma_{mn}(Y(s^{-}))\bar{B}_{n}(Y(s^{-}))ds,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{B}_{n}(Y(s^{-}))$ is defined in \eq{barbiiI}. The second
equality in \eq{tilded} follows from Theorem 29 in page 75 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}, the proof of Corollary in page 83 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}, the fact that $W$ is continuous, Theorem
4.52 in page 55 of Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, and the
explanation in page 70 of Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}.
The third equality in \eq{tilded} follows from the Ito's formula for
multi-dimensional semimartingales (e.g., Theorem 33 in pages 81-82
of Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}), and the associated function $f$ is
taken to be $f(O,U)=Oe^{U}$. Furthermore, $a_{r}$ is the $r$th
component of $a$, and $U$ is defined by $U(t)\equiv-a\cdot
D(t)-\frac{1}{2}[a\cdot D,a\cdot D](t)$. Thus, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{D}(t)=D(t)-\tilde{D}(t)=\bar{s}\equiv(s_{1},...,s_{d})'\;\;
\mbox{or}\;\;D(t)=\tilde{D}(t)+\bar{s}, \elabel{ddequal}
\end{eqnarray}
where $s_{i}$ for each $i\in\{1,...,d\}$ is the initial price as
given in \eq{stockassetm}.
Therefore, to show that $D$ is an $Q^{*}$-martingale, it suffices to
show that $\tilde{D}$ is an $Q^{*}$-martingale. More precisely, by
the last equation in the proof of Theorem 35 in pages 132-133 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\tilde{D}_{m}(t)=\left(M^{D}_{m}(t)-\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t)}
\left[\hat{Z},M_{m}^{D}\right](t)\right)+\int_{0}^{t}
\left[\hat{Z},M_{m}^{D}\right](s^{-})
d\left[\frac{1}{\hat{Z}}\right](s).\elabel{gmtdec}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, we can show that the both terms on the right-hand side of
\eq{gmtdec} are $Q^{*}$-martingales.
For the first term on the right-hand side of \eq{gmtdec}, it follows
from integration by parts (e.g., equations (*) and (**) in page 132
of Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}), the Ito's formula (e.g., Theorem 1.14
and Theorem 1.16 in pages 6-9 of $\emptyset$ksendal and
Sulem~\cite{okssul:appsto}), and Lemma~\ref{pintdif} that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left(M^{D}_{m}(t)-\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t)}
\left[\hat{Z},M_{m}^{D}\right](t)\right)\hat{Z}(t) \elabel{pzmart}\\
&=&\int_{0}^{t}\hat{Z}(s^{-})dM_{m}^{D}(s)
+\int_{0}^{t}M_{m}^{D}(s)d\hat{Z}(s) \nonumber\\
&=&\int_{0}^{t}\hat{Z}(s^{-})dM_{m}^{D}(s)-\sum_{n=1}^{d}
\int_{0}^{t}M_{m}^{D}(s)\hat{Z}(s^{-})\bar{B}_{n}(Y(s^{-}))
dW_{n}(s)\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{0}^{t}\int_{z_{i}>0} \frac{M_{m}^{D}(s){\cal
E}((-a\cdot D)(s))}{O_{0}}
(P(s,Y(s^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})-P(s,Y(s^{-})))\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i}),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{B}_{n}(Y(s^{-}))$ is defined in \eq{barbiiI}. The second
equality follows from \eq{mkreps}-\eq{mdreps} and the fact that
\begin{eqnarray}
d\hat{Z}(t)=\hat{Z}(t^{-})dG(t) \elabel{stoexp}
\end{eqnarray}
owing to \eq{jhatz}-\eq{grepsn}, the definition of Dol\'eans-Dade
exponential, and Theorem 37 in pages 84-85 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}.
Then, we can show that each of the three terms on the right-hand
side of \eq{pzmart} is an $Q^{*}$-martingale.
The claim that the first term on the right-hand side of \eq{pzmart}
is a $Q^{*}$-martingale can be proved as follows. First, it follows
from the similar argument as used in \eq{mkls} that $M^{D}$ is a
square integrable $P$-martingale. Second, by the Tonelli's Theorem
(e.g., Theorem 20 in page 309 of Royden \cite{roy:reaana}) and the
H$\ddot{o}$lder's inequality, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\hat{Z}^{2}(s)d\left[M^{D}_{m},M^{D}_{m}\right](s)
\right]\elabel{ezmdm}\\
&\leq&\bar{K}\int_{0}^{T}\left(E\left[O^{8}(s)\right]\right)^{1/2}
\left(E\left[\left({\cal E}(-a\cdot
D)(s)\right)^{16}\right]\right)^{1/4}\left(E\left[D_{m}^{16}(s)\right]
\right)^{1/4}ds\nonumber\\
&<&\infty,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{K}$ is some positive constant. The last inequality in
\eq{ezmdm} follows from the similar arguments as in \eq{caletau} and
\eq{dmeight}. Thus, it follows from Theorem 4.40(b) in page 48 of
Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} that the first term on the
right-hand side of \eq{pzmart} is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$- and
$P$-martingale.
The claim that the second term on the right-hand side of \eq{pzmart}
is an $Q^{*}$-martingale can be proved as follows. It follows from
\eq{dmeight} and Exercise 3.25 in page 163 of Karatzas and
Shreve~\cite{karshr:bromot} that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\int_{0}^{t}\left(M_{m}^{D}(s)\right)^{16}ds\right]<\infty.
\elabel{mkls}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by \eq{mkls}, the H$\ddot{o}$lder's inequality and the similar
method as used in \eq{ezmdm}, we know that the second term on the
right-hand side of \eq{pzmart} is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$- and
$P$-martingale.
The claim that the third term on the right-hand side of \eq{pzmart}
is an $Q^{*}$-martingale can be proved as follows. It follows from
the Tonelli's Theorem (e.g., Theorem 20 in page 309 of Royden
\cite{roy:reaana}) that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\int_{z_{i}>0}\frac{|M_{m}^{D}(t)|}{O_{0}}
\left|(P(t,Y(t^{-})+z_{i}e_{i})-P(t,Y(t^{-}))){\cal E}((-a\cdot
D)(t))\right|\nu_{i}(dz_{i})dt\right]
\elabel{loneintpe}\\
&\leq&K_{1}\left(E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\sup_{\xi(Y(t^{-}))\in[0,z_{i}]}\left|\frac{\partial P(t,Y(t^{-})
+\xi(Y(t^{-}))e_{i})}{\partial
y_{i}}\right|^{2}z_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})dt\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\nonumber\\
&<&\infty,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_{1}$ is some positive constant.
The inequalities in \eq{loneintpe} follow from the similar proofs as
used in \eq{caletau}, \eq{mkls}, the H$\ddot{o}$lder's inequality,
the proof of \eq{provesqu}, and the fact that
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{z_{i}>0}z_{i}\nu(dz_{i})
&\leq&\int_{0<z_{i}<1}z_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})+
\int_{z_{i}\geq 1}z_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})<\infty.\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{0<z_{i}<1}z_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})+\int_{z_{i}\geq
1}\left(e^{z_{i}}-1\right)+\int_{z_{i}\geq
1}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})\nonumber\\
&<&\infty.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, it follows from \eq{loneintpe} and the argument in pages 61-62
in Ikeda and Watanable~\cite{ikewat:stodif} that the third term on
the right-hand side of \eq{pzmart} is also an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$-
and $P$-martingale.
Therefore, by summarizing the discussions for the three terms on the
right-hand side of \eq{pzmart}, we know that the process given by
\eq{pzmart}, is an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$- and $P$-martingale. Moreover,
by applying Proposition 3.8(a) in page 168 of Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, we can conclude that the first term
on the right-hand side of \eq{gmtdec} is an $Q^{*}$-martingale.
For the second term on the right-hand side of \eq{gmtdec}, we can
show that it is also an $\{{\cal F}_{t}\}$- and $Q^{*}$-martingale.
In fact, since $\hat{Z}$ is a density process of $Q^{*}$ in terms of
$P$ and $\left(\frac{1}{\hat{Z}}\right)\hat{Z}=1$ (that is an
$P$-martingale), it follows from Proposition 3.8(a) in page 168 of
Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} that $\frac{1}{\hat{Z}}$ is
an $Q^{*}$-martingale. Furthermore, it follows from the Ito's
formula (e.g., Theorem 32 in page 78 of Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}),
\eq{stoexp} and the calculation of $d\hat{Z}(t)$ in the last
equality in \eq{pzmart} that
\begin{eqnarray}
d\left(\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t)}\right)
&=&\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t^{-})}
\sum_{n=1}^{d}\left(\bar{B}_{n}(Y(t^{-}))\right)^{2}dt
-\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t^{-})}
\sum_{n=1}^{d}\bar{B}_{n}(Y(t^{-}))dW_{n}(t)
\elabel{reversez}\\
&&-\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}\frac{F(t,z_{i})}{\hat{Z}(t)}
\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}dz_{i},dt), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{B}(Y(t^{-}))$ is defined in \eq{barbiiI}. Thus, it
follows from \eq{reversez} that $\frac{1}{\hat{Z}}$ is squarely
integrable under $Q^{*}$, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{Q^{*}}\left[\left(\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t)}\right)^{2}\right]
&\leq&E_{Q^{*}}\left[\sup_{0\leq s\leq
T}\frac{1}{\hat{Z}^{2}(s)}\right]
\elabel{oneoverhatz}\\
&\leq&4E_{Q^{*}}\left[\frac{1}{\hat{Z}^{2}(T)}\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq&4\left(E\left[\hat{Z}^{2}(T)\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left(E\left[\frac{1}{\hat{Z}^{4}(T)}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{4}{O_{0}}\left(E\left[({\cal E}((-a\cdot D)(T)))^{2}\right]
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(E\left[\frac{1}{\left({\cal E}((-a\cdot
D)(T)) \right)^{4}}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\nonumber\\
&<&\infty, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the second inequality in \eq{oneoverhatz} follows from the
Doob's martingale inequality (e.g., Theorem 2.1.5 in page 74 of
Applebaum~\cite{app:levpro}) since $\frac{1}{\hat{Z}}$ is an
$Q^{*}$-martingale. The last inequality of \eq{oneoverhatz} follows
from the similar argument as in \eq{caletau}.
Therefore, to show that the second term on the right-hand side of
\eq{gmtdec} is an $Q^{*}$-martingale, it suffices to show that the
following expectation under $Q^{*}$ is finite owing to
\eq{oneoverhatz} and Theorem 4.40(b) in page 48 of Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe},
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E_{Q^{*}}\left[\int_{0}^{T}\left(\left[\hat{Z},M_{m}^{D}\right](s^{-})
\right)^{2}d\left[\frac{1}{\hat{Z}},\frac{1}{\hat{Z}}\right](s)\right]
\elabel{decsec}\\
&=&E_{Q^{*}}\left[\int_{0}^{T}
\left(\left[\hat{Z},M_{m}^{D}\right]^{c}(s^{-})
\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(s^{-})}\right)^{2}
\sum_{n=1}^{d}\left(\bar{B}_{n}(Y(s^{-}))\right)^{2}ds\right]
\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^{h}E_{Q^{*}}\left[\int_{0}^{T}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\left(\left[\hat{Z},M_{m}^{D}\right]^{c}(s^{-})
\frac{F(s,z_{i})}{\hat{Z}(s)}\right)^{2}
\lambda_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})ds\right].\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The first term on the right-hand side of \eq{decsec} is finite since
\begin{eqnarray}
&&E_{Q^{*}}\left[\int_{0}^{T}\frac{1}{\hat{Z}^{2}(s^{-})}
\left(\left[\hat{Z},M_{m}^{D}\right]^{c}(s^{-})\right)^{2}
\bar{\rho}(Y(s^{-}))ds\right]
\elabel{ldecsec}\\
&\leq&K_{1}\left(\frac{4}{3}E\left[\left(\frac{1}{{\cal E}(-a\cdot
D)(T)}\right)^{3}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left(\frac{20}{19}E\left[\left({\cal E}(-a\cdot
D)(T)\right)^{20}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{8}}
\left(\int_{0}^{T}E\left[D^{8}_{m}(s)\right]ds\right)^{\frac{1}{8}}
\nonumber\\
&<&\infty,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_{1}$ is some positive constant.
The first inequality in \eq{ldecsec} follows from the Doob's
martingale inequality (e.g., page 74 of
Applebaum~\cite{app:levpro}). The second inequality in \eq{ldecsec}
follows from the similar arguments as in \eq{classd} and
\eq{dmeight}. Similarly, the second term on the right-hand side of
\eq{decsec} is also finite, which can be proved along the line of
the discussion as in \eq{ldecsec}.
Thus, it follows from the finiteness of \eq{decsec} that the second
term on the right-hand side of \eq{gmtdec} is an $Q^{*}$-martingale.
Therefore, by combining this fact with \eq{gmtdec} and \eq{pzmart},
we know that $D=\tilde{D}+\bar{s}$ displayed in \eq{ddequal} is an
$Q^{*}$-martingale (i.e. $Q^{*}$ is an equivalent martingale
measure). Finally, by applying the similar discussion as used in
\eq{ezmdm}, we conclude that $\frac{dQ^{*}}{dP}\in L^{2}(P)$, which
implies that $Q^{*}\in{\cal U}_{2}^{e}(D)$. $\Box$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Under conditions {\bf C1}, {\bf C2}, and \eq{expintcon}, $Q^{*}$ is
the VOMM.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to justify that all conditions stated in Theorem 3.25 of
C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} are satisfied. First of
all, for any stopping time $\tau$, we can show that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&u^{\tau}(t)\equiv a(t)I_{(\tau,T]}(t){\cal
E}\left((-aI_{(\tau,T])})\cdot D\right)(t^{-})\in\bar{\Theta}(D).
\elabel{utaud}
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, it follows from the proof of Lemma~\ref{emmp} that ${\cal
U}_{2}^{e}(D)$ is nonempty. Furthermore, since $D$ is a continuous
$P$-semimartingale, it is sufficient to prove that the three
equivalent conditions stated in Theorem 2.1 of C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:meavar} are satisfied for \eq{utaud}, which can
be done by tedious computations similarly as before. In addition, we
can show that $O{\cal E}((-aI_{(\tau,T]})\cdot D)$ is of class
($D$). Therefore, by combining this claim with Lemma~\ref{opadpI},
\eq{utaud}, and Theorem 3.25 in C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}, we know that $O$ and $a$ are the
opportunity and adjustment processes in the sense defined Section 3
of~\cite{cerkal:strgen}. Thus, it follows from Proposition 3.13 in
C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} that $Q^{*}$ is the
VOMM. Hence, we complete the proof of Proposition~\ref{equimar}.
$\Box$
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Unique Existence of Solution to A Type of BSDEs}
Consider the following $q$-dimensional BSDE with jumps and a
terminal condition $H$
\begin{eqnarray}
V(t)&=&H-\int_{t}^{T}g\left(s,V(s^{-}),\bar{V}(s),\tilde{V}(s,\cdot),
Y(s^{-})\right)ds-\int_{t}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^{d}\bar{V}_{i}(s)dW_{i}(s)
\elabel{gbsde}\\
&&-\int_{t}^{T}\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}\tilde{V}_{i}(s,z_{i})
\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i}), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $H\in L^{2}_{{\cal F}_{T}}(\Omega,R^{q},P)$,
$\bar{V}=\left(\bar{V}_{1},...,\bar{V}_{d}\right)\in R^{q\times d}$,
$\tilde{V}=\left(\tilde{V}_{1},...,\tilde{V}_{h}\right)\in
R^{q\times h}$, $g$ is a random function: $[0,T]\times R^{q}\times
R^{q\times d}\times L^{2}_{\nu}(R^{h}_{+},R^{q\times h})\times
R^{h}\times\Omega\rightarrow R^{h}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&L^{2}_{\nu}(R^{h}_{+},R^{q\times h})\equiv\left\{\tilde{v}:
R^{h}_{+}\rightarrow R^{q\times h},\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\left|\tilde{v}_{i}(z_{i})\right|^{2}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})<\infty\right\}.
\elabel{lvrqh}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, for any $\tilde{v}\in L^{2}_{\nu}(R^{h}_{+},R^{q\times
h})$, the associated norm is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\|\tilde{v}\|_{\nu}\equiv\left(\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\left|\tilde{v}_{i}(z_{i})\right|^{2}\lambda_{i}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}. \elabel{vnorm}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{proposition}\label{bsdey}
Replacing $H\in L^{4}_{{\cal F}_{T}}(\Omega,R,P)$ by $H\in
L^{2}_{{\cal F}_{T}}(\Omega,R,P)$ in Assumption~\ref{hstopasump}.
Supposing that $g(t,v,\bar{v},\tilde{v},Y(t^{-}))$ is $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-adapted for any given $(v,\bar{v},\tilde{v})\in
R^{q}\times R^{q\times d}\times L^{2}_{\nu}(R^{h}_{+},R^{q\times
h})$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
g(\cdot,0,0,,0,Y(\cdot^{-}))\in L^{2}_{{\cal
F}}\left([0,T],R^{q}\right)\elabel{blipic}
\end{eqnarray}
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left\|\left(g\left(t,v,\bar{v},\tilde{v},Y(t^{-})\right)-g\left(t,u,
\bar{u},\tilde{u},Y(t^{-})\right)\right)I_{\{t\leq\tau_{n}\}}\right\|
\elabel{blipschitz}\\
&\leq& K_{n}\left(\|u-v\|+\|\bar{u}-\bar{v}\|
+\|\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}\|_{\nu}\right)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for any $(u,\bar{u},\tilde{u})$ and $(v,\bar{v},\tilde{v})\in
R^{q}\times R^{q\times d}\times L^{2}_{\nu}(R^{h}_{+},R^{q\times
h})$, where $K_{n}$ depending on $n$ are positive constants. Then,
the BSDE in \eq{gbsde} has a unique solution
\begin{eqnarray}
(V,\bar{V},\tilde{V})\in L^{2}_{{\cal F}}([0,T],R^{q},P)\times
L^{2}_{{\cal F},p}([0,T],R^{q\times d},P)\times
L^{2}_{p}([0,T],R^{q\times h},P), \elabel{buniso}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V$ is a c\`adl\`ag process. The uniqueness is in the sense:
if there exists another solution $(U,\bar{U},\tilde{U})$ as
required, then,
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[\int_{0}^{T}\left(\|U(t)-V(t)\|^{2}+\|\bar{U}(t)
-\bar{V}(t)\|^{2}+\|\tilde{U}(t,\cdot)-\tilde{V}(t,\cdot)\|_{\nu}^{2}\right)dt
\right]=0. \elabel{uniquesbI}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, for each $n\in\{1,2,...\}$, we define
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\tau_{n}\equiv\inf\{t>0,\|L(\lambda t)\|> n\}.
\elabel{stopsequence}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, it follows from Theorem 3 in page 4 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint} and condition \eq{expintcon} that
$\{\tau_{n}\}$ is a sequence of nondecreasing $\{{\cal
F}_{t}\}$-stopping times and satisfies $\tau_{n}\rightarrow\infty$
a.s. as $n\rightarrow\infty$ since
\begin{eqnarray}
P\{\tau_{n}\leq t\}=P\{\|L(\lambda t)\|>
n\}\leq\frac{E\left[\|L(\lambda t)\|^{2}\right]}{n^{2}}\rightarrow 0
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
as $n\rightarrow\infty$ for any given $t\in[0,\infty)$, where we
have used \eq{expintcon}, \eq{basecon}, \eq{usefuline}, and the fact
that $L(\lambda t)$ is a $h$-dimensional nonnegative and
nondecreasing c\`adl\`ag process.
Second, for each $n$, consider the following BSDE with a random
terminal time $\sigma_{n}\equiv T\wedge\tau_{n}$ and a terminal
condition $H_{\tau_{n}}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
V(t)&=&H_{\tau_{n}}-\int_{t\wedge\sigma_{n}}^{\sigma_{n}}
g\left(s,V(s^{-}),\bar{V}(s),\tilde{V}(s,\cdot),Y(s^{-})\right)ds
\elabel{taugbsde}\\
&&-\int_{t\wedge\sigma_{n}}^{\sigma_{n}}
\sum_{i=1}^{d}\bar{V}_{i}(s)dW_{i}(s)
-\int_{t\wedge\sigma_{n}}^{\sigma_{n}}
\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}\tilde{V}_{i}(s,z_{i})
\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, by slightly generalizing the discussion as in Yong and
Zhou~\cite{yonzho:stocon} and Tang and Li~\cite{tanli:neccon} (see
also El Karoui {\em et al.}~\cite{karpen:bacsto},
Situ~\cite{sit:solbac}, Yin and Mao~\cite{yinmao:adasol} for related
discussions), we know that $\eq{taugbsde}$ has a unique adapted
solution as required over $[0,\sigma_{n}]$.
Third, for each $n\in\{1,2,...\}$, let
$\Omega_{n}=\{\omega\in\Omega:\sigma_{n}(\omega)=T\}$. Since
$\sigma_{n}$ is a sequence of nondecreasing stopping times and
$\sigma_{n}\rightarrow T$ a.s. as $n\rightarrow\infty$, we have that
$\Omega=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}\Omega_{n}$ and
$\Omega_{l}\subseteq\Omega_{n}$ whenever $l\leq n$. Now, we use
$\Pi^{n}(t,z)\equiv(V^{n}(t),\bar{V}^{n}(t),\tilde{V}^{n}(t,z))$ for
$t\leq\sigma_{n}$ and $z\in R^{h}_{+}$ to denote the unique solution
to \eq{taugbsde} for each $n$. Since
$H_{\tau_{n}}(\omega)=H(\omega)$ for all
$\omega\in\{\omega:\tau_{n}(\omega)\geq T\}$, we know that
$\Pi^{n}(t,z)=\Pi^{n-1}(t,z)=...=\Pi^{l}(t,z)$ for all
$t\leq\sigma_{l}(\omega)$, a.s. $\omega\in\Omega_{l}$ and any $z\in
R^{h}_{+}$. By the continuity of probability, we know that, for any
given $\epsilon>0$, there exists a sufficiently large $n_{0}>0$ such
that $P\{\Omega_{n}\}>1-\epsilon$ when $n>n_{0}$. Thus, for any
given $\delta>0$ and for all $n,l>n_{0}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P\left\{\sup_{0\leq t\leq T,z\in
R^{h}_{+}}\left\|\Pi^{n}(t\wedge\sigma_{n},z)
-\Pi^{l}(t\wedge\sigma_{l},z)
\right\|>\delta\right\}<\epsilon,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
that is, $\{\Pi^{n}(\cdot\wedge\sigma_{n},\cdot),n\in\{1,2,...\}\}$
is uniformly Cauchy in probability. Thus, it is uniformly convergent
in probability to a process $\Pi=\{\Pi(t,z),t\in[0,T],z\in
R^{h}_{+}\}$. Therefore, we can extract a subsequence from
$\{\Pi^{n}(\cdot\wedge\sigma_{n},\cdot),n\in\{1,2,...\}\}$ such that
the convergence holds uniformly a.s. Hence, we can conclude that
$\Pi$ is a solution to \eq{gbsde} and have all the properties as
stated in the proposition. Furthermore, assume that
$\Pi'=\{\Pi'(t,z),t\in[0,T],z\in R^{h}_{+}\}$ is another solution to
\eq{gbsde}. Then, we can conclude that, for all $n\geq l$,
$\Pi'(t,z,\omega)=\Pi^{l}(t,z,\omega)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, $z\in
R^{h}_{+}$, and almost all $\omega\in\Omega_{l}$. In fact, if the
claim fails to be true for some $n\geq l$, define
$\Pi^{''}_{n}(t,z,\omega)=\Pi'(t,z,\omega)$ for
$\omega\in\Omega_{l}$ and
$\Pi^{''}_{n}(t,z,\omega)=\Pi^{n}(t,z,\omega)$ for
$\omega\in\Omega_{l}^{c}$. Then, $\Pi''_{n}$ and $\Pi^{n}$ are
distinct solutions to \eq{taugbsde} with the same terminal condition
$H_{\tau_{n}}$, which contradicts the uniqueness of solution to
\eq{taugbsde}. Then, $P\{\Pi(t,z)=\Pi'(t,z)\;\mbox{for
all}\;t\in[0,T],z\in R^{h}_{+}\}=1$ follows from a straightforward
limiting argument as above. Furthermore, by applying the similar
argument as used for Definition 2.4 and its associated remark in
page 57 of Ikeda and watanabe~\cite{ikewat:stodif}, we know that
$\Pi$ is the unique solution to \eq{gbsde} (interested readers are
also referred to pages 309-310 of Applebaum~\cite{app:levpro} for
some related discussion). Hence, we complete the proof of
Proposition~\ref{bsdey}. $\Box$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Remaining Proof of Theorem~\ref{opthedge}}
First of all, by the H$\ddot{o}$lder's inequality and the similar
calculation as for \eq{caletau}, we have that
\begin{eqnarray}
E\left[\left(H{\cal E}(-a\cdot D)(T)\right)^{2}\right]
&\leq&\left(E\left[H^{4}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left(E\left[\left({\cal E}(-a\cdot
D)(T)\right)^{4}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\elabel{hsquarein}\\
&<&\infty.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, it follows from the Jensen's inequality that the process
$X=\{X(t),t\in[0,T]\}$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
X(t)&\equiv&E\left[H{\cal E}(-a\cdot D)(T)|{\cal F}_{t}\right]
\elabel{klpbayes}
\end{eqnarray}
is a square-integrable martingale. Thus, by the Martingale
representation theorem (e.g., Lemma 2.3 in Tang and
Li~\cite{tanli:neccon}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
X(t)=X(0)+\sum_{j=1}^{d}\int_{0}^{t}\bar{X}_{j}(s)dW_{j}(s)
+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{0}^{t}\int_{z_{i}>0}\tilde{X}_{i}(s,z_{i})
\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}ds,dz_{i}) \elabel{xhmarrep}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\bar{X}=(\bar{X}_{1},...,\bar{X}_{d})'\in L_{{\cal
F},p}^{2}([0,T],R^{d},P)$ and
$\tilde{X}=(\tilde{X}_{1},...,\tilde{X}_{h})'\in
L^{2}_{p}([0,T],R^{h},P)$.
Furthermore, it follows from the Bayes' rule (e.g., Lemma 8.6.2 in
page 160 of $\emptyset$ksendal~\cite{oks:stodif}) and
Proposition~\ref{equimar} that
\begin{eqnarray}
X(t)=O_{0}E\left[H\hat{Z}(T)|{\cal
F}_{t}\right]=O_{0}\hat{Z}(t)V(t), \elabel{pbayes}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V(t)$ is defined in \eq{defineV}. Thus, by the integration by
parts formula (e.g., Corollary 2 in page 68 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}), and \eq{xhmarrep}-\eq{pbayes}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&dV(t)\elabel{pbsdev}\\
&=&\frac{1}{O_{0}}\left(X(t^{-})d\left(\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t)}\right)
+\frac{1}{\hat{Z}(t^{-})}dX(t)+d\left[X,\frac{1}{\hat{Z}}\right](t)\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&g(t,V(t^{-}),\bar{V}(t),\tilde{V}(t,\cdot),Y(t^{-})))dt\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{i=1}^{d}\bar{V}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t)+\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\tilde{V}_{i}(t,z_{i})\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}dz_{i},dt),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $g$ is defined in \eq{mgvvv} and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\bar{V}_{i}(t)=-V(t^{-})\bar{B}_{i}(Y(t^{-}))
+\frac{\bar{X}_{i}(t)}{O_{0}\hat{Z}(t^{-})},\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\mbox{for}\;i=1,...,d,
\nonumber\\
&&\tilde{V}_{i}(t,z_{i})=-V(t^{-})F(t,z_{i})\bar{Z}(t)
+\frac{\tilde{X}_{i}(t,z_{i})}{O_{0}\hat{Z}(t^{-})},\;\;\;\;\;
\mbox{for}\;i=1,...,h
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $\bar{Z}$ given by \eq{barbii}. Hence, by \eq{pbsdev}, we know
that $V$ satisfies the BSDE \eq{xbsde}.
Next, we check that $g(t,v,\bar{v},\tilde{v},Y(t^{-}))$ defined in
\eq{mgvvv} satisfies the conditions as stated in
Proposition~\ref{bsdey}. In fact, from \eq{mgvvv}, we see that
$g(t,v,\bar{v},\tilde{v},Y(t^{-}))$ is ${{\cal F}_{t}}$-adapted for
any given $(v,\bar{v},\tilde{v})\in R\times R^{1\times d}\times
L^{2}_{\nu}(R^{h}_{+},R^{1\times h})$ with
$g(t,0,0,0,Y(t^{-}))\equiv 0\in L^{2}_{{\cal F}}([0,T],R,P)$,
Furthermore, for the sequence of nondecreasing stopping times
$\{\tau_{n},n=1,2,...\}$ as defined in \eq{stopsequence},
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left|\bar{Z}(t)\right|I_{\{t\leq\tau_{n}\}}
\leq\bar{K}_{n}e^{\sum_{i=1}^{h}\frac{2B_{\rho}}{\lambda_{i}}
\|L(\lambda t)\|}I_{\{t\leq\tau_{n}\}} \leq\tilde{K}_{n},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{K}_{n}$ and $\tilde{K}_{n}$ are positive constants
depending on $n$. In addition, it follows from the proof of
\eq{fracpp} that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left(\int_{z_{i}>0}(F(t,z_{i}))^{2}\nu_{i}(dz_{i})\right)
I_{\{t\leq\tau_{n}\}}
\leq\bar{L}e^{\sum_{i=1}^{h}(6+\frac{4B_{\rho}}{\lambda_{i}})\|
L(\lambda t)\|}I_{\{t\leq\sigma_{n}\}} \leq\tilde{L}_{n},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{L}$ is some positive constant and $\tilde{L}_{n}$ is a
positive constant depending on $n$. Therefore, for any
$(u,\bar{u},\tilde{u})$, $(v,\bar{v},\tilde{v})\in R\times
R^{1\times d}\times L^{2}_{\nu}(R^{h}_{+},R^{1\times h})$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\left\|(g(t,u,\bar{u},\tilde{u},Y(t^{-}))-g(t,v,\bar{v},
\tilde{v},Y(t^{-})))I_{\{t\leq\tau_{n}\}}\right\|
\nonumber\\
&\leq&h\tilde{K}^{2}_{n} \tilde{L}_{n}\|u-v\|
+\left\|\bar{u}-\bar{v}\right\|\left(\frac{1}{2}(\rho(Y(t^{-}))+d)
\right)I_{\{t\leq\tau_{n}\}}+h\lambda_{i}\tilde{K}_{n}
\left(\tilde{L}_{n}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\|\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}\|_{\nu}\nonumber\\
&\leq&K_{n}\left(\|u-v\|+\|\bar{u}-\bar{v}\|+\|\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}\|_{\nu}
\right),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_{n}$ is some positive constant depending on $n$ and in the
last inequality, we have used \eq{boundrho}. Thus, all conditions
stated in Proposition~\ref{bsdey} are satisfied, which implies that
\eq{xbsde} has a unique adapted solution.
Now, for each $t\in[0,T]$ and
$B^{K}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\rho(Y(s^{-}))ds$, we define the density
process
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^{P^{*}}(t)\equiv\frac{O(t)}{O_{0}{\cal E}(B^{K})(t)}.
\elabel{zpequiv}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the corresponding probability $P^{*}\sim P$. Thus, it is the
opportunity-neutral probability measure in the sense of Definition
3.16 in C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}. Furthermore,
by Corollary 8.7(b) and equation (8.19) in pages 135-138 of Jacod
and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, we can rewrite $Z^{P^{*}}$ in
\eq{zpequiv} as
\begin{eqnarray}
Z^{P^{*}}(t)&=&{\cal E}(K)(t){\cal E}\left(-B^{K}\right)(t)={\cal
E}\left(M^{K}\right)(t) \elabel{rzpe}
\end{eqnarray}
for each $t\in[0,T]$, where $K$ is defined in \eq{kloo} and $M^{K}$
is defined in \eq{mkreps}. Then, by a similar method as used in the
proof of Proposition~\ref{equimar}(2), we know that $Z^{P^{*}}$ is
a bounded positive martingale. Thus, for each pair of
$i,j\in\{1,...,d\}$ and $t\in[0,T]$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle D_{i},D_{j}\rangle^{P^{*}}(t)=[D_{i},D_{j}]^{P^{*}}(t)
=[D_{i},D_{j}](t)=\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{c}^{D^{*}}_{ij}(s)ds,
\elabel{ddcij}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first equality in \eq{ddcij} is owing to the continuity of
$D$, Theorem 5.52 in page 55 of Jacod and
Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, Theorem 4.47(c) in page 52 of Jacod
and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe}, the equivalence between $P^{*}$
and $P$, and Girsanov-Meyer Theorem in page 132 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}. The second equality follows from Theorem
4.47(a) in page 52 of Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} since
$Z^{P^{*}}$ is bounded and Girsanov-Meyer Theorem in page 132 of
Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}. Furthermore, $\tilde{c}^{D^{*}}_{ij}$ in
the last equality is defined in \eq{xicbI}.
Now, note that $D$ is continuous. Then, by Theorem 4.52 in page 55
of Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} (or the proof of
Corollary in page 83 of Protter~\cite{pro:stoint}), we know that
$[D_{i},V](t)$ and $[D_{i},V]^{c}(t)$ for each $i\in\{1,...,d\}$
under $P$ or $P^{*}$ have the same compensator. Hence, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle D_{i},V\rangle^{P^{*}}(t)=\left(\langle
D_{i},V\rangle^{c}\right)^{P^{*}}(t)=\left([D_{i},V]^{c}
\right)^{P^{*}}(t)=[D_{i},V]^{c}(t)=\int_{0}^{t}
\tilde{c}^{DV^{*}}_{i}(s)ds \elabel{dvij},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{c}^{DV^{*}}_{i}$ is defined in \eq{xicbII}. The last
equality of \eq{dvij} follows from Theorem 4.47(a) in page 52 of
Jacod and Shiryaev~\cite{jacshi:limthe} and the fact that
\begin{eqnarray}
V(t)
&=&V(0)+\int_{0}^{t}g(s,V(s^{-}),\bar{V}(s),\tilde{V}(s,\cdot),Y(s^{-}))ds
\nonumber\\
&&+\int_{0}^{t}\sum_{i=1}^{d}\bar{V}_{i}(s)dW_{i}(s)
+\int_{0}^{t}\sum_{i=1}^{h}\int_{z_{i}>0}
\tilde{V}_{i}(s,z_{i})\tilde{N}_{i}(\lambda_{i}dz_{i},ds).\nonumber
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then, it follows from \eq{ddcij}-\eq{dvij}, Definition 4.6, and
equation (4.8) in C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} that
\eq{xicb} is true.
Finally, the unique existence of solution to \eq{geqn} is owing to
Theorem 6.8 in Jacod~\cite{jac:calsto} and the proofs of Lemma 4.9
and Theorem 4.10 in C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}.
Thus, by Theorem 4.10 in C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen}, we know that the mean-variance hedge
strategy is given by \eq{optimalh}. Hence, we complete the proof of
Theorem~\ref{opthedge}. $\Box$
\section{Conclusion}\label{concl}
In this paper, we prove the global risk optimality of the hedging
strategy explicitly constructed for an incomplete financial market.
Owing to the discussions in Pigorsch and
Stelzer~\cite{pigste:defsta} and references therein, our discussion
in this paper can be extended to the cases that the external risk
factors in \eq{sdeou} are correlated in certain manners. For the
simplicity of notation, we keep the presentation of the paper in the
current way. Furthermore, our study in this paper establishes the
connection between our financial system and existing general
semimartingale based study in C\u{e}rn\'y and
Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} since we can overcome the difficulties
in C\u{e}rn\'y and Kallsen~\cite{cerkal:strgen} by explicitly
constructing the process $N$ and the VOMM $Q^{*}$. In addition, our
objective and discussion in this paper are different from the recent
study of Jeanblanc {\em et al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar} since the
authors in Jeanblanc {\em et al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar} did not aim
to derive any concrete expression. Nevertheless, interested readers
may make an attempt to extend the study in Jeanblanc {\em et
al.}~\cite{jeaman:meavar} and apply it to our financial market model
to construct the corresponding explicit results. Finally, unlike the
studies in Hubalek {\em et al.}~\cite{hubkal:varopt} and Kallsen and
Vierthauer~\cite{kalvie:quahed}, our option $H$ is generally related
to a multivariate terminal function and hence a BSDE involved
approach is employed. Interested readers may take an attempt to
study whether the Laplace transform related method developed in
Hubalek {\em et al.}~\cite{hubkal:varopt} and Kallsen and
Vierthauer~\cite{kalvie:quahed} for single-variate terminal function
can be extended to our general multivariate case.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
Historically, strong-field classical and quantum electrodynamics are the oldest strong-field-physics areas, as investigations of fundamental electromagnetic processes in laser fields began already in the 1960s (for recent reviews see, e.g., Refs. 1--4). At that time, the problem was of purely theoretical interest and the main focus was on a qualitative understanding of effects imposed by intense and mostly monochromatic electromagnetic radiation. With the rapid development of high-power laser technology, that we have encountered over the last decades, the laser radiation in the near-visible spectrum with intensities as high as $10^{22}$W/cm$^2$ can be produced in the laboratory. At the same time, the synthesis of laser pulses with well-controlled properties, such as the carrier-envelope phase or the envelope shape, is currently feasible. Due to those recent advances, it became urgent to quantitatively investigate more subtle effects of the laser-field interaction with matter than was originally pursued. The aim of this presentation is to discuss some selected problems related to generation of high-frequency radiation by interaction of relativistic electrons with intense laser pulses. In particular we analyze the high-order harmonic generation, formation of the coherent comb structures in the MeV domain with possible applications in nuclear physics \cite{Palffy2013,Palffy2014}, and synthesis of zepto- or even yoctosecond pulses \cite{Liu2012,Krajewska2014b}.
The `classical' Young double-slit experiment \cite{Young1804} is still considered as a trailblazer for modern explorations of quantum phenomena. Not surprisingly, the ideas that are behind this experiment are currently vigorously investigated not only in quantum optics and information theory, but also in the strong-field classical and quantum electrodynamics. As an example, we mention the theoretical proposal \cite{King2010} of the so-called `matterless double-slit experiment' or the Kapitza-Dirac effect \cite{Kapitza1933,Fedorov1991,Fedorov1997,Ahrens2012}, i.e., the diffraction of electrons by a standing electromagnetic wave. The aim of this report is to present recently investigated diffraction of free electrons by modulated finite laser pulses \cite{Krajewska2014a,Krajewska2014c}, that shows very similar features observed for the diffraction grating, but in the frequency domain. The diffraction pattern is going to be analyzed within the nonlinear Thomson and Compton scattering, that are straightforward generalizations of their weak-field analogues discovered by J.~J.~Thomson \cite{Thomson1906} for the classical electrodynamics and by A.~H.~Compton \cite{Compton1923a,Compton1923b} for the quantum electrodynamics.
The organization of this report is the following. In Secs.~\ref{Thomson} and \ref{Compton} we present the theoretical formulations for the electron scattered by a laser pulse with the emission of electromagnetic radiation within the classical and quantum electrodynamics, respectively. Then, in Sec.~\ref{Diffraction} we derive the diffraction formulas for both theories and illustrate them for particular cases. The pulse synthesis from the frequency distribution is discussed in Sec.~\ref{Pulse}, and in Sec.~\ref{Conclusions} we draw some concluding remarks.
Throughout the paper, we keep $\hbar=1$. Hence, the fine-structure constant equals $\alpha=e^2/(4\pi\varepsilon_0c)$. We use this constant in expressions derived from classical electrodynamics as well, where it is meant to be
multiplied by $\hbar$ in order to restore the physical units. In numerical analysis we use relativistic units (rel. units) such that $\hbar=m_{\rm e}=c=1$ where $m_{\rm e}$ is the electron rest mass. Furthermore, we denote the product of any two four-vectors $a^{\mu}$ and $b^{\mu}$ with $a\cdot b = a^{\mu}b_{\mu}=a^0b^0-a^1b^1-a^2b^2-a^3b^3$ ($\mu = 0,1,2,3$), where the Einstein summation convention is used. We employ the Feynman notation $\slashed{a} = \gamma\cdot a=\gamma^{\mu} a_{\mu}$ for the contraction with the Dirac matrices $\gamma^{\mu}$ and use a customary notation $\bar{u}=u^{\dagger}\gamma^0$, where $u^{\dagger}$ is the Hermitian conjugate of $u$. Finally, we use the so-called light-cone variables. Namely, for a given space direction determined by a unit vector $\bm{n}$ (which in our presentation is the direction of the laser pulse propagation) and for an arbitrary four-vector $a$, we keep the following notations: $a^{\|}=\bm{n}\cdot\bm{a}$, $a^-=a^0-a^{\|}$, $a^+=(a^0+a^{\|})/2$, and $\bm{a}^{\bot}=\bm{a}-a^{\|}\bm{n}$. For the four-vectors we use both the contravariant $(a^0,a^1,a^2,a^3)$ and the standard $(a_0,a_x,a_y,a_z)=(a_0,\bm{a})$ notations.
\section{Thomson Scattering}
\label{Thomson}
The complete theory of the Thomson scattering is presented in the textbooks \cite{Jackson1975,Landau1987}. Therefore, the aim of this section is to settle the notation that is used further in this report.
Our aim is to derive the frequency-angular distribution of the electromagnetic energy that is emitted during either Compton or Thomson scattering in the form of outgoing spherical waves. Their polarization is given by a complex unit vector $\bm{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}\sigma}$, where $\sigma=\pm$ labels two polarization degrees of freedom, and where $\bm{K}$ is the wave vector of radiation emitted in the direction $\bm{n}_{\bm{K}}$. Note that ${\bm K}$ determines also the frequency of the emitted radiation since $\omega_{\bm{K}}=c|\bm{K}|$. The wave four-vector, $K$, is therefore $K=(\omega_{\bm{K}}/c)(1,\bm{n}_{\bm{K}})$ where $K^2=0$ and $K\cdot\varepsilon_{\bm{K}\sigma}=0$ (we keep $\varepsilon_{\bm{K}\sigma}=(0,\bm{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}\sigma})$
and $\varepsilon_{\bm{K}\sigma}\cdot\varepsilon_{\bm{K}\sigma'}^*=-\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}$). We also assume that three vectors, $(\bm{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}+},\bm{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}-},\bm{n}_{\bm{K}})$
form the right-handed system of mutually orthogonal unit vectors such that $\bm{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}+}\times\bm{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}-}=\bm{n}_{\bm{K}}$.
The laser field which drives both the nonlinear Compton and Thomson scattering is modeled as
a linearly polarized, pulsed plane wave field, with the following vector potential,
\begin{equation}
\bm{A}(\phi)=A_0 N_{\mathrm{osc}}\bm{\varepsilon}f(\phi).
\label{t1}
\end{equation}
Here, the real vector $\bm{\varepsilon}$ determines the linear polarization of the pulse, and the shape function $f(\phi)$ is defined via its derivative
\begin{equation}
f'(\phi)\sim \begin{cases} 0, & \phi <0, \cr
\sin^2\bigl(N_{\mathrm{rep}}\frac{\phi}{2}\bigr)\sin(N_{\mathrm{rep}}N_{\mathrm{osc}}\phi), & 0\leqslant\phi\leqslant 2\pi,\cr
0, & \phi > 2\pi,
\end{cases}
\label{t2}
\end{equation}
where we assume that $f(0)=0$. Above, $N_{\mathrm{osc}}$ and $N_{\mathrm{rep}}$ determine the number of cycles in the subpulse and the number of such subpulses, respectively. The function $f'(\phi)$ is normalized such that
\begin{equation}
\int_0^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\phi\, [f'(\phi)]^2=\pi.
\end{equation}
Let us further assume that the duration of the laser pulse is $T_{\mathrm{p}}$. This allows us to introduce
the fundamental, $\omega=2\pi/T_{\mathrm{p}}$, and the central, $\omega_{\mathrm{L}}=N_{\mathrm{osc}}\omega$, frequencies
of the laser field. Moreover, if the laser pulse propagates in the direction given by the unit vector $\bm{n}$,
we can define the laser-field four-vector $k=(\omega/c)(1,\bm{n})$ such that $k^2=0$. Hence, the phase $\phi$ in Eq.~\eqref{t1} becomes
\begin{equation}
\phi=k\cdot x=\omega\Bigl(t-\frac{\bm{n}\cdot\bm{r}}{c}\Bigr).
\label{t4}
\end{equation}
For our further purposes we introduce the dimensionless and relativistically invariant parameter
\begin{equation}
\mu=\frac{|e|A_0}{m_{\mathrm{e}}c},
\label{t5}
\end{equation}
where $e=-|e|$ is the electron charge. With these notations, the laser electric and magnetic fields are equal to
\begin{equation}
\bm{\mathcal{E}}(\phi)=\frac{\omega m_{\mathrm{e}}c\mu}{e}N_{\mathrm{osc}}\bm{\varepsilon}f'(\phi),\quad
\bm{\mathcal{B}}(\phi)=\frac{\omega m_{\mathrm{e}}\mu}{e}N_{\mathrm{osc}}(\bm{n}\times\bm{\varepsilon})f'(\phi).
\label{t6}
\end{equation}
Such pulses for $N_{\mathrm{osc}}=16$ and $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1,2,3$ are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{youngmoreplow}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig1.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{ \label{youngmoreplow}
Young-type interference in the frequency domain for 1, 2 and 3 laser-field subpulses. Each subpulse corresponds to a particular slit in the original Young experiment. Since it is not known from which subpulse the Compton photon is emitted, therefore, the total probability amplitude shows the interference pattern, which appears as the frequency comb of generated radiation. For the Thomson scattering each subpulse emits its own spherical electromagnetic wave the interference of which leads to the formation of the comb.
}
\end{figure}
The frequency-angular distribution of energy emitted during the Thomson process can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^3E_{\mathrm{Th}}(\bm{K},\sigma)}{\mathrm{d}\omega_{\bm{K}}\mathrm{d}^2\Omega_{\bm{K}}}=\alpha|\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})|^2.
\label{t11}
\end{equation}
The complex function $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})$ will be called here the Thomson amplitude and its explicit form can be represented as an integral
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\phi \Upsilon_{\sigma}(\phi)\exp(\mathrm{i}\omega_{\bm{K}}\ell(\phi)/c),
\label{t12}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\ell(\phi)=c\frac{\phi}{\omega}+(\bm{n}-\bm{n}_{\bm{K}})\cdot \bm{r}(\phi),\quad
\Upsilon_{\sigma}(\phi)=\bm{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}\sigma}^*\cdot \frac{\bm{n}_{\bm{K}}\times [(\bm{n}_{\bm{K}}-\bm{\beta}(\phi))\times \bm{\beta}'(\phi)]}{\bigl(1-\bm{n}_{\bm{K}}\cdot \bm{\beta}(\phi)\bigr)^2},
\end{equation}
and where the electron position $\bm{r}(\phi)$ and reduced velocity $\bm{\beta}(\phi)$ fulfill the system of ordinary differential equations
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{r}(\phi)}{\mathrm{d}\phi}=\frac{c}{\omega}\frac{\bm{\beta}(\phi)}{1-\bm{n}\cdot\bm{\beta}(\phi)}, \quad
\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{\beta}(\phi)}{\mathrm{d}\phi}=\mu\frac{\sqrt{1-\bm{\beta}^2(\phi)}}{1-\bm{n}\cdot\bm{\beta}(\phi)} \Bigl[
\bigl(\bm{\varepsilon}-\bm{\beta}(\phi)(\bm{\beta}(\phi)\cdot\bm{\varepsilon})+\bm{\beta}(\phi)\times(\bm{n}\times\bm{\varepsilon})\bigr)f^{\prime}(\phi) \Bigr] . \label{thom9ex}
\end{equation}
These equations can be derived from the Newton-Lorentz relativistic equations, with time $t$ which relates to the phase $\phi$ by Eq.~\eqref{t4}.
\section{Compton Scattering}
\label{Compton}
The probability amplitude for the Compton process, $e^-_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}\lambda_{\mathrm{i}}}\rightarrow e^-_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{f}}\lambda_{\mathrm{f}}}+\gamma_{\bm{K}\sigma}$, with the initial and final electron momenta and spin polarizations $\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}\lambda_{\mathrm{i}}$ and $\bm{p}_{\mathrm{f}}\lambda_{\mathrm{f}}$,
respectively, equals
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}(e^-_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}\lambda_{\mathrm{i}}}\rightarrow e^-_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{f}}\lambda_{\mathrm{f}}}
+\gamma_{\bm{K}\sigma})=-\mathrm{i}e\int \mathrm{d}^{4}{x}\, j^{(++)}_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{f}}\lambda_{\mathrm{f}},
\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}\lambda_{\mathrm{i}}}(x)\cdot A^{(-)}_{\bm{K}\sigma}(x), \label{ComptonAmplitude}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{K}\sigma$ denotes the Compton photon momentum and polarization. Here, we consider the case when both the laser pulse and the Compton photon are linearly polarized. In Eq.~\eqref{ComptonAmplitude},
\begin{equation}
A^{(-)}_{\bm{K}\sigma}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_0\omega_{\bm{K}}V}}
\,\varepsilon_{\bm{K}\sigma}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}K\cdot x},
\label{per}
\end{equation}
where $V$ is the quantization volume and $j^{(++)}_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{f}} \lambda_{\mathrm{f}},\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}\lambda_{\mathrm{i}}}(x)$ is the matrix element of the electron current operator with its $\nu$-component equal to
\begin{equation}
[j^{(++)}_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{f}} \lambda_{\mathrm{f}},\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}\lambda_{\mathrm{i}}}(x)]^{\nu}
=\bar{\psi}^{(+)}_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{f}} \lambda_{\mathrm{f}}}(x)\gamma^\nu \psi^{(+)}_{\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}\lambda_{\mathrm{i}}}(x).
\end{equation}
Here, $\psi^{(+)}_{\bm{p}\lambda}(x)$ is the so-called Volkov solution of the Dirac equation coupled to the electromagnetic field,
\begin{equation}
\psi^{(+)}_{\bm{p}\lambda}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2}{VE_{\bm{p}}}}\Bigl(1-\frac{e}{2k\cdot p}\slashed{A}\slashed{k}\Bigr)
u^{(+)}_{\bm{p}\lambda}\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} S_p^{(+)}(x)} , \quad
S_p^{(+)}(x)=p\cdot x+\int^{k\cdot x} \Bigl[\frac{ e A(\phi )\cdot p}{k\cdot p}
-\frac{e^2A^{2}(\phi )}{2k\cdot p}\Bigr]{\rm d}\phi ,
\label{Volk}
\end{equation}
where $E_{\bm{p}}=cp^0$, $p=(p^0,\bm{p})$, $p\cdot p=m_{\mathrm{e}}^2c^2$, and $u^{(+)}_{\bm{p}\lambda}$
is the free-electron bispinor normalized such that $\bar{u}^{(+)}_{\bm{p}\lambda}u^{(+)}_{\bm{p}\lambda'}=\delta_{\lambda\lambda'}$. The four-vector potential $A(k\cdot x)$ in Eq.~\eqref{Volk} represents an external electromagnetic radiation generated by lasers, in the case when a transverse variation of the laser field in a focus is negligible. In other words, $A(k\cdot x)$ represents the plane-wave-fronted pulse. In this case, $k\cdot A(k\cdot x)=0$ and $k\cdot k=0$, which allows one to exactly solve the Dirac equation for such electromagnetic fields.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=11.5cm]{fig2.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{ \label{tcomb1}
Compton and Thomson energy distributions as a functions of frequency $\omega_{\bm{K}}$. The laser beam, linearly polarized in the $x$-direction, propagates in the $z$-direction and collides with the electron beam in the head-on geometry. The distribution is calculated in the reference frame of electrons with the laser pulse parameters such that $\omega_{\mathrm{L}}=3\times 10^{-3}m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2$, $\mu=1$, $N_{\mathrm{osc}}=8$. The emitted radiation is calculated for $\theta_{\bm{K}}=0.1\pi$ and $\varphi_{\bm{K}}=0$. The thin black line (the envelope) corresponds to $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1$, the thick dashed red line to $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=2$, the thick blue line to $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=3$, and the distributions are divided by $N_{\mathrm{rep}}^2$. In the left frame we present the Compton and Thomson (reflected with respect to the horizontal black line) distributions on the linear scale. The two frames on the right-hand side show the same distributions on the logarithmic scale and for the larger frequency domain. For the geometry considered and the laser pulse parameters these two distributions are nearly identical.
}
\end{figure}
The probability amplitude for the Compton process~\eqref{ComptonAmplitude} becomes
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}(e^-_{\bm{p}_\mathrm{i}\lambda_\mathrm{i}}\longrightarrow e^-_{\bm{p}_\mathrm{f}\lambda_\mathrm{f}}+\gamma_{\bm{K}\sigma})
=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi\alpha c(m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2)^2}{E_{\bm{p}_\mathrm{f}}E_{\bm{p}_\mathrm{i}}\omega_{\bm{K}}V^3}}\, \mathcal{A}, \label{ct1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}= \int\mathrm{d}^{4}{x}\, \bar{u}^{(+)}_{\bm{p}_\mathrm{f}\lambda_\mathrm{f}}\Bigl(1-\mu\frac{m_\mathrm{e}c}{2p_\mathrm{f}\cdot k}f(k\cdot x)\slashed{\varepsilon}\slashed{k}\Bigr)\slashed{\varepsilon}_{\bm{K}\sigma} \,
\Bigl(1+\mu\frac{m_\mathrm{e}c}{2p_\mathrm{i}\cdot k} f(k\cdot x)\slashed{\varepsilon}\slashed{k}\Bigr) u^{(+)}_{\bm{p}_\mathrm{i}\lambda_\mathrm{i}}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}S(x)}, \label{ct2}
\end{equation}
with $S(x) = S^{(+)}_{{p}_\mathrm{i}}(x)-S^{(+)}_{{p}_\mathrm{f}}(x)-K\cdot x$. While moving in a laser pulse, the electron acquires an additional momentum shift~\cite{Krajewska2012}. This leads to a notion of the laser-dressed momentum:
\begin{equation}
\bar{p} = p-\mu m_{\rm e}c\frac{p\cdot\varepsilon}{p\cdot k}\left\langle f\right\rangle k
+\frac{1}{2}(\mu m_{\rm e}c)^2\frac{1}{p\cdot k}\left\langle f^2\right\rangle k\,.
\end{equation}
The gauge-invariant form of dressing is discussed in Ref.~23. Having this in mind we can define
\begin{equation}
N_{\rm eff} = \frac{K^{0}+\bar{p}^{0}_{\rm f}-\bar{p}^{0}_{\rm i}}{k^{0}}=
cT_{\rm p}\frac{K^{0}+\bar{p}^{0}_{\rm f}-\bar{p}^{0}_{\rm i}}{2\pi},
\end{equation}
which is both gauge- and relativistically invariant~\cite{Krajewska2012}.
The frequency-angular distribution of energy of the emitted photons for an unpolarized electron beam is given by
\begin{equation}\label{copton:spectrum:3}
\frac{{\rm d^{3}}E_{\rm C}}{{\rm d}\omega_{\bm K}{\rm d^{2}}\Omega_{\bm K}}
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\sigma=1,2}\sum_{\lambda_{\rm i}=\pm}\sum_{\lambda_{\rm f}=\pm}
\frac{{\rm d^{3}}E_{{\rm C},\sigma}(\lambda_{\rm i},\lambda_{\rm f})}{{\rm d}\omega_{\bm K}{\rm d^{2}}\Omega_{\bm K}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{copton:spectrum:2}
\frac{{\rm d^{3}}E_{{\rm C},\sigma}(\lambda_{\rm i},\lambda_{\rm f})}{{\rm d}\omega_{\bm K}{\rm d^{2}}\Omega_{\bm K}}
=\alpha\left|\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\rm i},\lambda_{\rm f})\right|^2,
\end{equation}
and the scattering amplitude equals
\begin{equation}\label{copton:spectrum:1}
\mathcal{A}_{{\rm C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\rm i},\lambda_{\rm f})
=\frac{m_{\rm e}c K^{0}}{2\pi\sqrt{p_{\rm i}^{0}k^{0}(k\cdot p_{\rm f})}}
\sum_{N}D_{N}\frac{1-{\rm e}^{-2\pi\mathrm{i}(N-N_{\rm eff})}}{\mathrm{i}(N-N_{\rm eff})},
\end{equation}
with the functions $D_N$ defined in Ref. 22.
In Fig.~\ref{tcomb1} we compare the classical Thomson process with its quantum analogue, the Compton one, for laser pulses consisting of up to three subpulses, as schematically presented in Fig.~\ref{youngmoreplow}. The presentation is for relatively long subpulses, consisting of $N_{\mathrm{osc}}=8$ laser field oscillations. In this case, we obtain for $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1$ for both the classical and quantum cases the energy distribution consisting of the well-separated from each other and broad peaks, which does not resemble the frequency comb. However, for $N_{\mathrm{rep}}>1$ the sharp peaks appear. They tend to become more narrow with increasing $N_{\mathrm{rep}}$, but they appear for the same frequencies independent of $N_{\mathrm{rep}}$. Moreover, the height of the individual peak scales as $N_{\mathrm{rep}}^2$, which indicates the coherence of the generated comb. The numerical analysis of the phase of the Compton and Thomson amplitudes shows that, at the peak frequencies, phases are equal to 0 modulo $\pi$. In addition, the derivatives of these phases with respect to $\omega_{\bm{K}}$ are almost constant (in the considered domain of $\omega_{\bm{K}}$). This proves that the separation between the consecutive peaks is nearly the same; hence, a coherent and equally spaced frequency comb is created. In order to analyze theoretically the properties of the frequency combs we present below the diffraction formulas for the Thomson and Compton amplitudes.
\section{Diffraction Formulas}
\label{Diffraction}
In this section we discuss the diffraction formulas for the Thomson and Compton amplitudes that prove the 'phase-matching' conditions for the peaks in the energy distributions at which the global phases change by $\pi$. We also show that, although for classical theory this can happen for the equally spaced frequencies, for quantum theory this is not exactly the case.
In classical electrodynamics, by applying the symmetry properties of the modulated laser pulse considered in this report, one can show that the Thomson amplitude adopts the following diffraction-type form \cite{Krajewska2014c}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})=&\exp\Bigl[\mathrm{i}\Phi_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})\Bigr] \frac{\sin\Bigl[\frac{\omega_{\bm{K}}N_{\mathrm{rep}}}{2c}\ell\Bigl(\frac{2\pi}{N_{\mathrm{rep}}}\Bigr)\Bigr]}
{\sin\Bigl[\frac{\omega_{\bm{K}}}{2c}\ell\Bigl(\frac{2\pi}{N_{\mathrm{rep}}}\Bigr) \Bigr]}|\mathcal{A}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})|,
\label{bi4}
\end{align}
where $|\mathcal{A}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})|$ is the absolute value of the Thomson amplitude for the single subpulse and the Thomson global phase equals
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}})=\Bigl(N_{\mathrm{rep}}\mp\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\pi+
N_{\mathrm{rep}}\frac{\omega_{\bm{K}}}{c} \ell\Bigl(\frac{\pi}{N_{\mathrm{rep}}}\Bigr).
\label{bi13}
\end{equation}
For particular frequencies $\omega_{\bm{K},L}$ that fulfill the condition
\begin{equation}
\frac{\omega_{\bm{K},L}}{c}\ell\Bigl(\frac{2\pi}{N_{\mathrm{rep}}}\Bigr)=2\pi L,\quad L=1,2,\dots\, ,
\label{bi6}
\end{equation}
we have the diffraction enhancement of the energy distribution generated by Thomson scattering
(similar to the diffraction grating pattern for the angular distribution), as $|\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K},L})|^2=N_{\mathrm{rep}}^2 |\mathcal{A}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K},L})|^2$. Moreover, for $N_{\mathrm{rep}}>1$, the Thomson amplitude vanish for $\omega_{\bm{K}}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\omega_{\bm{K}}N_{\mathrm{rep}}}{2c}\ell\Bigl(\frac{2\pi}{N_{\mathrm{rep}}}\Bigr)=\pi L,\quad L=1,\dots,N_{\mathrm{rep}}-1,
\label{bi8}
\end{equation}
and, for $N_{\mathrm{rep}}>2$, it has minor maxima if
\begin{equation}
\frac{\omega_{\bm{K}}N_{\mathrm{rep}}}{2c}\ell\Bigl(\frac{2\pi}{N_{\mathrm{rep}}}\Bigr)=\pi L
+\frac{\pi}{2},\quad L=1,\dots,N_{\mathrm{rep}}-2.
\label{bi9}
\end{equation}
This pattern is exactly observed in our numerical analysis and is very well-known for the angular distribution of radiation passing through the diffraction grating. Moreover, for laser pulses considered, the global phase is a linear function of the frequency of emitted radiation and for the peak frequencies $\omega_{\bm{K},L}$ we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\mathrm{Th},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K},L})=\Bigl(N_{\mathrm{rep}}\mp\frac{1}{2}\Bigr)\pi+N_{\mathrm{rep}}L\pi.
\label{bi14}
\end{equation}
Hence, up to the same constant term, the phase is 0 modulo $\pi$, which proves the coherent properties of the Thomson combs.
Moreover, the peak frequencies $\omega_{\bm{K},L}$ are equally separated from each other.
This pattern repeats itself for the Compton scattering, although for the quantum process the peak frequencies $\omega_{\bm{K},L}$ are not equally separated from each other. Here, the corresponding diffraction formula adopts the form~\cite{Krajewska2014c}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}})=\exp\Bigl[\mathrm{i}\Phi_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}})\Bigr]
\frac{\sin(\pi\bar{Q}^+/k^0)}{\sin(\pi\bar{Q}^+/k^0N_{\mathrm{rep}})}|\mathcal{A}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}})|,
\label{ci17}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{A}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}})$ is the Compton amplitude for a single pulse and $\Phi_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}})$ is the Compton global phase. In the above equation $\bar{Q}^+=\bar{p}_{\mathrm{i}}^+-\bar{p}_{\mathrm{f}}^+-K^+$. For frequencies of emitted photons, $\omega_{\bm{K},L}$ with integer $L$, that satisfy the condition
\begin{equation}
\pi\bar{Q}^+/k^0N_{\mathrm{rep}}=-\pi L,
\label{ci18}
\end{equation}
we have the coherent enhancement of the Compton amplitude, which again leads to the quadratic, $N_{\mathrm{rep}}^2$, enhancement of probability distributions. However, contrary to the Thomson case, these frequencies are not \textit{exactly} equally separated from each other on the whole interval of allowed frequencies, i.e. $[0,\omega_{\mathrm{cut}}]$, where $\omega_{\mathrm{cut}}$ is the maximum frequency of generated photons in the Compton process \cite{Krajewska2014b}. When $\omega_{\bm{K}}$ approaches the cut-off value $\omega_{\mathrm{cut}}$ the spectrum of $\omega_{\bm{K},L}$ becomes increasingly denser. This means that one can get the frequency comb for Compton scattering with approximately equally spaced peak frequencies, only on some limited frequency intervals. The Compton global phase equals
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}})=
-\pi\frac{\bar{Q}^+}{k^0}+\Phi_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}^{\mathrm{dyn}}(\omega_{\bm{K}},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}}),
\label{ci20}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}^{\mathrm{dyn}}$ is the dynamic phase \cite{Krajewska2014c}. For arbitrary laser pulses and polarizations of emitted photons the dynamic phase can only be calculated numerically. We have checked that for laser pulses considered in this paper the dynamic phase is independent of $\omega_{\bm{K}}$. Hence, for the peak frequencies $\omega_{\bm{K},L}$, the global phase,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega_{\bm{K},L},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}})=
\pi LN_{\mathrm{rep}}+\Phi_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}^{\mathrm{dyn}}(\omega_{\bm{K},L},\lambda_{\mathrm{i}},\lambda_{\mathrm{f}}),
\label{ci21}
\end{equation}
is the same modulo $\pi$. This does not mean, however, that the Compton frequency comb, contrary to the Thomson one, is perfectly
coherent. This time, the distance between the peaks change a little bit, due to the recoil of electrons during the emission of photons. For the low-frequency part of the frequency spectrum these effects are rather small, but for the high-frequency part they become significant.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{fig3.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{ \label{tcomb2}
Compton (blue line) and Thomson (dashed red line) energy distributions as a functions of frequency $\omega_{\bm{K}}$. The laser beam, linearly polarized in the $x$-direction, propagates in the $z$-direction and collides with the electron beam in the head-on geometry. The distribution is calculated in the reference frame of electrons with the laser pulse parameters such that $\omega_{\mathrm{L}}=3\times 10^{-2}m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2$, $\mu=10$, $N_{\mathrm{osc}}=3$, $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1$. The emitted radiation is calculated for $\theta_{\bm{K}}=0.1\pi$ and $\varphi_{\bm{K}}=\pi$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{fig4.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{ \label{tcomb3a}
The same as in Fig.~\ref{tcomb2}, but for the modulated laser pulse. The thin black line (the envelope) corresponds to $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1$, the thick dashed red line to $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=2$, the thick blue line to $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=3$, and the distributions are divided by $N_{\mathrm{rep}}^2$.
}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{tcomb1} we have presented the formation of frequency combs for relatively long laser pulses. For such pulses the combs do not have the `generic' form of distribution spreading over a broad frequency region, which for the high-order harmonic generation is called the plateau. For very short laser pulses the situation is different. Instead of well-visible and separated from each other individual peaks, we detect now broad coherent structures~\cite{Krajewska2014b} extending even to a few MeV. In our recent papers we demonstrated that, within such broad structures, it is possible to create coherent frequency combs for both the electromagnetic and the matter waves~\cite{Krajewska2014a,Krajewska2014c} by applying a finite and modulated laser pulse. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{tcomb2} for a single pulse, and in Fig.~\ref{tcomb3a} for a sequence of up to three such pulses. In our numerical examples the laser field parameters and the scattering geometry has been chosen such that the classical and quantum approaches display nearly identical results; for the displayed frequency region there are 50 peaks for the Compton scattering and 49 for the Thomson one, but for larger frequencies the difference becomes more significant. Similarities and discrepancies between the nonlinear Thomson and Compton processes are discussed in Ref. 8 and 16.
\section{Temporal Power Distributions}
\label{Pulse}
In order to investigate further properties of frequency combs let us consider the temporal power distribution of emitted radiation. This power distribution is related to the Compton amplitude by the formula~\cite{Krajewska2014b}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2P_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\phi_{\mathrm{r}},\lambda_{\rm i},\lambda_{\rm f})}{\mathrm{d}^2\Omega_{\bm{K}}}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\bigl(\mathrm{Re} \tilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(+)}_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\phi_{\mathrm{r}},\lambda_{\rm i},\lambda_{\rm f})\bigr)^2 ,
\label{tt9}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{C},\sigma}(\omega,\lambda_{\rm i},\lambda_{\rm f})\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\omega\phi_{\mathrm{r}}/m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2 }.
\label{tt6}
\end{equation}
Here, `$\mathrm{Re}$' denotes the real part and $\phi_{\mathrm{r}}=m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2(t-R/c)$, with $R$ being a distance from the scattering region to the observation point.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{fig5.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{ \label{comb3r600med}
Color mappings of the Thomson energy distribution produced in a head-on geometry of a laser beam (propagating in the $z$-direction) and an electron beam. The electric field of a driving pulse, linearly polarized in the $x$-direction, is described by the shape function with $N_{\mathrm{osc}}=3$, and $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1$ (upper left panel), $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=2$ (middle left panel), $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=3$ (lower left panel). Its central frequency in the laboratory frame equals
$\omega_{\mathrm{L}}=1.548\mathrm{eV}\approx 3.03\times 10^{-6}m_{\mathrm{e}}c^2$ and $\mu=1$.
Electrons move with momentum $\bm{p}_{\mathrm{i}}=-1000m_{\mathrm{e}}c\,{\bm e}_z$ and the scattering process occurs in the $(x,y)$-plane. In the right panels we present the corresponding color mappings of the temporal power distribution of emitted radiation.
}
\end{figure}
It is worth noting that the temporal power distribution of radiation generated by the Compton process depends in general on the electron's spin degrees of freedom. However, for the laser field parameters considered in this report the spin-flip process, for which $\lambda_{\rm i}\lambda_{\rm f}=-1$, occurs with a marginal probability, and the similarity between the quantum and classical approaches is present only for cases with $\lambda_{\rm i}\lambda_{\rm f}=1$, i.e., when the spin degrees of freedom do not change during the scattering event. The corresponding temporal power distribution of radiation generated by the classical Thomson scattering adopts the same form with the Compton amplitude replaced by the Thomson one. Because of the similarity of quantum (with no spin-flip) and classical amplitudes we shall limit our further discussion only to the classical case.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{fig6.eps}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption
{ \label{comb17r600low}
The same as in Fig~\ref{comb3r600med}, but for $N_{\mathrm{osc}}=17$ and $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1,2,3$ and 4 (going from the top to the bottom).
}
\end{figure}
Our aim is now to analyze the angular-frequency and angular-time distributions of generated radiation in the Thomson scattering by modulated laser pulses. Since the Thomson and Compton processes are relativistically covariant, therefore, our general discussion presented above was in the reference frame of incident electrons. The purpose of this section is to present results in the laboratory frame. To this end we consider the pulse generated by the Ti:Sapphire laser of the central frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{L}}=1.548\mathrm{eV}$ and the electron beam of energy around $500\mathrm{MeV}$. For the head-on collision of such two beams the radiation is generated in a very narrow cone in the direction of electron beam. For this reason, in our numerical illustrations we use, instead of the spherical angles $(\theta,\varphi)$, the angular parameters $(\Theta,\Phi)$, $0\leqslant \Theta<2\pi$ and $0\leqslant \Phi<\pi$, such that~\cite{Krajewska2012}
\begin{equation}
(\theta,\varphi)=\begin{cases}
(\Theta,\Phi), & \mathrm{for}\quad 0\leqslant\Theta\leqslant\pi,
\cr
(2\pi-\Theta,\Phi+\pi), & \mathrm{for}\quad \pi<\Theta<2\pi.
\end{cases}
\label{newangles}
\end{equation}
We consider the angular-frequency and angular-time distributions for the geometry in which all momenta and polarization vectors are in the $(xy)$-plane defined by $\Phi=0$. In Fig.~\ref{comb3r600med} we present the color maps for the angular-frequency (left column) and the angular-time (right column) distributions for three laser pulses consisting of $N_{\mathrm{rep}}=1$, 2 and 3 subpulses. We see the formation of a supercontinuum in the MeV domain of frequencies which can be synthesized to very short zeptosecond pulses of radiation. It is important to note that synthesis of the Thomson energy distribution into a sequence of well-separated and ultra-short pulses of generated radiation is only possible if the phase of the Thomson amplitude is well
approximated by the linear dependence on the frequency of emitted radiation. In fact, any significant deviation from such a rule washes away the ultra-short structure of generated radiation. It appears that the genuine quantum recoil of electrons during the emission of photons generates a nonlinear dependence of phases of the Compton amplitudes on $\omega_{\bm K}$ and, hence, it can lead to the disappearance of ultra-short temporal structures of emitted radiation for sufficiently intense laser pulses.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Conclusions}
The existence of a broad bandwidth radiation (spanning a few MeV), which is sharply elongated around the propagation direction of the electron beam, has been demonstrated. Our analysis of temporal distributions of the observed radiation shows that it can be used for the synthesis of zeptosecond (likely even yoctosecond) pulses. Note that this is possible provided that the broad bandwidth radiation is coherent, which clearly proves that nonlinear Thomson or Compton scattering can lead to a generation of a supercontinuum. We demonstrated an important role of the global phase for synthesis of ultra-short pulse generation. Specifically, we showed that the global phase of Thomson amplitude is a linear function of the energy of emitted radiation, $\omega_{\bm K}$. This guarantees that emitted radiation is coherent and can be synthesized into ultra-short pulses. In addition, we investigated a possibility of generating coherent frequency combs from Thomson and Compton scattering in the presence of a sequence of short subpulses. This was motivated by the celebrated high-order harmonic generation and by the resulting synthesis of attosecond pulses out of the frequency spectrum of those harmonics combs. We studied here the generation of frequency-comb structures for the ideal situation when all subpulses are identical. Such a situation can be well-modeled by composing laser pulses from a few monochromatic ones. In fact, the laser pulse shapes considered in this paper are composed either of three monochromatic components with appropriately chosen amplitudes ($N_{\mathrm{rep}}>2$) or only of two for $N_{\mathrm{osc}}=2$. This fact raises the question: How sensitive is the formation of frequency combs if we change relative phases of these monochromatic components? This and similar problems are currently investigated.
|
\section{Introduction}
Reinforcement Learning (RL) techniques which are usually devoted to problems in dynamic environments have been recently used for classical machine learning tasks like classification \cite{dulac2014sequentially,kegl12}. In that case, the prediction process is seen as a sequential process, and this sequential process can take different forms. For example \cite{dulac11} and \cite{graves14} consider that the sequential process is an acquisition process able to focus on relevant parts of the input data; \cite{darrell12} for example focuses on the sequential prediction process with a cascade approach. RL opens now some interesting research directions for classical ML tasks and allows one to imagine solutions to complex problems like budgeted classification \cite{dulac12} or anytime prediction \cite{think09}.
In parallel, Neural Networks (NNs) have recently given rise to a large amount of research motivated by the development of deep architectures - or Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). The use of deep architectures have shown impressive results for many different tasks, from image classification \cite{deep1,deep2}, speech recognition \cite{deep3} to machine translation \cite{deep4} or even for natural language processing \cite{deep5}. These great successes mainly come from the ability of DNNs to compute high-level features over data. Many variants of learning algorithms have been proposed, from complex gradient computations \cite{algodeep1}, to dropout methods \cite{algodeep2}, but the baseline learning algorithm still consists in recursively computing the gradient by using the back-propagation algorithm and performing (stochastic) gradient descent.
This paper is motivated by the idea of using sequential learning algorithms - mainly coming from the reinforcement learning community - in the context of Deep Neural Networks. More precisely, we consider that inference in a NN is a sequential decision process which selects at each layer of a deep architecture one mapping among a set of candidate mappings. This process is repeated layerwise until the final layer is reached. The resulting NN is then a DAG like architecture, where each layer is composed of a set of candidate mappings. Only one of these candidates will be selected at each layer, for processing an input pattern. When an input is presented to the NN, it will then follow a set of successive transformations which corresponds to a trajectory in the NN DAG, until the final output is computed. The decision on which trajectory to follow is computed at each layer through additional components called here selection functions. The latter are trained using a policy gradient technique like algorithm while the NN weights are trained using back propagation. This model called \textit{Deep Sequential Neural Networks} (DNNs) process an input through successive local transformations insetad of using a global transformation in a classical deep NN architecture. It can be considered as an extension of the classical deep NN architecture since when the number of potential candidate mapping at each layer is reduced to 1, one recovers a classical NN architecture. DSNNs are thus based on the following inference process:
\begin{itemize}
\item Given an input $x$, the model chooses between different possible mappings\footnote{We call a mapping the base transformation made between two layers of a neural network i.e a projection from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}^m$.}
\item Then $x$ is mapped to a new representation space.
\item Given the new representation, another mapping is chosen between a set of different possible mappings, and so on to the prediction.
\end{itemize}
Note that the way mappings are chosen, and the mappings themselves are learned together on a training set. Instead of just computing representations in successive representation spaces, DSNNs are able to choose the best representation spaces depending on the input and to process differently data coming from different distributions.
This idea of choosing a different sequence of computations depending on the input share many common points with existing models (see Section \ref{sec:rw}) but our model has some interesting properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item It is able to simultaneously learn successive representations of an input, and also which representations spaces are the most relevant for this particular input.
\item Learning is made by extending \textbf{policy gradient} methods which as far as we know have never been used in this context; moreover, we show that, when the DNNs is in its simplest shape, this algorithm is equivalent to the gradient descent technique used in NNs.
\end{itemize}
The paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{seq:model}, we describe the DSNN formalisms and the underlying sequential inference process. By deriving a policy gradient algorithm, we propose a learning algorithm in Section \ref{sec:learning} based on gradient descent techniques. We present in Section \ref{sec:exp} experimental results on different datasets and a qualitative study showing the ability of the model to solve complex classification problems. The related work is presented in Section \ref{sec:rw}.
\section{Deep Sequential Neural Networks}
\label{seq:model}
Let us consider $\mathcal{X} = \mathbb{R}^X$ the input space, and $\mathcal{Y}=\mathbb{R}^Y$ the output space, $X$ and $Y$ being respectively the dimension of the input and output spaces. We denote $\{(x_1,y_1),...,(x_\ell,y_\ell)\}$ the set of labeled training instances such that $x_i \in \mathcal{X} $ and $y_i \in \mathcal{Y}$. $\{(x_{\ell+1},y_{\ell+1}),...,(x_T,y_T)\}$ will denote the set of testing examples.\linebreak
The DSNN model has a DAG-structure defined as follow:
\begin{itemize}
\item Each node $n$ is in $\{n_1,...,n_N\}$ where $N$ is the total number of nodes of the DAG
\item The root node is $n_1$, $n_1$ does not have any parent node.
\item $c_{n,i}$ corresponds to the $i$-th child of node $n$ and $\#n$ is the number of children of $n$ so, in that case, $i$ is a value be between $1$ and $\#n$.
\item $leaf(n)$ is \textit{true} if node $n$ is a leaf of the DAG - i.e a node without children.
\item Each node is associated to a particular representation space $\mathbb{R}^{dim(n)}$ where $dim(n)$ is the dimension associated to this space. Nodes play the same role than layers in classical neural networks.
\begin{itemize}
\item $dim(n_1) = X$ i.e the dimension of the root node is the dimension of the input of the model.
\item For any node $n$, $dim(n) = Y$ if $leaf(n)=true$ i.e the dimension of the leaf nodes is the output space dimension.
\end{itemize}
\item We consider \textit{mapping functions} $f_{n,n'} : \mathbb{R}^{dim(n)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{dim(n')}$ which are functions associated with edge $(n,n')$. $f_{n,n'}$ computes a new representation of the input $x$ in node $n'$ given the representation of $x$ in node $n$. The output produced by the model is a sequence of $f$-transformation applied to the input like in a neural network.
\item In addition, each node is also associated with a \textit{selection function} denoted $p_n : \mathbb{R}^{dim(n)} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\#n}$ able, given an input in $\mathbb{R}^{dim(n)}$, to compute a score for each child of node $n$. This function defines a probability distribution over the children nodes of $n$ such as, given a vector $z \in \mathbb{R}^{dim(n)}$
\begin{equation*}
P(c_{n,i} | z) = \frac{e^{p^i_n(z)}}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\#n} e^{p^j_n(z)}}
\end{equation*}
Selection functions aim at selecting which $f$-functions to use by choosing a path in the DAG from the root node to a leaf node.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{dsnn1.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Architecture of \textit{Deep Sequential Neural Networks}. We illustrate a model where each node has 3 children. For a particular input, and by using $p_{n_1}$ and $p_{n_2}$, the sequence of chosen nodes is $(n_1,n_2,n_6,n_8)$. Note that only $p_{n_1}$ and $p_{n_2}$ have been illustrated on the figure but each node is associated with a $p$ function. In that case, the final prediction given $x$ is $f_{n_6,n_8}(f_{n_2,n_6}(f_{n_1,n_2}(x)))$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Inference in DSNN}
Given such a DAG structure $\mathcal{G}$, the inference process is the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item At first, an input $x \in \mathcal{X}$ is presented at the root node $n^{(1)}=n_1$ of the DAG\footnote{$n^{(t)}$ is used to denote the node selected at time $t$}.
\item Then, based on $x$, a child node $n^{(2)}$ is sampled using the $P(c_{^{(1)},.}|x)$ distribution computed through the $p_{n_1}$ function.
\item The model computes a new representation at node $n^{(2)}$ using $f_{n^{(1)},n^{(2)}}(x)$. A child node of $n^{(2)}$ is sampled following $P(c_{^{(2)},.}|x)$, .....
\item The same process is repeated until a leaf node. The vector computed at the leaf node level is the output of the model.
\end{enumerate}
Details of the inference procedure are given in Algorithm \ref{alg:inf}. The algorithm is a discrete-time sequential process starting at time $t=1$ and finishing when the input has reached a leaf node. Given an input $x$, we denote:
\begin{itemize}
\item $n^{(t)}$ the node reached by the input $x$ at time $t$ such that $n^{(1)}=n_1$.
\item $a^{(t)}$ the child node chosen at time $t$, $a^{(t)} \in [1..\#n^{(t)}]$
\item $z^{(t)}$ the mapping of $x$ at time $t$ such that $z^{(t)} \in \mathbb{R}^{dim(n^{(t)})}$
\end{itemize}
The inference process generates a trajectory $T$ which is a sequence $(n^{(1)},...,n^{(D)})$ of nodes starting from the root node $n^{(1)}=n_1$ to a leaf of the node $n^{(D)}$ such that $leaf(n^{(D)})=True$; $D$ is the size of the chosen branch of the tree. This sequence is obtained by sequentially choosing a sequence of children (or actions) $H=(a^{(1)},...,a^{(D-1)})$. In the following $H$ will denote a sequence of actions sampled w.r.t the $p$ functions.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{DSNN Inference Procedure}\label{alg_inference}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Procedure{Inference}{$x$}\Comment{x is the input vector}
\State $z^{(1)} \gets x$
\State $n^{(1)} \gets n_1$
\State $t \gets 1$
\While{not $leaf(n^{(t)})$}\Comment{Inference finished}
\State $a^{(t)} \sim p_{n^{(t)}}(z^{(t)})$\Comment{Sampling using the distribution over children nodes}
\State $n^{(t+1)} \gets c_{n^{(t)},a^{(t)}}$
\State $z^{(t+1)} \gets f_{n^{(t)},n^{(t+1)}}(z^{(t)})$
\State $t \gets t+1$
\EndWhile\label{euclidendwhile}
\State \textbf{return} $z^{(t)}$
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:inf}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Learning DSNN with gradient-based approaches}
\label{sec:learning}
The training procedure we propose aims at simultaneously learning both the \textit{mapping functions} $f_{i,j}$ and the \textit{selection functions} $p_i$ in order to minimize a given learning loss denoted $\Delta$. Our learning algorithm is based on an extension of \textbf{policy gradient techniques} inspired from the Reinforcement Learning literature. More precisely, our learning method is close to the methods proposed in \cite{schmi} and \cite{graves14} with the difference that, instead of considering a reward signal which is usual in reinforcement learning, we consider a loss function $\Delta$ computing the quality of the system. \hfill~\linebreak
Let us denote $\theta$ the parameters of the $f$ functions and $\gamma$ the parameters of the $p$ functions.
The performance of our system is denoted $J(\theta,\gamma)$:
\begin{equation}
J(\theta, \gamma) = E_{P(x,H,y)}[\Delta(F(x,H),y)]
\end{equation}
where both $H$ - i.e the sequence of children nodes chosen by the $p$-functions - and $F$ - the final decision given a particular path in the DSNN - depends on both $\gamma$ and $\theta$. The optimization of $J$ can be made by gradient-descent techniques and we need to compute the gradient of $J$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\theta,\gamma} J(\theta,\gamma) &= \int \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \left( P(H|x) \Delta(F(x,H),y) \right) P(x,y) dH dx dy \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This gradient can be simplified such that:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\theta,\gamma} J(\theta,\gamma)& = \int \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \left( P(H|x) \right) \Delta(F(x,H),y) P(x,y) dH dx dy + \int P(H|x) \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \Delta(F(x,H),y) P(x,y) dH dx dy\\
&= \int \frac{P(H|x)}{P(H|x)} \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \left( P(H|x) \right) \Delta(F(x,H),y) P(x,y) dH dx dy \\
&+ \int P(H|x) \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \Delta(F(x,H),y) P(x,y) dH dx dy\\
&= \int P(H|x) \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \left( log P(H|x) \right) \Delta(F(x,H),y) P(x,y) dH dx dy \\
&+ \int P(H|x) \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \Delta(F(x,H),y) P(x,y) dH dx dy\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:eq}
\end{equation}
Using the Monte Carlo approximation of this expectation by taking $M$ trail histories over the training examples, we can write:
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\theta,\gamma} J(\theta,\gamma) = \frac{1}{\ell}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\ell} \left[ \frac{1}{M} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{M} \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \left( log P(H | x_i) \right) \Delta(F(x_i,H),y) + \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \Delta(F(x_i,H),y) \right]
\end{equation}
Intuitively, the gradient is composed of two terms:
\begin{itemize}
\item The first term aims at penalizing trajectories with high loss - and thus encouraging to find trajectories with low loss. When the loss is $0$, the resulting gradient is null and the system will thus continue to choose the same paths.
\item The second term is the gradient computed over the branch of the tree that has been sampled. It encourages the $f$ functions to perform better the next time the same path will be chosen for a particular input.
\end{itemize}
While the second term can be easily computed by back-propagation techniques over the sequence of $f$ functions that compose the branch of the tree, the computation of $\nabla_{\theta,\gamma} log P(H | x_i)$ can be written:
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\theta,\gamma}log P(H | x_i) = \nabla_{\theta,\gamma} \sum\limits_{t=1}^D log P(a^{(t)}|z^{(t)})
\end{equation}
The term $\nabla_{\theta,\gamma} log P(a^{(t)}|z^{(t)})$ depends on $z^{(t)}$ which is the projection of the input $x$ at node $n^{(t)}$. This projection involves the sequence of transformation $f_{n^{(1)},n^{(2)}}, ..., f_{n^{(t-1)},n^{(t)}}$ and the selection function $p_{n^{(t)}}$. It can also be computed by back-propagation techniques over the functions $f_{n^{(1)},n^{(2)}}, ..., f_{n^{(t-1)},n^{(t)}}, p_{n^{(t)}}$.
\paragraph{Variance reduction: } Note that equation \label{eq:eq} provides us an estimate of the gradient which can have a high variance. Instead of using this estimate,
we replace $\Delta(F(x_i,H),y)$ by $\Delta(F(x_i,H),y)-b$ where $b = E_{p(x,H,y)}[\Delta(F(x_i,H),y)]$ which can be easily estimated on the training set \cite{schmi}.
\paragraph{NNs and DSNNs: } It is easy to show that DSNN is a generalization of NN and is equivalent to NN in its simple shape, where the structure is not a DAG but only a sequence of nodes as presented in Figure \ref{fig:nn1} (left). In other words, learning a DSNN with only one possible action at each timestep is equivalent to learning a neural network.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{dsnn2.png} & \includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{dsnn4.png} \\
(left) & (right)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{(left) Architecture of the \textit{Deep Sequential Neural Network} with only one child for each node. In that case, the model is equivalent to a neural network. (right) Architecture of a \textit{DSNN-2 5 (tanh)} model}
\label{fig:nn1}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{No Hidden Layer (nhl)} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_1_perceptron.png} & \includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_3_perceptron.png} &\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_5_perceptron.png} &\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_10_perceptron.png} \\
NN & DSNN-3 & DSNN-5 & DSNN-10 \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Hidden Layer Dimension: 10, Activation Function: Hyperbolic Tangent} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_1_10tanh.png} & \includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_3_10tanh.png} &\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_5_10tanh.png} &\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_10_10tanh.png} \\
NN & DSNN-3 & DSNN-5 & DSNN-10 \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Hidden Layers Dimension: 10-10, Activation Function: Hyperbolic Tangent} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_1_10tanh_10tanh.png} & \includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_3_10tanh_10tanh.png} &\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_5_10tanh_10tanh.png} &\includegraphics[width=0.2\linewidth]{7_10_10tanh_10tanh.png} \\
NN & DSNN-3 & DSNN-5 & DSNN-10 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Examples of Decision Frontiers obtained on the Checkboard $7 \times 7$ dataset }
\label{fig:ggrid}
\end{table}
\section{Experiment}
\label{sec:exp}
We have performed experiments comparing two different models: (i) \textbf{NN} corresponds to a simple neural network (ii) \textbf{DSNN-k} corresponds to the sequential model presented above where $k$ is the number of possible actions. The model corresponding to \textit{DSNN-2 5 (tanh)} is presented in Figure \ref{fig:nn1} (right). It corresponds to the extension of a NN with a 5-dimensionnal hidden layer (with hyperbolic tangent activation function) where now the system is able to choose at each timestep between 2 actions. $nhl$ will denote a model without hidden layer. \textit{DSNN-3 10-10 (rl)} corresponds to the extension of a NN with two hidden layers of size 10 (with rectified linear units) with 3 possible actions. The $f$ functions are thus linear transformations followed by a non linear function. The $p_.$ functions are simple linear functions\footnote{More complex $p$ functions could be used but have not been investigated in the paper}.
The experiments have been made on three families of datasets. The first set of experiments has been made on 5 UCI datasets which are datasets composed of about 1,000 training examples in low-dimensional space. The second set of experiments has been made on a variation of MNIST where the distribution of the inputs has been pertubated to measure the ability of the system to computes different features depending on the inputs. At last, the third set of experiments on simple 2-dimensionnal datasets based on checkerboard distributions and is used to better analyze the behavior of the model. The experiments have been performed with many different values of the hyper-parameters following a grid search algorithm. For each value of hyper-parameters and each dataset, we have performed 5 runs, we have averaged the performance over the 5 runs.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{rr||rrrrr}
& \textbf{Hidden Layer(s)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{diabetes}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{fourclass}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{heart}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{sonar}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{splice}} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\textbf{nhl}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{NN} & \textbf{* 78.4} & 67.1 & \textbf{* 81.1} & \textbf{67.3} & 69.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-2} & 76.3 & 70.5 & 77.5 & 64.1 & \textbf{72.7} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-5} & 77.6 & 73.5 & 76.5 & 65.1 & 68.1 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-10} & 77.8 & \textbf{74.7} & 77.9 & 66.3 & 65.8 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\textbf{5}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{NN} & 75.8 & 76.5 & 69.6 & \textbf{79.7} & 60.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-2} & 75.2 & \textbf{94.5} & \textbf{74.3} & 77.1 & 68.7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-5} & \textbf{76.9} & 92.1 & 72.8 & 79.4 & 70.5 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-10} & 76.5 & 92.7 & 70.3 & 77.5 & \textbf{69.8} \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\textbf{10}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{NN} & \textbf{74.4} & 77.9 & 69.4 & 78.7 & 61.1 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-2} & 73.9 & \textbf{* 95.7} & 66.9 & 78.4 & 71.2 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-5} & 73.8 & 93.3 & 67.4 & \textbf{* 81.0} & \textbf{72.7} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-10} & 74.0 & 93.8 & \textbf{70.8} & 77.5 & 68.9 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\textbf{25}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{NN} & \textbf{77.1} & 77.0 & 68.1 & \textbf{77.5} & 61.3 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-2} & 73.3 & \textbf{94.4} & 72.8 & 77.1 & 67.8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-5} & 72.6 & 93.1 & \textbf{73.3} & 75.9 & 69.1 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-10} & 73.4 & 91.0 & 70.6 & 76.8 & \textbf{71.4} \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\textbf{5-5}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{NN} & 73.3 & 90.2 & 75.0 & \textbf{75.2} & 64.5 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-2} & 72.9 & \textbf{95.3} & 75.0 & 73.0 & \textbf{* 74.8} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-5} & 72.0 & 84.6 & \textbf{76.0} & 74.3 & 72.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-10} & \textbf{73.8} & 60.8 & 69.6 & 62.5 & 63.7 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\textbf{10-10}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{NN} & 70.1 & \textbf{92.8} & 77.2 & 76.8 & 64.6 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-2} & \textbf{73.6} & 90.0 & 73.5 & 75.2 & 71.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-5} & 72.0 & 88.7 & \textbf{77.7} & 76.2 & \textbf{73.5} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-10} & 73.0 & 67.4 & 76.7 & \textbf{79.4} & 67.4 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{4}[2]{*}{\textbf{25-25}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{NN} & 71.9 & \textbf{93.7} & 75.0 & 74.3 & 63.8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-2} & 71.3 & 81.3 & 73.5 & \textbf{76.5} & \textbf{72.8} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-5} & 68.7 & 85.2 & \textbf{77.2} & 73.0 & 70.1 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l||}{DSNN-10} & \textbf{74.3} & 72.8 & 57.6 & 73.0 & 69.3 \\\hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{center}
\caption{Accuracy over UCI datasets (with tanh activation function). $*$ is the best results obtained for each dataset. \textbf{Bold} values corresponds to the best performance obtained for each architecture. Results are average over 5 runs.}
\label{fig:uci}
\end{table}
\paragraph{UCI datasets: } The results obtained on UCI datasets are presented in Table \ref{fig:uci} where 50 \% of the examples have been used for training. First, one can see that, for some datasets (diabetes,heart), a simple linear model is sufficient for computing a high accuracy and using more complex architectures does not help in increasing the performance of the models. In that case, using DSNN does not seem really useful since a simple model is enough. For the other datasets, the DSNN outperforms the NN approach, particularly when the number of children for each node is low. Indeed, when this number becomes high, the number of parameters to learn can be very large, and the system is not able to learn these parameters, or needs at least much more iterations to converge.
\begin{table}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.55\linewidth}
\small{
\vspace{-3cm}
\begin{tabular}{r||r|r|r|r|}
& \textbf{NN} & \textbf{DSNN-2} & \textbf{DSNN-3} & \textbf{DSNN-5} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{nhl} & 89.4 & 89.4 & 89.4 & 89.3 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{25} & 93.7 & 93.6 & 94.2 & 93.9 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{25-25} & 93.6 & 93.4 & 93.5 & 93.4 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{100} & 95.3 & 95.4 & 95.3 & 95.4 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{100-100} & 94.6 & 94.6 & 94.7 & 94.4 \\
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\linewidth}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{r||r|r|r|r|}
\textbf{} & \textbf{NN} & \textbf{DSNN-2} & \textbf{DSNN-3} & \textbf{DSNN-5} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{nhl} & 27.7 & 88.3 & 88.2 & \textbf{88.4} \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{5} & 37.4 & 82.6 & \textbf{83.5} & 56.7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{10} & 83.4 & \textbf{89.2} & 85.6 & 87.7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{10-10} & 81.1 & \textbf{85.3} & 84.0 & 82.9 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{25} & \textbf{91.9} & 91.5 & 91.0 & 91.4 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{25-25} & \textbf{90.9} & 90.4 & 85.1 & 78.3 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l||}{50-50} & 92.8 & \textbf{93.5} & 92.9 & 79.3 \\
\end{tabular}%
}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Accuracy on the MNIST dataset (left) and the MNIST-Negative dataset (right) - digits have been resampled to $14 \times 14$ images. We have used rectified linear units on the hidden layers.}
\label{fig:mimi}
\end{table}
\paragraph{MNIST datasets: } We have performed experiments on both the classical MNIST dataset\footnote{The training set is composed of 12,000 examples, and the testing set is composed of 50,000 digits.} where digits have been re-sampled to $14 \times 14$ images, and to a variation of this dataset called MNIST-Negative where half of the digits have been negated - i.e for half of the digits, the value of a pixel is equal to one minus its original value. In that case, one can consider that digits have been sampled following two different distributions a simple model will not be able to capture. Table \ref{fig:mimi} reports the results we have obtained with different architectures. First, one can see that, for the MNIST dataset, the performance of NN and DSNN are quite similar showing that DSNN is not relevant when the input distribution is simple. On the MNIST-Inverse dataset, first, the NN without hidden layer is unable to well classify since the inputs are too much disparate. In that case, DSNN is able to capture the two inputs distributions and performs quite well. Adding some small hidden layers allows us to increase the accuracy. When using large hidden layers, a single NN is capable of capturing the data distribution and thus perform as well as DSNN.
\paragraph{Checkerboard datasets: } For that set of experiments, we have generated checkerboard of points in two different categories (see Figure \ref{fig:ggrid}). The checkerboards sizes vary from $3 \times 3$ to $11 \times 11$ and each case of the checkerboard is composed of 100 training points, and 100 testing points. Performances are presented in Table \ref{fig:grid} showing that the DSNN model is able to capture this distribution. Figure \ref{fig:ggrid} show the decision frontiers obtained by different architectures. One can see that the NN model is not able to capture this distribution. DSNN-3 with a 10-dim hidden layer is almost perfect while DSNN models with a more complex architectures and a higher number of actions are not able to learn since they have too many parameters.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|r||r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline
Checkerboard: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ 3 $\times$ 3} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ 5 $\times$ 5} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ 7$\times$ 7} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ 9$\times$9} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ 11$\times$ 11} \\ \hline \hline
& NN & DSNN & NN & DSNN & NN & DSNN & NN & DSNN & NN & DSNN \\ \hline
Accuracy & 0.53 & 0.99 & 0.52 & 0.94 & 0.52 & 0.86 & 0.51 & 0.749 & 0.5 & 0.697 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{center}
\caption{Performance over the checkerboard datasets. Only the best performance have been reported. NNs and DSNNs have been tested with the following architectures: nhl,$2$,$5$,$10$,$2-2$,$5-5$,$10-10$. DSNNs have been tested with 2, 3, 5 and 10 possible actions. }
\label{fig:grid}
\end{table}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:rw}
Different models are related to DSNNs. The first family of models are neural networks. The idea of processing input data by different functions is not new and have been proposed for example in Neural Tree Networks \cite{ptree,nt}, with Hierarchical Mixture of Experts \cite{Jordan} where the idea is to compute different transformations of data and to aggregate these transformations. The difference with our approach is both in the inference process, and in the way the model is learned. They also share the idea of processing different inputs with different computations which is the a major idea underlying decision trees \cite{dt} and also more recent classification techniques like \cite{dulac11}.
At last, some links have already be done between classification and reinforcement learning algorithms \cite{dulac12,kegl12}. Particularly, the use of recurrent neural networks from modelling Markov Decision Processes learned by Policy gradient techniques has been deeply explored in \cite{schmi} and in a recent work that proposes the use of such models for image classification \cite{graves14}.
\section{Conclusion and Perspectives}
We have proposed a new family of model called \textit{Deep Sequential Neural Networks} which differ from neural networks since, instead of always applying the same set of transformations, they are able to choose which transformation to apply depending on the input. The learning algorithm is based on the computation of the gradient which is obtained by an extension of policy-gradient techniques. In its simplest shape, DSNNs are equivalent to DNNs. Experiments on different datasets have shown the effectiveness of these models.
\pagebreak
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{secintro}
\subsection{Models}\label{secmod}
In the broad class of models Dark Matter (DM) consists of
particles $D$ similar to those in SM, with the following
properties:
\begin{Enumerate}
\item
The neutral DM particle $D$ with mass $M_D$ and spin $s_D=0$ or $1/2$
has a new conserved quantum number, which we call the $D$-parity.
All known particles are $D$-even, while the $D$ is $D$-odd.
\item
In addition to $D$, other $D$-odd particles
exist: a charged $D^\pm$ and (sometimes) a neutral $D^A$, with
the same spin $s_D$ and with masses
$M_+,\, M_A>M_D$.
The $D$-parity conservation ensures stability of the
lightest $D$-odd particle $D$.
\item These $D$-particles interact with the SM particles
via the Higgs boson $DDh$, $D^+D^-h$, $D^AD^Ah$ and
via the covariant derivative in the kinetic term of the Lagrangian.
These are the gauge interactions $D^+D^-\gamma$, $D^+D^-Z$,
$D^+DW^-$, $D^+D^AW^-$, $D^ADZ$ with the standard electroweak
couplings $g$, $g'$ and $e$ (coupling to $Z$ can be added by a mixing factor $\mu_M\le 1$, deviation from 1 appears due to possible mixing of $D$ with other $D$-odd neutrals).
\end{Enumerate}
\bu \ The first example of such model provides well known MSSM (see e.g. \cite{MSSMdark1}-\cite{WILC-2}) for specific set of parameters. Here our term $D$-parity means $R$-parity. For the considered set of parameters, $D$ is the lightest neutralino $\chi_1^0$, the heavier neutralino $\chi_2^0$ can play role $D^A$ and the next in mass $D$-odd particle is the lightest chargino, spin of these $D$-particles $s_D=1/2$. The other $D$-odd particles (in particular, sleptons and squarks)
are supposed to be heavier than the ILC beam energy $E$.
\bu \ The second example of such models provides the Inert Doublet Model (IDM) (see e.g. \cite{inert-1}-\cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-3} and Appendix~\ref{secinert}). That is the $Z_2$ symmetric Two Higgs Doublet Model, containing two scalar doublets $\phi_S$ and $\phi_D$. The "standard" scalar (Higgs) doublet $\phi_S$ is responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking and the masses of fermions and gauge bosons just as in the Standard Model (SM). The second scalar doublet $\phi_D$ doesn't receive vacuum expectation value and doesn't couple to fermions. In this model the $D$-parity conservation is ensured by a $Z_2$ symmetry, four degrees of freedom of the Higgs doublet $\phi_S$ are the same as in the SM: three Goldstone modes and the standard Higgs boson $h$. All the components of the scalar doublet $\phi_D$ are realized as the massive $D$-particles: two charged $D^\pm$ and two neutral ones $D$, $D^{A}$ with masses $M_+$, $M_D$, $M_A$ respectively with $M_+,\,M_A>M_D$. IDM contains no other $D$-odd particles. All $D$-particles have spin $s_D=0$.
A possible value of mass $M_D$ is limited by stability of $D$
during the Universe existence \cite{Dolle:2009fn-1}-\cite{PDG}. The
non-observation of the processes $e^+e^-\to D^+D^-$ and $e^+e^-\to
DD^A$ at LEP gives $M_+> 90$~GeV and $M_A>100$~GeV (at
$M_A-M_D>10$~GeV) \cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-1}-\cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-3}. Limitations for
masses of neutralino and chargino can be found in
\cite{PDG}. For IDM, limitations for parameters of $Z$-peak,
$S$ and $T$ results in (\cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-1}-\cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-3}, \cite{PDG})
\be
|\Delta T|=2.16 \left(\fr{M_+-M_D}{v}\right) \cdot
\left|\fr{M_+-M_A}{v}\right|<0.15\,\label{Tlim}
\ee
(with $v=246$~GeV -- vacuum expectation value of Higgs field).
Further we
will have in mind $ M_D\lesssim 80~\mbox{GeV}$ and assume
$M_+-M_D,\, M_A-M_D>20$~GeV.
\subsection{The problem}
The neutral and stable $D$ can be produced and detected
via production $D^\pm$ or $D^A$ and subsequent decay
$D^\pm\to DW^\pm$, $D^A\to DZ$ with either
on shell (real) or off shell $W^\pm$ or $Z$. The off shell $W$ emerges
as a $q\bar{q}$
pair (dijet\fn{We use term
"dijet" for all products of $W$ decay in $q\bar{q}$ mode -- that are 2 quark jets or 2 quark jets plus gluon jet(s) or few hadrons for off shell $W$ with small effective mass.}) or \ $\ell\nu$, having the same quantum numbers as $W$
but with an effective mass $M^*<M_W$. From now on, $W$ or $Z$ refers to any of these two cases.
To discover \ the DM particle, one needs to specify such processes with a clear signature. The $e^+e^-$ Collider ILC/~CLIC provides an excellent opportunity for this task (see, e.g., \cite{TESLA-1}, \cite{TESLA-2}) in the process $\epe\to D^+D^-$ with a clear signature, see Eqs.~\eqref{sign+W} and \eqref{signWZ1} below. The cross section of this process is a large fraction of the total cross section of \epe annihilation, sect.~\ref{secxsecpm}.
The masses $M_+$ and $M_D$ could be found via the edges of the
energy distribution of dijets, originating from $W$ from decay
$D^\pm\to DW^\pm$, sect.~\ref{secWdistr}, \ref{secleptlightA}
(see \cite{WILC-1}-\cite{WILC-2} for MSSM and \cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-1}-\cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-3} for
IDM). However, this method cannot provide a good accuracy in
measuring the mass. Indeed, the individual jet energy measurement
suffers from a sizable uncertainty. In particular, this
uncertainty smoothes the lower edge in the dijet energy
spectrum.
On the contrary, the lepton energy can be measured much more
precisely. In this paper we show, first, that the energy distribution of leptons has singular points whose positions are kinematically determined. Measuring positions of these singularities will allow, in principle, to determine masses $M_D$ and $M_+$ with good precision (sect.~\ref{secleptlight+}, \ref{secleptlightA}). In contrast to \cite{WILC-1}-\cite{WILC-2}, \cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-1}-\cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-3}, our \ description is suitable for different models.
Moreover, we present a simple method for measuring spin of DM particles in
these very experiments.
The discussed problem differs strongly from that for the case when the lightest charged D-odd particle is slepton (another set of parameters of MSSM). In the latter case DM particles are produced via slepton pair, $e^+e^-\to \tilde{\ell}^+\tilde{\ell}^-\to \ell^+\ell^-\chi_0\chi_0$. First of all, signature of this process is quite different from that one in our problem \eqref{sign+W}, \eqref{signWZ1}. Second, the energy of observable lepton -- decay product of slepton is measurable well {\it in each individual event}, in difference with our case, when similar product of decay, $W$, is seen as dijet or lepton plus neutrino with badly measurable energy in each individual event. Therefore, the approach used in the analysis of slepton production (cf. \cite{selectron-1}-\cite{selectron-3}) cannot be applied directly to our problem.
The overall picture is summarized in sect.~\ref{secsum}. Short conclusion is given in sect.~\ref{secconcl}.
In the Appendix B we discuss the potential of the process $\epe\to
DD^A\to DDZ$ for similar problems, for completeness. In
contrast with previous studies, we find that this
potential is not too high.
In the Appendix C we consider possible background processes and
show that the most of them can be neglected at the analysis.
\subsection{Scale of cross sections}
We express discussed cross sections via
\be
\sigma_0\equiv \sigma(e^+e^-\to \gamma\to\mu^+\mu^-) =4\pi\alpha^2/3s\,.\label{sig0}
\ee
The total cross section of $e^+e^-$ annihilation at ILC for \
$\sqrt{s}\equiv 2E>200$~GeV is $\sim 10\;\sigma_0$.
The annual integrated
luminosity $\cal L$ for the ILC
project \cite{TESLA-2} gives
\be
{\cal L}\sigma_0\sim 3\cdot 10^5.\label{annlum}
\ee
The process $e^+e^-\to D^+D^-$ represents a significant
fraction of all $e^+e^-$ annihilation events -- see \eqref{crsec},
\eqref{compcrsec}, Fig.~\ref{xsec+} and Table~\ref{tabA}. With the
luminosity \eqref{annlum}, the annual number of events of
discussed type will be $(0.6\div 3)\cdot 10^5$, depending on
$M_+/E$ and $s_D$, and about $1/3$ of them (in the mode
with $e$ or $\mu$ plus dijet) are suitable for
our analysis.
\section{The process \ \ $\pmb{e^+e^-\to D^+D^-}$}\label{secmain}
Note before all that the energies, $\gamma$-factors and velocities of
$D^\pm$ are
\be
E_\pm=E=\sqrt{s}/2,\quad \gamma_\pm=E/M_+, \quad \beta_\pm= \sqrt{1-M_+^2/E^2}. \label{cmkinpm}
\ee
\subsection{The signature}
\bu {\bf If \ \ $\pmb{M_A>M_+}$ or $\pmb{D^A}$ is absent}, once
produced, particles $D^\pm$ decay fast (with a unit probability)
to $DW^\pm$, \be \epe\to D^+D^-\to DDW^+W^-\,.\label{DDWWmain} \ee
The observable states are decay products of $W$ with a large
missing transverse energy \ $\missET$ carried away by the
invisible $D$-particle, and the missing mass of particles escaping
observation $M(\missET)$ is large. In contrast to the LHC, where a
large flux of low $p_\bot$ particles demands an additional
$p_\bot$ cut off, at $\epe$ LC such particles are absent.
Therefore, the signatures of the process in the modes
suitable for observation are
\bes\label{sign+W}
\be
\boxed{\mbox{\begin{minipage}{0.73\textwidth} \cl{$\epe\to DD(W\to q\bar{q})(W\to q\bar{q})$: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Two dijets
+ {\large\it nothing},} with energy of each dijet \
$<E$, with large \ $\missET$ and large
$M(\missET)$. \end{minipage} }}
\label{sign+WB}
\ee
\be
\boxed{\mbox{\begin{minipage}{0.83\textwidth} \cl{$\epe\to DD(W\to \ell\nu)(W\to q\bar{q})$: \ \ \ \ \ \ One dijet $+$ $ e$ or $\mu$
+ {\large\it nothing},} with energy of each dijet or lepton \
$<E$, with large \ $\missET$ and large
$M(\missET)$. \end{minipage} }}
\label{sign+WA}
\ee
\ees
At $M^*>5$~GeV, the branching ratios for different
channels of $W$ decay are roughly identical for on-shell $W$
\cite{PDG} and off-shell $W$. In particular, the fraction
of events with signature \eqref{sign+WB} \ is
$0.676^2\approx 0.45$. The fraction of events with signature \eqref{sign+WA} is $2\cdot 0.676\cdot2\cdot (1+0.17)\cdot
0.108\approx 0.33$ (here 0.17 is a fraction of $\mu$ or $e$ from
the decay of $\tau$). At $M^*<5$~GeV,
$BR(e\nu)$ and $BR(\mu\nu) $ increase, while the dijet becomes
a set of a few hadrons.
\bu {\bf If $\pmb{M_+>M_A}$}, when analysing the main process
$\epe\to D^+D^-$, {\it one more decay channel is added, $D^\pm\to D^A W^\pm\to DZW^\pm $}. Its branching ratio $B= BR(D^+\to D^AW^+)$\lb is typically less than 0.5 (see discussion in sect.~\ref{secleptlightA}). Particle $D^A$ decays fast to $DZ$,
creating new cascades $e^+e^-\to D^+D^-\to DW^+D^AW^-\to DD W^+W^-Z$,\lb $e^+e^-\to D^+D^-\to D^AW^+D^AW^-\to DD W^+W^-ZZ$. As a result, the signature of the processes $e^+e^-\to D^+D^-$ in the modes suitable for observation contains both \eqref{sign+W} and processes with decay $W$'s or $Z$'s in the mentioned cascades:
\be
\boxed{\mbox{\begin{minipage}{0.86\textwidth}
\cl{ $4\div 1$ dijets and $0\div 5$ leptons
with large $\missET$ and large
$M(\missET)$ + {\large\it nothing}.}\end{minipage}
}}\label{signWZ1}
\ee
{Note that the processes with invisible decay $Z\to \nu\bar{\nu}$ (we denote these states as $Z_n$, their $BR=20\%$ ) have signature \eqref{sign+W}.}
\subsection{$\pmb W$ energy distribution in \ \ $\pmb{\epe\to D^+D^-\to DDW^+W^-}$}\label{secWdistr}
Here we consider the energy distribution of $W$ with an effective mass $M^*$.
At each value of $M^*$, we have in the rest frame of $D^\pm$ a
two-particle decay $D^\pm\to DW^\pm$ with\fn{We denote quantities in the rest system of $D^\pm$ and in the Lab system by using superscripts $r$ and $L$ respectively, additional superscript $+$ or $-$ corresponds to upper or lower value of this quantity. Subscripts $on$ or $off$ correspond to on shell or off shell $W$'s, subscripts $p$ or $k$ mark values, correspondent to peak or kink. Other subscripts and superscripts look evident.}
\bear{c}
\!\!E_{W}^r(M^*)\!=\!\fr{M_+^2 +M^{*2}- M_{D}^2}{2M_+},\;\; p^r_{W}(M^*)\!=\!\fr{\Delta(M_+^2,M^{*2},M_{D}^2)}{2M_+},\\[2mm] \Delta(s_1,s_2,s_3)^2=s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2-2s_1s_2-2s_1s_3-2s_2s_3.
\eear{rkinW}
Denoting by $\theta$ the $W^+$ escape angle in the $D^+$ rest frame
with respect to the direction of $D^+$ motion in the laboratory frame
and using $c\equiv\cos\theta$, we find the energy of \ $W^+$ \ in
the laboratory frame as $E_W^L=\gamma_\pm(E_{W}^r+c\beta_\pm p_{W}^r) $.
Therefore, at given $M^*$, the energy $E^L_W$ of $W$ lies within the
interval $\gamma_\pm(E_{W}^r\pm \beta_\pm p_{W}^r)$.
In particular, {\bf at
$\pmb{M_+-M_D>M_W}$} we have $M^*=M_W$, and the kinematical edges of the
$W$ energy distribution are
\be
E^{L,\pm}_{W,on}\!=\!\gamma_\pm(E_W^r(M_W)\!\pm\!\beta_\pm
p^r_W(M_W)).\label{EPW}
\ee
{\bf At $\pmb{M_+-M_D<M_W}$} we have $0\le M^*\le M_+-M_D$,
and obtain similar edges, which are different for each value of
$M^*$. The absolute upper and lower bounds on the energy distribution of
$W$ are attained at $M^* = 0$, they are equal to
\be
E^{L,\pm}_{W,off}=
E\,(1\pm \beta_\pm)\left(1-M_D^2/M_+^2\right)/2
\;.\label{ELWoff}
\ee
At the highest value $M^*=M_+-M_D$ we have
$p_W^r=0$, and an interval \eqref{EPW} is reduced to a point,
where the entire $W$ energy distribution has a maximum (peak) of
\be
E^L_{W,p}\equiv
E^{L, \pm}_W|_{(M^*=M_+-M_D)}=E\left(1-M_D/M_+\right).\label{peakW}
\ee
\subsection{
Single lepton energy distribution in\\
$\pmb{\epe\to D^+D^-\to DD W^+W^-\to DD q\bar{q}\,\ell\nu} (\ref{sign+WA})$
}\label{secleptlight+}
The fraction
of such events for each separate lepton, $e^+$, $e^-$, $\mu^+$ or
$\mu^-$,
is about 0.08, their sum is about 0.33 of the total cross section
of the process.
We will speak, for\ \ definiteness, $\ell=\mu^-$ and neglect the muon mass.
Note that in the laboratory frame, for a $W$ with some energy $E_W^L$,
its $\gamma$-factor and the
velocity are $\gamma_{WL}=E_W^L/M^*$ and
$\beta_{WL}\equiv \sqrt{1-\gamma_{WL}^{-2}}$.
We study the distribution\fn{We find useful, to mark in the argument of this distribution also masses of produced
$D$-particle $M_+$ and $D$-particle appeared in its decay $M_D$.} of muons over its energy $\vep$,
$d\sigma^\mu(\vep|M_+,\,M_D)/d\vep $.
We show that this distribution has singular points, whose positions
are kinematically determined, i.e. model independent.
a) If ${M_+-M_D>M_W}$ we have $M^*=M_W$, and the muon energy and
momentum
in the rest frame of $W$ are $M_W/2$. Just as above,
denoting by $\theta_1$ the escape angle of $\mu$ relative to the
direction of the $W$ in the laboratory frame and using
$c_1=\cos\theta_1$,
we find that the muon energy in the laboratory frame is
$\vep=\gamma_{WL}\left(1+c_1\beta_{WL}\right)(M_W/2)$. Therefore,
for these muons $\vep^+(E^L_W)\geqslant \vep \geqslant \vep^-(E^L_W)$
where\\ \cl{$ \vep^+(E^L_W)= E_W^L(1+\beta_{WL})/2=(E_W^L+\sqrt{(E_W^L)^2-M_W^2})/2$} and $\vep^-(E^L_W)=M_W^2/\left(4\vep^+(E^L_W)\right)$.
It is easy to check that the interval corresponding to energy
$E_{1W}^L<E_W^L$ is located entirely within the interval,
correspondent to energy $E_W^L$. Therefore, all muon energies lie
within the interval determined by the highest value of $W$ energy:
\bear{c}
\vep^+ \geqslant \vep\geqslant \vep^-\equiv \fr{M_W^2}{4\vep^+},\;\;\mbox{where
\;\; \vep^+\equiv
\vep^+(E^{L, +}_{W,on})=
\fr{
E^{L, +}_{W,on}+\sqrt{(E^{L, +}_{W,on})^2-M_W^2}}{2}\,.
\eear{Emularge}
(Note that $E^{L,+}_{W,on}=\vep^++M_W^2/(4\vep^+)$.)
With a shift of $\vep$ from these boundaries inwards, the density of
states in the $\vep$ distribution grows monotonically due to
contributions
of smaller values $E^L_W$ up to values $\vep^\pm_k$, corresponding
to the lowest value of $W$ energy $E^{L, -}_{W,on}$:
\bear{c}
\vep^-_k\equiv
\vep^-(E^{L, -}_{W,on})=
\fr{
E^{L, -}_{W,on}- \sqrt{(E^{L, -}_{W,on})^2-M_W^2}}{2},\;\;\
\vep^+_k\equiv
\vep^+(E^{L, -}_{W,on})=\fr{M_W^2}{4\vep^-_k}
.\eear{Emuin}
In these points the energy distributions of muons has kinks.
Between these kinks, the $\vep$-distribution is approximately flat.
Figure~\ref{singlmufig}, the left plot, shows
the energy distribution of muons for the case of the matrix element independent
of $\theta_1$. Since positions of kinks are kinematically determined, it is not surprising that
calculations for distinct models (containing different angular dependence)
demonstrate variations in shapes but do not perturb the position of kinks.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=0.2\textheight,width=0.48\textwidth]{fig2}
\hspace{7mm}\includegraphics[height=0.2\textheight,width=0.48\textwidth]{fig3}
\caption{\it Distributions $dN/d\epsilon\equiv
(1/\sigma)d\sigma/d\epsilon$ at $E=250$~GeV, $M_D=50$~GeV for $M_+=150$~GeV -- the case with $M_+-M_D>M_W$ (the right plot)
and for $M_+=120$~GeV -- the case with $M_+-M_D<M_W$ (the left plot). In the latter case, the higher and lower peaks are for $s_D=0$
and $s_D=1/2$, respectively.} \label{singlmufig}
\end{figure}
b) If ${M_+-M_D<M_W}$, the $D^\pm$ decays to $DW^{*\pm}$, where
$W^{*\pm}$
is an off-shell $W$ with an effective mass $M^*\leqslant
M_+-M_D$. The calculations for each $M^*$ similar to shown above
demonstrate that the muon energies are within the interval
appearing at $M^*=0$:
\be
\left(\vep^-=0;\;\vep^+= E^{L,+}_{W,off}
\,\right).
\label{emustarmax}
\ee
Similarly to the preceding discussion, the increase of $M^*$
shifts the interval boundaries inwards. Therefore, the muon energy
distribution increases monotonously from the outer bounds up to the
maximum (peak) at
$M^*=M_+-M_D$ (cf. \eqref{peakW}):
\be
\vep_p=E(1+\beta_\pm)\left(1-M_D/M_+\right)/2.
\label{emustarmin}
\ee
To get an idea about the shape of the peak, we use the
distribution of $W^*$'s (dijets or $\ell\nu$ pairs) over the
effective masses $M^*$ which is given by the spin-dependent factor $R_{s_D}p^*dM^{*2}$:
\bear{c}
R_0=\fr{p^{*2}}{(M_W^2-M^{*2})^2}\,,\qua
\!\!\!\!R_{1/2}\!=\!\fr{(M_+^2\!+\!M_D^2\!-\!M^{*2})(2M_W^2\!+\!M_+^2\!+\!M_D^2)\!-\!4M_+^2M_D^2}{(M_W^2-M^{*2})^2M_W^2}.
\eear{offshelmass}
The density of muon states in energy is calculated by
convolution of kinematically determined distribution with
distribution \eqref{offshelmass}. Neglecting the angular dependence of
the matrix element, we obtain the result in form of
Fig.~\ref{singlmufig}, right plot. One can see that the discussed peak is
sharp enough for both values of spin $s_D=0$ and $1/2$.
Characteristic values for singular points in the energy
distributions of muons (kink and peak) together with similar points
for the energy distributions of $W$ (dijets) are given in Table~\ref{tab+} .
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{\it The singular point energies of lepton and dijet
in $\epe\to D^+D^-\to DDq\bar{q}\ell\nu$ (in GeV) at $M_D=50$~GeV.}\label{tab+}\vspace{2mm}\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c | c|c|}\hline
$E$ &$M_+$&$\vep^+$&$\vep^-_k $&$\vep^+_k $&$\vep_p$&$E^L_{Wp} $&$E^{L,+}_W$\\ \hline
250&150&186.3&20.8&77.8&-&-&195.4\\ \hline
250&200&184.9&34.9&46.3&-&-&193.6\\ \hline
250&80&148.3&-&-&91.3&93.8&148.3\\\hline
100&80&78&-&-&30&37.5&78\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
{\bf The cascade $\pmb{D^-\to DW^-\to D\tau^-\nu\to
D\mu^-\nu\nu\nu}$} modifies the spectra just discussed. The energy
distribution of $\tau$ produced in the decay $W\to \tau\nu$ is the
same as that for $\mu$ or $e$, discussed above (within the accuracy of $\sim M_\tau/M^*$). Once produced, $\tau$ decays to $\mu\nu\nu$ in 17 \% of cases
(the same for decay to $e\nu\nu$). These muons are added to those discussed above.
In the $\tau$ rest frame, the energy of muon is $E_\mu^\tau=y\,M_\tau/2$ with $y\leqslant 1$. The energy spectrum of muons is $dN/dy=2(3-2y)y^2$ (see textbooks). This spectrum and the distributions obtained above are converted into the energy distribution of muons in the Lab frame. It is clear that
this contribution is strongly shifted towards the soft end of
the entire muon energy spectrum.
The resulting distribution retains the upper boundary of the energy distribution of muons $\vep^+$ \eqref{Emularge}, \eqref{emustarmax}.
Numerical examples show that here the
upper kink is smeared, while lower kink $\vep_k^-$ become even more sharp without shift from position \eqref{Emuin} in wide region of masses $M_+$ and $M_D$. The position of peak \eqref{emustarmin} is also shifted weakly.
\subsection{Additional decay channels at $\pmb{M_+>M_A}$
}\label{secleptlightA}
At $M_+>M_A$ the decay $D^\pm\to D^AW^\pm \to DZW^\pm$ become possible and the processes $\epe\to D^+D^-\to W^+W^-D^AD\to DDW^+W^-Z$, etc. with signature \eqref{signWZ1} should be taken into account.
The total probability of $D^+$ decay to $DW^+$ and $D^AW^+$
equals 1. The decay\lb $D^\pm \to D^AW^\pm$ is described by the same
equation as $D^\pm \to DW^\pm$, but with other kinematical
factors since $M_A\neq M_D$. In the IDM the probability of this new decay is
lower than that without $D^A$ due to smaller final phase space,
i.e. $B= BR(D^+\to D^AW^+)<0.5$. In the MSSM value of $B$ depends additionally on the mixing angles. We assume that in general case $B\lesssim 0.5$.
Below we limit ourself by the study of processes with signature \eqref{sign+WA}, (\ref{signWZ1}a). Unfortunately, some of new processes with intermediate $D^A$ look as those with signature \eqref{sign+W} since large fraction (20\% ) of decays of $Z$ is invisible
($\nu\bar{\nu}$ final states). We denote these states of $Z$
as $Z_n$.
Let us consider in more detail production of an observed state with signature (\ref{sign+WA}), (\ref{signWZ1}a) $\mu^-$ {\it + (1-2) dijets + nothing}.
This state can be obtained from two different cascades.
1) The cascade $D^-\to DW^-\to D\mu^-\nu$. The energy distribution
of $\mu^-$ here reproduces $d\sigma^\mu(\vep|M_+,\,M_D)/d\vep$,
discussed in sect.~\ref{secleptlight+} with an additional factor $(1-B)$.
2) Cascade $D^-\to D^AW^-\to DZ_n\mu^-\nu$. Since couplings $D^-DW^-$
and $D^-D^AW^-$ differ by a phase factor only (and perhaps mixing angle factors), the energy distribution
of $\mu^-$ in this case is described by the same dependence $d\sigma$
but with the change\lb $M_D\to M_A$, the corresponding contribution to the
entire energy distribution is\lb $0.2B
d\sigma^\mu(\vep|M_+,\,M_A)/d\vep $. For brevity we will write
$d\sigma^\mu(\vep|M_+,\,M_D)\to d\sigma^\mu_W$ and
$d\sigma^\mu(\vep|M_+,\,M_A)\to d\sigma^\mu_{WZn}$. The
resulting energy distribution is
\be
d\sigma_{tot}^\mu/d\vep=(1-B)d\sigma_W^\mu/d\vep
+0.2Bd\sigma_{WZn}^\mu/d\vep\,. \ee
The shape of the distribution $d\sigma_{WZn}^\mu/d\vep$ is similar to
that for $d\sigma_W^\mu/d\vep$, but with
different positions of kinks and (or) peak. As $M_A>M_D$, these new kinks
and (or) peak are situated below similar points for
$d\sigma_W^\mu/d\vep$. Since this contribution is much smaller
than the main contribution $d\sigma_W^\mu/d\vep$ (with
the overall ratio $0.2B/(1-B)$ at $B<0.5$), it only results in a weak
reshaping of the full energy distribution as compared with
distributions $d\sigma_W^\mu/d\vep$.
Note that in the case $M_A\approx M_D$ the distributions
$d\sigma_{WZn}^\mu/d\vep$ and $d\sigma_W^\mu/d\vep$ are close to
each other, and $d\sigma_{tot}^\mu/d\vep\propto d\sigma_W^\mu/d\vep$.
In the opposite degenerate case $M_+\approx M_A$, the quantity $B\ll1$
and the influence of the intermediate $D^A$ state on the result is
negligible. (Such very cases are widely discussed in context of MSSM).
\section{The overall picture}\label{secsum}
{\bf Observation} of events with signature \eqref{sign+W}, \eqref{signWZ1} will be a clear {\it signal} for DM particle candidates. The non-observation of such events will allow to find lower limits for masses $M_+$, like \cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-1}-\cite{Lundstrom:2008ai-3}. One can hope that these limits will be close to the beam energy $E$.\lb\vspace{-5mm}
At $M_+<E$, the cross section $\epe\to D^+D^-$ is
a large fraction of the total cross section of \epe annihilation,
and it makes this observation a very realistic task.
\subsection{Distortion of the obtained results}\label{secdist}
A more detailed analysis reveals two sources of distortion of the obtained results (we neglect them in our preliminary analysis).
1. The final width of $W$ and $D^\pm$ ($Z$ and $D^A$) leads to a
blurring singularities derived. This effect increases with
the growth of $M_+-M_D$.
2. The energy spectra under discussion will be smoothed due to QED
initial state radiation (ISR), final state radiation (FSR)
and beamsstrahlung (BS). The ISR and FSR spectra are machine
independent, while BS spectrum is specific for each machine (but well known during operations). This smoothing decreases accuracy in measuring of
masses. However, the precise knowledge of mentioned spectra allows to solve the problem about restoration original accuracy by means methods of
deconvolution in so called "incorrect inverse problem". This work and
the estimates of the range where masses and spins can be determined with reasonable accuracy will be the subject of the forthcoming paper.
\subsection{Masses}
{\bf Masses $\pmb{M_D}$ and $\pmb{M_+}$.} In a well known approach, one measures edges in the energy distributions of dijets, representing $W$ in the decay $D^\pm\to DW^\pm$ \cite{WILC-1}-\cite{WILC-2}. However, the
individual jet energies and consequently, effective masses of dijets
cannot be measured with a high precision. The observed lower edge of the $W$ energy distribution in the dijet mode and the position of a peak in this distribution \eqref{peakW} are smeared by this uncertainty. One can only hope for a sufficiently accurate measurement of the upper edge of the $W$ energy distribution, $E^{L,+}_{W}$ \eqref{EPW}, \eqref{ELWoff}.
We suggest to extract the second quantity for description of masses
from the lepton energy
spectra. The lepton energy is measurable with a high accuracy.
We found above that the singular points of the energy distribution
of the leptons in the final state with signature \eqref{sign+WB}
are kinematically determined, and therefore can be used for a mass
measurement.
{\it M1)} If a $D^A$ particle is absent or $M_A>M_+$, the
results \eqref{Emularge}-\eqref{emustarmin} describe the energy
distributions completely. The shape of the energy distribution of
leptons (with one peak or two kinks) allows to determine
which case is realized, $M_+-M_D>M_W$ or\lb $M_+-M_D<M_W$.
At $M_+-M_D>M_W$, the positions of upper edge in the dijet energy distribution\lb $E^{L,+}_{W,on}$ \eqref{EPW} and
the lower kink in the muon energy distribution $\vep^+_k$
\eqref{Emuin} give us two equation necessary for
determination of $M_D$ and $M_+$. We reproduce these equations for clarity
\bear{c}
E^{L,\pm}_{W,on}=\fr{E}{M_+}\left(E_W^r\pm \beta_+ p_W^r\right),\;\;
\vep^-_k=
\fr{
E^{L, -}_{W,on}- \sqrt{(E^{L, -}_{W,on})^2-M_W^2}}{2},\;\;\mbox{where }\\[3mm]
E_{W}^r\!=\!\fr{M_+^2 +M_W^2- M_{D}^2}{2M_+},\;\; p^r_{W}\!=\!\fr{\Delta(M_+^2,M_W^2,M_{D}^2)}{2M_+},\;\; \beta_+=\sqrt{1-\fr{M_+^2}{E^2}}.
\eear{massseteqon}
At $M_+-M_D<M_W$,
two similar equations are provided by the position of
the upper edge in the dijet energy distribution $E^{L,+}_{W,off}$ \eqref{ELWoff} and the peak in muon energy distribution $\vep_p$ \eqref{emustarmin}.
In both cases the position of the upper edge in the dijet
energy distribution $E^{L,+}_{W,on}$ or $E^{L,+}_{W,off}$ should
be extracted from all events with signature \eqref{sign+W},
\eqref{signWZ1}, the position of the lower kink in the muon
energy distribution $\vep^+_k$ or peak $\vep_p$ can be extracted
from events with signature \eqref{sign+WA} only.
{\it M2)} The signal of realization of the
inequality ${\pmb M_A<M_+}$ will be observation of the
process $\epe\to DD^A$, having signature \eqref{DDAZ}. In this
case the position of the upper edge in the dijet energy
distribution is the same as in previous case. The position of
lower edge in the dijet energy distribution is either shifted or
smeared, in this case the method of \cite{WILC-1}-\cite{WILC-2}
becomes completely inapplicable. The entire energy
distribution of muons in the observed state {\it $\mu$ +1 or 2
dijet + nothing} was described in the sect.~\ref{secleptlightA}.
It was shown there that taking into account a new decay channel
$D^-\to D^AW^-\to DZ_n\mu^-\nu $ changes the position of the
main singularities in the muon energy spectrum very weakly.
Therefore the above mentioned procedure for finding $M_+$ and
$M_D$ can be used in this case as well.
The opportunity to extract new singularities from the data,
related to $d\sigma_{WZn}^\mu/d\vep$ (and giving additionally
$M_A$), requires a separate study (see also analysis in
Appendix B).
\subsection{Spin of $\pmb D$-particles $\pmb{s_D}$}\label{secxsecpm}
\bu The amplitude of the process $\epe\to D^+D^-$
is the sum of model-independent QED diagram (the photon
annihilation), the $Z$ annihilation diagram and -- in some models
-- $t$-channel exchange by other $D$-odd particles. We start with
the description of cross section in the minimal
approximation, taking into account only photon and $Z$
annihilation diagrams. Neglecting terms \ \
$\propto\!\!(1/4-\sin^2\theta_W)$ (described $\gamma -Z$
interference) we have:
\bear{c} \!\!\sigma_{min}(s_D)=\!
\sigma_0\left\{\!\!\begin{array}{lr}
\!\!\beta_\pm\!\left[1+\fr{2M_+^2}{s}
+r_Z\beta_\pm^2\right]&\left(s_D=\fr{1}{2}\right),\\[3mm]
\!\!\beta_\pm^3\!\left[\fr{1}{4}+r_Z\cos^2(2\theta_W)\! \right]&\left(s_D=0\right)
\!,\end{array}\right.
\eear{crsec}
where
$r_Z=\fr{\mu_M}{\left(2\sin(2\theta_W)\right)^4(1-M_Z^2/s)^2}=\fr{0.124\mu_M}{(1-M_Z^2/s)^2}$, factor $\mu_M\le 1$ is expressed via parameters of possible mixing, etc.
Fig.~\ref{xsec+} and Table~\ref{tabA}
represent dependence of
$\sigma_{min}(e^+e^-\to D^+D^-)/\sigma_0$ \eqref{crsec} on beam energy $E=\sqrt{s}/2$ for $\mu_M=1$.
\begin{figure}[htb]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth,height=0.25\textheight]{fig1a}\vspace{-4mm}
\caption{\it
The upper curve -- \ for $s_D=1/2$, the lower -- for $s_D=0$; $M_+=150$~GeV.}\vspace{-7mm}
\label{xsec+}
\end{figure
\begin{table}[h]\centering
\caption{\it Some values of $\sigma_{min}(e^+e^-\to D^+D^-)/\sigma_0$}
\label{tabA
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}\hline
$E$, GeV&100&250&250&250\\\hline
$M_+$, GeV & 80&80&150&200\\\hline
${s_D=0}:$ $\sigma/\sigma_0$&
0.066&0.245&0.162&0.062\\\hline
${s_D=1/2}:$ $\sigma/\sigma_0$&
0.84&1.107&1.02&0.82\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The cross section of the process is reduced by
contribution of the diagram with $t$-channel exchange by
other $D$-odd particle $D_F$. This decrease is not so strong if
mass of $D_F$ is high enough. For example, if mass of selectron is
more than 250~GeV (condition 2 in sect.~\ref{secintro} and
\cite{PDG}), the cross section for $s_D=1/2$ is reduced by
a factor $\ge 0.6$,
$\sigma(s_D=1/2)\ge 0.6\sigma_{min}(s_D=1/2)$. Combining with
numbers from Fig.~\ref{xsec+} and Table~\ref{tabA} we obtain
(for identical masses $M_+$ at a given beam
energy $E$):
\be
\sigma(s_D=1/2)>2\sigma_{min}(s_D=0).\label{compcrsec}
\ee
\bu \ The experimental value of the $e^+e^-\to D^+D^-$ cross section is
obtained by summing over all processes with signature \eqref{sign+W},
\eqref{signWZ1} (that is about 3/4 of the total cross section). By taking into
account the known BR's for $W$ decay the accuracy of this restoration of $\sigma(e^+e^-\to D^+D^-)$ can be improved.
When masses $M_+$ become known, the cross section
$\sigma_{min}(e^+e^-\to D^+D^-)$ is calculated with reasonable
precision with eq.~\eqref{crsec}. The strong inequality
\eqref{compcrsec} allows to determine spin $s_D$ from
the obtained values of cross sections even with a handful of
well-reconstructed events.
\section{Conclusions}\label{secconcl}
We consider models in which stability of dark matter particles $D$ is ensured by conservation of new quantum number referred to as $D$-parity. Besides these models contain charged particles $D^\pm$ with the same $D$-parity. (Examples -- Inert Doublet Model with scalar $D$-particles and MSSM with $D$-particle of spin 1/2 and $D$-parity equal $R$-parity). In these models we have studied the energy distribution of single lepton in the process like $e^+e^-\to D^+D^-\to DD W^\pm(\to qq)W^\mp(\to \ell \nu)$, having high enough cross section. Simple analysis allows us to establish that this distribution has singular points, kinks, peaks and end points, which are driven by kinematics only, and therefore are model-independent. Based on this analysis, we propose to use the mentioned distribution at future linear $e^+e^-$ collider ILC, CLIC, etc. for precise measuring of masses of dark matter particles and charged particles $D^\pm$.
This method is in several aspects superior to the standard approaches discussed elsewhere.
1) It uses leptons which are copious and can be accurately measured in contrast with jets which individual energy can be measured only with lower precision.
2) These singularities are robust and survive even when superimposed on top of any smooth background.
In addition, even a rough measurement of cross sections with a very clean signature allows to determine spin of DM particles based on the results of mentioned kinematical measurements.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by grants RFBR and
NSh-3802.2012.2, Program of Dept. of Phys. Sc. RAS and SB RAS
"Studies of Higgs boson and exotic particles at LHC" and Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education Grant N202 230337. I am thankful to A. Bondar, E. Boos, A.~Gladyshev, A. Grozin, S. Eidelman, I.~Ivanov, D.~Ivanov, D.~Kazakov, J.~Kalinowski, K.~Kanishev, P.~Krachkov and V.~Serbo for discussions.
|
\section{Introduction} \makeatletter{}
\label{sec:introduction}
We focus on models of linear, bilateral, elastic foundations, known as ``Winkler foundations'' (\cite{Winkler1867}) in the engineering community.
Such models are commonly used to account for the bending of beams supported by elastic soil, represented by a continuous bed of mutually independent, linear, elastic, springs.
They involve a single parameter, the ratio between the ``bending modulus'' of the beam and the ``equivalent stiffness'' of the elastic foundation, henceforth denoted by $k$.
As a consequence, the pressure $q(x)$ exerted by the elastic foundation at a given point in response to the vertical displacement $u(x)$ of the overlying beam, takes the simple form:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:winkler_const_eq}
q(x)=K u(x).
\end{equation}
Such type of foundations, straightforwardly extended to two dimensions, have found application in the study of
the static and dynamic response of embedded caisson foundations~\cite{Gerolymos2006,Zafeirakos2013},
supported shells~\citep{Paliwal1996},
filled tanks~\cite{Amabili1998},
free vibrations of nanostructured plates~\cite{Pradhan2009},
pile bending in layered soil~\cite{Sica2013},
seismic response of piers~\cite{Chen2003},
carbon nanotubes embedded in elastic media~\cite{Pradhan2011},
chromosome function~\cite{Kleckner2004}, etc.
Analogous reduced models, labeled ``shear lag'', have been employed after the original contribution of~\cite{Cox1952a} to analyze the elastic response of matrix-fiber composites under different material and loading conditions, see~\cite{Hutchinson1990,Nairn1997,Nairn2001,Jiang2008} and references therein.
Linear elastic foundation models have also kindled the interest of the theoretical mechanics community.
Building up on these models, the nonlinear response of complex systems has been studied in the context of formation of geometrically involved wrinkling buckling modes in thin elastic films over compliant substrates~\cite{Audoly2008a,Audoly2008b,Audoly2008c}, in the analysis of fracture mechanisms in thin film systems~\cite{Xia2000}, further leading to the analysis of the emergence of quasi-periodic crack structures and other complex crack patterns, as studied in~\cite{LeonBaldelli2012,Mesgarnejad,LeonBaldelli2014} in the context of variational approach to fracture mechanics.
Winkler foundation models are regarded as heuristic, phenomenological models, and their consistency on the physical ground is often questioned in favor of more involved multi-parameter foundation models such as Pasternak~\cite{Pasternak1955}, Filonenko-Borodich~\cite{Filonenko-Borodich1940}, to name a few.
The choice of such model is usually entrusted to mechanical intuition, and the calibration of the ``equivalent stiffness'' constant $K$ is usually performed with empirical tabulated data, or finite element computations.
Despite their wide application, to the best knowledge of the authors and up to now, no attempts have been made to fully justify and derive linear elastic foundation models from a general, three-dimensional elastic model without resorting to any a priori kinematic assumption.
The purpose of this work is to give insight into the nature and validity of such reduced-dimension models, via a mathematically rigorous asymptotic analysis, providing a novel justification of Winkler foundation models.
As a product of the deductive analysis, we also obtain the dependence of the ``equivalent stiffness'' of the foundation, $K$ in Equation~\eqref{eqn:winkler_const_eq}, on the material and geometric parameters of the system.
\bigskip
In thin film systems, the separation of scales between in-plane and out-of-plane dimensions introduces a ``small parameter'', henceforth denoted by $\e$, that renders the variational elasticity problem an instance of a ``singular perturbation problem'' which can be tackled with techniques of rigorous asymptotic analysis, as studied in an abstract setting in~\cite{Lions1973}.
Such asymptotic approaches have also permitted the rigorous justification of linear and nonlinear, reduced dimension, theories of homogeneous and heterogeneous~\cite{Geymonat1987a,Marigo2005a} rods as well as linear and nonlinear plates~\cite{Ciarlet1979} and shells~\cite{Ciarlet1996c}.
Engineering intuition suggests that there may be multiple scenario leading to such reduced model.
Our interest in providing a rigorous derivation span from previous works on system of thin films bonded to a rigid substrate, hence we focus on the general situation of inearly elastic bi-layer system, constituted by a \emph{film} bonded to a rigid substrate by the means of a \emph{bonding layer}.
We take into account possible abrupt variations of the elastic (stiffness) and geometric parameters (thicknesses) of the two layers by prescribing an arbitrary and general scaling law for the stiffness and thickness ratios, depending on the geometric small parameter $\e$.
The work is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:statement_of_the_problem_and_main_results}, we introduce the asymptotic, three-dimensional, elastic problem $\mathcal P_\e(\Oe)$ of a bi-layer system attached to a rigid substrate, in the framework of geometrically linear elasticity.
We further state how the \emph{data}, namely the intensity of the loads, the geometric and material parameters are related to $\e$.
In order to investigate the influence of material and geometric parameters rather than the effect of the order of magnitude of the imposed loads on the limitig model, as \eg in the spirit of \cite{Marigo2005a},
we prescribe a fixed scaling law for the load and a general scaling law for the material and geometric quantities (thicknesses and stiffnesses), both depending upon a small parameter $\e$.
The latter identifies an $\e$-indexed family of energies $\tilde E_\e$ whose associated minimization problems we shall study in the limit as $\e\to 0$.
We then perform the classical anisotropic rescaling of the space variables, in order to obtain a new problem $\mathcal P_\e(\e; \O)$, equivalent to $\mathcal P_\e(\Oe)$, but posed on a fixed domain $\O$ and whose dependence upon $\e$ is explicit.
We finally synthetically illustrate on a phase diagram identified by the two non-dimensional parameters of the problem, the various asymptotic regimes reached in the limit as $\e\to0$.
In Section~\ref{sec:proofs_of_the_theorems} we establish the main results of the paper by performing the parametric asymptotic analysis of the elasticity problems of the three-dimensional bi-layer systems.
We start by establishing a crucial lemma, namely Lemma~\ref{lem:conv_scaled_strains}, which gives the convergence properties of the families of \emph{scaled strains}.
We finally move to the proof of the results collected into Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found} and~\ref{thm:out_of_plane_elast_found}.
The analysis of each regime is concluded by a dimensional analysis aimed to outline the distinctive feature of such reduced models, namely the existence of a characteristic \emph{elastic} length scale in the limit equations.
\makeatletter{}\section{Statement of the problem and main results} \label{sec:statement_of_the_problem_and_main_results}
\subsection{Notation} \label{sub:notation}
We denote by $\O$ the reference configuration of a three-dimensional linearly elastic body and by $u$ its displacement field.
We use the usual notation for function spaces, denoting by $L^2(\O;\mathbb R^n), H^1(\O;\mathbb R^n)$ respectively the Lebesgue space of square integrable functions on $\O$ with values in $\mathbb R^n$, the Sobolev space of square integrable functions with values in $\mathbb R^n$ with square integrable weak derivatives on $\O$.
We shall denote by $H^1_0(\O;\mathbb R^n)$ the vector space associated to $H^1(\O, \mathbb R^n)$, and use the concise notation $L^2(\O), H^1(\O), H^1_0(\O)$ whenever $n=1$.
The norm of a function $u$ in the normed space $X$ is denoted by $\nl[u]{X}$, whenever $X=L^2(\O)$ we shall use the concise notation $\nl[u]{\O}$. Lastly, we denote by $\dot H^1(\O)$ the quotient space between $H^1(\O)$ and the space of infinitesimal rigid displacements $\mathcal R(\O) = \{v\in H^1(\O), e_{ij}(v)=0\}$, equipped by its norm
$\nl[u]{\dot H^1(\O)} := \inf_{r\in \mathcal R(\O)}\nl[u-r]{H^1(\O)}$.
Weak and strong convergences are denoted by $\wto$ and $\to$, respectively.
We shall denote by $\CadKL(\O)=\left\{v \in \H^1(\O; \mathbb R^3), \eit(v)=0 \inn \O \right\}$ the space of sufficiently smooth shear-free displacements in $\O$, and by
$\CadrelKL(\O):=\left\{ \dot\H^1(\O)\cap \mathcal R(\O)^\perp \times H^1(\O), \mathrm{e}_{i3}(v)=0 \inn \Ofilmd \right\}$ the admissible space of sufficiently smooth displacements whose in-plane components are orthogonal to infinitesimal rigid displacements, whose transverse component satisfies the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition on the interface $\o_-$, and which are shear-free in the film.
Classically, $\e\ll 1$ is a small parameter (which we shall let to $0$), and the dependence of functions, domains and operators upon $\e$ is expressed by a superscripted $\e$.
Consequently, $x^\e$ is a material point belonging to the $\e$-indexed family of domains $\O^\e$.
We denote by $e^\e(v)$ the linearized gradient of deformation tensor of the displacement field $v$, defined as $e^\e(v)=1/2(\nabla^\e v + (\nabla^\e)^T v)=1/2 \left( \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x^\e_j} + \frac{\partial v_j}{\partial x^\e_i} \right) $
In all that follows, subscripts $b$ and $f$ refer to quantities relative to the bonding layer and film, respectively.
The inner (scalar) product between tensors is denoted by a column sign, their components are indicated by subscripted roman and greek letters spanning the sets $\{1, 2, 3\}$ and $\{1, 2\}$, respectively.
\bigskip
We consider as model system consisting of two superposed linearly elastic, isotropic, piecewise homogeneous layers bonded to a rigid substrate, as sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:fig_3d}.
Let $\o$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb R^2$ of characteristic diameter $ L=\operatorname{diam}(\o)$.
A \emph{thin} film occupies the region of space $\clo{\O_f^\e} = \clo{\o} \times [0, \eh_f]$ with $\e\ll 1$, and the bonding layer occupies the set $\clo{\O_b^\e} = \clo{\o}\times[-\e^{\a+1}h_b, 0]$ for some constant $\a\in \mathbb R$.
The latter is attached to a rigid substrate which imposes a Dirichlet (clamping) boundary condition of place
at the interface $\o_-^\e:=\o\times\{-\e^{\a+1}h_b\}$, with datum $w\in L^2(\o)$.
We denote the entire domain by $\O^\e:=\O_f^\e\cup\O_b^\e$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{3dsyst.pdf}
\caption{The three dimensional model system.}
\label{fig:fig_3d}
\end{figure}
Considering the substrate infinitely stiff with respect to the overlying film system, the boundary datum $w$ is interpreted as the displacement that the underlying substrate would undergo under structural loads, neglecting the presence of the overlying film system.
In addition to the hard load $w$, we consider two additional loading modes: an imposed inelastic strain $\tstrload^\e\in L^2(\O^\e; \mathbb R^{3\times3})$ and a transverse force $p^\e\in L^2(\o_+)$ acting on the upper surface.
The inelastic strain can physically be originated by, e.g., temperature change, humidity or other multiphysical couplings, and is typically the source of in-plane deformations.
On the other hand, transverse surface forces may induce bending.
Taking into account both in-plane and out-of-plane deformation modes, we model both loads as independent parameters regardless of their physical origin.
Finally, the lateral boundary $\partial \o \times (-\e^{\a+1}h_b, h_f)$
is left free.
The Hooke law for a linear elastic material writes $\sigma^\e=\mathcal A^\e(x) \str=\lambda^\e(x)\tr(\str){I}_3+2\mu^\e(x) \str$.
Here, $\str$ stands for the linearized elastic strain and $\mathcal A^\e(x)$ is the fourth order stiffness tensor.
Classically, the potential elastic energy density $W(\str^\e(v); x)$ associated to an admissible displacement field $v$, is a quadratic function of the elastic strain tensor $\str^\e(v)$ and reads:
\[
W^\e(\xi; x)=\mathcal A^\e(x) \xi: \xi = \lambda^\e(x) \tr(\xi)^2 + 2 \mu^\e(x) \xi:\xi,
\]
where the linearized elastic strain tensor $\str^\e(v, x)=e^\e(v)-\tilde \strload^\e(x)$ accounts for the presence of imposed inelastic strains $\tilde \strload^\e(x)$.
Denoting by $\mathcal L^\e(u)=\int_{\o_+^\e} p^\e v_3 ds$ the work of the surface force, the total potential energy $\tilde E(v)$ of the bi-layer system subject to inelastic strains and transverse surface loads reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:total_en_3d}
\tilde E_\e(v):=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O^\e} W^\e( \str^\e (v, x), x)-\mathcal L^\e(v)
\end{equation}
and is defined on kinematically admissible displacements belonging to the set $\Cad_\dispload^\e$ of sufficiently smooth, vector-valued fields $v$ defined on $\O^\e$ and satisfying the condition of place $v=\dispload$ on $\o_-^\e$, namely:
\[
\Cad_\dispload^\e(\O):=\left\{ v_i \in \H^1(\O^\e), v_i=w \onn \o_-^\e \right\}.
\]
Up to a change of variable, we can bring the imposed boundary displacement into the bulk;
in addition, without restricting the generality of our arguments and in order to keep the analysis as simple as possible, we further consider inelastic strains of the form:
\[
\tilde \strload^\e(x) =
\begin{cases}
\strload^\e(x), &\text{ if }x \in {\O_f}\\
0, &\text{ if }x \in {\O_b}\\
\end{cases},
\]
For the definiteness of the elastic energy \eqref{eqn:total_en_3d}, we have to specify how the data, namely (the order of magnitude of) the material coefficients in $\mathcal A^\e(x)$ as well as the intensity of the loads $\strload^\e $ and $ p^\e$, depend on $\e$.
As far as the dimension-reduction result is concerned, multiple choices are viable, possibly leading to different limit models.
Our goal is to highlight the key elastic coupling mechanisms arising in elastic multilayer structures, with particular focus on the influence of the material and geometric parameters on the limit behavior, as opposed to analyze the different asymptotic models arising as the load intensity (ratio) changes, as done \eg in \cite{Marigo2005a,Friesecke2006}.
We shall hence account for a wide range of relative thickness ratios and for possible strong mismatch in the elasticity coefficients, considering the simplest scaling laws that allow us to explore the elastic couplings yielding linear elastic foundations as an asymptotic result.
Hence, we perform a parametric study, letting material and geometric parameters \emph{vary}, for a \emph{fixed} a scaling law for the intensities of the external loads.
More specifically, we assume the following hypotheses.
\begin{hypothesis}[Scaling of the external load]
\label{hyp:geom_elast_scaling_law}
Given functions $p\in L^2(\o), \strload\in L^2(\O; \Mtwo)$, we assume that the magnitude of the external loads scale as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:scaling_law_loads}
p^\e(x)=\e^2 p(x), \qquad \strload^\e(x) = \e \strload(x)
\end{equation}
with $\strload\in L^2({\O_f})$.
\end{hypothesis}
\begin{remark}
Owing to the linearity of the problem, up to a suitable rescaling of the unknown displacement and of the energy, the elasticity problem is identical under a more general scaling law for the loads of the type: $p^\e = \e^{t+1} p, \strload^\e=\e^{t}$ for $t\in \mathbb R$.
Indeed, only the relative order of magnitude of the elastic load potentials associated to the two loading modes is relevant. Hence, without any further loss of generality, we take $t=1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{hypothesis}[Scaling of material properties]
\label{hyp:elast_scaling_law}
Given a constant $\beta\in \mathbb R$, we assume that
the elastic moduli of the layers scale as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{E_b^\e}{E^\e_f}= \rho_E \e^\b, \quad\frac{\nu_b^\e}{\nu_f^\e}= \rho_\nu,
\label{eqn:scaling_law_elast}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_E$ and $\rho_\nu$
are non-dimensional coefficients independent of $\e$.
\end{hypothesis}
\begin{remark}
Note that this is equivalent to say that both film to bonding layer ratios of the Lamé parameters scale as $\e^\b$ and no strong elastic anisotropy is present so that the scaling law \eqref{eqn:scaling_law_elast} is of the form:
\[
\dfrac{\mu_b}{\mu_f}= \rho_\mu \e^\b, \quad\dfrac{\lambda_b^\e}{\lambda_f^\e}= \rho_\lambda \e^\b,
\]
where $\rho_\mu, \rho_\lambda\in \mathbb R$ are independent of $\e$.
Consequently, the bonding layer is stiffer than the film (resp. more compliant) for $\b>0$ (resp. $\b<0$); the bonding layer is as stiff as film if $\b=0$.
\end{remark}
The study of equilibrium configurations corresponding to admissible global minimizers of the energy leads us to minimize $E(u)$ over the vector space of kinematically admissible displacements $\Cadz(\O)$.
Plugging the scalings above, the problem $\mathcal P_\e(\Oe)$ of finding the equilibrium configuration of the multilayer system depends implicitly on $\e$ via the assumed scaling laws, is defined on families of $\e$-dependent domains $(\O^\e)_{\e>0}=(\O_f^\e\cup\O_b^\e)_{\e>0}$, and reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{prb:min_3d_epsilon}
\mathcal P_\e(\Oe): \quad \text{Find } \ue\in \Cadz(\O^\e) \text{ minimizing } \tilde E_\e(u) \text{ among } v\in \Cadz(\O^\e),
\end{equation}
Because the family of domains $(\O^\e)_{\e >0}$ vary with $\e$ in $\mathcal P_\e(\Oe)$, we perform the classical anisotropic rescaling in order to state a new problem $ \mathcal P_\e(\e; \O)$, equivalent to $\mathcal P_\e(\Oe)$, in which the dependence upon $\e$ is explicit and is stated on a fixed domain $\O$.
Denoting by $x'=(x_1, x_2)\in \o$ and by $\tilde x'=(\tilde x_1,\tilde x_2)$, the following anisotropic scalings:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:anis-scal-coord}
\pi^\e(x): \left\{
\begin{aligned}
&x=(x', x_3)\in \clo {\O_f} \mapsto (\tilde x', \e\tilde x_3) \in \clo\O_f^\e, \\
&x=(x', x_3)\in \clo {\O_b}\mapsto (\tilde x', \e^{\a+1}\tilde x_3) \in \clo\O_b^\e ,
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
map the domains $\O_f^\e$ and $\O_b^\e$ into ${\O_f}=\o\times [0, h_f)$ and $ {\O_b}=\o\times (-h_b, 0)$.
As a consequence of the domain mapping, the components of the linearized strain tensor $e_{ij}(v)=e^\e_{ij}(v\circ \pi(x))$ scale as follows:
\begin{gather}
\eab^\e(v) \mapsto \eab(v),
\quad \ett^\e(v) \mapsto \frac{1}{\e}\ett(v), \quad \eat^\e(v)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{\e} \pt \va + \pa \vt\right) \qquad \text{in }\O_f^\e,
\\
\eab^\e(v) \mapsto \eab(v),
\quad \ett^\e(v) \mapsto \frac{1}{\e^{\a-1} } \ett(v), \quad \eat^\e(v)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{\e^{\a-1}} \pt \va + \pa \vt\right) \qquad \text{in }\O_b^\e.
\end{gather}
Finally, the space of kinematically admissible displacements reads \[
\Cadz(\O):=\left\{ v_i\in \H^1(\O),\; v_i=0\; \aee \onn \o\times\{- h_b\} \right\}.
\]
It is easy to verify that the asymptotic minimization problem $\min_{u\in \Cadz(\O)} \hat E_\e(u) $ where $\hat E_\e(u)=\frac{1}{\e}{\tilde E(u\circ \pi^\e(x))}$
yields the trivial convergence result $\ua = \lim_{\e\to0} \uea= 0$.
This is to say that the in-plane components of the (weak limit) displacement are smaller than order zero in $\e$.
After having established this result, the analysis should be restarted anew to determine the convergence properties of the higher order terms.
Here, we skip that preliminary step and directly investigate the asymptotic behavior of the next order in-plane displacements, that is to say of fields $\tilde u^\e$ that admit the following scaling:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:resc_displ}
\tilde u^\e = (\e \uea, \uet)\in \Cadz(\O).
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
This result strongly depends upon the assumed scaling of external loads. Clearly, different choices rather than \eqref{eqn:scaling_law_loads} may lead to different scalings of the principal order of displacements, and possibly different limit models.
\end{remark}
Finally, dropping the tilde for the sake of simplicity, the parametric, asymptotic elasticity problem, stated on the fixed domain $\O$, using the scaling~\eqref{eqn:resc_displ} and in the regime of Hypothesis~\ref{hyp:elast_scaling_law}, reads:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal P_\e(\e; \O): \quad \text{Find } \ue\in \Cadz(\O) \text{ minimizing } E_\e(v) \text{ among } v \in \Cadz(\O),
\end{equation}
where, upon introducing the non-dimensional parameters
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:nondim_par}
\g:=\frac{\a+\b}{2}, \quad \d:=\frac{\b-\a}{2}-1, \qquad\gamma, \delta\in \mathbb R,
\end{equation}
the scaled energy $E_\e(u)=\frac{1}{\e^3}{\tilde E(u\circ \pi^\e(x))}$ takes the following form:
\begin{multline}
\label{eqn:scaled_en}
E_ \e(u)=\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\O_f} \left\{ \lambda_f \left|\frac{\ett(u)}{\e^2}+\eaa(u)\right|^2
+ \frac{2\mu_f }{\e^2} \left| \pt \ua + \pa \ut\right|^2
+ 2\mu_f \left( \left|\eab(u)\right|^2 +\left|\frac{\ett(u)}{\e^2}\right|^2 \right) \right\} dx \\
+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O_b} \left\{ \lambda_b \left|\e^{\delta-1} \ett(u) +\e^{\gamma}\eaa(u)\right|^2 +
2\mu_b \left| \e^{\delta}\pt \ua + \e^{\gamma-1}\pa \ut\right|^2
+ 2\mu_b \left( \left|\e^{\gamma}\eab(u)\right|^2 +\left|\e^{\delta-1} \ett(u) \right|^2 \right) \right\}dx\\
-\int_{\O_f} \left( 2 \mu_f \strload_{33} + \lambda_f \strload_{\alpha\alpha} \right) \frac{\ett(u)}{\e^2} dx
-\int_{\O_f} \left\{ \lambda_f \left(\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \strload_{33} \right) \ebb(u) + 2 \mu_f \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(u) \right\}dx
-\int_{\o_+} p u_3 dx' +F.
\end{multline}
In the last expression $F:=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\O_f} (\mathcal A_f)_{ijhk} \strload_{ij}:\strload_{hk}dx$ is the residual (constant) energy due to inelastic strains.
The non-dimensional parameters $\g$ and $\d$ represent the order of magnitude of the ratio between the membrane strain energy of the bonding layer and that of the film ($\g$), and the order of magnitude of the ratio between the transverse strain energy of the bonding layer and the membrane energy of the film ($\delta$).
They define a phase space, which we represent in Figure~\ref{fig:phase_diag}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{phase_alphabeta.pdf}
\caption{Phase diagram in the space ($\alpha$--$\beta$), where $\a$ and $\b$ define the scaling law of the relative thickness and stiffness of the layers, respectively.
Three-dimensional systems within the unshaded open region $\alpha<-1$ become more and more \emph{slender} as $\e\to0$.
The square-hatched region represents systems behaving as ``rigid'' bodies, under the assumed scaling hypotheses on the loads.
Along the open half line (displayed with a thick solid and dashed stroke) $(\delta, 0), \delta>0$ lay systems whose limit for vanishing thickness leads to a ``membrane over in-plane elastic foundation'' model, see Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}.
In particular, the solid segment $0<\gamma<1$ (resp. dashed open line $\gamma>1$) is related to systems in which bonding layer is thinner (resp. thicker) than the film, for $\g=1$ (black square) their thickness is of the same order of magnitude.
All systems within the red region $\gamma>0, 0<\delta\leq 1, \delta>\gamma$ behave, in the vanishing thickness limit, as ``plates over out-of-plane elastic foundation'', see Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}.}
\label{fig:phase_diag}
\end{figure}
The open plane $\g-\d<0$ corresponds to three-dimensional systems that become more and more slender as $\e\to0$.
Their asymptotic study conducts to establishing reduced, one-dimensional (beam-like) theories and falls outside of the scope of the present study.
The locus $\g-\d=0$ identifies the systems that stay three dimensional, as $\e\to0$, because the thickness of the bonding layer is always of order one (recall that $\clo{\O_b^\e} = \clo{\o}\times[-\e^{\a+1}h_b, 0]$ becomes independent of $\e$ for $\g-\d=0$).
In order to explore reduced, two-dimensional theories, we focus on the open half plane identified by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:2d_regime_gammadelta_ineq}
\g-\d >0.
\end{equation}
In what follows, we give a brief and non-technical account and mechanical interpretation of the dimension reduction results collected in Theorems~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found} and \ref{thm:out_of_plane_elast_found}.
For a given value of $\g$ and increasing values of $\d$ we explore systems in which the order of magnitude of the energy associated to transverse variations of displacements in the bonding layer progressively increases relatively to the membrane energy of the film.
We hence encounter three distinct regions characterized by qualitatively different elastic couplings. Their boundaries are determined by the value of $\d$, as is $\d$ that determines the convergence properties of scaled displacements \eqref{eqn:resc_displ} at first order.
This argument will be made rigorous in Lemma~\ref{lem:poincare}.
For $\d<0$ the system is ``too stiff'' (relatively to the selected intensity of loads) and both in-plane and transverse components of displacement vanish in the limit; that is, their order of magnitude is smaller than order zero in $\e$.
For $\d=0$, the shear energy of the bonding layer is of the same order of magnitude as the membrane energy of the film.
Consequently, elastic coupling intervenes between these two terms resulting in that the first order in-plane components of the limit displacements are of order zero.
Moreover, the transverse stretch energy of the bonding layer is singular and its membrane energy is infinitesimal: the first vanishes and the latter is negligible as $\e\to0$; the bonding layer undergoes purely shear deformations.
More specifically, the condition of continuity of displacement at the interface $\o_+$ and the boundary condition on $\o_-$, both fix the intensity of the shear in the bonding layer.
As a consequence, the transverse profile of equilibrium (optimal) displacements is linear and the shear energy term in the bonding layer contributes to the asymptotic limit energy as a ``linear, in-plane, elastic foundation''.
On the other hand, because transverse stretch is asymptotically vanishing, out-of-plane displacements are constant along the thickness of the multilayer and are determined by the boundary condition on $\o_-$.
Hence, although Kirchhoff-Love coupling --\ie shear-free-- between components of displacements is allowed in the film, bending effects do not emerge in the first order limit model.
More precisely, we are able to prove the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}[Membrane over in-plane elastic foundation]
\label{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}
Assume that Hypotheses~\ref{hyp:geom_elast_scaling_law} and~\ref{hyp:elast_scaling_law} hold and let $\ue$ be the solution of Problem $\mathcal P_\e(\e; \O)$ for $\d=0$, then
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item there exists a function $u \in \H^1(\Ofilmd; \mathbb R^3)$ such that $\ue \to u$ strongly in $\H^1(\Ofilmd; \mathbb R^3)$;
\item $u_3 \equiv 0$ and $\partial_3\ua \equiv 0$ in $\O$, so that $u$ can be identified with a function in $\H^1(\o,\mathbb R^2)$, which we still denote by $u$, and such that for all $v_\alpha \in \H^1(\o,\mathbb R^2)$:
\begin{multline}
\io \left\{ \frac{2\lambda_f \mu_f h_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\eaa(u) \ebb(v)
+ 2\mufh_f \eab(u)\eab(v)
+ \frac{2\mu_b}{h_b} \ua \va \right\}\, dx'\\
= \io \left\{ \left( c_1\bar\strload_{\alpha\alpha} +c_2\bar\strload_{33} \right) \ebb(v) + c_3\bar\strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}\, dx',
\end{multline}
where $\bar \strload_{ij} = \int_0^{h_f} \strload_{ij} dx_3$ are the averaged components of the inelastic strain over the film thickness, and coefficients $c_i$ are determined explicitly as functions of the material parameters:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:coeffs_in_plane}
c_1=
\frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f }{\lambda_f +2 \mu_f },
\quad c_2=
\frac{\lambda_f ^2}{\lambda_f +2 \mu_f },
\text{ and }\quad c_3=2 \mu_f. \end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The last equation is interpreted as the variational formulation of the equilibrium problem of a \textbf{linear elastic membrane over a linear, in-plane, elastic foundation.}
In order to highlight the inherent \emph{size effect} emerging in the limit energy it suffices to normalize the domain $\o$ by rescaling the in-plane coordinates by a factor $L=\operatorname{diam}(\o)$. Hence, introducing the new spatial variable $y:=x'/L$ the equilibrium equations read:
\begin{multline}
\int_{\bar \o} \left\{ \eab(u)\eab(v) +
\frac{\lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\eaa(u) \ebb(v)
+ \frac{ L^2 }{\ell_e^2 }\ua \va \right\}dy'\\
= \int_{\bar \o} \left\{ \left( \hat c_1 \bar\strload_{\alpha\alpha} +\hat c_2\bar\strload_{33} \right) \ebb(v) + \hat c_3\bar\strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}dy',
\quad \forall \va \in \H^1(\o).
\end{multline}
where the internal elastic length scale of the membrane over in-plane foundation system is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:int_len_ip}
\ell_e=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_f}{\mu_b}{h_fh_b}},
\end{equation}
and $\hat c_i = \frac{c_i}{2\mu_f h_f}$ and $\bar\o = \o/\operatorname{diam}(\o)$ is of unit diameter.
The presence of the elastic foundation, due to the non-homogeneity of the membrane and foundation energy terms, introduces a competition between the material, inherent, characteristic length scale $\ell_e$ and the diameter of the system $L$ and their ratio weights the elastic foundation term.
\bigskip
For $\d=1$, the transverse stretch energy of the bonding layer is of the same order as the membrane energy of the film and both shear and membrane energy of the bonding layer are infinitesimal.
The bonding layer can no longer store elastic energy by the means of shear deformations and in-plane displacements can undergo ``large'' transverse variations.
This mechanical behavior is interpreted as that of a layer allowed to ``slide'' on the substrate, still satisfying continuity of transverse displacements at the interface $\o_-$.
The loss of control (of the norm) of in-plane displacements within the bonding layer is due to the positive value of $\d$.
This requires enlarging the space of kinematically admissible displacements by relaxing the Dirichlet boundary condition on in-plane components of displacement on $\o_-$. This allows us to use a Korn-type inequality to infer their convergence properties.
Conversely, transverse displacements stay uniformly bounded within the entire system, the deformation mode of the bonding layer is a pure transverse stretch.
In this regime, the value of the transverse strain is fixed by the mismatch between the film's and substrate's displacement, analogously to the shear term in the case of the in-plane elastic foundation.
Finally, from the optimality conditions (equilibrium equations in the bonding layer) follows that the profile of transverse displacements is linear and, owing to the continuity condition on $\o_0$, they are coupled to displacement of the film.
The latter undergoes shear-free (\ie Kirchhoff-Love) deformations and is subject to both inelastic strains and the transverse force.
This regime shows a stronger coupling between in-plane and transverse displacements of the two layers.
The associated limit model is that of a linear plate over a transverse, linear, elastic foundation.
The qualitative behavior of system laying in the open region $\g,\d\in (\d, \infty)\times(0,1)$ is analogous to the limit case $\d=1$, although the order of magnitude of transverse displacements in the bonding layer differs by a factor $\e^{1-\d}$.
More precisely, we are able to prove the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}[Plate over linear transverse elastic foundation]
\label{thm:out_of_plane_elast_found}
Assume that hypotheses~\ref{hyp:elast_scaling_law} and~\ref{hyp:geom_elast_scaling_law} hold and let $\ue$ denote the solution of Problem $\mathcal P_\e(\e; \O)$ for $0<\d\leq 1$, then:
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item the principal order of the displacement admits the scaling $\ue=(\e u_\alpha(\e), \e^{1-\d}u_3(\e))$;
\item there exists a function $u\in \CadrelKL(\Ofilmd)$ such that $\ue\to u$ converges strongly in $H^1({\O_f})$;
\item the limit displacement $u$ belongs to the space $\CadrelKL(\O)$ and is a solution of the three-dimensional variational problem:\\
Find $u \in \CadrelKL(\O)$ such that:
\begin{multline}
\label{eqn:lim_2d_plate_trsv_found}
\iof \frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f} \eaa(u)\ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \eab(u)\eab(v)\, dx
+ \iob \frac{4 \mu_b (\lambda_b +\mu_b)}{\lambda_b + 2 \mu_b}\ett(u)\ett(v) \, dx\\
= \iof \left(c_4 \strload_{\alpha\alpha} + c_5 \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(v) + c_6 \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v)\, dx + \int_{\o_+} p v_3\, dx',
\end{multline}
for all $v \in \CadrelKL(\O)$. Here, the in-plane displacement field $\ua$ is defined up to an infinitesimal rigid motion and the $c_i$'s are given by:
\begin{equation}
c_1=
\frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f }{\lambda_f +2 \mu_f },
\, c_2=
\frac{\lambda_f ^2}{\lambda_f +2 \mu_f },
\text{ and } c_3=2 \mu_f.
\label{eqn:coeffs_out_of_plane}
\end{equation}
\item
There exist two functions $\zeta_\alpha \in \H^1(\o)\cap \mathcal R({\O_f})^\perp$ and $\zeta_3 \in \H^2(\o)$ such that the limit displacement field can be written under the following form:
\[
\ua = \begin{cases}
\zeta_\alpha(x'), &\text{ in }\Ofilmd\\
\zeta_ \alpha(x') +(x_3+h_b)\pa \zeta_3(x'), &\text{ in }\Obondd,
\end{cases} \qquad \text{and} \quad \ut=\zeta_3(x')\text{ in }\O,
\]
and for all $\eta_\alpha \in \H^1(\o)\cap \mathcal R({\O_f})^\perp,\eta_3 \in \H^2(\o)$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:limit_2d_plate}
\begin{aligned}
&\io \left\{ \frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f}
\eaa(\eta)\ebb(\zeta)
+ 2\mu_f \eab(\eta)\eab(\zeta) \right\} dx'
= \io
\left( c_1 \bar\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + c_2 \bar\strload_{33} \right) \ebb(\zeta)+ c_3 \bar\strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(\zeta) dx',\\
&\io \left\{ \frac{ \lambda_f \mu_f}{3(\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f)}
(\paa \eta_3\pbb\zeta_3)
+\frac{\mu_f}{3}
\pab \eta_3\pab\zeta_3
+ \frac{4 \mu_b (\lambda_b +\mu_b)}{\lambda_b + 2 \mu_b}\eta_3\zeta_3 \right\} dx'
=
\int_{\o} p \zeta_3dx'.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Equation~\eqref{eqn:lim_2d_plate_trsv_found} is interpreted as the variational formulation of the three-dimensional equilibrium problem of a \textbf{linear elastic plate over a linear, transverse, elastic foundation}, whereas Equations~\eqref{eqn:limit_2d_plate} are equivalent coupled, two-dimensional, flexural and membrane equations of a plate over a linear, transverse, elastic foundation in which components $\eta_\a$ and $\eta_3$ are respectively the in-plane and transverse components of the displacement of the middle surface of the film $\o\times\{h_f/2\}$.
This latter model is, strictly speaking, the two-dimensional extension of the Winkler model presented in the introduction.
Note that the solution of the in-plane problem above is unique only up to an infinitesimal rigid movement. This is a consequence of the loss of the Dirichlet boundary condition on for in-plane displacements in the limit problem.
In addition, no further compatibility conditions are required on the external load, since it exerts zero work on infinitesimal in-plane rigid displacements.
Similarly to the in-plane problem, the non-dimensional formulation of the equilibrium problems highlights the emergence of an internal, material length scale.
Introducing the new spatial variable $y':=x'/L$ where $L=\operatorname{diam}(\o)$, the equilibrium equations read:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:limit_2d_plate_nd}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\bar \o} \left\{ \eab(\eta)\eab(\zeta) + \frac{\lambda_f }{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f}
\eaa(\eta)\ebb(\zeta)
\right\} dx'
= \int_{\bar \o}
\left( \hat c_1 \bar\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \hat c_2 \bar\strload_{33} \right) \ebb(\zeta) \hat c_3 \bar\strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(\zeta) dy',\\
&\int_{\bar \o} \left\{
\pab \eta_3\pab\zeta_3 +
\frac{ \lambda_f }{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f}
\paa \eta_3\pbb\zeta_3
+ \frac{L^2}{\tilde\ell_e^2}\eta_3\zeta_3 \right\} dx'
=
\int_{\bar \o} \hat p \zeta_3dy', \qquad \forall \zeta_\a \in H^1(\o), \zeta_3\in H^2(\o),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the internal elastic length scale of the plate over transverse foundation system is:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:int_length_oop}
\tilde \ell_e = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_f(\lambda_b + 2 \mu_b)}{12 \mu_b (\lambda_b +\mu_b)}h_f h_b},
\end{equation}
$\hat p=\frac{p}{\mu_f h_f/3}$, and $c_i, \bar \o$ are the same as the definitions above.
\bigskip
The next section is devoted to the proof of the theorems.
\makeatletter{}\section{Proof of the dimension reduction theorems} \label{sec:proofs_of_the_theorems}
\subsection{Preliminary results} \label{sub:preliminary_results}
It is useful to introduce the notion of \emph{scaled strains}.
In the film, to an admissible field $v\in \H^1(\Ofilmd;\mathbb R^3)$ we associate the sequence of $\e$-indexed tensors $\kev\in L^2(\Ofilmd; \MtwoSym)$
whose components are defined by the following relations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:resc_str_film}
\kttv=\frac{\ett(v)}{\e^2} ,
\ktav=\frac{\eat(v)}{\e},
\text{ and } \kabv=\eab(v).
\end{equation}
In the bonding layer, to an admissible field $v\in \left\{\hat v_i\in\H^1(\Obondd), \hat v_i=0 \onn \o_- \right\}$ we associate the tensor $\kevbl \in L^2(\Obondd; \MtwoSym )$, whose components are defined by the following relations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:resc_str_bl}
\kttblv=\e^{\delta-1}\ett(v) ,
\ktablv=\frac{1}{2}\left( \e^\delta\pt \va + \e^{\gamma-1} \pa v_3 \right) , \text{ and }
\kabblv=\e^\gamma\eab(v).
\end{equation}
Rewriting the energy~\eqref{eqn:scaled_en} the definitions above, the rescaled energy $ E_\e(v)$ reads:
\begin{multline}
\label{eqn:scaled_en_scaled_str}
E_ \e(v)=
\frac{1}{2}\iof \lambda_f |\kttv +\kaav|^2 + 2\mu_f |\ktav|^2
+ 2\mu_f \left( |\kttv|^2+|\kabv|^2 \right) \, dx\\
+ \frac{1}{2}\iob \lambda_b |\kttblv +\kaablv|^2 + 2\mu_b |\ktablv|^2
+ 2\mu_b \left( |\kttblv|^2+|\kabblv|^2 \right)\, dx\\
- \iof \left( 2\mu_f \strload_{33} + \lambda_f \strload_{\alpha\alpha} \right) \kttv
+ \lambda_f \left(\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \strload_{33} \right)\kbbv + 2\mu_f \strload_{\alpha\beta} \kabv \, dx\\
-\int_{\o_+} p v_3 \, dx'+\int_\O (\mathcal A_f)_{ijhk} \strload_{ij}:\strload_{hk}\, dx.
\end{multline}
The solution of the convex minimization problem $\mathcal P_\e(\e; \O)$ is also the unique solution of the following weak form of the first order stability conditions:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:vf_resc}
\mathcal P(\e;\O): \text{Find } \ue\in \Cadz(\O) \st E_\e'(\ue)(v)=0,\; \forall v\in \Cadz.
\end{equation}
Here, by $E_\e'(u)(v)$ we denote the Gateaux derivative of $E_\e$ in the direction $v$. For ease of reference, its expression reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:gat_deriv_en}
\begin{split}
E_\e'(u)(v) &=\int_{\O_f} \mathcal A_f \ke{u}:\kev dx+\int_{\O_b} \mathcal A_b \kebl{u}:\kevbl dx- \iof \mathcal A \strload^\e :\ke{v} dx- \int_{\o_+} p v_3 dx'
\\
&=\iof \left\{ \left( (\lambda_f+2\mu_f) \ktt{u} + \lambda_f \kaa{u} \right) \kttv + 2\mu_f \kta{u}\ktav \right\}dx \\
&\qquad+ \iof \left\{\lambda_f \left( \ktt{u}+\kaa{u} \right) \kbbv + 2\mu_f \kab{u}\kabv \right\}dx\\
&\qquad+ \iob \left\{ \left( (\lambda_b+2\mu_b) \kttbl{u} + \lambda_b \kaabl{u} \right) \kttblv + 2\mu_b \ktabl{u}\ktablv \right\}dx \\
&\qquad+ \iob \left\{ \lambda_b \left( \kttbl{u}+\kaabl{u} \right) \kbbblv+ 2\mu_b \kabbl{u}\kabblv \right\}dx \\
&\qquad- \iof \left\{ \left( 2\mu_f \strload_{33} + \lambda_f \strload_{\alpha\alpha} \right) \kttv+ \lambda_f \left(\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \strload_{33} \right)\kbbv + 2\mu_f \strload_{\alpha\beta} \kabv \right\}dx
-\int_{\o_+} p v_3 dx'. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We establish preliminary results of convergence of scaled strains, using standard arguments based on a-priori energy estimates exploiting first order stability conditions for the energy. To this end, we need three straightforward consequences of Poincar\'e's inequality: one along a vertical segment, one on the upper surface and one in the bulk, which we collect in the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Poincar\'e-type inequalities]
Let $u\in L^2(\o)\times H^1(-h_b, h_f)$ with $u(x', -h_b)=0, \aee\ x'\in \o$. Then there exist two constants $C_1$ depending only on $\O$ and $C_2$ depending only on $h_f$ and $h_b$ such that:
\label{lem:poincare}
\begin{align}
\quad\nl[u(x', \cdot)]{(-h_b, h_f)}&\leq C_1(h_b, h_f) \left( \nl[\pt u(x', \cdot)]{(0, h_f)}+ \nl[\pt u(x', \cdot)]{(-h_b, 0)} \right) \quad\aee\ x'\in \o,\label{eq:poincare_segment}\\
\nl[u]{\o_+}&\leq C_2(\O) \left( \nl[\pt u]{{\O_f}} + \nl[\pt u]{{\O_b}} \right),\label{eq:poincare_surface}\\
\nl[u]{\O} & \leq C_2(\O) \left( \nl[\pt u]{{\O_f}} + \nl[\pt u]{{\O_b}} \right).\label{eq:poincare_bulk}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $u\in L^2(\o)\times H^1(-1, 1)$ be such that $u(x', -h_b)=0$ for \emph{a.e.} $x' \in \o$. Then
\begin{align*}
|u(x', x_3)| = |u(x', x_3)-u(x', -h_b)| = & \left|\int_{-h_b}^{x_3}\pt u(x', s)ds\right|\\
& \leq \int_{-h_b}^{h_f}\left|\pt u(x', s) \right|ds \\
& \leq \nl[\pt u]{L^1(-h_b, h_f)}\\
& \leq (h_f + h_b)^{1/2}\nl[\pt u]{(-h_b, h_f)}
\end{align*}
Consequently, on segments $\{x'\}\times(-h_b, h_f)$:
\[
\begin{aligned}
\nl[u(x', \cdot)]{(-h_b, h_f)} & \leq \left( \int_{-h_b}^{h_f} (h_f+h_b) \nl[\pt u]{(-h_b, h_f)}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& \leq (h_f+h_b) \nl[\pt u]{(-h_b, h_f)}
\end{aligned},
\]
which gives the first inequality. On the upper surface $\o_+$:
\[
\begin{aligned}
\nl[ u]{\o_+}&\leq \left( \int_{\o_+} (h_f+h_b)^{1/2} \nl[\pt u]{(-h_b, h_f)}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& \leq |\O| \nl[\pt u]{\O}
\end{aligned},
\]
gives the second inequality. Finally, in the bulk:
\[
\begin{aligned}
\nl[ u]{\O}&=\left( \int_{\O}|u|^2 dx \right)^{1/2}
\leq \left( \int_{\o} \int_{-h_b}^{h_f} (h_f+h_b)^{1/2} \nl[\pt u]{L^2(-h_b, h_b)}^2\right)^{1/2}\\
& \leq |\O| \nl[\pt u]{\O}
\end{aligned},
\]
which completes the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The crucial element in the above Poincar\'e-type inequalities is the existence of a Dirichlet boundary condition at the lower interface.
This allows to derive bounds on the components of displacements by integration over the entire surface $\o$, of the estimates constructed along segments $\{x'\}\times(-h_b, h_f)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}[Uniform bounds on the scaled strains]
\label{lem:conv_scaled_strains}
Suppose that hypotheses~\ref{hyp:geom_elast_scaling_law} and~\ref{hyp:elast_scaling_law} apply, and that $\delta \le 1$. Let $\ue$ be the solution of $\mathcal P(\e;\O)$. Then, there exist constants $C_1,C_2>0$ such that for sufficiently small $\e$,
\begin{align}
\nl[\kue]{{\O_f}} & \le C_1\label{eq:conv_scaled_strains_1},\\
\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}} & \le C_2\label{eq:conv_scaled_strains_2}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recalling that $\rho_\mu = \mu_b / \mu_f$ we have :
\begin{align}
2\mu_f \left( \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}^2+\rho_\mu\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}}^2 \right) &= 2\mu_f \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}^2+ 2\mu_b\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}}^2 \notag \\
& \le 2\mu_f \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}^2+ 2\mu_b\nl[\kblue]{{\O_b}}^2 \notag \\
& \le \iof \mathcal A_f \kue:\kue dx+ \iob \mathcal A_b \kblue:\kblue dx,\notag
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $2\mu a_{ij} a_{ij}\leq \mathcal A a:a$, which holds when $\mathcal A$ is a Hooke tensor, for all symmetric tensors $a$, see~\cite{Ciarlet1997}.
Plugging $v=\ue$ in~\eqref{eqn:vf_resc}, we get that
$$
\iof \mathcal A_f \kue:\kue dx+ \iob \mathcal A_b \kblue:\kblue dx = \iof \mathcal A_f \strload^\e :\kue dx + \int_{\o_+} p^\e \uet dx',
$$
so that there exists a constant $C$ such that
$$ \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}^2+\rho_\mu\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}}^2 \le C\left( \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}+ \nl[\uet]{\o_+} \right),
$$
and for another constant (still denoted by $C$),
\begin{equation*}
\nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}^2+\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}}^2 \le C\left( \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}+ \nl[\uet]{\o_+} \right).
\label{eqn:energy_est}
\end{equation*}
Using the identity $(a+b)^2 \le 2(a^2+b^2)$, we get that
\begin{equation*}
\left(\nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}+\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}}\right)^2 \le C\left( \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}+ \nl[\uet]{\o_+} \right),
\end{equation*}
which combined with~\eqref{eq:poincare_surface} gives that
\begin{equation*}
\left(\nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}+\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}}\right)^2 \le C\left( (1+\e^2) \nl[\kue]{{\O_f}}+\e^{1-\delta}\nl[\kttblue]{{\O_b}} \right).
\end{equation*}
Recalling finally that $\delta \le 1$, we obtain~\eqref{eq:conv_scaled_strains_1} and~\eqref{eq:conv_scaled_strains_2} for sufficiently small $\e$.
\end{proof}
We are now in a position to prove the main dimension reduction results.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}} \label{sub:in_plane_elastic_foundation}
\newenvironment{statement}{\begin{em}}{\end{em}}
For ease of read, the proof is split into several steps.
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item\begin{statement}
Convergence of strains.
\end{statement}
Plugging~\eqref{eqn:resc_str_film} and~\eqref{eqn:resc_str_bl} in~\eqref{eq:conv_scaled_strains_1} and~\eqref{eq:conv_scaled_strains_2}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bound_strains_f_dzero}
\nl[\ette(\ue)]{\Ofilmd}\leq C\e^2, \quad
\nl[\eate(\ue)]{\Ofilmd}\leq C\e \text{, and }
\nl[\eabe(\ue)]{\Ofilmd}\leq C;
\end{equation}
and in the bonding layer:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bound_strains_bl_dzero}
\nl[\ette(\ue)]{\Obondd}\leq C \e, \quad
\nl[\pt \uea]{\Obondd} \leq C,\quad
\e^{\g-1}\nl[\pa \uet]{\Obondd} \leq C \quad\text{and}\quad
\e^{\gamma}\nl[\eab(\ue)]{\Obondd}\leq C.
\end{equation}
These uniform bounds imply that there exist functions $\limeab\in L^2(\Ofilmd)$ such that $\eabe \wto \limeab$ weakly in $L^2(\Ofilmd)$, that $\eite(\ue)\to 0$ strongly in $L^2(\Ofilmd)$ and in particular that $\nl[\pt \uea]{{\O_f}}\leq C\e$.
Moreover $\ette(\ue)\to 0$ strongly in $L^2(\Obondd)$.
\item\begin{statement}Convergence of scaled displacements.
\end{statement}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:poincare} (Equation~\eqref{eq:poincare_bulk}) combined with \eqref{eqn:bound_strains_f_dzero} and~\eqref{eqn:bound_strains_bl_dzero} we can write:
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqn:bound_displ_dzero}
\begin{gather}
\label{eqn:bound_displ_transv_dzero}
\nl[\uet]{\O} \leq C \left( \nl[\ett(\ue)]{{\O_f}} + \nl[\ett(\ue)]{{\O_b}} \right) \leq C (\e^2 + \e) \leq C\e.
\\
\label{eqn:bound_displ_inplane_dzero}
\nl[\uea]{\O} \leq C \left( \nl[\pt \uea]{{\O_f}} + \nl[\pt \uea]{{\O_b}} \right) \leq C (\e + 1)\leq C.
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
In addition, recalling from \eqref{eqn:bound_strains_f_dzero} that all components of the strain are bounded within the film, we infer that a function $u\in H^1({\O_f})$ exists such that
\begin{equation}
\ue\to u \text{ strongly in } L^2({\O_f}), \text{ and } \ue \wto u \text{ weakly in } H^1({\O_f}).
\end{equation}
Similarly, by the uniform boundedness of $\ue$ in $L^2({\O_b})$,
it follows that $u$ can be extended to a function in $L^2(\O)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\ue \wto u \text{ weakly in }L^2({\O_b}).
\end{equation}
For $\aee\ x'\in \o$, we define the field $\vexp(x_3) = \ue(x', x_3)$.
Then $\vexp(x_3)\in H^1(-h_b, h_f)$ and, from the convergences established for $\ue$, it follows that there exists a function $v\in H^1(-h_b, h_f)$ such that $\vexp \wto v$ weakly in $H^1(-h_b, h_f)$, for $\aee\ x'\in \o$.
Finally, from the first and second estimate in Equation~\eqref{eqn:bound_strains_f_dzero}, follows that the limit $u$ is such that $\eit(u)=0$, \ie the limit displacement belongs to the Kirchhoff-Love subspace $\CadKL({\O_f})$ of sufficiently smooth shear-free displacements in the film.
Moreover, since the limit $u$ is such that $\pt \ua = 0$
the in-plane limit displacement $\ua$ is independent of the transverse coordinate, that is to say:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ua_indep_x3_dzero}
\uea \wto \ua \text{ weakly }\inn H^1({\O_f}),
\end{equation}
where $\ua$ is independent of $x_3$, and hence it can be identified with a function $\ua\in H^1(\o)$, which we shall denote by the same symbol.
\item \begin{statement} Optimality conditions of the scaled strains.
The components of the weak limits $\kappa_{ij}\in L^2(\Ofilmd)$
of subsequences of $\kue$ satisfy:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:opt_scaled_strains_dzero}
\limkttf= -\frac{\lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\limkaaf+ \frac{ 2\mu_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\strload_{33} + \frac{ \lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\strload_{\alpha\alpha}, \,
\limktaf=0, \text{ and }
\limkabf=\eab(u).
\end{equation}
\end{statement}
As a consequence of the uniform boundedness of sequences $\ke \ue$ and $\kebl \ue$ in $L^2({\O_f}; \MtwoSym)$ and $L^2({\O_b}; \MtwoSym)$ established in Lemma~\ref{lem:conv_scaled_strains}, it follows that there exist functions $\limkf\in L^2({\O_f}, \MtwoSym)$ and $\limkbl \in L^2({\O_b}; \MtwoSym)$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:conv_resc_strains_dzero}
\ke \ue \wto \limkf \text{ weakly in }L^2({\O_f}, \MtwoSym), \text{ and }
\kebl \ue \wto \limkbl \text{ weakly in }L^2({\O_b}, \MtwoSym).
\end{equation}
The first two relations in~\eqref{eqn:opt_scaled_strains_dzero} descend from optimality conditions for the rescaled strains.
Indeed,
taking in the variational formulation of the equilibrium problem test fields $v$ such that $\va= 0$ in $\O$, $ \vt = 0$ in $\Obondd$ and $ \vt \in \H^1(\Ofilmd)$ with $\vt =0$ on $\o_0$ and multiplying by $\e^2$, we get:
\begin{multline}
\iof \left( (\lambda_f+2\mu_f) \kttue + \lambda_f \kaaue \right) {\ett(v)} dx
=\iof \left\{ \left( 2\mu_f \strload_{33} + \lambda_f \strload_{\alpha\alpha} \right) \ett(v) \right\}dx +\\
\e\iof 2\mu_f \ktaue \pa \vt
+\e^2 \int_{\o_+} p \test \vt\,dx'.
\end{multline}
Owing to the convergences established above for $\ke \ue$, $\kebl \ue $,
since $\pa \vt$ and $\vt$ are uniformly bounded, we can pass to the limit $\e\to 0$ and obtain:
\[
\int_{\Ofilmd}\left( (\lambda_f+2 \mu_f)\limkttf + \lambda_f \limkaaf \right) \ett(v)dx= \int_{\Ofilmd} \left( 2\mu_f\strload_{33} + \lambda_f\strload_{\alpha\alpha} \right) \ett(v)dx.
\]
From the arbitrariness of $v$, using arguments of the calculus of variations, we localize and integrate by parts further enforcing the boundary condition on $\o_0$.
The optimality conditions in the bulk and the associated natural boundary conditions for the limit rescaled transverse strain $\limkttf$ follow:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:optimality_ktt_dzero}
\limkttf = -\frac{\lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\limkaaf+ \frac{ 2\mu_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\strload_{33} + \frac{ \lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\strload_{\alpha\alpha} \quad \inn {\O_f}, \qquad \text{and} \quad {\partial_3}\limkttf = 0 \onn \o_+.
\end{equation}
Similarly, consider
test fields $ v \in \H^1({\O_f})$ such that $ \vt = 0$ in $\O$, $ \va = 0$ in $\Obondd$ and $ \va \in H^1(\Ofilmd)$ with $ \va=0$ on $\o_0$.
Multiplying the first order optimality conditions by $\e$, they take the following form:
\begin{multline}
\iof 2\mu_f \ktaue \pt \va
dx
= \e \iof \left\{ \lambda_f \left( \kttue+\kaaue \right) \ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \kabue\eab(v) \right\}dx+\\
\e\iof \left\{ \lambda_f \left(\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(v) + 2\mu_f \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}dx.
\end{multline}
The left-hand side converges to $\iof 2\mu_f \limktaf \pt \va$ as $\e \to 0$, whereas
the right-hand side converges to $ 0 $, since $ \eab(v)$ is bounded.
We pass to the limit for $\e\to0$ and obtain:
\[
\iof 2\mu_f \limktaf \pt \va =0.
\]
By integration by parts and enforcing boundary conditions we deduce that $\limktaf=0 \inn {\O_b}$, giving the second equation in~\eqref{eqn:optimality_ktt_dzero}.
Finally, by the definitions of rescaled strains~\eqref{eqn:resc_str_film} and the convergence of strains established in step i), we deduce that $\limkabf=\limeab$. But since $\ue \wto u $ in $H^1({\O_f})$ implies the weak convergence of strains, in particular $\limeab = \eab(u)$, then
\[
\limkabf=\eab(u),
\]
which completes the claim.
\item \begin{statement}
Limit equilibrium equations
\end{statement}
Now, take test functions $v$ in the variational formulation of Equation~\eqref{eqn:vf_resc}
such that
$\eit(v)=0$ in ${\O_f}$ and $\ett(v)=0$ in ${\O_b}$, we get:
\begin{multline}
\iof \left\{ \lambda_f \left( \kttue+\kaaue \right) \ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \kabue\eab(v) \right\}dx
+ \iob \left\{ 2\mu_f \ktablue\pt \va + \lambda_b \left( \kttblue+\kaablue \right) \e\ebb(v) \right\}dx \\
= \iof \left\{ \lambda_f \left(\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(v) + 2\mu_f \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}dx.
\end{multline}
Since all sequences converge, we pass to the limit $\e\to 0$ using the first two optimality conditions in~\eqref{eqn:optimality_ktt_dzero} and obtain:
\begin{multline}
\label{eqn:limit_eq_equations_kappa_dzero}
\iof \left\{ \frac{2\mu_f\lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\limkaaf \ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \limkabf\eab(v) \right\}dx
+ \iob \left\{ 2\mu_b \pt \ua \pt \va \right\}dx\\
= \iof \left\{ \left(c_1 \strload_{\alpha\alpha} + c_2 \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(v) + c_3 \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}dx
\end{multline}
where $c_1, c_2, c_3$ are the coefficients:
\[
c_1=
\frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f }{\lambda_f +2 \mu_f },
\quad c_2=
\frac{\lambda_f ^2}{\lambda_f +2 \mu_f },
\text{ and }\quad c_3=2 \mu_f.
\]
Using the last relation in~\eqref{eqn:optimality_ktt_dzero} we obtain the variational formulation of the three-dimensional elastic equilibrium problem for the limit displacement $u$, reading:
\begin{multline}
\label{eqn:3d_limit_membrane_energy_unit_thick}
\iof \left\{ \frac{2\lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\eaa(u) \ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \eab(u)\eab(v) \right\} dx
+ \iob 2\mu_b \pt \ua \pt \va dx\\
= \iof \left\{ \left( c_1\strload_{\alpha\alpha} +c_2\strload_{33} \right) \ebb(v) + c_3\strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}dx\\ \qquad \forall v \in \left\{ \test v_i\in \H^1(\O), \eit(\test v)=0 \inn {\O_f}, \ett(\test v)=0 \inn {\O_b} \right\}.
\end{multline}
\item \begin{statement}
Two-dimensional problem.
\end{statement}
Owing to~\eqref{eqn:ua_indep_x3_dzero}, the in-plane limit displacement in the film is independent of the transverse coordinate;
let us hence consider test fields of the form:
\begin{equation}
v_ \alpha(x', x_3)=
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{(x_3+h_b)}{h_b} v_\alpha(x'), &\text{ in }{\O_b}\\
v_\alpha(x'), &\text{ in }{\O_f}\\
\end{cases}, \text{ where } \va \in \H^1(\o).
\end{equation}
They provide pure shear and shear-free deformations in the bonding layer and film, respectively.
For such test fields equilibrium equations read:
\begin{multline}
\io \left\{ \int_{0}^{h_f} \left( \frac{2\lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\eaa(u) \ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \eab(u)\eab(v) \right)dx_3
+ \int_{-h_b}^{0} 2\mu_b \pt \ua \pt \va dx_3\right\}dx'\\
= \io \left\{ \int_{0}^{h_f} \left( \left( c_1\strload_{\alpha\alpha} +c_2\strload_{33} \right) \ebb(v) + c_3\strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v)\right)dx_3 \right\}dx'.
\label{eqn:limit_eq_dzero_opt_prof}
\end{multline}
Recalling that $\ua$ is independent of the transverse coordinate in the film, and that for any admissible displacement $v\in \Cadz(\O)$ the following holds:
\[
\int_{-h_b}^0 \pt v(x', x_3)dx_3= v(x', 0)- v(x', -h_b)=v(x', 0), \quad\aee\ x'\in \o,
\]
we integrate~\eqref{eqn:limit_eq_dzero_opt_prof} along the thickness and obtain:
\begin{multline*}
\io \left\{ \frac{2\lambda_f \mu_f h_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\eaa(u) \ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f h_f\eab(u)\eab(v)
+ \frac{2\mu_b }{h_b} \ua(x', 0) \va \right\}dx' \\
= \io \left\{ \vphantom{\frac{\lambda}{\mu}} h_f\left( c_1 \bar\strload_{\alpha\alpha} +c_2\bar\strload_{33} \right) \ebb(v) + h_f c_3\bar\strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}dx',
\quad \forall \va \in \H^1(\o),
\end{multline*}
where overline denote averaging over the thickness: $\bar \Phi_{ij}:=\frac{1}{h_f}\int_0^{h_f} \Phi_{ij} dx_3$.
The last equation is the limit, two-dimensional, equilibrium problem for a linear elastic membrane on a linear, in-plane, elastic foundation and concludes the proof of item ii) in Theorem~\eqref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}.
\item \begin{statement}
Strong convergence in $\H^1(\Ofilmd)$
\end{statement}
In order to prove the strong convergence of $\ue$ in $\H^1({\O_f})$ it suffices to prove that $\nl[\eabe(\ue)-\eab(u)]{{\O_f}}\to 0$ as $\e\to0$, as the strong convergence in $L^2({\O_f})$ of the components $\eite(\ue)$ has been already shown in step iii) of the proof.
Exploiting the convexity of the elastic energy, we can write:
\[
\begin{split}
2\mu_f\nl[\eabe(\ue)-\eab(u)]{{\O_f}}&\leq 2\mu_f\nl[\kabue-\limkabf]{\O}\\ &\leq \iof \mathcal A_f (\kue-\limkf):(\kue-\limkf)dx + \iob \mathcal A_b (\kblue-\limkbl):(\kblue-\limkbl)dx \\
&= \iof \mathcal A_f \limkf:(\limkf - 2\kue)dx + \iob \mathcal A_b \limkbl:(\limkbl- 2\kblue)dx \\
& \qquad+ \iof \mathcal A_f \kue:\kue dx+ \iob \mathcal A_b \kblue:\kblue dx\\
&= \iof \mathcal A_f \limkf:(\limkf - 2\kue)dx + \iob \mathcal A_b \limkbl:(\limkbl- 2\kblue)dx + \mathcal L(\ue).
\end{split}
\]
where the first inequality holds from the definitions of rescaled strains, and the last equality holds by virtue of the equilibrium equations (it suffices to take the admissible $\ue$ as test field in Equation~\eqref{eqn:vf_resc}).
By the convergences established for $\kue, \kblue$ and $\ue$, we can pass to the limit and get:
\[
\lim_{\e\to0}\left( 2\mu_f\nl[\eabe(\ue)-\eab(u)]{{\O_f}} \right) \leq \mathcal L(u) - \iof \mathcal A_f \limkf:\limkf \, dx - \iob \mathcal A_b \limkbl:\limkbl\, dx=0
\]
where the last equality gives the desired result and holds by virtue of the three-dimensional variational formulation of the limit equilibrium equations \eqref{eqn:limit_eq_equations_kappa_dzero}.
This concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}.
\end{enumerate}
\qed
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:out_of_plane_elast_found}} \label{sec:out_of_plane_elastic_foundation}
For positive values of $\d$, elastic coupling intervenes between the transverse strain energy of the bonding layer and the membrane energy of the film, responsible of the asymptotic emergence of a reduced dimension model of a plate over an ``out-of-plane'' elastic foundation.
For ease of read, we first show the result for the case $\d=1$, splitting the proof into several steps.
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item \begin{statement}
Convergence of strains.
\end{statement}
Using the definitions of rescaled strains (Equations~\eqref{eqn:resc_str_film} and \eqref{eqn:resc_str_bl}), from the boundedness of sequences $\kue$ and $\kblue$ Lemma~\eqref{lem:conv_scaled_strains}, it follows that there exist constants $C>0$ such that, in the film:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bound_strains_film_done}
\nl[\ette(\ue)]{{\O_f}}\leq C\e^2, \quad
\nl[\eate(\ue)]{{\O_f}}\leq C\e , \quad \text {and} \quad
\nl[\eabe(\ue)]{{\O_f}}\leq C,
\end{equation}
and in the bonding layer
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bound_strains_bl_done}
\nl[\ette(\ue)]{{\O_b}}\leq C, \quad
\nl[\pt \uea]{{\O_b}} \leq C \e^{-\delta} \quad\text{and}\quad
\e^{\gamma}\nl[\eab(\ue)]{{\O_b}}\leq C.
\end{equation}
These bounds, in turn, imply that there exist functions $\limeab\in L^2(\Ofilmd)$ such that $\eabe(\ue) \wto \limeab$ weakly in $L^2(\Ofilmd)$, a function $\limett\in L^2(\Obondd)$ such that $\ette(\ue)\wto \limett$ weakly in $L^2(\Obondd)$, and that $e_{i3}^\e(\ue)\to 0$ strongly in $L^2(\Ofilmd)$.
\item \begin{statement}
Convergence of scaled displacements.
\end{statement}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:poincare} (Equation~\eqref{eq:poincare_bulk}) combined with \eqref{eqn:bound_strains_film_done} and~\eqref{eqn:bound_strains_bl_done} we can write:
\begin{equation*}
\label{eqn:bound_displ_transv_done}
\nl[\uet]{\O} \leq C \left( \nl[\ett(\ue)]{{\O_f}} + \nl[\ett(\ue)]{{\O_b}} \right) \leq C (\e^2 + 1)\end{equation*}
from which, combined with \eqref{eqn:bound_strains_film_done}, follows that there exists a function $u_3 \in H^1(\O)$ such that $\partial_3 u_3 = 0$ in ${\O_f}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:conv_transv_displ_done}
\uet \wto u_3 \text{ weakly in } H^1(\O).
\end{equation}
By virtue of Korn's inequality in the quotient space $\dot H^1({\O_f})$ (see \eg, \cite{Ciarlet2013}) there exists $C>0$ such that
\[
\nl[ u^\e_\alpha]{\dot H^1({\O_f})} \leq C \nl[\eabe(u^\e_\alpha)]{L^2({\O_f})},
\]
from which, recalling from \eqref{eqn:bound_strains_film_done} and denoting by $\Pi(\cdot)$ the projection operator over the space of rigid motions $\mathcal R({\O_f})$, we infer that
$\nl[ u^\e_\alpha - \Pi\left(u^\e_\alpha\right)]{H^1({\O_f})}$ is uniformly bounded and hence, by the Rellich-Kondrachov Theorem that there exists $\ua \in H^1({\O_f}) \cap \mathcal R({\O_f})^\perp$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:conv_in_plane_displ_done}
u^\e_\a -\Pi(u^\e_\a) \wto \ua\text{ weakly in }H^1({\O_f}).
\end{equation}
Using then the second identity in~\eqref{eqn:bound_strains_film_done}, we have that $e_{i3}(u)=0$ in ${\O_f}$, \ie that it belongs to the subspace of Kirchhoff-Love displacements in the film:
\[
(\ua, u_3)\in \CadKL(\Ofilmd):=\left\{ \dot\H^1(\Ofilmd)\cap \mathcal({\O_f})^\perp \times H^1({\O_f}), \mathrm{e}_{i3}(v)=0 \inn \Ofilmd \right\}.
\]
\item \begin{statement}
Optimality conditions of the scaled strains.
The components $\limkijf\in L^2(\Ofilmd)$ of the weak limits
of subsequences of $\kue$, and the component $\limkaabl\in L^2(\Obondd)$ of the weak limit of subsequences of $\kblue$, satisfy the following relations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:opt_resc_str_film_done}
\limkttf= -\frac{\lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\limkaaf+ \frac{ 2\mu_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\strload_{33} + \frac{ \lambda_f}{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}\strload_{\alpha\alpha},
\;\limktaf=0,\text{ and }\;
\limkabf=\eab(u)\quad \inn {\O_f}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:opt_resc_str_bl_done}
\limkaabl = -\frac{\lambda_b}{\lambda_b + 2 \mu_b}\limkttbl,\, \inn {\O_b}.
\end{equation}
\end{statement}
As a consequence of the uniform boundedness of sequences $\ke \ue$ and $\kebl \ue$ in $L^2({\O_f}; \MtwoSym)$ and $L^2({\O_b}; \MtwoSym)$ established in Lemma~\ref{lem:conv_scaled_strains}, it follows that there exist functions $\limkf\in L^2({\O_f}, \MtwoSym)$ and $\limkbl \in L^2({\O_b}; \MtwoSym)$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:conv_resc_strains_done}
\ke \ue \wto \limkf \text{ weakly in }L^2({\O_f}, \MtwoSym), \text{ and }
\kebl \ue \wto \limkbl \text{ weakly in }L^2({\O_b}, \MtwoSym).
\end{equation}
The relations~\eqref{eqn:opt_resc_str_film_done} are established analogously to the case $\delta=0$, (see step iii) of Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}) and their derivation is not reported here for conciseness.
To establish the optimality conditions~\eqref{eqn:opt_resc_str_bl_done} in the bonding layer, we start from~\eqref{eqn:vf_resc}, using test functions such that $v=0$ in $\Ofilmd$, $\vt=0$ in $\Obondd$ and $\va \in H^1_0(-h_b, 0)$ is a function of $x_3$ alone. For all such functions, dividing the variational equation by $\e$ we get:
\[
\int_{{\O_b}} 2\mu_b\pt \ktablue v_\a' dx_3 = 0,
\]
which in turn yields that $\pt \ktablue=0$ in ${\O_b}$, \ie that the scaled strain $\ktablue$ is a function of $x'$ alone in ${\O_b}$.
Choosing test fields in the variational formulation~\eqref{eqn:vf_resc} such that $\vt=0 \inn {\O_f}, \vt = 0 \inn {\O_b}$, and $ \va = h_\alpha(x')g_\alpha(x_3)$ in ${\O_b}$ (no implicit summation assumed), where $h_\alpha(x')\in \H^1(\o), g_\alpha(x_3)\in\H^1_0(-h_b, 0)$, we obtain:
\[
\begin{multlined}
\int_\o \left\{ \int_{-h_b}^0 2\mu_b \ktablue \e h_\a g_\a'\,dx_3 + \int_{-h_b}^0 \left(\lambda_b \kttblue+ \left( \lambda_b\delta_{\a \b}+2\mu_b \right) \kabblue \right) \e^\g \pb \va h_\a \,dx_3\right\}dx' =0.
\end{multlined}
\]
The first term vanishes after integration by parts, using the boundary conditions on $g_\a$ and the fact that $\ktablue h_\alpha$ is a function of $x'$ only.
Dividing by $\e^\g$, we are left with:
\[
\int_{-h_b}^0 \left[ \int_\o \left(\lambda_b \kttblue+ \left( \lambda_b\delta_{\a \b}+2\mu_b \right) \kabblue \right) \pa h_\alpha \,dx' \right]g_\alpha dx_3=0.
\]
We can use a localization argument owing to the arbitrariness of $g_\alpha$; moreover, since sequences $\kttblue, \kabblue$ converge weakly in $L^2({\O_f})$, we can pass to the limit for $\e\to0$ and get for $\aee\ x'\in \o$:
\[
\int_\o \left(\lambda_b \limkttbl+ \left( \lambda_b\delta_{\a \b}+2\mu_b \right) \limkabbl \right) \pa \vb\,dx'=0.
\]
After an additional integration by parts, we finally obtain the optimality conditions in the bulk as well as the associated natural boundary conditions, namely:
\[
\pb\left(\lambda_b \limkttbl + \left( \lambda_b\delta_{\a \b}+2\mu_b \right) \limkabbl \right) =0 \inn \o,
\text{ and }
\left(\lambda_b \limkttbl + \left( \lambda_b\delta_{\a \b}+2\mu_b \right) \limkabbl \right)n_\alpha =0 \onn \partial \o,
\]
where $n_\alpha$ denotes the components of outer unit normal vector to $\partial\o$.
In particular, optimality in the bulk for the diagonal term yields the desired result.
\item \begin{statement}
Limit equilibrium equations.
\end{statement}
We now establish the limit variational equations satisfied by the weak limit $u$.
Considering test functions $v\in H^1(\O)$ such that $v_3=0$ on $\o_-$ and $\eit(v)=0$ in $\Ofilmd$ in the variational formulation of the equilibrium problem~\eqref{eqn:vf_resc}, we get:
\[
\begin{multlined}
\iof \left\{ \lambda_f \left( \kttue+\kaaue \right) \ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \kabue\eab(v)\right\}dx
+ \iob \left( (\lambda_f+2 \mu_f) \kttblue+\lambda_f \kaablue \right)\ett(v)\,dx\\
+ \iob \left\{ 2\mu_f \ktablue \left( \e\pt \va + \e^{\gamma-1}\pa \vt\right)+ \lambda_b \left( \kttblue+\kaablue \right) \e^\gamma\ebb(v) + 2 \mu \kabblue \e^\gamma \eab(v) \right\} dx\\
= \iof \left\{ \lambda_f \left(\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(v) + 2\mu \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\}dx + \int_{\o_+} p v_3\,dx',
\end{multlined}
\]
Using again Lemma~\ref{lem:conv_scaled_strains}, and remarking that since $\gamma-1>0$ then $\e\pt \va$, $\e^{\gamma-1}\pa \vt$, and $\e^{\gamma}\eab(v)$ vanish as $\e \to 0$, we pass to the limit $\e\to0$ and obtain:
\[
\begin{multlined}
\iof \left\{
\lambda_f \left( \limkttf+\limkaaf \right) \ebb(v)+ 2\mu_f \limkabf\eab(v)
\right\} dx
+ \iob \left( (\lambda_b+2 \mu_b) \limkttbl+\lambda_b \limkaabl \right)\ett(v) dx \\
= \iof \left\{ \lambda_f \left(\strload_{\alpha\alpha} + \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(v) + 2\mu_f \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) \right\} dx
+ \int_{\o_+} p v_3 \,dx',
\end{multlined}
\]
for all $v\in H^1(\O; \mathbb R^3)$ such that $v_3=0$ on $\o_-$ and $\eit(v)=0$ in $\Ofilmd$.
By the definitions of rescaled strains (Equations~\eqref{eqn:resc_str_film} and \eqref{eqn:resc_str_bl}) and plugging optimality conditions~\eqref{eqn:opt_resc_str_film_done} and~\eqref{eqn:opt_resc_str_bl_done}, we get:
\begin{multline}
\label{eqn:vf_lim_3d_done}
\iof \frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f} \eaa(u)\ebb(v)
+ 2\mu_f \eab(u)\eab(v) dx
+ \iob \frac{4 \mu_b (\lambda_b +\mu_b)}{\lambda_b + 2 \mu_b}\ett(u)\ett(v) dx \\
= \iof \left(c_1 \strload_{\alpha\alpha} + c_2 \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(v) + c_3 \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(v) dx+ \int_{\o_+} p v_3 dx',
\end{multline}
where the $c_i$'s are coefficients that depend on the elastic material parameters:
\[
c_1=\frac{2 \mu_f\lambda_f }{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}, \quad c_2=\frac{\lambda_f^2 }{\lambda_f+2 \mu_f}, \quad c_3=2 \mu_f.
\]
Note that they coincide with those of the limit problem in Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found} since they descend from the optimality conditions within the film~\eqref{eqn:opt_resc_str_film_done}, which are the same.
\item\begin{statement}
Two-dimensional problem.
\end{statement}
As shown in step i), the limit displacement displacement satisfies $\eit(u)=0$.
Integrating these relations yields that there exist two functions $\eta_3\in H^2(\o)$ and $\eta_\alpha \in H^1(\o)$, respectively representing the components of the out-of-plane and in-plane displacement of the middle surface of the film layer $\o\times\{h_f/2\}$, such that $u \in \CadKL({\O_f})$ is of the form:
\[
u_ \alpha=\eta_\alpha(x')-(x_3-h_f/2)\pa\eta_3(x'), \text{ and } u_3=\eta_3(x').
\]
For such functions the components of the linearized strain read:
\[
\eab(u)=\eab(\eta)-(x_3+h_f/2)\pab \eta_3 \text{ and } \ett(u)=\ett(\eta).
\]
Analogously, there exist functions $\zeta_3\in \H^2(\o)$ and $\zeta_ \alpha \in \H^1(\o)$ such that any admissible test field $v\in \left\{ v_i\in H^1(\O), v_3=0 \onn\ \o_-, \eit(v)=0 \inn {\O_f} \right\}$ can be written in the form:
\[
v_3=\begin{cases}
\zeta_3(x'), &\text{ in } {\O_f}\\
(x_3+h_b)\zeta_3(x'), &\text{ in } {\O_b}\\
\end{cases},
\text{ and }
v_\alpha=\zeta_\alpha(x')-(x_3+h_f/2) \pa \zeta_3(x'), \text{ in } {\O_f}.
\]
The three-dimensional variational equation~\eqref{eqn:vf_lim_3d_done} can be hence rewritten as:
\[
\begin{multlined}
\iof \frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f}
\left( \eaa(\eta)\ebb(\zeta) +(\paa \eta_3\pbb\zeta_3)(x_3-h_f/2)^2 +(x_3-h_f/2)\left( \eaa(\eta)\pbb\zeta_3 +\paa \eta_3\ebb(\zeta)\right) \right) dx \\
+ \iof2\mu_f \left( \eab(\eta)\eab(\zeta)+(\pab \eta_3\pab\zeta_3)(x_3-h_f/2)^2 +(x_3-h_f/2)\left( \eab(\eta)\pab\zeta_3 +\pab \eta_3\eab(\zeta) \right)\right) dx\\
+ \iob \frac{4 \mu_f (\lambda_b +\mu_f)}{\lambda_b + 2 \mu_f}\ett(\eta)\ett(\zeta) dx
= \iof \left\{ \left(c_1 \strload_{\alpha\alpha} + c_2 \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(\zeta) + c_3 \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(\zeta) \right\} dx + \int_{\o} p \zeta_3 dx,
\end{multlined}
\]
for all functions $\zeta_\alpha \in \H^1(\o)$ and $\zeta_3\in \H^2(\o)$.
The dependence on $x_3$ is now explicit; after integration along the thickness the linear cross terms vanish in the film, and we are left with the two-dimensional variational formulation of the equilibrium equations:
\[
\begin{multlined}
\io \frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f}
\left\{
\eaa(\eta)\ebb(\zeta) +1/6(\paa \eta_3\pbb\zeta_3)
\right\} dx'
+ \io 2\mu_f \left\{ \eab(\eta)\eab(\zeta)+1/6(\pab \eta_3\pab\zeta_3)
\right\}dx'\\
+ \io \frac{4 \mu_b (\lambda_b +\mu_b)}{\lambda_b + 2 \mu_b}\eta_3\zeta_3 dx'
= \io \left\{ \left(c_1 \strload_{\alpha\alpha} + c_2 \strload_{33} \right)\ebb(\zeta) + c_3 \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(\zeta) \right\}dx' + \int_{\o} p \zeta_3dx',
\end{multlined}
\]
for all functions $\zeta_\alpha \in \H^1(\o)$ and $\zeta_3\in \H^2(\o)$.
By taking $\zeta_\alpha=0$ (resp. $\zeta_3=0$) the previous equation is broken down into two, two-dimensional variational equilibrium equations: the flexural and membrane equilibrium equations of a Kirchhoff-Love plate over a transverse linear, elastic foundation.
They read:
\[
\begin{multlined}
\io \left\{ \frac{2 \lambda_f \mu_f}{\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f}
\eaa(\eta)\ebb(\zeta)
+ 2\mu_f \eab(\eta)\eab(\zeta) \right\} dx'
= \io
\left\{ \vphantom{\frac{\lambda}{\mu}}\left( c_1 \strload_{\alpha\alpha} + c_2 \strload_{33} \right) \ebb(\zeta) c_3 \strload_{\alpha\beta} \eab(\zeta) \right\}dx', \\
\forall \zeta_\alpha \in \H^1(\o),
\end{multlined}
\]
\[
\begin{multlined}
\io \left\{ \frac{ \lambda_f \mu_f}{3(\lambda_f + 2 \mu_f)}
(\paa \eta_3\pbb\zeta_3)
+\frac{\mu_f}{3}
\pab \eta_3\pab\zeta_3
+ \frac{4 \mu_b (\lambda_b +\mu_b)}{\lambda_b + 2 \mu_b}\eta_3\zeta_3 \right\} dx'
=
\int_{\o} p \zeta_3 \,dx',\quad
\forall \zeta_3 \in \H^2(\o).
\end{multlined}
\]
To complete the proof in the case $0<\d<1$, it is sufficient to rescale transverse displacements within the bonding layer by a factor $\e^{1-\d}$, that is considering displacements of the form:
\[
(\e\uea, \e^{1-\d}\uet) \inn {\O_b}
\]
instead of \eqref{eqn:resc_displ}.
Then the estimates on the scaled strains leading to Lemma~\ref{lem:conv_scaled_strains}, as well as the arguments that follow, hold verbatim.
\item \begin{statement}
Strong convergence in $H^1({\O_f})$
\end{statement}
The strong convergence $(\uea - \Pi(\uea), \uet)\to (\ua, \ut)$ in $H^1({\O_f})$ is proved analogously to the case $\d=1$ (see step vi) in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:in_of_plane_elast_found}) and is not repeated here for conciseness.
\end{enumerate}
\qed
\makeatletter{}
We have studied the asymptotic behavior of a non-homogeneous, linear, elastic bi-layer in scalar elasticity.
Whenever a three-dimensional layer is ``thin'', its thickness-to-diameter ratio $\e$, appears naturally as a small parameter in the variational formulation of the equilibrium; it determines a \emph{singular perturbation} on the underlying problem of elasticity.
On assuming a general scaling law for the two parameters, namely thickness and stiffness ratios, upon which the variational formulation of the elasticity problem solely depends,
we have unveiled and characterized the asymptotic regimes arising in the limit $\e\to 0$, that is solving the singular perturbation.
The asymptotic regimes synthetically resumed in the two-dimensional phase diagram of Figure~\ref{fig:phase_diag}, depending on stiffness and thickness ratio or equivalently on the two non-dimensional parameters $\g, \d$ representing the ratio of membrane energies and shear to membrane energy of the two layers, respectively.
The asymptotic limit regimes can also be hierarchically characterized by the order of magnitude (with respect to $\e$) of the leading term of the limit displacement $u$, \ie the order of the first non-trivial term in a possible power expansion with respect to $\e$.
We identify the regime of membranes over a medium unable to transfer vertical stresses; that of bars under shear with added superficial stiffness; membranes over a three-dimensional body; higher order linear membranes under shear; and linear membranes over linear elastic foundation.
The latter regime is of particular interest: the asymptotic analysis rigorously justifies the widely adopted linear elastic foundation model (\ie the ``Winkler foundation'' or ``shear lag'' model).
It is further established a \emph{class of equivalence} of three-dimensional elastic bi-layers having the same limit representation, giving insight into the nature and validity of the aforementioned reduced model. In addition, an explicit equation allows to identify the single parameter identifying the linear foundation model, as a function of the three-dimensional material and geometric parameters.
The asymptotic study is performed in the simplified setting of linearized scalar elasticity.
Since we are mainly interested into the in-plane behavior, for the reasons illustrated in the body of the work, this setting is rich enough to unveil the basic elastic energy coupling mechanisms.
The same does not hold if we were interested in the out-of-plane behavior, \ie to study bending effects.
However, a similar asymptotic analysis could be carried with the same spirit, at the expense of a more involved analytic treatment, in the framework of linear, three-dimensional, vectorial, elasticity.
In both cases, the assumption of linearized elasticity is delicate. In the context of genuinely nonlinear elasticity, indeed, the order of magnitude of the applied loads plays a crucial role in determining the limit asymptotic regimes unlike in the linear case, where it can be transparently rescaled.
The analysis presented here is an effort to show how reduced-dimension models, often regarded as constitutive, phenomenological models, can rigorously derive and be justified from genuine three-dimensional elasticity.
This, not only provides a mathematically sound treatment, but also gives insight into the fundamental elastic mechanisms and the nature of their coupling, further supplying the range of validity of the reduced models and hence an essential indication for their practical application.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
B. Bourdin's work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under the grant DMS-1312739. A. A. León Baldelli's work was supported by the Center for Computation \& Technology at LSU.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\subsection{Hybrid idle scans}
The hybrid idle scan data was collected from 15 March 2014 to 10 April 2014.
One client was removed from the data because we determined that it was in Hong
Kong and as a result not subject to the GFW's filtering.
Table~\ref{tab:results} shows the results of our hybrid idle scans. The
column $S \rightarrow C$ is short for {\bf Server-to-client-dropped}, {\it None}
means {\bf No-packets-dropped}, $C \rightarrow S$ means {\bf
Client-to-server-dropped}, and {\it Error} simply means {\bf Error}. In the
table's rows, {\it CN} is short for China, {\it EU} means Europe, and {\it NA}
means North America. As for the server types, {\it Tor$-$Dir} is a Tor
directory authority, {\it Tor$-$Relay} is a Tor relay, and {\it Web} is a web
server. Our results confirm that, in general, SYN/ACKs entering China from
blacklisted IP address/TCP port pairs are blocked. Some web servers were
censored, and some Tor nodes were censored outside China. This is to be
expected because even in countries that do not perform nation-scale Internet
censorship, organizations frequently take steps to filter material such as
pornography or file sharing sites. Note that highly popular websites often
contain material that is subject to censorship.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{diagrams/Case2Heat}
\caption{The color temperature for clients corresponds to the number of
observed {\bf No-packets-dropped} cases over the entire experiment. No
geographic or topological pattern is visible. Instead, the distribution
matches the geographic Internet penetration patterns of China.
(Map data {\copyright} 2014 Basarsoft, Google, ORION-ME, SK planet, ZENRIN)}
\label{fig:Case2Heat}
\end{figure}
The most interesting result from the hybrid idle scans is that the {\bf
No-packets-dropped} case was measured all over the country without any
noticeable geographic pattern. The geographic distribution of observed {\bf
No-packets-dropped} cases is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Case2Heat}. The case
distribution closely matches the distribution of our clients which, in turn,
matches the geographic Internet penetration patterns of China. This means that
the failures in China's IP address/TCP port blacklisting mechanisms are not
limited to one region or one network block. We provide a more thorough
analysis in Section~\ref{sec:mueen}, which confirms
Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:allover}.
We also observed that in many cases these filtering failures are
persistent and \emph{last throughout the day}. We witnessed four client/server
pairs where all 22 measurements in a day returned {\bf No-packets-dropped}. We
redacted the clients' 16 least significant bits:
\noindent
Client 58.193.0.0 (CN) $\rightarrow$ server 198.96.155.3 (CA) \\
Client 58.193.0.0 (CN) $\rightarrow$ server 161.53.116.37 (HR) \\
Client 58.193.0.0 (CN) $\rightarrow$ server 128.173.89.245 (US) \\
Client 121.194.0.0 (CN) $\rightarrow$ server 198.96.155.3 (CA) \\
This would give evidence towards Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:persistent}, but our
traceroute results reveal that CERNET does not perform the type of blocking we
are measuring at all so later in this section we will discuss similar failures
in commercial networks. Clients 58.193.0.0 and 121.194.0.0 are part of the
Chinese Educational and Research Network (CERNET). Server 198.96.155.3 is a
long-established Tor exit relay at the University of Waterloo. 161.53.116.37
and 128.173.89.245 are Tor relays in Croatia and the U.S., respectively. There
were also many instances where client/server pairs showed {\bf
Server-to-client-dropped} for most of the day but also showed {\bf
No-packets-dropped} once or a handful of times.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\small
\caption{Results from the hybrid idle scan measurement study.\label{tab:results}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{\textbf{Client \hfill Server}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{$S \rightarrow C$ (\%)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{None (\%)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{$C \rightarrow S$ (\%)}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Error (\%)}} \\
\hline
\hline
CN \hfill Tor$-$Relay & 116,460 (81.52) & 555 (0.39) & 786 (0.55) & 25,061 (17.54)\\
CN \hfill Tor$-$Dir & 8,922 (64.91) & 31 (0.23) & 2,696 (19.61) & 2,097 (15.25)\\
CN \hfill Web & 306 (1.23) & 15,663 (62.95) & 2,688 (10.80) & 6,226 (25.02)\\
EU \hfill Tor$-$Relay & 18 (0.20) & 8,589 (96.79) & 22 (0.25) & 245 (2.76)\\
EU \hfill Tor$-$Dir & 2 (0.25) & 776 (96.76) & 0 (0.00) & 24 (2.99)\\
EU \hfill Web & 19 (1.23) & 1,333 (86.28) & 95 (6.15) & 98 (6.34)\\
NA \hfill Tor$-$Relay & 45 (0.39) & 11,022 (94.48) & 33 (0.28) & 566 (4.85)\\
NA \hfill Tor$-$Dir & 4 (0.37) & 1,025 (94.73) & 3 (0.28) & 50 (4.62)\\
NA \hfill Web & 32 (1.52) & 1,794 (85.06) & 98 (4.65) & 185 (8.77)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Temporal and spatial association} \label{sec:mueen}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{diagrams/probability}
\caption{The temporal association between cases of {\bf No-packets-dropped}.
The $x$ axis shows the amount of hours since the last {\bf No-packets-dropped}
case whereas the $y$ axis shows the probability of observing another case of
{\bf No-packets-dropped}.}
\label{fig:probability}
\end{figure}
We now seek to answer the question of whether there are any temporal or spatial
associations among the {\bf No-packets-dropped} cases observed for Tor
relays tested from within China.
Temporal association is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:probability}. The probabilities
are computed by a simple counting technique. We have the hourly count of the
number of {\bf No-packets-dropped} cases for each source. For each
occurrence of {\bf No-packets-dropped}, we check if there are other {\bf
No-packets-dropped} cases in the subsequent hours. We use 151 sources for
this calculation, excluding the educational sources, which contained 353 {\bf
No-packets-dropped} cases in total. The final probabilities are averaged
over all sources. With the increase in the lag amount in the $x$-axis, the
probability decreases. This shows that {\bf
No-packets-dropped} cases generally happen in bursts of hours.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{diagrams/neighborhood}
\caption{Spatial association between clients in China. The $x$ axis shows the
neighborhood radius (k) and the $y$ axis shows the Pearson correlation
coefficient.}
\label{fig:neighborhood}
\end{figure}
Spatial association is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neighborhood}. We use the
latitude and longitude of the sources as two-dimensional coordinates. The
curvature of the earth is ignored while computing the distance between sources.
For every source, we find the geographically K-nearest neighboring sources and
average their count. We compute the Pearson's correlation coefficient between
the count of {\bf No-packets-dropped} cases for a source and the average
of the same for the neighboring sources. Note that Pearson's correlation has a
range of $-1.0$ to $1.0$. Our maximum observed correlation value of $0.26$ is,
therefore, a very weak positive correlation and supports the fact that there is
no significant geographical association between sources and their neighbors.
With the increase of the neighborhood radius, the correlation decreases to
below $0.1$. Together with the fact that the cases of {\bf
No-packets-dropped} are distributed fairly evenly in all geographic
regions (see Figure ~\ref{fig:Case2Heat}), this is strong support for
Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:allover}.
\subsection{SYN backlog scans}
We began our backlog scans on 24 March 2014 and ran them twice a day with
approximately 12 hours in between the scans until 10 April 2014. We gathered a
total of 2,094 scans and after pruning, this effort yielded 1,320 scans (63\%).
\subsubsection{Reachable Tor relays}
Out of all 1,320 backlog scans, 33 scans (2.5\%) to 12 unique IP addresses
contained the respective Tor relay's SYN/ACK segments, indicating that no
filtering was happening. Interestingly, 19 of these 33 scans targeted the
directory authority 128.31.0.39 on port 9131. Only the RST scan and not the
SYN scan yielded SYN/ACKs from the directory authority.
\begin{table}
\small
\caption{Backlog scan results\label{tab:markofthebeast}.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{RST passes}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{RST dropped}} \\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{SYN passes} & 666 (80\%) & 39 (4.7\%) \\
\textbf{SYN dropped} & 68 (8.2\%) & 53 (6.4\%) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The results in Table~\ref{tab:markofthebeast} show that, in general, if a RST
packet passes through the GFW then a SYN packet also will. This confirms one of
the basic assumptions behind the hybrid idle scan, and confirms
Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:synrst}. Also, the fact that most SYNs were allowed to
pass through the GFW confirms Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:synack}.
\subsection{Traceroutes}
\label{sec:traceroute_analysis}
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption{The results of our traceroute measurements.}
\label{tab:tracer}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{EDU Randport}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{EDU Torport}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{COM Randport}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{COM Torport}} \\
\hline
\hline
\textbf{Stalled} & 1,061 & 1,045 & 111,133 & 163,095 \\
\textbf{Finished} & 428 & 433 & 53,479 & 429 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Table~\ref{tab:tracer} shows the results of our traceroute measurements. In
the table, ``EDU'' indicates that the first hop in China in the traceroute is
the educational and research network backbone, CERNET (210.250.0.0/16 or
101.4.112.0/24) or another scientific network called CSTNET (159.226.0.0/16).
``COM'' indicates that the first hop in China was a commercial backbone, one
of: CNCGROUP (219.158.0.0/16), China Telecom/CHINANET (202.97.0.0/16), China
Mobile Communications Corporation (211.136.1.0/24 or 221.176.23.0/24), or the
China Telecom Next Carrying Network backbone (50.43.0.0/16). All other entry
points were thrown out because they were actually in Hong Kong or Pasadena, and
that usually indicated that the destination IP address was not in China or
non-Chinese routing hops had not been properly culled. ``Tor'' means that the
source port of the SYN/ACKs sent in the traceroute was the Tor port, and
``rand'' means that the source port was another port that the GFW does not
filter. Thus, ``Tor'' traceroutes should always stop before the destination
host if the filtering is effective on that route, and ``rand'' should reach the
destination unless there are other types of filtering in play, such as ICMP
filtering or firewalls not related to censorship. The elements in the table
are the number of times that a traceroute reached all the way to the
destination.
Surprisingly, the educational and research networks, in particular CERNET, do
not seem to be implementing this type of filtering at all. The ``Tor'' and
``rand'' columns are nearly identical for the ``EDU'' traceroutes. The ``COM''
traceroutes, however, show that commercial networks are clearly censoring Tor
by dropping SYN/ACKs. The ``rand'' traceroutes reached their destination
53,479 times, while the ``Tor'' traceroutes aimed at the same destinations only
reached the destination end host 429 times. Similar to the hybrid idle scan
results, these failures were all over the country and for any destination IP
address where at least one failure was observed, the number of failures ranged
from 1 to 48 (\emph{i.e.}, all 48 hours of measurements). The number of
failures in the most prominent destinations where the traceroute entered China
on a commercial background included one instance where 48 failures were
observed and two where 47 were observed. This means that sometimes the
failures are relatively persistent, confirming
Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:persistent}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{diagrams/hopcount}
\caption{The amount of hops (log scale) in China, our filtered traceroutes
could traverse. For example, a hop count of five means that a traceroute could
successfully reach the fifth router inside China.}
\label{fig:hopcount}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:hopcount} shows the amount of hops into China, filtered ``Tor''
port traceroutes traversed before stalling. For each measurement of each
hour of each day, we only add the data to Figure~\ref{fig:hopcount} if the
``rand'' traceroute reached the destination and the ``Tor'' traceroute did not.
In most cases, the filtered packets make it two hops into China, confirming
Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:coupleofhops}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{diagrams/diurnal_traceroute}
\caption{The amount of unfiltered traceroutes from our Tor relay to clients in
China over time. A diurnal pattern is visible.}
\label{fig:diurnal}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:diurnal} shows the number of failures for traceroutes that
entered China on the commercial network backbone, per hour. The diurnal
patterns apparent in the figure confirm Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:diurnal}. Note
that 02:00 UTC is 10:00 (or, 10:00 am) in Beijing.
\subsection{Spatial patterns}
Ensafi \emph{et al.}~\cite{Ensafi2014,extendedversion} found that a small
percentage of tests showed no signs of censorship. Their tests, like ours, were
taken between clients in China paired with Tor relays outside China. However,
their experimental methodology was designed to test if the failures in the
censorship observed by Winter and Lindskog~\cite{Winter2012} were also observed
outside of Beijing or not. Ensafi \emph{et al.} made no attempt to choose
clients or servers so that spatial patterns could be identified. Our
experiments were specifically designed to identify spatial and geographic
patterns in the GFW's failures.
\subsection{Temporal patterns}
Neither Ensafi \emph{et al.} nor Winter and Lindskog attempted to characterize
temporal patterns in the GFW's failures. This kind of characterization is
difficult because, for a general understanding of temporal patterns, spatial
patterns must be fully understood. Otherwise temporal patterns may be specific
to one location. Also, temporal patterns are difficult to extract from idle
scan measurements because of noise. This is why, in our experiments, we used
traceroutes from a Tor relay to analyze temporal patterns.
\subsection{Details of the filtering}
What kinds of packets are filtered? This is a key question, especially for
evasion technologies that seek to evade the GFW \emph{via} insertion and evasion in the
IP and TCP layers. Winter and Lindskog described detailed results about
what happens to SYN, SYN/ACK, ACK, and RST packets, but their results were
specific to one location in China: Beijing. Also, any of their experiments that
required observation on the server were only able to be carried out between
Beijing and one Tor relay in Sweden. Ensafi \emph{et al.} had more spatial
diversity in their experiments, but because of the nature of their hybrid idle
scan the only packets that can be tested are SYN/ACKs from server to client and
RSTs from client to server. SYN packets or any kind of stateful connection
cannot be tested with the hybrid idle scan. All of these limitations in
previous approaches is why our experiments include another---previously
unknown---idle scan that uses the SYN backlog to make more general inferences
with a wider spatial variety.
\subsection{Architecture of the GFW}
There are generally regarded to be three theories about how the GFW is
architected, posited in technical
papers~\cite{conceptdoppler,Xu2011,Clayton2006,Anonymous2014} or other
media~\cite{atlanticmonthly,wyoming}. One theory posits that the filtering
occurs at \emph{choke points} where oversea cables carrying international
Internet traffic enter the country. Another theory is that the majority of the
filtering occurs in \emph{three big Internet exchange points} in Beijing,
Shanghai, and Guangzhou~\cite{bsabouttunnels}, near where international traffic
enters the country but positioned more at central points in China's backbone
network. A third theory that has been discussed is the possibility that the
filtering occurs---or may increasingly occur as the GFW evolves---at the
\emph{provincial level}~\cite{Xu2011}.
Our results about where the filtering of SYN/ACKs from Tor relays occurs are
largely congruent with Xu \emph{et al.}'s results about where RST injection
based on deep packet inspection occurs. In their results, CNCGROUP performed
most of its RST injection in the backbone, while CHINANET performed this type
of censorship at the provincial level. Since their study, CNCGROUP has bought
CHINANET, but the censorship at both the backbone and provincial levels, in
about the same proportions as reported by Xu \emph{et al.}, is also apparent in
our results. This means that the routers that perform port mirroring for deep
packet inspection are probably the same routers that enforce access controls
such as blocking Tor by source IP address and TCP port. It also means that
where the filtering occurs has not changed significantly since the study
performed by Xu \emph{et al.}.
In addition to providing more information about where the filtering occurs, our
work presented in this paper raises interesting questions about how the GFW is
architected, both in terms of implementations at routers and in terms of the big
picture. Winter and Lindskog observed that for Tor relays only the SYN/ACK
from the server is blocked, not the SYN from the client to the server. One of
our key results in this paper is that this observation also applies to China in
general for a lot of different geographic locations. This raises a question:
why block SYN/ACKs in the one direction, but not SYNs in the other?
One possible theory might be that the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) plays a key
role in the censorship by causing all international traffic to flow through the
routers that implement the censorship. Because the GFW operators are presumably
restricted to announcing BGP routes for autonomous systems (ASes) that are in
China, they can only control routing in the direction of traffic that is
entering China. Hence SYN/ACKs from Tor relays outside China to clients in
China are blocked almost all the time, while SYNs from clients in China to Tor
relays outside China are much less likely to be blocked.
Another theory is based on speculating about the way the GFW operators monitor
traffic to decide what to block. In a description of the GFW written in Chinese
by ``Xylon Pan''~\cite{gfwxylonpan}, it is speculated that this is done because
the server in an HTTP connection typically sends a lot more content to the
client than the client sends to the server. Thus Netflow aggregation in the
server-to-client direction works better, because there is more traffic to be
sampled. One theory put forward by Xylon Pan is that since the GFW's operators
think about network flows in the server-to-client direction, so they also write
access controls (such as the blocking of Tor by IP address and TCP port) for the
server-to-client direction.
The reason why this one-way blocking property (where SYN/ACKs entering China are
much more likely to be blocked than SYNs leaving China) exists is left for
future work. The major contribution of our present work in this regard is to
confirm that this property is a general property that is observed all over
China, not just in the one or two locations where previous
tests~\cite{Winter2012,gfwxylonpan} have been performed.
\subsection{Side channels in Linux's SYN backlog}
\label{sec:syn_backlog}
A performance optimization in the Linux kernel's SYN backlog can be used to
detect intentional packet dropping. Half-open TCP connections of network
applications are queued in the kernel's \emph{SYN backlog} whose size defaults
to 256. These half-open connections then turn into fully established TCP
connections once the server's SYN/ACK was acknowledged by the client. If a
proper response is not received for an entry in the SYN backlog, it will
retransmit the SYN/ACK several times. However, if the SYN/ACK and its
respective retransmissions are never acknowledged by the client, the half-open
connection is removed from the backlog. When under heavy load or under attack,
a server's backlog might fill faster than it can be processed. This causes
attempted TCP connections to not be fully handled while pending TCP connections
time out. The Linux kernel mitigates this problem by \emph{pruning} an
application's SYN backlog. If the backlog becomes more than half full, the
kernel begins to reduce the number of SYN/ACK retransmissions for all pending
connections~\cite{LinuxKernelBacklog}. As a result, half-open connections will
time out earlier which should bring the SYN backlog back into uncritical state.
We show that the Linux kernel's pruning mechanism---by design a \emph{shared
resource}---opens a side channel which can be used to measure intentional
packet drops targeting a server. This is possible without controlling said
server.
Our key insight is that we can remotely measure the approximate size of a
server's SYN backlog by sending SYN segments and counting the number of
corresponding SYN/ACK retransmissions. Starting with version number 2.2, the
Linux kernel retransmits unacknowledged SYN/ACK segments five
times~\cite{TCPManpage}. As a result, we expect to receive the full number of
five retransmissions when querying a service whose SYN backlog is less than
half full. If, on the other hand, the backlog becomes more than half full, we
will observe less than five retransmissions. When applied to the problem of
intentional packet dropping, this allows us to infer whether a firewall blocks
TCP connections by dropping the client's SYN or the server's SYN/ACK segment.
It is worth mentioning that a server's backlog state can also be inferred by
coercing it into using \emph{SYN cookies}~\cite{roya}. A server using SYN
cookies reveals that its SYN backlog is completely full. However, this
measurement technique is effectively a SYN flood and TCP connections which were
established using SYN cookies suffer from reduced throughput due to the lack of
flow control window scaling. In contrast to triggering SYN cookies, our technique has no
negative impact on servers or other clients' connections, when applied
carefully.
\subsection{The global IP identifier}
\label{sec:global}
IP identifiers (IPIDs) are unique numbers assigned to IP packets in case they
are fragmented along a path. The receiving party is able to reassemble the
fragmented packets by looking at their IPID field. Most modern TCP/IP stacks
increment the IPID field per connection or randomize it, as opposed to
\emph{globally incrementing} it. A machine with a globally incrementing IPID
keeps a global counter that is incremented by 1 for every packet the machine
sends, regardless of the destination IP address. Being a \emph{shared
resource}, the IPID can be used by a measurement machine talking to a remote
machine to estimate how many packets the remote machine has sent to other
machines. Throughout this paper, we refer to machines with globally
incrementing IPIDs as simply machines with ``global IPIDs.''
\subsection{Hybrid idle scan}
\label{sec:hybrid_scans}
\input{hybridIS}
\subsection{The Tor network}
The Tor network~\cite{Dingledine2004} is an overlay network which provides its
users with anonymity on the Internet. Tor clients expose a local SOCKS
interface which is used to anonymize TCP streams such as web traffic. As of
April 2014, the network consists of approximately 4,500 volunteer-run
\emph{relays}, nine \emph{directory authorities}, and one \emph{bridge
authority}. While the relays anonymize the network traffic of Tor clients, the
authorities' task is to keep track of all relays and to vote on and publish the
\emph{network consensus} which Tor clients need in order to bootstrap. It is
trivial for censors to download the hourly published network consensus and
block all IP address/TCP port pairs found in it. Other circumvention systems
suffer from the same problem~\cite{Nobori2014}.
All authorities are hard-coded in the Tor source code and their IP addresses
remain static. As a result, they constitute attractive choke points for
censors. In fact, blocking the IP addresses of all nine directory authorities
is sufficient to prevent direct connections to the Tor network.\footnote{Note
that the Tor Project designed and implemented so-called bridges to
tackle this very problem but the details are outside the scope of this work.}
Our study focuses on the reachability of the authorities and relays, as it is
known that the GFW is blocking them~\cite{Winter2012}. Our focus is on
gathering more details about this blocking and characterizing it with a
large-scale spatiotemporal study.
\subsection{Filtering of Tor in China}
Our results suggest that the filtering of Tor in China has several interesting
aspects, some of which may even be useful for circumvention efforts. We showed
that the failures in the filtering occur in every part of the country, and they
are sometimes \emph{intermittent} and sometimes \emph{persistent}. A
historical example of intermittent failures is illustrated in
Figure~\ref{fig:china_outages}. The diagram shows the amount of directly
connecting Tor users in China in the first seven months of 2013. A relatively
stable ``valley'' in between March an May is clearly visible. This valley is
surrounded by significantly higher usage numbers.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{diagrams/china_outages.pdf}
\caption{The amount of directly connecting Tor users over the first seven
months of 2013. The diagram shows several spikes and a ``valley'' in between
March and May.}
\label{fig:china_outages}
\end{figure}
We also showed that this type of filtering does not occur on CERNET, the
educational and research backbone of China's Internet. This might suggest that
CERNET users can reach the Tor network, or it might suggest that CERNET employs
a more sophisticated method for detecting and interfering with connections to
the Tor network, perhaps something stateful and based on deep packet
inspection.
Our results raise additional questions such as ``is it possible to run a Tor
relay in China?''. In general, the Tor network represents a complete graph.
As a result, every relay should be able to connect (and generally maintain
connections) to all other relays in the network. Furthermore, relays must be
able to connect to the directory authorities in order to upload their server
descriptors. If CERNET is indeed whitelisted, a Tor relay inside CERNET might
be able to successfully join the Tor network. In addition, previous research
suggested that domestic Tor traffic in China is not subject to
blocking~\cite{Winter2012}. If filtering indeed happens at the Internet
exchange point (IXP) level, as suggested by our data, it is not surprising that
the GFW is generally unable to filter domestic network traffic as it typically
does not reach IXP level\footnote{We ignore routing phenomena such as
``boomerang routing''.} and is of significantly higher volume than
international traffic. As a result, functioning Tor relays or bridges inside
CERNET might be able to connect users in China to the rest of the Tor network.
\subsection{The architecture of the GFW}
Our results also shed light on the architecture of the GFW, at least with
respect to the mechanism that blacklists IP address/TCP port pairs. As
discussed in Section~\ref{sec:background}, the three theories about how the GFW
is architected are that \emph{1)} the filtering occurs at choke points where
undersea cables enter the country, \emph{2)} the filtering occurs in the
backbone in large IXPs, and \emph{3)} the filtering occurs at a regional level.
While our results show some filtering occurring many hops into China and some
filtering occurring before packets can even enter China, the majority of the
filtering happens about two hops into China (presumably at the large IXP in
Beijing). Thus, Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:coupleofhops} is most consistent with the
theory that the filtering occurs in the backbone. Note that this observation is
in accordance with other recent research efforts which focused on the GFW's DNS
injection~\cite{Anonymous2014}. The small amount of routes that are filtered at
the provincial level, which were also observed by Xu \emph{et
al.}~\cite{Xu2011}, can be explained by the strategy
employed by China's formerly second-largest ISP, CNCGROUP, which was recently
bought by the largest (CHINANET).
While whitelisting would appear as persistent failures in the filtering and the
filtering apparatus getting overloaded with traffic would appear as intermittent
failures, the mix of intermittent failures and diurnal patterns with persistent
failures suggests that routing is a major reason why the filtering fails.
Hypotheses~\ref{hypo:persistent} and~\ref{hypo:diurnal} are most consistent with
the theory that the filtering occurs in the backbone, because provincial
networks in China are very hierarchical~\cite{10.1109/TPDS.2012.271} and
undersea cables are few in number~\cite{cablemap}.
Hypothesis~\ref{hypo:allover} is also most consistent with backbone-level
filtering for this reason.
\subsection{Ethical considerations}
\label{sec:ethics}
Our work has two ethical considerations that need to be discussed. First, our
SYN backlog scans briefly fill a Tor relay's backlog in order to be able to
observe packet drops. A full backlog can prevent a relay from accepting new
TCP connections or cause the use of SYN cookies which can lead to reduced
throughput. To prevent relays from using SYN cookies, we adapted our scan
parameters to minimize the risk of completely filling a relay's SYN backlog.
SYN cookies typically do not support scaled flow control windows, which is why
we made every effort to avoid them. In general, the rate at which we are
sending SYN packets, without intention of completing a connection, is not
enough to create a denial-of-service condition on any modern network stack.
For an interesting discussion about ethical issues related to port scans in
general, we refer the reader to Durumeric \emph{et al.}~\cite{zmap13}.
Second, our idle scans create unsolicited traffic between a client and a
server. This traffic---which can be observed by the censor---is only
SYN/ACKs from the server to the client and RSTs from the client to the server.
As a result, we are not causing any meaningful communication other than
background noise as it is also caused by port scanning activity. While one may
conceptualize the hybrid idle scan technique as providing the ability to
conscript a client into performing tests for us, in reality the traffic between
the server and the client is no different from if the server chose to send
SYN/ACKs to the client. Thus, in terms of the traffic that the censor sees,
the hybrid idle scan technique is no different from if Tor relay operators
performed simple connectivity measurements by directly sending SYN/ACKs.
\subsection{Encountered challenges}
\label{sec:challenges}
Over the course of running our experiments and analyzing our data, we faced a
number of challenges which we discuss here.
\textbf{Churn in the Tor network}: While the size of the Tor network does not
vary considerably over a short period of time, the network's \emph{churn rate}
can render longitudinal studies difficult. For example, the median size of
Tor's network consensus (\emph{i.e.}, the number of Tor relays in the network)
in March 2014 was 5,286. In total, however, March has seen 13,343 \emph{unique
relays}---many of which were online for only hours. To minimize the chance of
selecting unstable Tor relays for longitudinal studies, only relays having
earned the ``Stable'' flag should be considered~\cite{dirspec}. Furthermore,
the relay descriptor archives could be examined to calculate a relay's
reachability over time~\cite{deschist}. We selected only Tor relays that had an
uptime of at least five days, and filtered out all data points where a node
appeared to have left the network. After having run our experiments, we
removed one Tor relay in Argentina from our data because its Tor and web ports
switched during our experiments.
\textbf{Geolocation of routers}: For geolocating routers, we used MaxMind's
GeoIP2 City database~\cite{geoip2city}. As of April 2014, this database lacks
accurate geolocation information for backbone routers in China. While
provincial routers can typically be mapped to their province based on whois
records, backbone routers are all mapped to the same bogus location at latitude
35 and longitude 105 which resides in an unpopulated area in central China. We
also used MaxMind for geolocating clients, for which it is fairly accurate.
For the location of routers, we used a combination of \emph{whois information}
and \emph{round-trip delays} per hop. We discarded hops in our data that have
whois records from China but are actually in Hong Kong or Pasadena, CA (where
ChinaNet has a Point of Presence).
\textbf{Diurnal patterns}: For most measurements in this paper, we measured
once per hour throughout the day. This avoids bias and distortion. For
example, if we measured one set of clients in the morning and one set at night,
differences between the two sets of clients may be due to different traffic
patterns at the different times of day and not a property of the different set
of clients. Thus we always randomize the order of our experiments when possible
and repeat all measurements every hour for at least one full day.
\subsection{Experimental design and setup}
Over the course of our experiments, we made use of three sets of Linux-based
measurement machines in the U.S., China, and Europe. These three sets of
machines correspond to the three main datasets that we collected.
\textbf{Machines in the U.S.:} The three machines used for our hybrid idle scans
(see Section~\ref{sec:hybrid_scans}) and SYN backlog scans (see
Section~\ref{sec:syn_backlog}) were located
at our university campus (UC) at the University of New Mexico. All machines
had a direct link to a research network which is free from packet filtering and
does not conduct egress filtering to block spoofed return IP addresses.
Furthermore, the UC measurement machines have IP addresses that are not bound
to any interfaces in order to eliminate unsolicited network packets. For
example, a measurement machine's kernel should never send a RST when it
receives a SYN/ACK. The data set collected using the hybrid idle scan from
these machines is a large-scale geographic pairing of many clients (in China
and other countries) with many Tor relays and web servers around the world
(mostly outside China). It complements the other data sets discussed below
because it gives a complete cross-section of censorship between many clients
and many servers. This data will be used to test Hypotheses~\ref{hypo:allover}
({\it no geographical patterns in failures}) and~\ref{hypo:persistent} ({\it
some failures are persistent}).
\textbf{VPS in China:} We rented a virtual private system (VPS) in China. The
system was located in Beijing (AS 23028) and was used for our SYN backlog scans
discussed in Section~\ref{sec:syn_backlog}. Our VPS provider employed a
transparent and stateful TCP proxy in front of our VPS which silently dropped
unsolicited segments. We carefully implemented our SYN backlog scans so they
first established state whenever necessary to be unaffected by the TCP proxy.
These SYN backlog scans provide a dataset that speaks to our assumptions about
how China blocks Tor. It complements the hybrid idle scan data set because,
although the measurements are from a single client in China, it allows us see
exactly how that client experiences the censorship. This data will be used to
test Hypotheses~\ref{hypo:synrst} ({\it RSTs are treated the same as SYNs})
and~\ref{hypo:synack} ({\it server to client blocking}).
\textbf{Tor relay in Europe:} We used a long-established Tor relay
at Karlstad University in Sweden for our traceroute measurements discussed in
Section~\ref{sec:traceroutes}. The relay has been part of the Tor network for
several months, and using our VPS we manually verified it to be blocked in
China. This data set shows blocking between one Tor relay and many clients in
China. It complements the hybrid idle scan data set because access to the Tor
relay allows us to collect more details about the blocking. This data will be
used to test Hypotheses~\ref{hypo:persistent} ({\it some failures are
persistent}), \ref{hypo:diurnal} ({\it some failures have diurnal patterns}),
and~\ref{hypo:coupleofhops} ({\it blocking is in the backbone}).
We now present our probing infrastructure as well as our measurement methodology
used to investigate the theories posited in Section~\ref{sec:background}.
\subsubsection{Hybrid idle scans}\label{sec:exp_hybrid}
Recall that by using hybrid idle scans, we have more freedom in choosing clients
in different regions to test their reachability to different servers. Our goal
is to determine blocking of Tor relays (outside of China) from the perspective
of a large and geographically diverse set of clients (within China).
We are interested in knowing whether there exist different experiences of the
censorship of Tor for different users in different regions. Past work showed
that a small fraction of all Tor relays was accessible from a single vantage
point in Beijing~\cite{Winter2012}, but what about the rest of the country? Key
questions are: how does the GFW's architecture and China's routing affect
censorship in different regions?
\textbf{IP address selection}: We selected clients in China (CN), North America
(NA), and Europe (EU). In order to be able to select random IP addresses in
China without favoring specific locations---especially large cities featuring a
vast number of allocated IP addresses---we divided the map of China into $33 *
65$ cells corresponding to one degree of latitude and longitude. We filled this
grid with all IP addresses in MaxMind's database that were documented to be in
China. Then, we collected IP addresses by randomly selecting a cell from our
grid after checking that they employed global IPIDs. In an analogous manner,
clients from the EU and NA were chosen by horizontally scanning these regions.
After 24 hours, we gathered a pool of IP addresses that belonged to machines
with a global IPID. Then, we continually checked the selected IP addresses for
a 24-hour period to discard IP addresses that changed global IPID behavior, went
down, or were too noisy. At the end we had 11 NA, 7 EU, and 161 CN
clients to use for our measurements.
Servers were chosen from three groups: Tor relays, Tor directory authorities,
and web servers. Tor relays were downloaded from a Tor relay status
list~\cite{torstatus}. We only selected relays with an uptime greater
than five days. In order to select Tor relays in geographically diverse regions,
we selected 10 Tor relays from Europe, 13 from the United States, 20 from
Russia, and 101 from other countries. This way, our selected Tor relays were
not biased toward Europe or the U.S., which exhibit more relays per capita than
other regions. The 10 Tor authorities were obtained from the Tor source code.
Web servers were chosen randomly from Alexa's top 50 websites in
China~\cite{alexaCN}. All web server and Tor relay IP addresses were checked
hourly to make sure that they stayed up for at least 24 hours before being
selected for our measurement.
The geographic distribution of our Tor relays as well as all clients in China is
illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:CSmap}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{diagrams/clients_and_servers_map.jpg}
\caption{The geographic distribution of all tested Tor relays (shown as
onions) and of our global IPID clients in China (shown as red marks). Note that
outside of Xinjiang the west of China has very little Internet penetration,
which is why we have few data points in this region and the distribution is
biased towards the eastern parts of China.
(Map data {\copyright} 2014 Google, INEGI)}
\label{fig:CSmap}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Creating a complete bipartite graph}: We used three machines at UC (our
university campus) to run the hybrid idle scan experiments. We started the
experiments with 180 clients and 176 servers. Each day 20 clients and
approximately 20 servers were selected for each of the machines. For 22
hours\footnote{Two hours per day were reserved for server data
synchronization.}, every hour, we performed the hybrid idle scan for each
possible pair of client and server. Every ``scan round'' performs: \emph{1)}
two minutes of hybrid idle scans, \emph{2)} 30 seconds of sending RSTs to clear
the server's backlog, and \emph{3)} five seconds of testing the client to
assure that they remained online and kept their global IPID. Similar checks
are performed to ensure that servers remain online throughout each experiment.
At any given time, each IP address (client or server) was involved in only one
test. After 27 days, each client's reachability was tested to all servers,
\emph{i.e}, \emph{our clients and servers created a bipartite graph}. For more
details about the experiment design refer to Ensafi~\emph{et
al.}~\cite{Ensafi2014,extendedversion}.
\textbf{Pruning the data:} We used the selected IP addresses throughout our
experiments. Naturally, some of the hosts went down or were occasionally too
noisy. Also, the host behind an IP address can change, \emph{e.g.}, a client
with a global IPID might lose its DHCP lease and get replaced with a client
running a random IPID. To account for these issues, we perform tests
throughout our experiments which cull out data points
where basic assumptions are not met. For every server involved in the
experiment, we had two checks: liveliness and the stable Tor flag test. After
each scan, for five seconds we sent five SYN segments per second using UC's
unbound IP address. The data point passed the liveliness test only if it
retransmits three or more SYN/ACKs. Also, if the server was a Tor relay, we
verified that the relay was assigned the ``Stable'' flag (cf.
Section~\ref{sec:challenges}).
For every client, for five seconds, we sent five SYN/ACKs per second using UC's
unbound IP address. We expect the client to respond with RST segments totaling
in number to more than half the number of sent SYN/ACKs. If this is the case
then the data point passes the client's liveliness test. The results of a scan
were allowed into the data set only if both the client and server passed their
checks. Note that each data point is one client and one server tested one time
in a given hour. There was a several-hour network outage that caused a hole in
a portion of one day of our data.
After culling out data that did not meet our basic assumptions, we were left
with $36\%$ of the total data collected. This $36\%$ is the data described in
Section~\ref{sec:results} and used for our analysis.
\subsubsection{Backlog scans}
\label{sec:backlog_scans}
After having presented the underlying side channel in
Section~\ref{sec:syn_backlog}, we now discuss the implementation of our two
backlog scan types which can answer two questions, \emph{1)} ``Do SYN segments
from China reach a Tor relay?'' and \emph{2)} ``Do RST segments from China
reach a Tor relay?''. Basically, we answer both questions by first
transmitting crafted TCP segments to a relay, thus manipulating its SYN
backlog, and then querying its backlog size by counting the relay's SYN/ACK
retransmissions. The conceptual implementation of both scan types is
illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:backlog_scans}.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[SYN scan to infer whether SYN segments from VPS reach Tor. ``MM'' is
our measurement machine.]{
\includegraphics[scale=.55]{diagrams/syn_backlog_scan}
\label{fig:syn_backlog_scan}
}
\hspace{1in}
\subfigure[RST scan to infer whether RST segments from VPS reach Tor. ``MM''
is our measurement machine.]{
\includegraphics[scale=.55]{diagrams/rst_backlog_scan}
\label{fig:rst_backlog_scan}
}
\caption{The two types of backlog scans we employ. The purpose of these scans
is to verify if \emph{1)} SYN segments from China reach a Tor relay and if
\emph{2)} RST segments from China reach a Tor relay.}
\label{fig:backlog_scans}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{SYN scan}: The SYN scan---depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:syn_backlog_scan}---is started by MM by sending five SYN segments
to Tor in order to infer the relay's backlog size when under
stress.\footnote{We transmit five SYN segments rather than just one to account
for packet loss.} After a delay of approximately 500 ms, VPS proceeds by
sending 145 SYN segments whose purpose is to fill the relay's backlog by more
than half. Recall that the backlog size defaults to 256, so we only fill the
backlog to 59\%. That way, we can make the Tor relay's kernel prune MM's SYN
segments, thus reducing their retransmissions. Finally, MM knows that VPS's
SYNs reached the relay if the number of SYN/ACK retransmissions for its five SYNs
is lower than five. Otherwise, VPS's SYNs did not reach the relay. This type
of inference is necessary because, most of the time, China's GFW drops SYN/ACKs
from known Tor relays.
\textbf{RST scan}: Our RST scan incorporates an additional step but is based on
the same principle. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:rst_backlog_scan}, MM
starts by sending 10 SYN segments whose purpose is, analogous to the SYN scan,
to monitor the relay's backlog size. Afterwards, MM proceeds by sending 145
spoofed SYN segments with VPS's source address. Note that we cannot send the
SYN segments from VPS as they might be blocked. By sending spoofed SYN
segments from an unfiltered network link, we can ensure that the segments reach
the Tor relay. Upon receiving the SYN segment burst, the relay replies with
SYN/ACK segments which we expect to be dropped by the GFW. In the final step,
VPS sends a burst of RST segments to the Tor relay. The RST segments are
crafted so that every RST segment corresponds to one of the relay's
SYN/ACK segments. The purpose of the RST burst is to terminate all half-open
connections, thus clearing the relay's backlog. Based on how many
retransmissions we observe for the 10 ``probing SYNs'', we can infer whether
the RST segments were dropped by the GFW or not. Receiving five retransmissions
means that the backlog was not cleared and the RST segments were dropped.
Receiving less than five retransmissions means that the backlog was successfully
cleared and the RST segments were not dropped by the GFW. This kind of
inference is necessary because machines outside China cannot measure directly
what happens to RST packets sent from China, and machines inside China are very
limited in their ability to infer what is happening on blocked IP address/TCP
port pairs.
\textbf{Implementation:} We implemented our scans using a collection of bash
scripts and a patched version of the tool hping3~\cite{hping}. Accurate timing
was crucial for our experiments. To keep the clock of our machines
synchronized, we used the tool ntp which implements the network time protocol.
Recall that the SYN backlog behavior we are exploiting is limited to Linux
kernels (cf. Section~\ref{sec:syn_backlog}). As a result, our scans targeted
the subset of 94 out of our 144 Tor relays which are known to run Linux. Tor
relays periodically publish their server descriptors---which includes their
operating system---to all directory authorities so there is no need for us to
guess the operating system of Tor relays.
\textbf{Pruning the data:} By pruning the backlog scan data, we aim to make
sure that the relay runs an unmodified Linux TCP/IP stack. After scanning a
relay, we send three ``baseline SYNs'' to it in order to query its original
amount of SYN/ACK retransmissions. First, we discard scans in which the relay
never sent five SYN/ACK retransmissions, Linux's default value since version
2.2. For example, we found embedded Linux relays which always retransmit
SYN/ACK segments four times, regardless of their backlog size. Second, we also
discard scans whose SYN/ACK retransmissions do not exhibit Linux's exponential
backoff behavior. Third and finally, we discard scans where the relay was
offline or other networking problems occurred. These three pruning steps
discarded 774 out of all 2,094 scans (37\%).
\subsubsection{Traceroutes into China}
\label{sec:traceroutes}
We want to learn if there are \emph{unfiltered routes} leading into China. To
investigate this question, we used our Tor relay
in Europe to run
traceroutes to numerous destinations in China. After a country-wide scan, we
obtained a list of 3,934 IP addresses in China that responded to SYN/ACKs and
were distributed geographically in a diverse way, which served as our traceroute
destinations. For every IP address, we ran two TCP traceroutes; one whose TCP
source port was equal to the filtered Tor port 9001 and one whose TCP port was
set to the unused and unfiltered port 9002. The traceroutes had both their SYN
and ACK bit set. We used a slightly modified version of the tool
hping3~\cite{hping} to run the traceroutes as it allowed us to send TCP segments
with a source port which is bound by the Tor process.\footnote{We modified the
tool to constantly increase the TTL of outgoing TCP segments. The default
behavior is to wait for every hop to reply with a ``TTL exceeded'' ICMP
message.} Starting on 4 May 2014, we ran the traceroutes on an hourly basis
for two days, resulting in a total of $3,934 \cdot 24 \cdot 2 \cdot 2 = 377,664$
traceroutes. We determined where the traceroutes entered China using whois and
round-trip time information. We culled out a small amount of data that did not
enter China through a known backbone network, since all such data either
appeared to enter China in Pasadena, California (a case we can handle but will
require deeper analysis into whois records) or was destined for clients that we
determined to actually be in Hong Kong.
\subsection{Good Internet citizenship}
We took several steps to devise our scans to be minimally invasive. First, we
set up a web server on our measurement machines whose index page informed
visitors about our experiments. The page contained our contact information to
provide alarmed network operators with an opportunity to contact us and opt out
of our measurements. Furthermore, we carefully designed our measurements so
that it is very unlikely that they harmed any computers or networks.
Throughout the lifetime of our experiments, we did not receive any complaints.
We discuss ethical aspects of our measurements in Section~\ref{sec:ethics}.
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
\input{introduction}
\section{Motivation and GFW Background} \label{sec:backgroundgfw}
\input{background-gfw}
\section{Networking Background} \label{sec:background}
\input{background}
\section{Experimental Methodology} \label{sec:experimental}
\input{experimental_methodology}
\section{Analysis and Results}\label{sec:results}
\input{analysis_and_results}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
\input{discussion}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:relatedwork}
\input{related_work}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
\input{conclusion}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Kasra Manavi for his valuable feedback. This material is based upon work supported
by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. \#0844880, \#1017602,
\#0905177, and \#1314297. The author from Karlstad University was supported by
a research grant from Internetfonden.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\subsection{Network inference techniques}
There has been a fair amount of work on utilizing side channels in TCP/IP
network stacks. Antirez's seminal IPID idle scan from
1998~\cite{nmapbook,antirez} and other work on idle scans~\cite{roya} focus on
network security. Qian \emph{et al.}~\cite{Qian:2012:OTS:2310656.2310690} show
that some firewalls exhibit behavior that can be used to infer sequence numbers
and hijack connections. Chen \emph{et
al.}~\cite{Chen:2005:EIF:2150193.2150205} use the IPID field to perform
advanced inferences, such as the amount of internal traffic generated by a
server, the number of servers in a load-balanced setting, and one-way delays.
Morbitzer~\cite{morbitzerthesis} explores idle scans in IPv6.
Queen~\cite{Wang:2009:QEP:1532940.1532949} utilizes recursive DNS queries to
estimate the packet loss between a pair of arbitrary hosts by measuring the
packet loss between their respective DNS servers. Reverse
traceroute~\cite{Katz-Bassett:2010:RT:1855711.1855726} is an interesting
application of indirect methods for Internet measurement.
Passively identifying hosts that have no routable IP address and are hidden by
network address translation~\cite{natted,devfingerprint} is a related problem to
inferring connectivity of hosts.
iPlane~\cite{Madhyastha:2006:IIP:1298455.1298490} sends packets from PlanetLab
nodes to carefully chosen hosts, and then compounds loss on specific routes to
estimate the packet loss between arbitrary endpoints. The view of the network
is fundamentally limited to the perspective of the measurement machine, however.
Queen~\cite{Wang:2009:QEP:1532940.1532949} utilizes recursive DNS queries to
measure the packet loss between a pair of DNS servers, and extrapolates from
this to estimate the packet loss rate between arbitrary hosts.
To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first use of idle scan inference
techniques for a large-scale Internet measurement study where the data
collected gives a view of the network from the perspective of a very large
number of clients distributed over a large country. Platforms such as
DIMES~\cite{dimesmap}, M-Lab~\cite{mlabmap}, PlanetLab~\cite{planetlabmap}, and
RIPE Atlas~\cite{RIPEmap,Anderson2014} have traditionally been the only way to
measure from the perspective of a large number of clients, but they can be very
limited, especially in non-Western regions of the Internet such as China. Our
work overcomes a fundamental limitation of Internet measurement: that
measurements traditionally have only been possible from the perspective of the
measurement machines controlled directly by researchers.
\subsection{The Great Firewall of China}
The Great Firewall of China was first described in an article in 2600
magazine~\cite{gfw2600}. In 2006, Clayton, Murdoch, and Watson investigated the
firewall's keyword filtering mechanism and demonstrated that it can by
circumvented by simply ignoring the firewall's injected RST
segments~\cite{Clayton2006}. Clayton \emph{et al.}'s study was limited to how
the filtering works. \emph{What} it filters was covered by Crandall \emph{et
al.} in 2007~\cite{conceptdoppler}, along with more details about routing.
Using latent semantic analysis, the authors bootstrapped a set of 122 keywords
which were used to probe the firewall over time. The study also shows that
filtering is probably not happening at the border of China's Internet. Xu, Mao,
and Halderman made an effort to pinpoint where exactly the filtering is
happening~\cite{Xu2011}. The authors came to the conclusion that most filtering
is happening in border ASes but some filtering is also happening in provincial
networks. Park and Crandall revisited the GFW's keyword filtering mechanism and
discussed why the filtering of HTML responses was discontinued in late
2008~\cite{Park2010}.
In addition to topology and HTTP filtering, another direction of research
focused on how the GFW operates on the TCP/IP layer. In 2006, Clayton \emph{et
al.} already showed that the GFW is terminating suspicious HTTP requests using
injected RST segments. Weaver, Sommer, and Paxson showed that it is possible to
not only distinguish genuine from injected RST segments but also to fingerprint
networking devices injecting the segments~\cite{Weaver2009}. More recently in
2013, Khattak \emph{et al.} probed the GFW in order to find evasion
opportunities on the TCP/IP layer~\cite{Khattak2013}. Resorting to techniques
first discussed by Ptacek and Newsham in 1998~\cite{ptaceknewsham}, the authors
showed that there are numerous evasion opportunities when crafting TCP and IP
packets. Similarly, Winter and Lindskog showed in 2012 that packet
fragmentation used to be sufficient to evade the GFW's deep packet
inspection~\cite{Winter2012}.
In addition to the design and topology of the GFW, some work focused on how the
GFW blocks application protocols other than HTTP. In 2007, Lowe, Winters, and
Marcus showed that the GFW is also conducting DNS poisoning~\cite{Lowe2007}. A
more comprehensive study was conducted by anonymous authors in
2012~\cite{Anonymous2012} and 2014~\cite{Anonymous2014}. The authors sent DNS
queries to several million IP addresses in China, thereby demonstrating that
the GFW's DNS poisoning causes collateral damage, \emph{i.e.}, interferes with
communication outside China. A follow-up study was conducted in 2014---also by
anonymous authors~\cite{Anonymous2014}. The authors probed a large body of
domain names to determine how filtering changes over time. Furthermore, the
authors approximated the location of DNS injectors. Interestingly, their
results are similar to ours and they write that ``In most cases, the injecting
interface manifested at either 2 (18.3\%) or 3 (54.6\%) hops inside China''
(cf.~\ref{sec:traceroute_analysis}).
Most work discussed so far treated the
firewall as a monolithic entity. Wright showed in 2012 that there are regional
variations in DNS poisoning, thus suggesting that censorship should be
investigated on a more fine-grained level with attention to geographical
diversity in measurements~\cite{Wright2012}. In addition to DNS and HTTP, the
GFW is known to block the Tor anonymity network. Using a VPS in China, Winter
and Lindskog~\cite{Winter2012} investigated how the firewall's active probing
infrastructure is used to dynamically block Tor bridges.
In terms of Internet censorship measurements not aimed at the GFW, there is a
growing body of work but two works in particular are notable from an Internet
measurement perspective. Dainotti \emph{et
al.}~\cite{Dainotti:2011:ACI:2068816.2068818} analyze several Internet
disruption events that were censorship-related using various data sources from
both the control and data planes. Dalek \emph{et al.}~\cite{imc2013a} present a
method for identifying externally visible evidence of URL filtering.
The most notable difference to previous work is that our measurement techniques
do not require control over either machine which is part of censored
communication. While that enables large-scale distributed studies, it comes at
the cost of reduced flexibility.
\section{Introduction}
The \textit{proceedings} are the records of a conference.
ACM seeks to give these conference by-products a uniform,
high-quality appearance. To do this, ACM has some rigid
requirements for the format of the proceedings documents: there
is a specified format (balanced double columns), a specified
set of fonts (Arial or Helvetica and Times Roman) in
certain specified sizes (for instance, 9 point for body copy),
a specified live area (18 $\times$ 23.5 cm [7" $\times$ 9.25"]) centered on
the page, specified size of margins (2.54cm [1"] top and
bottom and 1.9cm [.75"] left and right; specified column width
(8.45cm [3.33"]) and gutter size (.083cm [.33"]).
The good news is, with only a handful of manual
settings\footnote{Two of these, the {\texttt{\char'134 numberofauthors}}
and {\texttt{\char'134 alignauthor}} commands, you have
already used; another, {\texttt{\char'134 balancecolumns}}, will
be used in your very last run of \LaTeX\ to ensure
balanced column heights on the last page.}, the \LaTeX\ document
class file handles all of this for you.
The remainder of this document is concerned with showing, in
the context of an ``actual'' document, the \LaTeX\ commands
specifically available for denoting the structure of a
proceedings paper, rather than with giving rigorous descriptions
or explanations of such commands.
\section{The {\secit Body} of The Paper}
Typically, the body of a paper is organized
into a hierarchical structure, with numbered or unnumbered
headings for sections, subsections, sub-subsections, and even
smaller sections. The command \texttt{{\char'134}section} that
precedes this paragraph is part of such a
hierarchy.\footnote{This is the second footnote. It
starts a series of three footnotes that add nothing
informational, but just give an idea of how footnotes work
and look. It is a wordy one, just so you see
how a longish one plays out.} \LaTeX\ handles the numbering
and placement of these headings for you, when you use
the appropriate heading commands around the titles
of the headings. If you want a sub-subsection or
smaller part to be unnumbered in your output, simply append an
asterisk to the command name. Examples of both
numbered and unnumbered headings will appear throughout the
balance of this sample document.
Because the entire article is contained in
the \textbf{document} environment, you can indicate the
start of a new paragraph with a blank line in your
input file; that is why this sentence forms a separate paragraph.
\subsection{Type Changes and {\subsecit Special} Characters}
We have already seen several typeface changes in this sample. You
can indicate italicized words or phrases in your text with
the command \texttt{{\char'134}textit}; emboldening with the
command \texttt{{\char'134}textbf}
and typewriter-style (for instance, for computer code) with
\texttt{{\char'134}texttt}. But remember, you do not
have to indicate typestyle changes when such changes are
part of the \textit{structural} elements of your
article; for instance, the heading of this subsection will
be in a sans serif\footnote{A third footnote, here.
Let's make this a rather short one to
see how it looks.} typeface, but that is handled by the
document class file. Take care with the use
of\footnote{A fourth, and last, footnote.}
the curly braces in typeface changes; they mark
the beginning and end of
the text that is to be in the different typeface.
You can use whatever symbols, accented characters, or
non-English characters you need anywhere in your document;
you can find a complete list of what is
available in the \textit{\LaTeX\
User's Guide}\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}.
\subsection{Math Equations}
You may want to display math equations in three distinct styles:
inline, numbered or non-numbered display. Each of
the three are discussed in the next sections.
\subsubsection{Inline (In-text) Equations}
A formula that appears in the running text is called an
inline or in-text formula. It is produced by the
\textbf{math} environment, which can be
invoked with the usual \texttt{{\char'134}begin. . .{\char'134}end}
construction or with the short form \texttt{\$. . .\$}. You
can use any of the symbols and structures,
from $\alpha$ to $\omega$, available in
\LaTeX\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}; this section will simply show a
few examples of in-text equations in context. Notice how
this equation: \begin{math}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0\end{math},
set here in in-line math style, looks slightly different when
set in display style. (See next section).
\subsubsection{Display Equations}
A numbered display equation -- one set off by vertical space
from the text and centered horizontally -- is produced
by the \textbf{equation} environment. An unnumbered display
equation is produced by the \textbf{displaymath} environment.
Again, in either environment, you can use any of the symbols
and structures available in \LaTeX; this section will just
give a couple of examples of display equations in context.
First, consider the equation, shown as an inline equation above:
\begin{equation}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0\end{equation}
Notice how it is formatted somewhat differently in
the \textbf{displaymath}
environment. Now, we'll enter an unnumbered equation:
\begin{displaymath}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} x + 1\end{displaymath}
and follow it with another numbered equation:
\begin{equation}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}x_i=\int_{0}^{\pi+2} f\end{equation}
just to demonstrate \LaTeX's able handling of numbering.
\subsection{Citations}
Citations to articles \cite{bowman:reasoning,
clark:pct, braams:babel, herlihy:methodology},
conference proceedings \cite{clark:pct} or
books \cite{salas:calculus, Lamport:LaTeX} listed
in the Bibliography section of your
article will occur throughout the text of your article.
You should use BibTeX to automatically produce this bibliography;
you simply need to insert one of several citation commands with
a key of the item cited in the proper location in
the \texttt{.tex} file \cite{Lamport:LaTeX}.
The key is a short reference you invent to uniquely
identify each work; in this sample document, the key is
the first author's surname and a
word from the title. This identifying key is included
with each item in the \texttt{.bib} file for your article.
The details of the construction of the \texttt{.bib} file
are beyond the scope of this sample document, but more
information can be found in the \textit{Author's Guide},
and exhaustive details in the \textit{\LaTeX\ User's
Guide}\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}.
This article shows only the plainest form
of the citation command, using \texttt{{\char'134}cite}.
This is what is stipulated in the SIGS style specifications.
No other citation format is endorsed or supported.
\subsection{Tables}
Because tables cannot be split across pages, the best
placement for them is typically the top of the page
nearest their initial cite. To
ensure this proper ``floating'' placement of tables, use the
environment \textbf{table} to enclose the table's contents and
the table caption. The contents of the table itself must go
in the \textbf{tabular} environment, to
be aligned properly in rows and columns, with the desired
horizontal and vertical rules. Again, detailed instructions
on \textbf{tabular} material
is found in the \textit{\LaTeX\ User's Guide}.
Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table 1 is included in the input file; compare the
placement of the table here with the table in the printed
dvi output of this document.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Frequency of Special Characters}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|} \hline
Non-English or Math&Frequency&Comments\\ \hline
\O & 1 in 1,000& For Swedish names\\ \hline
$\pi$ & 1 in 5& Common in math\\ \hline
\$ & 4 in 5 & Used in business\\ \hline
$\Psi^2_1$ & 1 in 40,000& Unexplained usage\\
\hline\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To set a wider table, which takes up the whole width of
the page's live area, use the environment
\textbf{table*} to enclose the table's contents and
the table caption. As with a single-column table, this wide
table will ``float" to a location deemed more desirable.
Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table 2 is included in the input file; again, it is
instructive to compare the placement of the
table here with the table in the printed dvi
output of this document.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Some Typical Commands}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|} \hline
Command&A Number&Comments\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}alignauthor} & 100& Author alignment\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}numberofauthors}& 200& Author enumeration\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}table}& 300 & For tables\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}table*}& 400& For wider tables\\ \hline\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Figures}
Like tables, figures cannot be split across pages; the
best placement for them
is typically the top or the bottom of the page nearest
their initial cite. To ensure this proper ``floating'' placement
of figures, use the environment
\textbf{figure} to enclose the figure and its caption.
This sample document contains examples of \textbf{.eps}
and \textbf{.ps} files to be displayable with \LaTeX. More
details on each of these is found in the \textit{Author's Guide}.
As was the case with tables, you may want a figure
that spans two columns. To do this, and still to
ensure proper ``floating'' placement of tables, use the environment
\textbf{figure*} to enclose the figure and its caption.
and don't forget to end the environment with
{figure*}, not {figure}!
Note that either {\textbf{.ps}} or {\textbf{.eps}} formats are
used; use
the \texttt{{\char'134}epsfig} or \texttt{{\char'134}psfig}
commands as appropriate for the different file types.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\caption{A sample black and white graphic (.ps format) that has
been resized with the \texttt{psfig} command.}
\vskip -6pt
\end{figure}
\subsection{Theorem-like Constructs}
Other common constructs that may occur in your article are
the forms for logical constructs like theorems, axioms,
corollaries and proofs. There are
two forms, one produced by the
command \texttt{{\char'134}newtheorem} and the
other by the command \texttt{{\char'134}newdef}; perhaps
the clearest and easiest way to distinguish them is
to compare the two in the output of this sample document:
This uses the \textbf{theorem} environment, created by
the\linebreak\texttt{{\char'134}newtheorem} command:
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Let $f$ be continuous on $[a,b]$. If $G$ is
an antiderivative for $f$ on $[a,b]$, then
\begin{displaymath}\int^b_af(t)dt = G(b) - G(a).\end{displaymath}
\end{theorem}
The other uses the \textbf{definition} environment, created
by the \texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command:
\newdef{definition}{Definition}
\begin{definition}
If $z$ is irrational, then by $e^z$ we mean the
unique number which has
logarithm $z$: \begin{displaymath}{\log e^z = z}\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
Two lists of constructs that use one of these
forms is given in the
\textit{Author's Guidelines}.
There is one other similar construct environment, which is
already set up
for you; i.e. you must \textit{not} use
a \texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command to
create it: the \textbf{proof} environment. Here
is a example of its use:
\begin{proof}
Suppose on the contrary there exists a real number $L$ such that
\begin{displaymath}
\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = L.
\end{displaymath}
Then
\begin{displaymath}
l=\lim_{x\rightarrow c} f(x)
= \lim_{x\rightarrow c}
\left[ g{x} \cdot \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} \right ]
= \lim_{x\rightarrow c} g(x) \cdot \lim_{x\rightarrow c}
\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = 0\cdot L = 0,
\end{displaymath}
which contradicts our assumption that $l\neq 0$.
\end{proof}
Complete rules about using these environments and using the
two different creation commands are in the
\textit{Author's Guide}; please consult it for more
detailed instructions. If you need to use another construct,
not listed therein, which you want to have the same
formatting as the Theorem
or the Definition\cite{salas:calculus} shown above,
use the \texttt{{\char'134}newtheorem} or the
\texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command,
respectively, to create it.
\subsection*{A {\secit Caveat} for the \TeX\ Expert}
Because you have just been given permission to
use the \texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command to create a
new form, you might think you can
use \TeX's \texttt{{\char'134}def} to create a
new command: \textit{Please refrain from doing this!}
Remember that your \LaTeX\ source code is primarily intended
to create camera-ready copy, but may be converted
to other forms -- e.g. HTML. If you inadvertently omit
some or all of the \texttt{{\char'134}def}s recompilation will
be, to say the least, problematic.
\section{Conclusions}
This paragraph will end the body of this sample document.
Remember that you might still have Acknowledgments or
Appendices; brief samples of these
follow. There is still the Bibliography to deal with; and
we will make a disclaimer about that here: with the exception
of the reference to the \LaTeX\ book, the citations in
this paper are to articles which have nothing to
do with the present subject and are used as
examples only.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This section is optional; it is a location for you
to acknowledge grants, funding, editing assistance and
what have you. In the present case, for example, the
authors would like to thank Gerald Murray of ACM for
his help in codifying this \textit{Author's Guide}
and the \textbf{.cls} and \textbf{.tex} files that it describes.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Introduction}
The \textit{proceedings} are the records of a conference.
ACM seeks to give these conference by-products a uniform,
high-quality appearance. To do this, ACM has some rigid
requirements for the format of the proceedings documents: there
is a specified format (balanced double columns), a specified
set of fonts (Arial or Helvetica and Times Roman) in
certain specified sizes (for instance, 9 point for body copy),
a specified live area (18 $\times$ 23.5 cm [7" $\times$ 9.25"]) centered on
the page, specified size of margins (1.9 cm [0.75"]) top, (2.54 cm [1"]) bottom
and (1.9 cm [.75"]) left and right; specified column width
(8.45 cm [3.33"]) and gutter size (.83 cm [.33"]).
The good news is, with only a handful of manual
settings\footnote{Two of these, the {\texttt{\char'134 numberofauthors}}
and {\texttt{\char'134 alignauthor}} commands, you have
already used; another, {\texttt{\char'134 balancecolumns}}, will
be used in your very last run of \LaTeX\ to ensure
balanced column heights on the last page.}, the \LaTeX\ document
class file handles all of this for you.
The remainder of this document is concerned with showing, in
the context of an ``actual'' document, the \LaTeX\ commands
specifically available for denoting the structure of a
proceedings paper, rather than with giving rigorous descriptions
or explanations of such commands.
\section{The {\secit Body} of The Paper}
Typically, the body of a paper is organized
into a hierarchical structure, with numbered or unnumbered
headings for sections, subsections, sub-subsections, and even
smaller sections. The command \texttt{{\char'134}section} that
precedes this paragraph is part of such a
hierarchy.\footnote{This is the second footnote. It
starts a series of three footnotes that add nothing
informational, but just give an idea of how footnotes work
and look. It is a wordy one, just so you see
how a longish one plays out.} \LaTeX\ handles the numbering
and placement of these headings for you, when you use
the appropriate heading commands around the titles
of the headings. If you want a sub-subsection or
smaller part to be unnumbered in your output, simply append an
asterisk to the command name. Examples of both
numbered and unnumbered headings will appear throughout the
balance of this sample document.
Because the entire article is contained in
the \textbf{document} environment, you can indicate the
start of a new paragraph with a blank line in your
input file; that is why this sentence forms a separate paragraph.
\subsection{Type Changes and {\subsecit Special} Characters}
We have already seen several typeface changes in this sample. You
can indicate italicized words or phrases in your text with
the command \texttt{{\char'134}textit}; emboldening with the
command \texttt{{\char'134}textbf}
and typewriter-style (for instance, for computer code) with
\texttt{{\char'134}texttt}. But remember, you do not
have to indicate typestyle changes when such changes are
part of the \textit{structural} elements of your
article; for instance, the heading of this subsection will
be in a sans serif\footnote{A third footnote, here.
Let's make this a rather short one to
see how it looks.} typeface, but that is handled by the
document class file. Take care with the use
of\footnote{A fourth, and last, footnote.}
the curly braces in typeface changes; they mark
the beginning and end of
the text that is to be in the different typeface.
You can use whatever symbols, accented characters, or
non-English characters you need anywhere in your document;
you can find a complete list of what is
available in the \textit{\LaTeX\
User's Guide}\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}.
\subsection{Math Equations}
You may want to display math equations in three distinct styles:
inline, numbered or non-numbered display. Each of
the three are discussed in the next sections.
\subsubsection{Inline (In-text) Equations}
A formula that appears in the running text is called an
inline or in-text formula. It is produced by the
\textbf{math} environment, which can be
invoked with the usual \texttt{{\char'134}begin. . .{\char'134}end}
construction or with the short form \texttt{\$. . .\$}. You
can use any of the symbols and structures,
from $\alpha$ to $\omega$, available in
\LaTeX\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}; this section will simply show a
few examples of in-text equations in context. Notice how
this equation: \begin{math}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0\end{math},
set here in in-line math style, looks slightly different when
set in display style. (See next section).
\subsubsection{Display Equations}
A numbered display equation -- one set off by vertical space
from the text and centered horizontally -- is produced
by the \textbf{equation} environment. An unnumbered display
equation is produced by the \textbf{displaymath} environment.
Again, in either environment, you can use any of the symbols
and structures available in \LaTeX; this section will just
give a couple of examples of display equations in context.
First, consider the equation, shown as an inline equation above:
\begin{equation}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x=0\end{equation}
Notice how it is formatted somewhat differently in
the \textbf{displaymath}
environment. Now, we'll enter an unnumbered equation:
\begin{displaymath}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} x + 1\end{displaymath}
and follow it with another numbered equation:
\begin{equation}\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}x_i=\int_{0}^{\pi+2} f\end{equation}
just to demonstrate \LaTeX's able handling of numbering.
\subsection{Citations}
Citations to articles \cite{bowman:reasoning,
clark:pct, braams:babel, herlihy:methodology},
conference proceedings \cite{clark:pct} or
books \cite{salas:calculus, Lamport:LaTeX} listed
in the Bibliography section of your
article will occur throughout the text of your article.
You should use BibTeX to automatically produce this bibliography;
you simply need to insert one of several citation commands with
a key of the item cited in the proper location in
the \texttt{.tex} file \cite{Lamport:LaTeX}.
The key is a short reference you invent to uniquely
identify each work; in this sample document, the key is
the first author's surname and a
word from the title. This identifying key is included
with each item in the \texttt{.bib} file for your article.
The details of the construction of the \texttt{.bib} file
are beyond the scope of this sample document, but more
information can be found in the \textit{Author's Guide},
and exhaustive details in the \textit{\LaTeX\ User's
Guide}\cite{Lamport:LaTeX}.
This article shows only the plainest form
of the citation command, using \texttt{{\char'134}cite}.
This is what is stipulated in the SIGS style specifications.
No other citation format is endorsed or supported.
\subsection{Tables}
Because tables cannot be split across pages, the best
placement for them is typically the top of the page
nearest their initial cite. To
ensure this proper ``floating'' placement of tables, use the
environment \textbf{table} to enclose the table's contents and
the table caption. The contents of the table itself must go
in the \textbf{tabular} environment, to
be aligned properly in rows and columns, with the desired
horizontal and vertical rules. Again, detailed instructions
on \textbf{tabular} material
is found in the \textit{\LaTeX\ User's Guide}.
Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table 1 is included in the input file; compare the
placement of the table here with the table in the printed
dvi output of this document.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Frequency of Special Characters}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|} \hline
Non-English or Math&Frequency&Comments\\ \hline
\O & 1 in 1,000& For Swedish names\\ \hline
$\pi$ & 1 in 5& Common in math\\ \hline
\$ & 4 in 5 & Used in business\\ \hline
$\Psi^2_1$ & 1 in 40,000& Unexplained usage\\
\hline\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To set a wider table, which takes up the whole width of
the page's live area, use the environment
\textbf{table*} to enclose the table's contents and
the table caption. As with a single-column table, this wide
table will ``float" to a location deemed more desirable.
Immediately following this sentence is the point at which
Table 2 is included in the input file; again, it is
instructive to compare the placement of the
table here with the table in the printed dvi
output of this document.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Some Typical Commands}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|} \hline
Command&A Number&Comments\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}alignauthor} & 100& Author alignment\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}numberofauthors}& 200& Author enumeration\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}table}& 300 & For tables\\ \hline
\texttt{{\char'134}table*}& 400& For wider tables\\ \hline\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Figures}
Like tables, figures cannot be split across pages; the
best placement for them
is typically the top or the bottom of the page nearest
their initial cite. To ensure this proper ``floating'' placement
of figures, use the environment
\textbf{figure} to enclose the figure and its caption.
This sample document contains examples of \textbf{.eps}
and \textbf{.ps} files to be displayable with \LaTeX. More
details on each of these is found in the \textit{Author's Guide}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=fly.eps}
\caption{A sample black and white graphic (.eps format).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\epsfig{file=fly.eps, height=1in, width=1in}
\caption{A sample black and white graphic (.eps format)
that has been resized with the \texttt{epsfig} command.}
\end{figure}
As was the case with tables, you may want a figure
that spans two columns. To do this, and still to
ensure proper ``floating'' placement of tables, use the environment
\textbf{figure*} to enclose the figure and its caption.
and don't forget to end the environment with
{figure*}, not {figure}!
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\epsfig{file=flies.eps}
\caption{A sample black and white graphic (.eps format)
that needs to span two columns of text.}
\end{figure*}
Note that either {\textbf{.ps}} or {\textbf{.eps}} formats are
used; use
the \texttt{{\char'134}epsfig} or \texttt{{\char'134}psfig}
commands as appropriate for the different file types.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\psfig{file=rosette.ps, height=1in, width=1in,}
\caption{A sample black and white graphic (.ps format) that has
been resized with the \texttt{psfig} command.}
\vskip -6pt
\end{figure}
\subsection{Theorem-like Constructs}
Other common constructs that may occur in your article are
the forms for logical constructs like theorems, axioms,
corollaries and proofs. There are
two forms, one produced by the
command \texttt{{\char'134}newtheorem} and the
other by the command \texttt{{\char'134}newdef}; perhaps
the clearest and easiest way to distinguish them is
to compare the two in the output of this sample document:
This uses the \textbf{theorem} environment, created by
the\linebreak\texttt{{\char'134}newtheorem} command:
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Let $f$ be continuous on $[a,b]$. If $G$ is
an antiderivative for $f$ on $[a,b]$, then
\begin{displaymath}\int^b_af(t)dt = G(b) - G(a).\end{displaymath}
\end{theorem}
The other uses the \textbf{definition} environment, created
by the \texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command:
\newdef{definition}{Definition}
\begin{definition}
If $z$ is irrational, then by $e^z$ we mean the
unique number which has
logarithm $z$: \begin{displaymath}{\log e^z = z}\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
Two lists of constructs that use one of these
forms is given in the
\textit{Author's Guidelines}.
There is one other similar construct environment, which is
already set up
for you; i.e. you must \textit{not} use
a \texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command to
create it: the \textbf{proof} environment. Here
is a example of its use:
\begin{proof}
Suppose on the contrary there exists a real number $L$ such that
\begin{displaymath}
\lim_{x\rightarrow\infty} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = L.
\end{displaymath}
Then
\begin{displaymath}
l=\lim_{x\rightarrow c} f(x)
= \lim_{x\rightarrow c}
\left[ g{x} \cdot \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} \right ]
= \lim_{x\rightarrow c} g(x) \cdot \lim_{x\rightarrow c}
\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = 0\cdot L = 0,
\end{displaymath}
which contradicts our assumption that $l\neq 0$.
\end{proof}
Complete rules about using these environments and using the
two different creation commands are in the
\textit{Author's Guide}; please consult it for more
detailed instructions. If you need to use another construct,
not listed therein, which you want to have the same
formatting as the Theorem
or the Definition\cite{salas:calculus} shown above,
use the \texttt{{\char'134}newtheorem} or the
\texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command,
respectively, to create it.
\subsection*{A {\secit Caveat} for the \TeX\ Expert}
Because you have just been given permission to
use the \texttt{{\char'134}newdef} command to create a
new form, you might think you can
use \TeX's \texttt{{\char'134}def} to create a
new command: \textit{Please refrain from doing this!}
Remember that your \LaTeX\ source code is primarily intended
to create camera-ready copy, but may be converted
to other forms -- e.g. HTML. If you inadvertently omit
some or all of the \texttt{{\char'134}def}s recompilation will
be, to say the least, problematic.
\section{Conclusions}
This paragraph will end the body of this sample document.
Remember that you might still have Acknowledgments or
Appendices; brief samples of these
follow. There is still the Bibliography to deal with; and
we will make a disclaimer about that here: with the exception
of the reference to the \LaTeX\ book, the citations in
this paper are to articles which have nothing to
do with the present subject and are used as
examples only.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This section is optional; it is a location for you
to acknowledge grants, funding, editing assistance and
what have you. In the present case, for example, the
authors would like to thank Gerald Murray of ACM for
his help in codifying this \textit{Author's Guide}
and the \textbf{.cls} and \textbf{.tex} files that it describes.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Models for disease propagation are the foundation of the study of spreading dynamics on complex networks~\cite{Barrat:2008,Albert:2012}. Two epidemic models of particular importance are the susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) and susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) models~\cite{Anderson:1992}. At each time step, an infected node can transmit a disease to each of its susceptible neighbors with probability $\lambda$. At the same time, the infected nodes become susceptible again in the SIS model or recover in the SIR model with probability $\mu$. In the SIS model, a critical value of the effective transmission rate $\lambda/\mu$ separates the absorbing phase with only healthy nodes from the active phase with a stationary density of infected nodes. Differently, no steady state is allowed in the SIR model, but a threshold still exists above which the final fraction of infected nodes is finite~\cite{Pastor-Satorras:2014}.
The traditional theoretical study on the epidemic threshold of the SIS model was based on the heterogeneous mean-field (HMF) theory, which means that all the nodes within a given degree are considered to be statistically equivalent ~\cite{Dorogovtsev:2008RMP,Pastor-Satorras:2001PRE}. According to the HMF theory, the epidemic threshold of SIS model is given by~\cite{Pastor-Satorras:2001PRL,Boguna:2002PRE}
\begin{equation}\label{SIS_HMF}
\lambda_c^{HMF}=\frac{\langle k \rangle}{\langle k^2 \rangle},
\end{equation}
where $\langle k \rangle$ and $\langle k^2 \rangle$ are the first and second moments of degree distribution $P(k)$~\cite{Newman:Networks}, respectively. On networks with power-law scaling $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$~\cite{Newman:Networks,Albert:2002RMP}, where $\gamma$ is the degree exponent, one obtains a vanishing threshold in the thermodynamic limit for $\gamma \leq 3$, while the threshold is finite for $\gamma > 3$~\cite{Newman:2004CP}. As the quenched structure of the network and dynamical correlations between the state of
adjacent nodes are neglected in the HMF theory~\cite{Givan:2011JTB},
researchers proposed an important improvement over the HMF theory--- quenched mean-field (QMF) theory. The QMF theory fully preserves the actual quenched structure of the network described as its adjacency matrix, and the epidemic threshold is predicted to be ~\cite{Chakrabarti:2008ACM,Van Mieghem:2009ACM,Gomez:2010epl}
\begin{equation}\label{QMF}
\lambda_c^{QMF}=\frac{1}{\Lambda_N},
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_N$ is the maximum eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix of a given network. Given the scaling of $\Lambda_N$ with the maximum degree, $\Lambda_N\sim\{\sqrt{k_{max}}, \langle k^2\rangle/\langle k\rangle\}$~\cite{Chung:2003PNAS}, the epidemic threshold predicted by the HMF theory is the same as that from the QMF theory when $\gamma < 5/2$, while for $\gamma > 5/2$ the QMF prediction vanishes in the thermodynamic limit~\cite{Castellano:2010PRL}. Moreover, for a network with large size $N$, the more accurate SIS epidemic threshold
\begin{equation}\label{secondorder}
\lambda_c^{(2)}=\lambda_c^{QMF}+o(\frac{\lambda_c^{QMF}}{N})
\end{equation}
is estimated by the second-order mean-field approximation~\cite{Cator:2012PRE}.
The earliest theoretical study on the SIR model is under
the assumption of homogeneous mixing, showing that the SIR epidemic threshold is inversely proportional to the average connectivity $\langle k \rangle$~\cite{Anderson:1992}.
At the HMF level~\cite{Barthelemy:2004PRL}, the epidemic threshold of SIR model takes the value
\begin{equation}\label{SIR_HMF}
\lambda_c=\frac{\langle k \rangle}{\langle k^2 \rangle - \langle k \rangle}.
\end{equation}
The result of Eq.~(\ref{SIR_HMF}) coincides with the critical point of bond percolation, as the SIR model can be mapped to the bond percolation model~\cite{Newman:2002PRE}. According to the QMF theory, the epidemic threshold of SIR model has the same expression as Eq.~(\ref{QMF})~\cite{Chakrabarti:2008ACM}. For random networks without degree-degree correlations, Eq.~(\ref{QMF}) boils down to Eq.~(\ref{SIR_HMF})~\cite{Li:2012PRE}.
As the existing theories have inherent defects (e.g., the HMF theory neglects the quenched structure of the network, dynamical correlations are ignored in QMF theory)~\cite{Gleeson:2011PRL}, some numerical methods have been proposed to check the accuracy of the different theoretical estimations. Three conventional methods are finite-size scaling analysis~\cite{Marro:1999}, susceptibility~\cite{Binder: MCS}, and lifetime~\cite{Boguna:2013PRL}. Generally, the finite-size scaling analysis allows the precise numerical determination of the critical point in absorbing-state phase transitions (e.g., contact process and Ising model), but it can not estimate the transition point accurately for networks with strong structural heterogeneity~\cite{Ferreira:2011PRE,Hong:2007PRL}. So far the susceptibility method and lifetime method are only applied to the SIS model~\cite{Boguna:2013PRL,Ferreira:2012PRE}. Different from the case of the SIS model, the outbreaks change from an infinitesimal fraction ($\lambda<\lambda_c$) to a finite fraction ($\lambda\geq\lambda_c$) in the SIR model~\cite{Castellano:2012Srp}.
The widely accepted method for estimating the SIR epidemic threshold should be the percolation theory~\cite{Newman:2002PRE}, according to which the outbreak size is finite above the critical point. However, the critical value of the finite outbreak size can not be measured quantitatively in numerical simulations. Although the HMF theory has been indicated to be more accurate for predicting the epidemic threshold of SIR model in configuration model~\cite{Castellano:2010PRL}, the systematic investigation of the accurate determination of the SIR epidemic threshold is still lacking.
In this work, we perform a lot of numerical simulations of the SIR model on networks with finite size, and present a simulated method by analyzing the peak of the epidemic variability~\cite{crepey:2006PRE,Shu:2012} to determine the epidemic threshold. The accuracy of this method is checked by applying it on random regular networks (RRN), where the HMF is exact. The method is also employed to study the cases of scale-free networks and real networks.
We organize this paper as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Numerical}, we describe the epidemic dynamics and present simulated method for determining epidemic threshold. In Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis}, we investigate some critical properties of the SIS and SIR dynamics, and discuss the validity of the simulated methods. The simulated thresholds of the SIR model on scale-free (SF) networks and real networks are discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:applica}. Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion} gives conclusions.
\section{An effective simulated identification measure} \label{sec:Numerical}
In simulations, we consider the SIS and SIR models for epidemics in discrete time. At the beginning, half of nodes are randomly
chosen as seeds in the SIS model. As the number of initial infected nodes affects the final outbreak size, we assume that only one node
is infected at the initial time in the SIR model. The simulations are implemented by using synchronous updating scheme. At each time step, each susceptible node $i$ becomes infected with probability $1-(1-\lambda)^{n_i}$ if it contacts with one or more infected neighbors, where $n_i$ is the number
of its infected neighbors. At the same time, all infected nodes are cured and become again susceptible at rate $\mu$ in the SIS model,
while they recover (or die) at rate $\mu$ and the recovered nodes acquire permanent immunity in the SIR model. Time is incremented by $\Delta t=1$,
and the SIS or SIR process is iterated with synchronous updating~\cite{Vespignani:2001PRE,Moreno:2011EPJB}. The SIS process ends after a long time step, and the SIR process ends when
there are no more infected nodes. Without lack of generality, we set $\mu=1$.
For a RRN with constant degree $k$, the HMF predictions for the SIS and SIR models are accurate, namely $\lambda_c^{SIS}=1/k$ and $\lambda_c^{SIR}=1/(k-1)$~\cite{Dorogovtsev:2008RMP}, respectively. By comparing with the HMF predictions on RRNs, Figs.~\ref{fig:effctiveness} (a) and (b) check the accuracy of simulated threshold $\lambda_p^{\chi}$ from the \emph{susceptibility measure}
\begin{equation}\label{susceptibility}
\chi=N\frac{\langle \rho^2 \rangle - \langle \rho \rangle^2}{\langle \rho \rangle},
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ denotes the prevalence $\rho_I$ (i.e., the steady density
of infected nodes in the SIS model) or the outbreak size $\rho_R$ (i.e., the final density of recovered nodes in the SIR model). We find the SIS epidemic threshold determined by the susceptibility $\chi$ is very close to $\lambda_c^{SIS}=1/k$, but the simulated threshold of the SIR model is larger than $\lambda_c^{SIR}=1/(k-1)$. In other words, the susceptibility $\chi$ becomes invalid for estimating the epidemic threshold of the SIR model.
Here we employ the \emph{variability measure} $\Delta$~\cite{crepey:2006PRE,Shu:2012} to numerically determine the epidemic threshold:
\begin{equation}\label{variability}
\Delta=\frac{\sqrt{\langle \rho^2 \rangle - \langle \rho \rangle^2}}{\langle \rho \rangle},
\end{equation}
which can be explained as the standard deviation of the epidemic prevalence (or the outbreak size), and is a standard measure to determine critical point in equilibrium phase on magnetic system~\cite{Ferreira:2011PRE}. The insets of Figs.~\ref{fig:effctiveness} (a) and (b) show that the variability $\Delta$ reaches a maximum value, so we estimate the epidemic threshold from the position of the peak of the variability $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$. For the SIS model, we compare $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$ with the prediction from the HMF theory (i.e., $1/k$) and that from the pairwise approximation method (PA) (i.e., $1/(k-1)$)~\cite{Ferror:2014NJP} respectively [see Fig.~\ref{fig:effctiveness} (a)]. We find that the simulated threshold $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$ is consistent with the HMF prediction, which is almost the same as the $\lambda_p^{\chi}$. But for small $k$ it is smaller than the PA prediction which is more suitable for the SIS dynamics simulated by asynchronous updating~\cite{Ferreira:2012PRE}. With the increase of $k$, the gap between $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$ and PA prediction will decrease as $1/k \simeq 1/(k-1)$ for large $k$. Note that our synchronous updating scheme accounts for the difference between $\lambda_c^{SIS}=1/k$ in this work and $\lambda_c^{SIS}=1/(k-1)$ in Ref.~\cite{Ferreira:2012PRE}. For the SIR model, $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$ is always consistent with the HMF prediction $\lambda_c^{SIR}=1/(k-1)$. To make a further comparison with the susceptibility measure, we consider the relationship between the epidemic threshold and network size in Figs.~\ref{fig:effctiveness} (b) and (d). Once the degree $k$ is given, the simulated thresholds $\lambda_p^{\chi}$ and $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$ do not change with network size $N$, and $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$ is closer to $\lambda_c^{SIR}=1/(k-1)$. From the above, we know that the variability $\Delta$ performs well in both the SIS model and the SIR model, while the susceptibility $\chi$ only can work in the SIS model. Thus, a new problem has arisen: why the variability $\Delta$ performs well but the susceptibility $\chi$ goes awry for the SIR model?
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=0.8\linewidth}
\caption{(Color online) Comparison of theoretical thresholds with simulated thresholds on RRNs. The threshold $\lambda_c$ vs. degree $k$
for SIS (a) and SIR (b), where $N$ is set to $10^4$. The threshold $\lambda_c$ vs. network size $N$ for SIS (c) and SIR (d), where $k$ is set to $10$.
In each subfigure, ``squares", ``circles", ``triangleups" and ``triangledowns" denote $\lambda_p^{\chi}$,~$\lambda_p^{\Delta}$,~$1/(k-1)$ and $1/k$, respectively. Insets: Susceptibility $\chi$ and variability $\Delta$ as a function of $\lambda$. The results are averaged over $10^{4}$ independent realizations on a network.}
\label{fig:effctiveness}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Analysis of simulated identification measure near the critical point} \label{sec:analysis}
\subsection{Comparison of epidemic outbreak distribution in the SIS and SIR models}\label{subsec:distribution}
To deal with that problem illuminated in Sec.~\ref{sec:Numerical}, we investigate the distribution of the epidemic prevalence
$\rho_I$ (the outbreak size $\rho_R$) and its fluctuation $\zeta=\langle \rho^2 \rangle - \langle \rho \rangle^2$ in the SIS (SIR) model. Fig.~\ref{fig:pr} shows these results on
a RRN with $k=10$. We see that the distribution of the prevalence near the SIS epidemic threshold is very different from
the outbreak size distribution near the epidemic threshold of SIR model.
For the SIS model in Fig.~\ref{fig:pr} (a), we obtain the simulated threshold $\lambda_c =1/\langle k \rangle\simeq 0.1$. Below the threshold (i.e., $\lambda<\lambda_c$), a nonzero $\rho_I$ can hardly exist, since the disease will eventually die out. At the threshold (i.e., $\lambda=0.1$), although the prevalence is close to be an exponential distribution, the probability of $\rho_I=0$ is maximum,
which means the prevalence is still very small. Above the threshold (e.g., $\lambda$=0.105 and 0.11), the prevalence approximates a normal distribution, where the position of the peak value is determined by the average density of infected nodes $\langle\rho_I\rangle$. Fig.~\ref{fig:pr} (c) shows that the fluctuation of $\rho_I$ in SIS model is on the order of one-thousandth of the $\rho_R$ fluctuation in SIR model. When $\lambda < \lambda_c$, $\zeta$ is zero, and the corresponding susceptibility $\chi$ and variability $\Delta$ are zero. When $\lambda \geq \lambda_c$, $\zeta$ abruptly becomes a finite value and changes little with $\lambda$, while $\langle\rho_I\rangle$ increases with $\lambda$. As a result, the peaks of the susceptibility $\chi$ and the variability $\Delta$ appear at the same $\lambda\simeq\lambda_c$ [see the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig:effctiveness} (a)], which is consistent with the HMF prediction.
For the SIR model, the variability $\Delta$ determines the simulated threshold $\lambda_c = 1/(\langle k \rangle-1)\simeq0.11$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:pr} (b), the outbreak sizes follow approximately an exponential distribution at $\lambda=0.1$. Near the critical point $\lambda\simeq\lambda_c$, the outbreak sizes follow a power-law distribution $P(\rho_R)\sim \rho_R^\alpha$ with a cutoff at some value, where $\alpha\simeq-1.5$~\cite{Ben-Naim:2004PRE,Ben-Naim:2012EPJB,Kessler:2007PRE}. Since the disease may die out quickly or infect a subset of nodes when $\lambda>\lambda_c$, the distribution of outbreak sizes is bimodal~\cite{Zanette:2001PRE,Khalleque:2013JPA}, with two peaks occurring at $\rho_R=1/N$ and $\rho_R\simeq0.2$ at $\lambda=0.12$, respectively. Therefore, the fluctuation of the outbreak sizes increases monotonically with $\lambda$ above the critical point in Fig.~\ref{fig:pr} (c).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=0.8\linewidth}
\caption{(Color online) Critical distribution and fluctuations of epidemic outbreaks on a RRN.
(a) Simulated distribution of the prevalence $\rho_I$ in SIS model for $\lambda=0.10$
(circles), $\lambda=0.105$ (triangles), and $\lambda=0.11$ (squares).
(b) Simulated distribution of outbreak sizes $\rho_R$ in SIR model for $\lambda=0.10$ (circles),
$\lambda=0.11$ (triangles), and $\lambda=0.12$ (squares), where blue solid, red short
dash and black dot lines respectively represent the theoretical distributions given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:p4}). (c) Fluctuations of the
prevalence $1000(\langle \rho_I^2 \rangle - \langle \rho_I \rangle^2)$ (solid line) and the outbreak size
$\langle \rho_{R}^{2} \rangle - \langle \rho_{R} \rangle^2$ (dot line). The paraments are chosen as $N=10^4$
and $k=10$. The results are averaged over $10^{6}$ independent realizations on a network.
}
\label{fig:pr}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Moreover, the theoretical distribution of the small epidemic sizes (see Appendix) is in good agreement with the results obtained by numerical simulations in Fig.~\ref{fig:pr}~(b). The theoretical probability from Eq.~(\ref{eq:p4}) is consistent with the simulated results for relatively small outbreak size ($\rho_R<0.05$). Near the critical point, the theoretical results prove that the outbreak sizes indeed obey a power-law distribution with the exponent -1.5. When $\lambda>\lambda_c$, some large outbreak sizes constitute a lump in the simulated scattergram, but the probability of large outbreak sizes can not be solved from Eq.~(\ref{eq:p4}). We thus speculate
that the non-ignorable lump may be influential in simulated determination of SIR epidemic threshold.
\subsection{Effectiveness of simulated identification measure under cutoff hypothesis}\label{subsec:hypothesis}
To verify the rationality of the speculation, Fig.~\ref{fig:analysis} investigates the effectiveness of the
variability and susceptibility measures under some cutoff hypothesis. We set the cutoff value of the outbreak
size as $r_c$, which means the outbreak sizes larger than $r_c$ are excluded in Fig.~\ref{fig:pr} (b). Three kinds of $r_c$ are considered,
where $r_c=0.05$ corresponds to the maximum value of small outbreak size before the lump appears in the simulated distribution, $r_c=0.2$
means that the distribution consists of a part of the lump, and $r_c=0.4$ means that there is a complete lump in the
distribution. When calculating the susceptibility in Fig.~\ref{fig:analysis} (a), all possible outbreak sizes are considered for $\lambda \leq \lambda_c$, while only the outbreak size with $\rho_R \leq r_c$ is required at $\lambda > \lambda_c$. The susceptibility measure can indeed give a quite accurate estimate of the SIR epidemic threshold when the whole lump is ignored (i.e., $r_c=0.05$). With the increase of $r_c$, the peak position of the susceptibility $\chi$ gradually shifts to the right for large outbreak sizes are considered. This indicates that the susceptibility $\chi$ lose its effectiveness on determining the SIR epidemic threshold due to the existence of the lump.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=0.8\linewidth}
\caption{(Color online) Susceptibility $\chi$ and variability $\Delta$ with cutoff as a function of
$\lambda$ on a RRN. (a) $\chi$ vs. $\lambda$, where only the small
outbreak sizes with $\rho_R\leq r_c$ are considered when
$\lambda > \lambda_c$. (b) $\Delta$ vs.~$\lambda$, where the theoretical distribution of the lump is assumed
to be a Dirac delta function. ``triangles", ``circles" and ``diamonds" denote cutoff values $r_c$ = 0.05, 0.2 and 0.4,
respectively. The paraments are chosen as $N=10^4$ and $k=10$. The results are averaged over $10^{6}$ independent realizations on a network.
}
\label{fig:analysis}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We have found from simulations that the cutoff value $r_c$ does not affect the simulated threshold $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$ corresponding to the first peak of $\Delta$. Then, the effectiveness of the variability $\Delta$ is further checked in theory.
As the simulated distribution of the large outbreak
sizes is concentrated, we assume the probability distribution of the lump is a Dirac delta function in theory.
That is to say, there is a lump located at $r=r_c$ with $P(r_c)=1-\Sigma_{\rho_R<r_c} P(\rho_R)$ in the theoretical
probability distribution diagram of outbreak sizes. Then, we plot the variability measure as a function of
$\lambda$ for different values of $r_c$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:analysis}~(b). The variability $\Delta$ measures
the heterogeneity of the outbreak sizes distribution, which is strongest at the critical point~\cite{Ben-Naim:2004PRE,Ben-Naim:2012EPJB,Kessler:2007PRE}. Therefore, the peak position
of the variability measure does not change with the size of the lump, as shown in Fig~\ref{fig:analysis}(b).
From the above analysis, we can conclude that the variability $\Delta$ is effective in determining the
epidemic threshold of SIR model, while the bimodal distribution of outbreak sizes for $\lambda>\lambda_c$ leads to the
obvious difference between the HMF prediction and the simulated threshold from the susceptibility $\chi$.
\section{Applications of simulated identification method}
\label{sec:applica}
In this section, we discuss the accuracy of the theoretical estimations from the HMF theory and from the QMF theory on both scale-free and real networks, by comparing them with the simulated threshold from the variability $\Delta$.
\subsection{Comparison of SIR epidemic thresholds on scale-free networks} \label{subsec:SF}
\begin{figure*}[b]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=0.8\linewidth}
\caption{(Color online) Comparison of theoretical thresholds with simulated thresholds on SFNs. $\lambda_c$ vs.
$\gamma$ on SFNs with structural cutoff (a) and natural cutoff (b), where $N$ is set to $10^4$. $\lambda_c$ vs.
$N$ on SFNs with structural cutoff (c) and natural cutoff (d), where solid and empty symbols denote $\gamma=2.25$
and 3.50, respectively. ``squares", ``circles" and ``triangles" denote $\lambda_c^{QMF}$, $\lambda_c^{HMF}$
and $\lambda_p^{\Delta}$, respectively. The results are averaged over $10\times10^{4}$ independent realizations on different $10$ networks.}
\label{fig:SFN}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
We first build scale-free networks (SFNs) with degree distribution $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$ based on the
configuration model~\cite{Newman:Networks}. The so-called structural cutoff $k_{max}\sim N^{1/2}$ and natural
cutoff $k_{max}\sim N^{1/{\gamma-1}}$~\cite{Boguna:2004EPJB} are considered to constrain the maximum possible
degree $k_{max}$ on SFNs. We consider the SIR model on SFNs with structural cutoff in
Figs.~\ref{fig:SFN} (a) and (c), where the SIR epidemic threshold increases monotonically with the degree exponent
$\gamma$ and decreases linearly with the network size $N$~\cite{Binder: MCS}. When the structural cutoff
makes the degree-degree correlations vanish~\cite{Boguna:2004EPJB}, the HMF prediction $\lambda_c^{HMF}$
is much close to the simulated threshold $\lambda_p^\Delta$, while there is an obvious difference between the
QMF prediction $\lambda_c^{QMF}$ and $\lambda_p^\Delta$. According to Ref.~\cite{Lee:2013PRE},
the epidemic threshold is related to the largest degree $k_{max}$, whose variation with $N$ depends strongly
on $\gamma$. Thus, $\lambda_c$ drops rapidly for $\gamma=2.25$ and changes slowly with $N$ for $\gamma=3.5$
[see Fig.~\ref{fig:SFN} (c)].
The SFNs with natural cutoff are considered in Figs.~\ref{fig:SFN}
(b) and (d), where the variations of epidemic threshold with $\gamma$ and $N$ are similar to the result on SFNs
with structural cutoff. The HMF prediction performs an accurate prediction but there is a gap between the QMF prediction and the
simulated threshold when $\gamma>3$. Since the disassortative degree-degree correlations exist when $\gamma<3$,
there is a slight difference between $\lambda_c^{HMF}$ and $\lambda_p^\Delta$. Specially, Fig.~\ref{fig:SFN}
(d) shows a more clear distinction between $\lambda_c^{HMF}$ and $\lambda_p^\Delta$ for SFNs with natural
cutoff when $\gamma=2.25$, while the QMF prediction is very close to the simulated threshold for the
principle eigenvector is delocalized when $2<\gamma\leq5/2$~\cite{Goltsev:2012PRL}. It can be seen from the above analysis,
the prediction of the HMF theory seems to be much more accurate than the QMF prediction in most cases on SFNs~\cite{Castellano:2010PRL}.
\subsection{Comparison of epidemic thresholds on real networks} \label{subsec:real}
To further check the performances of the susceptibility $\chi$ and variability $\Delta$, Fig.~\ref{fig:real}
depicts $\chi$ and $\Delta$ as a function of $\lambda$ on Hamsterster full (containing friendships and family links between users of
the website hamsterster.com) and Facebook (NIPS) (containing Facebook user-user friendships) networks.
The simulated results intuitively show that the variability $\Delta$ always reaches a maximum value near the critical
point of $\rho$ (i.e., $\lambda_c$) for both SIS and SIR models. However, the peak of the susceptibility $\chi$
appears at a larger $\lambda$ in the SIR model, which is similar to the results in Sec.~\ref{sec:Numerical}.
The theoretical predictions of the HMF theory and of the QMF theory are quite close to the simulated threshold
determined by $\Delta$ on Hamsterster full network, which is assortative, but they become poor on Facebook (NIPS)
network, which is disassortative.
More detailed comparisons between the simulated and theoretical thresholds on real networks are presented in
Table~\ref{table}. For the SIR model, the simulated thresholds determined by the susceptibility [i.e.,
$\lambda_p^\chi(SIR)$] are greater than that obtained by the variability measure [i.e., $\lambda_p^\Delta(SIR)$].
Although the HMF prediction and the simulated threshold $\lambda_p^\Delta(SIR)$ are nearly the same for
assortative networks, there is an obvious difference between them for the networks showing significant
disassortative mixing. The QMF prediction is relatively worse than the HMF prediction for assortative networks,
but the former is close to $\lambda_p^\Delta(SIR)$ for some disassortative networks (e.g., Router views, CAIDI,
and email contacts). The two simulated thresholds of the SIS model, i.e., $\lambda_p^\chi(SIS)$ and
$\lambda_p^\Delta(SIS)$, are nearly the same for most of the real networks. For most of the assortative networks, the HMF prediction for the SIS model is very close to the simulated threshold. By calculating the inverse participation ratio IPR$(\Lambda)$
of real networks~\cite{Goltsev:2012PRL}, we see that, the QMF prediction agrees well with the simulated thresholds
of the SIS model when IPR$(\Lambda)\rightarrow0$ [i.e., the principal eigenvector of the adjacency matrix of a network $f(\Lambda)$ is
delocalized], but becomes poor when IPR$ (\Lambda)$ is large [i.e., the eigenvector $f(\Lambda)$ is localized].
This result agrees with the conclusion of Ref.~\cite{Goltsev:2012PRL} to a certain extent.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=fig5.eps,width=0.75\linewidth}
\caption{(Color online) Susceptibility $\chi$ and variability $\Delta$ as a function of $\lambda$ on real networks.
$\chi$, $\Delta$ and $\rho$ vs. $\lambda$ for SIR (a) and SIS (b) on Hamsterster full network.
$\chi$, $\Delta$ and $\rho$ vs. $\lambda$ for SIR (c) and SIS (d) on Facebook (NIPS) network. ``squares", ``circles"
and ``triangles" denote $\chi$, $\Delta$ and $\rho$, respectively. ``green star'' denotes
$\lambda_c^{QMF}=1/\Lambda_N$, ``yellow diamond'' denotes $\lambda_c^{HMF}=\langle k \rangle/[\langle k^2 \rangle-\langle k \rangle]$ in (a) and
(c), and $\lambda_c^{HMF}=\langle k \rangle/\langle k^2 \rangle$ in (b) and (d).
The susceptibility $\chi$ and variability $\Delta$ are normalized with $\chi_{max}$ and $\Delta_{max}$, respectively. The results are averaged over $10^{4}$ independent realizations on each network.}
\label{fig:real}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[h]
\caption{Topology characteristics and epidemic thresholds of real networks. $N$ is the network size, $k_{max}$ is the maximum degree, $r$ is the degree correlations, $\lambda_c^{HMF}$(SIS) is the HMF result for SIS model, $\lambda_c^{HMF}$(SIR) is the HMF result for SIR model, and $\Lambda_N$ is the largest eigenvalue of adjacent matrix.
}\label{table}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
Network & $N$ & $k_{max}$ & $r$ & $\lambda_c^{HMF}$(SIS) & $\lambda_c^{HMF}$(SIR) & $\lambda_c^{QMF}$ & $\lambda_p^\Delta$(SIR) & $\lambda_p^\chi$(SIR) & $\lambda_p^\Delta$(SIS) & $\lambda_p^\chi$(SIS) & IPR$(\Lambda_N)$ \\
\hline
Hamsterster full~\cite{Konect data} & 2000 & 273 & 0.023 & 0.023 & 0.023 & 0.020 & 0.023 & 0.108 & 0.025 & 0.025 & 0.009 \\
Brightkite~\cite{Brightkie} & 56739 & 1134 & 0.010 & 0.016 & 0.016 & 0.010 & 0.014 & 0.238 & 0.012 & 0.012 & 0.006 \\
arXiv astro-ph~\cite{astroph} & 17903 & 504 & 0.201 & 0.015 & 0.015 & 0.011 & 0.012 & 0.09 & 0.012 & 0.012 & 0.004 \\
Pretty Good Privacy~\cite{Boguna:PRE2004} & 10680 & 206 & 0.239 & 0.053 & 0.056 & 0.024 & 0.053 & 0.477 & 0.033 & 0.033 & 0.017 \\
US power grid~\cite{Watts:Nature1998} & 4941 & 19 & 0.003 & 0.258 & 0.348 & 0.134 & 0.446 & 0.496 & 0.261 & 0.264 & 0.041 \\
Euroroad~\cite{Subelj:EPJB2011} & 1039 & 10 & 0.090 & 0.324 & 0.479 & 0.249 & 0.498 & 0.711 & 0.331 & 0.331 & 0.049 \\
Facebook(NIPS)~\cite{Konect data} & 2888 & 769 & -0.668 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.036 & 0.075 & 0.494 & 0.079 & 0.497 & 0.244 \\
Route views~\cite{Router} & 6474 & 1458 & -0.182 & 0.006 & 0.006 & 0.022 & 0.037 & 0.345 & 0.034 & 0.496 & 0.087 \\
CAIDA~\cite{Router} & 26475 & 2628 & -0.195 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.014 & 0.019 & 0.336 & 0.019 & 0.019 & 0.024 \\
email contacts~\cite{Kitsak:2010NatPhys} & 12625 & 576 & -0.387 & 0.009 & 0.009 & 0.02 & 0.027 & 0.404 & 0.024 & 0.025 & 0.013\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular} }
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusion}
In summary, we have studied the simulated identification of epidemic threshold on complex networks with finite
size. First, the accuracies of the susceptibility and variability measures are checked by applying them on RRNs,
in which the HMF is exact. We have shown that the variability $\Delta$ is valid for determining the
simulated thresholds of the SIS and SIR models, while the susceptibility $\chi$ gives a larger SIR epidemic threshold.
In order to get a deep understanding of the two estimation methods, we have analyzed the epidemic spreading near
the critical point $\lambda_c$. For the SIS model, the epidemic quickly dies out when $\lambda<\lambda_c$. When
$\lambda\simeq\lambda_c$, although the prevalence approximates an exponential distribution, the probability of
$\rho=0$ is still maximum. Above the threshold with $\lambda > \lambda_c$, the prevalence is distributed homogeneously.
For the SIR model, the outbreak sizes follow approximately an exponential distribution when $\lambda < \lambda_c$.
At the critical point, the outbreak sizes follow a power-law distribution with the exponent -1.5. When
$\lambda\rightarrow\lambda_c^+$, the simulated distribution of outbreak sizes is bimodal with two peaks
occurring at $\rho=1/N$ and $O$(1). The probability of small outbreak sizes in theory is consistent with
that obtained by numerical simulations, but the probability of large outbreak sizes that constitute a lump
in the simulated scattergram can not be obtained theoretically. Based on a reasonable cutoff hypothesis,
we find the susceptibility measure can give a quite accurate SIR epidemic threshold when the second lump is ignored. Since the
variability measure reflects the relative fluctuation of epidemic spreading, it is always effective in determining
the epidemic threshold, where the distribution of outbreak sizes has a very strong heterogeneity.
Moreover, the simulated thresholds of the SIR model are investigated on scale-free and real networks.
All results indicate that the epidemic threshold determined by the variability $\Delta$ is more accurate than that
from the susceptibility $\chi$. The HMF prediction is in general more accurate, but it becomes worse due to the
existence of disassortative mixing on SFNs with natural cutoff and $\gamma<5/2$. Similarly, the HMF
approximation is accurate for the SIR model on real networks with assortative mixing, while it becomes very poor
for disassortive networks. We further confirm that although the QMF predictions is not accurate enough on assortative
it is valid for some disassortive networks.
We here put forward an estimation method, whose effectiveness has been verified by analyzing the critical
distribution. This method can be applied to the precise determination of epidemic threshold on various networks, and
could be extended to other dynamic processes such as information diffusion and behavior spreading. Further work should
be done to check the effectiveness of this method on more complicated networks (e.g., temporal networks~\cite{Holme:PR2012} and
multilayer networks~\cite{multiple ntwork}), and the cases in asynchronous updating scheme also need to be investigated. Besides, the
accurate analytic approximation of the epidemic threshold for general networks remains an important problem. This
work helps to verify theoretical analysis of critical point and would promote further study on phase transition of
epidemic dynamics.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11105025, 91324002),
China Postdoctoral Science Special Foundation (Grant No. 2012T50711), the Program of Outstanding Ph. D. Candidate in Academic Research by UESTC
(Grand No. YXBSZC20131033) and Open Foundation of State key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology (Beijing University of Posts and
Telecommunications) (SKLNST-2013-1-18). Y. Do was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2013R1A1A2010067).
\section*{Appendix}
For the case of the SIR model and similar models with no steady-state, the static properties (e.g., the final outbreak size and the critical point) of the epidemic outbreak can be mapped into a suitable bond percolation problem. In this framework, the distribution of occupied cluster sizes is related to the distribution of outbreak sizes. To get the distribution of small outbreak size in the SIR model with a fixed value of $\lambda$ when recovery rate $\mu=1$, we will present the derivation of the distribution of small occupied cluster sizes in bond percolation with bond occupation probability $\lambda$~\cite{Newman:2002PRE}.
After the percolation process on a general network with arbitrary degree distribution $p_k$, the average degree of the occupied network $A_1$, which composes of vertices and occupied edges, is $\langle k_T \rangle = \lambda \langle k \rangle$, where $\langle k \rangle$ is the average degree of the original network $A_0$. And the size distribution of the small subgraphs of network $A_1$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p1}
\pi_s = \frac{\langle k_T \rangle}{(s-1)!}[\frac{d^{s-2}}{d z^{s-2}}[g_1 (z)]^s]_{z=0},
\end{equation}
where s is the small subgraphs size and $g_1 (z)$ is the generating function of the excess degree of network $A_1$. In addition, the generating function of degree distribution of $A_1$ is
\begin{equation*}
g_0(z)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}p_k(1-\lambda+z\lambda)^{k},
\end{equation*}
and we thus have
\begin{equation*}
g_1(z)=\frac{g_0^{'}(z)}{g_0^{'}(1)}
\end{equation*}
In a random regular network, which has an unique degree $k$ with $p_k=1$, we can easily obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p2}
g_0(z)=[1+(z-1)\lambda]^k,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p3}
g_1(z)=[1+(z-1)\lambda]^{k-1}.
\end{equation}
Substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:p3}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:p1}), we can obtain the distribution of small outbreak
sizes of the disease as follow:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p4}
\pi_s = \frac{k \Gamma(a_2)}{\Gamma(a_0) \Gamma(a_1)}~\lambda^{s-1}(1-\lambda)^{s(k-1)-(s-2)},
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma(x+1)=x!, a_0=(s-2), a_1=s(k-1)-(s-1)$, and $a_2=s(k-1)-1$.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sect1}
In Bielecki and Rutkowski \cite{BR-2014}, the authors introduced a generic nonlinear market model which includes several risky assets, multiple funding accounts and margin accounts (for related studies by other authors, see also \cite{BCPP11,BK09,BK11,SC12a,SC12b,PPB12,P10}). Using a suitable version of the no-arbitrage argument, they first discussed the hedger's fair price for a contract in the market model without collateralization (see Section 3.2 in \cite{BR-2014}). Subsequently, for a collateralized contract that can be replicated, they defined the hedger's ex-dividend price (see Section 5 in \cite{BR-2014}). It was also shown in \cite{BR-2014} that the theory of backward stochastic differential equations (BSDEs) is an important tool to compute the ex-dividend price (see, e.g., Propositions 5.2 and 5.4 in \cite{BR-2014}). It is worth mentioning that all the pricing and hedging arguments in \cite{BR-2014} are given from the viewpoint of the hedger and no attempt was made there to derive no-arbitrage bounds for unilateral prices.
We consider the problem of pricing and hedging of a derivative contract from the perspective of the hedger and his counterparty. Since we work within a nonlinear trading set-up, where the nonlinearity stems from the different interest rates and collateralization, the hedger's and counterparty's price do not necessarily coincide. Therefore, our goal is to compare the hedger's and counterparty's prices and to derive the range for no-arbitrage prices. As shown by Bergman \cite{B-1995}, in the model with different lending and borrowing rates, which is a relatively simple instance of a nonlinear market model, the no-arbitrage price of any contingent claims must belong to an arbitrage band with the upper (resp., lower) bound given by the hedger's (resp., the counterparty's) price of the contract. In a recent paper by Mercurio \cite{M-2013}, the author extended some results from \cite{B-1995} by examining the pricing of European options in a model with different lending and borrowing interest rates and under collateralization. As emphasized in related papers \cite{BR-2014,NR2,NR3}, in the nonlinear setup, especially in the market with different interest rates and idiosyncratic funding costs for risky assets, the initial endowments of the hedger and the counterparty are important. Unlike in the classic options pricing model, which enjoys linearity, it is no longer sufficient to consider the case of null initial endowments since the ex-dividend prices may depend on initial endowments (see Proposition 5.2 in \cite{BR-2014}). Therefore, the results obtained in \cite{B-1995} and \cite{M-2013} are only valid in situation where the initial endowments of the hedger and the counterparty are assumed to be null.
We revisit the market model studied by Bergman \cite{B-1995} and we extend it in several respects.
First, we study general collateralized contracts, rather than path-independent European claims.
Second, we assume that investors have possibly non-zero (either positive or negative) initial endowments and both parties are allowed to use their initial endowments to invest in risky assets for the purpose of hedging.
Finally, we do not assume a priori any particular financial model, but rather we work within an abstract semimartingale
set-up. Our main goals are to examine how the initial endowment affects the price and to establish the existence of a non-empty interval for fair bilateral prices. We argue that the properties of their respective prices will be quite different
under alternative assumptions about initial endowments of both parties. As in \cite{NR2}, we show that the pricing inequalities can be obtained from the general results for the non-linear BSDEs, which determine unilateral prices and hedging strategies for both parties. For the sake of completeness, we also derive the pricing PDEs for path-independent European claims in a Markovian framework, thus extending once again the approach of Bergman \cite{B-1995}.
This work is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sect2}, we introduce our set-up and we recall definitions and results regarding hedging strategies for collateralized
contracts in a model with different lending and borrowing rates. We also show there that the model is arbitrage-free for both
parties, in the sense of Definition \ref{arbitrage using nettled wealth}. For a more extensive discussion of models with funding costs and collateralization, the reader is referred to \cite{BR-2014,NR2}. In Section \ref{sect3}, we first establish the existence and uniqueness of solutions to BSDEs yielding the ex-dividend prices and hedging strategies for the hedger and the counterparty. Next, we apply the comparison theorem for BSDEs driven by a multi-dimensional martingale established in \cite{NR3} to derive the range for fair bilateral prices.
In Section \ref{sect4}, we place ourselves in a Markovian framework and we postulate that the interest rates are deterministic. Using the non-linear version of the Feynman-Kac formula, we derive the pricing PDEs for both parties and we describe their respective hedging strategies in terms of solutions to these PDEs.
\newpage
\section{Trading under Differential Rates and Collateralization} \label{sect2}
Throughout the paper, we fix a finite trading horizon date $T>0$ for our model of the financial market.
Let $(\Omega, \G, \gg , \P)$ be a filtered probability space satisfying the usual conditions of right-continuity and completeness, where the filtration $\gg = (\G_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ models the flow of information available to all traders. For convenience, we assume that the initial $\sigma$-field ${\cal G}_0$ is trivial. Moreover, all processes introduced in what follows are implicitly assumed to be $\gg$-adapted and any semimartingale is assumed to be c\`adl\`ag.
\noindent {\bf Risky assets.} For $i=1,2, \dots, d$, we denote by $S^i$ the {\it ex-dividend price} of the $i$th risky asset with the {\it cumulative dividend stream} $\pA^i$. The process $S^i$ is aimed to represent the price of any traded security, such as, stock, stock option, interest rates swap, currency option, cross-currency swap, CDS, CDO, etc.
\noindent {\bf Cash accounts.} The riskless {\it lending} (resp., {\it borrowing}) {\it cash account} $B^l$ (resp., $B^b$) is used for unsecured lending (resp., borrowing) of cash.
\bhyp \lab{assumption for primary assets}
The price processes of {\it primary assets} are assumed to satisfy: \hfill \break
(i) For each $i=1,2,\dots , d$, the price $S^i$ is semimartingale and the cumulative dividend stream $\pA^i$ is finite variation process with $\pA^i_{0}=0$.\hfill \break
(ii) The riskless accounts $B^{l}$ and $B^{b}$ are strictly positive and continuous processes
of finite variation with $B^l_0=B^b_0 =1$ for $i=1,2\dots , d$.
\ehyp
By a {\it bilateral financial contract}, or simply a {\it contract}, we mean an arbitrary c\`adl\`ag process $\pA$ of finite variation. The process $A$ is aimed to represent the {\it cumulative cash flows} of a given contract from time 0 till its maturity date $T$. By convention, we set $\pA_{0-}=0$.
The process $\pA$ is assumed to model all cash flows of a given contract, which are either paid out from the wealth or added to the wealth, as seen from the perspective of the {\it hedger} (recall that the other party is referred to as the {\it counterparty}).
Note that the process $A$ includes the initial cash flow $A_0$ of a contract at its inception date $t_0=0$.
For instance, if a contract has the initial {\it price} $p$ and stipulates that the hedger will receive cash flows $\bar{\pA}_1,
\bar{\pA}_2, \dots , \bar{\pA}_k$ at times $t_1, t_2, \dots , t_k \in (0,T]$, then we set $A_0=p$ so that
\bde
\pA_t = p + \sum_{l=1}^k \I_{[t_l,T]}(t) \bar{\pA}_l .
\ede
The symbol $p$ is frequently used to emphasize that all future cash flows $\bar{\pA}_l$ for $l=1,2, \dots, k$ are explicitly specified by the contract's covenants, but the initial cash flow $A_0$ is yet to be formally defined and evaluated.
Valuation of a contract $A$ means, in particular, searching for the range of {\it fair values} $p$ at time $0$ from the viewpoint of either the hedger or the counterparty. Although the valuation paradigm will be the same for the two parties, due either to the asymmetry in their trading costs and opportunities, or the non-linearity of the wealth dynamics, they will typically obtain different sets of fair prices for~$A$. This is the main objective of our current work.
\subsection{Collateralization} \label{sect2.1}
In this paper, we examine the situation when the hedger and the counterparty enter a contract and either receive or post collateral with the value formally represented by an exogenously given stochastic process~$\pC $, which is assumed to be a semimartingale (or, at least, a c\`adl\`ag process). The process $C$ is referred to as either the {\it margin account} or the {\it collateral amount}. Let
\be \lab{collss}
\pC_t = \pC_t \I_{\{ \pC_t \geq 0\}} + \pC_t \I_{\{ \pC_t < 0\}} = \pC^+_t - \pC^-_t.
\ee
By convention, $\pC^+_t$ is the cash value of collateral received at time $t$ by the hedger, whereas $\pC^-_t$ represents the cash value of collateral posted by him. For simplicity of presentation, it is postulated throughout that only cash collateral may be posted or received (for other conventions, see \cite{BR-2014}).
We also make the following natural assumption regarding the state of the margin account at the contract's maturity date.
\bhyp \lab{assumption for margin account on maturity date}
The $\gg$-adapted collateral amount process $C$ satisfies $C_T=0$.
\ehyp
The equality $C_T=0$ ensures that any collateral amount posted is returned in full to its owner at the contract's expiration, provided that the default event does not occur at $T$. Of course, if the default event is also modeled, which is not the case in this work, then one needs to specify the closeout payoff as well.
\brem The current financial practice typically requires the collateral amounts to be held in {\it segregated} margin accounts,
so that the hedger, when he is a collateral taker, cannot make use of the collateral amount for trading.
Another collateral convention encountered in practice is {\it rehypothecation}, which refers to the situation where a bank is allowed to reuse the collateral pledged by its counterparties as collateral for its own borrowing.
Note that if the hedger is a collateral giver, then a particular convention regarding segregation or rehypothecation is immaterial for the wealth dynamics of his portfolio.
\erem
We are in a position to introduce trading strategies based on a finite family of primary assets.
For simplicity, all issues are discussed from from the perspective of the hedger, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
It is clear that to cover the counterparty it suffices to replace $(A,C)$ by $(-A,-C)$. The following definition
is a special case of Definition 4.1 in \cite{BR-2014}
\bd \lab{tsx2}
A {\it collateralized hedger's trading strategy} is a quadruplet $(x,\phi , \pA , \pC )$ where a portfolio $\phi $, given by
\be \lab{vty}
\phi = \big( \xi^1,\dots , \xi^{d},\psi^{l},\psi^{b}, \etab, \etal,\psi^{d+1} , \eta^{d+2} \big)
\ee
is composed of the {\it risky assets} $S^i,\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$, the {\it unsecured lending cash account} $B^l$ the {\it unsecured borrowing cash account} $B^b$, the {\it collateral accounts} $B^{\pCc,b}$ and $B^{\pCc,l}$, the {\it borrowing account} $B^{d+1}$ associated with the posted cash collateral, and the {\it lending account} $B^{d+2}$ associated with the received cash collateral.
\ed
For a detailed explanation of all terms arising in the definition of a strategy $\phi $, the reader is referred to Section 4.1 in \cite{BR-2014}. Let us only mention that if $B^{\pCc,b}\neq B^{\pCc,l}$, for example if the hedger post the collateral, he will receives interest from the counterparty determined by $B^{\pCc,l}$, that is, the counterparty pays the hedger the interest determined by $B^{\pCc,l}$ not $B^{\pCc,b}$. This creates asymmetric financial environments for the hedger and the counterparty.
We make the following standing assumption.
\bhyp \lab{assumption for collateral account}
The accounts $B^{c,l},\, B^{c,b},\, B^{d+1}$ and $B^{d+2}$ are strictly positive, continuous processes
of finite variation with $B^{c,l}_0=B^{c,b}_0=B^{d+1}_0=B^{d+2}_0=1$.
\ehyp
The case of the {\it cash collateral} is described by the following postulates: \hfill \break
(i) If the hedger receives at time $t$ the amount $\pC^+_t$ as cash collateral, then he pays
to the counterparty interest determined by the amount $\pC^+_t$ and the account $B^{\pCc,b}$.
Under segregation, he receives interest determined by the amount $\pC^+_t$ and the account $B^{d+2}$ and thus $\eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t = C^+_t$. When rehypothecation is considered, the hedger may temporarily (i.e., before the contract's maturity date or the default time, whichever comes first) utilize the cash amount $\pC^+_t$ for trading and thus $\eta^{d+2}= 0$.
\hfill \break (ii) If the hedger posts a cash collateral at time $t$, then the collateral amount is borrowed from
the dedicated collateral borrowing account $B^{d+1}$. He receives interest determined by the amount $\pC^-_t$ and the collateral account $B^{\pCc,l}$. We postulate that
\be \lab{565656}
\psi^{d+1}_t B^{d+1}_t = - C^-_t .
\ee
\subsection{Trading Strategies and Wealth Processes} \label{sect2.2}
We examine trading from the perspective of the hedger with an arbitrary initial endowment. For the counterparty, we may use similar arguments after replacing $(A,C)$ by $(-A,-C)$.
In the context of a collateralized contract, we find it convenient to introduce:
\hfill \break (i) the process $V_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ representing the hedger's wealth at time $t$,
\hfill \break (ii) the process $V_t^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ representing the value of hedger's portfolio at time $t$,
\hfill \break (iii) the {\it adjustment process} $\VCc_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) := V_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) - V^p_t(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, which is aimed to quantify the impact of the margin account on a trading strategy.
\bd \lab{ts2x}
The hedger's {\it portfolio's value} $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ is given by
\be \lab{poutf1}
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \sum_{i=1}^{d} \xi^i_t S^i_t + \psi^l_t B^l_t + \psi^b_t B^b_t + \psi^{d+1}_t B^{d+1}_t .
\ee
The hedger's {\it wealth} $V(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ equals
\be \lab{portf1}
V_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \sum_{i=1}^{d} \xi^i_t S^i_t + \psi^l_t B^l_t+\psi^b_t B^b_t
+ \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t + \psi^{d+1}_t B^{d+1}_t + \eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t .
\ee
\ed
In general, the adjustment process $\VCc(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ equals
\be \lab{portf1b}
\VCc_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t + \eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t = - C_t + \eta^{d+2}_t B^{d+2}_t
\ee
where $\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+$ and $\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-$.
In what follows, we only consider the case of cash collateral under rehypothecation, that is, we set $\eta^{d+2}= 0$.
Moreover, for simplicity of presentation, we assume that the collateral borrowing account $B^{d+1}$ coincides with $B^{b}$,
so that we may and do set $\psi^{d+1}=0$.
The self-financing property of the hedger's strategy is defined in terms of the dynamics of the value process.
Note that we use here the process $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, and not $V(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, to emphasize the important role of $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ as the value of the hedger's portfolio of traded assets. Observe also that the equality $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = V(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ holds when $\pC$ vanishes, that is, $C=0$.
Let the initial endowment of the hedger be denoted by $x$. It is now natural to represent a portfolio as $\phi =
(\xi^1, \dots , \xi^d ,\psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\eta^{b}, \eta^{l})$ with the corresponding wealth process
\bde
V_t(x, \phi , \pA, C ) = \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_tS^i_t+ \psi^{l}_t \Blr_t+\psi^{b}_t\Bbr_t+ \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t
\ede
where $\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+$ and $\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^- $ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\bd
The hedger's trading strategy $(x, \phi , \pA, C )$ is {\it self-financing} whenever the process $V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$, which is given by
\be \label{Bergman model value of strategy 1}
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \sum_{i=1}^{d}\xi^i_t S^i_t + \psi^l_t B^l_t+\psi^b_t B^b_t ,
\ee
satisfies
\begin{align*}
V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \, \, &x + \sum_{i=1}^{d} \int_{0}^{t} \xi^i_u \, d(S^i_u + \pA^i_u )
+ \int_0^t \psi^l_u \, dB^l_u + \int_0^t \psi^b_u \, dB^b_u + \pA_t \\
&+ \int_0^t \etab_u\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u + \int_0^t \etal_u \, dB^{\pCc,l}_u - \VCc_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)
\end{align*}
where
\bde
\VCc_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = \etab_t B^{\pCc,b}_t+ \etal_t B^{\pCc,l}_t=-C_{t}.
\ede
\ed
We make the natural assumption that $\psi^{l}_t \geq 0$ and $\psi^{b}_t \leq 0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. Since simultaneous lending and borrowing of cash is either formally precluded or it is sub-optimal (if $\rbb \geq \rll$, as we will postulate in Assumption \ref{assumption for absolutely continuous}), we also postulate that $\psi^{l}_t \psi^{b}_t =0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. Consequently, using (\ref{Bergman model value of strategy 1}), we obtain the following equalities
\bde
\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) -\sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t S^i_t\Big)^+, \quad
\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big( V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) - \sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^-.
\ede
\bhyp \label{assumption for absolutely continuous}
The collateral accounts $B^{c,l}$ and $B^{c,b}$ satisfy $B^{\pCc,l}=B^{\pCc,b}=B^{c}$ where $B^c$ is absolutely
continuous, so that $dB^{c}_{t}=r^{c}_{t}B^{c}_{t}\, dt$ for some $\mathbb{G}$-adapted process $r^{c}$.
The riskless accounts are absolutely continuous, so that they can be represented as $dB^{l}_{t}=r^{l}_{t}B^{l}_{t}\, dt$
and $dB^{b}_{t}=r^{b}_{t}B^{b}_{t}\, dt$ for some $\mathbb{G}$-adapted processes $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ such that $0 \leq \rll \leq \rbb$.
\ehyp
In view of Assumption \ref{assumption for absolutely continuous}, we have
\begin{align} \label{definition for FC}
F^{C}_t&:=\int_0^t \etab_u\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u + \int_0^t \etal_u \, dB^{\pCc,l}_u \nonumber \\
&=-\int_0^t \pC_u^+ (B^{\pCc,b}_u)^{-1}\, dB^{\pCc,b}_u + \int_0^t \pC_u^- (B^{\pCc,l}_u)^{-1}\, dB^{\pCc,l}_u \\
&=-\int_0^t \pC_u (B^{\pCc}_u)^{-1} \, dB^{\pCc}_u = -\int_0^t r^c_u \pC_u \, du. \nonumber
\end{align}
For brevity, we will write $A^{C}:=A+C+F^{C}$. Moreover, we introduce the auxiliary processes $\wt S^{i,l,\textrm{cld}}$ and $\wt S^{i,b,\textrm{cld}}$ for $i=1,2, \dots , d$, which are given by the following expressions
\bde
\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t := (\Blr_t)^{-1}S^i_t + \int_{(0,t]} (\Blr_u)^{-1} \, d\pA^i_u
\ede
and
\bde
\wt
S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t ;= (\Bbr_t)^{-1}S^i_t + \int_{(0,t]} (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \, d\pA^i_u
\ede
so that their dynamics are
\bde
d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t=(\Blr_t)^{-1}\left(dS^i_t - \rll_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right)
\ede
and
\bde
d\wt S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t=(\Bbr_t)^{-1}\left(dS^i_t - \rbb_t S^i_t \, dt + d\pA^i_t\right).
\ede
We also denote
\bde
A^{C,l}_t := \int_{(0,t]}(\Blr_{u})^{-1}\, dA^C_{u}, \quad A^{C,b}_t:= \int_{(0,t]}(\Bbr_{u})^{-1}\, dA^C_{u}.
\ede
Under Assumption \ref{assumption for absolutely continuous}, the self-financing condition for the trading strategy $(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ reads
\begin{align*}
dV^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) = & \sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, (dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t)+ d\pA_t^{C}
+ r_{t}^{l}\Big(V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC) -\sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t\Big)^+ dt\nonumber\\
&- r_{t}^{b}\Big( V^p_t (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)-\sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^- dt .
\end{align*}
This leads to the following proposition whose easy proof is omitted.
\bp \label{pocc}
The process $Y^{l}:=(B^{l})^{-1}V^p(x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ satisfies
\be \label{Bergman model lending BSDE}
dY_{t}^{l} = \sum_{i=1}^dZ^{l,i}_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t+G_{l}(t,Y_{t}^{l},Z_{t}^{l})\, dt+ d\pA_t^{C,l}
\ee
where $Z^{l,i}=\xi^i ,\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$ and the mapping $G_l$ equals, for all $(\omega , t,y,z)\in \Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$,
\bde
G_{l}(t,y,z)=\sum_{i=1}^d r_{t}^{l}(B_{t}^{l})^{-1} z^i S^i_t+(B_{t}^{l})^{-1}\bigg(r_{t}^{l}\Big(yB_{t}^{l}-\sum_{i=1}^d z^i S^i_t\Big)^+-r_{t}^{b}\Big(yB_{t}^{l}- \sum_{i=1}^d z^i S^i_t\Big)^- \bigg)-r_{t}^{l}y.
\ede
The process $Y^{b}:=(B^{b})^{-1}V^p (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ satisfies
\bde
dY_{t}^{b} = \sum_{i=1}^dZ^{b,i}_t \, d\wt S^{i,b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t+G_{b}(t,Y_{t}^{b},Z_{t}^{b})\, dt+ d\pA_t^{C,b}
\ede
where $Z^{b,i}=\xi^i,\, i=1,2,\ldots,d$ and the mapping $G_b$ equals, for all $(\omega ,t,y,z)\in \Omega \times [0,T] \times \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$,
\bde
G_{b}(t,y,z)=\sum_{i=1}^d r_{t}^{b}(B_{t}^{b})^{-1}z^i S^i_t+(B_{t}^{b})^{-1}\bigg(r_{t}^{l}\Big(yB_{t}^{b}-\sum_{i=1}^d z^i S^i_t\Big)^+-r_{t}^{b}\Big(yB_{t}^{b}- \sum_{i=1}^d z^i S^i_t\Big)^- \bigg)-r_{t}^{b}y.
\ede
\ep
The concept of the {\it netted wealth} was introduced in \cite{BR-2014} to study the arbitrage-free property of a model.
\bd \label{nettled wealth}
The {\it netted wealth} $\Vnet(x, \phi , \pA, C)$ of a trading strategy $(x, \phi, \pA, C)$ is given by
$\Vnet(x, \phi , \pA, C):= V(x, \phi , \pA, C) + V(0, \wt \phi , -\pA, -C)$ where $(0, \wt \phi ,-A, -C)$
is the unique self-financing strategy satisfying the following conditions: \hfill \break
(i) $V_0(0, \wt \phi , -\pA ,-C ) = - A_0 $, \hfill \break
(ii) $\widetilde{\xi}^i_t=0$ for all $i=1,2,\dots ,d$ and $t \in [0,T]$, \hfill \break
(iii) $\wt{\psi}^l_t \geq 0 ,\, \wt{\psi}^b_t \leq 0$ and $\wt{\psi}^l_t \wt{\psi}^b_t =0$ for all $t \in [0,T]$.
\ed
It is worth noting that $\Vnet_0 (x, \phi , \pA, C) =x$ for any contract $(A,C)$ and any strategy $\phi $.
The proof of the next lemma is elementary and thus it is omitted (see Lemma 3.1 in \cite{NR2}).
\bl \label{nettled wealth formula}
We have $\Vnet(x, \phi , \pA, C) = V(x, \phi , \pA, C) + U(A,C)$,
where the $\gg$-adapted process of finite variation $U(A,C)=U$ is the unique solution to the following equation
\bde
U_t = \int_0^t (\Blr_u)^{-1} ( U_u-C_{u})^+\, d\Blr_u - \int_0^t (\Bbr_u)^{-1} ( U_u-C_{u})^-\, d\Bbr_u - F^{C}_{t} - A_t
\ede
where $F^{C}$ is given by (\ref{definition for FC}). Under Assumption \ref{assumption for absolutely continuous},
we obtain
\bde
U_t = \int_0^t r^l_u( U_u-C_{u})^+\, du - \int_0^t r^b_u ( U_u-C_{u})^-\, du + \int_0^t r^c_u \pC_u \, du - A_t.
\ede
\el
\subsection{Arbitrage-Free Property} \label{sect2.3}
Depending on the signs of the initial endowments, we will formally work under two alternative assumptions regarding
a general set-up considered in this work. It is worth noting, however, that these assumptions may in fact be equivalent when a particular model for the dynamics of risky assets is adopted.
\bhyp \label{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}
There exists a probability measure $\PT^l $ equivalent to $\P $ such that the
processes $\wt S^{i,l,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are $(\PT^l , \gg)$-local martingales.
\ehyp
\bhyp \label{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price}
There exists a probability measure $\PT^b $ equivalent to $\P $ such that the
processes $\wt S^{i,b,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ are $(\PT^b , \gg)$-local martingales.
\ehyp
In the foregoing definition of admissibility, the discounted netted wealth $\widehat{V}^{net}(x, \phi ,A,C)$ is defined either as
$V^{net}(x, \phi ,A,C)/B^l$, if Assumption \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} is
postulated, or as $V^{net}(x, \phi ,A,C)/B^b$, when Assumption \ref{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price}
is valid. The same notational convention is used in Proposition \ref{Bergman model proposition for arbitrage free}.
\bd \label{arbitrage using nettled wealth}
A self-financing trading strategy $(x,\phi ,A,C)$ is {\it admissible for the hedger} whenever the discounted netted wealth process $\widehat{V}^{net}(x, \phi ,A,C)$ is bounded from below by a constant.
\ed
\bd
An admissible trading strategy $(x, \phi ,A,C)$ is an {\it arbitrage opportunity for the hedger} with respect to $(A,C)$ whenever
\be
\P ( \Vnet_T(x, \phi , A, C) \geq \VLL_T (x))=1\quad \text{ and }\quad \P ( \Vnet_T (x,\phi ,A,C) > \VLL_T (x) ) > 0 \nonumber
\ee
where $\VLL_t (x) := x^+ B^l_t - x^- B^b_t$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. A market model is said to be {\it arbitrage-free} for the hedger if there is no arbitrage opportunity for the hedger in regard to any contract $(A,C)$.
\ed
\bp \label{Bergman model proposition for arbitrage free}
We consider the market model introduced in this section under Assumption \ref{assumption for absolutely continuous}. \hfill \break
(i) If Assumption \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} holds and $x_1 \geq 0 ,\, x_2 \geq 0$,
then the market model is arbitrage-free with respect to any contract $(A,C)$ for the hedger and the counterparty. \hfill \break (ii) If Assumption \ref{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price} holds and $x_1 \leq 0 ,\, x_2 \geq 0$, then
the market model is arbitrage-free with respect to any contract $(A,C)$ for the hedger and the counterparty.
\ep
\proof
We only prove the non-arbitrage property of the model from the perspective of hedger with a positive initial endowment $x = x_1 \ge0$, since all other cases can be proven using analogous arguments. From (\ref{Bergman model lending BSDE}) and $\rll \leq \rbb$, we know that
$V^{l} (x, \phi , A,C) =(B^{l})^{-1}V^p (x,\phi , \pA ,\pC)$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
d V^{l}_t (x,\phi , \pA ,C)\leq\sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t + d\pA_t^{C,l}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, in view of Lemma \ref{nettled wealth formula}, the netted wealth is given by $\Vnet (x,\phi , \pA ,C) = V(x,\phi , \pA , C) + U(A,C)$, where in turn the $\gg$-adapted process of finite variation $U(A,C)$ is given by Lemma \ref{nettled wealth formula}. Hence the process
$V^{l,net}(x,\phi, A,C):= (\Blr)^{-1}\Vnet(x ,\phi , \pA ,C)=V^{l}(x,\phi, A,C)+ (\Blr)^{-1}U(A,C)$ satisfies
\bde
dV_t^{l,net} (x,\phi, A,C) \leq\sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t + (r^l_t - r^b_t )(\Blr_t)^{-1} ( U_t(A,C)-C_{t})^- \, dt
\leq\sum_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
\ede
or, more explicitly,
\be \label{inequality for proving arbitrage free}
(B^l_t)^{-1} \big( V^{net}_t(x,\phi, A,C) - x \big) \leq \sum_{i=1}^d \int_{(0,t]} \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
\ee
since $\Vnet(x, \phi , \pA, C) =x$. The assumption that the process $V^{l,net}$ is bounded from below, implies that the right-hand side in \eqref{inequality for proving arbitrage free} is a $(\PT^l,\gg)$-supermartingale, which is null at $t=0$. Next, since $x\ge0$, we have that $\VLL_T(x) = \Blr_T x$ and thus, from \eqref{inequality for proving arbitrage free}, we obtain
\bde
(\Blr_T)^{-1} \big( \Vnet_T (x,\phi , A ,C) - \VLL_T (x) \big) \leq \sum_{i=1}^d \int_{(0,T]} \xi^i_t \, d\wt S^{i,l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t.
\ede
Since the probability measure $\PT^l $ was assumed to be equivalent to $\P$, we conclude that either the equality $\Vnet_T (x,\phi , A,C) = \VLL_T(x)$ holds or $\P ( \Vnet_T (x,\phi , A,C) < \VLL_T(x))>0$. This means that arbitrage opportunities are precluded and thus the model is arbitrage-free for the hedger in regard to any contract $(A,C)$.
\endproof
\section{Ex-Dividend Prices and Related Pricing BSDEs} \label{sect3}
The main goal of this section is to show that, under mild technical assumption, the range of fair
bilateral prices of a generic collateralized contract $(A,C)$ is non-empty for some choices of
initial endowments of the hedger and the counterparty.
\subsection{Generic Market Models} \label{sect3.1}
To show the existence of a solution to the pricing BSDE, we need to complement Assumptions \ref{assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} and \ref{assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price} by imposing specific conditions on the underlying market model. In essence, we postulate that the discounted cumulative prices of risky assets are continuous martingales under
an equivalent probability measure and its quadratic variation process satisfies suitable technical conditions.
We define the matrix-valued process $\mathbb{S}$
\[
\mathbb{S}_{t}:=
\begin{pmatrix}
S^{1}_{t} & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
0 & S^{2}_{t} & \ldots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \ldots & S^{d}_{t}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
We will work under the following alternative assumptions regarding the quadratic variation process
for continuous martingales $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$ and $\wt S^{b,\textrm{cld}}$. Note that $^{\ast}$ stands for
the transposition.
\bhyp \label{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) the process $\wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}$ is a continuous, square-integrable, $(\PT^l , \gg)$-martingale and has the predictable representation property with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under~$\PT^l$, \hfill \break
(ii) there exists an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m^{l}$ such that
\be \label{vfvf1}
\langle \wt S^{l,\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m^{l}_{u}(m_{u}^{l})^{\ast}\,du
\ee
with the process $m^{l}(m^{l})^{\ast}$ is invertible and satisfies $m^{l}(m^{l})^{\ast}=\mathbb{S}\sigma\sigma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}$ where $\sigma$ is a $d$-dimensional square matrix of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfying the {\it ellipticity condition}: there exists a constant $\Lambda>0$
\be \label{elli}
\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\left(\sigma_{t}\sigma^{\ast}_{t}\right)_{ij}a_{i}a_{j}\ge \Lambda|a|^{2}=\Lambda a^{\ast}a,\quad \forall \, a\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\, t\in[0,T].
\ee
\ehyp
\bhyp \label{changed assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) the process $\wt S^{b,\textrm{cld}}$ is a continuous, square-integrable $(\PT^b , \gg)$-martingale
and has the predictable representation property with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under~$\PT^b$, \hfill \break
(ii) there exists an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m^{b}$ such that
\be \label{vfvf2}
\langle \wt S^{b,\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m^{b}_{u}(m_{u}^{b})^{\ast}\,du
\ee
with the process $m^{b}(m^{b})^{\ast}$ is invertible and satisfies $m^{b}(m^{b})^{\ast}= \mathbb{S}\sigma\sigma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}$
where $\sigma$ is a $d$-dimensional square matrix of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfying the ellipticity condition \eqref{elli}.
\ehyp
\subsection{Prices and Hedging Strategies} \label{sect3.2}
Definition of the ex-dividend price for the hedger and the counterparty is based on replication of all
cash flows associated with a given contract $(A,C)$.
\bd \lab{def:replicate}
For a fixed $t \in [0,T]$, a self-financing trading strategy $(\VLL_{t}(x)+p_t, \phi , A- A_t , \pC )$,
where $p_t$ is a ${\cal G}_{t}$-measurable random variable, is said to {\it replicate the collateralized
contract} $(A,C)$ on $[t,T]$ whenever $V_T(\VLL_{t}(x)+p_t , \phi , A-A_t ,C) = \VLL_T (x)$.
\ed
Since we deal here with a non-linear pricing rule, we need to examine
separately the pricing problem for each party and take into account their initial endowments.
Of course, if we postulate that we work within a linear framework in which all interest rates coincide, that is, $r^l =r^b = r^c$,
then, as expected, we obtain the equality $P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C) = P^{c}_t(x_1, A, C)$ for every contract $(A,C)$ and all $t$.
\bd \label{definition of ex-dividend price}
Any ${\cal G}_{t}$-measurable random variable for which a replicating strategy for $(A,C)$ over $[t,T]$ exists is called the {\it hedger's ex-dividend price} at time $t$ for a contract $(A,C)$ and it is denoted by $P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C)$, so that for some
$\phi $ replicating $(A,C)$
\bde
V_T(\VLL_{t}(x_1)+P^{h}_t(x_1, A, C), \phi , A -A_t, C) = \VLL_T (x_1).
\ede
For an arbitrary level $x_2$ of the counterparty's initial endowment and a strategy $\widetilde{\phi }$ replicating $(-A,-C)$,
the {\it counterparty's ex-dividend price} $P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C)$ at time $t$ for a contract $(-A,-C)$ is implicitly given by the equality
\bde
V_T(\VLL_{t}(x_2)-P^{c}_t(x_2, -A, -C), \widetilde{ \phi }, -A+A_t, -C) = \VLL_T (x_2).
\ede
\ed
By a {\it fair bilateral price}, we mean the price level at which no arbitrage opportunity arises for either party.
Hence the range of fair bilateral prices at time $t$ is defined as follows.
\bd \label{range of fair}
The $\G_t$-measurable interval
\bde
{\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2) := \big[ P^{c}_t(x_{2},-A,-C), P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C) \big]
\ede
is called the {\it range of fair bilateral prices} at time $t$ of an OTC contract $(A,C)$ between the hedger and the counterparty.
\ed
We are in a position to state the results furnishing the ex-dividend prices and replicating strategies for the hedger and
the counterparty. Their proofs hinge on a combination of results on BSDEs from \cite{NR3} with arguments used in \cite{BR-2014}.
It is worth noting that in Propositions \ref{Bergman model hedger ex-dividend price} and \ref{Bergman model counterparty ex-dividend price}, the pricing BSDE is driven either by the process $\wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}$ or the process
$\wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}$, depending on whether the initial endowment is positive or negative. This is somewhat inconvenient
when we wish to compare prices for both parties, and thus we will also derive in Proposition \ref{Bergman model general pricing proposition} pricing BSDEs driven by a common process, denoted by $\wt S^{{\textrm{cld}}}$. It is fair to acknowledge, however, that the financial interpretation of the auxiliary process $\wt S^{{\textrm{cld}}}$ is not as transparent as that of the discounted cumulative prices $\wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}$ and $\wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}$, and thus the process should be seen as a purely mathematical artifact.
Following \cite{NR3}, but with $Q_t=t$, we denote by $\wHzerd $ the subspace of all $\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted processes $X$ with
\be \label{defhh}
|X|_{\wHzerd}^{2}:=\EP \bigg[ \int_{0}^{T}\|X_{t}\|^{2}\,dt \bigg] <\infty .
\ee
Also, let $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ stand for the space of all real-valued, $\mathcal{G}_{T}$-measurable
random variables $\eta$ such that $|\eta|_{\widehat{L}^2_{0}}^{2}=\EP (\eta^{2})<\infty $.
\bd
A contract $(A,C)$ is {\it admissible under} $\PT^l$ if the process $A^{C,l}$ belongs to $\wHzero$
and the random variable $A^{C,l}_{T}$ belongs to $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under~$\PT^l$.
A contract $(A,C)$ is {\it admissible under} $\PT^b$ if the process $A^{C,b}$ belongs to $\wHzero$
and the random variable $A^{C,b}_{T}$ belongs to $\widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under~$\PT^b$.
\ed
From now on, we postulate that the processes $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are nonnegative and bounded.
\bp \label{Bergman model hedger ex-dividend price}
(i) Let the hedger's initial endowment $x_1 = x \geq 0$ and let Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} be satisfied. Then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^l$, the hedger's ex-dividend price equals $P^{h}(x,A,C) = \Blr (Y^{h,l,x} - x)-C$ where $(Y^{h,l,x}, Z^{h,l,x})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE
\begin{equation} \label{Bergman model BSDE with positive x for hedger}
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{h,l,x}_t = Z^{h,l,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+G_l \big(t, Y^{h,l,x}_t, Z^{h,l,x}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{h,l,x}_T=x.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
The unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}, \etab, \etal\big)$ where for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= Z^{h,l,x,i}_{t}, \quad
\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+, \quad
\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^- ,
\ede
and
\bde
\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \Blr_tY^{h,l,x}_{t} -\sumik_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^+, \quad
\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big(\Blr_tY^{h,l,x}_{t}-\sumik_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t S^i_t\Big)^-.
\ede
(ii) Let the hedger's initial endowment $x_1 = x \leq 0$ and let Assumption \ref{changed assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price} be satisfied. Then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^b$, the hedger's ex-dividend price equals $P^{h}(x,A,C) = \Bbr (Y^{h,b,x} - x)- C$ where $(Y^{h,b,x}, Z^{h,b,x})$ is the unique solution to the BSDE
\begin{equation}\label{Bergman model BSDE with negative x for hedger}
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{h,b,x}_t = Z^{h,b,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+G_b \big(t, Y^{h,b,x}_t, Z^{h,b,x}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,b}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{h,b,x}_T=x.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
The unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\etab, \etal\big)$ where for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= Z^{h,b,x,i}_{t}, \quad
\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+, \quad
\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-,
\ede
and
\bde
\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \Bbr_tY^{h,l,x}_{t} -\sumik_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t S^i_t\Big)^+, \quad
\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big(\Bbr_tY^{h,l,x}_{t}-\sumik_{i=1}^d \xi^i_t S^i_t\Big)^-.
\ede
\ep
\proof
From Theorem 4.1 in \cite{NR3}, we know that if Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} holds, then BSDE (\ref{Bergman model BSDE with positive x for hedger}) has a unique solution $(Y^{h,l,x}, Z^{h,l,x})$. As in the proof of Proposition 5.2 in \cite{BR-2014}, we can show that $P^{h}(x,A,C) = \Blr (Y^{h,l,x} - x)$ and derive the unique replicating strategy $\varphi$.
\endproof
\bp \label{Bergman model counterparty ex-dividend price}
For any value $x =x_2$ of the initial endowment, the counterparty's ex-dividend price equals
\bde
P^{c} (x,-A,-C) =-\left(\Blr (Y^{c,l,x} - x)+C\right)\I_{\{x\ge0\}}-\left(\Bbr (Y^{c,b,x} - x)+C\right)\I_{\{x\leq0\}}
\ede
where $(Y^{c,l,x}, Z^{c,l,x})$ and $(Y^{c,b,x}, Z^{c,b,x})$ are respectively the unique solutions to the BSDEs
\bde
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{c,l,x}_t = Z^{c,l,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+G_l \big(t, Y^{c,l,x}_t, Z^{c,l,x}_t \big)\, dt -dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{c,l,x}_T=x , \end{array}
\right.
\ede
and
\bde
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{l}
dY^{c,b,x}_t = Z^{c,b,x,\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{b,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+G_b \big(t, Y^{c,b,x}_t, Z^{c,b,x}_t \big)\, dt -dA^{C,b}_t, \medskip\\
Y^{c,b,x}_T=x. \end{array}
\right.
\ede
The unique replicating strategy for the counterparty equals $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b},\etab, \etal\big)$
where for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= Z^{c,l,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+Z^{c,b,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\leq0\}},\quad
\etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^-, \quad
\etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^+,
\ede
and
\bde
\begin{array} [c]{ll}
\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \Blr_tY^{c,l,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+\Bbr_tY^{c,b,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\leq0\}}-\sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big(\Blr_tY^{c,l,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\ge0\}}+\Bbr_tY^{c,b,x}_{t}\I_{\{x\leq0\}}-\sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^-. \end{array}
\ede
\ep
\proof
The proof of Proposition \ref{Bergman model counterparty ex-dividend price} is analogous
to the proof of Proposition \ref{Bergman model hedger ex-dividend price} and thus it is omitted.
\endproof
In order to establish the comparison result for ex-dividend prices when the two parties have arbitrary initial endowments, we need a result when the prices are given by solution to two BSDEs driven by the same continuous martingale. To this end, we introduce the following assumption about the underlying financial model.
\bhyp \label{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price}
We postulate that: \hfill \break
(i) there exists a probability measure $\PTb $ equivalent to $\P$ such that the processes $\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}},\, i=1,2, \dots ,d$ given by (\ref{auxiliary processes})
\be\label{auxiliary processes}
d\wt S^{i,\textrm{cld}}_t = dS^i_t + d\pA^i_t - \beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}\,dt
\ee
for some $\gg$-adapted bounded processes $\beta^{i}$ satisfying $r^{b}\leq\beta^{i}$, are $(\PTb , \gg)$-continuous square-integrable martingales and have the predictable representation property with respect to the filtration $\gg$ under $\PTb$, \hfill \break
(ii) there exists an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$-valued, $\gg$-adapted process $m$ such that
\be\label{auxiliary processes quadratic variation}
\langle \wt S^{\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{t}=\int_{0}^{t}m_{u}m_{u}^{\ast}\,du
\ee
where $m m^{\ast}$ is invertible and satisfies $m m^{\ast}= \mathbb{S}\sigma\sigma^{\ast}\mathbb{S}$ where a $d$-dimensional square matrix $\sigma$ of $\gg$-adapted processes satisfies the ellipticity condition
\eqref{elli}.
\ehyp
\bd
We say that $(A,C)$ is {\it admissible under} $\PTb$ when $A^C \in\wHzero $ and $A^C_T\in \widehat{L}^{2}_{0}$ under $\PTb$.
\ed
The next result expresses the unilateral prices of a contract $(A,C)$ is terms of solutions to BSDEs driven by the continuous $\PTb$-martingale $\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}$. It will be used in the next section to study the range of fair bilateral prices. To alleviate notation, we denote
\bde
G(t,y,z)=\rll_t \Big(y- \sumik_{i=1}^dz^{i}S^i_t\Big)^+- \rbb_t \Big( y-\sumik_{i=1}^d z^{i}S^i_t \Big)^-.
\ede
\bp \label{Bergman model general pricing proposition}
Let Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid. Then for any $x_{1},x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$ and an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$, we have that $P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}-C$ and $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C)=\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}-C$ where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution
to the following BSDE
\bde
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_t =\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+G^{h}(t,x_{1}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_T=0,
\end{array} \right.
\ede
and $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}},\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution to the following BSDE
\bde
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_t=\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2},\ast}_t\, d\wt S_t^{\textrm{cld}}+G^{c}(t, x_{2}, \widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_t,\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_t)\,dt+dA^C_t,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_T=0,
\end{array} \right.
\ede
where
\bde
G^{h}(t,x,y,z):=\sum_{i=1}^dz^{i}\beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}+\big(-x\rll_t\Blr_t+G(t,y+x\Blr_t,z)\big)\I_{\{x\ge0\}}
+ \big( -x\rbb_t\Bbr_t+G(t, y+x\Bbr_t,z)\big) \I_{\{x\leq0\}}
\ede
and
\bde
G^{c}(t,x,y,z):=\sum_{i=1}^dz^{i}\beta^{i}_{t}S_{t}^{i}+ \big( x\rll_t\Blr_t-G(t,-y+x\Blr_t,-z)\big) \I_{\{x\ge0\}} + \big( x\rbb_t\Bbr_t-G(t, -y+x\Bbr_t,-z) \big )\I_{\{x\leq0\}}.
\ede
The unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}, \etab, \etal\big)$ where for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}= \widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},i}_{t}, \quad \etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^+, \quad \etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^-,
\ede
and
\bde
\begin{array} [c]{ll}
\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{t}+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}- \sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{t}+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}- \sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
The unique replicating strategy for the counterparty equals $\phi = \big(\xi^1,\dots ,\xi^d, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}, \etab, \etal\big)$
where for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $i=1,2,\ldots,d$
\bde
\xi^i_{t}=-\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2},i}_{t}, \quad \etab_t =- (B^{\pCc,b}_t)^{-1}\pC_t^-, \quad \etal_t =(B^{\pCc,l}_t)^{-1} \pC_t^+,
\ede
and
\bde
\begin{array} [c]{ll}
\psi^{l}_t = (\Blr_t)^{-1} \Big(-\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_{t}+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}- \sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_t = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big( -\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_{t}+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}- \sum_{i=1}^d\xi^i_t S^i_t \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
\ep
\subsection{Range of Fair Bilateral Prices} \label{sect3.3}
We are now in a position to study the range of fair bilateral prices at time $t$ (see Definition \ref{range of fair}).
It appears that, under suitable assumptions, it is non-empty when the initial endowments of the two parties have
the same sign but, in general, it may be empty if the signs are different, that is, when
$x_{1}< 0$ and $x_{2}>0$.
We first examine the case where the initial endowments satisfy $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$.
\bp \label{Bergman model inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth}
Let Assumption \ref{changed assumption for lending cumulative dividend price} be valid.
Then for any $x_{1}\ge0,\, x_{2}\ge0$ and an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^l$ we have, for every $t\in[0,T]$,
\bde
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PT^l-\aass ,
\ede
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t(x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely.
\ep
\begin{proof}
We assume that $x_{1}\ge0,\, x_{2}\ge0$ and we denote $\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}:=Y^{h,l,x_{1}} - x_{1}$ and $\bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}=Z^{h,l,x_{1}}$. In view of Propositions \ref{Bergman model hedger ex-dividend price} and \ref{Bergman model counterparty ex-dividend price}, the pair $(\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}},\bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\bde
\left\{\begin{array} [c]{l}
d\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t = \bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
+G_l \big(t, \bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t+x_{1}, \bar{Z}^{h,l,x_{1}}_t \big)\, dt + dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}_T=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\ede
Similarly, $(\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}, \bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}):=(-(Y^{c,l,x_{2}}- x_{2}),\, \bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}=-Z^{c,l,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution of the following BSDE
\bde
\left\{\begin{array} [c]{l}
d\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t = \bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2},\ast}_t \, d \wt S^{l,{\textrm{cld}}}_t
-G_l \big(t, -\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t+x_{2}, -\bar{Z}^{c,l,x_{2}}_t \big)\, dt +dA^{C,l}_t, \medskip\\
\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}_T=0.
\end{array}
\right.
\ede
In view of the comparison theorem for BSDEs (see Theorem 3.3 in \cite{NR3}), if we show that $-G_l \big(t, y+x_{1}, z \big)
\ge G_l \big(t, -y+x_{2}, -z \big)$ for all $(y,z)\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d},\, \PT^l\otimes \Leb-\aaee$,
then we will deduce that $\bar{Y}^{h,l,x_{1}}\ge\bar{Y}^{c,l,x_{2}}$. We denote
\begin{align*}
\delta &:=G_l \big(t, y+x_{1}, z \big)+G_l \big(t, -y+x_{2}, -z \big) \\
&=- \rll_t (x_{1}+x_{2})+(\Blr_t)^{-1}\rll_t (\delta_{1}^{+}+\delta_{2}^{+})-(\Blr_t)^{-1}\rbb_t (\delta_{1}^{-}+\delta_{2}^{-})
\end{align*}
where
\bde
\delta_{1}:=\Blr_t y+\Blr_t x_{1}-\sumik_{i=1}^dz^i S^i_t, \quad\delta_{2}:=-\Blr_t y+\Blr_t x_{2}+\sumik_{i=1}^d z^i S^i_t.
\ede
Since $r^l\leq r^b$, we have
\begin{align*}
\delta &=- \rll_t (x_{1}+x_{2})+(\Blr_t)^{-1}\rll_t (\delta_{1}^{+}+\delta_{2}^{+})-(\Blr_t)^{-1}\rbb_t (\delta_{1}^{-}+\delta_{2}^{-})\\
&\leq - \rll_t (x_{1}+x_{2})+(\Blr_t)^{-1}\rll_t (\delta_{1}+\delta_{2})= 0.
\end{align*}
Consequently, we have $\delta\leq 0$, which yields $-G_l \big(t, y+x_{1}, z \big)
\ge G_l \big(t, -y+x_{2}, -z \big)$, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\bp \label{Bergman model inequality proposition for both negative initial wealth}
Let Assumption \ref{changed assumption for borrowing cumulative dividend price} be valid.
Then for any $x_{1}\le0,\, x_{2}\le0$ and an arbitrary contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PT^b$ we have, for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\bde
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PT^b-\aass ,
\ede
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely.
\ep
\begin{proof}
It is now sufficient to show
\bde
-G_b \big(t, y+x_{1}, z \big)
\ge G_b \big(t, -y+x_{2}, -z \big),\ \ \forall \, (y,z)\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}, \ \PT^b \otimes \Leb-\aaee
\ede
If we denote
\bde
\delta :=G_b \big(t, y+x_{1}, z \big)+G_b \big(t, -y+x_{2}, -z \big),
\ede
then, using similar arguments as in the proof of Proposition \ref{Bergman model inequality proposition for both positive initial wealth}, we can prove that $\delta\leq0$.
\end{proof}
Now we consider the case when the initial endowments satisfy $x_{1}\ge0$ and $x_{2}\leq0$.
\bp \label{Bergman model inequality proposition for positive negative initial wealth}
Let Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} hold and the initial endowments
satisfy $x_{1}\ge0,\, x_{2}\leq0$. Then the following statements are valid. \hfill \break
(i) If $x_{1}x_{2}=0$, then for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and every $t\in[0,T]$
\be \label{eqnew1}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass ,
\ee
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely. \hfill \break
(ii) Assume that $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic and satisfy $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
Then inequality \eqref{eqnew1} holds for all contracts $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and all $t\in[0,T]$
if and only if $x_{1}x_{2}=0$.
\ep
\begin{proof}
(i) If $x_{1}\ge0,\, x_{2}\leq0$, then we can show that
\begin{align*}
\delta&:=g(t,y+x_{1}B_{t}^{l},z)+g(t,-y+x_{2}B_{t}^{b},-z)-x_{1}r_{t}^{l}B_{t}^{l}-x_{2}r_{t}^{b}B_{t}^{b} \\
&\leq \min \, \big\{(\rll_t- \rbb_t )x_{2}B_{t}^{b} , (\rbb_t- \rll_t)x_{1}B_{t}^{l}\big\}.
\end{align*}
Indeed, we have
\bde
\delta = -x_{1}r_{t}^{l}B_{t}^{l}-x_{2}r_{t}^{b}B_{t}^{b} + \rll_t (\delta_{1}^{+}+\delta_{2}^{+}) -
\rbb_t (\delta_{1}^{-}+\delta_{2}^{-}),
\ede
where
\bde
\delta_{1}=y+x_{1}B_{t}^{l}-\sumik_{i=1}^{d}z^{i}S_{t}^{i},\quad \delta_{2}=-y+x_{2}B_{t}^{b}+\sumik_{i=1}^{d}z^{i}S_{t}^{i}.
\ede
From $r^l\leq r^b$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\delta&:= -x_{1}r_{t}^{l}B_{t}^{l}-x_{2}r_{t}^{b}B_{t}^{b} + \rll_t (\delta_{1}^{+}+\delta_{2}^{+}) -
\rbb_t (\delta_{1}^{-}+\delta_{2}^{-}) \\
&\leq -x_{1}r_{t}^{l}B_{t}^{l}-x_{2}r_{t}^{b}B_{t}^{b} +\min \, \big\{\rll_t (\delta_{1}+\delta_{2}) ,\rbb_t (\delta_{1}+\delta_{2}) \big\}\\
&= -x_{1}r_{t}^{l}B_{t}^{l}-x_{2}r_{t}^{b}B_{t}^{b} +\min \, \big\{\rll_t (x_{1}B_{t}^{l}+x_{2}B_{t}^{b} ) ,\rbb_t (x_{1}B_{t}^{l}+x_{2}B_{t}^{b} )\big\}\\
&= \min \, \big\{(\rll_t- \rbb_t )x_{2}B_{t}^{b} , (\rbb_t- \rll_t)x_{1}B_{t}^{l}\big\}.
\end{align*}
If $x_{1}x_{2}=0$, then the right-hand side of the above inequality is non-positive. Therefore, $\delta\leq0$ and thus for any contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$, from the comparison theorem for BSDEs and Proposition \ref{Bergman model general pricing proposition}, we deduce that for every $t\in[0,T]$
\bde
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass
\ede
\noindent (ii) We now assume that the interest rates $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic and satisfy $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. If $x_{1}x_{2} \neq 0$, then the example examined in the proof of Proposition 5.4 in \cite{NR2} gives a contract $(A,C)$, such that the inequality
\bde
P^{c}_{0} (x_{2},-A,-C) > P^{h}_{0} (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass
\ede
holds in the present framework, so that ${\cal R}^p_0(x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely.
\end{proof}
The last result of this subsection deals with the case where $x_{1}\leq0$ and $x_{2}\ge0$.
\bp \label{Bergman model inequality proposition for negative positive initial wealth}
Let Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} be valid and the initial endowments
satisfy $x_{1}\leq0,\, x_{2}\ge0$. Then the following statements are valid. \hfill \break
(i) If $x_{1}x_{2}=0$, then for every contract $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and all $t\in[0,T]$
\be \label{eqnew2}
P^{c}_t (x_{2},-A,-C)\leq P^{h}_t (x_{1},A,C), \quad \PTb-\aass ,
\ee
so that the range of fair bilateral prices ${\cal R}^f_t (x_1,x_2)$ is non-empty almost surely. \hfill \break
(ii) Assume that $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic and satisfy $r^{l}_{t}<r^{b}_{t}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$.
Then inequality \eqref{eqnew2} holds for all contracts $(A,C)$ admissible under $\PTb$ and all $t\in[0,T]$
if and only if $x_{1}x_{2}=0$.
\ep
\section{European Claims and Related Pricing PDEs} \label{sect4}
To alleviate notation, we assume that $d=1$, so that there is only one risky asset $S=S^1$. This is not a serious restriction,
however, since all results obtained in this subsection can be easily extended to the multi-asset framework. Moreover, we postulate that the interest rates $r^{l}$ and $r^{b}$ are deterministic and thus the only source of randomness is the Brownian
motion appearing in dynamics \eqref{Partial netting model stock price} of the risky asset.
For conciseness, we focus here on the valuation and hedging of an uncollateralized European contingent claim, that is, we set $C=0$. A generic path-independent claim of European style pays a single cash flow $H(S_{T})$ on the expiration date $T>0$, so that
\bde
A_t - A_0 = -H(S_{T})\I_{[T,T]}(t).
\ede
Since we deal here with a Markovian set-up, it is convenient to consider the pricing problem for a contract
initiated at a fixed, but otherwise arbitrary, date $t\in[0,T]$. For any fixed $t <T$, the risky asset $S$ has the ex-dividend price dynamics under $\P$ given by the following expression, for $u \in [t,T]$,
\be \label{Partial netting model stock price}
dS_u = \mu(u,S_{u})\, du +\sigma(u,S_{u})\, dW_u , \quad S_t=\ssx \in \mathcal{O},
\ee
where $W$ is a one-dimensional Brownian motion and $\mathcal{O}$ is the domain of real values that are attainable by the diffusion process $S$ (usually $\mathcal{O}=\mathbb{R}_{+}$). Moreover, the coefficients $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are such that SDE (\ref{Partial netting model stock price}) has a unique strong solution. We also assume that the volatility coefficient $\sigma$ is bounded and bounded away from zero. Finally, the dividend process equals $\pA^1_t = \int_0^t \kappa( u, S_u) \, du $.
Our first goal is to derive the hedger's pricing PDE for a path-independent European claim. We observe that
\bde
d\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}_u =dS_u + d\pA^1_u -\beta(u, S_{u})\, du=
\big( \mu(u, S_{u})+\kappa(u, S_{u})-\beta(u, S_{u}) \big) du + \sigma (u, S_{u})\, dW_u .
\ede
From the Girsanov theorem, if we denote
\bde
a_{u}:=(\sigma(u, S_{u}))^{-1}\big( \mu(u, S_{u})+\kappa(u, S_{u})-\beta(u, S_{u})\big)
\ede
and define the probability measure $\PTb$ as
\bde
\frac{d\PTb}{d\P}=\exp\left\{-\int_{t}^{T}a_{u}\, dW_{u}
-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t}^{T}|a_{u}|^{2}\, du \right\},
\ede
then $\PTb $ is equivalent to $\P$ and the process $\widetilde{W}$ is the Brownian motion under $\PTb$, where
$d\widetilde{W}_{u}:=dW_{u}+a_{u}\, du$. It is easy to see that
\bde
d\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}_{u}=\sigma (u, S_{u})\, d\widetilde{W}_u
\ede
and thus we conclude that $\wt S^{\textrm{cld}}$ is a $(\PTb , \gg)$-martingale and $\langle \wt S^{\textrm{cld}}\rangle_{u}=\int_{t}^{u}|\sigma(v, S_{v})|^{2}\, dv$. Therefore, Assumption \ref{changed assumption for artifical cumulative dividend price} holds, provided that we assume that the Brownian motion $\widetilde{W}$ has the predictable representation property under $(\gg,\PTb)$. Of course, the latter assumption is not restrictive in the present setup.
We now consider path-independent claims of European style with the unique cash flow at time $T$ given as $H(S_T)$.
From Proposition \ref{Bergman model general pricing proposition}, for any $x_{1}\in\mathbb{R}$ we have
$P^{h}(x_{1},A,C)=\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}$ where $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}})$ is the unique solution of following BSDE driven by the Brownian motion $\widetilde{W}$
\be \label{Brownian BSDE for hedger}
\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_u=\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_u\sigma (u, S_{u})\, d\widetilde{W}_u +
G^{h}(u,x_{1}, S_{u}, \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_u,\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_u)\, du ,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_T =H(S_{T}),
\end{array} \right.
\ee
where for $x_{1}\ge0$,
\bde
G^{h}(u,x_{1},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)-x_{1}\rll_u\Blr_u+\rll_u \Big(y+x_{1}\Blr_u- z\ssy\Big)^+- \rbb_t \Big( y+x_{1}\Blr_u-z\ssy\Big)^-
\ede
and for $x_{1}\leq0$
\bde
G^{h}(u,x_{1},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)-x_{1}\rbb_u\Bbr_u+\rll_u \Big(y+x_{1}\Bbr_u- z\ssy\Big)^+- \rbb_u \Big( y+x_{1}\Bbr_u-z\ssy\Big)^-.
\ede
The unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}\big)$ where for every $u\in[t,T]$
$\xi_{u}= \widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}}_{u}$ and
\bde
\begin{array} [c]{ll}
\psi^{l}_u = (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{u}+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}- \xi_u S_u \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u = - (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \Big( \widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}}_{u}+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}- \xi_u S_u \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
For a fixed $(t,\ssx)\in [0,T) \times \mathcal{O}$, the solution $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1}},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1}})$ depends on the initial value $\ssx $ of the stock price at time $t$, so that we write $(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1},\ssx},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},\ssx})$. If we denote $(Y^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u},Z^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u}):=(\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u},\widetilde{Z}^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_{u}\sigma(u,\Sst_{u}))$ and
\bde
\overline{G}^{h}(u,x_{1},\ssy,y,z)=G^{h}(u,x_{1}, \ssy , y,z\sigma^{-1}(u, x)),
\ede
then BSDE (\ref{Brownian BSDE for hedger}) reduces to
\be \label{Brownian BSDE 2 for hedger}
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u = Z^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u\, d\widetilde{W}_u+\overline{G}^{h}(u,x_{1}, \Sst_{u},Y^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u,Z^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_u)\, du,\medskip\\
Y^{h,x_{1},\ssx}_T = H( \Sst_{T}).
\end{array} \right.
\ee
Using the non-linear Feynman-Kac formula, under suitable smoothness conditions of the coefficients $\mu,\sigma,\kappa$ and $\beta$,
we deduce that the hedger's pricing function $v(t,\ssx):=Y_{t}^{h,x_{1},\ssx}$ belongs to the class $C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ and solves the following pricing PDE
\bde
\left\{ \begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\mathcal{L}v(t,\ssx)=\overline{G}^{h}\big(t,x_{1},\ssx,v(t,\ssx),\sigma(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big),\quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O} ,
\end{array} \right.
\ede
where
\bde
\mathcal{L}:=\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2} }{\partial \ssx^{2}}+(\beta-\kappa)(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial}{\partial \ssx}.
\ede
Equivalently, the function $v(t,\ssx)$ satisfies
\be \label{Bergman model hedger PDE}
\left\{
\begin{array} [c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2}v }{\partial \ssx^{2}}(t,\ssx)=
\kappa(t,\ssx) \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)-x_{1}\rll_t\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}-x_{1}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}\medskip\\
\quad \mbox{} +\rll_t \Big(v(t,\ssx)+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}- \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\Big)^+\medskip\\
\quad \mbox{} - \rbb_t \Big(v(t,\ssx)+x_{1}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}- \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\Big)^-,\quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Conversely, if a function $v \in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ solves PDE (\ref{Bergman model hedger PDE}), then $(v(u,S_{u}),\sigma(u,S_{u})\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ solves BSDE (\ref{Brownian BSDE 2 for hedger}) on $u\in[t,T]$ where we write $S = \Sst$. Therefore, $(v(u,S_{u}),\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ solves BSDE (\ref{Brownian BSDE for hedger}). Consequently, the unique replicating strategy for the hedger equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}\big)$ where for $u\in [t,T]$
\be \label{Bergman model replicating strategy for the hedger}
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\xi_{u} =\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}),\medskip\\
\psi^{l}_u = (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big(v(u,S_{u})+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}- S_u\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}) \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u = - (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \Big(v(u,S_{u})+x_{1}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\ge0\}}+x_{1}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{1}\leq0\}}-S_u \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u})\Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ee
Let us now consider the pricing problem for the counterparty with an initial endowment $x_2$. We now have $P^{c}(x_{2},-A,-C)=\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}$,
where $(\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}},\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}})$ is the unique solution of following BSDE
\be\label{Brownian BSDE for counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
d\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_u =\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_u\sigma (u, S_{u})\, d\widetilde{W}_u+G^{c}(u,x_{2},S_{u}, \widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_u,\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_u)\, du,\medskip\\
\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_T=H(S_{T}),
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
where for $x_{2}\ge0$,
\bde
G^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)+x_{2}\rll_u\Blr_u-\rll_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Blr_u+z\ssy\Big)^++\rbb_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Blr_u+z\ssy\Big)^-
\ede
and for $x_{2}\leq0$
\bde
G^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssy,y,z):=z\beta(u,\ssy)+x_{2}\rbb_u\Bbr_u-\rll_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Bbr_u+z\ssy\Big)^++\rbb_u \Big(-y+x_{2}\Bbr_u+z\ssy\Big)^-.
\ede
The unique replicating strategy for the counterparty equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}\big)$ where, for every $u\in[t,T]$,
$\xi_{u}= -\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_{u}$ and
\bde
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\psi^{l}_u = (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big( -\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{2}}_{u}+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}- \xi_u S_u \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u = - (\Bbr_u)^{-1} \Big( -\widetilde{Y}^{h,x_{2}}_{u}+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}- \xi_u S_u \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ede
For a fixed $(t,\ssx)\in [0,T) \times \mathcal{O}$,
we denote $(Y^{c,x_{2},\ssy}_{u},Z^{c,x_{2},\ssy}_{u}):=(\widetilde{Y}^{c,x_{2}}_{u},\widetilde{Z}^{c,x_{2}}_{u}\sigma(u,\Sst_{u}))$ and
\bde
\overline{G}^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssy, y,z)=G^{c}(u,x_{2},\ssy, y,z\sigma^{-1}(u, \ssy)).
\ede
Then BSDE (\ref{Brownian BSDE for hedger}) reduces to
\be\label{Brownian BSDE 2 for counterparty}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
dY^{c,x_{2},\ssy}_u =Z^{c,x_{2},\ssy}_u\, d\widetilde{W}_u
+\overline{G}^{c}( u,x_{2}, \Sst_{u}, Y^{c,x_{2},\ssy}_u,Z^{c,x_{2},\ssy}_u)\,du,\medskip\\
Y^{c,x_{2},\ssy}_T=H(\Sst_{T}).
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Under suitable smoothness conditions imposed on the coefficients $\mu$ and $\sigma$, from the Feynman-Kac formula, we deduce that
the function $v(t,\ssx):=Y_{t}^{c,x_{2},\ssx}$ belongs to $C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$
and solves the following PDE
\be\label{Bergman model counterparty PDE 1}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\mathcal{L}v(t,\ssx)=\overline{G}^{c}\big(t,x_{2},\ssx,v(t,\ssx),\sigma(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\big), \quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
More explicitly,
\be\label{Bergman model counterparty PDE}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}(t,\ssx)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^{2}(t,\ssx)\frac{\partial^{2}v }{\partial \ssx^{2}}(t,\ssx)=
\kappa(t,\ssx) \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)+x_{2}\rll_t\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\rbb_t\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}\medskip\\
\quad \mbox{} -\rll_t \Big(-v(t,\ssx)+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+ \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\Big)^+\medskip\\
\quad \mbox{} + \rbb_t \Big(-v(t,\ssx)+x_{2}\Blr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_t\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+ \ssx \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(t,\ssx)\Big)^-,\quad (t,\ssx)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{O},\medskip\\
v(T,\ssx)=H(\ssx), \quad \ssx\in\mathcal{O}.
\end{array}
\right.
\ee
Conversely, if a function $v\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ solves PDE (\ref{Bergman model counterparty PDE}), then $(v(u,S_{u}),\sigma(u,S_{u})\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ solves BSDE (\ref{Brownian BSDE 2 for counterparty}) on $u\in[t,T]$ where $S = \Sst$. Hence $(v(u,S_{u}),\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}))$ solves BSDE (\ref{Brownian BSDE for counterparty}) and the unique replicating strategy for the counterparty equals $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}\big)$ where, for every $u\in [t,T]$,
\be \label{Bergman model replicating strategy for the counterparty}
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}
\xi_{u}=-\frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}),\medskip\\
\psi^{l}_u = (\Blr_u)^{-1} \Big(-v(u,S_{u})+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+S_u \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}) \Big)^+, \medskip\\
\psi^{b}_u = - (\Bbr_t)^{-1} \Big(-v(u,S_{u})+x_{2}\Blr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\ge0\}}+x_{2}\Bbr_u\I_{\{x_{2}\leq0\}}+ S_u \frac{\partial v}{\partial \ssx}(u,S_{u}) \Big)^-.
\end{array}
\ee
The following proposition summarizes the above considerations. When $\kappa=0$ (that is, the stock pays no dividends) and $x_{1}=x_{2}=0$, then PDE (\ref{Bergman model hedger PDE}) reduces to PDE (5) in Bergman \cite{B-1995}. Therefore, Proposition \ref{Bergman model pricing using PDE} can be seen as a generalization of Proposition 2 in \cite{B-1995}.
\bp \label{Bergman model pricing using PDE}
If $v(t,\ssx)\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ is the solution of quasi-linear PDE (\ref{Bergman model hedger PDE}),
then the hedger's ex-dividend price of the European claim $H(S_T)$ equals $v(t,S_{t})$ and the unique
replicating strategy $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}\big)$ for the hedger is given by (\ref{Bergman model replicating strategy for the hedger}). Similarly, if $v(t,\ssx)\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times\mathcal{O})$ is the solution of quasi-linear PDE (\ref{Bergman model counterparty PDE}), then the counterparty's ex-dividend price of the European claim $H(S_T)$ equals $v(t,S_{t})$ and the unique replicating strategy $\phi = \big(\xi, \psi^{l}, \psi^{b}\big)$ for the counterparty is given by (\ref{Bergman model replicating strategy for the counterparty}).
\ep
\vskip 5 pt
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgement.}
The research of Tianyang Nie and Marek Rutkowski was supported under Australian Research
Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (DP120100895).
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded, strictly convex domain of $\mathbb R^{2}$. In a nowadays classical paper by Talenti \cite{ta81}, it was proved that if $u$ is a $C^{2}$ concave solution of the Monge-Amp\`ere equation
\begin{equation}
\label{euclideo}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\det \nabla^{2} u =f(x) &\text{in }\Omega,\\
u=0&\text{on }\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
with $f$ positive and sufficiently smooth function, then
\begin{equation}
\label{talenti}
\tilde u(x) \le v(x), \quad x\in D,
\end{equation}
where $v$ is the positive concave solution of the problem
\begin{equation}
\label{euclideorad}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\det \nabla^{2} v =f^\#(x) &\text{in }D,\\
v=0&\text{on }\partial D.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here $D$ is the disk centered at the origin with the same perimeter of $\Omega$, $f^\#$ is the spherically decreasing rearrangement of $f$, and $\tilde u$ is the spherically decreasing function in $D$ whose level sets have the same perimeter of the level sets of $u$. Hence, among all the problems of the type \eqref{euclideo} with prescribed perimeter of $\Omega$ and fixed rearrangement of $f$, problem \eqref{euclideorad} gives the ``maximal'' solution.
After this result, generalizations in several directions have been studied (see for example \cite{br,bntpoin,bt07,bt07bis,dpg2,dpg3,ga09,tr2,tso}). Moreover, it was proved in \cite{tr2}, \cite{tso} that a P\'olya-Szeg\"o type inequality for the Monge-Amp\`ere operator holds, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{poleucl}
\int_{\Omega} u\det D^{2} u\, dx \ge \int_{D} \tilde u \det D^{2} \tilde u\, dx.
\end{equation}
Hence, the symmetrization with respect to the perimeter decreases the Hessian integral.
In this paper we take into account a class of fully nonlinear elliptic anisotropic operators of the second order, which contains the classical Monge-Amp\`ere operator. More precisely, we consider a sufficiently smooth norm $H$ of $\mathbb R^2$, and denote with $H^o$ its polar function (see Section 2 for the precise assumptions). If $u$ a smooth concave function, we take into account the following anisotropic Monge-Amp\`ere operator
\begin{equation}
\label{detintr}
\vspace{.1cm}
{\det}_{H}[u]:=\det \nabla^{2}_{\xi} F \,\det \nabla^{2} u,
\vspace{.1cm}
\end{equation}
where $F(\xi)=\frac 1 2 {H(\xi)^{2}}$, $\xi \in \mathbb R^{2}$, and $\nabla^{2}_{\xi}F(\xi)$ is the $2\times 2$ matrix of the second derivatives of $F$. We observe that when $H$ is the Euclidean norm of $\mathbb R^{2}$, then the matrix $\nabla^{2}_{\xi} F$ reduces to the identity, and \eqref{detintr} reduces with the classical Monge-Amp\`ere operator.
Several kind of problems related to anisotropic operators have been largely studied in last years. We refer the reader, for example, to \cite{aflt,atw,and,bp,bfk,bf,ciasal,cfv,dpg4,dpg5,et,fvol,ja,wxarma}.
The aim of this paper is to prove a suitable generalization of the inequalities \eqref{talenti} and \eqref{poleucl} for the operator \eqref{detintr} using a new type of symmetrization. More precisely, given a concave smooth function $u$, the rearranged function we introduce preserves the anisotropic perimeter of its level sets, that is a suitable measure of the length of $\{u=t\}$ which takes into account the anisotropy $H$. For this purpose a fundamental tool is a well-known anisotropic isoperimetric inequality (see for instance \cite{bu,aflt,fomu,dpf,dpg1}). Moreover, a key role is played by a relation between the operator \eqref{detintr} and the anisotropic curvature of the level sets of $u$ (see Sections 2 and 3).
The structure of the paper is the following. In Section 2, we state the main hypotheses on the norm $H$, and we recall the definition of anisotropic perimeter and curvature, proving a version of the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem in this setting. In Section 3, we introduce the anisotropic Monge-Amp\`ere operator, proving its connection with the anisotropic curvature. Moreover, we compute the operator \eqref{detintr} for functions which are symmetric with respect to $H^{o}$.
The Section 4 is devoted to define the symmetrization with respect to the anisotropic perimeter and to prove the P\'olya-Szeg\"o inequality. Finally, in Section 5 we prove the quoted comparison result in the spirit of Talenti's inequality.
\section{Notation and preliminaries}
Throughout the paper we will denote by $H:\mathbb R^2\rightarrow [0,+\infty[$, a convex function such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lin}
\alpha|\xi| \le H(\xi),\quad \forall \xi\in \mathbb R^2,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:omo}
H(t\xi)= |t| H(\xi), \quad \forall \xi \in \mathbb R^2,\; \forall t \in
\mathbb R.
\end{equation}
Under these hypotheses it is easy to see that there exists $\beta\ge \alpha$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{betabound}
H(\xi) \le \beta|\xi|,\quad \forall \xi\in \mathbb R^2.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we assume that $H^{2}$ is strongly convex, that is $H\in C^{2}(\mathbb R^{2}\setminus\{0\})$ and the Hessian matrix $\nabla^{2}_{\xi} H^{2}$ is positive definite in $\mathbb R^{2}\setminus\{0\}$.
The polar function $H^o\colon\mathbb R^2 \rightarrow [0,+\infty[$ of $H$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pol}
H^o(v)=\sup_{\xi \ne 0} \frac{\xi\cdot v}{H(\xi)}
\end{equation}
where $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is the usual scalar product of
$\mathbb R^2$. It is easy to verify that also $H^o$ is a convex function
which satisfies properties \eqref{eq:lin} and \eqref{eq:omo}. Furthermore,
\[
H(v)=\sup_{\xi \ne 0} \frac{\xi\cdot v}{H^o(\xi)}.
\]
The set
\[
\mathcal W = \{ \xi \in \mathbb R^n \colon H^o(\xi)< 1 \}
\]
is the so-called Wulff shape centered at the origin. We put
$\kappa=|\mathcal W|$, where $|\mathcal W|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure
of $\mathcal W$.
More generally, we denote with $\mathcal W_r(x_0)$
the set $r\mathcal W+x_0$, that is the Wulff shape centered at $x_0$
with measure $\kappa r^2$, and $\mathcal W_r(0)=\mathcal W_r$.
The strong convexity of $H^{2}$ implies that $\{\xi\in\mathbb R^{2}\colon H(\xi)< 1\}$ is strictly convex. This ensures that $H^{o}\in C^{1}(\mathbb R^{2}\setminus\{0\})$. Actually, the strict convexity of the level sets of $H$ is equivalent to the continuous differentiability of $H^{o}$ in $\mathbb R^{2}\setminus\{0\}$ (see \cite{schn} for the details).
The following properties of $H$ and $H^o$ hold true
(see for example \cite{bp}):
\begin{gather}
H(\xi)=H_{\xi}(\xi)\cdot \xi,\quad H^{o}(\xi)=H^{o}_{\xi}(\xi)\cdot \xi,\quad \forall \xi \in
\mathbb R^2\setminus \{0\}\label{eul} \\
H( H_{\xi}^o(\xi))=H^o(H_{\xi}(\xi))=1,\quad \forall \xi \in
\mathbb R^2\setminus \{0\}, \label{eq:H1} \\
H^o(\xi) H_{\xi}( H_{\xi}^o(\xi) ) = H(\xi)
H_{\xi}^o( H_{\xi}(\xi) ) = \xi,\quad \forall \xi \in
\mathbb R^2\setminus \{0\}. \label{eq:HH0}
\end{gather}
\subsection{Anisotropic perimeter}
Let $K$ be an open bounded set of $\mathbb R^n$ with Lipschitz boundary. The
perimeter of $K$ is defined as the quantity
\[
P_H(K) = \int_{ \partial K} H(\nu_K) d\mathcal H^1,
\]
where $\nu_{K}$ is the Euclidean outer normal to $\partial K$.
For example, if $K=\mathcal W_{R}$, then
\begin{multline*}
P_{H}(\mathcal W_{R})=\int_{\partial \mathcal W_{R}} \frac{1}{|\nabla H^{o}(x)|} d\mathcal H^{1}= \frac 1 R \int_{\partial \mathcal W_{R}} \frac{x\cdot \nabla H^{o}(x)}{|\nabla H^{o}(x)|} d\mathcal H^{1} = \\=
\frac 1 R \int_{\partial \mathcal W_{R}} x\cdot \nu\, d\mathcal H^{1} =
\frac 2 R \int_{\mathcal W_{R}} dx = 2\kappa R,
\end{multline*}
where in the above computations we used \eqref{eul} and the divergence theorem.
The anisotropic perimeter of a set $K$ is finite if and only if the usual Euclidean perimeter $P(K)$ is finite. Indeed, by properties \eqref{eq:omo} and \eqref{eq:lin} we have that
\[
\frac{1}{\beta} |\xi| \le H^o(\xi) \le \frac{1}{\alpha} |\xi|,
\]
and then
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:per}
\alpha P(K) \le P_H(K) \le \beta P(K).
\end{equation*}
An isoperimetric inequality for the anisotropic perimeter holds,
namely
\begin{equation}
\label{isop}
P_H(K)^{2} \ge 4\kappa |K|
\end{equation}
(see for example
\cite{bu,dpf,fomu,aflt}). We stress that in
\cite{dpg1} an isoperimetric inequality for the
anisotropic relative perimeter in the plane is studied.
Moreover, if $K$ is a convex body of $\mathbb R^{2}$, and $\delta>0$, the following Steiner formulas hold (see \cite{and,schn}):
\begin{equation}
\nota
|K+\delta \mathcal W|= |K| + P_H(K) \delta + \kappa \delta^2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{st2}
P_H(K+\delta \mathcal W) = P_H(K) +
2 \kappa \delta.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Anisotropic curvature}
For the sake of simplicity, will assume the following conventional notation: given a smooth function $u$, then $\partial_{x_{i}}u=u_{i}$, for $i=1,2$, and $\partial_{x_i x_j}u =u_{ij}$, for $i,j=1,2$.
We recall the definition and some properties of anisotropic curvature for a smooth set. For further details we refer the reader, for example, to \cite{atw} and \cite{bp}.
\begin{definiz}
Let
$K\subset \mathbb R^2$ be a bounded open set with smooth boundary,
$\nu_K(x)$ the unit outer normal at $x\in \partial K$, in the
usual Euclidean sense. Let $u$ be a $C^2(K)$ function such that
$=\{u>0\}$, $\partial K = \{ u=0 \}$ and $\nabla u \ne (0,0)$ on $\partial
K$. Hence, $\nu_K=-\frac{\nabla u}{|\nabla u|}$ on $\partial K$.
The anisotropic outer normal $n_{K}$ is defined as
\[
n_K(x)= \nabla_{\xi} H(\nu_K(x))=\nabla H_{\xi}\left(-\frac{\nabla u}{|\nabla u|}\right),\quad x\in \partial K.
\]
By the properties of $H$ and $H^{o}$,
\[
H^o(n_K)=1.
\]
The anisotropic curvature $k_H$ of $\partial K$ is
\[
k_H(x)= \divergenza n_K(x)=\divergenza\left[ \nabla_{\xi}
H\left(-\frac{\nabla u}{|\nabla u|}\right) \right], \quad x\in
\partial K.
\]
Being $\nabla_{\xi}H$ a $0$-homogeneous function, it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{curvform2}
k_{H}(x)=-\divergenza \big[ \nabla_{\xi} H(\nabla u)\big]= -\sum_{i,j} H_{\xi_{i}\xi_{j}}(\nabla u)\,u_{ij}\quad\text{on }\partial K.
\end{equation}
\end{definiz}
\begin{rem}
If $H(x)=(x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2})^{1/2}$ is the Euclidean norm of $\mathbb R^{2}$, then the above definition coincides with the classical definition of curvature in the plane.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
We stress that if $K=\mathcal W_{\lambda}(x_{0})=\{x\in \mathbb R^{2}\colon H^o(x-x_0)<\lambda\}$, that is homothetic to the Wulff shape $\mathcal W$ and centered at $x_0\in \mathbb R^{2}$, the anisotropic outer normal at $x\in \partial K$ has the direction of $x-x_0$. Indeed by the properties of $H$ it follows that
\[
n_K(x)= \nabla_\xi H\big(\nabla_{\xi} H^o(x-x_0) \big) =
\frac{1}{\lambda}(x-x_0),\quad x\in \partial K
\]
(see Figure \ref{fig:normal} for an example). Moreover, computing the anisotropic curvature at $x\in \partial K$ we have that
\[
k_H(x)= \frac 1 \lambda.
\]
\end{rem}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[line cap=round,line join=round,>=triangle
45,x=1.0cm,y=1.0cm,>=stealth,scale=1.1]
\draw[->,color=black] (-3.77,0) -- (4.58,0);
\draw[->,color=black] (0,-2.5) -- (0,1.85);
\draw [rotate around={0:(0,0)}] (0,0) ellipse (3.3cm and 1.38cm);
\draw [domain=-3.77:4.58] plot(\x,{(-3.08--0.26*\x)/2.14});
\draw [->] (0.94,-1.32) -- (1.05,-2.26);
\draw [->] (0.94,-1.32) -- (1.7,-2.38);
\draw[color=black] (-1.53,.7) node {\scriptsize $\mathcal W_{\lambda}$};
\draw[color=black] (-3.69,-1.74) node {\scriptsize $t$};
\draw[color=black] (.86,-1.71) node {\scriptsize $\nu$};
\draw[color=black] (1.3,-1.61) node {\scriptsize $n$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{ Here $H(x_{1},x_{2})=(
{x_{1}^2}/{a^2}+ {x_{2}^2}/{b^2})^{1/2}$ and $H^o(x_{1},x_{2})=(
{a^2}{x_{1}^2}+ {b^2}{x_{2}^2})^{1/2}$. When $a\ne b$, the usual and the
anisotropic outer normal are, in general, different.}\label{fig:normal}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
The anisotropic curvature and the anisotropic perimeter are related as follows. By computing the first variation of the perimeter (see \cite[Theorem 5.1]{bp}, or \cite[Section 2.6, formula (2.24)]{and})
we have that if $K$ has smooth boundary
\[
\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0^+}\frac{P_H(K+\delta \mathcal W)-P_H(K)}{\delta} = \int_{\partial \Omega} k_{H}(x) H(\nu)d\mathcal H^{1}.
\]
Combining this identity and formula \eqref{st2}, we obtain the following anisotropic version of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem for boundaries of smooth convex sets.
\begin{prop}
If $K$ is a convex, bounded open set such that $\partial K\in C^{2}$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{gaussbonnet}
\int_{\partial K} k_{H}(x)\,H(\nu)\,d\mathcal H^{1}= 2\kappa.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\section{Anisotropic Monge-Amp\`ere operator}
Given any $\xi=(\xi_{1},\xi_{2})\in \mathbb R^{2}$, we denote by $F(\xi)$ the function
\[
F(\xi)=\frac 1 2 {H(\xi)^{2}},
\]
and by $\nabla^{2}_{\xi}F(\xi)$ the $2\times 2$ matrix of the second derivatives of $F$. Hence its components are
\[
F_{\xi_{i}\xi_{j}} =
H_{\xi_{i}}H_{\xi_{j}}+
H H_{\xi_{i}\xi_{j}},\quad\text{for }i,j=1,2.
\]
Let $u$ be a smooth function, and consider the fully nonlinear operator $u \mapsto A[u]=A(\nabla u, \nabla^{2}u)$ defined as
\[
A[u] = \nabla_{x} \big[ F_{\xi}(\nabla u) \big]= \nabla^{2}_{\xi}F(\nabla u)\, \nabla^{2}u.
\]
We will take into account equations whose principal part is the following:
\[
{\det}_{H}[u]:=\det A[u]=\det \nabla^{2}_{\xi} F \,\det \nabla^{2} u.
\]
\begin{rem}
We point out that if $H(x)=(x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2})^{1/2}$ is the Euclidean norm of $\mathbb R^{2}$, then the matrix $\nabla^{2}_{\xi} F$ reduces to the identity, and the operator $\det A[u]$ coincides with the classical Monge-Amp\`ere operator.
\end{rem}
We will consider a convex, bounded, open set $\Omega\in \mathbb R^{2}$ with $C^{2}$ boundary, and functions belonging to the class
\[
\Phi_{0}(\Omega)\colon= \left\{u\colon\Omega\to \mathbb R\, \big|\, u\in W^{2,2}(\Omega)\cap C^1(\bar \Omega),\, u \equiv 0 \text{ on }\partial \Omega, u
\text{ concave in }\Omega
\right\}.
\]
Being $F$ strongly convex, the functions $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)$ are admissible in order to have that $\det_{H}$ is elliptic. Obviously, $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)$ is either positive in $\Omega$, or $v\equiv 0$ in $\bar \Omega$.
Let us denote by
\[
(S^{ij}(B))_{ij}= \Cof B =
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{22}& -b_{21}\\
-b_{12}& b_{11}
\end{pmatrix}
\]
the cofactor of the matrix $B=(b_{ij})$. Observe that
\[
\sum_{i,j}S^{ij}(A[u])F_{\xi_{i}}u_{j} =
\nabla_{\xi} F
\Cof A[u]
\cdot \nabla u.
\]
In \cite{ciasal} the following integration by parts formula is proved.
\begin{lemma}
\label{ciasaprop}
Let $u\in W^{2,2}(\Omega)\cap C^{1}(\bar \Omega)$, with $\Omega$ bounded open set such that $\partial \Omega\in C^{1}$, and $u=0$ on $\partial \Omega$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{ciasa}
\int_{\Omega} u\, {\det}_{H}[u]\,dx =-\frac 1 2 \sum_{i,j}\int_{\Omega} S^{ij}(A[u])\, F_{\xi_{i}}(\nabla u)\,u_{j}\,dx.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
For a function $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)$, we denote the set $E_{u}$ as the following:
\begin{equation}
\label{Eu}
E_{u}=\{x\in\Omega\colon 0\le u(x)<{\max}_{\bar\Omega}u\}.
\end{equation}
Being $u\in C^{1}(\bar \Omega)$, $E_{u}$ is an open set.
\begin{theo}
\label{curvani}
Let $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)\cap C^{2}(E_{u})$, $u\not\equiv 0$, and take $x\in \bar\Omega$ such that $u(x)\in [0,\max_{\bar\Omega}u[$.
\end{theo}
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{curvform}
k_{H}(x)= -H(\nabla u(x))^{-3} \sum_{i,j} \, S^{ij}(A[u(x)])\,F_{\xi_{i}}(\nabla u(x))\, u_{j}(x),
\end{equation}
where $k_{H}(x)$ is the anisotropic curvature of the level set $\{y\in\Omega\colon u(y)=u(x)\}$ at the point $x$.
\begin{proof}
First of all, we observe that $|\nabla u(x)|\ne 0$ by the regularity and the concavity of $u\not\equiv 0$. Denoting $H_{\xi_{i}}=H_{i}$, $H_{\xi_{i}\xi_{j}}=H_{ij}$, and using the Einstein summation convention, we have
\[
(S^{ij}(A[u]))_{ij} =
\begin{pmatrix}
H_{2} H_{m}\, u_{2m} & -H_{2} H_{m}\,u_{1m} \\
-H_{1} H_{m}\,u_{2m} & H_{1} H_{m}\, u_{1m}
\end{pmatrix}+
H
\begin{pmatrix}
H_{2m}\, u_{2m} & - H_{2m}\,u_{1m} \\
-H_{1m}\,u_{2m} & H_{1m}\, u_{1m}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Then, recalling that $k_{H}=-H_{ij}u_{ij}$, we have
\[
\begin{split}
S^{ij}&(A[u])F_{\xi_{i}}(\nabla u)u_{j}\\&= H^{2}(\nabla u)
\left[ H_{2m}u_{2m} H_{1}u_{1} + H_{1m}u_{1m}H_{2}u_{2}
-H_{2m}u_{1m}H_{1}u_{2}-H_{1m}u_{2m}H_{2}u_{1}\right]\\&=
H^{2}(\nabla u)\left[-k_{H}(H_{1}u_{1}+H_{2}u_{2})+\right.\\
&\qquad\quad\left.
-H_{1}u_{11}( H_{11} u_{1} + H_{12} u_{2})-H_{1}u_{12}(H_{21}u_{1}+H_{22}u_{2})+\right.\\
&\qquad\quad\left.-H_{2}u_{12}(H_{11}u_{1}+H_{12}u_{2})-H_{2}u_{22}(H_{21}u_{1}+H_{22}u_{2})
\right]
\\&=
H^3(\nabla u)\, k_{H}(x),
\end{split}
\]
where last equality follows from the 1 and 0 homogeneity of $H$ and $H_{\xi}$, respectively, being $\nabla_{\xi} H_{i}(\nabla u) \cdot \nabla u=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We stress that if $H(x)=(x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2})^{1/2}$ is the Euclidean norm of $\mathbb R^{2}$, then the identity \eqref{curvform} reduces to the well-known formula for the Euclidean curvature of the level sets of $u$:
\[
k(x)= -|\nabla u|^{-3}
S^{ij}(\nabla^{2}u)\, u_{i}\, u_{j},
\]
with
\[(S^{ij}(\nabla^{2}u))_{ij}=
\begin{pmatrix}
u_{22} & -u_{12} \\
-u_{12} & u_{11}
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
\end{rem}
The following Reilly-type inequality for the anisotropic determinant holds.
\begin{prop}
Let $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)\cap C^{2}(E_u)$, where $E_u$ is defined in \eqref{Eu} and $\Omega$ is a bounded convex open set such that $\partial \Omega\in C^{2}$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{reilly}
\int_{u>t} {\det}_{H}[u]\, dx = \frac 1 2 \int_{u=t} k_{H}(x) \frac{H(\nabla u)^{3}}{|\nabla u|} d\mathcal H^{1}, \quad t \in [0,\max_{\bar\Omega}u[.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $t\in [0,\max_{\bar\Omega}u[$, and $h>0$ sufficiently small, and apply Lemma \ref{ciasaprop} to the functions $u-t$ and $u-t-h$ in the sets $\{u>t\}$ and $\{u>t+h\}$ respectively. By subtracting, and recalling \eqref{curvform} we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{t< u\le t+h} (u-t){\det}_{H}[u] dx - h\int_{u>t+h} {\det}_{H}[u] dx &= \frac 1 2\int_{t< u\le t+h} k_{H}(x) H(\nabla u)^{3} dx=\\[.1cm]
&= \frac 1 2 \int_{t}^{t+h} d\tau \int_{u=\tau} k_{H}(x) \frac{H(\nabla u)^{3}}
{|\nabla u|} d\mathcal H^{1},
\end{align*}
where last equality follows from the coarea formula.
Hence, dividing for $h$ and passing to the limit, we easily get \eqref{reilly}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The anisotropic Monge-Amp\`ere operator for radial functions}
Let $v(x)=w(H^{o}(x))=w(r)$, $x\in \mathcal W_{R}$, $r=H^{o}(x)$. We compute the operator $\det_{H}$ on $v$. We have:
\[
\nabla v(x)=w'(r) H^{o}_{\xi}(x).
\]
Then, using the homogeneity of $H$ and properties \eqref{eq:H1} and \eqref{eq:HH0}, it follows that
\[
F_{\xi}(\nabla v(x))= w'(r)\,H(H_{\xi}^{o}(x))\,H_{\xi}(H_{\xi}^{o}(x)) = w'(r) \frac{x}{H^{o}(x)}.
\]
Then
\[
A[v] =
\begin{pmatrix}
w'' \frac{x_{1} H^{o}_{\xi_{1}}}{r}+\frac{w'}{r^{2}}\left(r-x_{1} H_{\xi_{1}}^{o}\right) & \frac{x_{2} H_{\xi_{1}}^{o}}{r}\left(w''-\frac{w'}{r}\right) \\[.3cm]
\frac{x_{1} H_{\xi_{2}}^{o}}{r}\left(w''-\frac{w'}{r}\right) & w'' \frac{x_{2} H^{o}_{\xi_{2}}}{r}+\frac{w'}{r^{2}}\left(r-x_{2} H_{\xi_{2}}^{o}\right)
\end{pmatrix}
\]
Then, computing the determinant of $A[v]$ and using \eqref{eul}, a
straightforward computation leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{rad}
\det A[v] = \frac{w' w''}{r}=\frac{[(w')^{2}]'}{2r}.
\end{equation}
Hence the function
\[
v(x)=\sqrt 2\int_{H^{o}(x)}^{R} \left(\int_{0}^{s} r\,g(r)\,dr
\right)^{\frac 1 2}ds
\]
is such that $v \in \Phi_0(\mathcal{W}_R) \cap C^2(\mathcal{W}_R\setminus\{0\})$ and $v$ is the unique anisotropic radially symmetric function such that
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\det_{H}[v]= g(H^{o}(x)) & \text{ a.e. in }\mathcal W_{R}\setminus\{0\}\\
v=0 &\text{ on }\partial\mathcal W_{R}.\\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\section{Symmetrization with respect to the anisotropic perimeter}
Now we recall some basic definition on rearrangements and convex symmetrization. Moreover for a given function $u$, we introduce a new kind of symmetrization which preserves the anisotropic perimeter of the level sets of $u$.
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open set, and $u\colon \Omega\rightarrow \mathbb R$ a measurable function. We will adopt the following notation:
\[
\Omega_t =\{x \in \Omega \colon |u(x)|>t \} \text{ and } \Sigma_t= \partial\Omega_t= \{x \in \Omega \colon |u(x)|=t \}.
\]
Moreover, $\mu(t)=|\Omega_{t}|$, $t\ge 0$ is the distribution function of $u$.
The {decreasing rearrangement} of $u$ is the map
$u^*:\,[0,\infty[\rightarrow \mathbb R$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
u^*(s):=\sup\{t\in\mathbb R:\mu(t)>s\}.
\end{equation*}
The function $u^*$ is the generalized inverse of $\mu$.
Following \cite{aflt}, the convex symmetrization of $u$ is the
function $u^\text{\ding{71}}(x)$, $x\in \Omega^\text{\ding{71}}$ defined by:
\begin{equation*}
u^\text{\ding{71}}(x)=u^*(\kappa H^o(x)^2),
\end{equation*}
where $\Omega^\text{\ding{71}}$ is a set homothetic to the Wulff shape having
the same measure of $\Omega$.
Now suppose that $\Omega$ is a convex set of $\mathbb R^2$ and let $u\ge 0$ be a measurable function with convex level sets. For $t\in [0,\max_{\bar \Omega} u]$ the anisotropic perimeter of the level set
$\Omega_{t}$ is denoted with
\begin{equation}
\label{lambda}
\lambda_H(t)= P_{H}(\Omega_{t}).
\end{equation}
It is well-known that $u$, $u^{\text{\ding{71}}}$ and $u^*$ are equimeasurable.
\begin{definiz}
\label{asim}
The rearrangement of $u$ with respect to the anisotropic perimeter is the function $s\in [0,P_{H}(\Omega)]\mapsto u^\text{\ding{86}}(s)\in [0,\max_{\bar\Omega}u]$ defined as
\[
u^{\text{\ding{86}}}(s)=\sup\{t\ge 0\colon \lambda_{H}(t)\ge s\}.
\]
Moreover, we define the anisotropic radial symmetrand of $u$ with respect to the anisotropic perimeter the function
\[
u^{\text{\ding{73}}}(x)=u^{\text{\ding{86}}}\big(2\,\kappa\,H^{o}(x)\big),\quad x\in \Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}},
\]
where $\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}$ is the set homothetic to the Wulff shape $\mathcal W$ such that $P_{H}(\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}})=P_{H}(\Omega)$. More precisely, $\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}=\mathcal W_{R}$, with $R=\frac{P_{H}(\Omega)}{2\kappa}$.
\end{definiz}
From now on, we will suppose that $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega) \cap C^2(E_u)$, where $E_u$ is defined in \eqref{Eu}.
The functions $ u^{\text{\ding{86}}}$ and $u^{\text{\ding{73}}}$ have the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $u^{\text{\ding{86}}}$ is a concave and decreasing function in $[0,P_H(\Omega)]$;
\item[(ii)] $u^{\text{\ding{73}}}(x)$ is symmetric and decreasing with respect to $H^{o}$;
\item[(iii)] The sets $\{u^\text{\ding{73}}>t\}$ are homothetic to the Wulff shape such that $P_{H}(\{u^\text{\ding{73}}>t\})=P_{H}(\{u>t\})$.
\item[(iv)] $u^{\text{\ding{86}}}(\lambda_H(t))=t$.
\end{itemize}
If $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)$, the coarea formula gives that
\begin{equation}
\label{muprimo}
\mu'(t)= -\int_{\Sigma_{t}}\frac{1}{|\nabla u|}d\mathcal H^{1},\quad t\in[0,{\max}_{\bar\Omega}u[.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have the following result.
\begin{prop}
\label{proplambda}
If $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)\cap C^2(E_u)$, the function $\lambda_H(t)$ defined in \eqref{lambda} is strictly decreasing in $[0, \max_{\Omega} u]$, it is differentiable in $[0,\max_{\bar\Omega} u[$ and its derivative is
\begin{equation}
\label{proplambdaeq}
\lambda_{H}'(t) = -\int_{\Sigma_{t}} \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}\, d\mathcal H^{1}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Using the homogeneity of $H$ and the divergence theorem we get
\begin{multline*}
\lambda_{H}(t)= \int_{\Sigma_{t}} H(\nu_{\Omega_{t}})d\mathcal H^{1}=
-\int_{\Sigma_{t}} \nabla_{\xi} H(\nabla u) \cdot \nu_{\Omega_{t}} d\mathcal H^{1}= \\ =
-\int_{\Omega_{t}} \divergenza \nabla_{\xi}H(\nabla u)\, dx= \int_{\Omega_{t}} k_{H}(x) dx.
\end{multline*}
Hence, being $|\nabla u|\ne 0$ on $\Sigma_{t}$, for any $t\in [0,\max_{\Omega}u[$, by the coarea formula we obtain, for $t\in [0,\max_{\bar\Omega} u[$, that
\[
\frac 1 h \left[\lambda_{H}(t)-\lambda_{H}(t+h)\right] = \frac 1 h \int_{\{t< u\le t+h\}} k_{H}(x)\,dx= \frac 1 h \int_{t}^{t+h} \int_{\Sigma_{t}}\frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|} d\mathcal H^{1}.
\]
Passing to the limit, we get \eqref{proplambdaeq}.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of Proposition \ref{proplambda}, we have that
\begin{prop}
The function $u^{\text{\ding{86}}}$ belongs to $C^{0,1}(]0,P_{H}(\Omega)])$, and there exists a positive constant $C>0$ such that
\[
0\le -(u^{\text{\ding{86}}})'(s) \le C, \text{ for any } s \in ]0,P_{H}(\Omega)].
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $t\in [0,\max_{\bar\Omega}u[$. By Proposition \ref{proplambda}, \eqref{betabound} and formula \eqref{gaussbonnet}, we have
\begin{gather}
\begin{split}
\label{reg}
-\lambda_{H}'(t) =& \int_{\Sigma_{t}} \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}\, d\mathcal H^{1}\ge \frac{1}{\max_{\Omega}|\nabla u|}\int_{\Sigma_{t}} k_{H}(x)\, d\mathcal H^{1}\\
&\ge \frac{1}{\beta\max_{\bar\Omega}|\nabla u| }\int_{\Sigma_{t}} k_{H}(x) H(\nu)\, d\mathcal H^{1}\\
&=\frac{2 \kappa}{\beta\max_{\bar\Omega}|\nabla u| }.
\end{split}
\end{gather}
Being $u^{\text{\ding{86}}}(\lambda_H(t))=t$ then
\[
\lambda_{H}'(t)=\frac{1}{\frac{d}{dt}u^{\text{\ding{86}}}(\lambda_H(t))}.
\]
Substituting in \eqref{reg} we get the thesis.
\end{proof}
The main difference between the symmetrand of $u$ with respect to the anisotropic perimeter $u^{\text{\ding{73}}}$ and the convex symmetrand of $u$, $u^{\text{\ding{71}}}(x)$, is that, in general, the first one increases the Lebesgue norms of $u$. Indeed, we have the following.
\begin{prop}
Let be $u \in \Phi_0(\Omega)\cap C^2(E_u)$ and $u^{\text{\ding{73}} }$ as in Definition \ref{asim}. Then
\[
\|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)} \le \|u^{\text{\ding{73}}}\|_{L^p(\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}})}, \quad 1\le p <+\infty,
\]
and
\[
\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}=\|u^{\text{\ding{73}}}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}})}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to observe that, by the anisotropic isoperimetric inequality \eqref{isop} we have
\[
|\{u>t\}|=\mu(t)\le \frac{\lambda_H^2(t)}{4 \kappa}=\frac{P^2_H(\{u^{\text{\ding{73}}}>t\})}{4 \kappa}=|\{u^{\text{\ding{73}}}>t\}|.
\]
\end{proof}
In order to prove a P\'olya-type inequality for the symmetrization with respect to the anisotropic perimeter we need the following definition.
\begin{definiz}[Anisotropic Hessian integral]
Let $u \in \Phi_0(\Omega)\cap C^2(E_u)$. Then the anisotropic Hessian integral is
\[
I_H[u,\Omega]=\int_{\Omega} u\, {\det}_{H}[u]\,dx
\]
\end{definiz}
\begin{rem}
By Theorem \ref{curvani} and the identity \eqref{ciasa}, for $u \in \Phi_0(\Omega)\cap C^2(E_u)$ the anisotropic Hessian integral can be written also as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{hesint}
I_H[u,\Omega]=\int_{\Omega} u\, {\det}_{H}[u]\,dx =\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega} k_H(x)\, H^3(\nabla u) \,dx.
\end{equation}
\end{rem}
When we consider anisotropic radially symmetric function $v(x)=w(H^o(x))$, the anisotropic Hessian integral, recalling \eqref{rad}, is naturally defined as follows.
\begin{definiz}
Let be $v$ a concave function in $C^{0,1}(\mathcal W_R)$, such that $v$ vanishes on $\partial \mathcal W_R$ and $v(x)=w(H^o(x))=w(r)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{intrad}
I_H[v,\mathcal W_R]= \kappa \int_0^R |w'(t)|^3 \, dt.
\end{equation}
\end{definiz}
In particular, for $v(x)=u^{\text{\ding{73}}}(x)=u^{\text{\ding{86}}}(2\kappa H^{o}(x))$, $x\in\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}$, $P_H(\Omega)=2\kappa R$ performing a change of variable we have that for
\begin{equation}
\label{hesintrad}
I_H[u^{\text{\ding{73}}},\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}]= 4\kappa^{3} \int_{0}^{P_{H}(\Omega)}
|(u^{\text{\ding{86}}})'(s)|^{3}ds.
\end{equation}
The following P\'olya-Szeg\"o inequality for anisotropic Hessian integral holds:
\begin{theo}
Let be $u \in \Phi_0(\Omega)\cap C^2(E_u)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{pzeq}
I_H[u,\Omega]\ge I_H[u^\text{\ding{73}},\Omega^\text{\ding{73}}].
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $u$ is strictly concave, then the equality in \eqref{pzeq} holds if and only if, up to a translation, $\Omega=\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}$ and $u=u^\text{\ding{73}}$.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Using \eqref{hesint} and the coarea formula, we get that, for
$M=\max_{\bar\Omega}u$,
\begin{equation}
\label{pspass}
I_H[u,\Omega]=\frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega} k_H(x)\, H^3(\nabla u) \,dx
= \frac{1}{2}\int_0^M dt \int_{{u=t}} H^{3}(\nabla u) \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}d\sigma.
\end{equation}
Now observe that, by the H\"older inequality
\begin{equation}
\label{hold}
\int_{u=t} H(\nabla u) \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}d\sigma \le
\left(\int_{u=t} H^{3}(\nabla u) \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}d\sigma\right)^{\frac 1 3}
\left(\int_{u=t} \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}d\sigma\right)^{\frac 2 3},
\end{equation}
then using the homogeneity of $H$ and formulas \eqref{gaussbonnet} and \eqref{proplambdaeq}, we have
\[
\int_{u=t}H^{3}(\nabla u) \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}d\sigma \ge \dfrac{\displaystyle\left(\int_{u=t} k_{H}(x)H(\nu)d\sigma\right)^{3} }
{\displaystyle\left(\int_{u=t} \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|} d\sigma\right)^{2}} = \frac{8\kappa^{3}}{(-\lambda'_{H}(t))^{2}} = 8\kappa^{3} [(-u^{\text{\ding{86}}})'(\lambda_{H}(t))]^{2}.
\]
Hence applying the above inequality in \eqref{pspass}, performing the change of variable $s=\lambda_{H}(t)$ and recalling \eqref{hesintrad} we get \eqref{pzeq}.
Now suppose that $u$ is strictly concave in $\Omega$, and that equality in \eqref{pzeq} holds. Then \eqref{hold} becomes an equality, hence
\begin{equation*}
\left.H(\nabla u)\right|_{\{u=t\}} = c(t), \quad t\in [0,{\max}_{\bar \Omega}u[.
\end{equation*}
this implies, recalling \eqref{muprimo}, that
\[
\lambda_{H}(t)=\int_{\{u=t\}} \frac{H(\nabla u)}{|\nabla u|} d\sigma =-c(t)\mu'(t), \quad t\in[0,{\max}_{\bar \Omega}u[,
\]
and, by \eqref{proplambdaeq} and \eqref{gaussbonnet}, that
\[
\lambda_{H}'(t)=-\frac{2\kappa}{c(t)}, \quad t\in[0,{\max}_{\bar \Omega}u[.
\]
Hence from the two equalities above we have
\[
\lambda_{H}'(t)\lambda(t)= 2\kappa\,\mu'(t), \quad t\in[0,{\max}_{\bar \Omega}u[.
\]
Integrating, and recalling that $u$ is strictly concave in $\Omega$, there is a unique point where the function $u$ achieves its maximum, then we can integrate the above equality, obtaining that
\[
\lambda_{H}(t)^{2}=4\kappa\, \mu(t).
\]
Hence, equality occurs in the anisotropic isoperimetric inequality for all the level sets of $u$. Then, for any $t\in [0,{\max}_{\bar \Omega}u]$, the set $\{u>t\}$ is, up to a translation, homothetic to the Wulff shape. In particular, $\Omega=\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}$. Together with the fact that $H(\nabla u)$ is constant on $\{u=t\}$, it is possible to proceed as in \cite{fvol}, obtaining that all the level sets have the same center and, up to a translation, $u=u^{\text{\ding{73}}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{esempio}
We observe that if we do not assume that $u$ is strictly concave, the equality sign can occurs in the inequality \eqref{pzeq} also if $u$ is not radial and $\Omega$ is not a Wulff shape. For the sake of simplicity, we give an example in the Euclidean case, with $H(x)=|x|$. Let us consider a strictly convex, bounded open set $\Omega_{0}$ with $C^{2}$ boundary, and let $\Omega$ be the set $\Omega_{0} + \delta D$, where $D$ is the unit disk of $\mathbb R^{2}$ centered at the origin, and $\delta>0$. Let us consider the function
\[
u(x)=\delta^{3}-d(x)^{3}, \quad x\in \Omega,
\]
where $d(x)=\dist (x,\Omega_{0})=\inf_{z\in \Omega_{0}} |x-z|$, with $x\in \mathbb R^{2}$ (see Figure \ref{fig}). Then the convexity of $\Omega_{0}$ implies that $d$ is a convex function. Moreover, the smoothness of the boundary of $\Omega_{0}$ guarantees that $d$ is $C^2(\mathbb R^{2}\setminus \Omega_{0})$. Finally, $|\nabla d|=1$ in $\mathbb R^{2} \setminus \bar \Omega_{0}$ (for the properties of the distance function we refer the reader, for example, to \cite{gt} and \cite{rock}).
Hence $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)\cap C^2(\Omega)$, $|\nabla u|$ is constant on every level set of $u$. Hence, being $k_{H}(x)$ positive on every level set of $u$, the inequality \eqref{hold} becomes an equality. Then also in \eqref{pzeq} the equality sign holds, even if $u$ is not radially simmetric and $\Omega$ is not a ball.
\begin{figure}[h]
\label{fig}
\includegraphics[scale=.6]{dist2.png}
\put(-9cm,0.4cm){\footnotesize $\Omega$}
\put(-2.4cm,1.5cm){\footnotesize $\delta$}
\put(-5cm,2.2cm){\footnotesize $\Omega_{0}$}
\put(-7cm,3.2cm){\footnotesize $u=\delta^{3}$}
\put(-1.3cm,5.4cm){\footnotesize $|\nabla u|\big|_{u=t}=c(t)$}
\caption{An example of the set $\Omega=\Omega_{0}+\delta D$ of Remark \ref{esempio}. In $\Omega_{0}$ the function $u$ is constant, while on the curve $\{u=t\}$, $0\le t\le\delta^{3}$, we have $|\nabla u|=c(t)$.}
\end{figure}
\end{rem}
\section{Comparison results}
In this section we use the symmetrization with respect to the anisotropic perimeter to prove comparison results between the solutions of suitable fully nonlinear elliptic equations. Let us consider the following problem involving the anisotropic Monge-Amp\`ere operator:
\begin{equation}
\label{pb1det}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\det_H[u]=f(x) &\text{in } \Omega \\
u=0 &\text{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\Omega$ is a convex, bounded, smooth open set of $\mathbb R^2$ and $f>0$ belongs to $C^{0,\alpha}(\Omega)$.
We will consider strong solutions of problem \eqref{pb1det}, namely functions $u \in \Phi_0(\Omega)$ which satisfy
\[
{\det}_{H}[u]=f(x) \text{ a.e. in }\Omega.
\]
We stress that the positivity of $f$ ensures that the function $u $ has not flat zones, and, by the concavity of $u$, $\nabla u=0$ only where $u$ attains its maximum.
\begin{rem}
\label{reg}
In the open set $E_{u}$, defined in \eqref{Eu}, the operator ${\det}_{H}[\,\cdot\,]$ is continuous. Then a strong solution $u\in \Phi_{0}(\Omega)$ is a viscosity solution in $E_{u}$ (see \cite[Corollary 3]{libon}). Moreover, if $x\in E_{u}$,
then the equation in \eqref{pb1det} can be written as
\[
\det\left[ \nabla^{2}u(x)\right]= \dfrac{f(x)}{\det \left[\nabla^{2}_{\xi} F(\nabla u(x))\right]}.
\]
Hence, by the well-known regularity results for fully nonlinear elliptic equations (see \cite{caca}), being $f\in C^{0,\alpha}(\Omega)$, and $f>0$, then $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(E_{u})$.
\end{rem}
The following comparison result holds.
\begin{theo}
Let $\Omega$ be a convex, bounded, open set in $\mathbb R^{2}$ with $C^{2}$ boundary, and let $u\in \Phi_0(\Omega)$ be a strong solution of problem \eqref{pb1det}. Consider the unique anisotropic radially symmetric strong solution $v$ of the symmetrized problem
\begin{equation}
\label{pb2det}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\det_H[v]=f^{\text{\ding{71}}}(x) &\text{in } \Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}} \\
v=0 &\text{on } \partial\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Then
\[
u^{\text{\ding{73}}} \le v \text{ in }\Omega^{\text{\ding{73}}}.
\]
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Let $u$ be a strong solution of problem \eqref{pb1det}. As observed in Remark \ref{reg}, $u\in C^{2}(E_{u})$. Hence, its level sets $\Omega_{t}$, $0\le t<\max_{\bar\Omega} u$ are $C^{2}$ and convex. Integrating both sides of the equation in \eqref{pb1det}, using \eqref{reilly}, the H\"older inequality, \eqref{gaussbonnet} and \eqref{proplambdaeq} we get
\begin{multline}
\int_{u>t}f(x)\,dx=\int_{u>t}{\det}_{H}[u]\, dx= \frac 1 2 \int_{u=t} k_{H}(x) \frac{H(\nabla u)^{3}}{|\nabla u|} d\mathcal H^{1}\ge \\ \ge\frac 1 2\dfrac{\displaystyle\left(\int_{u=t} k_{H}(x)H(\nu)d\mathcal H^{1}\right)^{3} }
{\displaystyle\left(\int_{u=t} \frac{k_{H}(x)}{|\nabla u|}d\mathcal H^{1}\right)^{2}} = \frac{4\kappa^{3}}{(-\lambda'_{H}(t))^{2}} =4\kappa^{3} [(-u^{\text{\ding{86}}})'(\lambda_{H}(t))]^{2},
\end{multline}
where last equality follows by the Definition \ref{asim} of symmetrization with respect to the anisotropic perimeter. By the well-known Hardy-Littlewood inequality and the anisotropic isoperimetric inequality \eqref{isop} we obtain
\[
[(-u^{\text{\ding{86}}})'(\lambda_{H}(t))]^{2} \le \frac{1}{4\kappa^{3}} \int_{0}^{\mu(t)}f^{*}(r)\,dr \le \frac{1}{4\kappa^{3}} \int_{0}^{\frac{ \lambda^{2}_{H}(t)}{4 \kappa}}f^{*}(r)\,dr.
\]
Here we mean $f^{*}(s)=0$ if $s\ge |\Omega|$. Performing the change of variable $s=\lambda_H(t)$ we get
\begin{equation}
\label{app}
[(-u^{\text{\ding{86}}})'(s)]^{2} \le \frac{1}{4\kappa^{3}} \int_{0}^{\frac{s^{2}}{4 \kappa}}f^{*}(r)\,dr, \quad s \in ]0,P_{H}(\Omega)].
\end{equation}
By \eqref{rad} the unique anisotropic radially symmetric strong solution to \eqref{pb2det}, $v(x)=w(r)$, with $r=H^{o}(x)$ is
\[
w(r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}}\int_r^{R} \left(\int_{0}^{\kappa r^{2}} f^{*}(t) \,dt\right)^{\frac 1 2}\,dr,
\]
and then
\begin{equation}
\label{v}
v^{{\text{\ding{86}}}}(s)=\dfrac{1}{2 \kappa^{{\frac 3 2}}}\int_{s}^{P_{H}(\Omega)}\bigg(\int_{0}^{\frac{\sigma^{2}}{4 \kappa}} f^{*}(t) \,dt\bigg)^{\frac 1 2}d\sigma \quad s \in [0,P_{H}(\Omega)].
\end{equation}
By \eqref{app} and \eqref{v} we get
\[
u^{{\text{\ding{86}}}}(s) \le v^{\text{\ding{86}}}(s), \quad s \in [0,P_{H}(\Omega)].
\]
\end{proof}
\thanks{{\bf Acknowledgement.} This work has been partially supported by the FIRB 2013 project ``Geometrical and qualitative aspects of PDE's''}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{} The Hall algebra approach to quantum groups developed since around 1990 is based on a deep relationship between simple or affine Lie algebras and certain finite-dimensial hereditary algebras. More precisely, let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a Kac-Moody algebra, and let $\Gamma$ be its Dynkin diagram. Ringel proved in \cite{R} that the Hall algebra $\H_{\Rep_{\mathbb{F}_l}\vec{Q}}$ of the category of representations, over a finite field $\mathbb{F}_l$, of a quiver $\vec{Q}$ whose underlying graph is $\Gamma$ provides a realization of the "positive part" $\U_v^+(\mathfrak{g})$ of the Drinfeld-Jimbo quantum group associated to $\mathfrak{g}$, where $v = l^{-1/2}$. This result was the starting point of Lusztig's geometric construction of the canonical basis of $\U^+_{v}(\mathfrak{g})$, see \cite{Lu}.
\subsection{} Another natural example of a hereditary category is provided by the category $\Coh(\X)$ of coherent sheaves on a smooth projective curve $\X$. Let $\Bun_r(\X)$ be the set of isomorphism classes of rank $r$ vector bundles on $\X$ and $\AF_r$ be the space of all complex valued functions on $\Bun_r(\X)$. A classical observation of A. Weil provides us an expression of $\Bun_r(\X)$ as the double coset space
\begin{equation}\label{Weil}
\Bun_r(\X) \simeq \GL_r(\mathbb{F}_l(\X)) \setminus \GL_r(\mathbb{A}_\X ) / \GL_r(\mathbb{O}_\X)
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{F}_l(\X)$ is the function field of $\X$, $\mathbb{A}_\X$ its ring of ad\`eles and $\mathbb{O}_\X \subset \mathbb{A}_\X$ the ring of integer ad\`eles and functions in $\AF_r$ can be regarded as unramified automorphic forms on $\GL_r(\mathbb{A}_\X)$. In the remarkable paper \cite{Kap}, Kapranov initiated the systematic study of the spaces $\AF_r$ using the language of Hall algebras: $\H_{\Bun(\X)}$ is the direct sum over $r$ of $\AF_r$ equipped with an associative product and coassociative coproduct via the convolution diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
& \widetilde{\Bun}_r (\X) \ar[dr]^p \ar[dl]_q \\
\Bun_s (\X) \times \Bun_{r-s} (\X) & & \Bun_r (\X)
}
\]
where $\widetilde{\Bun}_r(\X)$ stands for stack classifying the inclusions $\FF \subset \mathcal{G}$ of a vector bundle $\FF$ of rank $s$ into a vector bundle $\mathcal{G}$ of rank $r$ over $\X$. The algebra $\H_{\Bun(\X)}$ is generated by all cuspidal functions; Kapranov translated the functional equations satisfied by Eisentein series associated to such pairs of cuspidal functions into commutation relations between the corresponding generators. Such commutation relations bear a resemblance with those appearing in Drinfeld's loop-liked realization of quantum affine algebras \cite{Dr87}.
\vspace{.1in}
\noindent
The classical Hecke operator associated to a point $x \in \X$ on automorphic forms is translated by the multiplication with the characteristic function of the corresponding torsion sheaf. These Hecke operators naturally form a commutative subalgebra of the Hall algebra $\H_{\Coh(\X)}$ which can be identified with the Hall algebra $\H_{\Tor(\X)}$ of the category of torsion sheaves of $\X$, and we might call it the global Hecke algebra.
\vspace{.1in}
\noindent
When $\X = \mathbb{P}^1$, by a theorem of Grothendieck \cite{Gro}, any indecomposable vector bundle is a line bundle. Using this we can easily show that there are no cusp functions of rank $> 1$. Kapranov's result (see also \cite{BK} for more details) provides an embedding from the Drinfeld's subalgebra $\U_v(\mathcal{L}\mathfrak{n}) \subset \U^+_{v}(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_2)$ of \lq\lq loops in the nilpotent radical of the Borel\rq\rq into the Hall algebra $\H_{\Bun(\X(\mathbb{F}_l))}$. The Hall algebras $\H_{\Bun(\X)}$ as well as $\H_{\Coh(\X)}$ are also explicity described when $\X$ is an elliptic curve, see \cite{BS2}, \cite{Fra}. In this case they are related to double affine Hecke algebras, see \cite{SV2}.
\subsection{} Rather than consider higher genus smooth projective curves, Schiffmann and Burban also study the (spherical) Hall algebra of the category of coherent sheaves on certain \lq\lq noncommutative smooth projective curves \rq\rq , called \textit{weighted projective lines}, introduced by Geigle and Lenzing \cite{GL}. In \cite{S2}, Schiffmann constructs, analogously to the works of Ringel and Kapranov, a natural embedding $\U_v(\mathfrak{Ln}) \hookrightarrow \H_{\Coh(\X_{\mathfrak{g}})}$ of certain \lq\lq positive part \rq\rq\ of $\U_{v}(\mathfrak{Lg})$ into the Hall algebra of a suitable weighted projective line $\X_{\mathfrak{g}}$. In particular, this yields a geometric realization of the quantum toroidal algebras of types $D_4^{(1,1)},E_6^{(1,1)},E_67{(1,1)}$ and $E_8^{(1,1)}$.
\subsection{} Let us come back to the case when the genus $g>1$. Now the functional equations are no longer enough to give a presentation of $\H_{\Coh(\X)}$. However, if we restrict our attention to a natural subalgebra $\U^>_{\X}$ of $\H_{\Bun(\X)}$ generated by cuspidal functions of \textit{rank one}, the algebra $\U^>_{\X}$ can be also described combinatorially in terms of \textit{shuffle algebras}, see \cite{SV2}. One nice feature of such presentation is that $\U^>_\X$ possesses an \textit{integral (or a generic) form} $\U^>_{R_g}$ over the representation ring $R_g= Rep \; T_g$ of the torus
\[
T_{g} = \{ (\eta_1, \dots, \eta_{2g}) \in (\CC^{\times})^{2g} \mid \eta_{2i-1}\eta_{2i} = \eta_{2j-1}\eta_{2j}, \; \forall i,j \}.
\]
Schiffmann and Vaserrot had also shown that the generic spherical Hall algebra $\U^>_{R_g}$ of a fixed genus $g$ is in correspondence with the convolution algebra in the equivariant K-theory of the Hilbert Scheme the stacks $\underline{Loc}_r \X_{\CC}$ parametrizing the local systems on $\X_{\CC}$ of rank $r$, supported in the formal neighborhood of the trivial local systems on a complex curve $\X_\CC$ of genus $g$. Such a correspondence is indeed expected of Beilinson and Drinfeld's version (c.f. \cite{Dr83}) of the geometric Langlands correspondence.
\subsection{} In this paper, we study the spherical Hall algebras of coherent sheaves on higher genus curves with (quasi)-parabolic structures hence completing the picture. Let $\X$ as before be a smooth projective curve defined over a finite field $\mathbb{F}_l$. Fix a finite subset $S \subset \X$ of $\mathbb{F}_l$-rational points and an effective divisor $D = \sum_{p \in S} w_p p$. By definition a (quasi)-parabolic vector bundle $(\EE,V^\bullet)$ on $(\X,D)$ is a vector bundle $\EE$ on $\X$ equipped with a collection of complete flag of subspaces of the stalks at all points in $S$:
\[
0 \subset V_{1,p} \subset \cdots \subset V_{w_p,p} = \EE_p.
\]
This can be also described as a collection of vector bundles $\EE^\bullet = (\EE,\EE^{(i,p)})_{p \in S, 1 \leq i \leq w_p-1}$ such that:
\[
\EE \subset \EE^{(1,p)} \subset \cdots \subset \EE^{(w_p,p)} = \EE(p)
\]
which can be generalized to coherent sheaves: one only need to replace \lq\lq$\subset$\rq\rq\ by arbitrary maps \lq\lq$\rightarrow$\rq\rq\ and to add the condition that the induced maps $\EE^{(i,p)} \to \EE^{(i,p)}(p)$ are the natural ones.
\vspace{.1in}
\noindent
Let $\mathbf{w} = \{ w_p \}_{p \in S}$ and $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X), \Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X), \Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ respectively be the category of coherent sheaves, vector bundles and torsion sheaves respectively with parabolic structures associated to $(S,D)$. The category $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is known to be hereditary. In the case that $\X = \mathbb{P}^1$, $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\mathbb{P}^1)$ is equivalent to the category $\Coh(\X_{\mathbf{w},S})$ of coherent sheaves over the corresponding weighted projective line $\X_{\mathbf{w},S}$.
\vspace{.1in}
\noindent
For every parabolic coherent sheaf $\FF^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ we can associate its class in the numerical Grothendieck group $K_S:= K'(\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S})$ given by $(\rank \FF^\bullet, \deg(\FF^\bullet))$, here the degree $\deg(\FF^\bullet)$ of a parabolic coherent sheaf is defined as the collection $(\deg \FF^{(i,p)})_{p \in S, 0 \leq i \leq w_p-1}$. For a class $\alpha = (r,\mathbf{d}) \in K_S$, let $\Bun_{\alpha}^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ be the set consisting of parabolic vector bundles of class $\alpha$ and $\mathbf{1}^{\mathbf{ss}}_{1,\mathbf{d}}$ be the characteristic function of $\Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}_{1,\mathbf{d}}$. The spherical Hall algebra $\U^> : = \U_{\Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}$ is defined to be the subalgebra of $\H := \H_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}$ generated by $\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,\mathbf{d}}$ for all $(1,\mathbf{d}) \in K_S$ for all $p \in S$.
\subsection{} It is easy to see that, by definition of a parabolic vector bundle, the set $\Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}_{1,\mathbf{d}}(\X)$ is non-empty if and only if $\mathbf{d}$ satisfies $d^{(0,p)} \leq d^{(1,p)} \leq \cdots \leq d^{(w_p-1,p)} \leq 1$. We might rewrite $(1,\mathbf{d})$ as $(1,d,\mathbf{a})$ where $d = d^{0,p}$ and $a^{(i,p)} = d^{(i,p)} - d^{(i-1,p)}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq w_p-1$ and all $p \in S$. We call $\mathbf{a}$ the \textit{dimension type} of $\alpha=(1,\mathbf{d}) \in K_S$. We denote by $\mathbf{D}_1$ the set of dimension types $\mathbf{a}$ such that $\Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}_{1,d,\mathbf{a}} \neq \emptyset$ for all $d \in \Z$. The set $\mathbf{D}_1$ is in one-to-one correspondence to $\prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z$ via the asseigment $\mathbf{a} \mapsto (\sum_{i=1}^{w_p-1} a^{(i,p)})_{p \in S} =: \vec{x}$ and we denote by $\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(\vec{x}) = \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d,\mathbf{a}}$. For any $\vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z$, we define the subalgebra $\U^>(\vec{x})$ of $\U^>_S$ generated by $\{ \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(\vec{x}), \; d \in \Z \}$. Then we have an isomorphism between the algebra $\U^>(\vec{x})$ and the spherical Hall algebra $\U^>_{\X}$ of coherent sheaves without extra structures on $\X$ which already has a nice presentation in terms of shuffle algebras mentioned above.
\subsection{} In order to describe the whole spherical Hall algebra $\U^>$, we consider the vector space
\[
\mathbf{V} = \CC \oplus \bigoplus_{r \geq 1} \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]^{\widehat{\otimes r}}
\]
where $\CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})] = \CC[\{ t_p^{\pm 1} \}_{p \in S}] / J$ and $J$ is generated by $t_p^{w_p} - t_q^{w_q}$ for all $p,q \in S$.
we define the operators $\Gamma_{\mathbf{w},S}(\underline{t};\mathbf{x})$ associated to a sequence $\mathbf{x}\in \big( \prod_{p \in S} \Z /w_p \Z \big)^r$ on $\mathbf{V}$ as follows: for all $p \in S$ and $\vec{x} \in \prod_{p} \Z/w_p \Z$, we set
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{x_p}(t_p) = \begin{cases}
v + (1-v^2)t_p^{x_p} & \textit{if } x_p = 1, \dots, w_p-1 \\
1 & \textit{if } x_p = 0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\vec{x}}(t) := \prod_{p \in S} \Gamma_{x_p}(t_p) \in \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]
\end{equation}
For $r \geq 1$ and $\mathbf{x} \in \big( \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z \big)^r$, we put
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mathbf{w},S}(t_1,\dots,t_r;\mathbf{x}) := \prod_{(i,j) \in I_{\sigma}} \prod_{p \in S} \Gamma_{(\pi(\vec{x}_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} - \vec{x}_{\sigma^{-1}(j)}))_p}(t_{i,p} t^{-1}_{j,p})
\end{equation}
where $\pi(\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j)$ denotes its canonical form in $\prod_p \Z/ w_p \Z$. We define an aglebra structure on $\mathbf{V} $ with the multiplication defined on the homogenous components
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& t_1^{d_1+\vec{x}_1}\cdots t_r^{d_r + \vec{x}_r} \star t_1^{e_1 + \vec{y}_1}\cdots t_s^{e_s + \vec{y}_s} \\
&= \sum_{\sigma \in Sh_{r,s}} h_{\sigma}(t_1,\cdots, t_{r+s}) \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mathbf{w},S}(t_1,\dots,t_{r+s}; \underline{\mathbf{x}} \sqcup \underline{\mathbf{y}}) \sigma(t_1^{d_1+ \vec{x}_1}\cdots t_{r+s}^{e_s +\vec{y}_s}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $h_{\X}(t) = v^{2g_\X - 2} \frac{\zeta_\X(t)}{\zeta_\X(v^2 t)}$ and $Sh_{r,s} \subset \mathfrak{S}_{r+s}$ stands for the set of all $(r,s)$-shuffles and extended linearly to the whole $\mathbf{V}$. Its coalgebra structure is given as (\ref{comulti}). Let us denote the subalgebra $\mathbf{S}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}$ of $\mathbf{F}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}$ generated by the degree one component $\mathbf{F}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}[1] = \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]$. Our main result shows that the spherical Hall algebra $\U^+$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra $S^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h_{\X}} $ of $\mathbf{V}$ generated by $\CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]\subset \mathbf{V}$.
\subsection{} Observe from such shuffle-like presentation of $\U^>$ that the strucutre of spherical Hall algebra only depends on the genus $g$ of the curve $\X$ and the marked points $(\mathbf{w},S)$. We provide the existence of the \textit{generic form} $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g}$ over $R_g$ as \cite{SV2} in the sense that there exists a specialization map $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g} \to \U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,\X}$ to the spherical Hall algebra $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,\X}$ of a fixed curve $\X$ of genus $g_\X=g$. Recall that Drinfeld also proved an analogue geometric Langlands correspondence for local systems of rank $2$ with unipotent ramification at a finite set of points $S \subset \X(\mathbb{F}_l)$. In this case the corresponding automorphic forms should be defined on the space
\[
\GL_r(\mathbb{F}_l(\X)) \setminus \GL_r(\mathbb{A}_\X ) / \mathbf{K}_S
\]
where $\mathbf{K}_S = \prod_{x \in \X \setminus S} \GL_r(\mathbb{O}_x) \times \prod_{x \in S} \mathbf{Iw}_x$ and $\mathbf{Iw}_x \subset \GL_r(\mathbb{O}_x)$ is the subgroup of matrices which are upper triangular mod $x$. Similar to (\ref{Weil}), we have
\[
\Bun_r^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) \simeq \GL_r(\mathbb{F}_l(\X)) \setminus \GL_r(\mathbb{A}_\X ) / \mathbf{K}_S.
\]
We conjecture that the generic spherical Hall algebra $\U^>_{S,R_g}$ is isomorphic to the convolution algebra of equivariant $K$-theory on the trivial local systems with $D$-parabolic structure on a complex curve $\X_{\CC}$.
\subsection{} One of the common exposition to study the vector bundles on a smooth projective curve relies on the work of Narasimhan and Seshadri (see \cite{Se}) by the concept of (semi)-stability. Mehta and Seshadri also introduced similar notion for the parabolic vector bundles (see \cite{MS}, \cite{Se}) by attaching \lq\lq weights \rq\rq\ to the terms in flags. As a first step towards understanding the higher genus spherical Hall algebras of parabolic coherent sheaves, we prove that, following the strategy in \cite{S4}, the characteristic functions of all the Harder-Narasimhan stratra belong to $\U$. Recently Schiffmann provides an explicit polynomial in the Weil numbers for counting the number of indecomposable vector bundles of a fixed rank $r$ and degree $d$, see \cite{S5}. His approach also suits the case of vector bundles with parabolic structures. The subjet will be of a companion paper.
\subsection*{Acknowlegments} The author is grateful to his supervisor Olivier Schiffmann for suggestiing this problem and for his patience and guidance.
\section{Parabolic coherent sheaves on smooth projective curves}
In this paper we fix a smooth projective curve $\mathbb{X}$ defined over some finite field $\mathbf{k} = \mathbb{F}_l$ except the Section \ref{generic}.
\subsection{Some notations and generalities on coherent sheaves}
We fix a smooth projective curve $\mathbb{X}$ defined over some finite field $\mathbf{k} = \mathbb{F}_l$ and its category of coherent sheaves $\Coh(\mathbb{X})$. It is of global dimension one, and by a classical theorem of Serre we have $\dim \Hom(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}) < \infty$ and $\dim \Ext^1(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}) < \infty$ for any two sheaves $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$. Thus $\Coh(\mathbb{X})$ is finitary. Note that sometimes we omit the $\X$ since the curve is always fixed and we write $\Ext(\FF,\G) = \Ext^1(\FF,\G)$.
Let $\omega_{\mathbb{X}} = T^*\mathbb{X}$ be the canonical bundle of $\mathbb{X}$, and let $g_{\mathbb{X}} = \dim H^0(\omega_{\mathbb{X}})$ be the genus of $\mathbb{X}$. The Serre duality is a functorial isomorphism
\begin{equation*}
\Ext(\FF,\G)^* \simeq \Hom(\G \otimes \omega^{-1}_{\X} ,\FF)
\end{equation*}
for any coherent sheaves $\FF$ and $\G$.
\vspace{.1in}
We denote by $\overline{\X} = \X \times_{\Spec\mathbf{k}} \Spec \overline{\mathbf{k}}$ the extension of scalars of $\X$ to the algebraic closure. The Galois group $\Gal(\overline{\mathbf{k}}/\mathbf{k})$ acts on the set of all points $\overline{\X}(\overline{\mathbf{k}})$. By a $closed$ $point$ of $\X$ we will mean a $\Gal(\overline{\mathbf{k}}/\mathbf{k})$-orbit of points in $\overline{\X}(\overline{\mathbf{k}})$. The \emph{degree} $\deg(x)$ of a closed point $x \in \X$ is the number of elements in the associated orbit. Equivalently, if $\O_{\X,x}$ stands for the local ring at $x$ and if $\mathbf{k}_x = \O_{\X,x} / \mathfrak{m}_x$ is the residue field, then $\deg(x) = [\mathbf{k}_x:\mathbf{k}]$.
\vspace{.1in}
For any $d \geq 1$, let $\X(\mathbb{F}_{l^d})$ be the set of $\mathbb{F}_{l^d}$-rational points of $\X$. The Galois group $\Gal(\mathbb{F}_{l^d} / \mathbb{F}_l)$ acts on $\X(\mathbb{F}_{l^d})$ and orbits correspond to the closed points whose degree is a divisor of $d$. We have
\begin{equation*}
\# \X(\mathbb{F}_{l^d}) = \sum_{n|d} \sum_{ p \in \X, \deg(p)=n } n
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over the \emph{closed} points of $\X$.
\vspace{.1in}
Let us fix a prime number $p \neq l$ and consider the $p$-adic cohomlogy group $H^i(\overline{\X},\overline{\Q}_p)$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\dim_{\overline{\Q}_p}(H^0(\overline{\X},\overline{\Q}_p)) &=1, \\
\dim_{\overline{\Q}_p}(H^1(\overline{\X},\overline{\Q}_p)) &= 2g_{\X}, \\
\dim_{\overline{\Q}_p}(H^2(\overline{\X},\overline{\Q}_p)) &= 1
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\vspace{.1in}
Let $Fr$ denote the geometric Frobenius. It acts on $H^i(\overline{\X},\overline{\Q}_p)$, and we denote by $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{2g_{\X}}$ its eigenvalues in $H^1(\overline{\X},\overline{\Q}_p)$. We will fix once and for all an embedding $\overline{\Q}_p \subset \CC$ and consider $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{2g_{\X}}$ as complex numbers. It is known that all the $\alpha_i$ are algebraic numbers satisfying $|\alpha_i| = l^{1/2}$ and these may be reordered in such a way that $\alpha_i \alpha_{2g_{\X}-i} = l$ for all $i$. The number of points in $\X(\mathbb{F}_{l^k})$ may be expressed in terms of these Frobenius eigenvalues as
\begin{equation*}
\# \X(\mathbb{F}_{l^k}) = \sum_{i=0}^2 (-1)^i Tr(Fr, H^i(\overline{\X},\overline{\Q}_p)) = 1 - \sum_i \alpha_i^k + l^k.
\end{equation*}
A convenient way to formulate the above is to introduce the zeta function
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_{\X}(t) = \exp(\sum_{k \geq 1} \# \X(\mathbb{F}_{l^k}) \frac{t^k}{k}).
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_{\X}(t) = \frac{\prod_i (1 - \alpha_i t)}{(1-t)(1-lt)}.
\end{equation*}
\vspace{.1in}
Any coherent sheaf $\FF$ has a canonical torsion subsheaf $\T \subset \FF$ and canonical quotient vector bundle $\EE = \FF / \T$. Moreover the exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \T \to \FF \to \EE \to 0
\end{equation*}
splits, i.e., any coherent sheaf can be decomposed as a direct sum $\FF = \EE \oplus \T$.
\vspace{.1in}
Let $\Tor(\X)$ stand for the full subcategory of $\Coh(\X)$ consisting of torsion sheaves. It decomposes into a direct product of blocks
\begin{equation*}
\Tor(\X) = \prod_{q \in \X} \Tor_q
\end{equation*}
where $q$ ranges over the set of closed points of $\X$ and $\Tor_q$ is the category of torsion sheaves supported at $q$. This category is Morita equivalent to the category of finite-dimensional modules over the local ring $\O_{\X,q}$ at $q$ which by smoothness of $\X$ is a discrete valuation ring. In particular, the skyscraper sheaf at $q$, denoted also by $\O_{\X,q}$, is the unique simple sheaf supported at $q$ and more generally for each positive integer $n$, there is a unique indecomposable torsion sheaf $\O_{\X,q}^{(n)}$. By Krull-Schmidt theorem, any isomorphism class of torsion sheaf supported at $q$ is in bijection with the set of all partitions via
\[
(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_t) = \lambda \mapsto \O^{(\lambda)}_{\X,q} = \O_{\X,q}^{(\lambda_1)} \oplus \cdots \oplus \O_{\X,q}^{(\lambda_t)}.
\]
\vspace{.1in}
The \emph{rank} of a coherent sheaf $\FF$ is the rank of its canonical quotient vector bundle $\EE$. The \emph{degree} of a sheaf is the only invariant satisfying $\deg(\O_\X) = 0$, $\deg(\O_{\X,q}) = \deg(q) = [\mathbf{k}_q;\mathbf{k}]$ and which is additive on short exact sequences. Let $\Pic(\X)$ be the Picard group of line bundles on $\X$. The kernel of the degree map $\Pic(\X) \to \Z$ is denoted by $\Pic^0(\X)$ which is a finite abelian group.
\vspace{.1in}
One consequence of the Serre duality is that for any $\T \in \Tor(\X)$ and $\EE \in \Bun(\X)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Hom(\T,\EE) = \Ext(\EE,\T) = \{ 0 \}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, $\Ext(\O_{\X,q},\O_{\X}) \simeq \mathbf{k}^{\deg(q)}$ for any closed point $q \in \X$ and there is a unique line bundle extension of $\O_{\X,q}$ by $\O_{\X}$ which we denote by $\O_{\X}(q)$.
\vspace{.1in}
Let $K(\X) = K(\Coh(\X))$ be the Grothendieck group of $\Coh(\X)$. The degree map descends to a group homomorphism $\deg: K(\X) \to \Z$ which satisfies $\deg(\O_{\X}(q)) = \deg(q)$ for all $q \in \X$. Together with the rank, these define a natural morphism
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\phi: K(\X) &\to \Z^2 \\
\FF &\mapsto \overline{\FF} = (\rank(\FF),\deg(\FF)).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The Euler form factors through the map $\phi$ and Riemann-Roch theorem tells us
\begin{equation}
\langle \FF, \G \rangle = (1-g_{\X})\rank(\FF)\rank(\G) + \rank(\FF)\deg(\G) - \deg(\FF)\rank(\G).
\end{equation}
In fact the kernel of $\phi$ is precisely equal to the kernel of the Euler form. Thus $\Z^2$ can be considered as the \emph{numerical} Grothendieck group of $\Coh(\X)$.
\subsection{Parabolic Coherent sheaves}
\subsubsection{The category of $w$-cycles}
Fix a smooth projective curve $\mathbb{X}$ defined over some finite field $\mathbf{k} = \mathbb{F}_l$ and its category of coherent sheaves $\Coh(\X)$. Following \cite{Len98}, given a closed point $p \in \X$ and a positive integer $w_p$, a $w_p$-cycle $\mathcal{F}^\bullet$ concentrated in $p$ is a diagram of objects $\mathcal{F}^{(i,p)} \in \Coh(\X)$
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
\cdots \ar[r] & \mathcal{F}^{(0,p)} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{(1,p)}} & \mathcal{F}^{(1,p)} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{(2,p)}} &\cdots \ar[r] & \mathcal{F}^{(w_p-1,p)} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{(w_p,p)}} & \mathcal{F}^{(w_p,p)} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{(w_p+1,p)}} & \cdots
}
\end{equation}
which is $w_p$-periodic in the sense that $\mathcal{F}^{(w_p+i,p)} = \mathcal{F}^{(i,p)}(p)$, $\phi^{(w_p+i,p)} = \phi^{(i,p)}(p)$ and moreover the composition of $w_p$ maps $\phi^{(i,p)}(p) \circ \cdots \circ \phi^{(i+1,p)}: \mathcal{F}^{(i,p)} \to \mathcal{F}^{(i,p)}(p)$ is the natural morphism for all $i \in \Z$. A morphism $u: \mathcal{E}^\bullet \to \FF^\bullet$ between two $w_p$-cycles concentrated at the same point $p$ is a sequence of morphisms $u_i: \mathcal{E}^{(i,p)} \to \mathcal{F}^{(i,p)}$ which is $w_p$-periodic, i.e., $u_{i+w_p} = u_{i}$ for each $i$ and such that each diagram
\begin{equation}
\xymatrix{
\mathcal{E}^{(i,p)} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{(i+1,p)}} \ar[d]^-{u_i} & \mathcal{E}^{(i+1,p)} \ar[d]^-{u_{i+1}} \\
\mathcal{F}^{(i,p)} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{(i+1,p)}} & \mathcal{F}^{(i+1,p)}
}
\end{equation}
commutes. We denote by $\Coh^{w_p,\{p\} }(\X)$ the category of all $w_p$-cycles concentrated at $p$. Note that if the sheaf $\mathcal{F}^{(i,p)}$ is not torsion free at $p$ for some $i$, then the natural map $\mathcal{F}^{(i,p)} \to \mathcal{F}^{(i,p)}(p)$ is not injective, hence at least one of the $\phi^{\bullet}$ is not injective. By the same argument we can see that all the $\phi^{(i,p)}$ are isomorphisms on $\mathbb{X} \setminus \{p\}$ and all the $\mathcal{F}^{(i,p)}$ have the same generic rank. Thus we define the $rank$ of $\mathcal{F}^{\bullet}$ as the rank of $\mathcal{F}^{(0,p)}$.
\vspace{.1in}
We call a $w_p$-cycle $\EE^\bullet$ concentrated at $p$ \textit{locally free} if $\mathcal{E}^{(i,p)}$ is locally free for all $i \in \Z$. In this case we may hence interpret the $w_p$-cycle $\EE^\bullet$ as a filtration
\begin{equation}
\EE^{(0,p)} \subseteq \EE^{(1,p)} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \EE^{(w_p-1,p)} \subseteq \EE^{(w_p,p)} = \EE^{(0,p)}(p)
\end{equation}
equivalently as a filtration
\begin{equation}
0 = \EE^{(0,p)}/\EE^{(0,p)} \subseteq \EE^{(1,p)}/\EE^{(0,p)} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \EE^{(w_p-1,p)}/\EE^{(0,p)} \subseteq \EE^{(0,p)}(p)/\EE^{(0,p)}
\end{equation}
of the fibre $\EE^{(0,p)}_p = \EE^{(0,p)}(p)/\EE^{(0,p)}$ of $\EE^{(0,p)}$ at $p$. In other word, a locally free $w_p$-cycle $\EE^\bullet$ concentrated at $p$ is nothing but a vector bundle $\EE = \EE^{(0,p)}$ with a (quasi-)parabolic structure of length $w_p$ at $p$ in the sense of Mehta and Seshadri(see \cite{MS,Se}). Hence the elements in the category $\Coh^{w_p,\{p\} }(\X) $ can be thought as a notion of coherent sheaves with parabolic structure of length $w_p$ at $p$.
\vspace{.1in}
It is obvious that $\Coh^{w_p,\{p\}}(\X)$ is an abelian category, where the kernel and cokernel of a morphism can be defined componentwise. The compatibilities thus follows from the corresponding ones of $\Coh(\X)$. Moreover we have a full exact embedding
\begin{equation}
\begin{matrix}
(-)^\bullet: \Coh(\X) \hookrightarrow\Coh^{w_p,\{p\} }(\X), & \FF \mapsto (\FF)^\bullet = (\FF = \FF = \cdots = \FF \to \FF(p)).
\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
We can therefore identify $\Coh(\X)$ with the resulting exact subcategory of $\Coh^{w_p,\{p\} }(\X)$. Conversely, there are natural exact functors $(-)^{(j,p)} : \Coh^{w_p,\{p\} }(\X) \to \Coh(\X)$ defined by $\FF^\bullet = (\FF^{(i,p)})_{i \in \Z} \mapsto \FF^{(j,p)}$ for any $j \in \Z$. These two functors $(-)^\bullet$ and $(-)^{(j,p)}$ satisfy the following adjuntion properties:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Hom_{\Coh^{w_p,\{p\} }(\X)}((\FF)^\bullet, \mathcal{G}^\bullet) &= \Hom_{\Coh(\X)}(\FF, \mathcal{G}^{(0,p)}) \\
\Hom_{\Coh^{w_p,\{p\}}(\X)}(\mathcal{G}^\bullet, (\FF)^\bullet) &= \Hom_{\Coh(\X)}(\mathcal{G}^{(w_p-1,p)},\FF).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Note that $\Coh^{w_p,\{p\} }(\X)$ is equipped with a natural shift automorphism
\[
\tau_p : \Coh^{w_p,\{p\}}(\X) \to \Coh^{w_p,\{p\}}(\X)
\]
by sending a $w_p$-cycle $\FF^\bullet = (\FF^{(0,p)} \to \cdots \to \FF^{(w_p-1,p)} \to \FF^{(0,p)}(p))$ to
\[
\tau_p(\FF^\bullet) = ( \FF^{(1,p)} \to \FF^{(2,p)} \to \cdots \to \FF^{(w_p-1,p)} \to \FF^{(0,p)}(p) \to \FF^{(1,p)}(p)).
\]
On the other hand, there is a natural action of the Picard group $\Pic(\X)$ of $\Coh(\X)$ on $\Coh^{w_p,\{p\}}(\X)$ by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Pic(\X) \times \Coh^{w_p\{p\} }(\X) &\to \Coh^{w_p\{p\} }(\X) \\
(\mathcal{L}, \FF^\bullet = (\FF^{(i,p)})_{i \in \Z} ) &\mapsto (\mathcal{L} \cdot \FF^\bullet) := (\FF^{(i,p)} \otimes \mathcal{L} )_{i \in \Z}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Clearly these two kinds of automorphisms on $\Coh^{w_p\{p\} }(\X)$ commute with each other and satisfy the relation $\tau_p^{w_p}(\FF^\bullet) = \mathcal{O}_{\X}(p) \cdot \FF^\bullet$ for all $\FF^\bullet \in \Coh^{w_p\{p\} }(\X)$.
\vspace{.1in}
\subsubsection{Parabolic coherent sheaves}
Now, let us fix a finite (non-empty) set of closed points(of degree one for simplicity) $S = \{p_1,\dots,p_N \} \subset \mathbb{X}$ and $\mathbf{w} = \{ w_p \}_{p \in S} $ a collection of positive integers. We define the category $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ inductively as follows: set $\Coh^{0,\emptyset}(\X) = \Coh(\X)$ and let $\Coh^i(\X)$ be the $w_{p_i}$-cycle category obtained from $\Coh^{i-1}(\X)$ by inserting weight $w_{p_i}$ in $p_i$. We define $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X):=\Coh^{N}(\X)$. Or equivalently, an object $\FF^\bullet$ in $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}$ is a $N$-dimensional diagram of objects $\FF^\mathbf{a} \in \Coh(\X)$:
\begin{equation}\label{objects}
\xymatrix{
\FF^{\mathbf{a}} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_p}} \ar[d]^-{\phi^{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_q}} &
\FF^{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_p} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{\mathbf{a}+2\epsilon_p}} \ar[d] &
\cdots \ar[r]^-{\phi^{\mathbf{a}+ w_p \epsilon_p}} \ar[d]^-{\phi^{\mathbf{a}+(w_p-1)\epsilon_p + \epsilon_q}} & \FF^{\mathbf{a}+w_p\epsilon_p} \ar[d] \\
\FF^{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_q} \ar[r]^-{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_p + \epsilon_q} \ar[d] &
\FF^{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_p+\epsilon_q} \ar[d] &
\cdots \ar[d] &
\FF^{\mathbf{a}+w_p\epsilon_p+\epsilon_q} \ar[d] \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\FF^{\mathbf{a}+w_q\epsilon_q} \ar[r] & \cdots & \cdots \ar[r] & \FF^{\mathbf{a}+w_p\epsilon_p + w_q \epsilon_q}
}
\end{equation}
satisfying the periodic properties $\FF^{\mathbf{a}+w_p\epsilon_p} = \FF^{\mathbf{a}}(p)$, $\phi^{(\mathbf{a}+w_p\epsilon_p)}= \phi^{\mathbf{a}}(p)$ and $\phi^{\mathbf{a}}(p) \circ \cdots \circ \phi^{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_p} : \FF^{\mathbf{a}} \to \FF^{\mathbf{a}}(p)$ is the natural morphism for all $\mathbf{a} \in \Z^S$ and $p \in S$, where $\epsilon_p$ is the canonical basis of $\Z^S$. A morphism between two objects $\FF^\bullet$ and $\mathcal{G}^\bullet$ in $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is defined in the obvious way. In fact, the category $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is equivalent to the category of coherent sheaves $\X$ with $\mathbf{w}$-step parabolic structure on $S$ defined by Heinloth in \cite{Hei}. We might as well call an object $\FF^\bullet$ in $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ a \textit{parabolic coherent sheaf} on $\X$. We have the following Lemma:
\begin{lem}\cite[Lemma 4.2, Theorem 4.3]{Len98} \cite[Lemma 2.1, 3.4]{Hei}
$\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is connected, abelian, noetherian and hereditary.
\end{lem}
For $\FF^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$, by the same argument as the $w_p$-cycles case, all the $\FF^{\mathbf{a}}$ have the same generic rank. We define the \textit{rank} of $\FF^\bullet$ to be the rank of $\FF^{\mathbf{0}}$. A parabolic coherent sheaf $\FF^\bullet$ is called \textit{locally free or a vector bundle} if all the $\FF^{\mathbf{a}}$ are locally free and $\FF^\bullet$ is called \textit{torsion} if $\rank(\FF^\bullet) = 0$. Any parabolic coherent $\FF^\bullet$ over $\X$ can be decomposed uniquely(but non-canonically) as $\FF^\bullet = \FF_v^\bullet \oplus \FF_t^\bullet$ where $\FF^\bullet_v$ is locally free and $\FF^\bullet_t$ is a parabolic torsion sheaf. For $\FF^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$, the middle terms of the diagram (\ref{objects}) are determined by its frame since the requirement of the composition maps $\phi^{\mathbf{a}}(p) \circ \cdots \circ \phi^{\mathbf{a}+\epsilon_p} : \FF^{\mathbf{a}} \to \FF^{\mathbf{a}}(p)$ being a natural morphism. The collection $(\deg(\FF^\mathbf{a}))_{\mathbf{a} \in \Z^S}$ is therefore determined by the sub-collection $(\deg(\FF^{n_p\epsilon_p}))_{p \in S, 0 \leq n_p < w_p}$ and $\rank(\FF^\bullet)$. We might define the \textit{multi-degree} of $\FF^\bullet$ as the collection $\deg(\FF^\bullet) = (\deg(\FF^{n_p\epsilon_p}))_{p \in S, 0 \leq n_p < w_p}$.
\subsubsection{Automorphisms}
$\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is equipped with the natural $\Z^S$-action as the shift automorphisms $\mathbf{a} : \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) \to \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ defined by $\mathbf{a} \cdot (\FF^\bullet) = \mathbf{a} \cdot ((\FF^\mathbf{b})_{\mathbf{b} \in \Z^S}) = (\FF^{\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{a}})_{\mathbf{b} \in \Z^S} =: \FF^\bullet(\mathbf{a})$ for all $\mathbf{a} \in \Z^S$. The Picard group $\Pic(\X)$ of $\Coh(\X)$ also acts on $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ as automotphisms:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\Pic(\X) \times \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) &\to \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) \\
(\mathcal{L}, \FF^\bullet = (\FF^{\mathbf{b}})_{\mathbf{b} \in \Z^S} ) &\mapsto (\mathcal{L} \cdot \FF^\bullet) := (\FF^{\mathbf{b}} \otimes \mathcal{L})_{\mathbf{b} \in \Z^S}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Clearly these two actions commute and satisty the relations $\mathcal{O}_{\X}(p) \cdot \FF^\bullet = w_p\epsilon_p \cdot (\FF^\bullet)= \FF^\bullet(w_p \epsilon_p)$ for all $p \in S$.
\subsubsection{The constant parabolic sheaf}
We say a parabolic coherent sheaf $\FF^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is \textit{constant} if $\FF^\bullet$ is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{constant parabolic sheaf}
\begin{matrix}
\FF^{\mathbf{0}} = \FF & \to & \FF & \to & \cdots & \to & \FF & \to & \FF(p) \\
\downarrow & \; & \downarrow & \; & \downarrow & \; & \downarrow & \; & \downarrow \\
\FF & \to & \FF & \to & \cdots & \to & \FF & \to & \FF(p) \\
\vdots & \; & \vdots & \; & \vdots & \; & \vdots & \; & \vdots \\
\FF & \to & \FF & \to & \cdots & \to & \FF & \to & \FF(p) \\
\downarrow & \; & \downarrow & \; & \downarrow & \; & \downarrow & \; & \downarrow \\
\FF(q) & \to & \FF(q) & \to & \cdots & \to & \FF(q) & \to & \FF(p+q)
\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
for some coherent sheaf $\FF \in \Coh(\X)$ and we denote by $(\FF)^\bullet$ such a parabolic sheaf. The category $\Coh(\X)$ of coherent sheaves over $\X$ can be embedded into $\Coh^{(\mathbf{w},S)}(\X)$ by sending a coherent sheaf $\FF$ to the constant parabolic sheaf $(\FF)^\bullet$. Conversely there is a natural functor $(-)^{\mathbf{a}} : \Coh^{(\mathbf{w},S)}(\X) \to \Coh(\X)$ for any $\mathbf{a} \in \Z^S$ by sending $\mathcal{F}^\bullet = (\mathcal{F}^\mathbf{b})_{\mathbf{b} \in \Z^S} \mapsto \mathcal{F}^{\mathbf{a}}$. These two kinds of functors $(-)^\bullet$ and $(-)^{\mathbf{a}}$ again satisfy the following adjunction properties:
\begin{equation*}
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}((\FF)^\bullet, \G^\bullet) = \Hom_{\Coh(\X)}(\FF, \G^{\mathbf{0}}).
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\G^\bullet, (\FF)^\bullet) = \Hom_{\Coh(\X)}(\G^{\mathbf{w}},\FF)
\end{equation*}
where $\G^{\mathbf{w}} := \G^{\sum_{q \in S}(w_q -1)\epsilon_q}$. Similarly the extension spaces of a parabolic coherent sheaves $\FF^\bullet$ by a parabolic constant sheaf $(\mathcal{G})^\bullet$ for some $\mathcal{G} \in \Coh(\X)$ have the same adjunction formulas
\begin{equation*}
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}((\FF)^\bullet, \G^\bullet) = \Ext_{\Coh(\X)}(\FF, \G^{\mathbf{0}}).
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\G^\bullet, (\FF)^\bullet) = \Ext_{\Coh(\X)}(\G^{\mathbf{w}},\FF).
\end{equation*}
A direct consequence of the usual Serre duality and the adjunction properties is that for any $\mathcal{G} \in \Coh(\X)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\FF^\bullet, (\mathcal{G})^\bullet)^* \simeq \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}((\mathcal{G} \otimes \omega_{\X}^{-1})^\bullet(-\mathbf{w}), \FF^\bullet).
\end{equation}
Let $\mathcal{O}_{\X}^\bullet := (\O_{\X})^\bullet$, $\omega_{\X}^\bullet := (\omega_{\X})^\bullet(\mathbf{w})$ and $\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,k} := (\omega_{\X}^{\otimes k})^\bullet (k \mathbf{w})$. Then we have the following analogue Serre duality:
\begin{equation}
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\FF^\bullet, \omega_{\X}^{\bullet,k})^* \simeq \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,k-1}, \FF^\bullet).
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Parabolic line bundles} We call an $\mathcal{L}^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ a \textit{parabolic line bundle} if $\mathcal{L}^\bullet$ is locally free and of rank $1$. Let $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ be the set of all parabolic line bundles. Contrast with $\Pic(\X)$, the set $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is not obviously a group. However, we can describe $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ as follows: Let $\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})$ be the rank one abelian group on generators $\{\vec{x}_p \mid p \in S \}$ subject to the relations
\begin{equation}
w_{p_1} \vec{x}_{p_1} = w_{p_2} \vec{x}_{p_2} = \cdots = w_{p_N} \vec{x}_{p_N} =: \vec{c}.
\end{equation}
Clearly $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is stable under the action of $\Pic^0(\X)$. The set $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) / \Pic^0(\X)$ of $\Pic^0(\X)$-orbits is canonically isomorphic to $\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})$ by
\begin{equation}\label{Pic1}
\begin{split}
\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) / \Pic^0(\X) &\to \mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w}) \\
\Pic^0(\X) \cdot \mathcal{L}^\bullet &\mapsto \deg(\mathcal{L}^{\mathbf{0}})\vec{c} + \sum_{p \in S} \sum_{1 \leq i \leq w_p-1} i(\deg(\mathcal{L}^{i\epsilon_p}) - \deg(\mathcal{L}^{(i-1)\epsilon_p}))\vec{x}_p.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and hence the orbit space $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) / \Pic(\X) \simeq \LL(\mathbf{w}) / \Z\vec{c} \simeq \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z$. Thus there is a bijection
\begin{equation}\label{Pic2}
\begin{split}
\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) &\to \Pic(\X) \times \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z \\
\mathcal{L}^\bullet &\mapsto (\mathcal{L}^{\mathbf{0}}, (\sum_{p \in S}\sum_{1 \leq i \leq w_p-1} i(\deg(\mathcal{L}^{i\epsilon_p}) - \deg(\mathcal{L}^{(i-1)\epsilon_p})) \vec{x}_p),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we denote by $\vec{x}_p$ again the image of $\vec{x}_p$ under the projection $\pi: \mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w}) \twoheadrightarrow \prod_{p \in S} \Z/w_p \Z$.
\subsubsection{Parabolic Torsion Sheaves}\label{torsionsheaves}
We denote by $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ the subcategory of $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(X)$ consisting of parabolic torsion sheaves. As in the usual case, it splits into a direct product of blocks
\begin{equation*}
\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X) = \prod_{q \in \X} \Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_{q}(\X)
\end{equation*}
where $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_{q}(\X)$ is the subcategory of parabolic torsion sheaves supported at a single point $q \in \X$. If $q \notin S$ and $\mathcal{T}^\bullet \in \Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q$, then all $\mathcal{T}^{\mathbf{a}}$ are isomorphic and thus $\mathcal{T}^\bullet = (\mathcal{T}^{\mathbf{0}})^\bullet$. Thus the category $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q(\X)$ is equivalent to the category $\Tor_q(\X)$ of torsion sheaves without extra structure supported at a single point $q \in \X$, and hence equivalent to the category $\O_{\X,q}$-Mod of finite-length modules over the local ring $\O_{\X,q}$ of $q$, a discrete valuation ring. If $q \in S$, any indecomposable parabolic torsion sheaf supported at $q$ will be of the form $\O_{\X,q}^{\bullet,(k)}(i\epsilon_q) := \O_{\X}^\bullet(i\epsilon_q)/\O_{\X}^\bullet((i-k)\epsilon_q)$ for some $0 \leq k < i$, i.e. at the $i\epsilon_p$ part
\begin{equation*}
\cdots \to \O_{\X,q}^{(d)} \to \cdots \to \O_{\X,q}^{(d)} \twoheadrightarrow \O_{\X,q}^{(d-1)} \to \cdots \to \O_{\X,q}^{(d-1)} \hookrightarrow \O_{\X,q}^{(d)} \to \cdots
\end{equation*}
where $d = \lceil \frac{k}{w_q} \rceil$ is the smallest integer bigger than $\frac{k}{w_q}$.
To be more explicity described, let $\mathcal{C}_n$ denote the quiver of type $A^{(1)}_{n-1}$ with cyclic orientation. We also let $\mathcal{C}_1$ be the Jordan quiver, i.e., the quiver with one vertex and one arrow. A representation of $\mathcal{C}_l$ over a field $\mathbf{k}$ is a collection of $\mathbf{k}$-vector spaces $V_i$ with $i \in \Z/ n \Z$ together with a collection of linear maps $x_i: V_i \to V_{i+1}$. Morphisms between two representations $(V_i,x_i)$ and $(W_i,y_i)$ are $\mathbf{k}$-linear maps $\phi_i : V_i \to W_i$ such that $\phi_i x_i = y_i \phi_i$. Finally, a representation $(V_i,x_i)$ is called $nilpotent$ if there exists $N \gg 0$ such that $x_{i+N}\cdots x_{i} = 0$ for all $i$.
\vspace{.1in}
The set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable nilpotent representations of $\mathcal{C}_1$ over $\mathbf{k}$ is in bijection with $\N^*$ and we denote by $|n)$ the class of the indecomposable representation of dimension $n$. The set of isomorphism classes of representations is thus in bijection with the set $\Pi$ of all partitions via the assignment $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r) \mapsto |\lambda) = |\lambda_1) \oplus \cdots |\lambda_r)$. For $q \notin S$, the assignment $(\O_{\X,q}^{(n)})^\bullet \mapsto |n)$ give rise to a Morita equivalence of $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q$ and the category of nilpotent representations of the quiver $\mathcal{C}_1$ over $\mathbf{k}_q$.
\vspace{.1in}
Now, consider the quiver $\mathcal{C}_n$ for $n >1$. Denote by $\{ \epsilon_i\}_{i \in \Z / n \Z}$ the canonical basis of $\Z^{\Z / n \Z}$. For each $i \in \Z / n \Z$ and $k \in N$, define the \emph{cyclic segment} $[-i;k)$ to be the image of the projection to $\Z / n \Z$ of the segment $[i',i'+k-1]$ for any $i' \in \Z$, $i' \equiv i$ (mod $n$). A \emph{cyclic multisegment} is a finite linear combination $\mathbf{m} = \sum_{i,k} a_{i,k} [i,k)$ with $a_{i,k} \in \N$. The isomorphism classes of representations (resp. indecomposable representations) of $\mathcal{C}_n$ over $\mathbf{k}$ are in bijection with the set of cyclic multisegments (resp. cyclic segments). For $q \in S$, the assignment $\O_{\X,q}^{\bullet,(k)}(i\epsilon_q) \mapsto [i;k)$ give rise to a Morita equivalence between $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q$ and the category of nilpotent representations of $\mathcal{C}_{w_q}$ over the field $\mathbf{k}_q$.
\vspace{.1in}
To summarize, we have the following properties:
\begin{prop}\cite[Proposition 3.2]{Hei}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any parabolic torsion sheaf is a direct sum of sheaves of the form
\begin{equation*}
\O_{\X,p}^{\bullet, (j)}(i\epsilon_p)= \O_{\X}^\bullet(i\epsilon_p)/\O_{\X}^\bullet((i-j)\epsilon_p), \; p \in S, \; i,j \in \N
\end{equation*}
and sheaves supported outside $S$.
\item Any parabolic torsion sheaf $\T^\bullet$ has a filtration $\T_j^\bullet \subset \T_{j+1}^\bullet \subset \cdots \subset \T^\bullet$ such that $\T_{j+1}^\bullet / \T_j^\bullet$ are isomorphic to one of the following
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\T_{j+1}^\bullet / \T_{j}^\bullet \simeq (\O_{\X,q})^\bullet$ and $q \notin S$.
\item[(b)] There is a $p_0 \in S$ and $0 \leq i_0 < w_{p_0}$ such that $\T_{j+1}^{(i,p)} / \T_{j}^{(i,p)} \simeq \O_{\X,p_0}$ if $i \equiv i_0$ mod $w_{p_0}$ and $p = p_0 \in S$ and $0$ otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
\item For $d >0$, any constant parabolic torsion sheaf $\T^\bullet$ with $\deg(\T^\mathbf{a}) = d$ for all $\mathbf{a} \in \Z^S$ has a filtration $\T_1^\bullet \subset \cdots \subset \T_i^\bullet \subset \cdots \subset \T^\bullet$ such that $\deg(\T_i^\mathbf{a}) =i$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\noindent
\textit{Remark.} Note that the notations $\O_{\X,p}^{\bullet, (j)}(i\epsilon_p)$ are compatible with the notion of the $\Z^S$-action and the $\Z^S$-action on $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ factors through $\prod_{p \in S} \Z/ w_p \Z$.
\subsubsection{Some homological consequences} We have the following lemma due to Heinloth:
\begin{lem}\label{homolemma}\cite[Lemma 3.5]{Hei}
Let $\T^\bullet$ be a parabolic torsion sheaf and $\EE^\bullet$ a parabolic vector bundle. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\T^\bullet,\EE^\bullet) = \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\EE^\bullet,\T^\bullet) = \{ 0 \}.$
\item If $\T^\bullet = \O_{\X,p}^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p)$, then
\begin{equation*}
\dim \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\T^\bullet,\EE^\bullet ) = \deg(\EE^{(i+1)\epsilon_p}) - \deg(\EE^{i\epsilon_p})
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\dim \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\EE^\bullet,\T^\bullet) = \deg(\EE^{i\epsilon_p}) - \deg(\EE^{(i-1)\epsilon_p}).
\end{equation*}
\item If $\mathcal{T}^\bullet$ is constant with $\deg(\mathcal{T}^\mathbf{a}) = d$ for all $\mathbf{a} \in \Z^S$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\dim \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\T^\bullet,\EE^\bullet) = d \cdot \rank(\EE^\bullet) = \dim \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\EE^\bullet,\T^\bullet).
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
In other words, the dimension of the spaces of morphisms and extensions between two parabolic coherent sheaves only depends on their ranks and multi-degrees. We might as well interpret the \textit{numerical} Grothendieck group $\mathcal{K} := K'(\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X))$ as $\Z \times \Z^{\prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z}$ by assigning a parabolic coherent sheaf $\FF^\bullet$ to $(\rank(\FF^\bullet), \deg(\FF^\bullet))$. We denote by $\mathcal{K}^+ \subset \mathcal{K}$ the subset of $\mathcal{K}$ consisting of the classes of parabolic coherent sheaves.
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{lem}\label{Euler}
For $p,q \in S$, $0 \leq i < w_p$ and $0 \leq k < w_q$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\begin{matrix}
\langle \O^\bullet, (\O(p))^\bullet \rangle_S = 1-g_{\X} + \deg(p), & \langle \O^\bullet, \O^\bullet(i\epsilon_p)\rangle_S = 1-g_\X,
\end{matrix} \\
&\langle \O^\bullet, \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p) \rangle_S =
\begin{cases}
\deg(p) & \text{if } i = 0, \\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases} \\
&\langle \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p), \O^\bullet \rangle_S =
\begin{cases}
-\deg(p) & \text{if } i = 1,\\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\\
&\langle \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p), \O_q^{\bullet,(1)}(k\epsilon_q) \rangle_S =
\begin{cases}
\deg(p) & \text{if } p=q, \; i=k, \\
-\deg(p) & \text{if } p = q, \; i \equiv k-1 \mod w_p, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} By adjointness of the functors $(-)^\bullet$ and $(-)^{\mathbf{0}}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet, (\O(p))^\bullet) = \Hom(\O,\O(p)), & \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet, (\O(p))^\bullet) = \Ext(\O,\O(p)).
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
Hence the Euler form can be computed by Riemman-Roch
\begin{equation*}
\langle \O^\bullet,\O(p)^\bullet \rangle_S = \langle \O ,\O(p) \rangle = 1-g_\X + \deg(p).
\end{equation*}
Similarly, since $0 \leq i < w_p$, $(\O^\bullet(i\epsilon_p))^{\mathbf{0}} = (\O^\bullet(-i\epsilon_p))^{\mathbf{w}} = \O$. So
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)} \O^\bullet, \O^\bullet(i\epsilon_p) = \Hom(\O,\O), \\
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet,\O^\bullet(i\epsilon_p)) = \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet(-i\epsilon_p),\O^\bullet) = \Ext(\O,\O).
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
and we get $\langle \O^\bullet,\O^\bullet(i\epsilon_p) \rangle_S = \langle \O,\O \rangle = 1-g_\X$.
\vspace{.1in}
Note that $(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p))^{j\epsilon_p} = \delta_{w_p-i,j}\O_p$. By lemma \ref{homolemma} or again by adjointness of functors, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p),\O^\bullet) = \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet,\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p)) =0,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet,\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p)) = \begin{cases}
\Hom(\O,\O_p) & \text{if } i=0, \\
0 & \text{if } i \neq 0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p),\O^\bullet) = \begin{cases}
\Ext(\O_p,\O) & \text{if } i=1. \\
0 & \text{if } i \neq 1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
The lemma follows. \qed
\section{The Hall algebra of parabolic coherent sheaves}\label{SHallS}
\subsection{Reminders on Hall algebras}
We briefly recall here the definition of a Hall algebra of a finitary abelian category for reader's convenience and refer to \cite{S1} for its standard properties. We will say an abelian category $\mathcal{A}$ $finitary$ if for any two objects $\FF$ and $\G$ of $\mathcal{A}$ all the groups $\Ext^i(\FF,\G)$ have finite cardinality and are zero for almost all $i$. For instance any abelain category $\mathcal{A}$ which is linear over some finite field $\mathbf{k}$ and which satisfies $\dim \Ext^i(\FF,\G) < \infty$ is finitary.
\vspace{.1in}
For a $\mathbf{k}$-linear abelian category $\mathcal{A}$ we denote by $K(\mathcal{A})$ its Grothendieck group, defined over $\Z$. If $\mathcal{A}$ is of finite global dimension then we may consider the Euler form
\begin{equation*}
\langle \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N} \rangle = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} (-1)^i \dim \Ext^i(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N}).
\end{equation*}
Note that the Euler form only depend on the classes of $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{N}$ in the Grothendieck group and thus it descends to a form $\langle \; \; , \; \; \rangle : K(\mathcal{A}) \otimes K(\mathcal{A}) \to \CC$. We also need the symmetrized version $(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N}) = \langle \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N} \rangle + \langle \mathcal{N}, \mathcal{M} \rangle$.
\vspace{.1in}
Our only interest here is in the case when $\mathcal{A}$ is finitary, abelian and of global dimension one. Let $\mathcal{I}$ be the set of isomorphism classes of objects of $\mathcal{A}$. Let us choose a square root $v$ of $l^{-1}$. As a vector space we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{H}_{\mathcal{A}} = \{ f: \mathcal{I} \to \mathbb{C} \mid supp(f) \; finite\} = \bigoplus_{\FF \in \mathcal{I}} \mathbb{C}1_{\FF}
\end{equation*}
where $1_{\FF}$ denotes the characteristic function of $\FF \in \mathcal{I}$. The multiplication is defined as
\begin{equation*}
(f \cdot g)(\mathcal{R}) = \sum_{\mathcal{N} \subseteq \mathcal{R}} v^{-\langle \mathcal{R}/\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{N} \rangle}f(\mathcal{R}/\mathcal{N})g(\mathcal{N})
\end{equation*}
and the comultiplication is
\begin{equation*}
\Delta(f)(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N}) = \frac{v^{\langle \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{N} \rangle}}{|\Ext^1(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N})|} \sum_{\xi \in \Ext^1(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N})} f(\mathcal{X}_{\xi})
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{X}_{\xi}$ is the extension of $\mathcal{N}$ by $\mathcal{M}$ corresponding to $\xi$. Note that the coproduct may take values in a completion $\H_{\mathcal{A}} \hat{\otimes} \H_{\mathcal{A}}$ of the tensor space $\H_{\mathcal{A}} \otimes \H_{\mathcal{A}}$ only. The Hall algebra is graded by the class in the Grothendieck group. We will sometimes write $\Delta_{\alpha,\beta}$ in order to specify the graded components of the coproduct.
\vspace{.1in}
The Hall algebra $\H_{\mathcal{A}}$ will become a (topological) bialgebra if we suitably twist the coproduct. To do this, let $\mathcal{K}= \CC[K(\mathcal{A})]$ be the group algebra of $K(\mathcal{A})$ and for any class $\alpha \in K(\mathcal{A})$ we denote by $\kappa_{\alpha}$ the corresponding element in $\mathcal{K}$. We define an extended Hall algeba $\widetilde{\H}_{\mathcal{A}} = \H_{\mathcal{A}} \otimes \mathcal{K}$ with relations
\begin{equation*}
\kappa_{\alpha}\kappa_{\beta}=\kappa_{\alpha+\beta}, \; \kappa_0 =1, \; \kappa_{\alpha}1_{\FF}\kappa_{\alpha}^{-1} = v^{-( \alpha, \overline{\FF} ) } 1_{\FF}
\end{equation*}
where $\overline{\FF}$ denote the class of $\FF$ in $K(\mathcal{A})$. The new coproduct is given by the formulas
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\widetilde{\Delta}(\kappa_{\alpha}) = \kappa_{\alpha} \otimes \kappa_{\alpha} \\
&\widetilde{\Delta}(f) = \sum_{\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N}} \Delta(f)(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N})1_{\mathcal{M}}\kappa_{\overline{\mathcal{N}}} \otimes 1_{\mathcal{N}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Then $\widetilde{\H}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is a topological algebra. Finally, let
\begin{equation*}
( \; \; , \; \; )_G : \widetilde{\H}_{\mathcal{A}} \otimes \widetilde{\H}_{\mathcal{A}} \to \CC
\end{equation*}
be the Green's Hermitian scalar product defined by
\begin{equation*}
(1_\mathcal{M}\kappa_\alpha, 1_\mathcal{N}\kappa_\beta)_G = \frac{\delta_{\mathcal{M},\mathcal{N}}}{\# \Aut(\mathcal{M})}v^{- ( \alpha, \beta )}.
\end{equation*}
This scalar product is a Hopf pairing, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
(ab,c)_G = (a \otimes b, \widetilde{\Delta}(c) )_G, \; \; a,b,c \in \widetilde{\H}_{\mathcal{A}}.
\end{equation*}
The restriction of $( \; \; , \; \; )_G$ to $\H_\mathcal{A}$ is nondegenerate.
\vspace{.1in}
Finally, for any class $\gamma \in K(\mathcal{A})$, we set
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{1}_\gamma = \sum_{\overline{\MM} = \gamma} \mathbf{1}_{\MM}
\end{equation*}
where the sum ranges over all objects $\MM$ of class $\gamma$. This sum may be infinite for some categories, so strickly speaking $\mathbf{1}_\gamma$ belongs to the formal completion $\widehat{\H}_{\mathcal{A}}$ of $\H_{\mathcal{A}}$. The coproduct extends to a map
\begin{equation*}
\Delta : \widehat{\H}_{\mathcal{A}} \to \H_{\mathcal{A}} \widehat{\otimes} \H_{\mathcal{A}}.
\end{equation*}
We have the following useful lemma
\begin{lem}\label{HallLemma}\cite[Lemma 1.7]{S1} We have
\begin{equation}
\Delta(\mathbf{1}_{\gamma}) = \sum_{\gamma = \alpha + \beta} v^{\langle \alpha, \beta \rangle} \mathbf{1}_{\alpha} \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\beta}.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{The Hall algebra of $\Coh(\X)$}
We collect in this section a few facts about $\H_\X:= \H_{\Coh(\X)}$ and its extended version which can be found, e.g., in \cite{SV2}.
\subsubsection{}
The decomposition of $\Tor(\X) = \prod_{q \in \X} \Tor_q$ gives rise to a decomposition at the level of Hall algebras
\begin{equation*}
\H_{\Tor(\X)} = \bigotimes_{q \in \X} \H_{\Tor_q},
\end{equation*}
It is well-known that $\H_{\Tor_q}$ is commutative and cocommutative: it is isomorphic to the \emph{classical} Hall algebra defined over the residue field $\mathbf{k}_q$, and is therefore identified with the algebra of symmetric functions :
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Psi_q : \H_{\Tor_q} &\simeq \Lambda \otimes \CC_{v^{\deg(q)}} \\
\mathbf{e}_{r,q} &\mapsto e_r
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{e}_{r,q}:= v^{-\deg(q)r(r-1)}1_{(\O_{\X,q}^{(1^r)})^\bullet}$ and $\Lambda = \CC[y_1,y_2,\dots]^{\mathfrak{S}_\infty}$ is Macdonald's ring of symmetric functions, $\{e_r \}_{r \in \N^*}$ denotes the elementary symmetric polynomial. Under this identification, for any $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r) \in \Pi$, the element $1_{(\O_{\X,q}^{\lambda})^\bullet}$ corresponds to $l^{-n(\lambda)\deg(q)}P_{\lambda}(l^{-\deg(q)})$, where $n(\lambda) = \sum_j (j-1)\lambda_j$ and $P_{\lambda}(t)$ is the Hall-Littlewood polynomial. Let $p_r \in \Lambda$ be the power-sum symmetric function and set
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{h}_{r,q} = \frac{[r]}{r}\Psi_q^{-1}(p_r).
\end{equation*}
Here as usual $[r] = \frac{v^{-r\deg(q)} - v^{r\deg(q)}}{v^{-\deg(q)} - v^{\deg(q)}}$ is the $q$-integer. The classical theory of symmetric functions(c.f. \cite{Mac}) tells us
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{h}_{r,q} = \frac{[r]}{r} \sum_{\lambda, |\lambda| = r} n(l(\lambda) -1 )1_{\O_{\X,q}^\lambda},
\end{equation*}
where $n(l) = \prod_{j=1}^l(1-v^{-2j\deg(q)})$.
\vspace{.1in}
For $d \geq 1$, we set
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{1}_{0,d} = \sum_{ \T \in \Tor_{d}} 1_{\T}
\end{equation*}
and we define the elements $T_{0,d}, \theta_{0,d}$ of $\widetilde{\H}^{\Tor}$ via the relations
\begin{equation*}
1 + \sum_{d \geq 1} \mathbf{1}_{0,d}s^d = \exp\big( \sum_{d} \frac{T_{0,d}}{[d]}s^d \big), \; \; 1 + \sum_{d \geq 1} \theta_{0,d} s^d = \exp \big( (v^{-1}-v) \sum_{d \geq 1} T_{0,d}s^d \big).
\end{equation*}
We set also $\mathbf{1}_{0,0} = T_{0,0} = \theta_{0,0} = 1$.
\begin{lem} \cite[Example 4.12, Lemma 4.50, Lemma 4.51]{S1}
The following hold for all $d \in \N$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\widetilde{\Delta}(T_{0,d}) = T_{0,d} \otimes 1 + \kappa_{0,d} \otimes T_{0,d} $,
\item $\widetilde{\Delta}(\theta_{0,d}) = \sum_{s=0}^{d} \theta_{0,s} \kappa_{0,d-s} \otimes \theta_{0,d-s}$,
\item $(T_{0,d}, T_{0,d})_G = (v^{d-1} \# \X(\mathbb{F}_{l^d})[d])/(dl-d)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
The sets $\{ \mathbf{1}_{0,d} \; | \; d \in \N \}$, $ \{ T_{0,d} \; | \; d \in \N \} $ and $\{ \theta_{0,d} \; | \; d \in \N \}$ all generate the same subalgebra $\U^0_{\X}$ of $\H_{\Tor(\X)}$. It is known that
\begin{equation*}
\U^0_\X = \CC[\mathbf{1}_{0,1},\mathbf{1}_{0,2},\dots],
\end{equation*}
i.e., the commuting elements $\mathbf{1}_{0,d}$ for $d \geq 1$ are algebraically independent. The same holds also for the collections of generators $\{ T_{0,d} \}$ and $\{ \theta_{0,d} \}$.
\subsubsection{}
Because the sub-category $\Bun(\X)$ of $\Coh(\X)$ is exact and extension-closed it gives rise to a subalgebra $\H_{\Bun(\X)}$ of $\H_\X$. However, this subalgebra is not stable under the coproduct $\Delta$.
\vspace{.1in}
For $d \in \Z$ let $\Pic^d(\X)$ be the set of all line bundles over $\X$ of degree $d$. Set
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d} = \mathbf{1}_{\Pic^d(\X)} = \sum_{\L \in \Pic^d(\X)} 1_\L.
\end{equation*}
Denote by $\U^>_\X$ the subalgebra of $\H_\X$ generated by $\{ \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d} \; | \; d \in \Z \}$. The \emph{spherical Hall algebra} of $\X$ is the subalgebra $\U_\X$ of $\H_\X$ generated by $\U^0_{\X}$ and $\U^>_{\X}$. We define $\widetilde{\U}_{\X}$ as the subalgebra of $\widetilde{\H}_{\X}$ generated by $\KK_\X$ and $\U_\X$. It is known to be a topological sub-bialgebra of $\widetilde{\H}_\X$(c.f. \cite[Section 1]{SV1}). We also set $\widetilde{\U}^0_{\X} = \U^0_{\X}\KK_\X$. The multiplication map again gives an isomorphism $\U^>_{\X} \otimes \widetilde{\U}^0_\X \to \widetilde{\U}_\X$.
\vspace{.1in}
Since $\Ext(\EE,\T)=0$ and $\Hom(\T,\EE)=0$ for any vector bundle $\EE$ and torsion sheaf $\T$, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
1_{\EE} \cdot 1_{\T} = v^{-\langle \EE, \T \rangle} 1_{\EE \oplus \T}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, any coherent sheaf $\FF$ is isomorphic to a direct sum $\EE \oplus \T$ in a unique fashion. Hence the multiplication map yields isomorphims
\begin{equation}\label{decomp1}
\H_{\Bun(\X)} \otimes \H_{\Tor(\X)} \to \H_\X, \; \; \H_{\Bun(\X)} \otimes \widetilde{\H}_{\Tor(\X)} \to \widetilde{\H}_\X.
\end{equation}
\vspace{.1in}
Finally, since $\T$ is the only torsion subsheaf of $\EE \oplus \T$ of degree $d=\deg(\T)$, we may use (\ref{decomp1}) to define a projection $\omega: \widetilde{\H}_\X \to \H_{\Bun(\X)}$ which satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\omega(u_vu_t\kappa_{\alpha}) =
\begin{cases}
u_v & \text{if } u_t=1 \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $u_v \in \H_{\Bun(\X)}$, $u_t \in \H_{\Tor(\X)}$ and $\alpha \in \KK_\X$.
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{lem}\cite[Corollary 1.4]{SV2}\label{thetacurve}
Define complex numbers $\psi_k$, for $k \in \N$, by $\omega(\theta_{0,k}\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}) = \xi_{k} \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d+k}$. Then we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item for $d \in \Z$ and $k \in N$,
\begin{equation}
\theta_{0,k}\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d} = \sum_{s=0}^{k} \xi_{s}\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d+s}\theta_{0,k-s},
\end{equation}
\item as a series in $\CC[[z]]$, we have
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k \geq 0}\xi_k z^k = \frac{\zeta_{\X}(z)}{\zeta_{\X}(v^2z)}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\subsection{The Hall algebra of $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$}
Let $\H := \H_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)} $(resp. $\widetilde{\H} : = \widetilde{\H}_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}$) be the Hall algebra(resp. extended Hall algebra) associated to the category $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$. The functor $( - )^\bullet : \Coh(\X) \to \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ induces an embedding of $\H_{\X} $ into $\H$ as a subalgebra. Clearly it holds also for the extended Hall algebras $\widetilde{\H}_\X \subset \widetilde{\H}$. The Hall algebras $\H$ and $\widetilde{\H}$ have similar features as $\H_\X$ and $\widetilde{\H}_\X$ do. The fact that the category $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is a Serre subcategory of $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
\H^{\Tor} = \bigoplus_{\T^\bullet \in \Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)} \CC 1_{\T^\bullet}
\end{equation*}
The decomposition of $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ over points of $\X$ gives rise to a decomposition at the level of Hall algebras
\begin{equation*}
\H^{\Tor} = \bigotimes_{q \in \X} \H_{\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q(\X)} .
\end{equation*}
\vspace{.1in}
If $q \notin S$, the equivalence $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q \simeq \Tor_q$ yields an isomorphism $\H_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}} \simeq \H_{\Tor_q}$ of bialgebras. For $q \in S$, it follows from \cite{R} and section \ref{torsionsheaves} that the assignment $E_i \mapsto 1_{\O_{\X,q}^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_q)}$ defines an embedding $\U_v^+(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{w_q}) \hookrightarrow \H_{\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q}$. This embedding extends to an isomorphism(see \cite[Theorem 4.2]{S2})
\begin{equation*}
\H_{\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_q} \simeq \U^+_v(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{w_q}) \otimes_{\CC_v} \mathcal{Z}
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{Z} = \CC_v [x_1,x_2,\dots]$ is a central subalgebra and where the element $x_i$ is homogeneous of degree $i\delta_q$. To any $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_r)\in \Pi$ we associate
\begin{equation*}
f_{\lambda,q} = \sum_{j} 1_{\O_{\X,q}^{\bullet,(w_q\lambda_j)} } \in \H_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}},
\end{equation*}
and we set
\begin{equation*}
\H^0_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}} := \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \Pi} \CC_v f_{\lambda,q}.
\end{equation*}
The assignement $\O_{\X,q}^{\lambda}:= \O_{\X,q}^{(\lambda_1)} \oplus \cdots \oplus \O_{\X,q}^{(\lambda_r)} \mapsto f_{\lambda,q}$ extends to an algebra isomorphism $\Psi : \H_{\Tor_q} \simeq \H^0_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}}$.
\vspace{.1in}
Moreover, $\H^0_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}}$ is a commutative subalgebra(but not central) of $\H_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}}$ and is freely generated by any of the three sets $\{ \mathbf{e}_{r,q} \}_{r \in \N^*}$, $\{ \mathbf{l}_{r,q} \}_{r \in \N^*}$ and $\{ \mathbf{h}_{r,q} \}_{r \in \N^*}$, where
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{e}_{r,q} = \Psi(\mathbf{e}_{r,q}), \; \mathbf{l}_{r,q} = f_{(r),q}, \; \mathbf{h}_{e,q} = \Psi(\mathbf{h}_{r,q}).
\end{equation*}
Follows from \cite{S2}, the multiplication maps $\U_v^+(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{w_q}) \otimes \H^0_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}} \to \H_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}}$ and $\H^0_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}}\otimes \U_v^+(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{w_q}) \to \H_{\Tor_q^{\mathbf{w},S}}$ induce isomorphisms of $\CC_v$-modules.
\vspace{.1in}
For any $d \geq 0$, we denote by the same sumbol the image of $\mathbf{1}_{0,d}$ under the inclusion map $\H_{\Tor(\X)} \subset \H^{\Tor}$ induced by the embedding $( - )^\bullet : \Coh(\X) \hookrightarrow \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ and similarly for $\theta_{0,d}$, $T_{0,d}$. Denote by $\U^0_\X$ again the subalgebra of $\H^{\Tor}$ generated by $\{ \mathbf{1}_{0,d} \; | \; d \in \N \}$. Finally for any $q \in S$ and $0 \leq i < w_q$, we set $T_q{(i)} := 1_{\O^{\bullet,(1)}_{\X,q}(\frac{i}{w_q}q)}$ to simplify the notations. Let $\U^0$ be the subalgebra of $\H^{\Tor}$ generated by $\U^0_{\X}$ and $\{ T_q{(i)} \; | \; q \in S, \; 0 \leq i < w_q \}$.
\vspace{.1in}
Let $\H^{\Bun} := \H_{\Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}$. Again, $\H^{\Bun}$ is a sub-algebra of $\H$ which is not stable under the coproduct $\Delta^S$. The decomposition $\FF^\bullet = \EE^\bullet \oplus \T^\bullet$ gives rise to isomorphisms
\begin{equation*}
\H^{\Bun} \otimes \H^{\Tor} \to \H, \; \; \H^{\Bun} \otimes \H^{\Tor} \otimes \mathcal{K} \to \widetilde{\H}
\end{equation*}
defined by the multiplication map. We denote by $\omega$ be the projection $\widetilde{\H} \to \H^{\Bun}$, which is nothing but the restriction of functions on vector bundles.
\vspace{.1in}
For any $\vec{x} = d\vec{c} + \pi(\vec{x}) \in \mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})$, let $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}_{\vec{x}}(\X)$ be the subset of $\Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ consisting of all parabolic line bundles of type $\vec{x}$ with respect to the decomposition (\ref{Pic1}) and we set
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,0}(\vec{x}) =\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(\pi(\vec{x}))= \sum_{\mathcal{L}^\bullet \in \Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}_{\vec{x}}(\X)} 1_{\mathcal{L}^\bullet}.
\end{equation}
We may write $\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d} = \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(0) $ which is the image of $\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}$ via the inclusion $\H_{\Bun(\X)} \subset \H^{\Bun}$. Denote by $\U^>_S$ the subalgebra of $\H$ generated by $\{ \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(\vec{x}) \; | \; d \in \Z, \; \vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z \}$. We define analogously the \emph{spherical Hall algebra} of $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ to be the subalgebra $\U$ of $\H$ generated by $\U^0$ and $\U^>$. Similarly for $\widetilde{\U}_S$.
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{Some commutation relations}
\begin{lem}\label{lemmacommu1}\cite[Lemma 5.16]{BS}
For $p \in S$, we set $T_p^{(nw_p+j)}(i) = 1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(nw_p+j)}(i\epsilon_i)}$ for $0 \leq j < i < w_p$ and $n \in \N$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
T_p^{(nw_p+j)}(i) =
\begin{cases}
T_p^{(j)}(i), & \text{if } n=0 \\
1_{(\O_p^{(n)})^\bullet(i\epsilon_p)}T_p^{(j)}(i) - v^{2\deg(p)} T_p^{(j)}(i) 1_{(\O_p^{(n)})^\bullet(i\epsilon_p)}, & \text{if } n > 0
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{prop}
\begin{equation}
\widetilde{\Delta}(\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,0}) = \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,0} \otimes 1 + \sum_{d \geq 0, \vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z/w_p\Z} \theta_{0,d,\vec{x}}\kappa_{1,-d,-\vec{x}} \otimes \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,-d}(-\vec{x}).
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{theta}
\theta_{0,d,\vec{x}} = \sum_{S' = S'_1 \sqcup S'_2} \bigg( \prod_{p \in S'_2}\big( -v^{\deg(p)}T_p^{a_p}(0) \big)\times \theta_{0,d} \times \prod_{p \in S'_1}\big( v^{-\deg(p)}T_p^{a_p}(0)\big) \bigg)
\end{equation}
where, write $\vec{x} = \sum_{p \in S} a_p \vec{x}_p \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p\Z$, $S' = \{p \in S \; | \; a_p \neq 0 \} $.
\end{prop}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} Note that any parabolic line bundle $\mathcal{L}^\bullet \in \Pic^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ is of the form $(\mathcal{L})^\bullet(\mathbf{a})$ for some $\mathcal{L} \in \Pic^0(\X)$ and $\vec{x} \in \mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})$. Fix such an $\mathcal{L} \in \Pic^0(\X)$ and $\vec{x} = d\vec{c} + \sum_{p \in S} a_p\vec{x}_p \in \mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w}) $. Consider the canonical short exact sequence in $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$
\begin{equation}
0 \to (\mathcal{L})^\bullet( -\vec{x}) \to (\mathcal{L})^\bullet \to \mathcal{T}^\bullet \to 0
\end{equation}
Let us write $S' = \{ p \in S \mid a_p \neq 0 \} \subset S$ and
\begin{equation}\label{decomptype}
\mathcal{T}^\bullet \simeq \bigoplus_{q \in \X \setminus S'} (\mathcal{O}_q^{(n_q)})^\bullet \oplus \bigoplus_{p \in S'} \mathcal{O}_p^{\bullet,(n_pw_p+a_p)}(\mathbf{0}).
\end{equation}
The Hall number $\mathbf{P}_{(\mathcal{L})^\bullet( -\vec{x}),\T^\bullet}^{(\L)^\bullet}$ is equal to the number of epimorphisms from $\L^\bullet$ to $\T^\bullet$. Note that a morphism $\L^\bullet \to \T^\bullet$ is surjective if and only if all its components are surjective. By the adjointness of $( - )^\bullet$ and $(-)^{\mathbf{0}}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\# \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}^{\text{surj}}(\L^\bullet, (\mathcal{O}_q^{(n_q)})^\bullet) = \# \Hom^{\text{surj}}(\L, \mathcal{O}^{(n_q)}) = l^{\deg(q)n_q} - l^{\deg(q)(n_q-1)}
\end{equation*}
and similarly
\begin{equation*}
\# \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}^{\text{surj}}(\L^\bullet, \mathcal{O}_p^{\bullet,(n_pw_p+a_p)}) = \# \Hom^{\text{surj}}(\L, \mathcal{O}_p^{(n_p+1)}) = l^{\deg(q)(n_p+1)} - l^{\deg(q)n_p}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, $\langle \T^\bullet, (\L)^\bullet(-\vec{x}) \rangle_S = - \langle \L^\bullet, \T^\bullet \rangle_S = -d - \sum_{p \in S'}\deg(p)'$. All together, we have
\begin{equation}
\theta_{0,d,\vec{x}} = v^{-d-\sum_{p \in S'}\deg(p)}\sum_{\underline{q},\underline{n},\underline{a}} c_{d} \prod_{q \in \X \setminus S'} 1_{(\O_q^{(n_q)})^\bullet} \times \prod_{p \in S'} T_p^{(n_pw_p+a_p)}(0).
\end{equation}
where $c_{d} = \prod_{p \in \X}(1-v^{2\deg(p)})$ and the sum is taken over all decomposition types (\ref{decomptype}). Now, using the formula of Lemma \ref{lemmacommu1} and the fact(c.f. \cite[Example 4.12]{S1}) that
\begin{equation}
\theta_{0,d} = v^{-d} \sum_{m=1}^\infty \sum_{x_i,n_i}\prod_{i=1}^m((1-v^{2\deg(x_i)})1_{\O_{x_i}^{(n_i)}}),
\end{equation}
where the second sum rangers over all distinct points $x_1,\dots,x_m \in \mathbb{X}$ and positive integers $n_1,\dots,n_m$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^m n_i \deg(x_i) = d$, we deduce the formula (\ref{theta}). \qed
\vspace{.1in}
We set the quantum commutator $\llbracket a,b \rrbracket = ab - v^{-(a,b)_S}ba$, where $(a,b)_S$ is the symmetrized Euler form for homogeneous elements $a$ and $b$. Note that if $\llbracket b,c \rrbracket = [b,c] = 0$, then we have
\begin{equation*}
\llbracket \llbracket a,b \rrbracket,c \rrbracket = \llbracket \llbracket a,c \rrbracket , b \rrbracket
\end{equation*}
and similarly if $\llbracket a,c \rrbracket = [a,c] =0$, then
\begin{equation*}
\llbracket \llbracket a,b \rrbracket,c \rrbracket = \llbracket a, \llbracket b,c \rrbracket \rrbracket.
\end{equation*}
And in general, we have
\begin{equation}\label{qderive}
\llbracket \llbracket a,b \rrbracket,c \rrbracket = \llbracket a, \llbracket b,c \rrbracket \rrbracket + v^{-(b,c)_S}\llbracket a,c \rrbracket b - v^{-(a,b)_S}b\llbracket a,c \rrbracket.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{qderive2}
\llbracket ab,c \rrbracket = a\llbracket b,c \rrbracket + v^{-(b,c)_S}\llbracket a,c \rrbracket b.
\end{equation}
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{lem}\label{cyclcquiver}
For any $p \in S$, $0 \leq i < w_p$ and $0 < j < w_p$, we have
\begin{equation}
v_p^{j-1}T_p^{(j)}(i) = \llbracket \cdots \llbracket \; \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i), T_p^{(1)}(i-1) \rrbracket, T_p^{(1)}(i-2) \rrbracket \cdots \rrbracket, T_p^{(1)}(i-j+1) \rrbracket.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} Usint the equivalence $\Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}_p \simeq \mathcal{C}_{w_p}$, we are reduced to a computation in the context of quivers. Let us assume that $i=0$. For any $1 \leq k < j$ we have, from lemma \ref{Euler},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
\langle \O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0}), \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p)\rangle_S = 0, \\
\langle \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p,\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0}) \rangle_S = -\deg(p), \\
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0}),\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p)) = \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p),\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0})) =0, \\
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p),\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0})) =0,\\
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0}),\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p)) = \mathbf{k}_p.
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0})}
1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p)}= v_p(1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0})\oplus \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p)} + 1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(k+1)}(\mathbf{0})}), \\
1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p)} 1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0} ) } =
1_{\O_p^{\bullet,(k)}(\mathbf{0}) \oplus \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(-k\epsilon_p)}.
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
Hence $T_p^{(k)}(0)T_p^{(1)}(-k) -v_p T_p^{(1)}(-k)T_p^{(k)}(0) = v_p T_p^{(k+1)}(0)$ and the lemma follows by induction and shifting. \qed
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{lem}\label{commutelemma}
For any $p \in S$, $0 \leq i,k < w_p$, $d \in \Z$, $0 < j < w_p$, we have the following relations:
\begin{equation*}
\omega( T_p^{(j)}(i) \mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss}(k\vec{x}_p) ) = \begin{cases}
v_p\mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss}((k+j)\vec{x}_p) & \text{if } i-k \equiv j \mod w_p \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation*}
where $v_p = v^{\deg(p)}$.
\end{lem}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} Up to a shift, we can always assume the case $d=k=0$. As explained in the proof of lemma \ref{Euler}, if $i \neq 0,1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
\langle \O^\bullet, \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p) \rangle_S = \langle \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p),\O^\bullet \rangle_S = 0,\\
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet,\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p)) = \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p), \O^\bullet) = 0 \\
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p), \O^\bullet) = \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet,\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(i\epsilon_p)) = 0
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
And it is also true for any $(\mathcal{L})^\bullet$ with $\mathcal{L} \in \Pic^0(\X)$ instead of $\mathcal{O}^\bullet$. Hence we have $[T_p^{(1)}(i),1_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} ] = \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i), 1_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket = 0 $.
\vspace{.1in}
For the case $i=0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
\langle \O^\bullet, \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0}) \rangle_S = \deg(p), \\
\langle \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0}), \O^\bullet \rangle_S = 0, \\
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0}),\O^\bullet) = \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet, \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0})) = 0, \\
\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0}), \O^\bullet) = 0, \\
\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O^\bullet,\O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0})) = \mathbf{k}_p. \\
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
T_p^{(1)}(0)1_{\O^\bullet} = v_p^{-2} 1_{\O^\bullet \oplus \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0})},\\
1_{\O^\bullet} T_p^{(1)}(0) = v_p^{-1} 1_{\O^\bullet \oplus \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\mathbf{0})}.
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
The same is true for any parabolic line bundle $(\mathcal{L})^\bullet$ with $\mathcal{L} \in \Pic^0(\X)$ instead of $\mathcal{O}^\bullet$ and hence $T_p^{(1)}(0) \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} = v_p^{-1} \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} T_p^{(1)}(0) $. Similarly, for $i=1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
T_p^{(1)}(1)1_{\O^\bullet} = v_p (1_{\O^\bullet \oplus \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\epsilon_p)} + 1_{\O^\bullet(\epsilon_p)}), \\
1_{\O^\bullet}T_p^{(1)}(1) = 1_{\O^\bullet \oplus \O_p^{\bullet,(1)}(\epsilon_p)}.
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
Therefore we have $T_p^{(1)}(1)\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,0} - v_p \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,0}T_p^{(1)}(1)= v_p\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,0}(\vec{x}_p)$. To summarize,
\begin{equation*}
\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i), \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(k\vec{x}_p) \rrbracket =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if } i \not\equiv k+1 \mod w_p \\
v_p\mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss}((k+1)\vec{x}_p) & \text{if } i \equiv k+1 \mod w_p
\end{cases}.
\end{equation*}
\vspace{.1in}
Now let us compute $\llbracket T_p^{(j)}(i), \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket$ using lemma \ref{cyclcquiver}. If $i=0$, $\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}$ commutes with all $T_p^{(1)}(0-j+1)$ for all $0 < j < w_p$ and $(\mathcal{O}^\bullet, T_p^{(1)}(0-j+1)) = 0$ for all $j$. Thus
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\llbracket \llbracket \cdots \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(0), T_p^{(1)}(-1) \rrbracket, \cdots, T_p^{(1)}(0-j+1) \rrbracket, \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket \\
=\; & \llbracket \cdots \llbracket \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(0), \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket, T_p^{(1)}(-1) \rrbracket \cdots, T_p^{(1)}(0-j+1) \rrbracket = 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Suppose now $i \neq 0$. If $0 < j < i$, all the $T_p^{(1)}$'s commute with $\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}$ and $(\mathcal{O}^\bullet, T_p^{(1)}) = 0$. For $j = i$, all but $T_p^{(1)}(1)$ commute with $\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}$. But then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\llbracket \llbracket \cdots\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i),T_p^{(1)}(i-1) \rrbracket,\cdots, T_p^{(1)}(1) \rrbracket, \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket \\
= \; &\llbracket\llbracket \cdots \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i), T_p^{(1)}(i-1)\rrbracket, \cdots, T_p^{(1)}(2)\rrbracket , \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(1),\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket \rrbracket \\
= \; & \llbracket\llbracket \cdots \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i), T_p^{(1)}(i-1)\rrbracket, \cdots, T_p^{(1)}(2)\rrbracket , v_p\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{x}_p) \rrbracket \\
=\; & \llbracket \llbracket \cdots\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i-1),T_p^{(1)}(i-2) \rrbracket,\cdots, T_p^{(1)}(1) \rrbracket, v_p\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket (\vec{x}_p) \\
=\; & \cdots = v_p^{i}\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
For the cases $i < j < w_p$, we first compute the case $j = i+1$. Using (\ref{qderive}), we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\llbracket \llbracket \cdots\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i),T_p^{(1)}(i-1) \rrbracket,\cdots, T_p^{(1)}(0) \rrbracket, \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket \\
=\; & \llbracket \llbracket \cdots \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i), T_p^{(1)}(i-1)\rrbracket, \cdots, T_p^{(1)}(1)\rrbracket, \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(0), \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket \rrbracket \\
&+ v_p^{-1}\llbracket \llbracket \cdots\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i),T_p^{(1)}(i-1) \rrbracket,\cdots, T_p^{(1)}(1) \rrbracket, \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket T_p^{(1)}(0) \\
&+ v_p T_p^{(1)}(0)\llbracket \llbracket \cdots\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(i),T_p^{(1)}(i-1) \rrbracket,\cdots, T_p^{(1)}(1) \rrbracket, \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss} \rrbracket \\
=\; & v_p^{i-1}\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p)T_p^{(1)}(0) + v_p^{i+1}T_p^{(1)}(0)\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i \vec{x}_p) \\
=\; & (v_p^{-1} - v_p)v_p^i\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p) T_p^{(1)}(0),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the last equality holds since $i \neq 0,w_p-1$ in the cases. Finally, we only need to compute
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\llbracket \cdots \llbracket \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p)T_p^{(1)}(0),T_p^{(1)}(-1)\rrbracket, \cdots, T_p^{(1)}(i-j+1) \rrbracket \\
=\; & \llbracket \cdots \llbracket \bigg(\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p)\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(0),T_p^{(1)}(-1) \rrbracket + v_p\llbracket \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p),T_p^{(1)}(-1) \rrbracket T_p^{(1)}(0) \bigg), T_p^{(1)}(-2) \rrbracket,\\
&\cdots,T_p^{(1)}(i-j+1) \rrbracket \\
=\; & \llbracket \cdots \llbracket \bigg( \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p)\llbracket T_p^{(1)}(0),T_p^{(1)}(-1) \rrbracket \bigg), T_p^{(1)}(-2) \rrbracket,\cdots, T_p^{(1)}(i-j+1) \rrbracket\\
=\; & \cdots = \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}\llbracket \cdots \llbracket T_p^{(1)}(0), T_p^{(1)}(-1) \rrbracket, \cdots, T_p^{(1)}(i-j+1) \rrbracket,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the third equality and the later ones hold since $i < w_p +i -j$.
\vspace{.1in}
To summarize, we have
\begin{equation*}
\llbracket v_p^{j-1}T_p^{(j)}(i),\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d} \rrbracket
=\begin{cases}
v_p^i\mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p) & \text{if } i=j, \\
(v_p^{-1}-v_p)v_p^{2i+1-j} \mathbf{1}_{1,0}^\mathbf{ss}(i\vec{x}_p)T_p^{(j-i)}(0) & \text{if } 0 < i < j,\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation*}
The lemma follows by shifting.
\qed
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{lem}\label{keycommute}
Let $d \in \N$, $e \in \Z$ and $\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{z} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z$. Then $\omega(\theta_{0,d,\vec{x}}(\vec{z})\mathbf{1}_{1,e}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{y}))$ does not vanish only if $z_p - y_p \equiv x_p \mod w_p$ for all $p \in S$. In this case, we have
\begin{equation}
\omega(\theta_{0,d,\vec{x}}(\vec{z})\mathbf{1}_{1,e}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{y})) =
\prod_{p \in S}v_p(v_p^{-1}-v_p)\xi_d\mathbf{1}_{1,e+d}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{y}+\vec{x}).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} Applying the lemma \ref{commutelemma} to the expression of $\theta_{0,d,\vec{x}}$ in the lemma \ref{theta}, the necessary condition for $\omega(\theta_{0,d,\vec{x}}(\vec{z})\mathbf{1}_{1,e}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{y})) \neq 0$ is clear. So we assume that $\vec{z}-\vec{y} \neq 0$ and $z_p - y_p \equiv x_p \mod w_p$ for all $p \in S$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\omega(\theta_{0,d,\vec{x}}(\vec{z})\mathbf{1}_{1,e}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{y})) &= \sum_{S' = S_1 \sqcup S_2} \bigg( \prod_{p \in S_1} v_p^{0} \prod_{p \in S_2}(-v_p^{2}) \bigg) \xi_d \mathbf{1}_{1,e+d}(\vec{y}+\vec{x}) \\
&= \bigg( \prod_{p \in S}v_p(v_p^{-1}-v_p) \bigg) \xi_d\mathbf{1}_{1,e+d}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{y}+\vec{x}),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $S' = \{ p \in S \mid z_p - y_p \neq 0 \}$
\qed
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{The constant term map}\label{shuffle}
Let us introduce the so-called \textit{constant term map} as follows. For $r \geq 1$, we set
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
J_r: \U^>_S[r] &\to \U^>[1]\widehat{\otimes} \cdots \widehat{\otimes} \U^>[1] \\
u &\mapsto (\omega \otimes \cdots \otimes \omega)\Delta_{1,\dots,1}(u)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and denote by $J: \U^> \to \bigoplus_{r}(\U^>[1])^{\widehat{\otimes}r}$ the sum of the maps $J_r$. Writing
\begin{equation}
J(u) = \sum_{\L_1^\bullet,\dots,\L_r^\bullet} u(\L_1^\bullet,\dots,\L_r^\bullet)1_{\L_1^\bullet}\otimes \cdots \otimes 1_{\L_r^\bullet},
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
u(\L_1^\bullet,\dots,\L_r^\bullet) = \frac{1}{(l-1)^r}(J(u),1_{\L_1^\bullet}\otimes \cdots \otimes 1_{\L_r^\bullet})_G = \frac{1}{(l-1)^r}(u,1_{\L_1^\bullet}\cdots 1_{\L_r^\bullet})_G
\end{equation}
which coincides with the standard notion of constant term in the theory of automorphic forms(up to the factor $(l-1)^{-r}$). Since the image of $J_r$ lies in $(\U^>[1])^{\widehat{\otimes}r}$ and $\U^>[1] = \bigoplus_{d,\vec{x}}\mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{x})$, the function $u(\L_1^\bullet, \dots, \L_r^\bullet)$ only depends on the respective degree $(d_1,\vec{x}_1),\dots,(d_r,\vec{x}_r)$ of the parabolic line bundles $\L_1^\bullet,\dots,\L_r^\bullet$.
\begin{lem}\cite[Lemma 1.5]{SV2}
The constant term map $J:\U^> \to \bigoplus_r (\U^>[1])^{\widehat{\otimes}r}$ is injective.
\end{lem}
\vspace{.1in}
Let $\mathfrak{S}_r$ be the symmetric group on $r$ letters. If $w \in \mathfrak{S}_r$ and $P(z_1,\dots,z_r)$ a function in $r$ variables, then we set $wP(z_1,\dots,z_r)=P(z_{w(1)},\dots,z_{w(r)})$. Let
\begin{equation*}
Sh_{r,s} = \{ w \in \mathfrak{S}_{r+s} \; | \; w(i) < (j) \text{ if } 1 \leq i < j \leq r \text{ or } r < i < j \leq r+s \}
\end{equation*}
be the set of $(r,s)$-shuffles, i.e., the set of minimal length representatives of the left cosets in $\mathfrak{S}_{r+s}/\mathfrak{S}_r \times \mathfrak{S}_s$. For any $w \in Sh_{r,s}$, write
\begin{equation*}
I_w = \{(i,j) \; | \; 1 \leq i < j \leq r+s, \; w^{-1}(i) > r \geq w^{-1}(j)\}.
\end{equation*}
\vspace{.1in}
Let us first compute explicitly the $J_2$. For any $\vec{z}_i=(z_{i,p})_{p \in S} \in \prod_{p}\Z/w_p\Z$ for $i=1,2$, we set
\[
S_{\vec{z}_1 - \vec{z}_2}= \{ p \in S \; | \; z_{1,p} - z_{2,p} \neq 0 \}.
\]
We have
\begin{equation}\label{J2}
\begin{split}
J_2(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1)\mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)) & = \omega^{\otimes 2} \widetilde{\Delta}_{(1,1)}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1) \mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)) \\
&= \omega^{\otimes 2} \sum_{\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_2} \widetilde{\Delta}_{\delta_{\sigma(1)}}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1))\widetilde{\Delta}_{\delta_{\sigma(2)}}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where by definition $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ is the standard bases of $\Z^2$ and in above we have made use of the fact that $\widetilde{\Delta}$ is a morphism of algebras. Using (\ref{theta}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{coprod}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{\Delta}_{\delta_{k+1}}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z})) = &\sum_{d_1,\dots,d_k} \sum_{\vec{x}_1,\dots,\vec{x}_k}\bigg( \theta_{0,d_1,\vec{x}_1}(\vec{z})\kappa_{1,d-d_1+\vec{z}-\vec{x}_1} \otimes \cdots \\
&\otimes \theta_{0,d_{k},\vec{x}_{k}}(\vec{z}-\sum_{j < k} \vec{x_j})\kappa_{1,d+\vec{z}-\sum_{j=1}^k d_j + \vec{x}_j}\\
&\otimes \mathbf{1}_{1,d-\sum_{j=1}^k d_j}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}-\sum_{j=1}^k \vec{x}_j) \otimes 1 \otimes \cdots \otimes 1 \bigg),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the sum is taken over all $d_1,\dots,d_k \geq 0$ and $\vec{x}_1,\dots,\vec{x}_k \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z/w_p\Z$. Thus the lemma \ref{keycommute} yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
&\omega^{\otimes 2}\bigg( \widetilde{\Delta}_{\delta_1}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1))\widetilde{\Delta}_{\delta_2}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)) + \widetilde{\Delta}_{\delta_2}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1))\widetilde{\Delta}_{\delta_1}(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)) \bigg) \\
= \; & \mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1) \otimes \mathbf{1}_{2,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2) + \omega^{\otimes 2}(\sum_{s_1,\vec{x}_1}\theta_{0,s_1,\vec{x}_1}(\vec{z_1})\kappa_{1,d_1-s_1+\vec{z}_1-\vec{x}_1}\mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)\otimes \mathbf{1}_{1,d_1-s_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1-\vec{x}_1)),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the sum is taken over all $s_1 \geq 0$ and $\vec{x}_1 \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z$. By Lemma \ref{keycommute}, the summand will not vanish under $\omega$ if and only if $x_{1,p} \equiv z_{1,p} - z_{2,p} \mod w_p$ for $p$ lies in some subset $S' \subset S_{\vec{z}_1 - \vec{z}_2}$ and $x_{1,p} = 0 $ for $p \in S \setminus S'$. For any subset $S' \subset S_{\vec{z}_1 - \vec{z}_2}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
(\mathcal{O}^\bullet(\vec{z}_1 - \vec{x}_1), \mathcal{O}^\bullet(\vec{z}_2)) = (\mathcal{O}^\bullet, \mathcal{O}^\bullet(\vec{z}_2 - \vec{z}_1 + \vec{x}_1))
= 2(1-g_\X) - \sum_{p \in S_{\vec{z}_1 - \vec{z}_2} \setminus S'} 1.
\end{equation*}
Therefore (\ref{eq1}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1) \otimes \mathbf{1}_{2,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2) + v^{2g_\X-2}\sum_{s_1 \geq 0}\xi_{s_1}\cdot \sum_{S' \subset S_{\vec{z}_1-\vec{z}_2}} \bigg( \prod_{p \in S'} (1-v^2_p) \prod_{p \in S_{\vec{z}_1-\vec{z}_2} \setminus S'} v_p\cdot \\
\cdot \mathbf{1}_{1,d_2+s_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2+\sum_{p \in S'}x_{1,p}\vec{x}_p) \otimes \mathbf{1}_{1,d_1-s_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1-\sum_{p \in S'}x_{1,p}\vec{x}_p) \bigg),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $x_{1,p} \equiv z_{1,p} - z_{2,p} \mod w_p$ for all $p \in S_{\vec{z}_1-\vec{z}_2}$. We introduce the automorphism $\gamma$ of $\U^>[1]$ by $\gamma(\mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss})=\mathbf{1}_{1,d+1}^\mathbf{ss}$ and let us denote by $\gamma_i$ the operator $\gamma$ acting on the $i$th component of the tensor product. We also define $ \gamma_p(\mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z})) = \mathbf{1}_{1,d}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}+ \vec{x}_p)$ for all $p \in S$ and simillarly for $\gamma_{i,p}$'s. Finally, we set
\begin{equation}\label{gamma}
\Gamma_{p}^{a}(\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{j}})= \begin{cases}
v_p+(1-v^2_p)(\frac{\gamma_{i,p}}{\gamma_{j,p}})^{a} & \text{if } a \neq 0,\\
1 & \text{if } a = 0
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Using these notions and lemma \ref{thetacurve}, we can rewrite above as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& v^{2g_\X -2} \big(\sum_{s_1 \geq 0} \xi_{s_1}(\frac{\gamma_1}{\gamma_2})^{s_1}\big)\prod_{p \in S}\Gamma_{p}^{x_{1,p}}(\frac{\gamma_{1}}{\gamma_{2}}) \mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)\otimes \mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1)\\
=\; & v^{2g_\X-2}\frac{\zeta_\X(\gamma_1\gamma_2^{-1})}{\zeta_\X(v^2\gamma_1\gamma_2^{-1})} \prod_{p \in S}\Gamma_{p}^{x_{1,p}}(\frac{\gamma_{1}}{\gamma_{2}})\mathbf{1}_{1,d_2}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_2)\otimes \mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Put $h_\X(z) = v^{2g_\X-2}\frac{\zeta_\X(z)}{\zeta_\X(v^2z)}$ and $\Gamma_{\vec{x}}(z) = \prod_{p \in S}\Gamma_p^{x_p}(z_p)$. By (\ref{coprod}) and the above computation for $J_2$, we have
\begin{equation}
J_r(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1) \cdots \mathbf{1}_{1,d_r}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_r))= \sum_{\sigma \in \mathfrak{S}_r} \prod_{(i,j) \in I_\sigma}h_\X(\frac{\gamma_i}{\gamma_j}) \Gamma_{\vec{x}_{i,j}}(\frac{\gamma_i}{\gamma_j})\sigma(\mathbf{1}_{1,d_1}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_1) \cdots \mathbf{1}_{1,d_r}^\mathbf{ss}(\vec{z}_r))
\end{equation}
where $\vec{x}_{i,j} = \pi(\vec{z}_{\sigma^{-1}(j)} - \vec{z}_{\sigma^{-1}(i)})$.
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{Shuffle presentation}\label{shufflepre}
Let $h(t) \in \CC(t)$ be a fixed rational function. We consider the so-called \textit{shuffle} algebra $\mathrm{F}_{h(t)}$ as follows. As a vector space
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{F}_{h(t)} = \bigoplus_{r} \CC[t_1^{\pm 1}, \dots , t_r^{\pm1}][[t_1/t_2, \dots, t_{r-1}/t_r]],
\end{equation}
and the multiplication is given by
\begin{equation}
P(t_1,\dots,t_r) \star Q(t_1,\dots,t_s) = \sum_{\sigma \in Sh_{r,s}} h_\sigma(t_1,\dots , t_{r+s})\sigma(P(t_1,\dots,t_r)Q(t_{r+1},\dots, t_{r+s}))
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
h_\sigma(t_1,\dots, t_{r+s}) = \prod_{(i,j) \in I_{\sigma}} h(t_i/t_j)
\end{equation}
and the rational function $h(t_i/t_j)$ is developed as a Laurent series in $t_1/t_2,\dots, t_{r-1}/t_r$. We equip also $\mathrm{F}_{h(t)}$ with a coproduct $\Delta: \mathrm{F}_{h(t)} \to \mathrm{F}_{h(t)} \widehat{\otimes} \mathrm{F}_{h(t)}$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{comulti}
\begin{matrix}
\Delta_{m,n}(t_1^{i_1}\cdots t_r^{i_r}) = t_1^{i_1}\cdots t_m^{i_m} \otimes t_1^{i_{m+1}} \cdots t_n^{i_{m+n}}, & \Delta = \bigoplus_{r=m+n} \Delta_{m,n}.
\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
Let $\mathrm{S}_{h(t)}$ be the subalgebra of $\mathrm{F}_{h(t)}$ generated by the degree one component $\mathrm{F}_{h(t)}[1] = \CC[t_1^{\pm 1}]$.
\vspace{.1in}
Now let us consider another shuffle algebra as follows. Let $g(t) \in \CC(t)$ be a rational function. Again, for $r \geq 1$, we put $g(t_1,\dots,t_r) = \prod_{i<j}g(t_i/t_j)$. Denote by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
Sym_r : \CC(t_1,\dots,t_r) \to \CC(t_1,\dots,t_r)^{\mathfrak{S}_r}, & P(t_1,\dots,t_r) \mapsto \sum_{w \in \mathfrak{S}_r} wP(t_1,\dots, t_r)
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
the standard symmetrization operator and consider the weighted symmetrization
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
\Xi_r: \CC[t^{\pm}_1,\dots,t^{\pm}_r] \to \CC(t_1,\dots,t_r)^{\mathfrak{S}_r}, & P(t_1,\dots,t_r) \mapsto Sym_r(g(t_1,\dots,t_r)P(t_1,\dots,t_r)).
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
Let $A_r$ be the image of $\Xi_r$ and $A_{g(t)} = \CC 1 \oplus \bigoplus_{r \geq 1} A_r$. We endow the space $A_{g(t)}$ with the structure of an associative algebra with the product defined as
\begin{equation*}
P(t_1,\dots,t_r) \star Q(t_1,\dots, t_s) = \sum_{w \in Sh_{r,s}} w \big( \prod g(t_i/t_j)P(t_1,\dots,t_r)Q(t_{r+1},\dots, t_{r+s}) \big),
\end{equation*}
where the product ranges of all the $(i,j)$ with $1 \leq i \leq r$ and $r+1 \leq j \leq r+s$. Note the by construction the algebra $A_{g(t)}$ is generated by the subspace $A_1 = \CC[t^{\pm}_1]$.
\vspace{.1in}
For any $\vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z$ fixed, we denoted by $\U^{>}_{\X}(\vec{x})$ the subalgebra of $\U^>$ generated by $\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(\vec{x})$ for all $d \in \Z$. Let $g_{\X}(t) =$ be a rational function satisfying the equation $h_{\X}(t) = g_\X(t^{-1})/g_\X(t)$. If $\vec{x} = 0$, we get $\U^>_{\X}(0) = \U^>_{\X}$. One can deduce from the above computations or \cite[Proposition 1.6]{SV2} with shifting that for any $\vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z$, the assignement $\mathbf{1}_{1,d}(\vec{x}) \mapsto t_1^d \mapsto t_1^d$ in degree one extends to algebra isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\U^>_\X(\vec{x}) \simeq \mathrm{S}_{h_{\X}(t)} \simeq A_{g_{\X}(t)}.
\end{equation}
Using the functional equation for zeta functions
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_{\X}(v^2t) = (vt)^{2(g_\X-1)} \zeta_{\X}(t^{-1})
\end{equation*}
one can check that $t^{g_\X-1}\zeta_{\X}(t^{-1})$ is a solution of the equation $h_\X(t) = g_\X(t^{-1})/g_\X(t)$. The same is also true of $t^{g_\X-1}k(t)$ for any function $k(z)$ satisfying $k(t) = k(t^{-1})$. It will be more convient to set
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\zeta}_\X(t) = \zeta_\X(t)(1-v^{-2}t)(1-v^{-2}t^{-1}) = \frac{1-v^{-2}t^{-1}}{1-z} \prod_{i=1}^{g_\X}(1-\alpha_it)(1-\overline{\alpha}_i t),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g_{\X}(t) = t^{g_\X-1}\tilde{\zeta}_{\X}(t^{-1}).
\end{equation}
We now fix the above choice for $g_{\X}(t)$ and write $\mathbf{A}=A_{g_{\X}(t)}$. Then we have an algebra isomorphism $\U^>(\vec{x}) \simeq \mathbf{A}$ for all $\vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z/ w_p \Z$.
\vspace{.1in}
Now, consider the group algebra $\CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})] $ of $\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})$ which can be described as
\[
\CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})] = \CC[t_{p_1}^{\pm 1}, \dots , t_{p_N}^{\pm 1} ] / J
\]
where $J$ is generated by $t_{p_i}^{w_{p_i}} - t_{p_j}^{w_{p_j}} $ for all $i \neq j$ and we put $t = t_{p}^{w_p}$ for all $p \in S$. For any $d \in \Z$ and $\vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z/ w_p \Z $, we sometimes write $t^{d+\vec{x}} = t^dt_{p_1}^{x_{p_1}} \cdots t_{p_N}^{x_{p_N}}$. There is a natural embedding $\CC[t^{\pm 1}] \hookrightarrow \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]$ by $t \mapsto t$. We can identify $\U^>[1]$ with $\CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]$ via the assignment
\[
\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(\vec{x}) \mapsto t^dt_{p_1}^{x_{p_1}} \cdots t_{p_N}^{x_{p_N}}.
\]
Thus we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
(\U^>[1])^{\otimes r} &\simeq \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]^{\otimes r} \\
(\U^>[1])^{\widehat{\otimes} r} &\simeq \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]^{\otimes r} \otimes_{\CC[t_1,\dots,t_r]} \CC[[t_1/t_2, \dots t_{r-1}/t_r]]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for all $r \geq 1$, where $t_i \in \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]^{\otimes r}$ is the $i$-th position in the tensor product. We denote also by $t_{i,p}$ the $i$-th position of $t_p$ in the tensor product for all $p \in S$.
\vspace{.1in}
In order to give a similar \textit{shuffle-like} presentation for $\U^>$, let us define the operators $\Gamma_{\mathbf{w},S}(t;\mathbf{x})$ associated to all sequences $\mathbf{x} = (\vec{x}_1 , \dots, \vec{x}_r) \in \big( \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z \big)^r$ as follows: for all $p \in S$ and $\vec{x} \in prod_{p \in S} \Z/w_p \Z$, we set
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{x_p}(t_p) = \begin{cases}
v + (1-v^2)t_p^{x_p} & \textit{if } x_p = 1, \dots, w_p-1 \\
1 & \textit{if } x_p = 0
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\vec{x}}(t) := \prod_{p \in S} \Gamma_{x_p}(t_p) \in \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]
\end{equation}
For $r \geq 1$ and $\mathbf{x} \in \big( \prod_{p \in S} \Z / w_p \Z \big)^r$, we put
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mathbf{w},S}(t_1,\dots,t_r;\mathbf{x}) := \prod_{(i,j) \in I_{\sigma}} \prod_{p \in S} \Gamma_{(\pi(\vec{x}_{\sigma^{-1}(i)} - \vec{x}_{\sigma^{-1}(j)}))_p}(t_{i,p} t^{-1}_{j,p})
\end{equation}
\vspace{.1in}
Now we define a shuffle-like(called \textit{weighted shuffle}) algebra on the vector space
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{F}^{w,S}_{h(t)} = \bigoplus_{r \geq 1} \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]^{\widehat{\otimes} r}
\end{equation}
with the multiplication defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& t_1^{d_1+\vec{x}_1}\cdots t_r^{d_r + \vec{x}_r} \star t_1^{e_1 + \vec{y}_1}\cdots t_s^{e_s + \vec{y}_s} \\
&= \sum_{\sigma \in Sh_{r,s}} h_{\sigma}(t_1,\cdots, t_{r+s}) \Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mathbf{w},S}(t_1,\dots,t_{r+s}; \underline{\mathbf{x}} \sqcup \underline{\mathbf{y}}) \sigma(t_1^{d_1+ \vec{x}_1}\cdots t_{r+s}^{e_s +\vec{y}_s}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and extended linearly to the whole $\mathbf{F}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}$. Its coalgebra structure is given as (\ref{comulti}). Let us denote the subalgebra $\mathbf{S}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}$ of $\mathbf{F}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}$ generated by the degree one component $\mathbf{F}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}[1] = \CC[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})]$. Then the following theorem holds by the computations in the section \ref{shuffle}.
\begin{theo}\label{theo2}
For any $\vec{x} = (\vec{x}_p)_{p \in S} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z/ w_p \Z $, the asseigment $\mathbf{1}^{\mathbf{ss}}_{1,d}(\vec{x}) \mapsto t_1^{d+\vec{x}}$ in degree one extends to an algebra isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\U^>_S \simeq \mathbf{S}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h_{\X}(t)}.
\end{equation}
\end{theo}
Note that the algebra $\mathbf{S}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}$ is just a shuffle-like algebra since $\Gamma$ is not a rational function anymore but an operator which depends on the "weight" sequences $\underline{\mathbf{a}}$. However, if once we fix a weight sequence, the structure functions will become rational which is the best the author can get. The other remark is that, even we fix a weight sequence, the structure functions are not a ratio of some rational functions. The author doesn't know yet how to construct a similar algebra structure for $A_{g(t)}$.
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{The generic form}\label{generic}
Observe that the algebra $\U^> =: \U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,\X}$ only depend on the genus $g_{\X}$, the Weil numbers $\alpha_1,\dots , \alpha_{2g_{\X}}$ of $\X$, the number of marked points and their weights $(\mathbf{w},S)$. It possesses a \textit{generic form} in the following sense. Let us fix $g \geq 0$ and consider the torus
\begin{equation*}
T_{g} = \{ (\eta_1, \dots, \eta_{2g}) \in (\CC^{\times})^{2g} | \eta_{2i-1}\eta_{2i} = \eta_{2j-1}\eta_{2j}, \; \forall i,j \}.
\end{equation*}
The group
\begin{equation*}
W_{g} = \mathfrak{S}_{g} \ltimes (\mathfrak{S}_2)^{g}
\end{equation*}
naturally acts on $T_{g}$ and the collections $\{ \alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{2g} \}$ defines a canonical element $\alpha_\X$ in the quotiant $T_{g}(\CC) / W_{g}$. Let $R_{g} = \Q[T_{g}]^{W_{g}}$ and $K_{g}$ be its localization at the multiplicative set generated by $\{ l^s - 1 | s \geq 1 \}$ where by definition $l(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{2g}) = \alpha_{2i-1} \alpha_{2i}$ for any $1 \leq i \leq g$. For any choice of smooth projective curve $\X$ of genus $g_{\X} = g$ there is a natural map $K_g \to \CC$, $f \mapsto f(\alpha_{\X})$. We define, using the construction of $\mathbf{F}^{\mathbf{w},S}_{h(t)}$, the $K_g$-algebra $\U^>_{K_g}$. Note that $\U^0 =: \U^0_{\mathbf{w},S,\X}$ has an obvious generic form $\U^0_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g}$. We can define also $\U_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g} = \U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g} \otimes \U^0_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g}$. The bialgebra structure and Green's bilinear form both depend polynomially on the $\{ \alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{2g} \}$ and hence may be defined over $K_g$. Let $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g}$ be the $R_g$-subalgebra of $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g}$ generated by $R_g[\mathbb{L}(\mathbf{w})] \subset \U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g}$. By construction $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g}$ is a torsion-free integral form of $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g}$ in the sense that $\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g} \otimes_{R_g} K_g = \U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,K_g}$. Moreover, there exists a natural specialization map
\begin{equation}
\begin{matrix}
\U^>_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g} \to \U^>_{\mathbf{w},S\X}, & t_1^{d+ \vec{x}} \mapsto \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{1,d}(\vec{x})
\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
to a fixed curve $\X$ of genus $g_\X = g$. To summarize,
\begin{theo}\label{theo3}
There exists an $R_g$-Hopf algebra $\U_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g}$ equipped with a Hopf pairing
\begin{equation*}
( \; | \; )_G : \U_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g} \otimes \U_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g} \to K_g
\end{equation*}
generated by elements $\mathbf{1}_{R_g,0,d},T_{R_g,p}(i), \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{R_g,1,s}(\vec{x}), d \geq 1, p \in S, 0 \leq i \leq w_p-1, s \in \Z, \vec{x} \in \prod_{p \in S} \Z/ w_p \Z$,
having the following property: for any smooth connected projective curve $\X$ of genus $g_{\X} = g$ defined over a finite field $\mathbf{k}$ there is a specialisation morphism of Hopf algebras
\begin{equation*}
\Psi_{\X}: \U_{\mathbf{w},S,R_g} \otimes_{R_g} \CC \twoheadrightarrow \U_{\mathbf{w},S,\X}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theo}
\vspace{.1in}
\section{Harder-Narasimhan stratas}
\subsection{Parabolic degree and the stability condition}\label{parabolicdegree}
Following \cite{MS}, we can define the stability condition for the parabolic coherent sheaves by introducing the notion of parabolic degree. Let $\chi = (\chi_{i,p})_{p \in S, 1 \leq i \leq w_p-1}$ be a collection of real numbers such that $0 \leq \chi_{w_p-1,p} < \chi_{w_p-2,p} < \cdots < \chi_{1,p} < 1$ for all $p \in S$. For any parabolic coherent sheaf $\FF^\bullet$ of degree $\d = (d^{i\epsilon_p})_{p \in S, 0 \leq i < w_p}$, we define the \emph{parabolic degree} of $\FF^\bullet$ as
\begin{equation*}
\Par_{\chi} \FF^\bullet = \deg \FF^{\mathbf{0}} + \sum_{p \in S} \sum_{1 \leq i \leq w_p-1} \chi_{i,p}(d^{i\epsilon_p}- d^{(i-1)\epsilon_p}).
\end{equation*}
The \emph{parabolic slope} of $\FF^\bullet$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\mu_{\chi}(\FF^\bullet) = \frac{\Par_{\chi} \FF^\bullet}{\rank \FF^\bullet} \in \Q \cup \{\infty \}.
\end{equation*}
A parabolic sheaf $\FF^\bullet$ is said to be \emph{semistable} of slope $\nu$ if $\mu_{\chi}(\FF^\bullet) = \nu$ and if $\mu_{\chi}(\G^\bullet) \leq \nu$ for any subsheaf $\G^\bullet$ of $\FF^\bullet$. If the above condition holds with $<$ instead of $\leq$ then we say that $\FF^\bullet$ is \emph{stable}. By definition the parabolic slope coincides with the usual notion of slope of a coherent sheaf without extra structure, i.e., any coherent sheaf $\FF \in \Coh(\X)$ we have $\mu(\FF) = \mu_{\chi}((\FF)^\bullet)$, where $\mu(\FF) = \frac{\deg \FF}{\rank \FF}$.
\vspace{.1in}
We will fix once and the rest of the section one particular $\chi $ with $\chi_{i,p} = \frac{w_p-i}{w_p}$ and write $\mu = \mu_\chi$ but all the results of this subsection remain the same for other stability conditions. Let $w = l.c.m.( \{w_p\}_{p \in S})$ as before and we set $\overline{\chi}_S(\FF^\bullet) := \frac{1}{w}\sum_{k=0}^{w-1} \chi_S(\FF^\bullet \otimes \omega_{\X}^{\bullet,-k})$, where $\chi_S(\FF^\bullet) = \dim \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_{\X}^\bullet , \FF^\bullet) - \dim \Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\O_{\X}^\bullet , \FF^\bullet)$ is the Euler characteristic of $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$. Then we have following analogue Riemann-Roch:
\begin{prop}
For any $\FF^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\overline{\chi}_S(\FF^\bullet) = \rank(\FF^\bullet)\overline{\chi}_S(\O_{\X}^\bullet) + \Par_{\chi}(\FF^\bullet)
\end{equation}
and $\overline{\chi}_S(\O_{\X}^\bullet) = w(1-g_{\X}) + \frac{w}{2}\sum_{p \in S} (\frac{1}{w_p} -1) = -\frac{w}{2}\Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})$. Moreover, we have an analogue formula for the average Euler form
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{w}\sum_{k=0}^{w-1} \langle \FF^\bullet \otimes \omega_{\X}^{\bullet,k}, \G^\bullet \rangle_S \\
&= \frac{\overline{\chi}_S(\O_{\X}^\bullet)}{w}\rank \FF^\bullet \rank \G^\bullet + \rank \FF^\bullet \Par \G^\bullet - \rank \G^\bullet \Par \FF^\bullet.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\vspace{.1in}
We denote by $\C_\nu$ the full subcategory of $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ whose objects are semistable parabolic sheaves of slope $\nu$. As an example, we have $\C_{\infty} = \Tor^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$. The fundamental properties of the categories $\C_\nu$ are listed below:
\begin{prop}\label{HNfilt}\cite[Proposition 11, Th\'eor\`eme 8 and 12, Chap. 3]{Se} The following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] the categories $\C_\nu$ are abelian, artinian and noetherian,
\item[ii)] $\Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\C_{\nu}, \C_{\mu}) = 0$ if $\nu > \mu$,
\item[iii)] any parabolic coherent sheaf $\FF^\bullet$ admits a unique filtration
\begin{equation}\label{HNfilt}
0 \subsetneq \FF^\bullet_l \subsetneq \cdots \subsetneq \FF^\bullet_1 = \FF^\bullet
\end{equation}
satisfying the following conditions: $\FF^\bullet_i / \FF^\bullet_{i+1}$ is semistable for all $i$ and
\begin{equation*}
\mu(\FF^\bullet_1/\FF^\bullet_2) < \cdots < \mu(\FF^\bullet_{l-1}/\FF^\bullet_{l}) < \mu(\FF^\bullet_l).
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\vspace{.1in}
The filtration (\ref{HNfilt}) is called the \emph{Harder-Narasimhan (or HN) filtration} of $\FF^\bullet$ and the factors $\FF^\bullet_1,\dots,\FF^\bullet_l$ are called the \emph{semistable factors} of $\FF^\bullet$. We also define the \emph{HN-type} of $\FF^\bullet$ to be $HN(\FF^\bullet) = (\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_l)$ with $\alpha_i = \overline{\FF^\bullet_i} - \overline{\FF^\bullet_{i+1}}$. Here $\overline{\G^\bullet}$ is the class of a parabolic sheaf $\G^\bullet$ in $K_S^+ := \{ (r,\d) \; | \; r \geq 1 \; or \; r=0, \; \d > 0 \}$, here we write $\d >0$ if $d^{(i,p)} \geq 0$ for all $p \in S, 0 \leq i \leq w_p-1$ and $\d \neq 0$. Note that the weight $\alpha := \alpha_1 + \cdots + \alpha_l$ of the HN-type of $\FF^\bullet$ is equal to $\overline{\FF^\bullet}$. We will sometimes make use of the \emph{Harder-Narasimhan polygon} of $\overline{\FF^\bullet}$ of $\FF^\bullet$.
\vspace{.2in}
\centerline{
\begin{picture}(200,120)
\put(0,0){\line(0,1){120}}
\put(0,60){\line(1,0){200}}
\put(0,60){\circle*{2}}
\put(-7,60){$\textbf{o}$}
\put(40,30){\circle*{2}}
\put(35,24){$\alpha_1$}
\put(0,60){\line(4,-3){40}}
\put(40,30){\line(5,-2){50}}
\put(90,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(78,4){$\alpha_1+\alpha_2$}
\put(90,10){\line(2,1){46}}
\put(136,33){\circle*{2}}
\put(136,33){\line(1,2){20}}
\put(156,73){\circle*{2}}
\put(156,73){\line(1,4){8}}
\put(164,105){\circle*{2}}
\put(166,102){$\alpha$}
\end{picture}}
\vspace{.05in}
\centerline{\textbf{Figure 1.} A Harder-Narasimhan polygon of weight $\alpha$.}
\vspace{.15in}
\begin{lem}
For any $\alpha \in K_S^+$ there exists only finitely many semistable parabolic sheaves of class $\alpha$.
\end{lem}
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{Stratification of HN-types}
We may stratify the set $\mathcal{I}_S$ of all isomorphism classes of parabolic coherent sheaves over $\X$ by the HN-types and write $\mathcal{I}_S = \sqcup_{\underline{\alpha}} S_{\underline{\alpha}}$ where $\underline{\alpha}$ runs through the set of all possible HN-types, i.e. tuples $\underline{\alpha}= (\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_l)$ with $\alpha_i \in K^+_S$ and $\mu(\alpha_1) < \cdots < \mu(\alpha_l)$. If $\underline{\alpha} = (\alpha)$, then $S_{\underline{\alpha}}$ is the set of isomorphism classes of semistable parabolic sheaves of class $\alpha$. Let us denote by $\mathbf{1}_{S_{\underline{\alpha}}} \in \H$ be the characteristic function of the set of parabolic sheaves of a fixed HN-type $\underline{\alpha}$. For $\alpha \in K_S^+$, we will simply denote by $\mathbf{1}^{\mathbf{ss}}_{\alpha}$ the characteristic function of $S_{\alpha}$. Thus, by the uniqueness of HN filtration of a given parabolic sheaf we can easily deduce
\begin{prop}\label{recuslem}
For any HN-type $\underline{\alpha}=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{1}_{S_{\underline{\alpha}}} = v^{\sum_{i < j} \langle \alpha_i,\alpha_j \rangle_S} \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha_1}\cdots\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha_l}.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\vspace{.1in}
Following \cite{S4}, we will use the stratification of HN-types to define a completion of the Hall algebra $\H$ and $\H \otimes \H$. For any integer $n \in \Z$ we set $\underline{\alpha} \geq n$ if $\underline{\alpha} = (\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l)$ with $\mu(\alpha_1) \geq n$. Let $\C_{\geq n}$ be the full subcategory of $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ generated by $\C_\nu$ for all $\nu \geq n$. It is clear that $\FF^\bullet \in \C_{\geq n}$ if and only if the HN-type $\underline{\alpha}$ of $\FF^\bullet$ satisfies $\underline{\alpha} \geq n$. Let $\H^{< n}$ be the subspace of $\H$ consisting of functions supported on the \emph{complement} of $\bigcup_{\underline{\alpha} \geq n} S_{\underline{\alpha}}$ so that we have $\H = \H^{\geq n} \oplus \H^{< n}$.
\vspace{.1in}
Now let us fix a class $\alpha \in K_S^+$. There is a surjective linear map of vector spaces $jet_n : \H[\alpha] \to \H^{\geq n}[\alpha]$ inducing an isomorphism $\pi_n : \H[\alpha]/\H^{< n}[\alpha] \to \H^{\geq n}[\alpha]$. The canonical embedding $\H^{< m}[\alpha] \to \H^{< n}[\alpha]$ for any $m \leq n$ induces a commutative diagram
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{
\H[\alpha]/\H^{< m}[\alpha] \ar[r]^-{\pi_m} \ar[d] & \H^{\geq m}[\alpha] \ar[d]^{\phi_{m,n}} \\
\H[\alpha]/\H^{<n}[\alpha] \ar[r]^-{\pi_n} & \H^{\geq n}[\alpha]
}
\end{equation*}
Obviously $(\H^{\geq n}[\alpha], \phi_{m,n})$ forms a projective system and we can define
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\H}_S[\alpha] := \varprojlim \H^{\geq n}[\alpha].
\end{equation}
Since each $\H^{\geq n}[\alpha]$ is finite dimensional and since $\H[\alpha] = \bigcup_{n} \H^{\geq n}[\alpha]$, we may view $\widehat{\H}_S[\alpha]$ as the set of infinite sums $\sum_{\FF^\bullet}u_{\FF^\bullet}[\FF^\bullet]$ with $u_{\FF^\bullet} \in \CC$, $\overline{\FF^\bullet} = \alpha$, that is, $\widehat{\H}_S[\alpha] = \{ f: \mathcal{I}_{\alpha} \to \CC \} = \prod_{\FF^\bullet \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha}} \CC \mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet}$ as a vector space, where we have denoted by $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha} \subset \mathcal{I}_S$ the set of all parabolic coherent sheaves of class $\alpha$.
\vspace{.1in}
For the sake of convenience we also denote by $jet_n$ the canonical morphism $\widehat{H}_S[\alpha] \to \H^{\geq n}[\alpha]$. By the universal property of the projective limit there is an injective linear map $\H[\alpha] \to \widehat{\H}_S[\alpha]$ and since the map $\H[\alpha] \to \H^{<n}[\alpha]$ splits, we may consider $\H^{<n}$ as a subspace of $\widehat{\H}_S[\alpha]$ via the inclusion $\H^{<n}[\alpha] \to \H[\alpha] \to \widehat{\H}_S[\alpha]$. So the projection $jet_n: \widehat{\H}_S[\alpha] \to \H^{\geq n}[\alpha]$ is an idempotent morphism. Let us denote $r_n = 1 - jet_n$. Then any element $h \in \widehat{\H}_S[\alpha]$ can uniquely be written as $jet_n(h) + r_n(h)$ where $jet_n(h) \in \H^{\geq n}$ and $jet_n(r_n(h)) = 0$. Thus, the space $\H[\alpha]$ as a subset of $\widehat{\H}_S[\alpha]$ can be identified with the set of those sequences $h = (h_n)$ for which $r_n(h_n) = 0$ for $n>>0$. We define
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\H}_S : = \bigoplus_{\alpha \in K_S^+} \widehat{\H}_S[\alpha].
\end{equation}
In a similar way, for $\alpha, \beta \in K_S^+$ the sequence of vector spaces
\begin{equation*}
(\H^{\geq n}[\alpha] \otimes \H^{\geq m}[\beta]) = (\H[\alpha]/\H^{< n}[\alpha] \otimes \H[\beta]/\H^{<m}[\beta] )
\end{equation*}
forms a projective system and we set
\begin{equation}
\H[\alpha] \widehat{\otimes} \H[\beta] := \varprojlim_{n,m} \H^{\geq n}[\alpha] \otimes \H^{\geq m}[\beta].
\end{equation}
As before as well, $\H[\alpha] \widehat{\otimes} \H[\beta]$ can be identified with the space of all infinite sums $\sum_{\FF^\bullet,\G^\bullet} u_{\FF^\bullet,\G^\bullet}[\FF^\bullet]\otimes [\G^\bullet]$ with $\overline{\FF^\bullet}= \alpha, \overline{\G^\bullet} = \beta$ and $u_{\FF^\bullet,\G^\bullet} \in \CC$. Finally, for $\gamma \in K_S^+$, we set
\begin{equation}
(\H \widehat{\otimes} \H)[\gamma] : = \prod_{\alpha,\beta \in K_S^+, \alpha + \beta = \gamma} \H[\alpha]\widehat{\otimes} \H[\beta]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\H \widehat{\otimes} \H : = \bigoplus_{\gamma \in K_S^+} (\H \widehat{\otimes} \H)[\gamma].
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}
In the notation as above the following properties hold
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] $\widehat{\H}_S$ and $\H \widehat{\otimes} \H$ are associative algebras,
\item[ii)] For any $\alpha, \beta \in K_S^+$ we have $\Delta_{\alpha,\beta}(\H[\alpha+\beta]) \subset \H[\alpha] \otimes \H[\beta]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} To show that the composition map $\widehat{\H}_S[\alpha] \otimes \widehat{\H}_S[\beta] \to \widehat{\H}_S[\alpha+\beta]$ by the rule $(\sum u_{\HH^\bullet}[\HH^\bullet]) \otimes (\sum u_{\G^\bullet}[\G^\bullet]) \mapsto (\sum u_{\HH^\bullet}u_{\G^\bullet}[\HH^\bullet][\G^\bullet])$ is well-defined, we need to show that for a fixed parabolic sheav $\FF^\bullet$ of class $\overline{\FF^\bullet} = \alpha + \beta$, there are finitely many exact sequence
\begin{equation*}\label{exs1}
0 \to \G^\bullet \to \FF^\bullet \to \HH^\bullet \to 0
\end{equation*}
such that $\overline{\HH^\bullet} = \alpha$ and $\overline{\G^\bullet} = \beta$. To see this, let $(\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_r)$ be the HN type of $\FF^\bullet$ and set $\nu = \mu(\gamma_1)$. We claim that any quotient sheaf $\HH^\bullet$ of $\FF^\bullet$ belongs to $\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}_{\geq \nu}$. Let
\begin{equation*}
0 = \MM^\bullet_0 \subset \MM^\bullet_1 \subset \cdots \subset \MM^\bullet_{s-1} \subset \MM^\bullet_s = \HH^\bullet
\end{equation*}
be the HN filtration of $\HH^\bullet$. Then on one hand we have $\HH^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}_{\geq \mu(\HH^\bullet/\MM^\bullet_{s-1})}(\X)$ while on the other hand there is a surjective map $\FF^\bullet \twoheadrightarrow \HH^\bullet/\MM^\bullet_{s-1}$. Since $\HH^\bullet/\MM^\bullet_{s-1}$ is semistable, this implies that $\mu(\HH^\bullet/\MM^\bullet_{s-1}) \geq \nu$ and hence $\HH^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}_{\geq \nu}(\X)$. Since there are finitely many such sheaves $\HH^\bullet$ of class $\beta$ and for each such $\HH^\bullet$ there are only finitely many maps $\FF^\bullet \twoheadrightarrow \HH^\bullet$, we conclude that there are finitely many exact sequences (\ref{exs1}).
\vspace{.1in}
In a similar way, the map
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\prod_{\alpha_1+\beta_1=\gamma_1} \H[\alpha_1] \widehat{\otimes} \H[\beta_1] \otimes \prod_{\alpha_2+\beta_2=\gamma_2} \H[\alpha_2] \widehat{\otimes} \H[\beta_2]\\
\to &\prod_{\alpha_1+\beta_1=\gamma_1, \alpha_2+\beta_2 = \gamma_2} \H[\alpha_1+\alpha_2] \widehat{\otimes} \H[\beta_1+\beta_2]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
is convergent since for a given $[\FF^\bullet]\otimes [\G^\bullet] \in \H[\gamma_1]\otimes \H[\gamma_2]$ there are finitely many surjective maps $\FF^\bullet \twoheadrightarrow \MM^\bullet$ and $\G^\bullet \twoheadrightarrow \NN^\bullet$, where $\MM^\bullet$ and $\NN^\bullet$ are parabolic coherent sheaves satisfying $\overline{\MM^\bullet}+ \overline{\NN^\bullet} = \gamma_1$.
\vspace{.1in}
The proof for the property ii) is completely analogous.
\qed
\vspace{.1in}
\subsection{Characteristic functions of semistables}
Consider the elements
\begin{equation*}
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{1}_{\alpha} = \sum_{\FF^\bullet \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha}} \mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet}, & \mathbf{1}_{\alpha}^{vec} = \sum_{\V^\bullet \in \mathcal{I}_{\alpha}^{vec}} \mathbf{1}_{\V^\bullet}
\end{matrix}
\end{equation*}
where the second sum ranges over all isomorphism classes of locally free parabolic sheaves of class $\alpha$. Using the proposition \ref{recuslem} we have the following identities:
\begin{equation}
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{1}_{\alpha} = \sum_{\underline{\alpha} \in X_{\alpha}} v^{\sum_{i<j} \langle \alpha_i,\alpha_j \rangle_S}\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha_1}\cdots \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha_l}, & \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{\alpha} = \sum_{\underline{\alpha} \in Y_{\alpha}} v^{\sum_{i <j}\langle \alpha_i,\alpha_j \rangle_S} \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha_1} \cdots \mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha_l},
\end{matrix}
\end{equation}
where $X_{\alpha}$ is the set of all HN types of weight $\alpha$ and $Y_{\alpha}$ is the set of all HN types $\underline{\alpha}=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l)$ of weight $\alpha$ for which $\mu(\alpha_l) < \infty$. Note that $\mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,\mathbf{d}} \neq 0$ implies $d^{\mathbf{0}} \leq d^{\epsilon_p} \leq \cdots \leq d^{(w_p-1)\epsilon_p} \leq d^{\mathbf{0}}+r$ for all $p \in S$. We may write $\mathbf{d} = (d=d^{\mathbf{0}},\mathbf{m})$ where, for all $p \in S$, we set $m_{i,p} = d^{i\epsilon_p} - d^{\mathbf{0}}$ for all $i$, and $\mathbf{m} = (\mathbf{m}^{(p)})_{p \in S}$ with $\mathbf{m}^{(p)} = (0 = m_{0,p} \leq m_{1,p} \leq \cdots \leq m_{w_p-1,p} \leq m_{w_p,p} )$, called a \textit{dimension type} at $p$. We also write $|\mathbf{m}^{(p)}| = \sum_{i=1}^{w_p-1} m_{i,p}$ and $|\mathbf{m}| = \sum_{p \in S} |\mathbf{m}^{(p)}|$. Finally, we denote by $\mathbf{D}_r$ the set of collections $\mathbf{m}$ such that, for each $p \in S$, $0 = m_{0,p} \leq m_{1,p} \leq \cdots \leq m_{w_p-1,p} \leq m_{w_p,p} = r$ equiped with the lexicographical order.
\vspace{.1in}
Let us denote by $\widehat{\U}_S$ the completion of $\U$ in $\widehat{\H}_S$, that is, $\widehat{\U}_S[\alpha] = \varprojlim \U[\alpha] /(\U[\alpha] \cap \H^{<n}[\alpha])$. The aim in this section is to prove
\begin{theo}\label{maintheo3}
For any $\alpha \in K_S^+$, we have $\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha} \in \U$.
\end{theo}
\noindent
\textit{Remark.} The proof is completely parallel to the non-parabolic case as shown in \cite{S4}. The only difference in our argument is that we use the lexicographical order on our multi-degree.
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{prop}\label{mainlemma3}
For any $\alpha \in K_S^+$ we have $\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha} \in \widehat{\U}_S$.
\end{prop}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} We may use Reineke's inversion formula (see \cite{Rei}) to write
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{1}^\mathbf{ss}_{\alpha} = \sum_{\underline{\beta}} (-1)^{s-1}v^{\sum_{i<j} \langle \beta_i,\beta_j \rangle_S}\mathbf{1}_{\beta_1}\cdots \mathbf{1}_{\beta_s}
\end{equation*}
where the sum ranges over all tuples $\underline{\beta}=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_s)$ of elements of $K_S^+$ satisfying $\mu(\sum_{l=k}^s \beta_l) > \mu(\alpha)$ for all $k = 1,\dots,s$. The above sum converges in $\widehat{\H}_S$. Since $\widehat{\U}_S$ is a subalgebra of $\widehat{\H}_S$, the proposition will be proved if we can show that $\mathbf{1}_{\alpha} \in \widehat{\U}_S$ for all $\alpha$. Furthermore, any parabolic coherent sheaf $\FF^\bullet$ of class $\overline{\FF^\bullet}=\alpha$ can be decomposed into the direct sum of a parabolic vector bundle and a parabolic torsion sheaf. If $\alpha = (r,d,\mathbf{m})$ with $\mathbf{m} \notin \mathbf{D}_r$, then there exist a locally subsheaf $\EE^\bullet_{\FF^\bullet}$ of maximal rank $r$ and maximal parabolic degree $\d = (d,\mathbf{m}')$ such that $\mathbf{m}' \in
\mathbf{D}_r$. Thus
\[
\mathbf{1}_{r,d,\mathbf{m}} = \sum_{d'\geq 0, \mathbf{m}'' \in \mathbf{D}_r} v^{\langle (r,d-d', \mathbf{m}'-\mathbf{m}''), (0,d',\mathbf{m}'') \rangle_S} \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,d-d',\mathbf{m}'-\mathbf{m}''} \mathbf{1}_{0,d',\mathbf{m}-\mathbf{m}'+\mathbf{m}''}
\]
and $\mathbf{1}_{0,d',\mathbf{m}-\mathbf{m}'+\mathbf{m}''} \in \U$ for all $d' > 0$ and $\mathbf{m}'' \leq \mathbf{m}'$, it suffices in fact to prove that $\mathbf{1}_{r,d,\mathbf{m}}^{vec} \in \widehat{\U}_S$ for all $d \in \Z, \mathbf{m} \in \mathbf{D}_r$.
\vspace{.1in}
We will argue by induction on the rank $r$. The cases of $r=0,1$ are obvious by definition. So let $r > 1$ and let us assume the proposition holds for all $r' < r$. We have to show that for any multi-degree $\d = (d,\mathbf{m})$ and any $n \in \Z$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{claimvec}
\mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,d,\mathbf{m}} \in \U + \H^{< n}.
\end{equation}
Let us fix $n$ and argue by indction on multi-degree $\d = (d,\mathbf{m})$. If $d < nr- \frac{rw}{2}\sum_{p \in S}\frac{w_p-1}{w_p}$, then there is no parabolic vector bundle of rank $r$ and multi-degree $\d$ may belong to $\C_{\geq n}$ hence $\mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,\d} \in \H^{<n}$. Now let us fix some $\d$ and assume that (\ref{claimvec}) holds for all $\d' < \d$. Choose $N < n - K$, where $K = \Par(\omega_{\X}^\bullet) + \frac{w}{2}\sum_{p \in S} \frac{w_p-1}{w_p}= \frac{w+2}{2}\sum_{p \in S}(1 - \frac{1}{w_p}) + 2(g_{\X}-1)$ and let $\d'$ be a multi-degree with $d' = N$. Consider the product
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{1}_{r-1,\d-\d'} \cdot \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{1,\d'} = \sum_{\FF^\bullet} c_{\FF^\bullet} [\FF^\bullet]
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
c_{\FF^\bullet} & = v^{-\langle(r-1,\d-\d'), (1,\d') \rangle_S } \sum_{\L^\bullet \in \Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}_{1,\d'}} \frac{\# \{ \L^\bullet \hookrightarrow \FF^\bullet \}}{ \# \Aut(\L^\bullet)} \\
&= v^{-\langle(r-1,\d-\d'), (1,\d') \rangle_S } \sum_{\L^\bullet \in \Bun^{\mathbf{w},S}_{1,\d'}} \frac{\# \{ \L^\bullet \hookrightarrow \FF^\bullet \}}{v^{-2}-1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Let us decompose $\FF^\bullet = \EE^\bullet_{\FF^\bullet} \oplus \T^\bullet_{\FF^\bullet}$ into the direct sum of a parabolic vector bundle and a parabolic torsion sheaf. Let us assume $\FF^\bullet \in \C_{\geq n}$. Then $\FF^\bullet \in \C_{\geq N + \Par(\omega_{\X}^\bullet)+\frac{w}{2}\sum_{p \in S} \frac{w_p-1}{w_p}}$ and thus $\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\L^\bullet,\FF^\bullet) = 0$ by the Serre's duality. Then $\dim \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\L^\bullet.\FF^\bullet) = \langle (1,\d'),(r,\d) \rangle_S$. Since any nonzero map from a parabolic line bundle to a parabolic vector bundle is an embedding, we deduce that
\begin{equation*}
\#\{\L^\bullet \hookrightarrow \FF^\bullet \} = v^{-2 \dim \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\L^\bullet, \FF^\bullet)} - v^{-2 \dim \Hom_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\L^\bullet , \T^\bullet_{\FF^\bullet})}
\end{equation*}
and, once the class of $\L^\bullet$ is fixed as $(1,\d')$, this number only depends on the multi-degree of $\T^\bullet_{\FF^\bullet}$ by the proposition \ref{homolemma}. Hence there exists nonzero constants $c_{\d''}$ for $\d'' \geq 0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{1}_{r-1,\d-\d'} \cdot \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{1,\d'} \in c_0 \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,\d} + \sum_{\d''} c_{\d''}\mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,\d-\d''} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{0,\d''} + \H^{<n}.
\end{equation*}
We can rewrite the above equation as
\begin{equation*}
c_0 \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,\d} \in \mathbf{1}_{r-1,\d-\d'} \cdot \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{1,\d'} - \sum c_{\d''} \mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,\d-\d''} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{0,\d''} + \H^{<n}
\end{equation*}
and now by the induction hypothesis we have $\mathbf{1}_{r-1,\d-\d'} \in \widehat{\U}_S$ and $\mathbf{1}^{vec}_{r,\d-\d''} \in \widehat{\U}_S$ for all $\d'' > 0$. Hence \ref{claimvec} follows. \qed
\vspace{.1in}
Now we have to show that $\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}^\mathbf{ss}$ actually belongs to $\U$ and not only to $\widehat{\U}_S$. By proposition \ref{mainlemma3} there exists for all $n$ an element $v_n \in \H^{<n}$ such that $u_n := \mathbf{1}_{\alpha}^\mathbf{ss} + v_n \in \U$. We may further decompose $v_n = \sum_{\underline{\alpha}} v_{n,\underline{\alpha}}$ according to the HN type $\underline{\alpha}$. The set of $\underline{\alpha}$ for which $v_{n,\underline{\alpha}}$ is nonzero is finite since $v_n \in \H$. To prove the theorem \ref{maintheo3}, we need the following two lemmas.
\begin{lem}\label{lemma31}
There exists $n << 0$ such that for any HN-type $\underline{\alpha} = (\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l)$ of weight $\alpha$ satisfying $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha_1) < n$, we have $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha_{i+1}) - \mu_{\chi}(\alpha_i) > \Par (\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})$ for some $1 \leq i \leq l$.
\end{lem}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} Let $\underline{\alpha} = (\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_l)$ be as above. We have $\Par(\alpha) = \rank (\alpha_1) \mu_{\chi}(\alpha_1) + \cdots + \rank(\alpha_l)\mu_{\chi}(\alpha_l)$. If $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha_1)<n$ and $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha_{i+1}) - \mu_{\chi}(\alpha_i) \leq \Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})$ for all $i$, then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\Par(\alpha) &< \rank(\alpha_1)n + \rank(\alpha_2)(n+\Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})) \\
& + \cdots + \rank(\alpha_l)(n+\Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1}))(l-1) \\
&= \rank(\alpha)n + \sum_{i=2}^l \Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})(l-1)\rank(\alpha_i) \\
&< \rank(\alpha)(n+ \Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})\sum_{l=1}^{\rank(\alpha)} l).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This is impossible for $n$ sufficiently negative. \qed
\vspace{.1in}
\begin{lem}\label{lemma32}
Let $\FF^\bullet \in \Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)$ be a parabolic coherent sheaf of class $\alpha$ and of HN type $(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_l)$. Assume that $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha_{i+1}) - \mu_{\chi}(\alpha_i) > \Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})$ for some $i$. Then $\mathbf{1}_{\FF^{\bullet}} = m \circ \Delta_{\beta,\gamma}(\mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet})$ for $\beta = \alpha_1 + \cdots + \alpha_i$ and $\gamma = \alpha_{i+1} + \cdots + \alpha_l$.
\end{lem}
\noindent
\textit{Proof.} Let $\FF^\bullet_l \subset \cdots \subset \FF^\bullet_1 = \FF^\bullet$ be the HN filtration of $\FF^\bullet$. Since $\FF^\bullet_{i+1} \in \C_{\geq \mu_{\chi}(\alpha_{i+1})}$ and $\FF^\bullet / \FF^\bullet_{i+1} \in \C_{\leq \mu_{\chi}(\alpha_i)}$ while $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha_{i+1}) - \mu_{\chi}(\alpha_i) > \Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})$, we have
$$\Ext_{\Coh^{\mathbf{w},S}(\X)}(\FF^\bullet_{i+1}, \FF^\bullet /\FF^\bullet_{i+1}) = 0.$$
It follows that $\FF^\bullet \simeq \FF^\bullet_{i+1} \oplus \FF^\bullet/\FF^\bullet_{i+1}$. Morevore, $\mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet / \FF^\bullet_{i+1} \mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet_{i+1}}} = v^{-\langle \FF^\bullet/\FF^\bullet_{i+1}, \FF^\bullet_{i+1} \rangle_S} \mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet}$ since there is a unique subsheaf of $\FF^\bullet$ isomorphic to $\FF^\bullet_{i}$. Hence the lemma will be proved once we show that $\Delta_{\beta,\gamma}(\mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet}) = v^{\langle \FF^\bullet/\FF^\bullet_{i+1}, \FF^\bullet_{i+1} \rangle_S} \mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet/\FF^\bullet_{i+1}} \otimes \mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet_{i+1}}$. But this last equation is a consequence of the fact that there exists a unique subsheaf of $\FF^\bullet$ of class $\gamma$, namely $\FF^\bullet_{i+1}$. \qed
\vspace{.1in}
Now we are ready to finish the proof of Theorem \ref{maintheo3}. Let us chosse some $n \ll 0$ as in Lemma \ref{lemma31}. Let $A$ be the finite set of all $\underline{\alpha}$ for which $v_{n,\underline{\alpha}}$ is nonzero and let $\underline{\alpha}^0$ be the lower boundary of the convex hull of elements of $A$.
\vspace{.2in}
\centerline{
\begin{picture}(200,120)
\put(0,0){\line(0,1){120}}
\put(0,60){\line(1,0){200}}
\put(0,60){\circle*{2}}
\put(-7,60){$\textbf{o}$}
\put(10,30){\circle*{2}}
\put(120,20){\circle*{2}}
\put(10,30){\line(4,1){120}}
\put(130,60){\line(5,4){50}}
\put(130,60){\circle*{2}}
\put(182,98){$\alpha$}
\put(60,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,60){\line(6,-5){60}}
\put(180,100){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,60){\line(3,-1){120}}
\thicklines
\put(0,60){\line(1,-3){10}}
\put(120,20){\line(3,4){60}}
\put(60,10){\line(6,1){60}}
\put(10,30){\line(5,-2){50}}
\thinlines
\end{picture}}
\vspace{.05in}
\centerline{\textbf{Figure 1.} The convex hull of a set of HN polygons.}
\vspace{.15in}
Thus $\underline{\alpha}^0 = (\alpha_1^0, \dots, \alpha^0_m)$ is also a convex path in $K_S$ of weight $\alpha$. Moreover $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha^0_1)< n$ so that the conclusion of Lemma \ref{lemma31} applies. Choose $i$ such that $\mu_{\chi}(\alpha^0_{i+1}) - \mu_{\chi}(\alpha^0_{i}) > \Par(\omega_{\X}^{\bullet,1})$ and set $\beta = \alpha^0_1 + \cdots + \alpha^0_i$ and $\gamma = \alpha^0_{i+1} + \cdots + \alpha^0_{m}$. By Lemma \ref{lemma32}, $\Delta_{\beta,\gamma}(\mathbf{1}_{\FF^\bullet}) = 0$ for all parabolic sheaves $\FF^\bullet$ whose HN polygon does not lie below the segmant $\beta$.
\vspace{.2in}
\centerline{
\begin{picture}(200,120)
\put(0,0){\line(0,1){120}}
\put(0,60){\line(1,0){200}}
\put(0,60){\circle*{2}}
\put(-7,60){$\textbf{o}$}
\put(10,30){\circle*{2}}
\put(120,20){\circle*{2}}
\put(10,30){\line(4,1){120}}
\put(130,60){\line(5,4){50}}
\put(130,60){\circle*{2}}
\put(182,98){$\alpha$}
\put(60,10){\circle*{2}}
\put(57,0){$\beta$}
\put(0,60){\line(6,-5){60}}
\put(180,100){\circle*{2}}
\put(0,60){\line(3,-1){120}}
\thicklines
\put(0,60){\line(1,-3){10}}
\put(120,20){\line(3,4){60}}
\put(60,10){\line(6,1){60}}
\put(10,30){\line(5,-2){50}}
\thinlines
\end{picture}}
\vspace{.05in}
\centerline{\textbf{Figure 2.} Choice of the vertex $\beta$.}
\vspace{.15in}
This implies $\Delta_{\beta,\gamma}(v_{n,\underline{\alpha}}) = 0$ for all HN type $\underline{\alpha}$ whose associated polygon does not pass throygh the point $\beta$. Furthermore, by Lemma \ref{lemma32} again, $m \circ \Delta_{\beta,\gamma}(v_{n,\underline{\alpha}}) = v_{n,\underline{\alpha}} $ for any HN type $\underline{\alpha}$ whose polygon does pass through $\beta$. Hence
\begin{equation}
m \circ \Delta_{\beta,\gamma}(u_n) = m \circ \Delta_{\beta,\gamma}\big( \mathbf{1}_{\alpha}^\mathbf{ss} + \sum_{\underline{\alpha}} v_{n,\underline{\alpha}} \big) = \sum_{\underline{\alpha} \in Z_{\beta}} v_{n,\underline{\alpha}},
\end{equation}
where $Z_{\beta}$ is the set of all HN types passing through $\beta$. Since $u_n$ belongs to $\U$, which is stable under the coproduct, we deduce that $\sum_{\underline{\alpha} \in Z_{\beta}} v_{n,\underline{\alpha}}$ belongs to $\U$ as well. Hence the same holds for $u'_n = \mathbf{1}_{\alpha}^\mathbf{ss} + \sum_{\underline{\alpha}\notin Z_{\beta}} v_{n,\underline{\alpha}}$. Note that $u'_n$ constains strictly fewer terms than $u_n$. Arguing as above repeatedly we obtain beter and better approximations of $\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}^\mathbf{ss}$ by elements of $\U$ until we arrive at $\mathbf{1}_{\alpha}^\mathbf{ss} \in \U$ and the Theorem \ref{maintheo3} is proved. \qed
\vspace{.1in}
The combination of Theorem \ref{maintheo3} and Proposition \ref{recuslem} yields the following:
\begin{cor}
For any HN type $\underline{\alpha}$ we have $\mathbf{1}_{S_{\underline{\alpha}}} \in \U$.
\end{cor}
\noindent
\textit{Remark.} The above proof actually shows that $\widehat{\U} \cap \H = \U$.
\vspace{.1in}
\small{
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.